Combat Initiative...

[Talenn]

Does anyone know exactly how the game determines who goes first in a combat? I'm beginning to think that it just goes in 'Turn Order' and I CERTAINLY hope that isnt the case. In any case, the players always seem to go before the AI and that is not only silly, but really hurts the AI.

It doesnt take a rocket scientist to figure out that if you always go first, that you have a HUGE advantage in 'Warp Point' combats especially if you have missiles. Shoot and scoot. If you have DF weapons, well, you can often decimate an enemy fleet before they even get up to bat!

Personally, I'd like to see an initiative system similar to what they eventually implemented in MOO2 with smaller/faster ships and ships with better computers (maybe use the MultiPlex+Sensor+ECM level combined?) going first and then resolving on an individual ship basis. Adjust for crew quality etc if necessary.

Barring that as too complicated, AT LEAST please consider a 'standard' of attacker or defender always goes first. FWIW, I prefer having the attacker going first to reward taking the offensive. It encourages people to be the aggressor and I think that is extremely necessary.

Anyone else have any thoughts on this or have noticed the initiative NOT always going to the player (and first player in MP combat)?

Thanx,
Talenn

[imperishable]

yea, I agree with you

I also think that it would be better if instead of current tactical model - 1 side moves all ships, then the other side moves all ships, we had something different. Wouldn't it be better if combat followed the chess model? which is 1 ship moves at a time. That would distribute the initiative advantage fairly.

[Daynarr]

Well, I agree with you on this 100%. I also liked that initiative in MOO2, which was based on the speed of the ship. It would make much difference in combat vs. AI and if this could be implemented, and would make game much more interesting (it worked for MOO2).
I just wonder if Beta-Testers made such suggestion to MM.

[ColdSteel]

Personally, I think the tactical combat is the weakest and most tedious part of SE4. The interface is kind of clunky though I may grow more used to it in time. I agree with the initiative comments here and also wish they would allow ships to retreat in a fashion similar to MOO2. Having fleeing ships trapped and bouncing around the edges of the tactical screen is just plain silly and detracts from the overall experience. What the heck does this supposed to simulate? How is bouncing into the edge of the screen tactical in nature?

The two opposing forces also seem to start the combat quite a distance apart and spending 4 or 5 turns moving a bunch of ships close enough to engage is tedious at best. One reasonable suggestion is that they could let the attacker or the race that has the combat initiative decide at the beginning of tactical combat if they want to start the engagement at long, medium or close range. That would allow some strategic advantage for forces that have the initiative and simulate forces being able to pick and chose the ground (or space in this case) on which they fight. I think this would add a really tense element to combat and allow the initiator, in some cases,(particularly the AI) to overcome some of the shoot and scoot tactics that are often employed. This would also at least allow some choice if you wanted to get in closer and into it right away.

Overall, I see tactical combat as one particular area where the developer could make some much needed improvements to smooth the interface, reduce tedium and increase the fun factor in this really excellent game. As it is, I find myself using the Strategic Combat option far more than I'd like to or ever thought I would given that I always really liked doing the tactical combat in MOO and MOO2.

Oh, another thing they might do to improve tactical play is allow you to switch to strategic combat in the middle of tactical combat if it is just taking forever to resolve. That should be easy to do since the software routines are already there for it. It would basically just involve adding another option tab to the tactical combat screen and switching the combat variables to the appropriate subroutine. As it is now, once your into tactical combat, you're in for the (often very long) duration.

Does anyone feel that I'm way off base here? I'd welcome other's perspectives on this topic.

[Tomgs]

One thing you can do in the middle of a tactical battle if it has gone on too long is to speed up the animations and then use the order menu to resolve combat. Its not quite strategic combat but it is much quicker than tactical. And it has the benifit of not needing your hands on the keyboard so you can do something else for the few minutes remaning of the combat. The only drawback to this is the same as strategic if something goes wrong there is no way back to tactical combat so once you change to resolve combat you are commited. Remember to speed up the animation before you hit the resolve button or it may take a while.

