To make combat less boring, at this time i think we would be better off focusing on giving the player more control over combat, rather than adding more wrinkles to the hulls and parts. But how does that fit in the with long-delayed 3D tactical combat?In another thread eleazzar wrote:Actually a linear progression of power was something purposefully aimed for. We used to have different kinds of weapons/shields and armor that were supposed to have a rock/paper/scissors type of relationship (I'm not sure if it was ever functional).
I took them out because of the limitations of non-tactical combat UI. When you have ships A > B > C >A, and no way to try to deploy ship C against ship A, while deploying other ships against something else-- that's just complications that make for a worse, more frustration experience. There's the secondary issue of how to figure out that C >A, when you don't have the tangible experience of seeing graphics of C ships destroying A. Gleaning that info from a highly detailed sitrep is not my idea of a good or enjoyable interface. (having the data there for those who want to really go in depth is fine, but you shouldn't have to pour over such lists to have a clue about whats going on.)
Its no good designing cool features that don't work in the actual game context, or that make the game less fun for years until something else is implemented.
If we are still sitting on the fence about weather the game will ultimately include 3D tactical RTS combat, i think there are still some things we can do that will:Also in that thread Geoff the Medio wrote:If suitably skilled and motivated programmers for implementing the 3D interface don't become available, abandoning a 3D combat system will be unavoidable. So far it hasn't really prevented other development work, and there are still numerous other game systems that need implementing as well, so I've been content to wait. Despite the recent enthusiasm for complicating the combat system, I still feel like that is the case. At the least, efforts could be made to nominally use some of the above design ideas for any combat complicating that is done.eleazar wrote:Personally, i'd be happy to abandon the idea of 3D RTS combat. It just adds so hugely to the art/code/balancing/ai required to complete this project.
- * make combat more interactive and interesting
* take much less time than 3D RTS combat
* and be equally useful weather we ultimately have 3D RTS combat or not
Here's basically how i see it playing out:
When Enemy ships end up at the same system, a "Battle" is added to the combat queue. When you click on that item a window opens up, and the map zooms to the combat location, and you can examine the involved fleets, and whatever else you want.
You have several options, "Retreat", "Defend", & "Charge!", and sometimes maybe special options enabled by certain ship parts. Each side would make his choice without knowing the other's choice.
Once the orders issued, that "Battle" in the queue gets a checkmark or something to show that it has been dealt with. The player can change his mind at any point before the end of the turn. If the player doesn't issue orders on a particular battle the same AI that the AI players use will choose an order for the fleet.
As it works now, combat will be resolved between turns, and the results displayed on the next turn's sit rep -- including the orders each side issued.
Later more bells and whistles could be added such as different orders for different fleets in the same battle, and more tactically specific orders.