Space Combat (madness)

[discord]

han_krum: how does that remove the need for doing it with speed? the amount of time you have in a single 'pause' is still there, no?
so basicly all i did was make the pause less 'chunky'...no?

//discord

[krum]

That's my point, I don't want to limit the time a player can spend giving orders once he pauses the battle. Or maybe fix it to some value that long enough but not too much. It might be best to have some default value but let the player(s) set it themsel(ves), or disable it.

Accumulation of pause time might seem better through analogy with chess timing, but the essential difference is that in chess you practically spend your (and the opponent's) time thinking about your next move, while the actualy physical manipulation takes a negligeable amount of time when not in Zeitnot.

[Impaler]

Current plan is a Hourglass thats set when combat starts and drains as your giving orders. When you finalize orders it stops draining untill the next give orders phase starts. When you run out of time it like hiting auto-resolve (but you can still watch if you like).

[Ranos]

but seriously if you think about it, ground battles and campaigns have been becoming shorter quite rapidly the last...oh few hundred years, back in 1000 or so, wars dragged on for years.

Yes but even the latest war in the Persian Gulf took a month and there are still people fighting in Iraq after a year and a half. If the tech level of one side is higher than that of the other side, the battle ofr the planet will take one turn. If the tech levels are equal, then it could last much longer. WWII took six years to win. Thats because both the Axis and the Allies had equal tech levels.

I will agree that WMDs would change that, but that is a decision to make at the atart of the battle. Will you use WMD or not. Maybe there could be planets who surrender at the end of space combat due to fear of the use of WMDs. Battles would go faster if you left ships in orbit around the planet to help with bombardment.

If we wrapped space combat over multiple turns it would achieve the effect of 'taking years', but would also minimise the time space combat goes each turn, since space combat would be spread out.

That is what it all boils down to. Should combat at each system take 10-20 mins including order giving and battle play out or should it take maybe 5-8 mins? Thats something the devs will have to decide.

That is of course another good reason why ground combat should not be done during space combat. combing the two would make it take even longer. Either that or it would limit how much time you have to give orders to your ships.

I would actually like ground combat to be simple, within space combat and able to occur multiple times within space combat.

The only way ground combat could be simple is if you dropped your troops and the two sides just duked it out MOO2 style. If you want command options, sabotage missions and different tactics available to you, then it isn't simple. Dropping your troops should occur during space combat and I would also love for there to be sabotage missions that occur during space combat, but the bulk of the battle should occur outside of space combat.

That's my point, I don't want to limit the time a player can spend giving orders once he pauses the battle. Or maybe fix it to some value that long enough but not too much. It might be best to have some default value but let the player(s) set it themsel(ves), or disable it.

If the decision is made that combat gets paused, orders are given, then combat restarts and the orders are carried out, then the pauses must be at set intervals and the length of the pause has to be preset. If you say the players can pause combat and they can leave it paused for an unlimited length of time, then combat could go on for a long time. During SP play, that wouldn't be a big deal but during MP play, the people you were playing with would go nuts, especially if they had nothing to do during the combat phase.

You mentioned having a length of time that is "long enough but not too much." Can you set a specific ammount of time? 30 seconds? 1 minute? 5 minutes?

Here are some examples of commands: Attack (general order to attack, the TFs will select their own targets), Attack Here (select a TF, battlestation or planet to be attacked), Drop Troops Here, Move Here, Retreat (general retreat option which causes all TFs to head for the nearest Starlane that leads to a freindly or neutral system. If non exists, then they head for the nearest starlane). Once troops have been dropped, you can give orders to take out planetary defenses or you can order them to take the planet. If you do the former, a target is randomly selected and there is a X% chance the target will be destroyed, a X% chance your troops will fail (which has a 50-50 chance that they will return to the landing site and be ready for orders next turn or that they will be killed) and a X% chance that nothing will happen, meaning your troops are still on the mission but haven't accomplished anything yet. Simple commands like these would mean you would only need about 30 seconds during the order phase.

If you want the commands that are complex like being able to give each TF multiple executable orders (destroy this TF, then destroy this TF, then move here, then move here, then attack again, etc.), then you would need at least a minute if not two to give the orders.

I vote for the simple commands.

[EDIT]

Current plan is a Hourglass thats set when combat starts and drains as your giving orders. When you finalize orders it stops draining untill the next give orders phase starts. When you run out of time it like hiting auto-resolve (but you can still watch if you like).

It took me a while but I think I finally understand what you are saying. Correct me if I'm wrong. The battle starts. You have, lets say, 5 minutes during the entire battle to give orders. This means that you can pause the game when you want for as long as you want as long as the combined time between all of your pauses doesn't exceed 5 mins. After it runs out, you have to watch as your "Admirals" command the TFs in whatever tasks they choose. Is this correct?

