FreeOrion

I believe I understand better now, and that does seem unweildy.

I've searched through the design archive and the design pad and I'm unclear on something, perhaps you can enlighten me.. If I understand correctly, the turns are all done simultaneously, as in, each player gives their orders for the turn, then all the moves are done at once and at the end of the turn you resolve combat based on the results of the orders? The server will go, "Wait a minute, we have a conflict here and cannot continue to carry out this order until it is resolved".

The easiest thing to do would be to take each of these conflicts and resolve them as the orders are resolved. Whenever two fleets from non-allied empires intersect, dump every asset onto a galaxy map and give the players X number of battle quanta to maneuver and fight until the end of the economic turn. From there, it's simply up to the player on whether he wants to make a dash for the next starlane entrance, fight it out, bombard the planet, or just hang around looking good.

The number of battle quanta alloted would be determined on the speed of the fleets involved and how much "time" they had left on their turn when they engaged.. For example if a fleet has a movement speed of ten, then there should be some difference in alloted quanta if they run into a scout on their first move and have to engage, and if they run into a scout on the ninth move. A player who makes a mad dash and gets his fleet out of the system immediately would resolve that conflict and the server could continue resolving orders, allowing the fleet to continue moving until the next conflict occurs. Staying in the system for multiple quanta would cause a corresponding reduction in the post-battle distance a fast fleet would be able to move.

In this case, automation would be vital for many battles as the game could very quickly bog down into players spending hours per turn dealing with dozens of insignificant conflicts. Maybe some method of flagging a fleet as "Automate any conflict involving me", or vice versa, rather than a global "automate all conflicts" would allow the player flexibility to spend time carefully conducting critical battles while largely ignoring scout spams.

This also eliminates the problem of not being able to conduct more than one battle simultaneously. The server is processing the orders simultaneously so it can stop at any point and say "resolve this before I continue." It could run into 1000 different conflicts in a sequence and just resolve each one as it occurs. The problem there is that for a multiplayer game it would significantly slow down everything. All players involved in a conflict would have to be present to conduct the battle, and anyone not involved would have to sit and wait for each conflict to be resolved.

-Ty.

Edit: If I'm wrong, and the turns are resolved sequentially, (I give my fleets and planets orders, the server processes them, and then the next guy has his turn and gives orders..), then the player who is currently active would appear to have a choice on whether or not he wants to engage, and the AI is going to have to decide how it wants to react. If you want truly tactical combat, then a fleet that is sitting in a system waiting to intercept is going to have to be highly customizable in terms of strategies unless the player is sitting there waiting to control it.

I'd be right pissed off if I had a nice interception fleet that I knew I could use to cripple an enemy fleet, but the AI decided to use them foolishly and got them wiped out while it wasn't my turn.

That's essentially what I've proposed. The number of Battle Quanta between the fleet's arrival and the end of the turn (i.e. which Battle Quantum it starts combat in) is dependent upon when, or in which Battle Quantum, the fleet arrived in the system. Likewise, when, or in which Battle Quantum the fleet leaves the system and continues travel is dependent upon the number of Battle Quanta between the fleet's departure and the end of the turn (i.e. which Battle Quantum it leaves combat in).

I don't see how this is any more or less necessary because of Battle Quanta... the length and frequency of combats can be balanced to be enjoyable independently of the mechanics of Battle Quanta.

This is where what you and I propose differs. You are proposing an essentially infinite amount of Battle Quanta per turn. I am proposing a finite number for the reasons that:

* It is easier to understand for the player, because it is quantized, not fluid
* It is much, much faster in multiplayer
* It provides specific points in combat when reinforcements can potentially arrive
* It allows the possibility of a definite length of time which can be spent in combat per turn to be defined more easily for multiplayer games
* It allows multiple battles to occur simultaneously
* It allows the length of the battle to more intuitively correspond to a length of time on the galaxy map

Essentially, you are proposing something very similar to Battle Quanta, except that it bogs things down significantly and doesn't appear to allow reinforcements to arrive during a turn. Also, I'm not sure how your proposal would deal with ships leaving a battle. Would the amount of speed they lost be dependent on how much time they spent in battle? In that case, couldn't another fleet arrive in the same system afterwards, spend less time in combat, and pass through faster, surpassing the other fleet "at that system" but apparently not meeting it in combat? That seems odd. If two fleets are at the same system at the same time, they should have an opportunity to participate in the same combat.

As far as I know, all orders are given simultaneously, then carried out after all players have hit "turn".

_________________
Warning: Antarans in dimensional portal are closer than they appear.

The Reason the player doesn’t know where his fleets are going to be, is because of enemy action.

