The Future for SE IV? Does it have one?

[ManOfWar]

Will Malfador continue to support the game following the release of this latest patch? Or will it leave well enough alone and call it quites?

SE IV has been out now for nearly two years, and by all rights its game over man. Most publishers stop supporting their games after the year and a half mark. That is if your lucky. At what point does Malfador say tough **** SE IV fans, buy SE V?

Will there be an SE V? I doubt it. Since they did not make any money off of SE IV, there can be no SE V. To have an SE V, will mean that Aaron will have to incorperate a 3D combat system. Since most Four X games since 97 and on have had 3D combat, one has to really wonder why SE IV did nt have it. I don't think not having hurt the game, in fact I think it made the game that much more enjoyable. However, an evolution must be made. So will there be an SE V? I will bet no.

The cost is too high to produce it.

[Pax]

Originally posted by ManOfWar:
Will Malfador continue to support the game following the release of this latest patch? Or will it leave well enough alone and call it quites?

SE IV has been out now for nearly two years, and by all rights its game over man. Most publishers stop supporting their games after the year and a half mark. That is if your lucky. At what point does Malfador say tough **** SE IV fans, buy SE V?<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Given the healthy modding community here, obviously there are still plenty of people interested in the game, and interested in improving it.

Will there be an SE V? I doubt it. Since they did not make any money off of SE IV, there can be no SE V.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Where did you get that tidbit of information? I mean, they didn't GIVE SE4 away, theys old it. They didn't sell it for $5US a pop, they charged reasonable rates.

To have an SE V, will mean that Aaron will have to incorperate a 3D combat system. Since most Four X games since 97 and on have had 3D combat, one has to really wonder why SE IV did nt have it. I don't think not having hurt the game, in fact I think it made the game that much more enjoyable. However, an evolution must be made.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">IT does not neccessarily follow that combat MUST be 3D, "because veryone else is doing that" ... nor that an evolution MUST incorporate 3D anything.

Would it be nice? sure. But not required.

So will there be an SE V? I will bet no.

The cost is too high to produce it.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Unless you have access to MM's books, you can't know that for certain.

Now, stop trolling. Please.

[PvK]

I think ManOfWar is just peeved that the troll thread he started about fan shipsets got locked, so he's trying to start another troll thread with plenty pointless and incorrect premises.

Boo.

PvK

[Lemmy]

Originally posted by ManOfWar:
Will Malfador continue to support the game following the release of this latest patch? Or will it leave well enough alone and call it quites?<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">dunno, it could be the Last one, since DO is also in production

SE IV has been out now for nearly two years, and by all rights its game over man. Most publishers stop supporting their games after the year and a half mark. That is if your lucky. At what point does Malfador say tough **** SE IV fans, buy SE V?<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I doubt Malfador would ever say tough **** to the fans http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif
But i wouldn't be upset or surprised if they stopped supporting it now.

Will there be an SE V? I doubt it. Since they did not make any money off of SE IV, there can be no SE V. To have an SE V, will mean that Aaron will have to incorperate a 3D combat system. Since most Four X games since 97 and on have had 3D combat, one has to really wonder why SE IV did nt have it. I don't think not having hurt the game, in fact I think it made the game that much more enjoyable. However, an evolution must be made. So will there be an SE V? I will bet no.

The cost is too high to produce it.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Uhm, Richard said several times that SE4 is their top selling title, i would find it hard to believe if there was no profit made then.
And 3D combat isn't mandatory, i don't think GalCiv has 3D combat.
I do think 3D realtime (pausable) combat would be an improvement, but that would surely drive the production cost up. And i think there are other ways SE5 could improve over SE4 than just graphics, AI and diplomacy for example.

[ August 16, 2002, 17:53: Message edited by: Lemmy ]

[ManOfWar]

Hey I made a mistake with that "other" thread. This one is as it reads.

My point is that the COST would prohibit the inclusion of 3D combat, and since no publisher will even look at a Four X game without 3D combat, the reason to produce it is null and void.

Hell I would love to see SE V, but I fear that it would not be "cost effective" to produce it.

[Phoenix-D]

"My point is that the COST would prohibit the inclusion of 3D combat, and since no publisher will even look at a Four X game without 3D combat, the reason to produce it is null and void."

heh. Not Shrapnel. Check out Dungon Oddysey for more proof of the "gameplay over graphics" style http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Phoenix-D

[Trajan]

Gentlemen,

In agreement with many who enjoy this community, I support the "game-play over graphics" strategy that MM and Shrapnel sell. The ability to mod and improve the game away from the developers allows me to invest personal time into the game. This vastly increases the Lasting playability of this game.

I have enjoyed/endured many many strategy games in the 20 years or so that I have been playing, as I am sure anyone posting here has. SEIV is simply (and I mean that literally) the most mind engaging game I have enjoyed since the original CIV game.

That is not to say that I do not enjoy other morw graphic oriented games and genre's, such as Everquest, or Star Trek games. Never having been a "twitchy" gamer I do not always enjoy playing visually action oriented games as much as I do strategy games.

Finally, what makes a game truly enjoyable is those I play it with. The community around this game is so positive that I doubt I would have ever bought the game if this community didnt exist.

Cheers!
Trajan

[Richard]

You couldn't be more wrong. Aaron is going to first off continue to support SE:IV for the near future. It is STILL selling at a fairly nice clip, and is still our top selling game.

Aaron made enough money to quit his day job and make his dream of doing Malfador a full time thing a reality.

Currently he is working on support of SE:IV, DO, and is already working on the upcoming 3D Space combat game in the SE:IV universe. This game will be the test bed for the 3D combat portion of SE:V. Right now we're looking for a new artist to finish up the 3D work, since our artist got a job with one of the MMORPG companies, but that will happen in time. The engine is coming along nicely with placehoulder art.

To be honest i really shouldn't feed this any further, but I wanted to make sure the facts are known.

[Richard]

Oh and your wrong about another thing. We had competition for SE:IV when we negiotiated the deal with Aaron. In fact a large publisher of strategy games recently begged us to allow them to sell SE:IV Gold in retail. However, as normal, the deal just wasn't that good for everyone but the publisher involved http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif .

