.com.unity Forums
  The Official e-Store of Shrapnel Games

This Month's Specials

Raging Tiger- Save $9.00
winSPMBT: Main Battle Tank- Save $5.00

   







Go Back   .com.unity Forums > Shrapnel Community > Space Empires: IV & V

 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #34  
Old August 19th, 2002, 09:28 PM

Baron Munchausen Baron Munchausen is offline
General
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Ohio, USA
Posts: 4,323
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Baron Munchausen is on a distinguished road
Default Re: The Future for SE IV? Does it have one?

Quote:
Originally posted by klausD:
BB,

Your "impulse system" sounds clever but a little bit too complex for my personal taste. I would love to see the normal SEIV tactical combat in SEV. Just a little bit pepped up.

with:
-better looking ships, ships with different "shapes" and user modded sizes. Why not having a dreadnought model which is 2 squares wide and 3 squares long, while another dreadnought type (of another race) is 4 squares long and just one square wide. Why not having a round "death star" model which occupies 4 or even 9 squares on the playing area.

-shooting and moving initiative depending on technology and race.

-advanced ground combat. But please no big planet surface a la fading suns. (none or just a small)

-4 different shooting angles (left, right, front, behind)

-turning and manoevre rules.

This and some other small tweaks should be enough to have a formidable time with SEV.

sorry for my bad english
klausD

PS: like many fans of SEIV (and its predecessors) I dont care a lot about all these fancy 3D stuff. I like the game as it is. A revolution is not necessary when the basic system is very good.
He makes it sound more complicated than it really is by delving into the details of how he thinks it should be implemented. In essence, the 'impulse' system means each turn is broken down into many smaller sub-turns. And if you have things like weapon recharge crossing turn boundaries then it's not even that -- it's breaking combat down into thousands of tiny turns. That's it. We just need 'smaller resolution' of turns so it's not possible for someone to do too much in a single turn. That's the essence of the 'I go - you go' balance problem.

I agree that firing arcs for weapons, shield facings (essentially inseperable from weapon firing arcs, when you think about it), turning rates, and maneuvering rules are all essential to a good tactical combat system. With initiative advantages for smaller ships we'd finally have a good 'balance' that would make smaller ships worthwhile into the late game.

The fancy graphical options would be nice, but would make it vastly harder for third-party add-on shipsets to be created. I think it would be better to just have more than one image per size class, and keep the graphic formats as simple as possible.

[ August 19, 2002, 20:32: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]
Reply With Quote
 

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:43 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1999 - 2025, Shrapnel Games, Inc. - All Rights Reserved.