Do you agree to remove the fighter type? [POLL!]

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

Do you agree to remove some of the fighter types?

No, I like to have bombers, fighters and interceptors, even if thet have overlapped roles.
2
22%
Yes, I'd like to remove the fighters and leave just interceptors and bombers with diferentiated roles.
6
67%
Yes, I'd like to have just one multipurpose fighter type (the fighter).
1
11%
 
Total votes: 9

Message
Author
phocas
Space Floater
Posts: 41
Joined: Sat May 12, 2018 9:28 am

Re: Do you agree to remove the fighter type? [POLL!]

#16 Post by phocas » Thu May 31, 2018 9:12 pm

@Oberius

i agree about the falcon :?

i understand the X factor fun but it could be difficult to implement and explain

the simple rock/paper/scissor is maybe easier

usually a close fight between rather equal fleets will not be over after the first turn and will go on for some turns

side 1 could have wipe out the other side boats
but the other side 2 unstead off killing boats will have kill the carriers and then no carrier no boat...

so on the second turn maybe the "boat side" 1 will not be so brighter...
farther if he had many flak guns useless against side 2 battleships

need some battle reports...

Ophiuchus
Vacuum Dragon
Posts: 544
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2014 10:01 am

Re: Do you agree to remove the fighter type? [POLL!]

#17 Post by Ophiuchus » Thu May 31, 2018 9:27 pm

Oberlus wrote:
phocas wrote:the POLL heavily depends on the target priority policy
Agree.
+1

i like your idea of the 2x / 3x chances to hit a certain target as the mechanism that targeting works. that i guess something similar would be easily implementable.

i have a gun which has a 2x preference for ships: the game rolls the dice to choose a target. it is a bomber! as the target is not preferred, the game does a reroll, the gun again has a chance to hit a ship and will stick with that result.

implementation idea: add a secondary capacity for the maximum number of rolls on the hangar which can upgraded with. add a TARGET_BOATS tag to interceptors hangars and flak. TARGET_SHIPS to bombers and other weapon parts. add both flags to the fighter boats. instead of rolling for a single target, roll for the target inside a loop depending on the roll capacity. if the rolled target matches the target then break out the loop.

for a more flexible system ships/weapons and hangars can have tags to classify them. If the attacker has a TARGET_xyz tag, it will check if the target has a CLASS_xyz tag.
Oberlus wrote: So I prefer something like this:

* Flak priority against boats: it has 2x chances to hit boats instead of battleships (upgradeable to 3x bombers, 2x other boats).
your personal priority could be to shoot down interceptors to keep your boats safe. so that upgrade is not always what you want, so it shouldnt be a tech upgrade
Oberlus wrote:* Other battleships weapons: 2x battleships, upgradeable to 3x.
* Bombers: 2x against battleships, upgradeable to 3x (same as non-flak ship weapons).
* Interceptors: 2x against other boats (upgradeable to "3x bombers/fighters, 2x other boats").
* Fighters: uniform probability upgradeable to choose (via a toggle in the fleet/ship window) between "3x battleships/bombers" and "2x battleships/bomber/fighters").
the toggle for fighters could be the aggression toggle; attack means prefer battleships and defense means prefer boats.

So that would work with the simple implementation.
Any code or patches in anything posted here is released under the CC and GPL licences in use for the FO project.

User avatar
Oberlus
Small Juggernaut
Posts: 704
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: Do you agree to remove the fighter type? [POLL!]

#18 Post by Oberlus » Thu May 31, 2018 10:42 pm

Ophiuchus wrote:i have a gun which has a 2x preference for ships: the game rolls the dice to choose a target. it is a bomber! as the target is not preferred, the game does a reroll, the gun again has a chance to hit a ship and will stick with that result.
That's a way to implement it, although I don't know what are the probability distribution that comes out of that kind of sequential tournament.

Another way to implement it is by giving twice the probability to one kind of target over the other. Examples:
Targets are 1 ships and 3 boats. For uniform probability for all targets it would be 25% chances to hit a ship, 75% a boat.
If you give 2x weight to each ship (so it is like there were 5 targets: 2 ships and 3 boats), you get 40% chances to hit the ship and 60% the boats (more exactly, 40% the ship, 20% each boat).
Another: 3 ships and 3 boats. Uniform: 50% ship, 50% boat.
With x2 against ships (as in 6 ships and 3 boats): 66% ship, 33% boat.