[Impaler]

I am oposed to players initiating a pause at any time. Under this aproatch each combat execution round is of a set period of time and a modest amount of engagment can happen in each round (say moving from one planet to another or a brief battle). Everyone goes into their Give orders phase and combat freezes. When your in give orders phase your using your limited supply of time and if that runs out you cant give any more orders.

If pausing is involved it simply acts to end the current execution phase and move everyone into a give orders phase inwhich ther hourglass is running down again. I see 2 options here

1 - Combat rounds are always the same length with no player initiated pausing of any kind

2 - Combat rounds las untill any player chosses to pause at which point a give orders phase starts, all players clocks start to run down. When each player finalizes his orders his clock stops. When the last player finalizes Combat recomences untill their is another halt. Each time you pause your clock imediatly losses some small amount of time (say 10 seconds) but you cant pause or give orders durring a pause if you are out of time.

If people realy want pause any time then thats ok but it should be THE means of controling the battle not an addition to automatic pauses. One or the other but not both.

[Ranos]

I understand what you are saying now. The clock thing is what threw me off.

I also think the clock is bad. That still gives favor to people who are able to move and click faster than others. I think each combat round should be a set ammount of time and that each order phase should also be a set ammount of time. This ammount of time should be:

A) Set by the players at the beginning of the game. This is either done by the player who hosts the game, by all players agreeing on the time or by all players entering a number (between 15 seconds and 1 minute) and then averaging the numbers to come up with the final number.

B) Set by the developers when the game is being programmed. If this option is done, then the ammount of time should depend on how many TFs will be allowed per combat, how many battlestations are allowed per planet/moon and whether or not ground combat will take place within the space battle sequince.

If you use the hourglass, the players who can click faster will be able to command their TFs more which will give them an unfair advantage. If there is a preset ammount of time, the fast clickers will still have a slight advantage but not nearly as much as with the hourglass.

[Impaler]

I disagree:
The clock mainly functins to let people move time to ware it needs to be used. A player can spend any amount of their time in a single give orders phase if they need it. Most of the time their will be little that needs doing and you can imediatly end your ordering phase to conserve time. With a completly static max time period for give orders your start hindering slower folks durring that 1 turn when the battle was intense yet at the same time their will be no penalty for dragging out every single turn to the maximum extent possible. Lastly it will be a snap to handycap players in multiplayer with more or less time alotments. I am fairly certain everyone will agree with me on this that a clock is the best way to keep a combats total time down AND enshure that no one is disadvantages by slow fingers.

[Ranos]

Everyone except me. If you don't need to use the ammount of time on a given order phase, then just click "done" and when everyone has clicked it, the battle resumes whether 5 seconds passed or the full alotment of time. If you give people a long enough preset ammount of time, they will never need to "move" it and battle can go at the same exact pace as it would with the clock, but people would never run out of time.

Why should there be a penalty for using the full ammount of time to give orders? People will be able to tell if someone did anything during the time spent in the command phase. I know if I was playing a game and there was one person using the full ammount of time all of the time, I would get aggrivated and would therefore begin to target that empire more to eliminate them from the game.

How will it be a snap to handycap people? Unless you plan on having a website that hosts multiplayer games and keeps track of how fast each player is able to click, then there is no way people would know who clicks fast and who clicks slow.

You also talked about hindering the slower folks. What happens when they are slow enough that they run out of time and are forced to watch there task forces, commanded now by their admirals (the combat AI which in my experience does a crappy job of tactical combat), get decimated by the players who still have time?

A preset time limit, of lets say 30 seconds per round, would be an ample ammount of time for just about anyone to give orders in a battle.

Now, on the other hand, if you say there will be 20 rounds of combat during every space battle, 20 * 30 is 600, which would be 10 minutes worth of commands. If you use my example on the previous page of how a battle would play out, the first command phase would take 10-15 seconds for both sides. The next 3 would be less 0-5 seconds depending on if someone wanted to slightly refine their orders. The next would take 15-20 seconds because of the second fleet entering the picture. The next three would be the 0-5 agan because it would just be the battles playing out. And so on and so forth. That whole battle, which I limited at 12 rounds of 15 seconds per combat, followed by the commands, would take the 3 minutes of battle play plus aproximately 2 maybe 2.5 minuts for the command giving phases. The maximum allowed ammount of time was 6 minutes. As you can see, not all of the time was used.

If you intend to make the clock ammount of time 10 minutes for those 20 rounds a listed at the top of the previous paragraph, then that sounds good to me. If, however, you intend to make the command time for 20 rounds only 5 minutes, then I am against it.