[oleg]

MoW pleasantly surprised me at once :

Originally posted by ManOfWar:
... To have an SE V, will mean that Aaron will have to incorperate a 3D combat system. Since most Four X games since 97 and on have had 3D combat, one has to really wonder why SE IV did nt have it. I don't think not having hurt the game, in fact I think it made the game that much more enjoyable. ...<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I can not agree more. SEIV tactical battles suits me very well. I won't mind pseudo-3D like in CivIII, Starcraft, etc. but it is not big deal for me.

And now Richard announce 3D expansion of SEIV !!!!
I'm going to off-license for champaine bottle http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by oleg:
And now Richard announce 3D expansion of SEIV !!!!
I'm going to off-license for champaine bottle http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Hold on there oleg. I think you maybe misunderstood him. I don't know anything for sure, but I haven't heard anything saying this will be an expansion of the current game. I believe it's supposed to be a seperate game entirely. But one that is set in the "SEIV universe." Of course I could be off too. But until we know for sure we shouldn't go off to far cause that's how people get disapointed. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Geoschmo

[dogscoff]

Well, bearing in mind that this whole thread is going to be entirely speculation based on unfounded assumptions (unless Aaron makes an appearance http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif ), here's my largely unstructured 0.02:

Who's to say SEV won't include 3D graphics? I bet Aaron could do it if he wanted to.

Aaron has been working on SE for, what? 7 years now? 8? That's not a passing interest. OK, he might be sick to death of it- I don't know- but I'm guessing he still loves it, and is still pursuing his vision of the perfect 4X game. If his vision is anything like mine- (and so far it's pretty damn close.) then there is a long way to go. Superlative the game may be, but it still only scratches the surface of the vast universe of possibilities that could be explored in the 4X genre.

MM and Shrapnel have proved with SEIV that you *don't* necessarily have to follow the mainstream to make a success of it. They've done it once and can do it again. I see no reason why SE should not continue to evolve, other than something drastic happening to Aaron or him having a change of heart.

BTW, Although I think MoW was out of line in the Last thread, I don't see any evidence of trolling here and I think this is a valid topic of conversation. We're all capable of being civilised, and there's plenty to discuss.

[Puke]

i want to see a mod of the old 'Tapper' game that incorporates the phongs head cantina. SE4 aliens could stream into the bar, and you would have to serve them up mugs of frothy. there could be a special level with forum-member avatars.

you can stuff your 3d combat, GIVE ME FRANTIC BEER-SERVING ACTION!

[dogscoff]

Hey Puke, you're down to 3 stars. You want help re-attaining the magic 4?


old 'Tapper' game that incorporates the phongs head cantina. SE4 aliens could stream into the bar, and you w
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I've been campaigning for a spinoff game for ages. This would be so cool. The aliens coming into the bar could be race_portrait.bmp images from the pictures/races folder=-)

If the game was really good, it could be released into the public domain to drum up publicity for SEIV=-)

[Atrocities]

I think the future of SEIV is strong for the time being. I could care less about 3d graphic combat. I hated it in Rebellion and BOTF. The game took for ever to play those moves, and often, very often, crashed.

SEIV Spin off games are a logical and totally supportable concept. I look forward to buying and playing them.

SE V, well, who knows. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif I like to think that there are always possibilities.

[Phoenix-D]

"Aaron made enough money to quit his day job and make his dream of doing Malfador a full time thing a reality."

Good for him! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[geoschmo]

For me it depends on what you mean by 3D combat.

If you mean 3D, Real Time, first person shooter combat, no thanks. I hate real time. I will probably not even bother playing the SEV demo if it's a real time game, as much as I love SEIV.

I would like to see a little more depth in the combat engine though. Moving ships around in three dimensions instead of two would be cool. Ships stacking, angles of fire, momentum factors in movement, that sort of thing.

3D rendered graphics I don't care about one way or the other. I am sure they would be very pretty. As long as they don't require so much programing time that game play suffers. But I would think they might make it more difficult to mod imagaes and stuff. So that might be bad.

Geoschmo

[Baron Munchausen]

Originally posted by PvK:
I think ManOfWar is just peeved that the troll thread he started about fan shipsets got locked, so he's trying to start another troll thread with plenty pointless and incorrect premises.

Boo.

PvK<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I think this is the closest to the correct analysis of this thread...

[Lemmy]

I think this is the closest to the correct analysis of this thread... <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">regardless of it's intended purpose, it did give us some interesting information http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

But until we know for sure we shouldn't go off to far cause that's how people get disapointed.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">One way to avoid going to far of is to capture Richard and interrogate him on it. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[oleg]

Originally posted by Baron Munchausen:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by PvK:
I think ManOfWar is just peeved that the troll thread he started about fan shipsets got locked, so he's trying to start another troll thread with plenty pointless and incorrect premises.

Boo.

PvK<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I think this is the closest to the correct analysis of this thread...</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Even if this is true, I do not think we shall be denied to get something positive out of it. However disrespectfull I am to the real-time "strategy" games, I am willing to admit that tactical combat can be turned to real-time with considerable benefits to se-5. Moo3 team is, IMHO, on right track here. After all, you are supreme leader of star empire and shall not be bothered with aiming of every single cannon !

[Atrocities]

I think it is a useful thread.

[Elowan]

Originally posted by Geoschmo:
Hold on there oleg. I think you maybe misunderstood him. I don't know anything for sure, but I haven't heard anything saying this will be an expansion of the current game. I believe it's supposed to be a seperate game entirely. But one that is set in the "SEIV universe." Of course I could be off too. But until we know for sure we shouldn't go off to far cause that's how people get disapointed. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Geoschmo<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Then I wonder what he meant by this:

... is already working on the upcoming 3D Space combat game in the SE:IV universe. This game will be the test bed for the 3D combat portion of SE:V. Right now we're looking for a new artist to finish up the 3D work, ...<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Test bed for ... eh?

