FreeOrion

Forums for the FreeOrion project
It is currently Sat Nov 18, 2017 9:25 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 30 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Sep 27, 2015 6:48 pm 
Offline
Release Manager, Design
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 12:56 pm
Posts: 4241
Location: Sol III
Ok, getting back to this to add my 2c:
The Silent One wrote:
@ Vezzra: You bring up good and valid points, but I don't think it is impossible to solve them satisfactorily.
Impossible? No, I give you that. But ( assuming we can come up with a solution that addresses the design issues) a challenge you'd have to be able to pull off. Trying to succeed where even big commercial products are prone to fail is a risk we should consider carefully. We could easily end up with biting off more than we can chew (in fact, that already happened with the first attempt at implementing tactical combat during the 0.3.x versions).

That said, I think the approach you proposed looks promising. Something like that could acutally work, and work well. IMO it shows the potential to address all the major issues (design and implementation).
Quote:
I feel removing tactical combat would take away a key part of 4X games and with that some of the most memorable moments ... also, I think players want to have influence on the outcomes of their battles. To me, the game feels incomplete without tactical combat.
I can understand that feeling, it's not that I don't share it at all. But, as I said in another post above, my skepticism is based on past experiences. The games I played failed to deliver when it came to tactical combat (some more badly than others), so those potentially memorable moments weren't as memorable as I hoped for. In most cases they sucked so badly that I've eventually learned to enjoy those games more without resolving any battles manually.

And that's exactly what I want to avoid for FO. If we do it, we really need to do it well.
Quote:
...in my opinion the option to auto-resolve is a viable solution for this. Pick the fights that are fun, leave the ones that are boring.
The challenge with this is mostly that you need to get auto-resolution done in a way that the dynamics aren't too different from manual resolution. Another point where most of the games I played failed miserably. I actually had to design my ships differently depending on if I want to auto-resolve or not. A design optimized for one kind of resolution could suck quite badly if used with the other kind of resolution. And that was no fun at all (and another major reason why I finally only used auto-resolution).

That's also something your proposed approach takes care of :D
Quote:
I would imagine three multiplayer options: "let players control all fights", "players may choose which fights to control", "auto-resolve all fights". In games with lots of players the players could choose option 3, in games with few players option 1.
Based on my gaming experience with even just three people playing a multiplayer strategy game I think that your option 1 might even become a big problem with as few players as that.

Option 2 will confront you with yet another challenge: what to do in a human-vs-human battle, where only one opponent decides to resolve the battle manually? Force the other player to participate in the manual resolution? Inform him that his opponent opted for manual resolution and let him then decide if he want the AI to take over for him or do it manually also? There are several possible ways to handle this, but I fear there's no easy solution that isn't going to be ackward in one way or another, or opens up another can of worms (like having an AI take over for one opponent in a human-vs-human battle, very messy!).

Option 3 is the only viable one for multiplayer IMO.

With your proposal however all these problems don't exist. You know, the more I think about it, the more I like it. ;)
Quote:
Vezzra wrote:
* [...] last problem: the AI. All 4X games I've played which had a tactical combat engine worth using had the problem that a human player can take too much advantage of an AI in tactical combat.
So it's a challenge :)
You've no idea :lol:

Seriously, this is one of the major points. If you can't come up with a tactical combat engine where the AI isn't outsmarted by a human too easily, forget it. Also past experiences, and probably the point where the games I played failed worst (besides the different dynamics dependent on kind of resolution thing I mentioned above).

And probably yet another aspect where your proposal might score. ;)
Quote:
incremental improvement. start simple, improve over time, just like with the map part of fo, or just like BfW
Sort of an "evolutionary" approach. That of course presents the challenge that each "incarnation" of the implementation needs to play well, but that's probably something we can actually pull off.
Quote:
What are todays "standards"?
If we did 3D tactical combat, sufficiently decent 3D models for the ships, a interface that lets you handle even large scale battles without them becoming unmanagable, etc. Graphics don't have to rival GTA V or other games on that level (graphically), maybe something that isn't too far from how space battles are done in this game (actually our former graphics lead, PD, is part of that project). Geoff mentioned once that something like that is how our 3D tactical combat might be done.

