Space Combat - Observations and Questions (Aaron/Richard take note)

[Daynarr]

These are excellent observations God Emperor. Also, that is the main reason why I have Sergetti (or the Xi'Chung I am working on) design ships that have either missiles or beam weapons, but not both in the same time. The AI simply moves to the maximum range of its shortest-range weapon and tries to maintain that distance. So basically when a race has missile ships with 1 APB on them, that APB has effect of bringing that ship in range of enemy weapons where it is heavily outgunned (unless faced with the similar design). It is the worst scenario possible for AI (or human in strategic combat). Much better results are displayed by designs that have beams weapons as their primary weapon and missiles as secondary, where this design won't be outgunned by enemy ships in close range (excluding other factors like tech levels, etc.). Of course I prefer to have specialized ships that have either missiles or beams (or torpedoes), simply because they are optimized for their purpose - no unnecessary components on them, they are made either for close combat or missile combat (Xi'Chung have a long range non-missile combat ship, though).

These things can be edited by modding, and I got my hand full so far doing it. This design flaw is one of the reasons why choose to mod the original races in the first place - the original races can be much more fun if they would be more optimized overall. Most of the game text files have lots of things that are obsolete in them and hurt AI, because of the pace the new patches are coming out - it would take too much time for MM to get through them all each time they make changes in the game. This is where the modders could help - if we optimize AI text files, the overall AI would kick a$$.

Just like the Baron said, it would be very helpful if we could tell AI what proportion to use in building a selected style. Also, it would be helpful if we could tell AI to break formation as soon as enemy gets in range of their weapons, so missile ships would break formation and start missile dance, while short-range ships would close in on enemy. It would make combat against AI much harder.

[DirectorTsaarx]

And a side benefit of improving the AI is that strategic combat would be a better option; since strategic combat uses the AI routines for your own ships as well, any improvement to AI combat improves your own strategic combat...

Just in case no-one's pointed that out yet

[rdouglass]

quote:

---

Originally posted by DirectorTsaarx:
And a side benefit of improving the AI is that strategic combat would be a better option; since strategic combat uses the AI routines for your own ships as well, any improvement to AI combat improves your own strategic combat...

Just in case no-one's pointed that out yet

---

IMO that would not be the case. Since you're both using the same AI files (in strategic combat), ship design, strategy (Max Range, Dont Get Hurt, etc), and formations are really the key factors.

However, I'm not that knowledgeable about modding. If the AI's use their own "Strategic Combat" files, then my argument holds no water....



[This message has been edited by rdouglass (edited 30 January 2001).]

[Elwood Bluze]

I'd been wondering how the ranges worked. I thought that if you have a destroyer, fer instance, with CSM and Mesons, that it would fire the missiles, move in for meson fire and dart back out to fire missiles after they are reloaded. So that is not the case?

------------------
Get my latest album: Elwood Bluze "Biscuits and Bullets" Not on sale anywhere!

[DirectorTsaarx]

rdouglass: let me clarify. I meant that if the AI combat style improves (not just ship design, etc.) to the point where it can hold its own against a player using tactical combat, players could rely more on strategic combat for themselves. There are times when we all have to play in tactical, because the computer doesn't make the same decisions we would and loses even with superior firepower. My personal pet peeves are leaving a carrier at the far side of a battle while it launches fighters for five or six combat turns. This strings the fighters out too much, giving PD cannon a better chance to take them out; if the carrier kept moving with the already-launched fighters, the Last fighters launched wouldn't be so far behind and the attack density is better. My other favorite is when my balanced missile ship/beam weapon fleet decides to blindly follow the leader, so I either end up with missile ships at beam weapon range or beam weapon ships at missile range (that Last one really cheesed me off when attacking a planet once - all my ships stayed at range 12 because the missile ship had been designated leader; not a single beam weapon ship had a chance to fire, and the missiles weren't enough to destroy the colony, so I had to attack again).

Now, I agree that when using strategic combat in fleet vs. fleet situations, the fleet with better ships/better formation/better choice of "strategy" SHOULD win. And this should hold true no matter how good or how bad the AI is at strategic combat, since it all uses the same strategy file. HOWEVER, I have seen superior fleets take unnecessary losses because of silly mistakes; other than the ones I've already mentioned, I've also watched my ships fire on an enemy ship loaded with planetary napalm (obviously, there was no planet in the sector, otherwise I'd WANT to get rid of the planetary assault ship), just because it appeared to be the "heaviest armed" or "biggest" ship (not certain which trigger it was) and left the slightly smaller ship loaded with Graviton Hellbore V's alone long enough for it to do damage. In tactical, I would have left the planetary napalm ship alone (since it couldn't do any damage to my ships) and focused on the Hellbore ship. When the computer is smart enough to do this for me, I'll be much more likely to use strategic combat. Even if it means the AI is better at strategic combat too. Heck, given the fact that I occasionally miscalculate range or lose track of a fighter group or two, the computer may even end up doing a BETTER job, since it never miscalculates or loses track of a ship just because it's outside the "combat window". It would also be nice if "Don't Get Hurt" wasn't interpreted to mean "run to the nearest corner and wait for the enemy to surround you and beat you into flaming pieces of debris". Again, even if meant I had to chase the AI's colony ships all over the map too.

Oh - I've also had my OWN planetary napalm ship destroyed in fleet engagements because it didn't want to break formation and hide in a corner with the supply ship. At least the supply ship is allowed to break formation and hide...

[rdouglass]

DirectorTsaarx, That definitely clarifies the issue and I agree with your arguments completely. I too experience the same problems with S Combat and wish that was improved significantly. However, I currently use strategic combat almost all the time since I can generally "whoopa$$" on the Ai in tactical 'cause the AI is weak (and all the reasons you mentioned below). It makes for more challenging games and requires more though with the ship design, formation, etc.

Good post and good topic!!!

[DirectorTsaarx]

Yeah, at the moment I'm not worried about making the game more challenging - each of the top three empires have TWICE my score, and have stayed that way for the Last 50-100 turns. Of course, I've only met one of those three races, and even though we've been at war for the Last 50 turns, neither of us had bothered the other beyond the occasional skirmish in an unclaimed system. Now that I've finally eradicated my other major opponent, though, I expect things will change...