SE5 - Strategies

[Malfador Machinations]

Hi All,

Thanks for all of the tremendous feedback in the SE5 subject. I saved the whole thing to go through at length.

Now for a more specific request: I'm interested in getting your feedback on the strategies in SE4. I'm reworking them for SE5, but I wanted to get the fans input on how well the strategies worked in SE4. Did you use them? What part was most useful? Which part did not work so well?

If you always used Tactical Combat, then strategies didn't come into play all that often. But for Simultaneous Turn games, strategies were essential in getting your ships to do what you wanted during combat. What options would you like to see to have the computer follow your wishes during combat?

Thanks!

Aaron

[rdouglass]

IMO, I'd like to see some sort of logic built into the Strategic Combat. Some sort of IF...THEN structure or some kind of Boolean logic with decision points to branch into other strats.

Probably been said before, but you asked...

[Puke]

i would liek the ability to better define which specific ships are allowed to break formation. i would like more granular control over which ships or ship types follow individual or fleet strategies for movement and fireing. maybe somethign with check-boxes.

I would also like a better ability to define where ships or at least where ship-types belong in the formation.

and possibly the ability to redefine formations in game, so stock (un-modded) games can take advantage of a more unlimited array of formations.

also, it might be neat to have sub-formations. imagine Groups of three ships that stay together, but each group moves about independantly. maybe each group consists of two attack ships with a defense ship in the middle, that kind of thing.

I can safely speak for all the PBW players when saying that we use the strategies ALOT, if not exclusively. our mode of thinking has had to adapt around the way the strategies work, rather than what exactly we want our ships to do. that said, i think its a great system that would be better with more flexability.

[tesco samoa]

I would like to see it set up as scripts. That you can save and post for other players to see.

Perhaps have them based on situations.

IE. Initial contact... Fleet moves to scan range.

If the enemy has missles then the pdc ships move up to protect.

If your ships figure out that they will be destroyed then they retreat.

Stuff like that. But I think the key would be a script based system that you can save the strategies for future games and trade them.

Perhaps also you could have a fleet have a primary stragety and then secondary ones if the primary one cannot work in the current siutation.

This would allow players to get as detailed as possible in a combat situation or as little as possible and use some default strategies.

I think that the basis of the stragety should be based on fleet engagements.

With the option of giving some individual ship strageties to use when they are alone or if the c&c losses control of the battle or when the command act independenty is given.

This would give it a better feel than under the current situation where everyone has fleets break formation upon contact. Which i feel is not to realistic for fleet combat.

What do you think of this system Aaron.

[Fyron]

Formations definitely need to be customizable in-game. This is a huge limitation in SE4. Formations.txt should be replaced by DefaultFormations.txt, which would function identically to the DefaultStrategyTypes.txt in SE4. It would be read form when you create your empire file, but never again. You can edit your formations in-game.

Additionally, if the script method Tesco discussed is not used, we need some way to export and import specified strategies or formations in a savegame. After a game is started, it is a pain to add a new strategy you learn of. If we could import from a list of strategies in DefaultStrategyTypes.txt, or even an arbitrary file (which is formatted correctly), so that everything in the file can just be added (or replaced/updated if a same-name strategy already exists), without having to reload _everything_ from the Default file. We should be able to export a specified set of strategies, or even all of them, to an arbitrarily defined file name. Formations should work in just the same way. Both of these functions would be useable during any turn of a game in progress, and imports would add the formations and strategies to those saved for your empire (which would naturally need to be exported with the empire file when you export that).

An additional benefit of the above method is that we would be able to edit formations and strategies to be saved for a mod or custom file to post in a graphical interface instead of a text editor. They should still be saved in text files so that those that want to use a text editor can do so, of course. But, editing and creating formations in a text editor is a huge PITA.

Speaking of empire files... when we edit a saved empire file before starting a game, we should have an option to either keep the strategies and formations saved in it, or to load them from the default files (a separate toggle for each). Default would be to keep what is saved in the empire file. Another toggle should be present to either keep all ship designs saved with the empire file, or to clear them. Many players like to save their empire file and use it in a new PBW game, maybe with a few tweaks here and there. The problem is that if the empire file is edited in any way, saved strategies and vehicle designs are lost. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

Personally, I don't mind if empire files start ranging in the dozens (or even a few hundreds) of kilobytes instead of 10 or 20 if there is a lot of data saved in them (many user-defined strategies and formations to get to 100s of KBs), and I doubt many people would. It would IMO be an acceptable tradeoff for the added functionality.

[Suicide Junkie]

Scripts as a base would be nice, perhaps with a simple logic programming to form the strategy. The logic would determine what script is appropriate at the time.

