what type of game are we creating...

For what's not in 'Top Priority Game Design'. Post your ideas, visions, suggestions for the game, rules, modifications, etc.

Moderator: Oberlus

Message
Author
User avatar
Krikkitone
Creative Contributor
Posts: 1540
Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2003 6:52 pm

#31 Post by Krikkitone »

Aquitaine wrote:(unofficially, I'm with you on the 3d objects on a 2d plane. my current plan for space combat is the Total War engine in space, and we could use it for ground combat, too! of course, I also want a pony. can't have it all.)
Any description available for the key features of the Total War engine (since a form of 'phased combat' seems the best from my perspective so far, but new ideas are always fun to assimilate or annihilate)

luckless666
Pupating Mass
Posts: 90
Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2003 3:16 am
Location: West Sussex, United Kingdom

#32 Post by luckless666 »

Krikkitone wrote:always fun to assimilate or annihilate
LOL
Chris Walker
| c.walker (at) mgt.hull.ac.uk |

WorldForge.org

Aquitaine
Lead Designer Emeritus
Posts: 761
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 1:54 pm
Location: Austin, TX

#33 Post by Aquitaine »

The system used in the Medieval: Total War game. (and the Shogun: Total War game before that, and the upcoming Rome: Total War game, and also the British TV show Time Commanders.)

Obviously you couldn't do a straight adaptation for space, but it's the best tactical combat engine I've ever seen. And if we -could- figure it out for space, we'd have most of the work done for using it as a ground combat engine as well.

-Aq
Surprise and Terror! I am greeted by the smooth and hostile face of our old enemy, the Hootmans! No... the Huge-glands, no, I remember, the Hunams!

Daveybaby
Small Juggernaut
Posts: 724
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2003 11:07 am
Location: Hastings, UK

#34 Post by Daveybaby »

I originally had high hopes that the Moo3 combat engine was going to be the space equivalent of the total war engine. On paper it seemed to have everything (ambushes, different task force types having different strengths and weaknesses, tactical manoeuvers, etc) but in practice it just ended up being one bunch of ships shooting at another bunch until one of the bunches was destroyed.

There will always be some serious problems in trying to transfer the intricacies of the TW engine into space combat. For a start many of the things which are key factors in TW combat (morale, terrain, weather, formations, the rock-paper-scissors maneouvring of spears vs swords vs ranged vs cavalry) just dont seem to fit well into a space combat scenario.

The trick will be to try to come up with some analogous attributes to try to make space combat interesting.

A while ago i wrote a massive post over on the Orion Sector about this very thing - just for my ego's sake i'm gonna take the opportunity to paste it here :P :
Tactics in Space Combat

Why do we need Tactical Elements?

Tactical elements to gameplay force the players to diversify their approach to the game, otherwise every ship design is the same, and every combat becomes one big blob of ships attacking another big blob, until one side is destroyed. This becomes very, very, boring.

IMO Moo2 has the worst tactical combat of any game ever. It confuses micromanagement with tactics. What wins battles in moo2 is ship design, and nothing else.


Games with Strong Tactical Elements

* Most RTS games are really Real-Time-Tactical with some simple strategic resource management thrown in. However the tactical elements of most of these are pretty limited (i.e. select all of your units, click on enemy units. Wait).
* Turn based wargames, such as the Battle Isle series, the 5-Star General series etc have very strong tactical combat.
* Squad based tactical games (such as the X-Com series) have a very strong tactical element.
* The Total War series have very strong real-time tactical elements, and are the current benchmark to aim for in tactical combat.

All of the above games utilise the some or all of the following gameplay elements (to varying degrees) to achieve tactical gameplay.

(1) Strategic Objectives : These have to be more than just 'wipe out the enemy'. In most RTS games, this takes the form of access to resources, forcing the player to come out and fight, and to try to hold multiple parts of the map, instead of sitting at home waiting for the enemy to come to them. Homeworld is a classic example - if there werent resources to fight over (e.g. if the combat was part of a 4x game) then combat would simply be a case of throwing all of your ships at the enemy and hoping (although its not far off that anyway).