I'd avoid doing something that works and looks like tactical combat e.g. in Space Empires III. That you can do if you try to make a retro game, but wouldn't fit into FO.
Quote:
I agree space combat is, as you put it, a gargantuan task, but so was making the game up to this point. FO also started simple and has since developed into what it is now.
Sure, but that was only possible because the people involved in this project over all those years have been aware of the limits we have to deal with and acknowledge (most of the time). They resisted the temptation to want too much, or pack too much into the game and cut corners when it has been necessary. FO is (IMO) an exceptionally well designed game (I'm always considering us, who carry on this project now to be standing on the shoulders of giants ;)). FO avoided the pitfalls that spelled doom for so many (over)ambitious open source projects.

But even so it took us 12 years to get to where we're now - version 0.4.5. Based on the comments about FO I read on the internet sometimes I get the impression we're most famous for our unique development speed :lol: (e.g. comparing the speed of our advancements to glaciers). I think we can and should continue taking on challenges, we wouldn't be where we are if we didn't, we just need to be wise about it, like our predecessors have been. :D


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 27, 2015 10:27 pm 
Offline
Space Floater
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 24, 2015 6:40 pm
Posts: 17
I like the idea of adding more room for strategy, my idea of a good first step is to add a threat level stat to weapons and troop pods, the a.i. would use this to decide which fleet on the map they should target first, and which ship in a fleet to target.This could also be tied into diplomacy and espionage later on.

*Edit sorry if this seems incoherent, im not used to typing on a cell


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 01, 2015 11:20 am 
Offline
Graphics
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2003 8:27 pm
Posts: 705
Vezzra wrote:
The challenge with this is mostly that you need to get auto-resolution done in a way that the dynamics aren't too different from manual resolution. Another point where most of the games I played failed miserably.
Yes, that is a very important point that needs to be watched carefully.

Quote:
..., maybe something that isn't too far from how space battles are done in this game (actually our former graphics lead, PD, is part of that project). Geoff mentioned once that something like that is how our 3D tactical combat might be done.
I think this would likely lead to all the problems you mentioned previously and also is hardly doable for us. (It's an interesting project, I have also been loosely watching it.)

Quote:
Sure, but that was only possible because the people involved in this project over all those years have been aware of the limits we have to deal with and acknowledge (most of the time). They resisted the temptation to want too much, or pack too much into the game and cut corners when it has been necessary. FO is (IMO) an exceptionally well designed game (I'm always considering us, who carry on this project now to be standing on the shoulders of giants ;)).
I agree, it is well designed now, although I don't think it became what it is by wise plan(ner)s, but by growing into it. I saw more like an "evolution" of the game over the last decade; take the focus system, at some time there were two foci, then there was also a "balanced" focus; technology didn't follow any logic or function (until Mat came along I think ;) ); or take the recent change in how colonisation works. - Usually we had something that worked mediocre at first, which then became replaced with something better at a later time.

Vezzra wrote:
That said, I think the approach you proposed looks promising. Something like that could acutally work, and work well. IMO it shows the potential to address all the major issues (design and implementation).
While it does address the issues, I have to admit I feel it is a little dull, not very fun/gamey. I have another idea that might be more fun, I will present it here once I have the time to work it out in more detail.