<font class="small">Code:</font><hr /><pre>if (numEnemies &gt; 10*numAllies) then
SetFleetStrategy(panic01)
else
SetCombatMessage(warcry06)
SetFleetStrategy(berzerkercharge)
endif

if fleetstrategy = berzerkercharge and hasweapons(ThisShip) then
RunScript (RushInAndFireWildlyAtRandomEnemy)
else
RunScript (RunAndHide)
endif</pre><hr />

[tesco samoa]

Now that does bring up an interesting question

Retreat... can it happen

[Iansidious]

I hope this is doable. I would like to see ship damage more detailed. Example, I tell my ship, 0001 too target only engine's on enemy ship 0003. Any fireable weapon will damage the engine's on enemy ship, 0003. Or, target weapon's, sensor's, cargo, shield generator's, etc. If any of you ever played "Star Trek Bridge Commander", you get my point. With this, game strategy becomes more unique and and more realistic. Not to mention awesome gameplay! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

[FLX]

Strategies are quite complete in SE:IV, and customizing them as they were scripts could be dificult for some players (not me http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/cool.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif ). However, there would be nice if there were be a way to customize the strategies as scripts, and a user-friendly way to do that ingame, but in order to use them in a simultaneous game, there should be too many parameters to contemplate in the turn compilation, i mean, now, you choose between a few parameters, and the "choose array" is what you send. The point is: Increasing the "size" of this array to make strategies more configurables OR sending a compiled (or raw) script to describe deeply the strategy.

Strategies should include movement behavoirs like "protect the fleet leader" or "stay at %d sectors from enemy ships", but i like the idea of the scripting strategy, limiting it to a number of lines, and maybe compiling them before they can be used to ensure a small-sized savegame file.

[Thermodyne]

Well being as you asked…….Yes I do have a request/suggestion or two or four.


1) Instead of a whole fleet firing then the other fleet firing, I would like to see it alternate at the ship level. Fleet A would fire from ship 1 and then fleet B would fire from ship 1. Then Fleet A would fire from ship 2 and fleet B from ship 2. And so on until all ships have fired. This would increase the damage done to each fleet and create some balance and realism.
2) I would like to see a more detailed strategy engine. Perhaps allowing for sub units in a fleet that would have various orders. A fleet could be made up of several squadrons, and each squadron would have orders to act independently. Heavy hard ships might be used to hold the line and absorb damage while lighter faster Groups of ships would perhaps have orders to seek and destroy specific types of ships. Or to drive past blockading ships to attack targets beyond the point of battle.
3) I would like to see maneuver become part of the strategy. Perhaps have one that would allow for a fighting retreat or the ability to all but refuse combat. Another might allow for hit and run tactics. There is a need to add some value to tactics that does not exist at this time.
4) And while not pure combat strategy, but strategy none the less. I would like to see income from trade moved by ships. This would add some depth to the game by making the blockade a real part of the wars. And require each empire to build, maintain and protect a trade fleet. I think this would add realism and depth to the game. Of course there would need to be a minister for this too, it could be a lot of work with a large empire.

[tesco samoa]

too add to thermo's stuff

Steel panthers had oppurtunity fire... Would this be a great option in SE games ?

Would really add to the options of range vs damage...

then you could add stuff like hold fire until 75% chance to hit etc.....

[Joachim]

Some great suggestions so far!
I would also like to see squadrons as part of a fleet, boolean orders (probably not scripted) and fleets taking turns in firing, spread evenly between sides. Frex, Xiati have 10 ships and the Cue Cappa 3, fire order would be X1, C1, X2, X3, X4, C2, X5, X6, X7, C3, X 8-10. Things like training/experience /crews/captian/blind luck determining fire order.
Thanks for asking for our input! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

[Fyron]

Unless Aaron has decided not to have real time combat in SE5 after all, firing order is moot, as ships will fire at the same time as enemy ships. They will also have reload times in ms or some such unit, so firing will become very staggered. So, weapons will fire from each ship whenever it is ready, without SE4's method of all ships on one side firing at the other side before the other side gets to respond.

[Caduceus]

Consider an "empire generator" add-on, that would allow non-tweakers like me a chance to concoct AI's for downloaded shipsets. It could let me know ahead of time whether there is a conflict of sorts in the AI brain instead of cutting and pasting the generic AI stats.

Wildcard

[spoon]

But for Simultaneous Turn games, strategies were essential in getting your ships to do what you wanted during combat.



Thanks for asking!

I think I'd like to see better default settings, because everytime I teach someone how to play the game, they throw up there hands in dismay when we get to the bit about setting strategies. Here are the defaults I would like to see:

Fleets: Add a button (or whatever) in the Fleet Creation screen that dictates whether ships in that fleet should follow Fleet orders or Ship orders. Default this to Follow Ship Orders.

Targeting Priority: The default isn't the best. I tend to use: "Nearest, Has Weapons, Most Damaged, Strongest". (Maybe take a poll on this, I'm not sure if that setting is best either!) The default often has ships running past point blank targets and getting themselves into trouble.

Formation: If you don't allow Break Formation to be set in the Fleet Creation screen, then default all ships to Break Formation.

Modding: For modding purposes, it would be great to be able to assign default strategies to the various Design Types found in the DefaultDesignTypes.txt. For example, if I modded in a Missile Attack Ship as a Design Type, it would be nice to be able to assign it's default strategy to Maximum Range.