[ August 16, 2002, 20:55: Message edited by: Elowan ]

[Captain Kwok]

As I understand it now, Space Empires: The System Wars is to be a real time game based on a combat in a single space empires system. It's hoped that this will serve as the basis for combat in Space Empires V.

I would like to see SE:V optional between turn-based and real time - similiar to turn based and simualtaneous in SE:IV.

[Richard]

The game I was talking about is the next game in the series. It will have SE:IV in the name, but it will be more of a homeworld meets starcraft style of game.

If that is succesful it will be the tactical combat engine for SE:V. SE:V, from everything I have seen, will still be turned based.

[Baron Munchausen]

Originally posted by oleg:
Even if this is true, I do not think we shall be denied to get something positive out of it. However disrespectfull I am to the real-time "strategy" games, I am willing to admit that tactical combat can be turned to real-time with considerable benefits to se-5. Moo3 team is, IMHO, on right track here. After all, you are supreme leader of star empire and shall not be bothered with aiming of every single cannon !<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Oh yes, combat needs some sort of 'simultaneous' resolution to resolve lots of balance problems. I think that 'impulse' turn-segments would work as well as 'real time' since all that 'real time' actually means is many small steps executed very quickly so it looks like it's in motion. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Why waste the extra processing time on display for animation's sake only? Just have 64 or 128 'impulses' in a turn and have ship and weapon initiative to calculate who goes when.

[geoschmo]

Elowan, you are right on, as confirmed by Richards later statments. What I was cautioning oleg about was that he seemed to be reading into it that the 3D combat was going to be an "expansion" for SEIV, not a test bed for SEV.

Geoschmo

[disabled]

now a RTG combat engine would be real nice.

[Makinus]

Just to refute one of the things said in this thread: SEIV problably is giving a lot of money to MM/Shrapnel, because even without much "marketing", everyone knows about it and recommends it.

MM/Shrapnel don't have (at least i don't know one) a distribuitor in Brazil (where i live)...

To get my copy of SEIV Gold i had to search a lot, because you simply can't find it in Brazil, until i found a friend that have a friend that had a friend that bought it in the US and don't knew what to do with it (i suggested that he gave it to me, but he don't accepted, so i had to buy from him the game, paying a very high price).

But i'm happy saying: this is the best money that i spent in a long time!

(looks like i talk too much... sorry folks)

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Makinus

[Richard]

We do plenty of marketing, just not the expensive wasteful types that most publishers change their developers. Trust us we are much more aggressive on the marketing in the long term than most publishers.

And if you know a good distrbiutor in Brazil, have them contact us.

[disabled]

Richard, do the universe a great deed of justice and NEVER EVER give up the SE titles... NEVER!

Despite all odds, that title defies and industry dead set on having the bigger flash.

I will admit, games like homeworld and Imperium Galatica look great with thier movie style space battles, but SE4 jsut has the scope of gradure that makes my lips curl in insane laughter.

If anything, SE is just beginning thier franchise. In time, I expect we can see everything from board games to novels to movies to annoying plush phong for the kiddies.....

[Atrocities]

You know when you boil right down to it, SEIV offers far more than any other game in the 4 X market. That is 1) Support, and 2) Modding

Par non, those are two of the key factors in SEIV's appeal for me. Not too mention the game play, the mods, the community, etc.

[Iron Giant]

The game I was talking about is the next game in the series. It will have SE:IV in the name, but it will be more of a homeworld meets starcraft style of game.

If that is succesful it will be the tactical combat engine for SE:V. SE:V, from everything I have seen, will still be turned based.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">HUZZA!!!!!!!! When will you take my money? Please? I want to give you money http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

On another note:
Have you guys SEEN the battle graphics for Moo3 (due to be released in a couple of months)? It looks like a bunch of the exact same colored ships shooting the exact same colored spooge at other exact same colored ships. Frankly, SEV doesn't have much competition in the in-game graphics department...

[oleg]

However I like SEIV, I LOVE Moo/Moo2 and was planning to buy Moo3, but after seeing those pictures I am horrified. What the hell they are doing ???

[ August 18, 2002, 07:55: Message edited by: oleg ]

[dogscoff]

movies to annoying plush phong for the kiddies....<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Ooh! Ooh! I want one! Can I have one? Can I? Please

[Pax]

Originally posted by Elowan:
Then I wonder what he meant by this:

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> ... is already working on the upcoming 3D Space combat game in the SE:IV universe. This game will be the test bed for the 3D combat portion of SE:V. Right now we're looking for a new artist to finish up the 3D work, ...<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Test bed for ... eh?</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Read more carefully. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

The first sentence mentiones SE:IV, yes -- but it mentions it in PASSING, as a reference to teh SE4 -universe-, not the game itself. IOW, the participants will be the races (and maybe Neutrals) from SE4.

Later he mentiones SE5. Space Empires FIVE.

That's where the 3D combat system may be -- Space Empires FIVE.

IOW, rejoice, there are already -intentions-, and even basic plans, to eventually release SE5.

But don't get all frothy-at-the-mouth over 3D combat in Space Empires FOUR; won't happen.

[ August 18, 2002, 16:35: Message edited by: Pax ]

[Suicide Junkie]

Oh yes, combat needs some sort of 'simultaneous' resolution to resolve lots of balance problems. I think that 'impulse' turn-segments would work as well as 'real time' since all that 'real time' actually means is many small steps executed very quickly so it looks like it's in motion. Why waste the extra processing time on display for animation's sake only? Just have 64 or 128 'impulses' in a turn and have ship and weapon initiative to calculate who goes when. <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">How about adding travel time to the weapons? Then you don't have to worry about who fires first, as long as you fire before you are hit.

[AJC]

I think SE4 is one of those games that will always have some life , as a cult classic.

I am so glad to hear the future plans for the SE series. Thats all great news.

Congrats to Aaron for escaping from the Rat race!

[Lemmy]

How about adding travel time to the weapons? Then you don't have to worry about who fires first, as long as you fire before you are hit. <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">make every weapon a seeker type weapon http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[Deathstalker]

As long as there is money in my wallet SE4 has a future with me http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif . The next generation(s) of the se4 series will always be a must have on my list.