“The Problem” isn’t just because ships can move more than 1 starlane per turn, its because ships can’t turn around in a starlane

ie Turn 100: I issue movement orders to several of my fleets to what I Believe is a Safe system (they will arrive on turns 104, 105, and 106)
on Turn 104, I realize the enemy has his hidden death fleet there..., but my other ships are 1+2 turns away, they don’t travel that fast, so they are in their final approach....
So unfair... my decision was already made not knowing my ships would be challenged
I gave those movement orders believing my fleets would be all together to defeat his hidden death fleet, now they will get destroyed piecemeal

Or.. if “that’s a death fleet, not a simple scout”
I give orders to fly 2 starlanes away (the second starlane is really long, but I have 2 starlane supply reach... I pass through the first, and then right behind me, an enemy scout moves in.... I can’t turn around, I can’t even refuel once I Get to the system... at the very least I’ve been slowed down tremendously by a scout.

Here’s what I suggest
Turn order
1. Political/Economic orders, Movement* orders given
2. Political/Economic orders resolved
3. Movement Orders resolved
4. Combat orders given
5. Combats resolved

* Movement orders includes “Intercept”

Detail on the “Intercept” command
Starlane Entry/Exits are like Planets, they are Controlled by a certain player (or no player)
If during 'combat' on the Previous turn, you were able to seize control of the Starlanes, then you may choose to Intercept on this turn.

Fleets that are ‘Hidden’ cannot Intercept, because they don’t control the starlane. Fleets that did not defend their control of the starlane in combat (they fled and ran around)

Basically the idea is you have to remember to
ONLY count on being able to intercept with fleets that are there or less than one starlane (and less than 1 turn) away....,
just like you have to remember that you can’t turn a fleet around inside a starlane (it has to come out, possibly get shot at, and have enough fuel to go back)

If “Intercept” requires something the turn before, then it will seem natural

As for having to put a scout in every system, being a strategic advantage, and therefore micromanagy
1. This exists without having anything to do with “the problem” or interception of fleet movement
It is useful to have a scout in every system to cut off supply to enemy ships... a scout is all you need....(that is far better at slowing them anyways... they can’t move at all without fuel)

2. A scout Isn’t all you need in every system for slowing/cutting off supply, you need to have a bigger fleet than your enemies in every system.... This involves potentially significant Cost.

and for comparison
3. It is a strategic advantage (significantly) to put a colony on every world that you can support.... (due to the fact that worlds have max population)... but there is a cost (food, building the colony ship, defending the colony).... same with a scout (any ship maintenance, building the scout, defending the scout.

If “intercept” is handled through “conquest of Starlanes”, then Its not micromanaging at all... It is expanding your empire.... By placing a scout in the system, you control the system, just like placing a colony on the world gives you control of the world. (and with a "system defense force" meter it would give you control of the system as well)

I don't care whether it's because of enemy action, magic or an act of God. The point is that the player should know where objects belonging to his own empire are at all times. Your other examples aren't relevant to this at all, and in fact illustrate good aspects of the strategic game which I would expect to occur.

The player made the decision knowing where his own ships were. Obviously there are going to be strategies involving hiding one's own fleets from the enemy and intercepting them. You know the risk when you commit your fleets separately like that. That's a good thing to happen. The enemy did something unexpected and gained an advantage but not by making the player not know where his own fleets were when he made his decision.

It's also not a problem when you don't know if your ships will be intercepted in the future. The Problem isn't that the player can't see into the future, it's that he doesn't know where his fleets are now. The player should know what combat assets he has in a system before committing to a combat in that system. In other words, the component of the initial conditions of the battle which consists of objects owned by the player should be known to the player before he commits to combat with those forces. Any attempt to say that things are fine without Battle Quanta must address this issue directly rather than simply giving a number of only-vaguely-related examples.

That's an unrelated problem. It is solved by making blockades more difficult in the later game, so that a single scout isn't good enough to cut off supply. Supply lines will presumably have some sort of rating which defines its ability to get through blockades, and a fleet will have some sort of rating that defines its ability to cut off supply lines, and supply will be either stopped or not, depending on the relation between these two values. Pointing out that other problems exist is not a valid argument for letting the problem in question continue to exist.

So wouldn't choosing to intercept essentially be committing to combat before you know which of your own forces are present for the beginning of the combat?

That's lame... cloaked or camouflaged ships engaging an enemy fleet is really cool (and of strategic significance).

That's true even if Battle Quanta are implemented. The difference is that here, if your reinforcements don't show up, you're committed to combat anyway. Presumably, the fleet in the system would notice if the other fleet didn't show up. Obviously, the player knows that the other fleet didn't show up before the battle began, and if the battle hasn't started, why does he still have to be committed to fighting the enemy fleet? Your system is just taking away choices from the player and replacing them with an unnatural and unintuitive "Intercept" command. By limiting and defining the options that way, you're taking away strategic choice for the player, yet simultaneously adding another different command for the player to have to make. You're increasing complexity while restricting strategic choice.