Thanks again!
-spoon

[Master Belisarius]

Think one of the SE4's strongest sides, was the great customization possibilities.
For SE5 I expect even better options to customize the game... and specially, more tools to improve the AI behavior.
For this reason, really liked the suggestions posted here, about to include some kind of script language to manage the tactical combat.

[Pooka]

"Now for a more specific request: I'm interested in getting your feedback on the strategies in SE4. I'm reworking them for SE5, but I wanted to get the fans input on how well the strategies worked in SE4. Did you use them? What part was most useful? Which part did not work so well?"

Well, it's been said, but to add my voice, I only played simultaneous movement. My desire, in buying the game, was to play on PBW so even when I played single player, I made sure I was using the same conditions, etc. Strategies are, thus, both my greatest tool, and greatest curse.

The ability to modify the AI behavior was a godsend, unfathomably useful in concept. Unfortunately, the degree to which you can make your fleet behave appropriately to a combat situation was very lacking. The AI handles non-specialized ships very poorly, and has a lot of bizarre quirks to it that just don't make sense.

These have led to most people (in my experience) having all ships break formation, taking a lot of potential out of the fleet-level strategies.

I agree that being able to influence where certain ships (pickets, screens, fighter Groups, missile boats, fleet tenders, etc.) appear in the formation, and a degree to which they could deviate from formation would be extremely valuable in giving the fleet-level strategies more usefulness.

If, for example, I could tell my pickets they could range up to 10 sectors away from their 'proper position' in formation, but my fleet tender needed to keep really close to my point-defense ships so they'd not get killed, that would enable me to use strategy in constructing fleets instead of simply trying to come up with complimentary designs that mob-rush the enemy as soon as battle is joined while all my fragile ships run for the corner of the map.

Some kind of defensive strategy that consists of huddling together with protective ships instead of scattering out to be picked off piecemeal by swift-moving fighters would be very nice as well.

Also, I agree with others that a greater degree of control, perhaps adding some semblance of 'situational awareness' would be very nice.

At the very least, if AI behavior could be clearly documented, we could better adapt to it's short commings.

You've written a fabulous game so far, and I look forward to seeing how you improve upon it.

[Chronon]

I agree with everyone posting here that the strategies will be extremely important in multiplayer, and that they need to be very flexible and user friendly (scriptable would be the best). For more flavor, I would actually like to see this take place in a special screen that pops up an Admiral's picture (or military title of your choice, depending on the empire file) and you almost have a dialogue with him/her/it. Admiral, your orders are to defend Planet X at all costs! Or, Admiral, take Gamma Fleet to Planet Y, destroy the enemy vessels there, and send in your troop transports to capture the planet. There could be some level of strategy at the ship level, too, which could remain in the design window. Or, there could be a separate window just for ship strategies just off the fleet deployment window (or whatever it's to be called).

I do hope there is a retreat option! That is one of my biggest frustrations with the tactical combat. I really wish my battlecruisers could outrun that battlemoon to the warp point and escape.

[Randallw]

4) And while not pure combat strategy, but strategy none the less. I would like to see income from trade moved by ships. This would add some depth to the game by making the blockade a real part of the wars. And require each empire to build, maintain and protect a trade fleet. I think this would add realism and depth to the game. Of course there would need to be a minister for this too, it could be a lot of work with a large empire.



In "Hearts of Iron" when you build a transport you have the option of using it to carry troops or as a supply transport in a pool divided around the empire to move supplies.

[dogscoff]

I only use strategic these days- either in PBW (Where you don't get the choice) or in single player (Where tactical gives you an unfair advantage over the AI).

I like the idea of giving different parts of your force different strategies. Just the other day I sent a fleet against a heavily-defended enemy planet. I had a load of well-armoured troop transports capable of wading through the planet's defensive fire, and more than enough warships and boarding craft to take care of the defending ships. What happened? The warships went to attack the planet, and were destroyed. The boarders milled about uselessly and were destroyed. The troop transports hid in the corner and were picked off by fighters and enemy warships. If I'd been able to give one set of specific orders to the transports (charge straight for the planet) and a different set of orders to my attack ships (attack ships, NOT the planet) I'd have won that battle.

I also like the idea of some kind of code-like scripts: I've often wished for this on a strategic level (ie out of combat) and it would be great if it could somehow extend into combat as well. Maybe it could be coded so that one script governs a ship's behaviour both in and out of combat..?

[Q]

I agree that strategies and connected with this formations are very important and should be improved for SE V:
1.) Starting position (at least for the defender). It should be possible to choose the initial placement of your fleet as e.g. around a planet or a warp point. This includes the orientation against the enemy. Not infrequentely in SE IV the leader is not nearest to the enemy.
2.) Individual ship placement in a fleet formation. Then your transports, minesweepers, repair ships can be placed in the more protected center of your fleet formation. This may include individual "break formation" orders for specific ships.
3.) No ship number limits for formations. Combats with more than 100 ships are quite frequent in my games.
4.) Different Strategies according to enemy strength: Against a lonely enemy ship I might want to use a completely different strategy than against a superior fleet.