Another thing to speed up those first few turns if you have a strategy for your fleet you like you can hit auto move and end turn then repeat end turn as needed and the computer will make those first few moves to get you in position. Then you can take over to do the fight.

[This message has been edited by Tomgs (edited 31 December 2000).]

[Talenn]

ColdSteel:

The 'Retreat issue' has been discussed many times around here and there are good reasons for both sides. Personally I think it works better within the framework of the game right now to not allow retreats. It is impossible to fight a decisive battle if the enemy can always just choose to retreat. IMO, the game would become 'whack-a-mole' trying to jump on fleet after fleet that slips through and into your backfield...not something I want to mess with...

So, while not having the ability to retreat may seem silly, IMO is it necessary given the constraints of the game. It would need a major overhaul of the way ships move tactically (and strategically) to make it work well IMO. FWIW, I cant see why it cant be included as an option at game start. That way people can choose what they want, but I guess at this point they deem it as not worth the coding it would take...an opinion I agree with. After a few games using retreats (at least vs human players), I'm pretty sure most people would be turning it back off again.

As far as the ranges of engagement go...yes, its pretty far, but again, I think its somewhat necessary. MOO2's tactical combat kind of fell apart because the starting ranges were too close. The only weapons that really mattered were direct fire as you didnt have enough time to get missiles and fighters into the battle before you were in gun range and decimated. The longer ranges allows for more variety in spliting into Groups and whatnot. MOO2 combat was basically just 'move forward and shoot till one side loses' There just wasnt enough room for maneuver IMO.

I agree that the tactical combat interface could be cleaner...the ability to SCROLL THE MAP would be a big help. A number of other tweaks could be made, but nothing is fatal in the tactical screen IMO.

Overall, I'm pretty happy with the tactical combat other than the 'missile dance' and the limitations on initiative as outlined below.

Thanx for the input
Talenn

[ColdSteel]

Talenn,

You make some excellent points. I suppose one major difference between SE4 and MOO2 tactical combat is the 30 turn limit on tactical combat sessions in SE4. In effect I suppose this in itself acts as a form of retreat if you can just Last that long. So, I agree that if the game is balanced for this, it's not a big deal to me. Really, it is more a suspension of belief thing. Maybe they can find a way to depict this inability to leave combat a little better than it is currently so it is not so visually jarring.

You make a good case for the current starting distances but I'd still like to see some variability in the starting distances. Part of being a great tactician is being able to adjust to the unknowns that are thrown at you in each battle. No two combat situations are ever exactly alike. Being handed the exact same starting distances each time detracts from something that should be a litte less certain, IMO. Think how much you'd desire and seek the initiative if it meant being able to determine the starting distance of the tactical or stategic combat at hand. I think it might put a little clench back in your stomach when facing the AI. Since you *would* be starting at long range much of the time it would still keep the tactics you mention in play and just intoduce a bit more uncertainty. A kind of "fog of war" if you will. Of course it wouldn't work at all without having the combat initiative added to the game. I do hope they add that.

I also agree they need to add the ability to scroll screens and a few other interface things mentioned in various reviews. Overall, perhaps I might just need to get more used to it.

Tomgs: Thanks for the tip. I'll try that. I'd speeded up animations first thing but was hitting the auto button which means having to keep hitting the end turn button constantly. I'll try your suggestion instead.

[Barnacle Bill]

My two cents worth on retreat & other tactical issues...what I'd do if I was the programmer:

This assumes turn-based play. "Attacker" = the side whose strategic turn it is. "Defender" = the side who's strategic turn it is not.

If the attacker is entering via a warp point, defender gets to set up first anywhere he wants, but without seeing what the attacking force is first. Attacker starts with all ships stacked on the warp point but can't leave them stacked (excluding any which lose movement capability as a result of defender's first fire). Defender moves first in this scenario, meaning warp point defenders get a free shot at their best range at incoming attackers.