[Puke]

Originally posted by dogscoff:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">
movies to annoying plush phong for the kiddies....<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Ooh! Ooh! I want one! Can I have one? Can I? Please</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">my god, as long as they dont talk.

*tug on the string* . . . . "mineral planets are the best!"

[capnq]

Star Wars Rebellion had 3D combat, which you could pause to give orders or change camera angles.

It also had the largest swap file requirement of any game I've ever owned, 150M free on the HD.

When a programmer has been working on the same thing for a long time, switching to an entirely different task can be refreshing. I imagine that DO was a welcome break for Aaron, and actually improved his productivity on his SE-related work.

[vonManstein]

Great news!!!

Im happy to hear, that there is a SEV planned!

I will buy it!

Greetings from Stuttgart/Germany
vonManstein

[Barnacle Bill]

Originally posted by Baron Munchausen:
Oh yes, combat needs some sort of 'simultaneous' resolution to resolve lots of balance problems. I think that 'impulse' turn-segments would work as well as 'real time' since all that 'real time' actually means is many small steps executed very quickly so it looks like it's in motion. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Why waste the extra processing time on display for animation's sake only? Just have 64 or 128 'impulses' in a turn and have ship and weapon initiative to calculate who goes when.[/QB]<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I strongly support this. You probably would not need so many impulses per turn, though. The number needed is just big enough so that whatever is the fastest object in the game (some seeker, probably) moves every impulse.

The right impulse sequence could eliminate the need to worry about initiative. Every impulse could be divided into four phases - first both sides designate movement for all ships that can move "this" impulse and which the player wishes to move (not moving would require expending a movement point in place), then all movement is implemented simultaneously, then both sides designate fire for all units that can fire "this" impulse" which the player wishes to fire, then fire is resolved simultaneously.

Any ship which can move "this" impulse would be highlighted somehow during movement designation until you move it. Any left over when you click "end movement" burn their movement point in place.

Weapon recharge times would be in impulses instead of tactical turns (example, if there are 30 impulses per turn, a weapon which could fire every turn under today's system would fire every 30 impulses, satisfaction of the recharge being carried over across the turn boundry). Any ship which can fire "this" impulse (both has a weapon charged and a valid target in range) would be highlighted in some way until you designate its fire. Any left over when you click "end fire designation" would just hold fire until next impulse.

Any impulse in which nothing on either side can move or fire would just be skipped.

This would solve a host of balance issues. Then you just need a bigger tactical map and a disengagement rule. The tactical map should be sized such that the fastest posible ship could run from its starting point (whether attacking, defending or entering via warp point) in a straight line for 30 impulses without hitting the map edge. Any ship could disengage as its move in an impulse in which it can move (thereby exiting combat, ending combat if it is the Last unit on its side) if it is out of range of all enemy weapons and either (a) at least as fast as the fastest enemy ship currently in the combat, or (b) the interaction of its separation and speed to each remaining enemy ship is such that if it were to run and be chased, it could not be brought into weapon range before the end of the battle (i.e. the 30th turn). Disengaged ships would have to move out of the system map sector at their next strategic movement opportunity, and could not do anything to the planets, etc.. before moving out. You should also be able to disengage through a warp point by sitting on it and expending a movement point. During movement, ships that can disengage should be highlighted distinctively from those which can move but not disengage.

On the system map, I would apply something akin to impulse movement as well. Orders would be entered during your turn as today, but nothing would move yet. Then there would be a simultaneous impluses execution, with execution interrupted for another orders phase if any ship enters a system containing hostile forces. The "attack" order could be used for one of your ships/fleets against an enemy ship/fleet in the same system, in which case would always move toward its target every movement impulse until it caught up & initiated combat or the target split or warped out or cloaked (any of which would pause order execution to allow new orders).

[klausD]

BB,

Your "impulse system" sounds clever but a little bit too complex for my personal taste. I would love to see the normal SEIV tactical combat in SEV. Just a little bit pepped up.

with:
-better looking ships, ships with different "shapes" and user modded sizes. Why not having a dreadnought model which is 2 squares wide and 3 squares long, while another dreadnought type (of another race) is 4 squares long and just one square wide. Why not having a round "death star" model which occupies 4 or even 9 squares on the playing area.

-shooting and moving initiative depending on technology and race.

-advanced ground combat. But please no big planet surface a la fading suns. (none or just a small)

-4 different shooting angles (left, right, front, behind)

-turning and manoevre rules.

This and some other small tweaks should be enough to have a formidable time with SEV.

sorry for my bad english
klausD

PS: like many fans of SEIV (and its predecessors) I dont care alot about all these fancy 3D stuff. I like the game as it is. A revolution is not necessary when the basic system is very good.

[Lord_Shleepy]

-------------------------------------------------
Posted by oleg:

After all, you are supreme leader of star empire and shall not be bothered with aiming of every single cannon !
-------------------------------------------------

** Lord_Shleepy rouses from his slumbers and helps his gun crews arm the Super-Devastating-Disintigrato-Blater-Ray-Thing**

That's it boy's! Now wait for it...wait for it...
NOW! ***BLOOOIE***

Ahh...there's nothing like squeezing the trigger yourself and hearing the satisfying **Wazhuum** of your Massive-Planet-Tingler scorching some happless chump.

[Barnacle Bill]

Originally posted by klausD:
BB,

Your "impulse system" sounds clever but a little bit too complex for my personal taste. <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I think it is more complex to explain than it would be to use. The key thing is that every impulse some of your ships would be highlighted, you would move each one square (or hex, which is better), then click "end movement". Then the screen would be redrawn showing the post movement situation and all of your units which can fire highlighted. You order fire for those you wish, then click "end fire orders" and both sides shoot. Then next impulse. Battles would take longer, but that's what "strategic" resolution is for.

Originally posted by klausD:

-advanced ground combat. But please no big planet surface a la fading suns. (none or just a small)
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Never got around to buying Faded Suns (tend to dislike games in this genre with too fixed a backstory). My ideal would be ground combat like in the old GDW Traveller-universe game Invasion Earth. I'm OK with any number of systems, though.

