'Opportunity Fire' for Sattelites & WPs

[Psitticine]

I think a weapon facility would be a good option. WPs could remain small(ish) autonomous units and for the big "Grand Cannon" guns, use a facility that would act as a weapon in combat.

Wave Motion Cannon Facility, anyone? It'd have a BIG boom.

[Jubala]

While added range, opportunity fire, remove mp after fire are all good ideas I have an even better one. If my idea can't be implemented (or is just to much work) I would vote for opportunity fire first, added range second and killmove not at all. Anyone ever seen a vetnavy battleship stop dead after it fires it's guns? No? Didn't think so.

Here's my idea:
Make combat simultaneous. Both sides move and shoot at the same time. First there's an order phase where all sides give movement, targeting and firing orders at the same time. Then there's a move/fire phase in which movement occurs and fire happens when the targeted enemy comes into range. We would of course need primary, secondary and tertiary firing orders in case the primary target moves away and the secondary comes closer. We would also need to introduce speed as opposed to movementpoints so fighters and faster ships can actually move up close to the big boys. No fun if they can only move one square/turn. That's the bare bones of my idea but it needs to be fleshed out. But think about, it would solve alot of problems and also eliminate the "pick a victim and pound it until it dies" syndrome we have now. We would have to decide if we want to make absolutely sure we kill a target and do some massive overkill on it or spread our fire in hopes of damaging as many targets as possible. Formations would also be more important for mutual point defense support.

Which brings up another point. I want some kind of combat command net and point defense net like in David Webers Honor Harrington books. A flagship that calls the shots and all ships tracking systems are working together to get better firing solutions on seekers, ships and fighters. Task Groups of smaller ships with their own flagships and so on. Several levels of course. The higher the level the more ships can be in it. Bust the flagship (unknown to the enemy which it is btw) and you get a turn of confusion until a new flagship can be assigned. Bust a ships communication net components and it falls out of the net and fight on it's on. Well, you get the idea, especially if you have read the books. But I'm wandering off topic so I'll stop here.

[Dutch]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jubala:
Which brings up another point. I want some kind of combat command net and point defense net like in David Webers Honor Harrington books.

---

This is Starfire's "datalink" (and Command Datalink) system(s). They have quite an effect in Weber's Starfire books, too.

I wouldn't mind seeing something like this implemented. But it could be a bear to balance.

Dutch

[Dutch]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Psitticine:

I think there should be a penalty assessed for beam weapons used by and against ground targets on worlds with an atmosphere. Missiles should be able to avoid this .

---

I agree.

[Arc.Smiloid]

What you guys are thinking of is an RTS-style combat system.

Basically, when a battle begins, it is paused. Once all units have been given orders, it unpauses and the ships fight it out in real-time like a movie. Orders may or may not be issued while the battle rages, but after a set time increment the battle pauses and orders can be changed.

A) After the initial orders, the battle plays out in real-time where you can issue orders as the battle rages until the battle ends.

B) After the initial orders, the battle plays out in real-time for a set time. The battle pauses and orders can be changed. Unpause, watch, pause, orders, unpause, watch, etc. until the battle ends.

(I prefer A)

This is always something I have desired in a game like this. It fixes a lot of problems inherent with turn-based combat. I.E. whoever attacks first will usually win (most evident in MOO2). Plus, it would just be fun to watch!

Just imagine, full 3d fleets with incredible visual effects set loose upon each other in a real-time combat scenario with you, the player, strapped in for a good show. Sit back and watch the action! (Okay, a bit overboard, but I can dream can't I?)

But that is something for SEV.. maybe. I hear a lot of good about MM and how they respond to player input.

[WendellM]

Arc.Smiloid,

Both of the models you mention have things going for them.

A. is like Starfleet Command (a great, real-time adaptation of Star Fleet Battles, IMHO) which provides for a seamless and thus more-"realistic" simulation of starship combat. Assuming that players can set the speed as low as desired (as in SFC), this won't result in lack of time making for rushed/poor decisions (a leading reason why RTS games can be disliked by turn-based players, I believe).

B. is the Combat Mission model (I keep finding myself relating this game to SE4, though I don't plan it ). CM provides a really fascinating mix of your "omniscient" orders given at the start of each minute-long turn as they're interpreted by your troops (a tactical AI that can partially or totally take over depending on how the turn plays out) during the turn.

As big a supporter as I used to be of total player control in a turn-based environment (and still am, compared to the frenzied click-fest that substitutes for "strategy" in most RT'S' games), I must say that SFC and CM have changed my view, and I now enjoy the non-turn-based structure they offer, in addition to turn-based games.

Well, that's a bit off the subject: the "I move then fire; you fire then move" tradeoff of the non-simultaneous/non-impulse movement system in SE4 that can result in the combat problems mentioned. AFAIK, the turn-based game that best corrected this was Star Fleet Battles. By breaking movement down into a per-hex/impulse basis and allowing fire at that level, it prevented the sort of excesses present in SE4 (and Starfire before it, along with every other tactical all-move-then-fire or fire-then-all-move or fire-at-will-during-movement system) without going real-time. Something like opportunity fire would do this too, but wouldn't be as thorough a solution as impulse movement. However, it might be a worthwhile trade-off since today's players don't really expect to need the patience that impulse movement requires (myself included, though I was happy with impulse movement 18 years ago).

Just my two centi-credits...

[Jubala]

WendellM, explain impulse movement please.