As a note, in the various editions of Starfire (as noted by others, the board game inspiration for the SE series of games) the various rules editions & optional rules have handled the above differently. Sometimes as described above, with all Attackers appearing on the warp point together. Sometimes one ship appears each tactical turn. Sometimes the warp point size and the ship sizes together determine how many ships can come through at the same time. Sometimes you can exceed that but lose a certain percentage to "interpenetration", which is how the latest Starfire rules handle it. I personally prefer to let them all come through together, as the Defender has enough advantages without making them spread it out over several tactical turns (plus Starfire has no limit on the number of tactical turns per battle).

Mines should only work against ships transiting a warp point. It would not matter which end of the warp point was mined. If the Attacker enters combat through a mined warp point (hostile mines), the mine attack is resolved first (and no combat is initiated if the attacker is wiped out by the mines).

Other than combats initiated by warp point transits, Attacker should move first.

The tactical map should scroll infinately - no border, no "cornering" a fleeing enemy.

Any ship in the same tactical map square as a warp point and with at least one movement point left could retreat through the warp point (suffering mine attack if applicable).

Otherwise, retreat would be an option for any mobile unit if both of the following conditions are met:

1) It is currently outside enemy weapons range.

2) It has a tactical speed equal or higher than the fastest armed enemy mobile unit.

Retreating attackers must also have at least one strategic movement point left for the turn, even if retreating trough a warp point. Retreating defenders would be using a point from their next turn in advance. In both cases, this would impose a limit on how many times you could retreat in a single strategic turn. A fleet with a higher strategic movement rate would be able to avoid combat by continually retreating.

After combat, units which retreated then get placed one sector away from the sector they retreated from on the system map. This could potentially initiate a new combat.

[Crash]

I believe making weapon firing simultaneous would make the tactical combat system more fair, though I admit that it'd be even more tedious to have seperate movement and firing phases for each side.

About initiative and missile dancing, just don't dance. Launch your salvos, and take your licks. Alternately, if you believe the mechanics give you an unfair advantage vs the A.I., research different paths, try using torps or hellbores as your main battery of choice. Reserve any missile installation to satellites or other non-mobile units. Just my 2 cents.

Crash.

[Talenn]

Crash:

Of course you can simply choose not to exploit holes in the AI. I do it all the time in SE4. It makes for a far better and enjoyable game.

But I think it is something that should be addressed at some point. If it cant be fixed, then missiles should be altered in some way IMO. Players shouldnt be forced to not use certain mainstream weapons if at all possible.

As far the combat initiative goes, this is EXTREMELY important in MP games IMO. Going first is a tremendous advantage to have all the time and it really unbalances the game IMO. And it would certainly help the AI if it was allowed to go first in combats from time to time and I'm all for adjustments that will help out the AI.

Barnacle Bill:

As stated earlier in the post, retreat from combat would cause alot of problems on the strategic level of the game. I agree that intuitively, ships should be able to retreat from combat, but within the current game system its a bad idea IMO.

Picture this situation: Enemy fleet moves into a system where you have 3 or 4 planets. You have a defense fleet orbiting the main planet. The enemy is in range to hit a couple of the planets on their next move. How do you defend? If you attack the fleet, they simply retreat and then stomp on whatever planets they like. If you take away their movement the next turn you either 1) simply delay the inevitable while they tie down your fleet into attacking them every turn or 2) retreat is STILL pointless as you are locked 'strategically'.

Sure, you can always choose to defend the warp points but then why bother having the rest of the system maps? Just have Warp points and planets as that is all that will ever matter. No battles will ever be fought in space as the weaker force will always retreat. IMO, there is no way to implement a retreat system that cant be exploited given the 'IGO-UGO' turn system. Maybe someone can come up with one, but I seriously doubt one that isnt ridiculously complicated can fill the role.

Thanx,
Talenn