Originally posted by klausD:

-4 different shooting angles (left, right, front, behind)
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I take it by this you mean something like firing arcs as in Star Fleet Battles? It would be cool, but would complicate ship design. You'd need rules for the impact on cost/spaces used for a mount with a bigger firing arc. It also pretty much requires a SFB-style break-up of shields into separate for each hex side, another complication to ship design. I'm all for it, but it is a big change:)

Originally posted by klausD:

-turning and manoevre rules.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I gave that some thought after my Last post. Here is what I would propose:

In addition to stock formations, you should be able to customize a fleet's formation by assigning particular ships to particular position numbers in the formation.

Assuming a hex grid, turn modes, and impulse movement with simultaneous execution:

Formations have the turn mode and maximum speed of their least manueverable/slowest member.

There would be three types of formation turns could be ordered:

1) Leader make a facing change but stays in the same hex. Inside (relative to the turn) units do the same. Outside (relative to the turn) units move to gain their designated station relative to the leader. On subsequent impulses, outside units move at their individual maximum speeds/turn modes (if greater than formation speed/turn mode) to get on station ASAP, while the leader and inside units hold in place. Once all the outside units are on station, the leader can move again. Inside units move or hold in place as required, using their individual maximum speeds/turn modes (if greater than formation speed/turn mode) as applicable, to get to their station on the new heading ASAP.

2) Units all change facing together and their relative stations become their new formation stations - none moves except exactly as the leader moves.

3) As in SEIV today, where every unit just tries to get to its station, regarding in the outside units getting left behind until/unless the player moves leader manually at a slow rate for them to catch up.

I'd also like to see the ability to attach fleets to fleets, so they would move as one strategically. If that is used, at the biginning of combat you should be given a screen in which to set the fleets in relation to each other on the tactical map.

[steveh11]

I suppose it's too much to ask for a proper Newtonian movement system? Proper vector arithmetic, acceleration and displacement handled, Facing changes etc?

(Actually, the facing part is optional depending on the 'ground' scale and time scale.)

Even without 3D, a 2D vector-based game would be so much better than the current battle system.

...and seeing as I like the current system too, going 'real physics' could only make it better!

Steve.

[Suicide Junkie]

I'd also like to see the ability to attach fleets to fleets, so they would move as one strategically. If that is used, at the biginning of combat you should be given a screen in which to set the fleets in relation to each other on the tactical map.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Do a multiselect with the shift-click. Your fleets will move as one for the next month of game time, just like multiselect does for individual ships.

[ August 19, 2002, 16:59: Message edited by: Suicide Junkie ]

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by Suicide Junkie:
Do a multiselect with the shift-click. Your fleets will move as one for the next month of game time, just like multiselect does for individual ships.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Except I have tested this and it doesn't work. Although I suppose I could have screwed it up somehow. Have you tested it? What ended up happening in my tests is fleet A hit the target right before Fleet B, even though they had the same movement. The Combat ended up happening seperately.

I agree though it shold work. I am hoping maybe I just did something wrong.

[Barnacle Bill]

Originally posted by Suicide Junkie:
Do a multiselect with the shift-click. Your fleets will move as one for the next month of game time, just like multiselect does for individual ships.[/QB]<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I know, but I meant nested so that I just give orders to the outermost fleet. For example, 2nd Fleet contains BatRon 4 (consisting of 3 Battleships) and CruRon 22 (consisting of 4 heavy crUsers). For attacking through a warp point I might add a minesweeper squadron. For invading a planet I might add a squadron of troop transports. What I want is to be able to build higher level fleets out of building blocks consisting of lower level fleets.

[Lemmy]

Except I have tested this and it doesn't work. Although I suppose I could have screwed it up somehow. Have you tested it? What ended up happening in my tests is fleet A hit the target right before Fleet B, even though they had the same movement. The Combat ended up happening seperately.

I agree though it shold work. I am hoping maybe I just did something wrong.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">no, that's how it is supposed to work, they can only move together, not attack, they would have to be in the same fleet then.

[Baron Munchausen]

Originally posted by klausD:
BB,

Your "impulse system" sounds clever but a little bit too complex for my personal taste. I would love to see the normal SEIV tactical combat in SEV. Just a little bit pepped up.

with:
-better looking ships, ships with different "shapes" and user modded sizes. Why not having a dreadnought model which is 2 squares wide and 3 squares long, while another dreadnought type (of another race) is 4 squares long and just one square wide. Why not having a round "death star" model which occupies 4 or even 9 squares on the playing area.

-shooting and moving initiative depending on technology and race.

-advanced ground combat. But please no big planet surface a la fading suns. (none or just a small)

-4 different shooting angles (left, right, front, behind)

-turning and manoevre rules.

This and some other small tweaks should be enough to have a formidable time with SEV.

sorry for my bad english
klausD

PS: like many fans of SEIV (and its predecessors) I dont care a lot about all these fancy 3D stuff. I like the game as it is. A revolution is not necessary when the basic system is very good.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">He makes it sound more complicated than it really is by delving into the details of how he thinks it should be implemented. In essence, the 'impulse' system means each turn is broken down into many smaller sub-turns. And if you have things like weapon recharge crossing turn boundaries then it's not even that -- it's breaking combat down into thousands of tiny turns. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif That's it. We just need 'smaller resolution' of turns so it's not possible for someone to do too much in a single turn. That's the essence of the 'I go - you go' balance problem.

I agree that firing arcs for weapons, shield facings (essentially inseperable from weapon firing arcs, when you think about it), turning rates, and maneuvering rules are all essential to a good tactical combat system. With initiative advantages for smaller ships we'd finally have a good 'balance' that would make smaller ships worthwhile into the late game.

The fancy graphical options would be nice, but would make it vastly harder for third-party add-on shipsets to be created. I think it would be better to just have more than one image per size class, and keep the graphic formats as simple as possible.

[ August 19, 2002, 20:32: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]

[Will]

Originally posted by Lemmy:
no, that's how it is supposed to work, they can only move together, not attack, they would have to be in the same fleet then.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No, if you shift-click multiple ships and/or fleets, and tell them to move to an enemy location (and thus attack), all will enter the sector at the same time. This will not happen when a turn has passed since the orders were given, the grouping only Lasts for one turn.

