Unusual New Propulsion Idea

[Narratio]

MUST agree with Karibu.
Strategy games work better without "Real Time" combat.

[narf poit chez BOOM]

homeworld.

[Krsqk]

From what I understand, it's supposed to be fully pauseable combat with a fully scalable time rate. You could take as much time as you want to set up fleets and battle Groups, give orders, and assign targets. You then let the battle progress at whatever pace you wish, stopping or slowing it as necessary to alter your strategies or speeding it up to mop up the remainder of the resistance.

Of course, the strategy options will have to be fairly complex, magnitudes above even SE3 (let alone SE4) in both user interface and options.

[tesco samoa]

except in multi player games.... I hope.... As i would not have the time

[Magnum357]

I'm sorry, but I must agree with others. As much as I really like some of the features of Starfury, I'm really concerned about how combat works in the game.

I don't mind Real Time combat (Taldrens Starfleet Command Series is a proven example of good Real-time combat) but in Starfury, intra-system travel is Real time and this, in my opinion, sways away from the Turn Based system that Space Empires was built apon. I think adding Real time combat should be only added at the Tactical combat level, not Strategic. If you do that, their wouldn't be any way too play SE5 with E-mail (which some people still do).

I would really like too see SE5 have Tactical combat use this new Real time combat, but Strategic Level play should remain Turn based. And I was hoping Starfury combat would have been similar too Homeworlds real time strategy. Homeworlds real time combat system is far easier too control Fleet actions then the one Starfury uses now.

[Fyron]

PBEM has combat executed without player intervention. How it is resolved, whether turn based or real time, is IRRELEVANT! You would have no interaction ethier way. Go play the Dominins demo to see how real time combat in PBEM works. All combat is processed in "strategic mode," with no intervention at all while it is executing from the player(s).

I think you guys are completely misunderstanding the potential of real time combat. Games like Starcraft have left a very bad opinion of the words "real time" for many people... there is a LOT more to it than what you see in games like that. Ever play with an initiative and impulse system? Such turn based systems are attempts to make the combat more realistic by avoiding having all of one side fire everything and do everything before the other side gets to do anything. Such execution of combat is not very good. Real time combat is just making the initiative and impulse checks continuous. Done right, with the ability to pause, issue orders while paused, and arbitrarily alter the pacing, it will be AT ITS WORST far better than the very best turn based impulse and initiative system you can come up with.

Comparing with games like Starcraft is absolutely asburd. Starcraft is not AT ALL IN ANY WAY a strategy game. It is at best a tactical click festing game. With proper real time combat, which Aaron has given every indication that he plans to implement, there will be no click festing whatsoever! In fact, it will be identical to a system in which you give everything orders, and then watch your side and the enemy's side execute those orders for a turn. But instead of fixed-length turns, you will be able to control the length of the turns. A simple ability to turn on a limited time to execute combat until it pauses again will help remove click-festing completely. As an example, have the game set to auto-pause after 20 seconds. So, you give orders, check orders, all that. Then you hit "unpause", and it carries out combat in real time for 20 seconds, and then pauses again automatically. Please tell me how this is in any way much different from a turn based combat system that uses more realistic simultaneous ordering systems?

Comparing anything to how it was done in MOO3 is just silly. MOO3 failed in every respect, and all it is good for is an example of how not to do something.

With a proper combat system, which can easily be implemented instead of a click-festing one, real time combat is every bit as strategic as turn-based combat.

Also, SEV tactical combat will NOT be SF combat. It will be entirely different. Some parts of the SF code will be used, but not many, and mostly just rendering stuff, though scaled way down.

[ February 07, 2004, 07:33: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

[narf poit chez BOOM]

heh. real time real battles still manage to be strategetic.