_________________
If I provided any images, code, scripts or other content here, it's released under GPL 2.0 and CC-BY-SA 3.0.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 01, 2015 6:18 pm 
Offline
AI Lead, Programmer
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2012 6:25 pm
Posts: 4374
Vezzra wrote:
All 4X games I've played which had a tactical combat engine worth using had the problem that a human player can take too much advantage of an AI in tactical combat.
I don't think I'd put it quite so strongly -- over the summer I replayed a bit of the original MOO2 and that is one thing I liked about it; the tactical combat did seem fun. I felt like I could generally get an advantage from using the tactical combat instead of auto-resolve, but it mostly seemed like a small advantage. During one stage of tech progression there is a weapon which seems tremendously more powerful if wielded by me directly in tactical combat, but that seemed the exception. Now, I did also come across a writeup someone did about how to take out the Orion Guardian with a relatively small and non-very-advanced attack force, but I think that really just meant that the Guardian needed a bit more tweaking, not that the tactical combat was overall fatally flawed.
Quote:
The challenge with this is mostly that you need to get auto-resolution done in a way that the dynamics aren't too different from manual resolution. Another point where most of the games I played failed miserably.
Keep in mind, though, the whole point of it is that it is at least moderately different than autoresolve. The tactical combat has to offer the human some possibility of advantage, at least after enough practice, or simply no one will use it. :lol: I supposed your focus here harkens back to the previously mentioned headaches about one set of ship designs being best for autoresolve and a very different set being best for tactical combat. I can understand that concern, and agree it would be ideal if the same designs were optimal for both environments, but I doubt it's possible to fully achieve that goal and as long as there is a fairly substantial correlation I personally wouldn't worry about it too much.

_________________
If I provided any code, scripts or other content here, it's released under GPL 2.0 and CC-BY-SA 3.0


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 01, 2015 6:21 pm 
Offline
Graphics
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2003 8:27 pm
Posts: 705
So here's another idea how space combat could be handled. In this concept, the battle screen replaces the map screen during the combat phase. Instead of directly matching fleets and planets for engagements, the engagements are determined by the position of fleets in the star system the combat occurs in. This screen will only show if certain conditions are met, like a new fleet has arrived at the system, or there is battles ongoing, or the player manually triggers it from the map screen to show up during the combat phase (for example, when he is bombarding a planet, the bombardedment will continue automatically and the screen won't show until the player calls up the screen to change orders).

To match fleets, the system could be subdivided into three zones:

"open system space"
The space between the planets and the starlane entries; this is where you place your fleets when you want to control space traffic in the system. If you have control of the open system space, you are in control of supply routes. Fleets in open space will attack all enemy fleets that move in between system objects (planets/starlane entries) as well as enemy fleets in open space. Fleets that move out of open system space will not fight moving fleets, but will be attacked by enemy fleets that remain in open space.

"planet space"
The space around a planet; this is where you place your fleets to defend your own worlds or to attack/bombard/etc. the enemy.

"starlane entry/node space"
The space around the starlane entries; this is where new fleets arrive at the begin of the combat phase and where fleets can choose to retreat. Fleets around a starlane entry that are retreating will not be attacked by the ships in open system space.

Battles will occur after movement orders have been carried out, with the exception that fleets that move will be attacked by fleets in open system space:
1. create engagements between ships in open space and moving ships
2. create engagements around planets and starlane entries

The advantage I see with this is a greater strategic complexity without being overly complicated as well as more visual representation of the units, planets etc..


Attachments:
battle screeen concept 2.jpg
battle screeen concept 2.jpg [ 226.62 KiB | Viewed 1095 times ]

_________________
If I provided any images, code, scripts or other content here, it's released under GPL 2.0 and CC-BY-SA 3.0.
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 20, 2016 9:41 pm 
Offline
Programmer

Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2016 12:08 am
Posts: 341
Has there been any proposal toward ship logic modules? I'm thinking it would both resolve the multiplayer hurdle, and allow benefits to the AI.

<sidebar>
I played a game a long time ago where you designed various robots (similar to the ship components here, additions included a cpu slot) and 'programmed' it by attaching pre-defined script modules.
The level of the 'cpu' somehow determined the complexity/number of the scripts (I wish I could remember the name).
You then unleashed your robot army against another, or a set of obstacles.
If you did not give enough thought into it, some might run around in circles, shoot friendly robots, or run out of power just before attacking.
I've seen other games take a very limited approach related to this, sadly nothing as enjoyable as I remember.
</sidebar>

The idea here is to perform ship actions in a tactical type setting according to the programming assigned to it (call them 'standing orders' or such).
Players would not actually direct the ships during tactical combat, each ships response to any condition is already assigned.
Watching the combat would be more of an after action report (hence, optional).
The AI would be at an advantage in being able to crunch numbers here, comparing outcomes of various modules.
These modules would be an in-game item, and could be limited to a simple task or set to some complex checks, depending on the need of the implementation.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 21, 2016 8:37 am 
Offline
Release Manager, Design
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 12:56 pm
Posts: 4241
Location: Sol III
dbenage-cx wrote:
Has there been any proposal toward ship logic modules? I'm thinking it would both resolve the multiplayer hurdle, and allow benefits to the AI.
Yes, there have been ideas tossed around similar to what you outlined here. Basically some kind of system where you have no interactive tactical combat per se, but can gve your fleets/ships orders/roles/policies/whatever you want to call it that would determine their behaviour/how they react in battle to various situations, and then watch how the battles unfolds.