If the player wants to intercept a fleet, he should be able to use the simple command "engage enemy forces" while a fleet is trying to pass through the system. It's the situation that determines whether or not it's actually "Intercepting", and the player doesn't need us to make a distinction within the game mechanics between "Interception" and regular combat, which the player chooses normally. The different situations in which the basic set of simple commands can be used is what provides the wealth of strategic options that should be available. Specialized commands for specialized situations increases complexity by increasing the total number of commands which are possible and by assuming that we, the designers were able to think of specialized commands for every situation. The most important thing is to allow the player freedom to do all sorts of things without bogging him down with all sorts of different buttons.

Which makes the choice to blockade a specific system significant, because you need to have a significant fleet. But the enemy fleet shouldn't be the factor that increases cost. Instead, even a completely undefended system shouldn't be able to have resources stopped at it by a mere scout in the later game. Instead, blockades should always require a somewhat significant fleet. If a scout is significant in the early game, it should be able to cause a blockade. If 5 warships is fairly significant in the mid-game, then those 5 warships should be able to blockade the average supply route in the mid-game. Enemy fleets can stop this by blowing up some of your warships. This is what should happen.

At the end of the game, the cost of a scout is significantly less, but it's value for slowing enemy fleets is not decreased. This does not conform to a desirable design in which the usefulness of things is proportional to their relative cost (relative, that is, to overall production at that point in the game).

The usefulness of a colony (the production it will add to your empire relative to the overall production of your empire) decreases as you get more colonies. Likewise, the cost of a colony (how much it costs to build relative to the overall production of your empire) decreases as you get more colonies. This is a good relationship. Slowing down enemy fleets, on the other hand, never becomes less important. As such, it should cost approximately the same proportion of an empires resources to slow down approximately the same proportion of the enemies fleets in the late game as it did in the early game. If a scout can slow down fleets just as well in the early game as in the late game, but costs much less as a proportion of the empire's total production in the late game, that is a bad relationship between the change in cost and the change in value.

As I've mentioned, the value of a colony ship decreases proportionally with it's cost (both relative to the overall production of the empire). This makes the cost/value relationship of colonies a good one, where as the cost/value relationship of scouts is a bad one, because scouts are so incredibly cheap in the late game, but don't lose much value.

_________________
Warning: Antarans in dimensional portal are closer than they appear.

I wouldn't propose an infinite number of battle quanta, they would be overlapping, so you act out the same quanta over and over in different locations when there is more than one combat in a turn. I believe I understand what you're getting at with Battle Quanta (essentially a sub-turn or "combat turn"), and the only flaw I see is that if you are fighting in more than one location at a time, you need to maniacally switch back and forth from battle to battle because they're all acted out in pseudo-real time.



I assume that it will be tracked based on speed what quantum a fleet arrives in a system.. Let me try, if I can, to elaborate an example.

Given a chain of three systems in a row:
DEFENDER has a large fleet at System 1, and a single scout at System 2.
ATTACKER wishes to move through the scout system and destroy the main fleet at System 1. He has 2 fleets moving from System 3 to System 1, through System 2, one fast and one slow.

ATTACKER's fast fleet moves from System 3 to System 2 and comes out of the starlane early in the turn. The fast fleet gets dumped onto the combat map along with the DEFENDER's scout, and they can engage in combat, or if ATTACKER wishes he can just ignore the scout and head directly for the starlane to System 1. Some number of Quanta later, the slow fleet enters the same system, and is also dumped onto the combat map and can now enter the battle (presuming that DEFENDER's scout manages to survive that long). Once the conflict is resolved, one way or another, the fleets use their remaining movement points (some of which may have been used up during the fighting) to continue towards System 1.

During this conflict, at the end of each Quanta the server will continue to resolve orders for the rest of the empire, and the player may need to re-play some Quanta to resolve other conflicts that crop up in different systems.

Reinforcement of a combat would happen dependant exclusively on the speed of intercepting fleets and if they could get into the system during a Battle Quanta in which enemies were still in-system. Fleets are moving at different speeds, and it is unrealistic to assume that just because two fleets pass through the same system in an economic turn means they definately engaged each other.. It's like saying that because two people were both in the same building in one day, they were definately there at the same time.


This sounds like a very elegant solution, relatively easily implemented by research into "supply convoy"-esque technologies, but it doesn't help an attacker who is trying to move a fast fleet through enemy territory and can never move more than one system at a time because he's forced to stop and engage single scouts.