[Baron Munchausen]

Well, yes, they do need to be much improved. SE IV 'strategies' are actually NOT strategies. They are just single decision flags that only give us control over a part of the single hard-coded strategy that all ships have. When a ship has been given 'maximum weapon range' as a strategy for example, it will decide what to do based on whatever weapon is current available (ready to fire) rather than its maximum weapon range so it will not stay out at maximum missile range if you give it any beam weapons. We need true strategies that the ships will really follow consistently not just access to a few flags to influence some of the decisions in the single hard-coded strategy.

Also, we need different types of strategies. All of the 'strategies' available in SE IV are based on targetting (in other words, there is only ONE strategy). Some ships should NOT be targetting and attacking other ships, even in combat, NOR running away (trying to avoid being targetted). Escorts, for example, should stick with the ship they have been assigned to escort. Moving to attack is contrary to their intended strategy, and also running away is contrary to their intended strategy. This cannot be done at all on SE IV. If we have a properly implemented 'range of vision' in tactical combat (and a large enough combat map to make it matter) there will also be need for a 'scout' strategy. A 'scout' will want to get close enough to see the enemy and broadcast data back to the main fleet, but NOT get close enough to fire or be fired on.

[Mark the Merciful]

The idea for a script engine for the Strategies is cool, but - apart from sounding like a lot of work for MM, I can't help thinking that non-programmers are going to feel very disadvantaged when dealing with combat.

I think that the current interface - pick-lists and check-boxes - is as complicated as it should get in a game. Additions/improvements I'd like to see might include:

1) SubGroups within fleets - as suggested above.

2) Ability to defend or attack objectives (bases, planets, warp-points). Additional movement options might include move towards/away from/maintian x range from planet/base/warp-point.

3) More sophisticated ways of controlling the range. As far as I can see in SEIV, ships will either fire then move, or move then fire, and will always move their maximum allowance. This means that a ship that's theoretically trying to maintain maximum range will generally overshoot the range boundary. This tends to scatter fleets very quickly, and allow ships with both speed and range advantages to still get themselves killed. It would be good if ships could slow down or fire in the middle of a move in order to manage the range better, and movement options like maintain range x might be interesting. (But if the combat engine is very different this may all be irrelevant anyway).

4) The possibility of retreating or breaking contact. (How about, if a ship/fleet with "break contact" orders manages to increase the range from the nearest enemy every round for ten combat rounds, then it successfully breaks contact and moves to a neighbouring sector)

5) Movement options based on friendly ships (or at least friendly leader ships). e.g. move away from/towards/maintain range x from leader.

Can't think of anything else for now.

Mark

[Aiken]

Thank you for asking our opinion.

All I really want is:

1. additional strategy "Stand Still" - so ships should not move at all. They should fire on incoming enemy though.

2. I'd like to be able to assign any strategy to any type of ships. Ex. tell armed to the teeth worldship to use "don't get hurt strategy". And it should obey.

PS: Although my heart belongs to strategies implemented through nice scripting language.

[spoon]

If you keep the strategy section more generic (which I think you should -- scripting isn't something everyone can do), maybe have these categories:

Point Blank (Same as in SE4)
Short Range (Same as in SE4)
Optimal Range (Same as in SE4)
Maximum Range - Longest Range Weapon (eg, a ship with a missile and a Meson BLaster would always stay at maximum missile distance)
Maximum Range - Shortest Range Weapon (eg, a ship with a missile and a Meson BLaster would always stay at maximum Meson BLaster range).
User Defined Range (Assign a specific distance. Not sure how distance is going to be defined in SE5, but this number could be in Squares, Meters, or whatever).
Stand Still (Like mentioned above, the ship does not move. Great for a Satellite Laying strategy!)

Default probably to Optimal Firing Range, as in SE4.

edit: Note that this list doesn't include stuff like boarding, ramming, and running away, which should all be in there too...

[Phoenix-D]

I think the most essential feature is pretty basic. Ships with don't get hurt orders should not run to the corners that are PAST the enemy fleet. Right now they often run straight at the enemy while seeking that far corner..not very helpful.

[rdouglass]

Obviously the key is the combat engine, but I don't see how those withou scripting skills would not want the capabilities to be in the game. I mean, I don't mod AI's or do shipsets, but I sure appreciate those that do and I use them extensively.

If the combat engine had 'branch points' for each of the scenarios/strategies suggested, there could be a generic set of scripts for each of those scenarios just like there is generic AI's and shipsets. Also, those with the talent and / or ambition could script their own 'strategy module'. My interpretation (and hence my script) for Don't Get Hurt could vary slightly (or significantly for that matter) from yours.

Having a scripted combat engine should not preclude those without scripting knowledge to benefit from the system. But those of us that do, can and want to. Maybe your individual playstyle would benefit from just 'plugging in' one or two custom scripts on one of these great fan sites.

Game options should include a "Use Custom Scripts" option.

That's what I meant in my first post. Personally, I'd love to see it.

