Realtime or turnbased tactical combat?

[klausD]

I am not sure if I should look forward to the next release of a game which was since its SEII incarnation one of my favorite games. I can understand all the wows and hoorays of many fans. The screenshot graphics are looking very good and some features of the new release are very promising (like the infinite universe and tech trees) But IMO there are some more or less serious problems with SEV if it arrives in the announced way.

1. To the most serious problem
Realtime tactical combat? I cannot understand this. After 3 Editions with good old turnbased combat, Aaron is planning one central element of the game in realtime http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/fear.gif
At least for me I never played a good realtime/turnbased hybrid type of a game. (ok I played also never a good "pure" realtime game) And the baddest of them was MOO3. This game had also a realtime tactical engine and my fear is that Aaron SEV will go in the same trap than MOO3.
One strength of the SE series derives from its similarity to the boardgame Starfire and that game is of course turnbased. So the upcoming realtime change of SEV is fundamental to the whole game and there are virtually no broad discussions about it in the forums.

2. Another prob: ground combat
As far as I was able to follow the messages about current SEV, Aaron plans a similar ground combat system as in SEIV. While this is in my eyes preferable to a realtime ground combat system its not the best one. Many posts are opting for a better ground combat. So is there any chance for this? And if not, why is Aaron ignoring the many demands? Personally I would not like to have a very detailed system with ground movement or so. But there should be a motivation to design different types of units (like artillery, special planetary assault units and so on) and a possibility to do some abstract tactics like "dig in" or "all-out assault". It would also be good to have the possiblity to planet assault with several ships at once instead with just one.
I think invading whole worlds is not a minor thing. I is complex and it could sometimes last very long. (sometimes for years in game world terms) The SEV design should pay attention to this matter and should adjust the rules accordingly. Such an approach would make the gameplay deeper and would add an additional and interesting dimension in strategic planning.


3. All these stuff about heroes, ship crews and so on

Well the scope of the game is to rule hundreds of worlds with hundreds of billions inhabitants. Single persons or ship crews should rather be the scope of a small unit tactics game, SF-shooter or an SF-adventure than that of a galactic strategy game. I as designer would improve the AI or do better ground combat rules instead spending my time on developing hero rules.

What do you think about this?

[douglas]

1. The primary reason for switching to realtime combat was for play balance. In SEIV, the turnbased nature of combat gives a HUGE advantage to whoever gets to shoot first, which is usually determined pretty much randomly. Most of the concerns I've heard about the realtime combat issue are that it would degenerate into a rapid clickfest with little actual strategy. I'm not in the beta (yet) so I can't say for sure, but I'm pretty certain it will be realtime with pausing - take all the time you need to issue orders, then watch them executed in realtime for either a set time or until someone hits pause - so that's not likely to happen.

2. Yes, all we had heard for a long time indicated that ground combat would be just as simplified as it is in SEIV. Then this screenshot (http://www.malfador.com/SE5scr008.htm) got posted.

3. "Heroes" or "Great Leaders" or whatever you want to call them were one of the most liked features of the MoO series, and they have been requested for SE many times by many people. I'm afraid you're outvoted on this one. Besides, even in a gigantic empire with 100 billion citizens, surely there are a few individuals who have developed a widespread reputation as one of the best at their job, whether their job is fleet command or new colony development.

[klausD]

The primary reason for switching to realtime combat was for play balance. In SEIV, the turnbased nature of combat gives a HUGE advantage to whoever gets to shoot first, which is usually determined pretty much randomly

If the "play balance" was the prob in SEIV then its easy to change it without turning the whole tactical system upside down. MOO2 has achieved this with a simple trick - alternating initiatives depending on the offence modifier. With a little bit time to think about it a similar solution would also have been possible in SEV.

And regarding play balance. In realtime the guy which clicks faster on some pause or order button wins over the slower thoughtful guy. And while he manage one part of the battlefield he get stomped on the flanks by his frenetic clicking enemy who is used to play those realtime shooters. THIS I call a problem in play balance.

To solve the problem with the faster clicks the only possible solution seems to me if the game automatically stops every minute or so and this is the only time both players can give orders. During the game is moving no order issuing should be allowed by any of the players. After order issuing the game should only go ahead if both players (not just one) hit their "go" buttons until the time the next predefined pause showes up allowing to give new orders. Another realtime system prefers the fastclicker over the slow thinker.

Another problem is the range of weapons. As long as the weapon range is per hex or per square there is no problem in calculating the necessary distances for optimal usage of a weapon.
And how is it in realtime? I suppose you have to hit a seperate button for each single ship to be informed about the maximum weapon ranges. What is with bigger ships and different weapons on them? Do I have to click on each weapon system seperately? And do I have to calculate in the current moving speed, so that the weapon range of every weapon on every of my ships is changing every second? A real clicking nightmare if you want to control a whole fleet. And very dissatisfying if you fire-click too soon and the salvo is 3mm to short.

Such a realtime system is not what I understand of a good strategic game. MOO3 is greeting!

Ground combat screen
Thanks for the link to the screenshot. If this is used then it seems that the ground combat system is hex- and turnbased. Not a bad thing if it is designed well.
So now we have a turnbased ground combat system and a realtime space combat system? (and a turnbased strategic system) What comes next?

Single Person and Heroes
I still think they add unnecessary design time but I can live with them as long as the rest of the game is ok.

[douglas]

klausD said:
And regarding play balance. In realtime the guy which clicks faster on some pause or order button wins over the slower thoughtful guy. And while he manage one part of the battlefield he get stomped on the flanks by his frenetic clicking enemy who is used to play those realtime shooters. THIS I call a problem in play balance.


Which is why Aaron will be very careful to design the combat engine so this isn't a problem.


klausD said:
To solve the problem with the faster clicks the only possible solution seems to me if the game automatically stops every minute or so and this is the only time both players can give orders. During the game is moving no order issuing should be allowed by any of the players. After order issuing the game should only go ahead if both players (not just one) hit their "go" buttons until the time the next predefined pause showes up allowing to give new orders. Another realtime system prefers the fastclicker over the slow thinker.


Congratulations for answering your own concerns! I'm pretty sure this is almost exactly how it will work when the game is finished.


klausD said:
Another problem is the range of weapons. As long as the weapon range is per hex or per square there is no problem in calculating the necessary distances for optimal usage of a weapon.
And how is it in realtime? I suppose you have to hit a seperate button for each single ship to be informed about the maximum weapon ranges. What is with bigger ships and different weapons on them? Do I have to click on each weapon system seperately? And do I have to calculate in the current moving speed, so that the weapon range of every weapon on every of my ships is changing every second? A real clicking nightmare if you want to control a whole fleet. And very dissatisfying if you fire-click too soon and the salvo is 3mm to short.


Do you really think you'll have to micromanage battles that much? I'm sure your ships will be perfectly capable of figuring out that they have to move just a little bit closer before shooting by themselves. The orders you give will probably be more along the lines of "Stay at maximum range of x weapon while trying to surround the enemy. Fire as requently as possible using targeting priority list y and allocating z% overkill to compensate for misses."