The simple solution to The Problem would be to simply say every ship has a "galactic" speed of 1, and the "speed" of a ship would really imply combat maneuverability only. It is limiting and un-fun, but it completely eliminates the problem, because then you can essentially say that all ships enter a system at the same time, and remain there for the entire turn. Reinforcements would only be able to enter a system at the start of a new economic turn, provided the battle had not been entirely resolved by then. Presumably each player is able to take a number of "combat turns/battle quanta" and if the battle isn't finished by the time the alloted number of these is used up, then it ends inconclusively and continues the next turn along with any reinforcements that arrive. Players will also have the option of giving retreat orders to any surviving fleet assets on the next turn.

As far as "how many quanta should there be in an economic turn?", I would suggest that whatever the absolute maximum any player can make a ship's "Speed", should be the number of quanta in a turn. A ship with the highest possible speed would be able to act in every battle quanta, while ships with worse maneuverability would act only in some of them.. For example if the maximum possible speed of a ship is 10..

A ship with 10 speed will act in every quanta.
A ship with 5 speed will act in every other quanta.
A ship with 1 speed acts in the first quanta only.
Etc..

Quanta in which no ships are able to act (likely in the early game) will simply be skipped or ignored.

-Ty.

Multiple combats occurring in the same Battle Quantum would be controlled consecutively if the player is directly controlling them. In a multiplayer game in which a player can only control one battle per quantum to save time, the others are resolved by the AI. There is no possibility to switch between battles mid-quantum, ever. If that was a possibility, there wouldn't be any point in having Battle Quanta at all (a single combat turn would be the smallest unit of time, since there would be no significant difference between battles occurring in consecutive quanta).

This is essentially what I've proposed. The player wouldn't be able to play out a combat in a later Battle Quantum than one in which there is an unresolved combat, though, so "re-playing" the same Battle Quantum in a different system (which would be relatively common in a single-player game) would occur before any later Battle Quantum could be played through. In addition, it would be possible in your example, for the battle between Attacker's fast fleet and Defender's scout to last long enough for Attacker's slow fleet to reach the system and take part in the same combat as reinforcements.

A fleet is said to spend an entire Battle Quantum in a system before moving on. If two fleets arrive at the same system during the same Battle Quantum and one of them wants combat, there will be combat. This is reasonable.

That's because the quoted portion of my post addresses an entirely different problem. The scout-stopping-a-death-fleet problem is neatly solved by saying that each fleet always spends a single Battle Quantum in each system. If the relative strengths of the fleet are such that the blockading force is incapable of keeping the passing-through fleet engaged in combat for more than a single Battle Quantum, the passing-through fleet did not lose any speed. (This is a perfect example of integrating different complex strategies into pre-existing game mechanics, rather than jumping to create new buttons and commands for intercepting enemy fleets.)

There are more fun and less limiting ways to deal with the problem, and settling for an idea which is that limiting and un-fun is not very appealing, particularly when another viable, understandable and fun solution is available.

I believe that it's better for a fleet's movement speed to be spread out over the entire turn. Suppose there is a fleet with speed 1 which is going to just barely get into a system this turn. Why should it appear in the system at the same time as a ship with speed 10 is breezing through on its first Battle Quantum of speed? Slow ships which are arriving later should simply arrive later. What if the slow ship, after he arrives in the system that turn, goes, on the first Battle Quantum, through a Stargate which allows instantaneous travel? Don't tell me he won't get there until the next economic turn, and be unable to participate in combat on the same turn after having traversed the stargate. I suspect that the superficial problems I've mentioned are also rooted in underlying conflicts which are inherent in this system you propose, which would cause some paradoxical issues with combat resolution, though I haven't yet thought in detail of any specific examples where this would be the case...

Yep.

_________________
Warning: Antarans in dimensional portal are closer than they appear.

You've clarified this for me, and I agree with everything here. Makes perfect sense. What I was unsure of is how multiple combats would be handled.. Sequentially in single player, and in a multiplayer game you basically pick the most important fight and the AI resolves the rest. It's a bit of a dance around, and depending on the AI it may necessitate a massive strategic shift in the player.. If the AI is untrustworthy or foolish, then broad wave attacks on multiple systems in the same turn could be a train wreck. This is all a balancing issue though and really a tangent to the discussion, so I digress.