The goodness of this approach is that you are sure you'll only need one random number for each shot (and maybe probability distribution is easier to calculate).
Ophiuchus wrote:your personal priority could be to shoot down interceptors to keep your boats safe
I've seen what bombers (and current fighters) can do to battleships when they have little else to target. If all my carriers blow up, I won't have where to put those boats I was trying to safe. But if the enemy has no bombers the upgrade may be useless, so maybe make it the same as interceptors (3x bombers/fighters, 2x interceptors)... But if the enemy has only interceptors, the upgrade may be useless... Yes, it would be great to be able to choose what are you assigning that 3x... Anyway, details of implementation. For what the general idea is, we both like it.

Jaumito
Space Kraken
Posts: 137
Joined: Tue May 16, 2017 3:42 am
Location: Catalonia, France, Europe, Earth, Sol, Orion Arm, Milky Way, Virgo Cluster

Re: Do you agree to remove the fighter type? [POLL!]

#19 Post by Jaumito » Thu May 31, 2018 10:56 pm

Oberlus wrote:However, without any randomness on some of the weapon targeting, the effects of flacks, interceptors and bombers become quite deterministic:
That's not necessarily a bad thing. For the record, Stars!' combat system was completely deterministic and yet it worked flawlessly. Then again, without being overly complex (it was actually pretty simple), it was still a lot more refined than what we have here in FO. You could give each stack of ships tactical orders like
  • target <ship type> first - e.g. bombers, freighters
  • maximize damage ratio (inflicted/received)
  • maximize damage
  • minimize damage to self
  • etc.
... and that, added to the amazing flexibility you had in ship design, was enough to make the outcome of most battles unpredictable to anyone but experts.

User avatar
Oberlus
Small Juggernaut
Posts: 704
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: Do you agree to remove the fighter type? [POLL!]

#20 Post by Oberlus » Fri Jun 01, 2018 7:30 am

I never played that Stars! game. Now I've browsed a bit about it and I would have liked to know it back then...
I'm looking for a good explanation of the combat system of that game but got no luck yet. Did the weapons have fixed or variable damage per shot? Were there chances to hit? Can allied ships "overshot" the same enemy ship (inflicting to it more shots than needed to kill it)? So many questions...

Jaumito
Space Kraken
Posts: 137
Joined: Tue May 16, 2017 3:42 am
Location: Catalonia, France, Europe, Earth, Sol, Orion Arm, Milky Way, Virgo Cluster

Re: Do you agree to remove the fighter type? [POLL!]

#21 Post by Jaumito » Fri Jun 01, 2018 9:54 am

Oberlus wrote:I never played that Stars! game. Now I've browsed a bit about it and I would have liked to know it back then...
I'm looking for a good explanation of the combat system of that game but got no luck yet. Did the weapons have fixed or variable damage per shot? Were there chances to hit? Can allied ships "overshot" the same enemy ship (inflicting to it more shots than needed to kill it)? So many questions...
Battles were resolved on a chessboard-like minimap.

All ship stacks could move 1 square and fire once per round.

Weapons had fixed damage and fixed range, but beam weapons efficiency was dependent on range to the target (the closer, the better.) Missiles didn't have that limitation and had longer range, but their nominal damage was lower and they were also more expensive. Also, beams had to defeat the (non-regenerating between combat rounds) shields of a whole stack before inflicting structural damage, while missile damage was shared between shields and structure. There were no fighters.

There was no chance to hit: you always did.

Since each instance of a weapon (beam or missile) was resolved separately, there was no overshoot either, except of course each individual weapon couldn't hit more than one target.

The combat algorithm made sure you always inflicted maximum damage to enemies within range, damage here meaning both structural damage and reduction of enemy firepower. For example, if a 100-damage weapon had 2 targets within range (A and B) with, say, 75 (A) and 25 (B) structure left, it would always target A since it'd hit the enemy fleet "harder", assuming they're the same ship design (if B was a capital ship with more damage potential than A, then B would probably be targeted first.) Of course target priorities could supersede this.

The other tactical orders I mentioned earlier only dictated movement, e.g. a beam ship with "minimize damage to self" would try to close on missile or unarmed ships while staying away from enemy beams. Whatever their orders, a stack of armed ships would always try to get in position to inflict some damage.

Stars! game engine was notable for being RNG-free. You could play the same battle a thousand times and would always get the same outcome.

Jaumito
Space Kraken
Posts: 137
Joined: Tue May 16, 2017 3:42 am
Location: Catalonia, France, Europe, Earth, Sol, Orion Arm, Milky Way, Virgo Cluster

Re: Do you agree to remove the fighter type? [POLL!]