That is a possible approach (and, as you said, would address some important issues), but has issues of it's own:

  1. The more flexible and powerful you want the system to be, the more complex it becomes (naturally). And judging by the example you gave, and the rough idea of how you imagine such an approach for FO I think that has the potential to become very complicated quite easily. Remember, we are trying to keep things simple and avoid micromanagemet. Long ago I have played 4X space games which tried to provide such a system for multiplayer, and oh boy, configuring your fleets correctly quickly became micromanagement hell - simply because there are so many different situations and conditions in a battle, which are often quite different depending of what kind of battle you're fighting. So the systems these games provided, as complicated as they most of the time already were, were still far too restrictive and limited. For example, I began to wish for "profiles", complete sets of such "standing orders", so that you can easily switch those orders for your fleets.
  2. Judging by all the comments and opinions I read over the years, and when digging through discussion threads on the subject that happened long before I joined the project gave me the impression that most of those who wished for tactical combat didn't want such a system like you suggest, but interactive tactical combat (and I suspect that is also true for our current dev team, but can't say for sure). So I doubt we will be able to get a general consensus with that approach (but that's pure speculation of course).

Basically the problem with tactical combat is that you're creating a "game within a game", and that comes with a lot of issues that are very difficult to address. Think about the example you provided. Apparently that thing was a complete game in itself, not just a part of a larger game. So, instead of having an interactive tactical combat game within our strategy game, we'll have a "program your fleet AI and see how well it performs" kind of game (that may overstate it a bit, but I think you know what I mean).

Now, don't get me wrong, I don't think that your approach is impossible - but it's every bit as difficult and challenging to get right as a good, viable interactive combat system. And personally I think the second approach SilentOne has presented above has some very interesting and strong points. We left that discussion 10 months ago, but I think we should pick up here once we return to the combat system.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 21, 2016 9:20 am 
Offline
Creative Contributor
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 11:45 pm
Posts: 3259
Personally, I don't have much interest in tactical combat for this setup, the galaxy is too big and I have too many battles per turn, I'd want an auto-resolve system that worked, and if playing the individual battles gave an advantage, I'd consider that micromanagement. I get why it's popular but I don't think it's a viable choice for a galactic strategy game like this.

I've been thinking of the idea of having a 'target priority' setting either per ship or per fleet that toggles and is next to the aggressive/passive toggle, with options being target planets first, target big battleships first or target support vessels first: there have been many times I've suicided a small fleet in the hope they'd take out troop ships to buy me time.

Geoff's suggested something like Leaders for fleets, but I'm not sure he's ever really expanded on what he has in mind.

_________________
Mat Bowles

Any code or patches in anything posted here is released under the CC and GPL licences in use for the FO project.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 21, 2016 11:21 am 
Offline
Release Manager, Design
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 12:56 pm
Posts: 4241
Location: Sol III
MatGB wrote:
Personally, I don't have much interest in tactical combat for this setup, the galaxy is too big and I have too many battles per turn, I'd want an auto-resolve system that worked, and if playing the individual battles gave an advantage, I'd consider that micromanagement.
I think it goes without saying that any tactical combat we might come up with has to be optional. Meaning, you can either decide at game setup that only a simple auto-resolve mechanic is used for all combats, or provide the players with the means to set some simple policies/strategies/standing orders for your fleets/ships that allow them to forgo tactical combat, and make sure that this would not turn into a disadvantage against a player who decides to manually resolve battles. Although the only way to achieve this may be that manual resolution in a multiplayer game only takes place if all players partaking in a specific battle opt for it.
Quote:
I get why it's popular but I don't think it's a viable choice for a galactic strategy game like this.
That depends how you design and implement it. A full blown tactical combat engine that is almost a game in its own right is certainly overkill, and I don't know any game that manages to pull that off without failing in one way or the other. On the other hand, that's also a matter of personal taste - for me, it always ends up in too much micromanagement, but there are many who just enjoy this, so they perceive that very differently. However, a system that allows for a combat resolution that takes an average of lets say a minute per battle (probably a bit more for the more massive/epic ones) could work very well IMO.

