Stale Tactical Combat?

[Alpha Kodiak]

While points 1 and 2 are not issues for me, I have some of the same concerns as your other points. The hard part is in finding a balance.

The ultimate solution for me would be to introduce a phased movement system similar to Star Fleet Battles, where faster ships move one hex more often than slow ships, and fire can happen at any time, to resolve combat. Weapon arcs could also be added. The downside of that would be much more complicated individual battles that take much longer to complete.

Something can be said for the much simplified combat of Spaceward Ho where the ships are pretty much just lined up to wail on each other. It all depends on what you want the game to focus on.

If the strategic level is most important, with research and exploration being the dominant factors, then combat should probably be simplified. If tactical combat is important, then the micromanagement of research and production should probably be simplified.

Perhaps the problem with tactical combat in SEIV is that the game is trying to be complex in both areas. As to where the emphasis should be placed, there are probably widely varying opinions on that.

As I think about it, I think for me the tactical combat should be simplified. When I want complex tactical combat, I can play Star Fleet Command (a game I also love!) Switching to strategic mode doesn't appeal to me because it seems like the AI makes a lot of mistakes when it comes to things like attacking planets or trying to capture ships.

I expect that there will be those that strongly disagree with that. I might even disagree with it myself. I think SEIV is an awesome game, but I agree that there is something off just a bit in the combat system.

[Taqwus]

On the UGOIO system --

One possible problem with telling ships whom to shoot before each phase: in SE4, ships and fighters (especially! 9 QE + Afterburners can mean a speed of 12/9!) can be very, very fast compared to weapon ranges. In many games, units move relatively slowly compared to range. In CM, which I've not played but it's my understanding that it has a phased system similar to what you propose, the setting -- WWII -- permits weapons, such as the 88mm cannon of a JagdTiger, that have a sufficient range and RoF compared to vehicle speed that this would be less of an issue, if one at all. In SE4, ships can be in an out of each others range very, very often.

Here, we'd definitely need a high degree of fire control independence, and that means a better tactical AI (for instance, it seems to be VERY rigid in its doctrine; hopelessly crippled ships flee uselessly rather than ram, for instance, and they follow orders regardless of their applicability (a fast carrier would probably launch its fighters against a fleet of slow PD ships, for instance, rather than flee for 30 turns); there is currently minimal situational analysis).

Incidentally, to avoid the Slugging Match, simply tweak Maximum Range to Max Range/Don't Get Hurt. And research propulsion/stellar harnessing, and get some decent beam weapons -- and watch your enemies follow, rather futilely, getting bLasted every turn.

[Alpha Kodiak]

In my previous post on this thread, I stated that I thought tactical combat should be simplified. As I thought about it further, though, I think I was wrong. The problem is that much of the technology research would be much less interesting if it just boiled down to combat modifiers of some kind.

Given that, I think that much of the problem can be solved by improved AI, both in situational awareness, as Taqwus pointed out, and in ship design and fleet composition. (An adequate point defense element in an AI fleet or planetary defense would go far in making the missile dance less effective.)

There are already some mods out that improve some of the ship design/fleet composition issues. I expect that between those mods and patches from MM, things will improve dramatically.