#22 Post by Jaumito » Fri Jun 01, 2018 10:03 am

Jaumito wrote:All ship stacks could move 1 square and fire once per round.
Maybe not quite correct: I think I now remember that some ships could move faster than that.

phocas
Space Floater
Posts: 41
Joined: Sat May 12, 2018 9:28 am

Re: Do you agree to remove the fighter type? [POLL!]

#23 Post by phocas » Sat Jun 02, 2018 9:04 am

Jaumito wrote:
Oberlus wrote:However, without any randomness on some of the weapon targeting, the effects of flacks, interceptors and bombers become quite deterministic:
That's not necessarily a bad thing.
i support this
the full variability in ships designs (shield/gun/armor/boat) is enough to make the random in battle
and the player choose the right effect by design or mixing design type (you can have bomber carriers and interceptor carriers...)

a deterministic targetting is easier to describe and to use

phocas
Space Floater
Posts: 41
Joined: Sat May 12, 2018 9:28 am

Re: Do you agree to remove the fighter type? [POLL!]

#24 Post by phocas » Sat Jun 02, 2018 8:38 pm

hello me again :oops: :mrgreen:

i understand that FreeOrion is not about realistic simulation but lets look what's going on in the 2 WW navy and their battleships

most of their weapons are single purpose with a standard target mission
yes they are casual exceptions and rare historical stories but mainly we have=>


bomber (torpedo, divers, level..) have to damage ships or ground and did not aim enemy fighters

fighters kill enemy bombers and enemy fighters but are not intend to attack battleships
(sometimes small cargo if low flak but never battleships with strong armor and heavy flak)

maybe we could have a dual purpose heavy fighter with 2 life points who could fight boats and attack ships
(like mosquito or bf 110 or the millenium falcon)

guns are single purpose to
  • * small, (from machine gun to 50 mm / 2") are only flak

    * heavy, (above 200mm 8" ) never fire against planes but only against ships or ground targets

    * middle, (from 75 to 160mm 3-7") are the only dual purpose possibility but with restrictions .
    they need to be in the right turret/mounting with enough elevation and special ammunition to fire anti aircraft.
    But not all this guns size are dual, and not all the ships have dual purpose guns
    if i'm not wrong iowa had 90 mm flak, yamato had 135mm flak (ineffective they lack proper elevation and that kills yamato under divers)
    but the 127 mm on a destroyer was not dual purpose, destroyer needed to have light flak (20mm and machine guns..)
in the navy if you don't have planes =>
you can upgrade your ships with flak (see the US in the late 1944 who tripple their flak ratio from 1940 design)
or you can have special design flak ships...
or you can have neither and lost you ships against carrier (see britain who lost 2 heavy ships in indian ocean in 1942

your choice...


if we go back to FO guns
  • * flak is flak (may be we could use two flak tech)
    - light flak 1 damage point with 5 or 6 rate of fire
    - heavy flak 2 damages point with 2 or 3 ROF

    * heavy guns are plasma and death ray and some internal slot special tech
    they should ignore all the boats

    * middle dual purpose guns could be the maser and laser guns
    in their basic form they should ignore boats
    a special research could upgrade them as dual purpose

    this research will not need reserved space in the hull
    as when you research plasma fighter to upgrade them, the upgraded fighters use the same space in the hull

most of the scifi movies from galactica to star wars use the same concepts
their battleships have flak and heavy guns and very seldom dual purpose guns

(they often use dual purpose fighter but with mono purpose mission = attack enemy ship OR defend against fighters not a mix)

There are countless speechs in their stories where an officer say he can't fire against fighters because he lost is flak or have none
or that the heavy guns are not fast enough to target speedy tiny fighters
(recent ST 8 for this 2 examples but there are plenty)

Jaumito
Space Kraken
Posts: 137
Joined: Tue May 16, 2017 3:42 am
Location: Catalonia, France, Europe, Earth, Sol, Orion Arm, Milky Way, Virgo Cluster

Re: Do you agree to remove the fighter type? [POLL!]

#25 Post by Jaumito » Sat Jun 02, 2018 10:10 pm

phocas wrote:most of the scifi movies from galactica to star wars use the same concepts
...except when they have starships firing broadsides at each other from close range. Or sending boarding parties. Reminds me more of the Age of Sail than the world wars. 8)

(And now, I want boarding parties in FO. And pirates!)

User avatar
Vezzra
Release Manager, Design
Posts: 4664
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 12:56 pm
Location: Sol III

Re: Do you agree to remove the fighter type? [POLL!]