[Thermodyne]

I think the most essential feature is pretty basic. Ships with don't get hurt orders should not run to the corners that are PAST the enemy fleet. Right now they often run straight at the enemy while seeking that far corner..not very helpful.



Perhaps ships set to "Don't get hurt" should be able to refuse combat and run off the map if they are fast enough to do so before getting damaged.

[Sinapus]

The ability to pick a formation for each fleet and place the ships however you want them is a good idea. Designating escorts that will interpose themselves between enemy ships and the escorted ship would also be nice.

Having ships stay near planets so they can get covering fire from any planetary defenses would also be neat. Divvying up fighters and satellites into small Groups instead of one huge stack would also be effective.

[se5a]

currently hte "he who fires first wins" is annoying. so is the "winer gets almost no damage" but if battles are going to be in real time then those should not be a problem anymore.


subgroops or squads within fleets is a great idea.

I would love to see scripted stratergies, dont worry about the non coders, somone will pogram a simple checkbox type app to create a script for you.

more options as to what ships should target is a must, ie - fire on ships with shields only, fire on ships with most shields, fire on ships with most armor. fire on ships with most suply storage if its not to far away, fire on ships with most repair capabilitys. etc.

now for a new idea:
how about formations which can change during battle, ie. ships at the front will begin to move to the back as there shields go down, ships at the back will begin to move foward to take the place of the ships with there shields lowerd.

and an option for a ship to change its individual stratergy if somehting occurs during combat, like its shields drop past X amount then it should change to run away

a stratergy wich will have ships attempt to stay behind other ships in a fleet, but not run away would be good to.

[Renegade 13]

People have mentioned retreat being an option. While I like this idea, there is one problem. Does anyone else remember how retreat is SEIII worked? Often, an enemy colony ship or transport could run off the end of the map every single time you attacked it. This became annoying, because the only way to destroy that ship was to push it into the corner of the system map, and block (with other ships) the 3 possible escape routes, so they could not retreat from the combat.

If there is to be a retreat option in combat, my request would be to have it so situations such as the one described above can not occur. Unfortunately, I'm not at all sure how that would be implemented! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif

[Fyron]

Make it so that you can only retreat if either:

1) You move faster than all of the enemy warships. You should always be able to run away if you are faster.

2) You mill about at the edge of the map for 10 turns without being fired at. If you are slower, but the enemy is not chasing you down, why can you not just continue on your merry way? Or, if your warships set out to engage the enemy warships so that the non-combatants can get away, why should this not be allowable? There are many realistic situations in which this occurs. Naturally, this option will require making the AI smart enough to send at least one warship against each fleeing enemy non-combatant if there are no enemy warships, or only sending ships after fleeing non-combatants if there are enough warships to devote to crushing the enemy fleet.

[Instar]

Im a fan of more complex strategies myself, like setting up flanking or whatever. Scriptable AI would be great though, it would make things tougher to mod maybe, but it'd be nice to have.

[Thermodyne]

"People have mentioned retreat being an option. While I like this idea, there is one problem. Does anyone else remember how retreat is SEIII worked?"

It was a good option for getting past warp point defences too http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

[Master Belisarius]

"People have mentioned retreat being an option. While I like this idea, there is one problem. Does anyone else remember how retreat is SEIII worked?"

It was a good option for getting past warp point defences too http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif


Exactly my friend! Always I have considered the tricks around the SE3's retreat, as a feature! Not a bug or problem!

[Azselendor]

I'm sure this has been mentioned already, but how about being able to draw out generic strategies like a football game plan. This way, in strategic combat, a player can still hold some control over thier fleet.

Perhaps a 'fog of war' option for combat too.

[Paul1980au]

how would you work with a fog of war option in combat - you would have to factor in cloaking levels, scanners, computer tech levels, defensive bonuses - movement ability - other special tech.

It sounds interesting but perhaps fog of war is better kept to the actual empire level part of the game - the overhead manangement part.

[Raging Deadstar]

I think all these stratergy suggestions are great and all but I think we really need to keep things simple with the option of customisation. We might be "veterans" of the Space Empires but new players probably don't want to be swamped in options.

Also A better Combat Simulator to test them out would be a start. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

[FLX]

That's true, i miss a damages report at the combat simulator. Something like the log's combat report would be much more usefull than just knowing the units you have lost

[dogscoff]

I would dearly love to see the retrerat option brought back, but the SEIII model would need some improvement:



Make it so that you can only retreat if either:
1) You move faster than all of the enemy warships. You should always be able to run away if you are faster.




Agreed, with a few modifications:
You can only retreat if you are faster than any enemy warships AND you are not in any enemy firing range AND you are at the edge of the map/not hemmed in by enemy ships. This Last clause might be hard to code, so instead of having a specific "retreat" button which may or may not be available at any given time, I have another suggestion- a "run like hell" button:



2) You mill about at the edge of the map for 10 turns without being fired at.