A final note, if you leave the ammount of time that will be set on the clock up to the players, then I am all for it. In a MP game though, all players should have to agree on a time or do the voting thing I suggested in my last post. This is due to the fact that if a fast person was hosting, they could make the command time short and thereby give themselves and advantage. If it was a slow person, they would give to much time, causing the other players to have to wait a vey long time.

Okay, this really is my final point. Instead of an hourglass, which gives no idea of how much time anyone has, make it a digital timer in a corner.

[MisterMerf]

I intend to post a comprehensive comparison of a number of things that have come under discussion here. If one of you invalidates everything I'm brewing up, I'll be very displeased ^_-

In any case, I intend to be *somewhat* objective and I'm going to post my judging criteria here. Please comment on the usefulness of the criteria or of what I'm trying to do. And if you see other things that simply MUST be considered when judging, add them to my list.

I also intend to deal with things that have been discussed in a thread on time allotment for multiplayer battle. I'm not linking it because I can't seem to find it now *cough*

Criteria:

Time-wasting General: Proposed schemes for space combat must attempt to minimize the time that players are drumming their fingers and doing nothing (presumably while other players are actually engaged in something).

1. Time-wasting (weak) Proposed schemes for space combat must not allow players to waste the time of others to their own advantage.
Example: One player has a large time allotment compared to other players in a particular battle, any paused time subtracts from all players allotments, phased-time is being used, and control over pausing is given to players. Said player may pause time in useless places and run out other players clocks.

2. Time-wasting (strong) Proposed schemes for space combat do not allow players to alter the amount of time other players have to interact in combat.


Tactical Control: Proposed schemes for space combat must attempt to maximize the amount of control players have in as many battles per turn as possible (without wasting time, of course).

Fun: Proposed schemes for space combat .... have to have the potential for fun, doggonit! (Sorry. Had to do that =])

Side rant on tactics (feel free to skip):
Some people don't mind combat being first and foremost a numbers crunch (or I get that feeling from some, anyway). I mind. For me, epic space battle between inconceivable armadas (or at least conceivable ones) is the culmination of the careful construction of my empire. Designing ships, strategic placement of shipyards *ahem*, and allocation of resources is all a means of fielding and controlling the sweetest space navy possible. I, for one, find an engaging and rich tactical environment to be of the foremost concern (falling short only of a rich strategic environment). If the AI can't keep up....that sucks. But I really want to leave the possibilities open.

If I get beaten via diplomacy...eh. It's all part of the game...

[utilae]

I am fairly certain everyone will agree with me on this that a clock is the best way to keep a combats total time down AND enshure that no one is disadvantages by slow fingers.

Yes, well I agree. And one person is disadvantaged because there is not enough time to give orders, then everyone is disadvantaged, ah the balance . I really think that people are a little afraid of the fact that someone can move the mouse faster than them. If you are gonna worry about that in space combat, why don't you also worry about that in the screen where you manage your empire (I'm sure we will have a time limit there too during multiplayer).

[haravikk]

What if combat was less direct orders but more decision based?
At the start of combat players would get a minute or two in which to set missions for their task-forces.

Once this is done the admirals will launch into combat following the criteria given to them. Each admiral (or mission leader) will look out for certain circumstances, for example their ships being surrounded, a mission being complete (and not being sure of what to do), heavy damage being suffered and so on.
When this happens a 'Situation' appears in the player's list, highlighted based upon severity. They may click on this to be presented with options (if being surrounded then a 'break through' option might appear, generic options such as re-assign to mission X could be available too), they can use this to change that AI's goal.

If the situation severity reaches critical or it is waiting for too long to be dealt with then the AI will choose a default solution (if surrounded may stand-ground, if nothing to do then will move to support nearest friend and so on).

This way the player doesn't really need to control the combat at all, but will be asked for advice if something is wrong.
The combat is also real-time this way. In larger (or otherwise 'busier') combats then the game-speed could slow down to say no less than half-speed until the amount of 'situations' decreases, think along the lines of bullet-time but for giving a player more of an opportunity to make decisions without being totally overwhelmed.
Even with the 'bullet-time' feature players could still have a lot of decisions to make, the key to keeping up would be to filter out minor situations and pick out only the important ones, leaving the admirals to deal with the rest themselves.
This would emphasise a good initial plan as well, as that would determine much of the AI's default behaviour in combat.

The 'bullet-time' idea could also be employed in reverse to speed up slow parts of the combat or hurry along parts which don't require any player-input to help keep combats from lasting too long (though a finite limit would be handy anyway).

[MisterMerf]

If the situation severity reaches critical or it is waiting for too long to be dealt with then the AI will choose a default solution (if surrounded may stand-ground, if nothing to do then will move to support nearest friend and so on).

This way the player doesn't really need to control the combat at all, but will be asked for advice if something is wrong.