[disabled]

if they make a phong stuffed animal....

that has voices......

I would say rodney dangerfield needs to dot he voice on that.

As for the Eee... hmmm... Gilbert Godfrey (sp on that)

[tkobo]

I am a BIG fan of stratgy games.SE4 and EFS are 2 of my favs despite having rather lack luster graphics.
Rebellion and BoF were good also but nowhere near as good as the 2 first mentioned.Gameplay over graphics is where I stand.If I can have them both, fine.But if not, GIVE ME GAMEPLAY.Thank you.

Now the one place that both these games(se4,EFS) fall short IMHO is lack of good ground combat.I would pay good money for another Version of either of these games in which absoulutely nothing was changed BUT the ground combat.

If either game would incorporate ground combat in a form like that of the close combat series I'd be a REAL happy puppy.
I'd even settle for a steel panthers type of ground combat.
As far as I'm concerned this is the only big thing both SE4 and EFS really fell short on.
Also make the ground combat control optional,so if you dont want to control it you can let the AI do it(shudder,shiver,etc..Oh the horror.Just look at the bodies)

The one thing you must NEVER do however is turn the SE:series into a clickfest like the wardaft series or the many other no IQ reguired clickfests for 12 year olds games flooding the market.

[klausD]

BB and Baron M.,
Thanks for the reply. Maybe I was wrong in my assumption. But my resentiments comes from my experience with an another impulse system. I can remember of a role playing game in Larry Nivens "Ringworld". It used the BRP System of Chaosium. The only difference to another BRP-Versions (like Runequest or Call of Chtulhu) was the usage of combat-impulses as you described.
As long as there has been just a few combatants the system worked very well. But if the battle was bigger, it was a real horror to keep oversight of who did what and when. So I think an impulse system could be fine, but just if you have a few ships (or fleet formations without the option to split them down to single ships).

BTW: GDW`s "Invasion Earth" was a great game. I liked it too (also 5th frontier war and Imperium/dark nebula - from the series) But again I think to implement a similar system for SE5 would be too complex. Just imagine how long an invasion earth like combat would Last. And then multiply it with the amount of invasions one strategic turn in SE4 could theoretically have.

Simple Manoevring rules could be:
turning 90 Degree: a ship has to travel at least one square before turning 90 degree. If a ship has advanced manoevre it can turn without traveling one square. If a ship has a certain size and is not very manoevrable it has to travel at least X squares before turning. thats it.

"The fancy graphical options would be nice, but would make it vastly harder for third-party add-on shipsets to be created."

Are you sure? why? A ship designer has only the option to make bigger ships (he has not to, because dreadnoughts could also occupy just one square as it is in SE4) and to pre-define the squares they occupy during the design - but with the same graphical quality as now.

bye
klausD

[dumbluck]

RE: Impulses

One small thing: Make sure it's "fire, then move" instead of "move, then fire". Otherwise, static defences, especially at Warppoints, would be at a serious disadvantage...

Also, couldn't this be (kinda) modded in? Change the # of combat turns to, say, 300, and multiply the reload rates by 10. But not the movement; you'd probably want to DECREASE the combat movement generated by normal engines. Of coarse, this would need a lot of balancing, but it's kinda what you want. Sorta. Maybe? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

[Pax]

Originally posted by Crazy_Dog:
One thing that i like to see, is a weapons system like the one used in Starships Unlimited, Missiles use ammo and PPB / shields use energy.
For energy you need engines and reactors.
Also the arcs of fire like in the MOO2.
Other thing that i want to see is ships sizes can be race specific, ex. a mechanics race can build bigger ships than a spiritual one.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I plan to include a "perk"-level Racial Technology trait, "Megascalar Construction" that will give the race extra ship hulls, on the large end.

And another, "Microscalar Engineering" that will enhance smaller hulls -- mainly fighters and hte like, but will also add a ~50kT mini-ship type hull.

Not -exactly- what you had in mind, but ... 8).

[dogscoff]

Other thing that i want to see is ships sizes can be race specific, ex. a mechanics race can build bigger ships than a spiritual one.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">
I plan to include a "perk"-level Racial Technology trait, "Megascalar Construction" that will give the race extra ship hulls, on the large end.

...

Not -exactly- what you had in mind, but ... 8).
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Well... that's exactly what he described. See also Pireates & Nomad's mod, with the "Big thinkers" trait. This feature is entirely moddable in SEIV.

[PraetorSpectre]

In response to earlier discussions here, I'm glad there;s a SEIV future and a SEV and spinoffs. I'm not big on combat that's 3D or graphics that take advantage of 3d, but a galactic map thats 3D would add quite a bit of "expansion" (and fun hopefully) to overall strategy and movement and empire layout, I believe, in a strategy game like this w/o too much micromanagement overkill.

[Barnacle Bill]

Originally posted by klausD:

But if the battle was bigger, it was a real horror to keep oversight of who did what and when. So I think an impulse system could be fine, but just if you have a few ships (or fleet formations without the option to split them down to single ships).
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">With the computer keeping track, it would be pretty simple. Like I wrote, every impulses movement phase the units you could move that impulse would be highlighted, ever impulses fire phase the units which could fire that impulse would be highlighted. Just click any highlighted one and give it an order, click "end orders" when you've done all the ones you want to do.

Originally posted by klausD:

BTW: GDW`s "Invasion Earth" was a great game. I liked it too (also 5th frontier war and Imperium/dark nebula - from the series) But again I think to implement a similar system for SE5 would be too complex. Just imagine how long an invasion earth like combat would Last. And then multiply it with the amount of invasions one strategic turn in SE4 could theoretically have.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Well, I would probably limit the number of tactical turns in a ground combat, as SEIV does now with a space combat, except just have the battle carry over into the next turn. I forget the time scale of Invasion Earth, but I'm pretty sure the whole game took several months of in-game time. Also, that was an invasion by a major race of a major race's homeworld. The typical invasion would be smaller. IE is the general idea of what I'd like to see ideally, though. 5th Frontier War would also be an interesting basic concept if you don't want to deal with planetary maps. Either way, my ideal would be for units to be designed in a simplified form of what is used in scenario creation for Norm Kroger's OPART series and the "equipments" assigned to the units being what you design like "troops" in SEIV.