(2) Unit strengths and weaknesses : Example, the Total War series uses a limited number of unit types, each with their own strengths and weaknesses. Knowing which units to use against which is the key to winning. Theres kind of like a rock-scissors-paper thing going on.

(3) Terrain Effects : Some places to attack/defend from are more advantageous than others. e.g. in the Total War series gaining the high ground can be very useful. Similarly, terrain effects can hide units, allowing surprise attacks, and block incoming fire, providing defensive bonuses. This is related to point (1) above - i.e. it matters where the players forces are located.

(4) Detection Range : Not knowing where the enemy is at all times makes a massive difference to the tactics used. For example, in the X-Com games, not knowing where the enemy is hiding means that you must be very cautious in the positioning of your men, using cover at all times, and not leaving one man out on a limb without support to be picked off. Limited detection ranges are necessary if you want players to be able to execute sneak attacks, flanking manoeuvers etc.

(5) Engagement Range : In most games this is fairly limited, which makes the use of offensive and defensive formations an issue. For example, in the Total War series most combat is melee, and even ranged attacks are pretty limited in range, thus positioning is everything, and its pretty much impossible to concentrate all of your attacks on one unit at a time, forcing you to have a cohesive plan.

(6) Unit Behaviour : i.e. how the units AI affects its performance in the field. For example, in the Total War games unit morale is a key factor - winning a combat is not so much a matter of killing the most men (thats more of a long term strategic goal) but of forcing them off of the field. Maneouvers like hitting flanks etc has a significant effect on morale, and if a unit feels it is losing too badly it will break and flee.


Problems with Space Combat

Unfortunately for space based 4x games, most of the above techniques tend to be absent in space combat simulations.

(1) Strategic Objectives : Unfortunately in 4x games these tend to be dealt with outside the scope of the tactical combat - the only objective is usually to destroy the enemy before they destroy you.

(2) Unit Strengths and Weaknesses : If youre going to let players design their own ships from scratch (as in Moo) then it becomes very difficult to achieve this. Moo2 is the worst culprit - players have a tendency to build homogenous fleets with uber-weapons. Zero tactics. Moo3 tried to achieve this, with some limited success, by forcing the player to define ships as a certain type, then limiting the roles those ships could perform.

(3) Terrain Effects : These are usually nonexistent in Moo type games.

(4) Detection Range : This is critical, and if implemented can provide a large tactical element. However, on its own it is not sufficient - there must be incentives for players to split their fleets, otherwise combat will just consist of one huge ball of ships on each side fumbling around looking for each other before combat can begin. Once again, Moo3 attempted to introduce this, but the code appears to be totally broken.

(5) Engagement Range : Again, this is often far too high in this type of game. As a result there is little or no manoevering for position, and combat tends to be a case of focussing all firepower on one enemy unit (ship/fleet/stack) at a time until they are destroyed, then moving onto the next.

(6) Unit Behaviour : Again, this is sorely absent in moo-type games. Morale is nonexistent - ships do exactly what they tell them to. Moo3 had some variation in ship behaviour based on the ship type, but this was limited to target prioritisation, was usually overridden by the player, and was pretty much broken anyway.


Solutions for Space Combat

(1) Strategic Objectives : One simple enhancement can be to implement a time limit on combat - if the attacker has not won within a certain time they will have to retreat. This isnt going to be enough on its own. However if combined with some other elements it may force players to diversify their approaches.

(2) Unit Strengths and Weaknesses : The only way to really achieve this is to strongly limit player choices in ship design, something which doesnt tend to go down to well with fans of the genre.

(3) Terrain Effects : If combat was focussed at a system level rather than on a planetary scale, then planets and stars could be made to provide terrain benefits (e.g. hide behind planets or asteroid fields). There was an ability to hide behind planets/moons in moo3, but this usually had limited effect on the outcome of battles.

(4) Detection Range : Possibly give the defender an advantage by giving them full visibility (possibly they would have to build an array of sensor satellites in the system first) while the attacker's visibility is limited. Possibly this could add some objectives the attacker has an incentive to destroy sensor sattelites, the defender has an interest in defending them. Possibly make ships in orbit around planets harder to detect.

