A better system for combat

Askan Nightbringer · #1 October 11th, 2001, 06:05 AM

Pondering the plight of many battles in PBW I have formulated a plan for fairer battles to take place without (I hope) moving too far away from the way its currently done.

My gripe - One player moves all his ships, then the other and so on. Some people are aware (and I am too now) that fighting on a warp point heavily advantages the player with the lower number (coz he always goes first).

My alternative - Player 1 moves 1 ship, Player 2 moves 1 ship, Player 1 then moves another ship and so on until all the ships are moved.
Obviously there are advantages to moving some ships first (ie the ones with all the guns) so to compensate for this there could be another list in the strategies page similiar to the target priorities.
ie. Ship movement priority.
Has Weapons,
Nearest, (to enemy)
Biggest,
Baddest,
Meanest,
Worst Paint Job

It could also mean a smaller fleet might be more capable of doing some damage.
So what you guys think? A better way or what?

Askan
Intergalactic Despot

Aristoi · #2 October 11th, 2001, 08:03 AM

Would it not be simplier to just randomize the player order in combat?

Askan Nightbringer · #3 October 11th, 2001, 08:31 AM

Randomising the player order will still mean that at a warp point battle one player always gets slaughtered.
The battles are all or nothing, I'de rather it a bit more balanced.

Askan

Deathstalker · #4 October 11th, 2001, 11:37 AM

IMO we need a system like Moo2. Individual 'ship initative', each ship has a base initative (sp?) decided on by ship size and speed (ie, smaller, more maneuverable goes 'first'), and then and experience bonus is added to this number, finally a random number is added to the mix, the ships then go by this number for combat initative...

Kinda like the old Dungeons and Dragons system of 'who goes first'...Everyone had a number decided by rolling a 10 sided dice and then adding in their 'Dexterity' bonus, whoever had the 'highest' number went first, with ties going at the 'same' time and damage being applied at the 'end of the round'....

Anyone else think this is a good idea? (Just thinking though, the 'defender' of a position <wormhole/planet owned by defender etc> should get a bonus to going first, just like a 'cloaked' ship should get a bonus to going first, other components could also add to the 'number game' like the 'neural net' or 'combat sensors'.....)

------------------
"We are all...the sum of our scars"....(paraphrased) Matt. R. Stover-'Blade of Tyshalle'.

"Human existance is all imagination...Reality is no more than a simple agreement among its participants that this is where we shall meet, and these are the rules that we shall abide by."- Kevin McCarthy/David Silva "The Family:Special Effects"..

Kadste · #5 October 11th, 2001, 03:02 PM

Deathstalker,

The system that you are proposing, works well with many games including "fleet" type combat.

Definitely agree with you that ships defending warp points should get a first fire turn (maybe more than one turn, depending on the chatacteristics of a warp point). Also with cloaked ships, unless detected. Some of the other space 4E games have already incorporated this (including some games that were developed on the same scale as SEIV).

What about the idea of having fleet initiative as well or instead of individual ship initiative. This may be easier to implement and could give definitive advantages to ships in fleets. If MM ever adopts a method of having fleet admirals in the game, this could also tie nicely.

------------------
In difficult ground, press-on;
In encircled ground, devise stratagems;
In death ground, fight.
Sun Tzu (circa 400 B.C.)

Rollo · #6 October 11th, 2001, 03:13 PM

Not only for simplicities sake I would most prefer a 50/50 chance of "who goes first".

quote:
Randomising the player order will still mean that at a warp point battle one player always gets slaughtered.
The battles are all or nothing, I'de rather it a bit more balanced.

IMHO "all or nothing" is good, especially if it is just a simple 50/50 chance of "who goes first" (see a more detailed system below). You'd really have to take your chances.

quote:
IMO we need a system like Moo2. Individual 'ship initative', each ship has a base initative (sp?) decided on by ship size and speed (ie, smaller, more maneuverable goes 'first'), and then and experience bonus is added to this number, finally a random number is added to the mix, the ships then go by this number for combat initative...

Kinda like the old Dungeons and Dragons system of 'who goes first'...Everyone had a number decided by rolling a 10 sided dice and then adding in their 'Dexterity' bonus, whoever had the 'highest' number went first, with ties going at the 'same' time and damage being applied at the 'end of the round'....

Individual ship initiative is a good idea, but would probably complicate things too much. It would be okay in strategic combat, but when you think about tactical hotseat, it is going to be a big PITA. I am playing the devil's advocate here, but individual ship initiative sounds like SE5 to me. BTW, what's the point of initiative, if damage is applied at the end of the round? Oh wait, this is just for ties, right? Doh, I got it.