[Kid]

I heard the same from the MOOIII developers about their real time combat system and for three years I waited only to see the game die in three weeks. I am very disappointed I thought I had finally found a 4X game to take up where MOOII left off. I will not buy a real time game.

[douglas]

MoO3 was a disaster, I'll grant you that, but I very much doubt the same thing will happen to SEV. MoO3 wasn't even developed by the same company as MoO1 and 2, much less the same people, and went through many major design changes. It also suffered from a lack of dedication to making a truly good game in the face of pressure to get it out the door quickly so the publisher could make money. SEV is being developed by exactly the same person who made all the previous Space Empires games, is not going through frequent radical revisions to the basic design, and Aaron has a history of delaying release to make the game better and then sticking around and improving it for years afterwards. Even right now, the beta test has started and quite a number of the beta testers are forum regulars who have expressed some concern over the issue in the past. If the consensus is that the realtime combat engine sucks, you can depend on it that Aaron will keep working on it and improving it, taking suggestions from every fan who cares to give one, until it's great. You should at the very least give the demo a try when it comes out.

[Kid]

I don't understand why game companies don't get it. The exploration, the Tec research the building up of the planets are all for one purpose....combat. It is all just to get you into comabt with the ships you've designed. It is the tactical turnbased combat that made MOOII and for me SEIV must have games. I don't want the AI making any decisions for me. I'd play MOOIII (if it can still be found in the dust bin) if I wanted that. I'm sorry to come off so hard but I am very dissapoined. There is a reason everyone holds MOOII up are a measuring stick. Think of that, a 10 year old game that is still considered the best game yet.

[Kid]

I will be willing to try the Demo. After all Bauler's (Spelling?)Gate, had a semi-realtime and it was a great game.

[Stregone]

Realtime combat is good. Remember it isn't a real time strategy game. There will be no real time resource management or build queues or anything like that, just straight up combat. Say you have a small skirmish with just a few ships each side, maybe you can speed up the time. Big huge fleet battle? Slow it down a bit. Alot of RTS games have that sort of option.

[Zarix]

Kid said:
I don't understand why game companies don't get it. The exploration, the Tec research the building up of the planets are all for one purpose....combat. It is all just to get you into comabt with the ships you've designed. It is the tactical turnbased combat that made MOOII and for me SEIV must have games.



I have played both SE3 and SE4 a lot, but I haven't ever finished a tactical combat battle. At least I play Space Empires only because of the strategy part.

[Kid]

Stregone said:
Realtime combat is good. Remember it isn't a real time strategy game. There will be no real time resource management or build queues or anything like that, just straight up combat. Say you have a small skirmish with just a few ships each side, maybe you can speed up the time. Big huge fleet battle? Slow it down a bit. Alot of RTS games have that sort of option.



That will not do it for me. Name me one 4X game with real-time combat that is still talked about let alone still on the market. Ask your self why games like SEIV and Galactic Civilization have a following. Many of the players are die-hard MOO II fans that love turn base combat. I'm sorry but I very seriously doubt I'll be buying SEV. Out of respect for the developers and beta testes I will not post on this again. I've worked on a lot of games and I know how much blood sweet and tears goes into making a game.

[klausD]

Douglas,
You mean you have infos about the way the realttime tactical combat will be?


Do you really think you'll have to micromanage battles that much? I'm sure your ships will be perfectly capable of figuring out that they have to move just a little bit closer before shooting by themselves. The orders you give will probably be more along the lines of "Stay at maximum range of x weapon while trying to surround the enemy. Fire as requently as possible using targeting priority list y and allocating z% overkill to compensate for misses."



We will see if this is really the approach. The new strategy game imperial glory for example is also a hybrid tactical realtime/strategic turnbased game and in tactical combat each player has to check constantly the ranges of every unit without the options to predefine the behaviour of his units you describe. This means not of course that SEV will have the same system but it shows the usual (and questionable) way modern hybrid games go.

Kid,
so I am not the only one who is in concern with turning the tactical game upside down. Good to know.

Stregone,
If people want to play a realtime SF game there are myriards of those out there. No need to invade the SE series and making it not enjoyable anymore for its turnbased fans who played (and bought) every incarnation the last 10 years.

zarix,
well I have no problem with that you dont like the tactical game of SEIV. But there are many people who like it (me for example) and thats the reason for my concern and for this thread.

General
The more I think about the topic the more I assume that the SEV designers are in search for the mainstream bucks. Its their good right to do with their game what they want, but this new way excludes many of longtime SE-fans which prefer turnbased thinking over realtime clicking.

[douglas]

klausD said:
Douglas,
You mean you have infos about the way the realttime tactical combat will be?


Do you really think you'll have to micromanage battles that much? I'm sure your ships will be perfectly capable of figuring out that they have to move just a little bit closer before shooting by themselves. The orders you give will probably be more along the lines of "Stay at maximum range of x weapon while trying to surround the enemy. Fire as requently as possible using targeting priority list y and allocating z% overkill to compensate for misses."



We will see if this is really the approach. The new strategy game imperial glory for example is also a hybrid tactical realtime/strategic turnbased game and in tactical combat each player has to check constantly the ranges of every unit without the options to predefine the behaviour of his units you describe. This means not of course that SEV will have the same system but it shows the usual (and questionable) way modern hybrid games go.


No, I don't actually have solid information on how that will work, and I won't until either the game is released or I get in the beta. Of course, if I get in the beta, I'll be bound by the NDA to not tell you anything about it until release, so either way you'll just have to wait for the release date or an official comment from Malfador. I'm just figuring that Aaron knows about the concerns of longtime fans that realtime combat could become a micromanagement clickfest nightmare, and what I described is the logical extension of SEIV's strategies and would solve the problem quite nicely.


klausD said:
General
The more I think about the topic the more I assume that the SEV designers are in search for the mainstream bucks. Its their good right to do with their game what they want, but this new way excludes many of longtime SE-fans which prefer turnbased thinking over realtime clicking.


Yes, it does seem that Aaron is going for big bucks to some extent this time, he's even going with a retail distributor instead of online distribution only. However, I think he's established far to good a reputation with his current fanbase to want to risk alienating them. Plus, too many prominent members of the online community have expressed their opinions and their (very similar and quite reasonable) suggestions for making realtime combat not a clickfest for him to reasonably ignore them.

[Captain Kwok]

Have no worries my friends!

There are many excellent options available for the real-time tactical combat, including the ability to pause every X seconds to issue orders to your ships if you want - this can be used to easily recreate turn-based combat except all ships would execute their orders at the same time during the interval.

Even cooler is that you can even just focus on controlling just one ship (as if you're the commander) while keeping the others under AI.

It's not at all about who can click the fastest or anything like that.

I can't say anything more than that, but again don't worry. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif

[Captain Kwok]

Sure, perhaps a bit of real-time combat might help the appeal of the game and add some eye candy, but there are far more benefits to having such a system. It eliminates 95% of all the silliness and lopsideness that occurs in a turn-based system.