(5) Engagement Range : This has to be carefully balanced with detection range. Obviously missiles are long range (but not necessarily unlimited range) but this advantage has to be offset by limited ammo and the fact that missiles can be shot down. Even the longest range beam weapons shouldnt allow players to snipe at each other from across the map.

(6) Unit Behaviour : Implementing a morale system for ship combat is probably not feasible. Ships go where their captains tell them to.


Summary

Its telling that the moo games which limit the players choices the most are those with the best tactical elements. Moo1 forced all ships of the same design to move and fire together, with a limited number of designs, a simplistic combat arena (10x8 grid IIRC) and limited engagement range. As a result the tactical combat was more like a game of chess. Moo2 gave the player complete control over the design and behaviour of every ship, and as a result every ship was the same, all lined up against each other in a tedious micromanaged battle of attrition. Moo3 looked promising, but the ridiculous level of bugs and poor user interface reduced every battle to a simplistic tarball.
You should probably take the Solutions and Summary sections with a pinch of salt - theyre not very well thought out and most of the ideas probably wouldnt work. However i think that the issues that they try to address are the ones which need to be solved somehow in order to make space combat interesting.

Since i wrote that i've given it a lot more thought, and some of the solutions i've come up with are:

(1) Terrain advantage : Kind of like in total war, have some kind of a 'high ground' which confers an advantage on whoever holds it. One way of implementing this would be to have regions which make ships sitting in them more difficult to target. A technobabble justification for this would have to be knocked up - 'subspace distortion' or something. You would probablyneed to limit the number of ships which can fit into such an area, to try to prevent the defender just parking their entire fleet in there and waiting.

(2) Ship class bonuses : Confer bonuses on ships of a defined class. E.g. PD ships have enhanced accuracy vs missiles. Theres a detailed list of ideas for ship class bonuses here. More shameless self promotion. Sorry.

(3) Formation bonuses. Allow the player to choose formations for their task forces (if taks forces end up being in the game) which provide bonuses and penalties in certain situations, e.g. make ships take more damage if hit from multiple sides (flanking is a vital tactic to try to encourage), and have some formations provide mitigation for this at the expense of focussed firepower, while others provide maximum offensive/defensive capability in one direction while leaving the task force vulnerable to attack from the sides or rear.

Alternatively (if combat goes the moo2 route of a smaller number of ships which are individually controlled in detail) you could have shield facings which bias shields forwards or provide all round cover.

User avatar
utilae
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 2175
Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2003 12:37 am
Location: Auckland, New Zealand

#35 Post by utilae »

(1) Terrain advantage : Kind of like in total war, have some kind of a 'high ground' which confers an advantage on whoever holds it. One way of implementing this would be to have regions which make ships sitting in them more difficult to target. A technobabble justification for this would have to be knocked up - 'subspace distortion' or something. You would probablyneed to limit the number of ships which can fit into such an area, to try to prevent the defender just parking their entire fleet in there and waiting.
What about nebulas. Some nebulas may slow down the ship, disable shields, etc.
(2) Ship class bonuses : Confer bonuses on ships of a defined class. E.g. PD ships have enhanced accuracy vs missiles.
Seems logical.
(3) Formation bonuses. Allow the player to choose formations for their task forces (if taks forces end up being in the game) which provide bonuses and penalties in certain situations, e.g. make ships take more damage if hit from multiple sides (flanking is a vital tactic to try to encourage), and have some formations provide mitigation for this at the expense of focussed firepower, while others provide maximum offensive/defensive capability in one direction while leaving the task force vulnerable to attack from the sides or rear.
I like this idea. ships can be put in a formation. Each formation has advantages and weaknessess. One formation may improve speed and offense, but reduce defense.
Alternatively (if combat goes the moo2 route of a smaller number of ships which are individually controlled in detail) you could have shield facings which bias shields forwards or provide all round cover.
I say we have them anyway.