Anyway, I think the demand for at least some simple kind of tactical combat is strong enough that we shouldn't ignore it. It has always been an important part of most 4X games, so I don't think we should throw it out completely. The ideas SilentOne has presented so far look promising to me, at least something I'd want to give a chance.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 21, 2016 5:26 pm 
Offline
Graphics
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2003 8:27 pm
Posts: 705
Vezzra wrote:
The ideas SilentOne has presented so far look promising to me, at least something I'd want to give a chance.
I have some adaptions in mind - mostly about how engagements are created between fleets and/or planets, but it'll take a while to prepare to create a concept picture, so it's gonna be post-0.46. There's enough work for everyone right now anyway ;)

_________________
If I provided any images, code, scripts or other content here, it's released under GPL 2.0 and CC-BY-SA 3.0.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 21, 2016 6:05 pm 
Offline
Programming, Design, Admin
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 1:33 am
Posts: 12013
Location: Munich
MatGB wrote:
I've been thinking of the idea of having a 'target priority' setting either per ship or per fleet that toggles and is next to the aggressive/passive toggle, with options being target planets first, target big battleships first or target support vessels first: there have been many times I've suicided a small fleet in the hope they'd take out troop ships to buy me time.

Geoff's suggested something like Leaders for fleets, but I'm not sure he's ever really expanded on what he has in mind.
Related to parts that can be added to change a ship design's default targeting behaviour, leaders might do so dynamically.
viewtopic.php?p=77979#p77979
viewtopic.php?p=68603#p68603
viewtopic.php?p=74299#p74299
viewtopic.php?p=73553#p73553


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 21, 2016 9:53 pm 
Offline
Space Kraken

Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2014 10:01 am
Posts: 199
Some more cents here...
As far as I got it there are two types of suggestions.

  1. tactical combat with a lot of user interaction. definitly harder to solve...
    * probably approaches necessary to lessen micromanagement
    ** limit number of fights per turn
    *** e.g. only the flagship fleet may be commanded manually
    ** find a balance of benefit
    *** if manual combat has no benefit nobody will use it
    *** if manual combat has too much benefit everybody has to use it to play 'optimal'
    * difficult for multiplayer, needs synchronizing
    * should be fun and worth the time spent
  2. setting combat commands before the fight - visual combat report
    This is basically what we have now, just the report is not fun to read/watch and there are few options (deciding which ships you send there and if they hide).
    If the tactical options get more complex/more challenging it might be necessary to watch the combat report to understand what works and what doesn't. An experienced player won't need to watch. Or only watch those fights with unexpected results or when testing out the newly researched technology.

    A visual combat report would be nice. With the current system it would probably not worth implementing, but you would not need to read up to understand how combat works
    1. you would see all the non-stealthed ships shoot at random targets at the same time, then stealthed ones shoot, then all destroyed ships explode. Then fighters emerge(?)
    2. all ships shoot at random targets at the same time. then all destroyed ships explode. Then fighters emerge(?)
    3. all ships shoot at random targets at the same time. then all destroyed ships explode.

    And regarding an aesthetical combat report UI. Anyone played Deuteros? Loved to watch the drones fight it out (clouds of dots annihilating each other in combat https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KPk_Jt2OxoA at 3:00).
    Battle interface was very limited (you could choose the moment when you shot the big space torpedo). I think that was thought to spice it up but was not really interesting.
So if wishful thinking works, we could build first a combat report visualization in a way which can be reused for a more sophisticated combat system later...

