Proposed 'Quick Fix' for some Combat 'Anomalies'

[Talenn]

Tenryu:

No probs at all. The reason I posted it here was to elicit feedback. I agree that its not perfect, but it is fix to some of the existing problems. Whether or not it would introduce more problems remains to be seen and is the very reason I want others to consider the permutations.

The long and short range weapons on a ship could be a potential problem. I dont think its anywhere near as bad as the current 'hit and run' or 'missile dance'.

Thanx for the input all.

Talenn

[Tenryu]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Daynarr:
.
If you want to have AI and human on more even grounds in tactical combat, you have to limit the human to do what AI can do.

---

I guess that's the crux of the issue.

Rather then asking MM to limit our options, I'm more in favor of asking them to get the AI working better. Maybe all that's needed for this issue is for the AI to start using decoys also.

I do understand your point though.

[Talenn]

Tenryu:

I also think these changes would benefit player vs player games as well. At the very least it makes it so that 'static' defenses are more worthwhile.

But even if it didnt do so, I think it is a good way to help the AI without giving it 'cheats'. I cant really think of any other good ways to help it vs the 'missile dance'. Even HUMANS cant beat it unless they simply pack their ships with PD weapons or missiles themselves.

I dont see any reasonable way to have the AI modify its ship designs to respond to other's missile/fighters. In the absence of that, I think this would go a long way to helping restore some fight from the AI.

FWIW, I would, of course, prefer the AI to be strengthened to the point where it wouldnt be necessary as well. Regardless, I think this change will add a certain element of thinking to the tactical combat and also on the design table.

Talenn

[Tenryu]

Talenn,

LOL!
I don't really disagree with your points.
If you can get MM to do it.
I'll not stop playing the game.

[Barnacle Bill]

I think the missile dance itself is a lot more realistic than than having to stop after you fire. Again, in real life if you are both faster than your opponent and have longer ranged weapons than you win without getting your hair mussed. Ask Crassus, or anybody who ever fought the Mongols.

As to the reality of the movement system, it is only realistic if you assume Newtonian physics still apply. "Inertialess" drives are pretty common in science fiction.

I don't see the big problem with decoys, either. They cost a lot in the long run, and you have to maintain them, too. It would also not be that hard to program the AI to consider the various ships involved in the combat as well as their ranges in deciding who to use opportunity fire on, perhaps with a small random element to make it more unpredictable.

Another thing which could be done without sacrificing realism, actually increasing it, it to move to a proportional movement system in tactical combat. The idea here is that instead of going the entire turn on an "igo-ugo" basis, the turn is divided into a number of "impulses" equal to the fastest tactical speed the game will support. If a ship has that maximum possible speed, it can move one square every impulse. If it has 1/2 the maximum speed, it can move 1 square every other impulse, etc... A ship that doesn't move when it has the opportunity loses that MP for the turn. Weapons still only fire once per turn (or less, for those with reload times greater than 1 turn). However, any unit can fire in any impulse whether it moved or not. The impulse has two phases, first movement, then fire, and all fire in the same impulse is simultaneous. This will solve the "missile dance" issue in a way that increases realism, rather than decreases it.

[Zanthis]

Hey Bill, think you can convince MM to add weapon arcs and turn modes while your at it?

I do like the impulse idea. Would be neat if impulse-based tactical combat was a Setting (or selected during galaxy creation).

[Talenn]

Barnacle Bill:


Sure, those are all great ideas. I'd wouldnt mind seeing an 'impulse movement system' in the game, but I dont see it happening any time soon. The original goal of the post was 'quick fix', not a complete overhaul of the tactical combat engine. If MM decided to redo combat that way, I'm all for it (except for the drastically increased play time it would entail), but in absence of that, I'd like to see something done to reduce some of the more obvious tactical combat exploits.

FWIW, while the 'missile dance' may be somewhat 'realistic' (if we ignore inertia), it sure as heck doesnt make the game as fun to play. When playing competitively with other humans, people are going to do what it takes to win (and they have every right to, IMO) That causes the game to feel a bit stale when EVERYONE is using missiles and when players are standing off fleets of cruisers with destroyers and frigates.

As I pointed out below, the combat engine has NOTHING to do with realism. It allows the players to engage in a 'chess-like' battle using ships of their own design. It conveys the flavor of space sci-fi conflict. It allows for the use of differing tactics. IMO, thats all it should be doing. If we want a more detailed combat sim, we can go play SFC2 (when they finally patch it enough to be playable, that is...). But I dont think it is within the scope of SE4 to provide a detailed combat engine. What we have (abstract) is fine in most cases, but it has some serious loopholes. I'd just like to see those loopholes closed or reduced.

Talenn