Aquitaine
Lead Designer Emeritus
Posts: 761
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 1:54 pm
Location: Austin, TX

#36 Post by Aquitaine »

A very good post. I'd love to make a lengthy reply to it but if I don't focus on the research tree stuff then it'll never get done. :P Don't worry, soon!
Surprise and Terror! I am greeted by the smooth and hostile face of our old enemy, the Hootmans! No... the Huge-glands, no, I remember, the Hunams!

PowerCrazy
Creative Contributor
Posts: 383
Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2003 2:35 am
Location: Texas

#37 Post by PowerCrazy »

I have one minor concern. That of ground combat. I think the MoO2 method was plenty good. You build troops and deploy them at the planet. A little graphic of soldiers shooting, and the results are in. I don't really want to make a game out of just the ground combat. Also for paceing in Multiplayer ground combat shouldn't be all that involved.

Ship combat should be though. But there won't really be "terrain" per se. though I think the planets and moons if drawn on the battle map as actual scaled size would provide more than enough terrain, or we could have little moons around all the planets where the battle takes place.... Or we could just do it by sensor range.
Aquitaine is my Hero.... ;)

luckless666
Pupating Mass
Posts: 90
Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2003 3:16 am
Location: West Sussex, United Kingdom

#38 Post by luckless666 »

Daveybaby wrote:
Tactics in Space Combat

Why do we need Tactical Elements?

Tactical elements to gameplay force the players to diversify their approach to the game, otherwise every ship design is the same, and every combat becomes one big blob of ships attacking another big blob, until one side is destroyed. This becomes very, very, boring.

IMO Moo2 has the worst tactical combat of any game ever. It confuses micromanagement with tactics. What wins battles in moo2 is ship design, and nothing else.


Games with Strong Tactical Elements

* Most RTS games are really Real-Time-Tactical with some simple strategic resource management thrown in. However the tactical elements of most of these are pretty limited (i.e. select all of your units, click on enemy units. Wait).
* Turn based wargames, such as the Battle Isle series, the 5-Star General series etc have very strong tactical combat.
* Squad based tactical games (such as the X-Com series) have a very strong tactical element.
* The Total War series have very strong real-time tactical elements, and are the current benchmark to aim for in tactical combat.

All of the above games utilise the some or all of the following gameplay elements (to varying degrees) to achieve tactical gameplay.

(1) Strategic Objectives : These have to be more than just 'wipe out the enemy'. In most RTS games, this takes the form of access to resources, forcing the player to come out and fight, and to try to hold multiple parts of the map, instead of sitting at home waiting for the enemy to come to them. Homeworld is a classic example - if there werent resources to fight over (e.g. if the combat was part of a 4x game) then combat would simply be a case of throwing all of your ships at the enemy and hoping (although its not far off that anyway).

(2) Unit strengths and weaknesses : Example, the Total War series uses a limited number of unit types, each with their own strengths and weaknesses. Knowing which units to use against which is the key to winning. Theres kind of like a rock-scissors-paper thing going on.

(3) Terrain Effects : Some places to attack/defend from are more advantageous than others. e.g. in the Total War series gaining the high ground can be very useful. Similarly, terrain effects can hide units, allowing surprise attacks, and block incoming fire, providing defensive bonuses. This is related to point (1) above - i.e. it matters where the players forces are located.

(4) Detection Range : Not knowing where the enemy is at all times makes a massive difference to the tactics used. For example, in the X-Com games, not knowing where the enemy is hiding means that you must be very cautious in the positioning of your men, using cover at all times, and not leaving one man out on a limb without support to be picked off. Limited detection ranges are necessary if you want players to be able to execute sneak attacks, flanking manoeuvers etc.

(5) Engagement Range : In most games this is fairly limited, which makes the use of offensive and defensive formations an issue. For example, in the Total War series most combat is melee, and even ranged attacks are pretty limited in range, thus positioning is everything, and its pretty much impossible to concentrate all of your attacks on one unit at a time, forcing you to have a cohesive plan.

(6) Unit Behaviour : i.e. how the units AI affects its performance in the field. For example, in the Total War games unit morale is a key factor - winning a combat is not so much a matter of killing the most men (thats more of a long term strategic goal) but of forcing them off of the field. Maneouvers like hitting flanks etc has a significant effect on morale, and if a unit feels it is losing too badly it will break and flee.