A lot of the current complaints about combat (ships getting stuck in corners etc) could be solved simply by making the combat arena much much bigger. In fact, a kind of de-facto retreat option could be supplied by simply making the combat map so big that any ship fast enough to outrun enemy pursuers has the opportunity to do just that. The map would have to be at least twice as big as the fastest conceivable ship could possibly travel in the given amount of combat turns, added to twice the range of the longest-range weapon. Plus one. Better yet, make the size of the combat map moddable, and that way we can mod our own retreat options in and out as we see fit. in the event of such a retreat the two forces would remain in the same sector after combat, but as long as the game is tweaked so that combat isn't automatically triggered again and again, this shouldn't cause a problem.

However my biggest gripe with the retreat option was retreating through warp points- in SEIII you used to be able to go into combat at a warp point, then retreat immediately, before the enemy's ships and bases can fire on you. Next turn, you just move freely through the warp point, no matter how heavily fortified it may be. You can pull a similar trick in se4 if the enemy's forces are only static ones, by simply hanging around beyond the range of their guns until combat is over.
Given the fact that SE4 is completely built around warp points, and almost all SE strategy revolves around controlling chokepoints, this is not a Good Thing.
What I'm sayig is, if the retreat option is brought back (and even if it isn't, come to think about it) then you should ONLY be able to pass through a warp point if (A) there are no (visible) hostile forces in the sector OR (B) you can go into tactical or strategic combat and actually defeat/evade the enemy to fly your ship(s) into the warp point.

[Fyron]

Agreed, with a few modifications:
You can only retreat if you are faster than any enemy warships AND you are not in any enemy firing range AND you are at the edge of the map/not hemmed in by enemy ships. This Last clause might be hard to code, so instead of having a specific "retreat" button which may or may not be available at any given time, I have another suggestion- a "run like hell" button:



The idea was to only be able to retreat at the edge of the combat map. Makes no sense to be able to retreat if the enemy is firing at you... and if you are faster than the enemy, you will be able to get out of range of their guns and reach the edge of the map, if you ships are set to retreat orders.

A larger combat map (and a moddable size one) would indeed be a great addition. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

[davewski]

I'm brand new to this game but I see here that people are requesting scripting for choreographing combats. My only request would be to keep the emphasis on human interaction. Too many games get ruined because the combat systems or PvP interactions devolve into whose uber script can defeat another's by spamming various commands. Then it simply becomes a push button system with little or no human strategy guiding it.

[FLX]

Compiling those scripts before using them will prevent the players to do those "uber scripts", you can limit the number of lines of code or limiting the times that you command the same, and of course, it IS a push button system if you dont use tactical combat. I think it really is backwards, i mean, scripting the strategies would give deepness to the game, and a more customized behavoir of the ships. If you want fully human interface, use tactical combat, but you can't choose in pbw games.

[davewski]

The one mini example I saw posted consisted of a nested series of IF:THEN statements involving IF the opponent has these ship types, THEN choose this tactic. IF they have THAT, then do that tactic. What kind of decision making is involved with something like that? It seems to try and become a one-size-fits-all methodology that takes much of the decision making out of ship design, fleet design, formations, and choice of tactics. I am referring specifically to the strategic combat system as I won't be playing many games against computer opponents.

Now, it is quite possible with new game ignorance that I simply don't appreciate what people are referring to regarding these scripts. If this is true then I'll shut up now. If not, then I'd like my opinion voiced as a person most likely to purchase the new game when it comes out.

[Master Belisarius]

Don't undersand very well, those complaints about ONLY the "uber" programers or more experienced players, would be able to do the best scripts.

To me is pretty obvious that would be allowed to save those scripts, and post them as part of more AI scripts or saved as strategies scripts itself or something like that.
Then, every human player would be able to use combat scripts done by others.

Given the opportunity to the fans to customize more things, the game would be better and better.
We had a taste comparing the TDM AIs vs the Stock AIs. But if we could start to use better scripts/tools, then, for sure the game will be a lot more interesting for SP, but also for MP games.

[tesco samoa]

plus the se universe has a good habit of sharing and explaining. I think our track record at this site shows that.

[Kevin Arisa]

One of my biggest gripes is the way satellites are deployed. 4 out of 5 times the sats are on the opposite side of the warp point\planet that the enemy is on. The enemy then is able to stay at least 3 spaces away from the sats by staying on the opposite side of the planet\warp point and the sats cant do anything about it. Perhaps making the sats form a ring or sphere around whatever it is they are orbiting would fix this.

Regarding retreating, I think distance should be the deciding factor. I dont know any scripting language or anything but I have guessed on something like this:
If player distance from enemy &gt; 5 + enemy max weapons range.
That way a ship would have to get out of weapons range before falling off the map. Perhaps making the boundaries move to keep the combatants off the edge unless they are out of range of each other. That would add a bit of an ". . .almost. . .there. . ." effect to retreating.

Regarding custom formations, An interactive window that has all available ships in the fleet in a "tray" on the side and a blank grid in the center. Then a simple drag and drop action would make it easy for even the newest players to get in on fleet formations. Of course, defaults should be kept as an option.

Some sort of scripting would be great. Those that dont want to learn how to use it can just use scripts made by others.