[Renegade 13]

Kid said:
Name me one 4X game with real-time combat that is still talked about let alone still on the market. Ask your self why games like SEIV and Galactic Civilization has a following. Many of the players are die-hard MOO II fans that love turn base combat.


I'm sorry, but you really can't compare SEIV combat to Galactic Civilizations combat. GalCiv combat was, quite frankly, primitive. SEIV had a much greater deal of control, and had far fewer things hidden from the player. No comparison, really.

Some advice: You have said you probably won't be buying SEV, simply because of the change in the way combat is dealt with. Why judge so fast? There's really no reason at this stage for you to believe it will be horrible. I'd suggest at least waiting until the demo comes out, download it, run a few combats, then judge. But please, don't be so negative just because some other games haven't managed to do a good job.

[douglas]

... Said two beta testers, who have actually had the opportunity to try out the new realtime combat system. Does that do anything to settle your concerns, klausD?

[Phoenix-D]

Said beta testers might want to watch their comments lest they get wacked with the NDA stick..

[DeadZone]

I for one love the idea of a real-time combat
*Just to note that Ive yet to actually try SEV combat out*
As Ive always found Turn-based combat too slow and tedious, and Im the type of guy who likes to have to think fast and be on my feet

As for, who can click the quickest... dont forget it will be against the AI, who can think a 1000 times faster than us anyway, plus issue a 100 orders to a hundred ships before we finish that first thought
As for MP, if its like SEIV, then you dont get to see the combat until after its occured anyway

[Captain Kwok]

Phoenix-D said:
Said beta testers might want to watch their comments lest they get wacked with the NDA stick..

I didn't say anything that Aaron didn't mention in the IRC chats. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

[Zereth]

I remember hearing that the ship strategies, as well as the more general AI stuff, was now done with scripting systems, so you have more control over things than in SEIV? Can anyone confirm or deny this?

Keep in mind that simultaneous strategic movement will probably work in much the same way as in SEIV (aside from the hex grid replacing the square grid), so if you're playing multi-player you wouldn't have direct control over your ships in combat at all anyway.

[Captain Kwok]

The AI can be scripted yes. To what degree I cannot say!

[Renegade 13]

Phoenix-D said:
Said beta testers might want to watch their comments lest they get wacked with the NDA stick..



What I said, any fool could say. Anyone can say that people should wait before judging, and my comments about SEIV have nothing to do with SEV! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif I was quite careful to stay away from potential NDA-breaching comments.

[Kid]

I will wait for the demo. I'm very happy there will be a demo. A lot of game companies no longer do that

[Phoenix-D]

Captain Kwok said:

Phoenix-D said:
Said beta testers might want to watch their comments lest they get wacked with the NDA stick..

I didn't say anything that Aaron didn't mention in the IRC chats. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif



Then there's an IRC chat I haven't read. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

[Renegade 13]

I don't know if there will be a demo for sure, I'm just assuming from the SEV website found at www.malfador.com (http://www.malfador.com) Find the SEV link near the top, click it, then look on the left side and you'll see a link saying "Demo". That's all I'm basing the assumption that a demo will be available on.

[Kid]

Renegade 13 said:
I don't know if there will be a demo for sure, I'm just assuming from the SEV website found at www.malfador.com (http://www.malfador.com) Find the SEV link near the top, click it, then look on the left side and you'll see a link saying "Demo". That's all I'm basing the assumption that a demo will be available on.



LOL don't worry I won't turn on you if they don't make a demo.

[Captain Kwok]

Phoenix-D said: Then there's an IRC chat I haven't read.

That just might be true. It was the first question answered in the first SE:V chat: IRC Chat Session on SE:V #1 (Europe Timezone) (http://seirc.spaceempires.net/archives.php?page=browse&file=MMchat8-13-04-session_one)

[Renegade 13]

Kid said:
LOL don't worry I won't turn on you if they don't make a demo.


Heh, I guess I sounded like a politician there eh? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif

[Fyron]

Klaus... How many times must you dreg this up? It will not be in any way, shape or form a RTS game. Considering who is making this game, I feel fairly confident in stating that your concerns are entirely unfounded. Real time != click festing. There are many real time games out there that entirely lack RTS elements.

Against human opponents, there would likely only be strategic combat available, as in SEIV. In such situations, it does not matter one iota whether the combat is real time or turn based, as you have no control. Against the AI, you can take as much time as you want issuing orders while the game is paused, then unpause it for a bit and watch your orders be executed. The best turn based combat systems tend to feel arbitrarily clunky in their attempts to emulate simultaneous, real time combat execution.

MOO3 is in no way a valid comparison. As others stated, it was not made properly. Way too many corporate fanaglings went on in its production that ripped the heart and soul out of it. This is not going to happen with SEV.

[Suicide Junkie]

Simply looking up the responses made by me and Fyron in the older threads about SE5 should answer a lot of questions. (Given Fyron's post below, I presume he feels the same frustration about people repeatedly voicing the same concerns without ever truly comprehending the responses.)

Trust in what the ancient SE4 masters had to say about things.
Wise in the ways of Aaron, they be.

[klausD]

Said two beta testers, who have actually had the opportunity to try out the new realtime combat system. Does that do anything to settle your concerns, klausD?



No, sorry to say that it does not settle my concerns. For example Captain Kwok writes that it is possible to pause the game every x seconds. Well this means that I have to press the pause button myself. This is not a good message. Because if I dont press it (because I am too slow or the cat jumps on the desk or I simple dont like to press it...) I will loose. So I am forced to press in the right moment and not before or thereafter. And voila the clickfest begins.
And the remark that you can just control a single ship. Well this gives me the rest. WHAT is Space Empires? Its a galactic strategy game! Its not Elite. Controlling a single ship with your heroes have nothing to do with such a 4X game. If I want to play a single ship/hero game I am playing Elite or Starfury.
3. Captain Kwok also says that a turn-based system is silly and lopsy. If this is the new design philosphy behind SEV so why not changing the strategy part too to real-time? I am quite sure SEVI (if it somedays arises) will have this.
Of course with a pause button and no clickfest. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

[se5a]

dude, you're a blockhead.
I'm sorry, but it's true.

it's not a clickfest. full stop. just shutup if you are not going to belive those in the know till theres a demo out.

[Mephisto]

Kwok said you could handle a single ship in combat if you want, the rest would be AI controlled. Such option was present in SE4 for planets as well and you were not required to use it.

Further, he said that combat could be paused every x seconds. Such a statement implies that there is an option to make the game stop automatically every x seconds without user interaction. Have a look at the Combat Missions series to see how such a system can work very nicely.

[klausD]

Emp. Fyron: Klaus... How many times must you dreg this up?



Well I am drewing it up more than once, because I am really concerned about the future of the SE series. And I am drewing it up because it was one of my favorite games on PC over the last 10 years. Another reason I was drewing it up is that are too few discussions in the forums about the upcoming fundamental real-time change and its "benefits".


Emp. Fyron: It will not be in any way, shape or form a RTS game.