Problems with Space Combat

Unfortunately for space based 4x games, most of the above techniques tend to be absent in space combat simulations.

(1) Strategic Objectives : Unfortunately in 4x games these tend to be dealt with outside the scope of the tactical combat - the only objective is usually to destroy the enemy before they destroy you.

(2) Unit Strengths and Weaknesses : If youre going to let players design their own ships from scratch (as in Moo) then it becomes very difficult to achieve this. Moo2 is the worst culprit - players have a tendency to build homogenous fleets with uber-weapons. Zero tactics. Moo3 tried to achieve this, with some limited success, by forcing the player to define ships as a certain type, then limiting the roles those ships could perform.

(3) Terrain Effects : These are usually nonexistent in Moo type games.

(4) Detection Range : This is critical, and if implemented can provide a large tactical element. However, on its own it is not sufficient - there must be incentives for players to split their fleets, otherwise combat will just consist of one huge ball of ships on each side fumbling around looking for each other before combat can begin. Once again, Moo3 attempted to introduce this, but the code appears to be totally broken.

(5) Engagement Range : Again, this is often far too high in this type of game. As a result there is little or no manoevering for position, and combat tends to be a case of focussing all firepower on one enemy unit (ship/fleet/stack) at a time until they are destroyed, then moving onto the next.

(6) Unit Behaviour : Again, this is sorely absent in moo-type games. Morale is nonexistent - ships do exactly what they tell them to. Moo3 had some variation in ship behaviour based on the ship type, but this was limited to target prioritisation, was usually overridden by the player, and was pretty much broken anyway.


Solutions for Space Combat

(1) Strategic Objectives : One simple enhancement can be to implement a time limit on combat - if the attacker has not won within a certain time they will have to retreat. This isnt going to be enough on its own. However if combined with some other elements it may force players to diversify their approaches.

(2) Unit Strengths and Weaknesses : The only way to really achieve this is to strongly limit player choices in ship design, something which doesnt tend to go down to well with fans of the genre.

(3) Terrain Effects : If combat was focussed at a system level rather than on a planetary scale, then planets and stars could be made to provide terrain benefits (e.g. hide behind planets or asteroid fields). There was an ability to hide behind planets/moons in moo3, but this usually had limited effect on the outcome of battles.

(4) Detection Range : Possibly give the defender an advantage by giving them full visibility (possibly they would have to build an array of sensor satellites in the system first) while the attacker's visibility is limited. Possibly this could add some objectives the attacker has an incentive to destroy sensor sattelites, the defender has an interest in defending them. Possibly make ships in orbit around planets harder to detect.

(5) Engagement Range : This has to be carefully balanced with detection range. Obviously missiles are long range (but not necessarily unlimited range) but this advantage has to be offset by limited ammo and the fact that missiles can be shot down. Even the longest range beam weapons shouldnt allow players to snipe at each other from across the map.

(6) Unit Behaviour : Implementing a morale system for ship combat is probably not feasible. Ships go where their captains tell them to.


Summary

Its telling that the moo games which limit the players choices the most are those with the best tactical elements. Moo1 forced all ships of the same design to move and fire together, with a limited number of designs, a simplistic combat arena (10x8 grid IIRC) and limited engagement range. As a result the tactical combat was more like a game of chess. Moo2 gave the player complete control over the design and behaviour of every ship, and as a result every ship was the same, all lined up against each other in a tedious micromanaged battle of attrition. Moo3 looked promising, but the ridiculous level of bugs and poor user interface reduced every battle to a simplistic tarball.
Very interesting read. In a hurry at the moment, but i'll give you feedback when i can. looks good though.
Chris Walker
| c.walker (at) mgt.hull.ac.uk |

WorldForge.org

iamrobk
Space Dragon
Posts: 289
Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2003 12:27 pm

#39 Post by iamrobk »

About Nebula's, Star Trek Starfleet Command (2?) implemented them very well IMO, where you lost all scanning and shields in them, and a few other things.

