Straight vs. Diagonal

[PvK]

quote:

---

Originally posted by raynor:
I'm glad someone else finally mentioned the skewed movement system in the game. Though, I would keep it very simple and make every diagonal move cost exactly the same as moving along the horizontal and vertical. So, every diagonal move would require *two* movement points.

---

I think that would be a step in the wrong direction, myself. Ideally I think I'd like a coordinate system. I don't mind the existing system much though because it seems clear to me that the map (like many other aspects of the game mechanics) is a very broad abstraction of a game element where a representation would be some combination of very complex and inaccurate (i.e. 3 dimensions, inertia, gravity, orbiting planets, asteroid belt rings...).

I wouldn't mind if diagonals cost more, but the correct fraction is much closer to 1.4 than 1.5... ;->

As for SJ's questions below, I would answer no, no, and no. Then, fractional diagonals would also be relatively straightforward. I don't think it's a big deal for "realism" though, since the maps and movement are already clearly very abstract.

Oh, but if you do change tactical movement costs, then you MUST change weapons ranges to match. The AI might also need some re-tooling. All in all, I don't see this as an SEIV change MM will want to do, or that I'd want to see, especially compared with what else might be done with the programming effort!

PvK

[DirectorTsaarx]

Just to add to the complexity of the problem: how big is each square in the game? We can "fudge" the straight vs. diagonal distance somewhat by thinking of the square being much bigger than a ship, and therefore the ship could be anywhere in the square, and some of that "inaccuracy" in position could account for some of the discrepancies between straight distance vs. diagonal distance.

Finally, if hex-based movement systems are that much harder to program, then it might not be as easy as it sounds to account for fractional movement. Not to mention the headaches I'll get trying to decide if I'm in weapons range of the enemy if we try to account for the diagonals. (Although the AI would probably handle it much better, thus giving an apparent increase in AI combat ability, at least until we all get used to a new range system...)

[Taqwus]

Ah, for a CM-style WEGO turn order including simultaneous fine-grid movement, firing arcs, shield facing, 3D and inertia...

(Just kidding, Aaron. We're NOT here to work you to death...)


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

[Suicide Junkie]

All SE4 really needs is a slight upgrade to the hull damage routine.

Currently, SE4 will choose the weakest armor piece most of the time, and the strongest internal piece most of the time.

Make it totally random, or add another attribute to components such as "SizeAsTarget := 10", to allow us to make specific components more or less likely to be damaged during a weapon hit.

[capnq]

The biggest problem in coding a hexgrid that I remember was defining a coordinate system and calculating whether two hexes are adjacent. On a square grid, that's trivial: you know that square (x,y) touches square (x+1,y). On a hex grid, hex (x+1, y) still touches hex (x,y), but so does either hex (x+1,y+1) or hex (x+1,y-1), depending on whether x is odd or even. Calculating the range between two hexes is even worse.

We did this for a college programming project course, and I remember that our group and one of the other Groups came up with totally different systems to resolve this.

------------------
Cap'n Q

The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the
human mind to correlate all of its contents. We live on a placid
island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was
not meant that we should go far. -- HP Lovecraft, "The Call of Cthulhu"

[Baron Munchausen]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Taqwus:
Ah, for a CM-style WEGO turn order including simultaneous fine-grid movement, firing arcs, shield facing, 3D and inertia...

(Just kidding, Aaron. We're NOT here to work you to death...)

---

We aren't???

I think a simple round-robin "impulse" system would solve most of the troubles with combat, though. Give each ship size and each weapon class an "initiative" rating. Break the turn up into many smaller segments. At the beginning of each turn you "program" what you want your ships to do. When you've given orders for the turn, the computer rotates through all available ships for each 'impulse' checking to see who is fast enough to do what at this point. No more of this "everyone fire on the lead ship before it can fire a shot" unless you really do have faster ships and weapons.

Well, that and a hex grid.



[This message has been edited by Baron Munchausen (edited 01 June 2001).]

[Marty Ward]

An initiative system would really be nice. Then there would be an incentive to build fast, hard to hit, small ships as well as the big boys!

[DS]

Something I would like to see is weapon range zones displayed on the tactical grid. As I approach an opponent I'll often look at the ranges of his weapons and his movement range and try to position myself so that I stay just out of his reach. Then I'll dart in and get the first crucial shots off. It would be easier if I could display the range of his and my weapons on the screen.

[Taqwus]

Yeah, impulses plus initiative would help with certain bits of cheese. One could see not only ship size and weapon type involved, but perhaps also experience and, maybe, sensors.

Showing weapon power at a range... Hrm. It'd be nice, but as-is it's a nasty problem. Would it take into account the movement that the other guy could make before firing? Beam weapons may be easy enough, since one can compute their probability of hitting multiplied by damage at the particular range, but missiles and fighters are a different story. That carrier may look sweet and innocent with no non-PD weapons, but if it's chock-full of heavy fighters with quantum engines, afterburners, and rocket pods or lightning rays...


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

[Nostropholo]

Have you played Ascendancy?
It didn't account for any inertia, but still I loved the 3D look of it.
To me, the biggest issue with 3D space is the number of frames per sprite, if you want to draw it in any rotation.
Still, I would really like to see 3D space in SEV.