Maybe you have a different view what a RTS game is. My view is if the engine is realtime, it is RTS. If it has a pause button or a "slow down" function does not mean that it is no RTS anymore.



Emp. Fyron: Against the AI, you can take as much time as you want issuing orders while the game is paused, then unpause it for a bit and watch your orders be executed.



Well the question should be allowed what happens if I am issuing orders too late because the AI does this faster than I? I guess my ships will be blown up, even if I have the better overall tactic. Or is there an inbuilt mechanism which grants me that I am always faster in issuing orders as my opponent?

And just watching my orders executed is not a really realistic statement. Especially if there are hundreds of ships and fighters involved as in SEIII or IV. Then there is always something to click and to do on the battlefield. And give your orders before the AI does it or your ships will be blown up. Additionally while you are watching the ship moves at one part of the battlefield, your ships at another part will be stomped by the AI, except you are scrolling in time to this part and press the pausebutton to issue new orders. Not my definition of a stressless game. Thanks.


MOO3 is in no way a valid comparison. As others stated, it was not made properly. Way too many corporate fanaglings went on in its production that ripped the heart and soul out of it. This is not going to happen with SEV.



You are right MOO3 was not made properly. The designers wanted too much. They wanted rather a galactic empire simulation and not a traditional 4x game. And one of the major problems along the crappy AI and the bad Interface was the change to realtime tactical combat. For the strategic part of SEV I dont really fear (on the other hand who knows?) but at least the tactical part has with its realtime change the same "good" idea as MOO3.

[Captain Kwok]

Seriously,

Like Mephisto said, the pause is automatic. You choose X seconds, it stops every X seconds and won't run again until you hit play. What more can I say? There is no element of being rushed to complete orders on time or anything like that. Just take it at whatever pace you want. I am not a fan/player whatsoever of RTS games, but I have no problems using this system.

I just said it was possible if you were so inclined to focus on controlling one ship while you let the others do their auto thing, no big deal. Not that it's required or anything of the sort.

The key word is that the system is very flexible for players of all tastes.

For combat purposes, real-time is superior to turn-based, or at least turn-based on how it was executed in SE:IV. In SE:IV it was paramount to have the first shot iniative, without it you could easily lose big in what should have been an equally matched battle etc. But now, it happens all at the same time, making for much better and fairer battles.

[douglas]

klausD said:

Emp. Fyron: Klaus... How many times must you dreg this up?



Well I am drewing it up more than once, because I am really concerned about the future of the SE series. And I am drewing it up because it was one of my favorite games on PC over the last 10 years. Another reason I was drewing it up is that are too few discussions in the forums about the upcoming fundamental real-time change and its "benefits".


It seems to me that you are beating a subject to death that has been talked about and resolved to the satisfaction of the vast majority of forum members many times.


klausD said:

Emp. Fyron: It will not be in any way, shape or form a RTS game.



Maybe you have a different view what a RTS game is. My view is if the engine is realtime, it is RTS. If it has a pause button or a "slow down" function does not mean that it is no RTS anymore.


Well, that certainly is a valid definition of RTS, but going by that definition does not imply that RTS = clickfest. I'm sure Fyron was referring to the common misconception that RTS and clickfest are synonyms.


klausD said:

Emp. Fyron: Against the AI, you can take as much time as you want issuing orders while the game is paused, then unpause it for a bit and watch your orders be executed.



Well the question should be allowed what happens if I am issuing orders too late because the AI does this faster than I? I guess my ships will be blown up, even if I have the better overall tactic. Or is there an inbuilt mechanism which grants me that I am always faster in issuing orders as my opponent?


How much difference can being half a second later, or a full second or even 3 seconds, make? Longer delays could potentially be a problem, yes, but that's what the autopause feature is for. Set it to 5 or 10 seconds, and that's it - your orders will never be later than that. Even in classic examples of clickfest RTS games like Warcraft III and Starcraft, both of which I have played quite a bit, such small delays only make a difference in my experience when repeated many times in the resource gathering/base and army building part of the game, which will be completely absent from SEV realtime combat, or in extreme examples of micromanaging units. By far the most likely such example to translate to SEV combat is waiting too long to start a retreat, allowing your units to be surrounded to the point where they can't retreat any more. I don't see this being a problem because the AI will work for you, too - you will almost certainly be able to specify criteria for automatically retreating, based on range, number of enemy ships in range, and any number of other factors.


klausD said:
And just watching my orders executed is not a really realistic statement. Especially if there are hundreds of ships and fighters involved as in SEIII or IV. Then there is always something to click and to do on the battlefield. And give your orders before the AI does it or your ships will be blown up. Additionally while you are watching the ship moves at one part of the battlefield, your ships at another part will be stomped by the AI, except you are scrolling in time to this part and press the pausebutton to issue new orders. Not my definition of a stressless game. Thanks.


So pause frequently, using the autopause every x seconds feature if necessary, and inspect the whole battlefield every time it's paused. And again, the AI will work for you, too, within the strategic parameters you dictate for it.


klausD said:

MOO3 is in no way a valid comparison. As others stated, it was not made properly. Way too many corporate fanaglings went on in its production that ripped the heart and soul out of it. This is not going to happen with SEV.



You are right MOO3 was not made properly. The designers wanted too much. They wanted rather a galactic empire simulation and not a traditional 4x game. And one of the major problems along the crappy AI and the bad Interface was the change to realtime tactical combat. For the strategic part of SEV I dont really fear (on the other hand who knows?) but at least the tactical part has with its realtime change the same "good" idea as MOO3.


The change to realtime combat was not inherently bad, it was how they implemented it that made it fail so horribly. Aaron has had plenty of time to learn from their mistakes, and his realtime combat engine will be criticized by quite a number of beta testers who definitely do not want anything resembling a clickfest in their favorite 4x game series.

[Suicide Junkie]

Captain Kwok also says that a turn-based system is silly and lopsy. If this is the new design philosphy behind SEV so why not changing the strategy part too to real-time?

WTF? SE4 already does that.
Its called "Simultaneous Turn", and ships move around the system in real time. (At least for stock scale ship speeds - if you start modding wacky ships with 30 speed then it starts to break down)

[klausD]

Captain Kwok: Like Mephisto said, the pause is automatic. You choose X seconds, it stops every X seconds and won't run again until you hit play. What more can I say? There is no element of being rushed to complete orders on time or anything like that. Just take it at whatever pace you want. I am not a fan/player whatsoever of RTS games, but I have no problems using this system.




Thats good to hear. Ok, its not what I would really prefer (a similar system to MOO2 but with sligthly improved graphics) but its better than the standard realtime system I assumed in my first posts. I could not learn the procedure from your previous post, but after your second explanation now I check the system. Thanks for the info.


Mephisto: Such a statement implies that there is an option to make the game stop automatically every x seconds without user interaction. Have a look at the Combat Missions series to see how such a system can work very nicely.