_________________
Any code or patches in anything posted here is released under the CC and GPL licences in use for the FO project.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 26, 2016 2:51 am 
Offline
Space Krill

Joined: Mon Sep 02, 2013 12:39 am
Posts: 6
I've never played MOO so I don't have a real basis for tactical combat. In a nutshell, from what I've read in this thread though it sounds like this: "Tactical Combat will/can give an edge over Auto-Resolve". Otherwise there's no reason not to attempt Tactical Combat. This inevitably leads to micromanagement which as everyone has agreed means more drawn out game.

I agree that Tactical Combat on paper sounds fun and adds more to the game but there has to be a limit to this to avoid undesirably drawn out turns.
Some ideas:
[*]Tactical Combat Battles can be space based or ground based.
[*]New Race/Species trait: Intelligent Tacticians (+5% number of battles allowed as Tactical Combats), Brash (-50% number of total Tactical Combats)
[*]Research more technology to gain more Tactical Combat opportunities per turn (eg: "Elite Shock Troops" +5% Ground battles allowed as TCs, "Military Academy Training" +2% Ground+Space of battles..., "Neural Fleet Coordination" +2% Space battles...)
[*]Specific Buildings (from new techs) +1 TC at base/outpost
[*]AI Difficulty determines Tactical Combat (TC) effectiveness vs Auto-Resolve
Practicality:
[*]Limit the number of Tactical Combats per turn. Minimum: 0-1 Tactical Combat per turn. Maximum: X% of total number of battles where X is defined at Game Setup (affected by Race-Traits, Research etc).
[*]Limit the actual TC battle effectiveness. Random chance based effectiveness +/-% where Tactical Combat can still end worse than Auto-Resolve despite perfect player tactics.

What is the actual Tactical Combat. I can't avoid thinking of it as a "minigame" (mini-turns?). Will this be terrain independent? Imo, it would be fun if Tactical Combat made use of surroundings such that positioning of ground troops and ships (especially if there are asteroids/satellites/gas giants) would be crucial to perfect play. How will Tactical Combat deal with shields? Weapons that can/partially bypass shields? This will be a situation where custom designed ships will be most noticeably effective.

There's a lot that can be done but there's a lot that isn't fully clear either. Everyone (myself included obviously) seem to have some idea of how Tactical Combats could work but it'll be much harder to implement despite all the ideas and intentions.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 09, 2016 10:19 pm 
Offline
Space Krill

Joined: Sun Jun 08, 2014 6:56 am
Posts: 7
My battles tend to be framed by strategy. Does this sound familiar?
- Many battles are fought with an overwhelmingly powerful, concentrated fleet against little to no resistance. There would be no point in playing these fights manually; the outcome is predetermined. I might lose one ship to the planetary defenses if I'm unlucky but that's not enough to make me want to do it manually. This for me defines the 'boring' part of the game, where enemies are powerless to stop me but I haven't actually gotten around to eliminating all traces of their civilizations. I would actually enjoy an 'auto conquer' command that would let me mix combat and troop ships into a single fleet that destroys local opposition, takes over any planet in the system that can be fully conquered with available troops, then moves to the next waypoint and repeats the process without further intervention.
- A few battles are a close match and fairly important. These tend to happen more often in the early phase of the game, with single-digit ships on each side. On rare occasions I might build up a standing defense fleet next to a more passive AI, never accumulating enough power for a decisive victory; some change in the lay of the board triggers an attack one way or the other. This is where a tactical combat engine would be useful; the behavior of each individual ship is important for the final outcome. Losses will probably be meaningful whether you win or lose. By their nature these fights are more common in the early phase when there are fewer systems to manage, but drop off as your empire and armada expands.
- A few battles are a definite loss. The AI has outmaneuvered me and dropped a big fleet somewhere I wasn't expecting. My only hope is to try to harry their troopships to prevent loss of territory. Tactical combat would be better than the current model but could just as easily be handled with a target priority setting that prefers attacking troops first.


The current attack model has all the weapons in a wave firing at random enemy targets simultaneously. Being able to pick individual shots would be a big advantage as you would be able to prevent overkill and optimize the amount of enemy attack power eliminated in each round. On the other hand, a simpler targeting prioritization option would keep that randomness and overkill potential in play (which keeps the game balance effects lower) while still allowing for a meaningful difference in outcomes (which gives the player more control). I'd like a full tactical combat system but it does seem to be a herculean task. Prioritized targeting gives some extra control over fights and doesn't conflict with tactical combat as a future goal, while (hopefully) being much simpler to implement.