[Baron Munchausen]

More important than just bringing retreat back, the AI has to use it properly. Enough with the suicidal aliens. We need some sort of 'morale' included in the AI so that crews will know when they are beaten and give up instead of attacking to the Last lifepod. Yes, it can get complex building 'motivation' into the game because you have to account for external circumstances. A battle to defend your homeworld against a genocidal foe is obviously far more likely to see the suicidal behavior we've become used to seeing from the SE AI than a battle for some warp point on the fringes of a huge empire. But that's what AI is for -- to make the computer seem to think like a 'real' person. We need a much smarter AI in combat as much as in game play.

[Baron Munchausen]

I think the satellite problem will be solved in SE V by default because of the new combat engine. Each 'unit' (whether ship or otherwise) is modeled individually. There won't be 'satellite Groups' anymore so there won't be unnatural concentrations of them. They will be placed individually like ships and therefore will always be scattered much more broadly and usefully then they ever were in SE IV.

[tesco samoa]

One thing I think that needs to be addresed in combat is scanning and jamming. I think that this needs to be broken down to different levels and types.

And I think there needs to be combat range on the scanning.

Cause I feel that you should not know your enemy ships just because your fighting them.

Does this sound like an interesting idea ?

[Kana]

One thing I think that needs to be addresed in combat is scanning and jamming. I think that this needs to be broken down to different levels and types.

And I think there needs to be combat range on the scanning.

Cause I feel that you should not know your enemy ships just because your fighting them.

Does this sound like an interesting idea ?



I agree...this sounds like a wonderful idea...will add alot more elements to the areas of intelligence and such...also with the ability to retreat from combat...you could send in a fast scout...to get intel as well...

Kana

[davewski]

That sharing aspect is actually one of the potential issues. I'll use a specific analogy.

I play Star Wars Galaxies. In that game various character classes have abilities and can use specific combat maneuvers giving them certain advantages in combat. People can create macros string together various maneuvers so that pushing one button executes the entire sequence. Eventually, people figured out that by combining classes 'X' and 'Y', using technologies '1' and '2', and stringing together maneuvers 'a' and 'b', they could create macros resulting in nearly unkillable, unbeatable characters in PvP. This has resulted in situations where most everyone who wanted to compete equally in PvP had to adopt similar methods. It basically eliminated any type of real decision making. People just went into combat and executed the same macros over and over. This made a lot of people very unhappy. The game developers have had to play catch up ever since constantly revising weapons, classes, and maneuvers to try and balance out the situation.

That type of situation could occur in a game like this by allowing people to create fully automated scripts for simultaneous combat. People are smart and eventually someone would figure this out. Anyone who wouldn't have a similar script could be at a severe disadvantage. People would share the scripts with each other and the game could become a cookie-cutter game where most people take race X or Y; techs 1,2,3; build designs a,b,c; use combat scripts A,B; or most likely lose a multi-player game.

It might not actually happen, but it is a subject to consider. Personally, I like the current system of manually programming maneuvers for ships and fleets. It's a bit more micro-management, but it creates uncertainty. Choose the wrong tactics or strategy and you lose. Sometimes you lose even when choosing right. That's what war is all about.

[tesco samoa]

right now you do not manually enter ship movements or battle plans. it is all done by the computer.

[Tanus]

Davewski - Tactical combat mode where you can input your orders is not currently possible in multiplayer - only single player. As such, the computer deals with all combat already - we're just trying to make it better and smarter for SEV.

-----------------------------

As for what I'd like to see, I must agree with most of what's been said already.

First, with regards to retreats, if your ship is faster, and hasn't been sucked in close to the enemy, it should be able to get away, rather than trapped in corners, as has been said.
As for slower ships able to retreat, this should also be possible so long as you are able to delay the attacking warships long enough for the ship to make its getaway.

For example, it would be worthwhile to place a few escorts with a convoy of colony ships, and if attacked, the escorts would attack and attempt to delay the attacking ships long enough for the colony ships to get enough head start to escape from the attackers. Of course, if the attackers were strong enough to just blow through your escorts, they're not going to be slowed down enough to prevent them catching the fleeing non-combatants.


Secondly, initial 'placement' of ships and bases definitely requires more input. Even if there is not a manual placement option (which would be very nice, and could be set for a fleet when it's created or modified), there needs to be more specific options for where they are located in battle. I just recently had a battle, where I was defending a warp point, and while my mobile defences were enough to win the battle, all of my static, immobile defenses - bases, etc - appeared in the bottom corner of the map and had no chance to fire at all.
Being able to specify that a base is orbiting a planet or defending a warp point would be very helpful in that regard.

Thirdly, I definitely like the idea of either sub-units (Groups of ships that always stay together) and general orders that prevent weaker ships from charging ahead of the main fleet and being slaughtered on their own.

[Antonin]

I think the option to retreat would be great. Too often, combat in SE4 is an all or nothing thing. One fleet or the other is wiped out, and combat ends. I think a fleet should automatically disengage once its strength is worn down to a certain point.