I know combat mission. Graphically its nice, but I am not very fond of it. Too much 3D and too simulative to have each combat parameter under direct control. (and of course I miss hexes/squares to predefine the weapon or movement ranges) Its has too much of a simulation and too few of a boardgame for my taste. If it goes to grognard style TB-wargaming I prefer the classic HPS series of Panzer Campaign or Steel Panthers II.


dude, you're a blockhead.
I'm sorry, but it's true. it's not a clickfest. full stop. just shutup if you are not going to belive those in the know till theres a demo out.



Well you dont have to be sorry if you call other people with such special names. Do it or let it be but dont be sorry. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

[Fyron]

klausD said:
Maybe you have a different view what a RTS game is. My view is if the engine is realtime, it is RTS. If it has a pause button or a "slow down" function does not mean that it is no RTS anymore.

This definition is absolutely wrong. Real time does not make RTS. RTS implies very simplistic heuristics. It implies speed over strategy. It implies victory through clicking/pressing buttons quickly. A real time system is NONE of these inherently. RTS is one tiny portion of the real time spectrum.

The best turn based systems use simultaneous ordering combined with some form of initiative system. Each player issues orders, then a phase of execution occurs, with units from both sides acting in an interspersed manner. This eliminates the stupid things that happen in combat systems such as that of SEIV, where one side gets to do a ton of damage to the other before the other side can react. It also eliminates the stupid things that happen in systems like MOO2, where one side still gets a lot of ships acting at the same time, before any enemy ships can act. This is because MOO2 only has the initiative system, no simultaneous order execution. Immediate execution of orders brings about many balance problems. The MOO2 system was a small step in the right direction, but did not go far enough.

Real time execution with auto-pausing just smooths out the initiative curve and eliminates all turn based idiosynchrocies. All ships get to truly act at the same time, providing a far more realistic and balanced system. It plays out the same exact way that a good turn based system does, except it does it better. You don't have to click on ANYTHING during the short phase of order execution, as in a simultaneous turn based system. Thus, no click festing whatsoever. Period. It ends up being EXACTLY THE SAME in terms of you interfacing with the combat system and giving orders. The ONLY difference is that the real time system makes everything smoother.

A simple "replay last execution phase" would eliminate any concerns about not seeing what happened on another portion of the combat map. It would replay the execution of combat that occured between the last two auto-pause points. You could go view a different portion of the map, hit the button, and watch the combat from that segment of the map's perspective. In fact, it would be a good idea for everyone to email Malfador with requests for this feature... se5 at malfador dot com awaits your emails. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif


klausD said:
Thats good to hear. Ok, its not what I would really prefer (a similar system to MOO2 but with sligthly improved graphics) but its better than the standard realtime system I assumed in my first posts. I could not learn the procedure from your previous post, but after your second explanation now I check the system. Thanks for the info.

We must be prophets or somesuch; what has been described on the SEV combat system is exactly what we told you before would alleviate all RTS and click festing concerns you had...

[klausD]

Emp. fyron: This eliminates the stupid things that happen in combat systems such as that of SEIV, where one side gets to do a ton of damage to the other before the other side can react. It also eliminates the stupid things that happen in systems like MOO2, where one side still gets a lot of ships acting at the same time, before any enemy ships can act.



I agree that SEIV is stupid in this respect. But with the change of some rules, there could be found a proper solution for this problem without the need to change to realtime. A rule designer have just to look a little bit around at existing initative systems. There are alot of clever designs in the classic board wargame sector out there which solve exactly the SEIV initiative problem. MOO2 did it in a certain (but not perfect) way in its 1.31 patch, so why not SEIV?

Well but we will see if the new realtime engine is really that good as you say. At least I hope so and in sake of my love to the SE series I will give it a try without much prejudicing.


Emp. Fyron: We must be prophets or somesuch; what has been described on the SEV combat system is exactly what we told you before would alleviate all RTS and click festing concerns you had...



Well as you surely noticed English is not my native language so maybe I was not able to understand everthing in the previous posts. Sorry for that.

[Fyron]

The point is that those clever initiative systems are all designed to make the combat more and more like a realistic, "real time" system. They are designed to make it seem like events are occuring at the same time, rather than in a silly sequential method. None of them can ever get entirely away from the problems inherent in turn based execution. Going with "real time" merely smooths out the remaining problems and makes the combat that much more balanced and realistic. It is a perfectly natural evolution. You can not get a real time system in a board game, but computers can certainly handle it just fine.

On a semi-related note, I personally think the "sequential" method of turn processing should be eliminated entirely. Only "simultaneous" should exist. It is far superior in terms of balance and overall gameplay. Nothing sucks more than ordering a ship to move in one direction early on in the turn and later realizing that you would have prefered it to move in the opposite direction to react to a new situation... Certainly, the non-combat portions of the game should never be done in "real time." That would definitely be taking the game in the wrong direction.

[Hiruu]

Aaron and crew have progressively deliver a finer product with each game, and until they let me down, I'll trust the guy's judgement in making games. This is Malfador's golden opportunity to break into the big time, and rightfully snatch the 4X crown from MOO (some might say they already have, but not to the masses!), so i doubt that they are going to mess it up. I was skeptical about the realtime aspects of combat, but I really liked the look of those screenshots, since it looks just like the ones from SEIV, except for the 3-d aspect view. I hope the beta process is completed by summer and we get a demo, or at least a larger demo pool...hint hint!!! There wasn't much that needed to be change on SEIV basic structure to keep me happy, so the screenshots alone were enough for me. Overall, until I see more screenshots and a demo, I'll give Malfador the benefit of the doubt.

Also, Please don't mention the Space Empire in the same breathe with MOOIII, as that game was complete garbage!

[Magnum357]

Kid said:
That will not do it for me. Name me one 4X game with real-time combat that is still talked about let alone still on the market. Ask your self why games like SEIV and Galactic Civilization have a following. Many of the players are die-hard MOO II fans that love turn base combat. I'm sorry but I very seriously doubt I'll be buying SEV. Out of respect for the developers and beta testes I will not post on this again. I've worked on a lot of games and I know how much blood sweet and tears goes into making a game.



I just would like to add that although I love Turn-based 4x games too, there is one Realtime game out their that uses Real Time combat AND is still quite popular even today. Sierra's Strategy game "Homeworld".

[HP Delron]

I might add for real time combat, since more of the games time units pass in a real time situation. The putting in of weapons that would take too many turns to scale out properly (such as extremely low power, rapid fire weapons).

[Suicide Junkie]

True, all those gatling cannon components can be one big gatling cannon in a realtime combat environment.

See P&N-ism mod for Starfury to see such stuff in action http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

[Q]

I can understand both sides pro and contra real time combat.
Although I rarely use tactical combat at all in "real" games (tactical combat with more than 10 ships gets painful anyway) I think it is an important part of SE and especially to test some Mods I found tactical combats essential.
In my opinion the key point is what you can do or can't do during the pauses. If you can target and give movement orders then real time combat is an improvement IMHO. Hovewer if these two action can't be performed during pauses then I would prefer the old turn based combat.

[Slick]

I agree with Q completely. I'd also point out that, just based on numbers, most people who own SE:IV don't play multiplayer so tactical combat is probably more widely used when viewed over all game owners.