If I can simplify things down into a mouthful, the system of Battle Quanta means that during a single turn:
- An economic turn (really just setting orders) is followed by a set number of Battle Quanta where those orders are executed
- The end-of-turn resolution of orders given in an economic turn is done one Quanta at a time
- The movement of a given fleet is determined by it's speed, and fleets move at a rate of 1 per X Quanta
- Orders are resolved, and based on ship speed it is calculated where each fleet is at the beginning of each Quantum
- At any point where two opposing fleets are in the same system during the same Quantum, they are prompted for combat (which is further subdivided into a certain number of combat turns)
- If the combat is not resolved during the time alloted for a single Quantum, it continues into the next Quantum, which opens it up for involvement by outside assets not involved in the initial battle, but which can enter/exit the system on subsequent Quanta until the conflict is resolved


Again, makes excellent sense. Fleets presumably need to take time after a starlane "jump" to run diagnostics and prepare for the next "jump" anyways, so the solution is elegant and logical.


If the entire system of fleet movement is based on Battle Quanta (Fleet movement speed measured in 1 per X Quanta), then this problem is inherently solved. Fleets given a movement order would have the distance calculated out, and therefore would know how many Quanta it would take to reach a destination. Issuing a movement order would give a response like "We will reach target system X on Quantum 5, 3 turns from now." Obviously you could dress that up to look neater, but that is essentially what it would be. It only becomes a problem if you separate galactic movement into Moves-Per-Turn by Fleet Speed, and only use Battle Quanta for in-system movement and combat resolution.

-Ty.

Edit: Grammar, clarification.

Now the player Does know where they are now
My resources
Scout ship in system A
Big Fleet en route to system A (due this turn)

What they can do NOW
Move
Intercept movement

They do so.... new situation

Now
Scout ship.. in system A with Enemy fleet it just Intercepted
My Fleet...in system B, where the Enemy Scout Intercepted it

Now I decide on Combat
If my scout decides not to combat in system A, the enemy gains control of all the starlanes here, I will have to regain them by combat.
If the enemy scout decides not to combat, the same thing happens in system B.
(of course if those scouts DO decide to combat they will probably lose any ways... so both Fleets leave a rear guard to hunt down the scout, and make sure they can keep getting through.. and letting them Intercept.)


The problem appears to be commiting to combat with unknown forces.

The issue therefore is resolved if Interception does not require committing to combat.... This turn. The combat is performed the Previous turn, to gain "control of the starlanes" (automatic if there are no enemy forces in the system)

Because "Intercept" as a comand requires that you not move that turn, it is a move command.


Colonies have purposes Other than what they produce, they allow you to produce somethig in a location... they give you control of territory... a potential source for supply,repair,ship production, detection, etc.

The yield/return on a simple production factor increases for them throughout the game, but Control of Territory maintains its value.

Of course Control of Territory requires more than just the colony ship, you must be able to defend the new colony.. enemy military can eliminate your investment.

Same thing with a scout.

As for scouts not being able to blockade...simple rule: If it can't Blockade, it can't Intercept (if Better Supply depots can get through stronger blockades, so can better military ships)

Basically Blockading a supply line and Intercepting an enemy fleet moving should be handled by the same mechanic... "control of starlane"... a strategically important thing that can be fought over... It does not require combat to Use this, it only requires combat to Get it.


As for Battle Quanta...as I mentioned before they solve nothing* that isn't solved by simply saying that "all ships must stop at each system they come to, and not move until the next 'turn'"
*except the idea that that movement would be too slow relative to the number of economic turns
I still think they might work as a system, but I would make them 'decimal turns'

Ie you are at turn 12.0 as soon as you hit end turn, the 'turn counter rolls through 12.1, 12.2,12.3 (and ships move/combat happens each '.' turn) when you get to 13.0 you do all the normal turn stuff. This way you aren't working with two separte time systems.



Core of the problem, interception (which affects movement) requires combat (which comes After movement)
So to resolve it
1. Interception does not require Combat in the turn it is performed, but in the previous turn, 'starlane control'
2. "Interception" happens in every system, it doesn't even require a ship, "Battle Quanta" (modify turns so that this restriction isn't annoying)

That's essentially it, though it is still open to debate whether economic "activity", i.e. building, resource production, etc. should occur all at once after all combat has been resolved, or gradually throughout the turn, with a 10th of the turn's economic activity occurring after each Battle Quantum. For the sake of simplicity, I'm heavily leaning towards the former, since there aren't really any additional interesting situations that could come up in combat if the latter solution is implemented as opposed to the former, though perhaps it would make it mesh more intuitively with the mechanics of combat.

More accurately, fleet movement speed would be measured in X per 1 Battle Quantum (but displayed to the player as 10X per turn, of course), where X is a distance measured in uus.