[se5a]

how about if you can STEAL the scripts via intel!!!!!
(and even ship capture)

I dooubt we will have to worry to much about them becomming "cookycutter" type things, since the game is to fluid, your going to want to use a diferent stratergie for glassing plannets than you would if you wanted to capture it or blockade it. same with WP. are you going throug the wp or blockadeing it? its going to be diferent. then your probibly going to want to change it slighly depending on what empire your expecing to come throuhg the wp. are they using APB? nulspace? missiles? ppb? *gulp* are they armed with computer viruses? are they using more shields or more weapons?

[Q]

Regarding retreat I would suggest to make it an option in the game setup.
I wouldn't like to see the same annoying ship chasing as in SE III again.
And in SE IV the main problem IMO is ships running into a corner and staying there awaiting to be killed instead of running away in a circular motion. Sometimes fast ships do that in SE IV and then they survive the combat even without retreat option.

[dogscoff]

Regarding retreat I would suggest to make it an option in the game setup.
I wouldn't like to see the same annoying ship chasing as in SE III again.
And in SE IV the main problem IMO is ships running into a corner and staying there awaiting to be killed instead of running away in a circular motion. Sometimes fast ships do that in SE IV and then they survive the combat even without retreat option.



Like I said, a (moddably) huge combat field would solve both problems at a single stroke.

[Fyron]

Like I said, a (moddably) huge combat field would solve both problems at a single stroke.

Yesterday in the chat, Aaron said that we will be able to mod the size of the system maps in SE5. Presumably we could do the same for the combat map. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

[davewski]

I am not referring to tactical combat. I am talking about simultaneous combat in the multi-player game. Everyone must choose tactics and targeting priorities for each ship and fleet prior to engaging combat. Otherwise the computer simply uses a default. The manual decisions people must make about how to design ships, fleet organizations, targeting orders and movements, and how to integrate them all together decides who wins combats in the multi-player games.

That is the manual aspect I am referring to.

[Caduceus]

I'm sure others have noticed, but there is a new teaser page on the malfador website.

Here (http://www.malfador.com/se5/se5main.html)

For the Amon'krie. Wonder if we'll get one for each race, if they're going alphabetically...

Wildcard

[Baron Munchausen]

Wow! If that's a sample of how the in-game models will look I'm impressed. The Amon'Krie ships are fairly cool looking in SE IV. It's one of my favorite sets. But even if the detail won't be as high as this banner, the re-interpretation of that style is very slick.

[Ed Kolis]

Ah, I see they got their classic look back... and their apostrophe http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

[Suicide Junkie]

It also looks like the Amon'krie go to bed early and consistently...
There are no lights on the night side of the colony http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

[Raging Deadstar]

Suicide Junkie said:
It also looks like the Amon'krie go to bed early and consistently...
There are no lights on the night side of the colony http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif



From the way the planets are done i think he's using a filter called lunarcell. I'm using it with photoshop and it really ruins the planet when you add city lights on the dark side of the planet http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif

[spoon]

Suicide Junkie said:
It also looks like the Amon'krie go to bed early and consistently...
There are no lights on the night side of the colony http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif



They're giant worms. They live underground. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

[Baron Munchausen]

They don't necessarily see in the same part of the spectrum that we do, either. If they are underground dwellers they might see in infra-red.

[ZeroAdunn]

Why won't this work

[Fyron]

ZeroAdunn said:
Why won't this work

There were some problems with the forum upgrade in regards to sigs. Just edit your sig, don't change anything, and hit ok. It should fix it.

[ZeroAdunn]

Fyron: I was actually having trouble getting anything to post on my sidekick.

Anyways, what I was going to say:

I would like a system of defense and offense rating.

Offense rating would be the total amount of damage a ship can soak and pd rating.

Offensive rating is an equation of scanning/damage/rate of fire.

When setting strategies you can choose attack priorities based on these values.

I definately think battleGroups within a fleet are a great idea. However, I owuld prefer to se formations unique to each fleet. Oh sure, you could load up defaults, but each default could be customized.

The way I would like to see formations handled is:
You bring up the formations window, and select the fleet you wish to modify. Each ship would fill a slot and when added into the fleet this identifier would display in the ship display window. When creating formations you first creat the battlegroup formation by placing the ship identifiers on a grid. Once done you can assign these same formations to other battleGroups or design new ones. Then you go up to the fleet window and place the various battleGroups into a larger arrangement. When a ship is destroyed or if you plan a battlegroup to have more ships then currently available this is displayed by an empty slot in the ship/battlegroup/fleet display, and when you go to add new ships to the fleet, you fill slots rather then randomly addung ships to the formation. If you want to add more ships then you have slots for, simply make another battlegroup. If all the ships of a battlegroup are destroyed, the battlegroup doesn't just dissapear, it must be physicly removed from the fleet arrangement.

Sure it is a little more complex, and maybe even a little hard to understand, but in later game when fleets have hundreds of ships in them it will make planning of ship construction and fleet arrangement far easier.

I've got tons more to expand on this idea, but now I must go home.