The trouble I see is that it will be difficult to write an AI that can do this well. Additionally, the player has to watch the AI making these decisions and may not be happy at all if they see something "wrong" brewing and the combat AI just keeps going until disaster is all but unavoidable....then asks the player to fix it.

The combat is also real-time this way. In larger (or otherwise 'busier') combats then the game-speed could slow down to say no less than half-speed until the amount of 'situations' decreases, think along the lines of bullet-time but for giving a player more of an opportunity to make decisions without being totally overwhelmed.

Bullet-time likewise means the AI has to make fine distinctions about what is important and what is not...

I remain doubtful, though I would like to see intelligent time-passage if someone can figure out a reliable way to do it.

[Impaler]

1. Time-wasting (weak) Proposed schemes for space combat must not allow players to waste the time of others to their own advantage.
Example: One player has a large time allotment compared to other players in a particular battle, any paused time subtracts from all players allotments, phased-time is being used, and control over pausing is given to players. Said player may pause time in useless places and run out other players clocks.

I have an inovative solution to this problem, I mentioned it earlier but perhaps my elaboration was too poor so I will restate it.

Rather then having a descrete # of pauses alowed any player may pause the game if they have sufficient time remaining on their clock. When ever a player initiates a pause THEY and they alone imediatly have a small sum of time deducted from their clock. This sum of time would be user selectable at game set up, I am imagining something like 10-20 seconds as average (zero is ofcorse possible). When one player initiates a pause all players clocks will start to run again but if the pausers intent is to make others loss time this will backfire as the others will imediatly hit the confirm orders button stoping their clocks once again with perhaps only a second or 2 used up. The one doing the pausing though will lose much more time even if he also imediatly hits the confirm button. He would only be harming himself by repeatedly pausing the game.

In response to Havarikk: That could be done by setting the Pause time cost I just discussed to Infinity meaning that once players confirm their initial battle plan durring the first give orders phase (which also includes placing ships on the battlefield). They wont get a second chance and will be spectating as the battle plays out for the whole time period. It is ofcorse questionable if AI can handle the job adiquitly but I see no reason the system I layed out here cant cover both the more traditional multiply orders style and your desired single orders style. Infact I think I will call this system "Variable Pause Phaseing" to destinguish it from regular "Phased Combat" inwhich combat runs for equal length phases.

In response to Ranos: Yes not only is Time in Battle user selectable it can be set to be differnt for each player, that is the means of handycapping I was refering too. Ofcorse the players involved in game set up will need to make the desision as to who needs handycapping.

[haravikk]

@MisterMerf:
Since the AI would have it's instructions at the start I don't see that it would have to be particularly advanced. If it is told to attack then all it has to do is pick a nearby target (or locate one) and close into firing range, if it's a long-range task-force then it tries to stay at long range by turning and falling back after a barrage, if it's short-range then it stays in range.

Likewise the checks for a situation needn't be too advanced, if the ship suffers more than X damage then it will consider itself in danger and ask for suggestions, if this gets to Y damage then it will begin to flee and require an instruction.
Generally a situation whereby the task-force is being damaged is considered important, whereby a task-force without instructions is extremely minor (as it can just start to 'roam' or patrol by default).
If a task-force prompts due to damage and continues to suffer damage then its prompt will reach 'critical' quite quickly.

It doesn't seem to me as though all that advanced an AI is really required, it could easily prompt for most situations and the player can be given a filter to filter out all 'minor' classification situations if these become very common.

The bullet-time would be fairly simple as long as classification is okay, so critical events might be worth say 10 points, minor ones 1 point. If your total waiting situations reaches 100 points then the game speed starts to go down, that kind of thing.

I'm not suggesting that real-time player-orders be removed entirely and replaced with this, a simple command system could easily be there in addition if it is needed. But the main idea is that this would simplify command as for the most part the AI should be able to do its missions just fine until it runs into trouble.
I'm really just throwing this out because I'm not a fan of the game stopping for players to issue more orders, and a real-time game can become very hard to cope with in big confrontations.

[MisterMerf]

I've written up my comparison of Phased-Time Combat, Real-Time Combat, Variable-Pause Phasing (better known as "players control when combat pauses") and some Multiplayer Battle Selection methods.

I do not, by the way, get into ground combat or any specifics of system versus planet combat. It's a strengths-weaknesses comparison, not TOO long, and I encourage anyone interested to suggest changes or mistakes. I would love nothing better than to maintain this document all the way through the V.4 design =)

Here's a link to the Wiki doc:
http://www.freeorion.org/wiki/index.php ... mbatProCon

Anyone familiar with Wiki formatting rules is invited to edit the layout, as my attempts don't seem to be helping a whole lot.

Edit: The next post contains a better-formatted version, so you don't need to read the Wiki if it's still there