But you've already stopped the enemy fleet. How can there possibly be no combat? Even if the player is able to order an enemy fleet to be stopped dead in its tracks without committing to combat (which shouldn't be possible, IMO), the enemy fleet now has nothing to lose by blasting your scout to smithereens. Same with any modest interception fleet trying to stop a death fleet without reinforcements. Whether or not you've officially committed to combat in terms of the mechanics of the game, you have effectively committed to combat by making it advantageous for the enemy to attack you. Which means that officially separating Interception from Combat in terms of game mechanics is essentially meaningless and doesn't really solve anything. This would also mean that enemy fleets can't be intercepted by cloaked ships (as you mentioned), which is kind of lame (as I mentioned).


The Problem is more elegantly solved if interception involves committing to combat with known forces, which means that there is no uncertainty regarding which of your forces will be in the system when combat begins. Battle Quanta accomplish this.

It's true that they ostensibly give you control of territory, but if the enemy fleet can come in and wipe out your planet (which should be easier late-game, when there are more planets) before you can make use of your advantage, it wasn't really an advantage at all. In the case of the scout, the fact that the enemy fleet had to stop and wipe out the scout is the advantage, and it is an advantage well worth the cost of the scout, regardless of whatever other advantages the scout could have offered. I doubt it would be worth the cost of a new colony, and perhaps there would be other ramifications to happiness or allegiance if you used a new colony as fodder like that. So basically, building a colony just to get it destroyed still isn't worth it. The same should usually be true of anything else, but of course there are always tricks that the player can use that involve stuff getting destroyed. It just shouldn't be an obvious strategy to sacrifice a scout to stop an enemy fleet.

Even better, IMO, is if the effectiveness of intercepting an enemy fleet is determined entirely by combat. It makes sense that the relative strength of fleets should determine the effectiveness of interception, and what more accurate way to determine that but in combat?


I was considering that as a method of displaying ETAs to the player (not every single one would need to be shown, just the ones in which the fleet arrives in a system). It's also one of the reasons I prefer to have 10 Battle Quanta, specifically. So that's essentially what I had in mind.



Just 2 seems like enough to solve the problem, IMO. 1 requires the game to keep track of which player has "starlane control" in each system, and therefore introduces some unnecessary game mechanics. I don't think any significant strategies are possible with game-defined "starlane control" that aren't possible with just plain old "ships are able to attack other empire's ships".

_________________
Warning: Antarans in dimensional portal are closer than they appear.

Well the only remaining objections to Battle Quanta I can think of is that

1. It allows multiple Battles per turn with the same Fleet. One Fleet could conceivably attack and destroy the Fleets in N(10?) other systems in one turn. (assuming it was a super death Fleet)
[Although I tend to like that one]

2. It gives a very unrealistic feeling of time... if each battle quanta is one minute, and during each battle quanta fleets move 1/10 of an economic turns worth of movement, it seems like a turn is 10 minutes of time (having one battle per turn avoids this, because of the feeling that the one Battle didn't take up the actual Time Between the turns)

Perhaps if each Battle Quanta Ended the Battle so it didn't go smoothly from one Battle Quanta to another (ie for each Battle Quanta you re-Set up ALL your forces, including ones that are already in the system

so each Battle Quanta would be
Movement
Forces Arrive in system
Set up forces for combat
Combat... when combat runs into time limit or all of one side leaves the system, repeat

The question does arrive if during a Battle Quanta you can issue movement orders to ships NOT involved in combat (since you can issue orders to ones in combat by telling them to go through various starlanes while in combat)

You really should be able to I think, just because
1. You may want to time fleets to all arrive on the same Battle Quanta (so if 1 fleet will take 15 quanta to reach a system and another will take 16 quanta, you will want to send them on particular Quanta)
2. You may want to send reinforcements to a battle in progress

So Modifying the sequence it would be
1. Movement orders
2. Movement
3. Forces Arrive in system
4. Set up forces for combat
5. Combat... when combat runs into time limit or all of one side leaves the system, repeat

Battle Quanta would Normally be on an "auto move to next quanta if there is no combat" but a Player could turn that off if they wanted to issue movement orders in a particular quanta.

I don't feel that this is a problem either.

I believe the plan already is to allow battles to carry over from one turn to the next, such that the initial conditions of the continued battle are the same as the final conditions of the previous battle, i.e. all ships are in the same locations and have the same orders as before. In this sense, Battle Quanta are no different from regular turns.

Personally, I like the potential for a more or less seamless combat that occurs over several Battle Quanta, with reinforcements occasionally arriving. Also, it could be an abuse to use a tactic which does a large amount of immediate damage to the enemy, but puts you in a bad tactical position, but then the Battle Quantum ends and you can magically regroup.

This should be able to be accomplished by giving the player the ability to define a specific Battle Quantum in which to arrive when he sends his fleet, allowing him to slow his fleets by up to one turn (because any more than that, and he can just send the fleets a turn later, and that could lead to a strange kind of abuse where a valuable ship is essentially "hidden" in a starlane for several turns). Maybe instead of clicking on the target system, he would double-click to open a pop-up where he has a chance to delay the arrival of his fleet by 1-9 Battle Quanta.

