Proposed 'Quick Fix' for some Combat 'Anomalies'

[Lucas]

If the "missile dance" was the only problem, it would probably be just as easy to teach the computer to do it as it would be to implement any of these other ideas. For instance, it seems to me that the "Maximum Range" firing strategy could be tweaked for missile ships so that the computer ends up with ships that start their turns out of firing range, dip in to maximum range, fire, then bob back out. (revert to "Don't get hurt" until a new missile is ready to fire?)

Of course if the object is to get rid of the "dance", as well as the hit and run attacks on bases and satelites, then the solution that would be easiest (not most realistic, just easy) is probably going to be the "Movement point penalty when firing" idea that Talenn proposed at the start of this thread.

Actually, I have to admit that I kind of like the part of the idea that forces large ships to stop moving after they fire, while allowing smaller ships more leeway to dodge around. Of course I'm liable to be a little biased in this regard, I usually like things that let me torment my enemies with fleets of nimble ships that dart here and there too fast for anyone to get a decent lock on.

The difficulty with that is it doesn't really make any sense (no inertia so why should small ships fire any differently than big ones?), and it makes it harder to lay down fire to cover retreats. Not, I suppose, that anything really needs to make that much sense provided it improves the game-play.

If nothing else, the "Movement point penalty when firing" might mix things up a little. It could make smaller hulls useful for a longer period of time (kind of fun).

What if the penalty only applied to missiles? For instance, what if a ship was allowed to zig and zag as much as it wanted provided all it did was fire beam weapons, but it got hit with a movement point penalty for missile type weapons?

That would let people use energy weapons as they do now, but it would still keep the "missile dance" types of moves from being so easy. In this case, a ship with both types of weapons could start its turn in close firing beam weapons, and end its turn by running as far as it can get before firing missiles.

I think this could work provided missiles only deducted movement points when they were there to deduct, but didn't require the ship to have movement points in order to fire.

Opinions?

[Talenn]

Lucas:

Yes, some folks have experimented with teaching the AI to 'missile dance'. Unfortunately, it simply makes missiles a 'trump' card and pigeon-holes players (and AIs) into researching them and PD weapons up every game. IMO, it detracts from replay value as you know that EVERY game you have to research this stuff or lose. I much prefer options to requirements.

And yep, my first testing was done with stopping movement after firing a seeking weapon, but direct fire weapons didnt suffer the same penalty. It worked well. But I figured why not make it pertain across the board and remove the 'hit and run' problem as well?

Its really not to difficult for anyone to test what it feels like. Simply use the combat simulator and play both sides. Try it out both ways and see what you think.

The difference in 'penalty' by ship class was simply for flavor. I'd like for small ships to have some sort of 'maneuverability' advantage over the capital ships and this is nice, simple and abstract way to represent it.

Thanx for the input.

Talenn

[Barnacle Bill]

This is one suggestion that I hope MM does not listen to, or if they do listen then impliment it in a way that I can undo via mod. I don't buy this stuff about "its all an abstraction, anyway". Of course, some compromises are necessary to translate even a science fiction inertialess system into turn-based movement, but those compromises are inherent in turn-based movement. This is not. Having spaceships stop to fire feels totally wrong. Although I would like to see the "missile dance" & "hit & run" things addressed, I would rather live with them forever and have no effective weapons in the game except missiles than to have spaceships stop to fire. It would totally ruin the game for me. If this change is made in a way that I couldn't undo it, I would stop playing the game.

[Taqwus]

Others have suggested numerous ideas, such as a phased combat system (I believe Stars! currently uses both movement and firing phases), and impulses (again, more discretization).

Simply plotting movements (perhaps for all ships before a phase, then all ships move simultaneously albeit not necessarily with equal speed) with AI fire control (mostly) might be a good idea.

As for decoy ships, perhaps they can be avoided by specifying a targetting priority series like (Has Weapons, Strongest, Most Damaged, Nearest). If Strongest refers to attack power that is... the whole strategy bit could use more documentation/options (e.g. ordering ships to ram if crippled, and so forth).

------------------
-- The thing that goes bump in the night

[Daynarr]

quote:

---

If this change is made in a way that I couldn't undo it, I would stop playing the game.[/b]

---

You are out of line here BB. What if we all start saying that we don't want to play game anymore if MM doesn't do as we want. We are not a bunch of newbees that have no idea how the game works and should work, but people who are here for a long time and have contributed for the game during that time. You are, also, not the only old time gamer this site - lots of us have been with these kind of games long before SE series, of PC computers for that matter. To brush of somebody's suggestion like that really sounds like an insult to the rest of us.

[Talenn]

Barnacle Bill:

Well it was not my intention to completely remove the enjoyment of playing the game for some folks. I definately favor ALL changes like this to be 'customizable' by an option to have or have not.

But to me, your logic is just a bit out of whack. Having spaceships stop to fire feels totally wrong, but having them just sit there and NOT fire while the enemy closes, fires, and then leaves is fine? That makes no sense to me. I understand that you may not be interested in replacing one abstraction with another, but at least the one proposed removes certain exploits of the system as well as allows for fixed defenses to actually have a purpose.

In other words, if you are so against a change like this that you would rather reduce the game to just ONE type of weapon, I'm not sure what you want out of the game. It certainly isnt realism and it certainly isnt 'playability' (for lack of a better term).

Finally, if the tac combat is NOT an abstraction what could you could consider it to be? 'Realistic' in any way, shape, or form? I dont think so.

Anyways, I'm just baffled by the logic behind your complaint with it. No biggie though, it was just a suggestion and my world wont end by not seeing it implemented. In fact, that was the very reason I posted it here rather than Emailing it directly to MM. I wanted to get feedback.

Talenn

[God Emperor]

As an interim fix, I have modded my files to enable point defence at game start, have the AI design its ships so that they have 2 PD per 100 kT and reduced the space requirement for PD for computer players to 15kT.

The AI ships are slightly lighter punch wise but they can only be killed by massed missiles or fighters. They are still susceptible to "beam dancing" but overall they are much more challenging. If they get a slight tech edge on you, they are very challenging....