[Fyron]

Please refer to Kwok's post:

Captain Kwok said:
There are many excellent options available for the real-time tactical combat, including the ability to pause every X seconds to issue orders to your ships if you want - this can be used to easily recreate turn-based combat except all ships would execute their orders at the same time during the interval.

[Instar]

Kid said:
I will be willing to try the Demo. After all Bauler's (Spelling?)Gate, had a semi-realtime and it was a great game.


Baldur's Gate is perhaps one of the greatest games of all time.

[Ron_Lugge]

Instar said:

Kid said:
I will be willing to try the Demo. After all Bauler's (Spelling?)Gate, had a semi-realtime and it was a great game.


Baldur's Gate is perhaps one of the greatest games of all time.



<Jaw drops>

He was talking about BG? *The* greatest CRPG I've seen yet?! The one that -- if it were not for Final Fantasy -- would be *the* greatest RPG ever? (BG2, right? Not 1?)

[Timstone]

Dear KlausD,

Please take heed the words of the people with very high post counts. They know what they're talking about.
You've been registered since late 2001, so you should well know who you're talking to. Imperator Fyron, Mephisto and Suicide Junky are moderators of this great forum. It's not they're saints or something, but they do have lots and lots of experience and knowledge. Almost everything they say is worthwhile. They're not going to give you bad info. Just wait untill the demo arrives and then start screaming.
Untill then this discussion is over in my opinion (like in almost everyones opinion). This subject has been beaten to death too many times.
Now be on your merry way please.

I hope I didn't sound too harsh.

[Phoenix-D]

Timstone said:
Dear KlausD,




Was it really needed to restart a several day old discussion just to post that? Intended or not its sort of insulting.

[Fyron]

I concur. Let it rest in peace at least until the demo is out...

[Ron_Lugge]

RIP:

Rest in Pieces

[Timstone]

Woops, my mistake. Sorry. What's the punishment?
I didn't take note of the dates. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/redface.gif

[Strategia_In_Ultima]

Hiruu said:
Also, Please don't mention the Space Empire in the same breathe with MOOIII, as that game was complete garbage!



Space Empires is so much better than MOOIII.

There. In one breath.

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

[Instar]

Ron_Lugge said:

Instar said:

Kid said:
I will be willing to try the Demo. After all Bauler's (Spelling?)Gate, had a semi-realtime and it was a great game.


Baldur's Gate is perhaps one of the greatest games of all time.



<Jaw drops>

He was talking about BG? *The* greatest CRPG I've seen yet?! The one that -- if it were not for Final Fantasy -- would be *the* greatest RPG ever? (BG2, right? Not 1?)


I haven't done all of BG1, but BG2 is perhaps one of the top 25 games of all time. Depends on which FF you're talking about.

[Renegade 13]

Timstone said:
Woops, my mistake. Sorry. What's the punishment?


Dismemberment!!! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/evil.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif

[Patroklos]

Homeworld!

Was just playing that ealier today actually.

Any way Malfador can buy the rights to that came and simply cut and paste its game engine in as SEVI's tactical combat component? Obvioulsy they would mod out the construction/resourse collection part. That would be so sweet.

[Patroklos]

So,

I was thinking that a good thing to have in the game would be a way model your own ships. Go ahead and have a base shipset, but then add a few dozen generic 3-D "legos" that you can add onto the stock ships to make classes within the same size group unique. One of the things about MOOII I loved was that there were several models for each size, so my various battleship designs did not all look the same.

[Sabin]

Hopefully, it would be possible to create ships and mecha like SDF-1(transforming battleship of Robotech fame) and the like...actually, that brings up a question/idea: Would it be possible for...say, a fighter to transform into a battle armor, or a battle ship to switch from "navigation" mode to "battle" mode?(Aka, going from fast-weak ship to slow-strong ship)

I figured I would ask...I mean, it might seem silly but I am a big fan of anime, Gundam, Robotech, and the fantastic.

[Suicide Junkie]

That would have to involve losing engines and gaining weapons, or some wacky thing like that, would it not?

[Zarsynn]

I was concerned a good while ago about this awesome game series going to a RTS hybrid too. Let's face it, there are a ton of other RTS games out there... What I liked about the SE series is the fact that it still was a turn-based game. Very few these days, and none anywhere near as mod-able or good.
In fact, I was so concerned, I e-mailed support at Shrapnel, and Aaron himself e-mailed me back with a line asking "What's wrong with RTS?" So, I told him.

Hoping this game and series doesn't fly the way of MOO.
From what I see it looks good, and seems as deep, with the controls needed to be a TBG-hybrid. I'll wait until I see some solid reviews from those who like TBG's before buying...
-ZtG

[Sabin]

Hrm...maybe a system of "Active" and "Inactive" components would be involved. I imagine that this can actually play a role for non-transforming ships and such, too...like a battleship making a long-range trip, needs fuel supplies and disables it's weapons and battle shields in supposedly friendly territory. It makes good distance, and suddenly a cloaked enemy ship ambushes it, causing great damage and such due to the weapons and shields being "Inactive".

The ship survives, and doesn't have much fuel, and poor hull integrity...it uses the fuel pods, and disables all non-critical functions, and enables "boosters" to increase it's warp speed/impulse power or the like to run to the nearest space dock as quickly as possible...

Yes, I guess it is somewhat crazy, heh.

[Suicide Junkie]

SE5 is in no way a RTS.

Think of it as combat being processed one turn per millisecond, and direct fire weapons now take multiple turns to reach their targets.
If you choose single player, sequential turn, AND tactical combat, then you provide/update your orders every 1000 combat "turns" or so.

In any other case, the computer is calling the shots according to your given strategies, and everybody is happy.

[Kana]

Strategia_In_Ultima said:
Space Empires is so much better than MOOIII.

There. In one breath.

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif



Heck...Space Empires 3 is so much better than MOO3...

Kana

[Ed Kolis]

Anime transformer ships? Hmm, how about anime battleships that transform into giant floating monkey heads with disembodied fists that punch at you and you have to hit them when the fists open up... and then once you destroy both hands the monkey inside says "Uncle Andross!" and blows up, and then the big surprise - that wasn't the end of the level, you still have to fight this giant bug thingy which shoots deadly radar beams out of its wings and sucks up rocks from the ground and flings them at you...

Darn it, I've been playing too much Starfox: Assault lately http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif

Ever realize how Nintendo games seem to borrow from one another, though? Like there was Andross with the hand thing, and then in Mario 64 there are these giant stone hands which you have to punch (yes, the only Mario game where you can punch!) them when they open up, and then back to Oikonny in Starfox: Assault... and Metroid Prime's grapple beam was controlled in the exact same way you use Link's grappling hook in The Wind Waker... not to mention all the bosses where you have to reflect their attacks back at them (Aghanim from A Link to the Past, Ganon's first appearance in The Wind Waker, and every Kirby boss known to man)... yet for some reason you have to kill BOwser a different way every time?