For basic controllable targeting, consider two sliders (or two high/none/low choices):
Attack: A high value focuses fire on enemy targets with the highest damage output, a low value prefers unarmed targets.
Defense: A high value focuses on enemy targets with the highest current structure (big battleships, planets), a low value prefers targets with low structure (pickets, scouts, previously damaged ships).

This would let ships be designed for specific targets. Your core battleships or glass cannons can focus on high defense targets to make sure their damage output is put to good use. Picket ships can focus on low defense targets to eliminate damaged enemies without too much overkill. Alternatively, the big damage dealers could focus on high attack-power enemies to eliminate them early and minimize losses while a separate design (maybe stealth?) picks off anything unarmed. Once the preferred targets run out everything gets shot.

Initially this could be set during ship construction and saved as a constant value. That would allow for some playtesting once the combat system can handle the values, without having to first implement a UI to change the settings on the galaxy map. The 'meat' of the feature would be a new target selection (or rather shot resolution) mechanism, one that could hopefully be reused for future targeting preferences (up to and including 'shoot that specific ship').

This targeting shouldn't necessarily be perfect. For example, assume the list of enemy targets is sorted by attack power and the attacking ships are focused on high attack. For each shot, pick a random number using a cumulative distribution function that centers on, say, 0.8 (in 0..1). {I have no idea how difficult that is, so maybe just adding two normal-distribution randoms and clever multiplication can do something similar.} Multiply by the number of targets, round up to the next integer and direct the shot at that target. Half of the shots will hit in the top 20% of attack power on average; most of the rest will be in the top 50% and a few will be wild. To target low attack, sort the target list in reverse order and keep the rest of the math the same. The shape and center of the distribution function determines the accuracy and effectiveness of the targeting strategy (another way of saying the median and standard deviation); these values would be tweakable both through playtest balancing and through technologies to adjust performance. The reason I think a slider would be useful is that if you are getting too much overkill with high accuracy then you might back down to a value of +0.7 rather than +1.0, but that may turn out to be needless complexity that can be eliminated through careful choice of values. It might also represent a valuable downside to focused targeting that helps offset the advantage of massed fire: shots are more likely to be wasted if the whole fleet is preferring one type of target.

Next step would be a fleet-level override of these two sliders for times when you want the whole fleet to kill some specific group first regardless of the hull designs. After that if any further detail is required I'd like to see a way to control specific designs within a fleet, but that would require grouping fleet members by design each with their own subheader. Per-ship seems like overkill but it could still be useful.

Should weapons that are immune to point defense prefer targets with high point defense?
Should ships be allowed to fire different types of weapons at different preferred targets?
Should planets be allowed to spread their damage across multiple targets? (a battery of independently-targeted missiles/lasers rather than a single giant superlaser?)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 27, 2017 3:08 am 
Offline
Creative Contributor
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2003 6:52 pm
Posts: 1394
I think it would be best if one had a "strategic priority list" you could give for battles...
since there a a limited number of objectives you can have

Conquer Planet X
Destroy/bombard Planet X
Defend Planet X
Prevent Enemy ships moving on to a new starlane (Combat or Troop ship priority)
Move as many of my ships to a new starlane
Get enemy ships to leave this system
Keep my ships in this system
Kill Enemy ships (not just get them to retreat, kill them)
Keep my ships alive

By putting those in some type of priority for a battle, you could allow the autoresolution for the different types of battle mentioned (with a little bit more focus fire, and having your ships retreat if they seem to be overmatched..assuming "keep my ships alive" is high priority)

Basically
Invade Planet A is a priority over Invade Planet B...Increased chance to target planet A, decreased chance to target planet B
Defend planet A is a priority over Invade Planet B...Increased chance to target enemy ships, decreased chance to target Planet B
Keep ships alive higher priority... increased chance damaged ships or badly outnumbered fleet will attempt retreat


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 30 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group