That could be a valid point. In addition, if the player leaves combat through a starlane which his fleet was not ordered to go through before, they would have to be stopped at the next system unless the player gave them further orders. Also, a player may learn of the existence of a hidden fleet in system C on his current path. In that case, he might want his fleet to exit system A and go to system B, but not continue on to system C.

On the other hand, it might be best to just consider a fleet to be committed to it's path of travel unless it's engaged in combat. That seems unnecessarily limiting, though.

How about at the end of each Battle Quantum in which there is combat (i.e. each one that isn't auto-end-turned), the player has the option to give new orders to his fleets, or to just continue onto the next Quantum. A fleet still wouldn't be able to turn around or change speed in mid-starlane, but it would be able to have its future destination and arrival times altered. The ability to alter arrival times within a range of 1 turn means that it's not necessary for the player to be able to give move orders on Quanta in which there is no combat, so all such Quanta can be auto-end-turn all the time. In addition, since the most immediate destination and its ETA is the only one the enemy can see, and that destination and its ETA can never be changed (once a ship starts along a starlane, it must stay at the same speed, going in the same direction until it reaches the other end), there could be no abuse of this ability be sneakily changing the orders of your ships between Battle Quanta all the time when the enemy isn't paying attention.

So the order of a Battle Quantum would be as follows:

If there is a combat starting in that Battle Quantum:

1) Movement
2) Forces arrive in system
3) Set up forces for combat
4) Combat
5) When combat ends due to only one empire's forces remaining in the system, all empires present no longer wishing to continue combat, or the time limit, players have the option to give new movement orders to fleets if desired.

If there is a combat continuing in that Battle Quantum

1) Movement
2) Reinforcements arrive in system
3) Set up reinforcements to join in combat, and issue any changes to combat goals in light of the presence of reinforcements.
4) Combat
5) When combat ends for any reason, players have the option to give new movement orders if desired.

If there is no combat

1) Movement

_________________
Warning: Antarans in dimensional portal are closer than they appear.

I figured the forces would have to be redeployed for combat carrying over between turns (based on their previous situation) It Works, but just feels Very wierd if a missile stops mid flight while I decide whether or not to build (and possibly finish) a battleship in this system [essentially causing a ship to appear in the mid battle]


Well I think this is more a problem with How combat will carry over and be time limited.
In any case I think we agree that Battle Quanta, and Regular turns should operate the same way in terms of combat moving from one 'segment' to onother


It might be better for it to be this way...
You click on the system, and the ETA displays... but you can also click on any fleet that is in a system and has movement orders and "delay launch"... by up to 0.9 turns (and it would actually do that... If I was launching a fleet from System A and I delayed it -.4 turns (4 quanta) and the enemy came into system A on Quanta 2.... the Fleet would still be there)

Then allowing Movement orders only at the end of any quanta on which ?You? had combat would be a reasonable limitation.



Seems good... if the 'delay launch' is put in.
Although 'combat starting in that battle quantum' shouldn't be the requirement, but "combat Potentially starting in that battle quanta". So that if two massive forces arrive in the same system, they players can both decline combat, but change their movement orders in response to the fact of a massive enemy fleet that they Could have had combat with. (but decided not too)..

Basically you shouldn't have to initiate combat to retreat (if the other side wants to let you retreat/just keep moving)

Really liking seeing this develop.. Seems to be getting very cohesive and usable.



I believe for the purpose of the exercise we're defining "combat" as any time multiple non-allied fleets are in the same system. Whether they actually engage each other is up to the players/AI anyways. Basically you are just transitioning from a strategic to a tactical interface for the duration of the battle quantum, then at the end of the quantum, you are given opportunity to reassess your strategic situation and alter movement orders.

That said, I'm not sure players should be able to alter strategic orders between quanta. At that point you're getting a bit micromanagey, and diluting the significance of the economic turn. It makes more sense to separate them and on an economic turn, you make strategic decisions, and then during the battle quanta you are acting tactically.

It's not that 10 battle quanta = 1 economic turn.. An economic turn is essentially a moment frozen in time when all the orders for the year/day/whatever are given out, and then the battle quanta are the chunks of time in which your fleets, planets and generals are enacting those orders. By allowing players to give new fleet movement orders between quanta you slow the game down and cause them to have to make strategic decisions 10 times per turn rather than once.

If you order your fleets to a world, and then midway through the battle quanta you find you have need of them elsewhere, then tough patooties, you made the wrong decision strategically, and you'll have to change orders on the next economic turn.