Originally posted by klausD:

Simple Manoevring rules could be:
turning 90 Degree: a ship has to travel at least one square before turning 90 degree. If a ship has advanced manoevre it can turn without traveling one square. If a ship has a certain size and is not very manoevrable it has to travel at least X squares before turning. thats it.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Ever play Starfire or Starfleet Battles? Starfire was originally designed by the same guy that did Starfleet Battles as a simplified system (as compared to SFB) in which battles could be fought with fairly large fleets and you could design your own ships. The SE series was heavily influenced on Starfire (more obvious in SEIII than SEIV, though). The concept you describe was in both as "turn modes". A ship's turn mode is how many hexes (or squares in SEIV) it has to travel in a straight line befoure it can turn by 1 hex side. In SFB a ship has a speed at any given time which determines the column it uses on the impulse chart (in which every impulse has a row that tells you whether a ship moving that speed moves that impulse) and it's turn mode varies according ots speed, with smaller/more manueverable ships have a smaller turn mode than big ones at any given speed. SF simplified this by having every ship move its max speed but able to "move" during an impulse by expending a movement point in place (which counts toward its turn mode), and giving each ship the same turn mode at all speeds. Bigger ships also have bigger turn modes in SF, but "Advanced Manuevering" can reduce it by 1. SF did not really use the same sort of impulse system as SFB, but was readily adaptable to do so.

As an aside, turn modes would not work so well with a square grid. They'd really need to go hexagonal.

Originally posted by klausD:

A ship designer has only the option to make bigger ships (he has not to, because dreadnoughts could also occupy just one square as it is in SE4) and to pre-define the squares they occupy during the design - but with the same graphical quality as now.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The fact that you can't stack ships in SEIV is a simplification. In SF you could. The point is that one square on the tactical map is still a whole lot of space. No ship really "fills" the square it occuppies, much less hangs over into multiple squares. Not even stars and gas giants overflow their square.

[Barnacle Bill]

Originally posted by dumbluck:
One small thing: Make sure it's "fire, then move" instead of "move, then fire". Otherwise, static defences, especially at Warppoints, would be at a serious disadvantage...
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I'm not sure I see the disadvantage of static defenders in "move, then fire", given that the attackers, IF they happened to have the fastest speed in the game, would at most be able to move 1 hex/square before the fire phase of that impulse. I'm not talking about going through all the movement impulses of a turn before anybody fires, but rather each impulse having separate move & fire phases. Not being able to move in an impulse would not preclude firing. Only not having your weapons charged would do that, which on the first impulse of the first turn of the batle would not be a problem (unless some sort of surprise rule were added - a separate topic).

Originally posted by dumbluck:
Also, couldn't this be (kinda) modded in? Change the # of combat turns to, say, 300, and multiply the reload rates by 10. But not the movement; you'd probably want to DECREASE the combat movement generated by normal engines. Of coarse, this would need a lot of balancing, but it's kinda what you want. Sorta. Maybe? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Interesting idea, but I don't think it would work. The impulse concept requires that some impulses a ship can't move and others it can (but only 1 hex/square). To take a simplified example, let's say our max game speed is 6, so we have 6 impulses. We have four ships: #1 moves at speed 6, #2 moves at speed 3, #3 moves at speed 2, #4 moves at speed 1:

Impluse#1: Ship #1 moves
Impulse#2: Ships #1 & #2 move
Impulse#3: Ships #1 & #3 move
Impulse#4: Ships #1 and #2 move
Impulse#5: Ship #1 moves
Impulse#6: Ships #1, #2, #3 & #4 move

Any of them could fire on any impulse, whether or not it can move, if it has a charged weapon. A weapon that fires every turn would take 5 impulses to charge - if you fire it on impulse #3, it could not fire again until impulse #3 of the next turn.

[Crazy_Dog]

One thing that i like to see, is a weapons system like the one used in Starships Unlimited, Missiles use ammo and PPB / shields use energy.
For energy you need engines and reactors.
Also the arcs of fire like in the MOO2.
Other thing that i want to see is ships sizes can be race specific, ex. a mechanics race can build bigger ships than a spiritual one.

[Magnum357]

Wow! I've been gone from the board for like 3 or 4 months and look at all the new speculation that is occuring. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Hey guys, lets not jump the gun here on 3D graphics for a stand alone SE game, or a combat system for SE5 (if their ever is a SE5). I've dabled a little bit with programming and know a few people that deal with 3D graphics. Programming a 3D engine for any game is not an easy endeveour! I'm not saying Aaron can not do it, but it could be a very long time before we even see any mention of a 3D space combat game (let alone a 3D style SE5).

Just building the 3D engine alone is fairly complicated and tough for one guy to do. Also, speaking of 3D graphics, compatability issues are a big concern here too. Oh, you could make a 3D game engine and program all the bleeps and whistles and runs great for the system it is created on, but having it compatible with other systems graphics cards and systems is a very daunting task, even with great programming skills of MM. Do any of you have any idea of how many 3D graphics cards companies their are out their??? Like Diamand, GeForce, RIVA, or Voodoo cards and their variants. And what about all those integrated cards they have on computer systems these days? These are just a fraction of the hardware available.

Also, that might bring another point. I've read on countless occasions that many people that play Space Empires like playing the game not only because of the game play, but also its not too hefty on system requirements. I'm so sick and tired of game companies making games every six months that literly force you to buy a system even few months just too keep up with the new games system requirments. I don't know about any of you, but I don't have money to burn just for a Computer game. That was the beauty of SE3 and SE4, it was very adatable to the Windows operating system and didn't require a hefty CPU to run it. Once you go 3D graphics, you got to realize you are playing a whole new ball game.