Aquitaine
Lead Designer Emeritus
Posts: 761
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 1:54 pm
Location: Austin, TX

#40 Post by Aquitaine »

I agree, PC - I don't think a really expansive ground combat system is something we need. However, since the TW engine holds its own on so many other levels, I would like to aim to adapt whatever engine we end up building for space to be useable for ground combat, probably after v1.0. I don't subscribe to MOO3's approach - I think we should give people either no control over ground combat, or let them actually run it, ala Total War.

But I'd be happy with a MOO2-esque system for v1.0.

-Aq
Surprise and Terror! I am greeted by the smooth and hostile face of our old enemy, the Hootmans! No... the Huge-glands, no, I remember, the Hunams!

Paul1980au
Space Floater
Posts: 24
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2004 8:08 pm
Location: Brisbane, australia

#41 Post by Paul1980au »

Have a look at the SEIV ground engine, id like a detailed planetary combat - perhaps incorparating a hex map and low platform defenses or shields.

Sandlapper
Dyson Forest
Posts: 243
Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2003 11:50 pm
Location: South Carolina, USA

#42 Post by Sandlapper »

Solutions for Space Combat

(1) Strategic Objectives : One simple enhancement can be to implement a time limit on combat - if the attacker has not won within a certain time they will have to retreat. This isnt going to be enough on its own. However if combined with some other elements it may force players to diversify their approaches.
I'm not crazy about a time limit; HOWEVER, I agree that diversity needs to be employed.
(2) Unit Strengths and Weaknesses : The only way to really achieve this is to strongly limit player choices in ship design, something which doesnt tend to go down to well with fans of the genre.
I think we need to break up the compatability of like weapons, e.g. beam weapons cannot be simply swapped one for another as beam level tech increases. Vary everything, weapons physical size, power level, power needed, effective range (PB,short,medium,long, very long), and the ability to use them. A fusion beam is medium power, medium range and requires two generators; an Ion beam has low power, long range, requires one generator, etc. A one generator ship is different from a two generator ship (size, speed, etc.). And finally, perhaps my favourite idea, have something that I like to think of as 'Inertial Instability' to effect all weapons to some degree. The effect being that at high speeds a weapon is affected by inertial instability and cannot be fired until a certain slower speed is reached. This causes ships/fleets to close to within close quarters to fire an effective barrage(also allowing time to set up flanking schemes). I would allow maybe a low powered, very long range weapon to be used at high speed, for SOME firepower. A defending planet,battlestation,fleet would have an advantage of firing long range weapons while waiting for an attacking fleet to close. This is effectively the same as having "The High Ground".
(3) Terrain Effects : If combat was focussed at a system level rather than on a planetary scale, then planets and stars could be made to provide terrain benefits (e.g. hide behind planets or asteroid fields). There was an ability to hide behind planets/moons in moo3, but this usually had limited effect on the outcome of battles.
I like system level at planetary scale; sounds real good.
(4) Detection Range : Possibly give the defender an advantage by giving them full visibility (possibly they would have to build an array of sensor satellites in the system first) while the attacker's visibility is limited. Possibly this could add some objectives the attacker has an incentive to destroy sensor sattelites, the defender has an interest in defending them. Possibly make ships in orbit around planets harder to detect.
We discussed this somewhat in the Probe thread; using probes as a sensor net. Idea being that in early game long range sensors are not invented yet and scouts use probes for scanning in detail. Probes would eventually be obselete by use of long range scanners, but the sensor array could still be used and upgraded. One specialized use was for cloaked ship detection.
(5) Engagement Range : This has to be carefully balanced with detection range. Obviously missiles are long range (but not necessarily unlimited range) but this advantage has to be offset by limited ammo and the fact that missiles can be shot down. Even the longest range beam weapons shouldnt allow players to snipe at each other from across the map.
See 2 above.
(6) Unit Behaviour : Implementing a morale system for ship combat is probably not feasible. Ships go where their captains tell them to.
The ships/fleet could have a quadrant system where if they receive so many attacks in more than one quadrant they become less enthusiastic to continue the fight and bolt from the system.

luckless666
Pupating Mass
Posts: 90
Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2003 3:16 am
Location: West Sussex, United Kingdom

#43 Post by luckless666 »