As far as production timing, complex interaction between new buildings being finished, ships being built, etc. etc. can be largely avoided by having production times given in Turns, or multiples of 10 quanta, so that you can count on major projects being finished on the Economic turn only.

-Ty.

Unless you get involved in combat.
Fleets that get involved in combat will automatically have the opportunity to "change movement orders"

Ie System A has starlanes to systems B, C, and D

A Fleet on its way from B to C gets intercepted at A, as part of combat they can move to the starlane for D or back to B or keep moving to the starlane for C... this is a Combat action that changes their movement orders.

It seems ridiculous that you might Want to engage in combat simply to turn around

The issue is that combat
1. naturally gives you the opportunity to change movement orders (for the ships involved)
2. gives you new information which might change where you want to move.

Admittedly, If you have Ships that are fast enough this allows you to set up an "active defense"

I keep a Big Fleet in the center of my empire, and Scouts on the fringes, their sole purpose being to 'trigger conbat' with any incoming forces, so that I get the opportunity to move my Big defense Fleet to my Eatern or Western Front mid turn. (giving it additional flexibility)


Of course this means it is still worthwhile to put a scout in every system, because every time the enemy enters a system with my scout in it, I can change orders.

Presumably, if there was a Battle Quantum in which there was a battle which the player could observe, due to spies, etc., but not actively take part in due to not actually owning any objects in the combat, then he would still have a chance to adjust move orders after that Battle Quantum.

Agreed.

Not quite... if two fleets belonging to different empires are in the same system and neither of them wants combat, then there should be no transition to the tactical interface. "Combat" is defined as any time in which the tactical interface is activated, which would not necessarily occur even if two enemy fleets were in the same system unless one of them deliberately engaged the other. Essentially, I would say that every time something happens that upsets the continual stream of auto-end-turn, the player should have a chance to change move orders.

That was my opinion at first as well, however, I came to realize that there could be situations in which it would not make any sense that way. Recall that a fleet which is engaged in combat is under no obligation to continue along its predefined move path, since it can exit combat through any starlane. If the player had really wanted to change the course of a fleet due to something he found out in the first Battle Quantum, then it would just be a fabulous stroke of luck if the fleet in question ran into a random recon vessel. Since the fleet engaged the random scout in combat, now it doesn't have to face the enemy death fleet... that doesn't seem like very sound causality to me...

There are a lot of different strategic decisions that the player will be making. Fleet movement only comprises a small fraction of these decisions. The rest of the decisions, such as what to build and where, where and how to engage in espionage missions, diplomacy, etc., will only occur on the economic turn. This means that the economic turn is still very significant in terms of what the player can do, and the decision making on that turn is much more significant and time-consuming. Any fleet movement decisions between Quanta would be very limited in scope, since they would usually be based on a single new piece of evidence that the player has gained about the whereabouts of enemy fleets.

Or, you could meet an enemy fleet, and have the chance to change move orders that way. Better yet, you could deliberately engage an allied fleet so that you could just pass through a different starlane without actually trying to destroy each other. Then it would become a huge advantage for you and your allies to each have a scout in each system, so you could use that as a way to give fleet orders mid-turn. That sounds like abuse to me. Better to just make it allowed to give orders after Battle Quanta. If a sneaky, roundabout way of giving an order can be contrived by the player, as a consequence of game mechanics which we agree to be necessary, then there should be a simple way to explicitly give said order.

The only thing production time really dictates is the minimum production time in which a project can be completed. If there is less than enough resources available to complete it in that time, it can be completed in any greater amount of time, which doesn't necessarily have to be a whole number of turns.

Resource production and distribution will only happen once per turn. All of the empires resources will be produced at once and distributed throughout the empire. The state of resource supply lines during the economic turn will determine where the resources can go. The question is though, should the resources be applied all at once, or should they be applied gradually throughout the turn, so that a ship or building could be completed at a specific Battle Quantum. Since such objects can participate in combat, it makes a certain amount of sense that they could be completed and enter combat at any time during the turn, according to the same rules which govern other combat assets...

Then perhaps it would be worthwhile to give the player a chance to review the situation and change move orders every time there is a change in visibility. That way, players would only need to put scouts in systems that can't be seen into easily already, and wouldn't have to worry about systems which contain planets belonging to his empire. It might seem ponderous, but it appears to be necessary to maintain the player's command of his empire. I don't think that this is likely to add more than a minute each turn, in a fairly combat-rich game, which is relatively inconsequential next to potentially 10 minutes of combat in a similarly combat-rich game.

In essence, gaining visibility of new objects would be considered something that "interrupts the continuous stream of auto-end-turn".

_________________
Warning: Antarans in dimensional portal are closer than they appear.