Oh yeah, SE5... can we have weapons with multiple fire modes, like Megaman's M-Buster? One mode where it's really weak but fires like a machine gun and another mode where it's really powerful but you have to wait for it to charge? Just have a variable "time since last shot" and factor that into the damage calculation... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif

[Sabin]

The weapon-charging idea might have merit...for example, charging a weapon takes extra supplies, and if overcharged beyond the component's ability to store it, it can cause damage? The same can go for shields and the like...

[marc420]

Suicide Junkie said:
SE5 is in no way a RTS.

Think of it as combat being processed one turn per millisecond, and direct fire weapons now take multiple turns to reach their targets.
If you choose single player, sequential turn, AND tactical combat, then you provide/update your orders every 1000 combat "turns" or so.

In any other case, the computer is calling the shots according to your given strategies, and everybody is happy.



I just hope he gets it right. I've seen games where you give orders, then the AI's resolve it .... turn out really, really bad before. Nothing like cursing a really stupid UI and you don't have any options.

In general, I just hope that all the push towards fancy 3D and neat looking ships and RT combat don't take away from what I want in a strategy game. I want two things from combat in a strategy game. I want it to fit well with the rest of the strategy in the game, ie I want it to reflect and respond to the strategic choices in the game in a nice balanced way. I want it to support startegic choices, instead of driving everyone to one perfect weapon. And the second thing I want is reports/feedback from the combat that tells me what I need to know to make strategic choices in my turn. So if my fleet died because there wasn't enough Point Defense in the fleet, I want to know it. I don't want to be guessing about what happened or squinting at a screen trying to figure it out.

I don't care what the ships look like, and generally think the phrase "real-time" is the root of all evil.

[Tamerlane]

I was looking for info on the SEV and noticed the thread. Is the "real time" tactical going to be something like "Birth of the Federation"? It wasn't bad. I much prefer the SEIV turned base, but BOTF wasn't bad.

(If this has been brought up already my apologizes)

Bob

[narf poit chez BOOM]

Hello and welcome to the forums. This automated messaging service brought to you by World Conquest inc., a division of Emporer Narf's Grand Scheme.

In answer to your query, this has be brought up before. Stand by to be terminated. 10...9...8...7...6...5...4...3...2...1...0...GOTCH A! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif

It'll have real-time combat, that's it. The rest turn-based.

And really, welcome to the forums. We're friendly here; I'm just (one of) the weird guy(s). http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif

[Tamerlane]

LOL Thanks for the welcome, and not the termination. I hope its done right, but I did love SEIV's turn-base. I was obsessive about it. Using lighter faster ships against heavy battleships. That was fun.

Bob

[narf poit chez BOOM]

Don't worry about it. Nobody flames newbies here. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

[Hugh Manatee]

hell yeah, Birth of the Federation was one of the better Star Trek games made. If you want a taste of what SE5 migt be like go find it in a bargain heap. What happened in that game was when both the fleets were in the same sector they engaged in combat, in strategic mode they fought automatically, in tactical you were provided a list of options depending on the vessels present(charge, ram, harry, flank, strafe, ect). From there it was like a rock paper scissors, you tried to pick a maneuver that would let your guys flank and fire on the enemy, while evading their fire. Then you hit the exacute button, and the ships danced, damage was tallied and the survivors continued.

From IRC and rumors SEV will be like this, but with scripting your own maneuvers and the ability to give more specific commands.

And I just realized.... the best star trek games are very similar to malfador games.... Star Fury is like Star Fleet Command, SEIV/V like Birth of the federation..... There was a kick *** SNES game that played kinda like Dungeon odessy.....

*wonders if there will be Space Empires Acadamy, or Space Empires: Honor Guard/Elite Force*

*imagines piloting an Amonkrie Cruiser, running around with a DUC engaging in FPS Ground combat*

[Strategia_In_Ultima]

A bit off topic, I know, but I've seen a "Warp" button in the tactical interface in the combat screens. It's located in the bottom right somewhere.

Warping during Combat? I've got just one thing to say to that.....

RUN THE BLOCKADE!!!!!

[HP Delron]

Sabin said:
The weapon-charging idea might have merit...for example, charging a weapon takes extra supplies, and if overcharged beyond the component's ability to store it, it can cause damage? The same can go for shields and the like...



There is a lot more you can get from charing weapons than just a little kickback for overcharing. Depending on how the weapons handles a charge it can provide some very interesting atvantages (and disatvantages). I'll try to go over some of the kinds of charing weapons, and what they mean:

Held-Charge Weapon: This is weapon that must be charged before use. Upon reaching a full charge it can be fired. This weapon is capable of holding the charge on the weapon until you are ready to fire it. This can be helpful in several ways, if a weapon has a high damage output with a charge time to compensate, you can start charging this weapon before you get to the target an be read unleash some major damage when you get there. A variation is the Degrading Held-Charge weapon in which a held charge degrades over time (lowering overall power of the shot), and cannot be re-charged until the charge reaches a certain point (most often 0).

Instant Charge Weapon: Any charged weapon that must use it's charge as soon as it is ready. This of course means a target must be avaible once the charge is done.

Fixed Fire Charge: This is any charged weapon that must aquire a target before it can begin it's firing cycle. This provides the oppurtunity for a target to slip out of firing range while the gun charges, making so they must hold charge longer (possibly degrading) if it's a held-charge weapon OR redering the shot useless if it's instant charge weapon. This can of course be offset by accuracy/damage scale of the weapon itself.

Gradual Charge Weapon: This is a weapon that can be fired at any point in it's charge up until the cap( if it has one). With damage going up the longer you store energy. It can of course addtionally be any one of the other types, Held, Instant or Fixed Fire.


Now these are just my own loose terms/definitions. I'm sure somebody out there has explained these concepts better than I have but I think it shows how charged weapons could make for more decisions on the battlfield.

[Fyron]

"Held-Charge" and "Instant Charge" weapons are already present as weapons with different firing rates.

How would you physically explain a "Fixed Fire Charge" weapon?

"Gradual Charge" weapons would be interesting, but probably impossible to get the AI to use effectively. In the hands of the AI, they would either always be weak rapid fire weapons or they would always be powerful, slow weapons.

[Suicide Junkie]

The name "Fixed fire charge" dosen't sound right.
"Delayed Fire" perhaps.

But the mechanics as described would apply to a missile weapon which must lock onto a target in range before it can fire.

[HP Delron]

Imperator Fyron said:
"Held-Charge" and "Instant Charge" weapons are already present as weapons with different firing rates.




Note nessicarly, in that they are different when the time you cannot fire occurs. With a weapon that has fixed fire rate it starts the battle ready to go, and then has to cool down. In the case of a weapon that has to charge first, it can be ready to fire in the case of battle across long distances. But in a case where say you are going through a warp point and start on top of your enemy you won't have chance to charge up first. This is the kind of disatvantage the the weapon that could justify them having higher attack power or accuracy.

Instant charge weapons I should explain are really meant to go as a sub-type to the fixed charge weapons. Once again imgaine you had a stard ready-fire weapon and an enemy ship comes in range. You begin to charge you big cannon X, but they move out of range your weapon fires instantly missing them.