#26 Post by Vezzra » Sun Jun 03, 2018 2:07 pm

phocas wrote:* flak is flak (may be we could use two flak tech)
- light flak 1 damage point with 5 or 6 rate of fire
- heavy flak 2 damages point with 2 or 3 ROF
For that to work, we'd have to introduce "structure points" (or whatever you want to call it) for fighters. Currently, fighters can't be "damaged" - when they get hit, they are destroyed, so you only need to keep track of the number of fighters still active, not of the specific condition of each fighter. Once you do that, things get quite more complicated, as then you'd have to keep track of each individual fighter. Unless that's going to add a lot of interesting aspects and decisions the player can make, this is not going to happen. And being able to have two types of flak doesn't fit that bill (IMO).

Aside from that, those ideas are worth considering for the next major revision of the combat system.

User avatar
EricF
Space Dragon
Posts: 270
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2016 10:12 am

Re: Do you agree to remove the fighter type? [POLL!]

#27 Post by EricF » Mon Jun 04, 2018 5:03 am

Oberlus wrote: Plus making regular weapons not able to shot at fighters at all seems to me a bit excesive. I've seen an Imperial Destructor shooting at the Millenium Falcon all they got onboard and seemed credible that they actually got some hits on it (yes, consider the Falcon a boat, there are few things smaller and faster than it in that universe ;))
(Maybe completely off topic)
If the Falcon had ever been hit by any Imperial Capital Ship's main weapons then it would
have become a quickly expanding cloud of debris instantly. The Falcon was hit by, at best,
Star Destroyer FlaK. Yes, Star Destroyers have FlaK. Fighters are the Rebellion's main
style of attack. It was only the Death Star that was deemed to not need it.

(Now a bit more on topic)
Having regular weapons not being able to shoot at fighters at all does not seem excessive to me.
It seems entirely reasonable. It actually adds Tactical/Scientific Research game decisions.
To FlaK or not to FlaK? Research fighters (and anti fighter weapons) or not?

Even if you think of FO Fighters more like Torpedo Boats than as aircraft, TB's were virtually
immune to the main weapons of main Fleet ships. That's why the Torpedo boat destroyer
(later just Destroyer) was developed.

phocas
Space Floater
Posts: 41
Joined: Sat May 12, 2018 9:28 am

Re: Do you agree to remove the fighter type? [POLL!]

#28 Post by phocas » Thu Jun 07, 2018 8:31 pm

Vezzra wrote:
phocas wrote:* flak is flak (may be we could use two flak tech)
- light flak 1 damage point with 5 or 6 rate of fire
- heavy flak 2 damages point with 2 or 3 ROF
For that to work, we'd have to introduce "structure points" (or whatever you want to call it) for fighters. Currently, fighters can't be "damaged" - when they get hit, they are destroyed, so you only need to keep track of the number of fighters still active, not of the specific condition of each fighter. Once you do that, things get quite more complicated, as then you'd have to keep track of each individual fighter. Unless that's going to add a lot of interesting aspects and decisions the player can make, this is not going to happen. And being able to have two types of flak doesn't fit that bill (IMO).

Aside from that, those ideas are worth considering for the next major revision of the combat system.
i will be fine with only 1 damage dual purpose fighters, and 1 damage flak
it's enough for the game purpose

The main purpose is a specific targeting system for more tactital speculations and not take only the bigger gun you researched

Maybe an option in the game start parameter to choose between the actual random system or a future targeting system will be fine for some players.
The same way you can choose playing without monsters or specials

phocas
Space Floater
Posts: 41
Joined: Sat May 12, 2018 9:28 am

Re: Do you agree to remove the fighter type? [POLL!]

#29 Post by phocas » Thu Jun 07, 2018 8:40 pm

EricF wrote: Having regular weapons not being able to shoot at fighters at all does not seem excessive to me.
It seems entirely reasonable. It actually adds Tactical/Scientific Research game decisions.
To FlaK or not to FlaK? Research fighters (and anti fighter weapons) or not?
exactly what i would mean

Ophiuchus
Vacuum Dragon
Posts: 544
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2014 10:01 am

Re: Do you agree to remove the fighter type? [POLL!]

#30 Post by Ophiuchus » Sat Jun 09, 2018 9:36 am

phocas wrote:
EricF wrote: Having regular weapons not being able to shoot at fighters at all does not seem excessive to me.
It seems entirely reasonable. It actually adds Tactical/Scientific Research game decisions.
To FlaK or not to FlaK? Research fighters (and anti fighter weapons) or not?
exactly what i would mean
If you cant use regular weapons against fighters and your enemy comes at you with fighters you have to research anti-fighter measures. So no real decision in that situation.
Any code or patches in anything posted here is released under the CC and GPL licences in use for the FO project.

Post Reply