Sandlapper wrote:'Inertial Instability'
This is a good thought, but 'realistically' (gameplay should obviously come over realism) this wouldnt happen, as inertia is caused by gravity, of which there is none (or very little) in space. After all, a human in a space suit can travel at 35000 miles per hour in space and feel like hes standing still, yet such a speed would kill him on earth.
Chris Walker
| c.walker (at) mgt.hull.ac.uk |

WorldForge.org

Daveybaby
Small Juggernaut
Posts: 724
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2003 11:07 am
Location: Hastings, UK

#44 Post by Daveybaby »

utilae wrote:What about nebulas. Some nebulas may slow down the ship, disable shields, etc.
Nebulae in real life are just too big (covering hundreds of LY) to feature as separate features on a ship combat map. So that may annoy any realists among us. But basically we're still talking about the same thing, you could just call them asteroid fields, or dust clouds, or magnetic anomolies or something. Although i suppose at the end of the day, 99% of people arent going to know or care how big a nebula is in real life so you may as well have them in there.
utilae wrote:
Alternatively (if combat goes the moo2 route of a smaller number of ships which are individually controlled in detail) you could have shield facings which bias shields forwards or provide all round cover.
I say we have them anyway.
I have to disagree, basically, shield facings and formations are doing the same gameplay job, but which one you actually implement would depend on the final nature of the combat system (which still isnt decided iirc). i.e. if you have huge numbers of ships (as in Moo3), then your unit of control becomes the task force, and you control its formation. If you have a small number of ships which you individually control then you have shield distributions which do the same job. There is no real need to have both.

Daveybaby
Small Juggernaut
Posts: 724
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2003 11:07 am
Location: Hastings, UK

#45 Post by Daveybaby »

Sandlapper wrote:I'm not crazy about a time limit; HOWEVER, I agree that diversity needs to be employed.
I think that most people wont like the idea. However, the more i think about it, the more i am convinced it is necessary.

*If* you implement things like terrain advantages, limited engagement ranges, and/or limited visibility (basically most of the things which make tactical combat interesting in games like Total War), then there will be an advantage in finding a good spot and sitting there waiting to be attacked. If both sides do this then you have a mexican standoff. Maybe not a problem in SP but certainly not much fun for everyone else if youre in a MP game.

In every battle in the Total War games, one side was the attacker and one was the defender. The attacker has to complete their objectives before the time runs out or the defender wins, (although note that in the game options the timer can be set to any amount, or even disabled altogether). This forces the attacker to attack, which, after all, is the whole reason theyre there in the first place.

In any real life battle, time is often an issue. Your troops may be needed elsewhere soon. They will have to be fed, and supplies may be running low. You may need to attack before reinforcements arrive.

The timer question reminds me of another issue - combat vs the AI. If terrain effects can be used then the AI should take advantage of them. However, the AI shouldnt always just sit there waiting, and it shouldnt be easy to get it 'bored' by sitting there yourself and waiting for it to abandon its defensive position so that you get a cheesy win. Placing a time limit on combat and forcing the sides into attacker or defender roles fixes this problem - you effectively have 2 different general AI's - one for the attacking role, and one when defending.

Sandlapper wrote:I think we need to break up the compatability of like weapons, e.g. beam weapons cannot be simply swapped one for another as beam level tech increases.
...
<snip>
I like those ideas. nice.
Sandlapper wrote:The ships/fleet could have a quadrant system where if they receive so many attacks in more than one quadrant they become less enthusiastic to continue the fight and bolt from the system.
I was thinking of morale the way it is used in the total war games. Unfortunately this sort of thing just doesnt happen in a modern, well trained navy, so it probably wouldnt happen in space combat, which in sci-fi is usually based to a large degree on naval combat.

There's a world of difference between the gut level of panic and fear that can be created by watching the people around you get their heads mashed in by crazed viking warriors, knowing youre probably next, and the more remote action of pressing buttons on a control panel under someone else's orders.

I guess routs could happen, but morale is not as integral a part of space combat as it is in hand to hand combat.
Last edited by Daveybaby on Wed Jan 28, 2004 3:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Post Reply