How would you physically explain a "Fixed Fire Charge" weapon?




I don't know you could throw in some junk about launching an some kind of anchoring signal at the point of the target that energy beam jumps to.

You could make something about the system being fragile and needing the weapon to lock into place before i can safely be fired, keeping it from tracking a target.

Any number of things that really invovle saying it requires complex information on the position of any enemy fancy calibrations and whatnot.




"Gradual Charge" weapons would be interesting, but probably impossible to get the AI to use effectively. In the hands of the AI, they would either always be weak rapid fire weapons or they would always be powerful, slow weapons.



THe AI is pretty dumb anyway. I honestly can't say I care or feel sorry for them.


Suicide Junkie said:
The name "Fixed fire charge" dosen't sound right.
"Delayed Fire" perhaps.



Well the fixed more refers to the where the weapon can hit more than anything. I've always been bad with names.



But the mechanics as described would apply to a missile weapon which must lock onto a target in range before it can fire.



You are right it is very much like a missle. Only in that missles are seekers and after the lock and ready to fire peroid there is a chase peroid in which they can be ready to fire.The charge weapon that would hit at the moment of fire, so the "Chase" peroid would either be eliminated or change to the speed of the firing ship not the acutal seeker.




Once again, i'm afraid i wasn't very clear in explaining what i mean and those cheesy names didn't help much either. So instead I guess i'll just try to supply hypothetical situations for charging weapons to apply in.


"Big Charge Cannon A" is a weapon that must charge for 20 seconds before firing. Once charged it can hold it's charge until an apporiate target is found and fired upon.

I will be comparing it to

"Big Regular Cannon" it is a weapon that has 20 second cooldown betwen firings.


Now the first situation we will compare these in is a situation where both forces start on opposite sides of the battle field (conveintly enough 20 seconds travel time apart).

A Ship with "Big charge cannon A" begins to charge it weapon as ut moves.

THe two ships meet. And both of them are ready to fire. Even break. From that point on really the weapons will still be evenly matched.


Now in the next situation one player is going through a warp point. And meet with enemy forces on the other side. Now the ships armed with the regular cannon can open fire and cripple the enemy ships while the charging ships are still building up power. In fact by the time the charge ships are ready to unleash the first slavo, the regular cannon ships are to fire their second.



now this second weapon will be "Big Charge Cannon B".

It also has charge time of 20 seconds, but it cannot hold it's charge. It must fire immedtiarly after the charge is compeleted.

Once again the begin 20 seconds away on opposite sides of the battle field. However this time seeing that they are armed with chargign cannons and have begun to build them up the other side holds off. Wasting the first shot. Once they get in battle range, so long as the regular cannon ships are faster they can actually dart in out of range so as to get their shots in without ever getting hit (staying outside the fire window of the charged weapon).

This has some important implications. This means you could have devastatingly powerful charged cannon weapons that could decimate larger slower ships with sheer power. But small ships would be all but immune to the fire, the cannon could just never keep up with them. A regular cannon could just wait till they came in range, pull of it's instant shot and wait out the cooldown.

Now situation in which they start on top of eachother might give back some of the power to the charging weapon if it charges fast enough to prevent a dart-out form point blank range (as opposed to skimming the outer range of the weapon).


lastly "Big Cannon C" would be can cannont that locks on to a certain area and could fire in there. Now if it can't hold it's charge it's really just a more restriced version of "big cannon B". If it can hold it's charge it's basically marking a section of the battle field as death zone, it could be used to rescrict enemy movements (unless then want to get blasted). It works even better if the weapon in question has some kind of splash damage, if thats in SE5 that is.


You can even link charge time weapons to have a regular cooldown before they begin another charge.

Heck if really needed to make an even bigger difference, you could take a page from many RPGs and make charge cannons that need stability and slow down/stop charging when they take a hit/big enough hit.

[Suicide Junkie]

Note that direct fire weapons will still have a time-to-target after being fired.

When two DUC ships attack, both with fire... and then shortly after, both will be hit and possibly both be destroyed.

[HP Delron]

Suicide Junkie said:
Note that direct fire weapons will still have a time-to-target after being fired.



I suppose. I honeslty always saw beam weapons at least as instant or near-instant weapons.



When two DUC ships attack, both with fire... and then shortly after, both will be hit and possibly both be destroyed.



I'm afraid i've hit a vocabulary barrier here. "DUC"?

[HP Delron]

HP Delron said:

Suicide Junkie said:
Note that direct fire weapons will still have a time-to-target after being fired.






I suppose. I honeslty always saw beam weapons at least as instant or near-instant weapons. To the point where dodging them would be out of the question.



When two DUC ships attack, both with fire... and then shortly after, both will be hit and possibly both be destroyed.



I'm afraid i've hit a vocabulary barrier here. "DUC"?

[/quote]

[Will]

HP Delron said:
I'm afraid i've hit a vocabulary barrier here. "DUC"?


Depleted Uranium Cannon. Basically a mass-driver that uses DU as "bullets".

[Suicide Junkie]

HP Delron said:
I suppose. I honeslty always saw beam weapons at least as instant or near-instant weapons. To the point where dodging them would be out of the question.

Whether the beam or projectile, or whatever classical direct-fire weapon used will score a hit or a miss gets decided before the shot is animated.

Whether it hits or not depends on distance modifiers, ECM, combat sensors, hull bonuses, racial bonuses, culture bonuses, terrain modifiers, etc, plus the dice rolls.

All of the SE series has been this way.

[HP Delron]

Once again, i've communicated poorly. When I said doging. I mean moving out of range before it contacts. Basically what i'm talking about is moving out of sector before the weapon fires and all that is caclulated.

[Suicide Junkie]

For combat, you should base your stuff on Starfury.
Starfury combat involves no grids or sectors, but rather a 2D coordinate plane.

[HP Delron]

While i've never seen star fury. I don't see why an aera of a set size can't sub-in for a sector. If ship leaves a certain area around the orginally targetted point, it'd have the same effect.

[Suicide Junkie]

Missile dancing is generally a cheap tactic used against the AI in tactical combat.

If you could run in, fire, and then turn and run out of range before the enemy's projectiles reach you... that would be frustratingly annoying.

On the other hand, comparing stats and rolling the dice is tried and true. It has been used since the beginning, and it also means you don't have to worry about the fine details of manouevering in a 200-ship combat zone; only the overall strategies and formations matter.

[HP Delron]

Well, I personally think it would be nice if at leas the option for charging weapons was put it even it wasn't part of the standard game. It provides benefits other than just the dancing thing, perhaps I probably focused on that point a bit too much. But I suppose I can understand that not everyone would like the I may be in the minority, when it comes to thinking that charging weapons might be interesting.

[Suicide Junkie]

The option for nifty weapon types with new reload/charging schemes would certainly be nice.

But given that the AI will be managing them, most of the really fancy stuff would be wasted.

[Kana]

But doesn't all this charging weapons stuff basically only really boil down to rate of fire? The rate of fire of any said weapons is the time it take to either 'charge', or 'reload' before it can fire again.

Kana