Hey, this would be awsome if MM could design a 3D space combat game, and I would definitly buy it because I love Space Empires, but I'm definitly not holding my breath. Who knows how long it would take to develop the game. SE4 took nearly 3 years to develope. Although Aaron does have a little more resources to work with now, I would not be suprised if it too maybe twice as long as SE4. Just my opinion on this.

[dumbluck]

BB: Hmmm. On the "Fire, then move thing": Ok, I see what you mean now. I must not have been thinking clearly. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Now, the only hard-code change (that I can see) you need for your "impulse system" is to have engines that can give fractional moves/combat turn. You'd need an engine that gave you, say, 1 move every 6 turns, (and 2 engines gave 2 per 6 turns, etc). Then you could just mod the game to work like you've proposed.

Or am I missing something else now....

EDIT: Actually, all components that generate only 1 "somethings" per combat turn would need to be modded for fractional generation/turn, not just engines. Shield Regenerators, for example.

EDIT AGAIN: umm actually, that second engine should make it 1 move every 3 turns, huh?

[ August 21, 2002, 14:34: Message edited by: dumbluck ]

[Barnacle Bill]

Originally posted by dumbluck:
Now, the only hard-code change (that I can see) you need for your "impulse system" is to have engines that can give fractional moves/combat turn. You'd need an engine that gave you, say, 1 move every 6 turns, (and 2 engines gave 2 per 6 turns, etc). Then you could just mod the game to work like you've proposed.

Or am I missing something else now....

EDIT: Actually, all components that generate only 1 "somethings" per combat turn would need to be modded for fractional generation/turn, not just engines. Shield Regenerators, for example.

EDIT AGAIN: umm actually, that second engine should make it 1 move every 3 turns, huh?<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Well, yes, as you say, if MM just did the coding so that you could assign things fractional combat-turn frequencies it would be pretty close. Assuming changing the "Number Of Space Combat Turns" in settings.txt actually does anything (I never tried it).

It would also be better if the combat speed of a ship was not 1/2 the strategic speed, so the "finer gradations" of speed would count for something in battle. Of course, if the implementation was via giving engines a separate ability for combat speed and strategic speed, with fractional abilities allowed in combat speeds, that would do it. Except not halving the combat speed would effectively cut the combat map area to 1/4 of present. Unless we also got a retreat rule I would not like that - too easy for slower ships to "corner" faster ones that don't want to fight. So, idealy the size of the combat map would go up or become moddable.

In combat today, the fastest thing is combat speed 10 (a fighter with 9 Small Quantum Engines, an Afterburner III and the Propulsion Experts racial trait). That says 10 impulses would work, meaning 300 "impulse" turns per battle and we'd need fractional combat movement points & recharge rates in 0.1 increments. That is actually pretty clean - no need to mess with the map, just the ability to specify combat speed generation separately from strategic for everything (engines, components that give movement bonuses, vehicle hulls that give movement bonuses, the Propulsion Experts racial trait bonus) and have it accept values in 0.1 increments. This could probably be done in a patch. Then the mod would just divide everything by 10 except the "Number Of Space Combat Turns", which it would multiply by 10, and we'd be off to the races.

However, without also highlighting which units can move/fire this turn it might a bit awkward to use. It also would not skip turns where nothing could move or fire. Those issues are potentially patchable, though. A simple box around the square of something that could move or fire would do - say red if it can fire, yellow if it can move, orange if it can do both. Lack of any boxes showing would cue you to click "end turn". It doesn't get to simultaneous fire resolution, either, so the first guy to move in range still gets an advantage.

If, aside from afterburners which only work in combat, we wanted strategic & combat speeds to be the same then the maximum combat speed would be 19, the map needs to be doubled in every dimension just to hold our ground on the "cornering" issue, and the numbers don't work out so neat. Probably too messy for a patch, but for SEV:)

[dumbluck]

OK, BB, now my head hurts. Cut that out! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

Seriously, why would you want reload rates in fractions? You'd want reload rates in multiples. After all, if there are 10 impulses in what now constitutes a turn, a CSM has a 30 impulse reload rate. APB has a reload rate of 10 impulses. Surely you don't want to have anything with a reload rate of 1 impulse!!! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif (can you say, "uber-weapon"? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif )

[Pax]

Originally posted by dumbluck:
OK, BB, now my head hurts. Cut that out! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

Seriously, why would you want reload rates in fractions? You'd want reload rates in multiples. After all, if there are 10 impulses in what now constitutes a turn, a CSM has a 30 impulse reload rate. APB has a reload rate of 10 impulses. Surely you don't want to have anything with a reload rate of 1 impulse!!! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif (can you say, "uber-weapon"? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif )<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">With a turn-length of 10 impulses, you might want a low-damage PDC with a reload cycle of 2 impulses (5 shots per turn), to represent a fast-firing, ultra-low-caliber defensive weapon. Or halve it's damage and give it a reload cycle of 1 impulse. Bang away every impulse, for piddling damage. Would be nice in that, for low to-hit situations, at least SOME of your PDC would hit every turn,a nd eventually ... it'd rack up some damage, which is better than none, on every impulse.

AND ... that'd make Fighters with Emissive Armor more interesting; if those 1-per-impulse PDC did 5 damage each, then, Small EmAr III would become -very- useful. Yet the PDC, even if it hit a non-EmAr target, would only do 50 damage over the whole turn, so it'd not be ludicrously overpowered IMO. Especially if much-shorter-range than normal PDC.

[dogscoff]

say red if it can fire, yellow if it can move, orange if it can do both.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Or maybe some other colours completely, since some ppl have troubling distinguishing between those three...

Chromatic nitpick aside... you wouldn't have to have fractional shield regeneration. If the minimum of 1 shield point regenerated per impulse is still too high, just multiply all shield, weapon & damage Ratings up by a common factor (say 10) and then recalculate the number of impulses needed for regenerators.

In other words, the minimum of 10 shield points regeneration per turn wouldn't be a big deal, if a shield generator I produced 500 points and a DUC I did 150 damage.

[Suicide Junkie]

What's the big deal about the minimum regen rate?

Just have a 5 point/turn regenerator provide one point every other impulse.
Or, equivalently have a reload rate for regenerators.