So let us just assume that initiative is applied to whole fleets (or better ships/units/bases in the same sector) rather than individual ships, what modifiers would be good to apply? (from my POV).
While it makes sense that more experienced ships are likely to go first, I don't like it very much. Fleet experience and combat bonuses are already very powerful (perhaps too powerful, but that is another issue). I have seen whole fleets being destroyed only by a handful of legendary ships. Giving veterans an initiative bonus would make them even harder to defeat. The point is: If your ships are more experienced, they are already less likely to be hit. Let's give the underdog a break, so he can at least launch his seekers before being blown to bits

.
Ship sizes would be okay and easy to apply. Biggest ship in the fleet determines the "bulk" of the whole fleet with modifiers of +5/-5 (or even +10/-10) per ship size. Example: the basic chance of going first is 50/50. If a fleet of Destroyers and Light Cruisers meets a battleship that is being escorted by frigates, the chance of going first would change from 50/50 to 65/35 (LC vs. BB: 3 ships sizes * +5/-5). The escorting DS and FG do not play a role, because the biggest ship counts for the bulk. To include bases and units in this system: A) I would make bases less bulky than ships. Space Stations (500kt) would have the same bulk as LC, Battle Station (1500kt) same bulk as BC, and Starbases (2500kt) same bulk as dreadnoughts. B) units (fighters and satellites) go always first [edit] or (maybe better) count as one or two ship sizes below escorts [/edit]

quote:
Anyone else think this is a good idea? (Just thinking though, the 'defender' of a position <wormhole/planet owned by defender etc> should get a bonus to going first, just like a 'cloaked' ship should get a bonus to going first, other components could also add to the 'number game' like the 'neural net' or 'combat sensors'.....)

I have seen this argument before of the defender getting a bonus or even defender going always first. Personally I would like it to see it the other way around, because that would encourage aggressiveness. Explaining this would really depend on how you see warp point travel. Is the warp point sending out some forewarning (as seen on TV) or is the attacker able to predict his ETA (emerging from the wormhole) and catch the defender by surprise. Even if the defender is lying in wait you could reason that he would not be on battle alert (keeping shields and weapons charged) at all time, while the attacker knows that a battle is coming up pretty soon...
For the same reasons as experience I wouldn't like combat sensors to get initiative bonuses as well. Being able to hit better, doesn't mean you'll go first. The only component I would be comfortable with getting bonuses is sensors (you know, Hyper Optics and such) with +5/-5 for each sensor level better than the enemies. And of course only one component per fleet being effective. So if I have Hyper Optics III on one of my ships and the enemy only Gravitic Sensors I, I would get a +10 on going first.

Hmm, now that I have written this, I like the "bulk system" (with the +5/-5 per ship size) better than a simple 50/50. Perhaps with another +5 to the attacker and the sensors modifiers (not necessarily).

Just my 0.02. I would like to hear your opinions. Feel free to tell me that my idea is complete BS (and I don't mean Battle Station

).

Rollo

[This message has been edited by Rollo (edited 11 October 2001).]

Verigen · #7 October 11th, 2001, 05:02 PM

I would say that a fleet initative would be a better idea than haveing anyone "always go first" even on warp points. If an individual ship was given an initative then maybe the fleet's initative could be the average with the larger ships haveing lower (big, bulky) and the smaller ones haveing higher initative(small, more manuverable). Also it would be advisable to use the number of engines to add into this factor. This would give players some incentive to build the smaller ships later on in the game. Unfortunately, I don't think the AI could handle that.

zircher · #8 October 11th, 2001, 05:26 PM

Alternate idea: Simultaneous combat resolution. Fleet A moves, Fleet B moves, Fleet A assigns targets, Fleet B assigns targets, Resolve attacks and damage.

The perks of such a system is that everyone gets to fire. It also eliminates much of the micro-management of tactical combat. Currently, it is far too easy to dodge in and out of your enemy's maximum weapon range or walk your firepower down a line of enemy units scoring just enough to cripple or destroy the enemy, one ship at a time.
--
TAZ

Verigen · #9 October 11th, 2001, 05:34 PM

Just one problem with that, how would you dictate movement? If you were not currently in range but would be after the turn was comenced it would be wasted fire. On the other hand if a ship moved out of what would have been in normal range you would also have wasted your shots. It could work but the system would turn out worse than what we have now.

Kadste · #10 October 11th, 2001, 05:58 PM

The simultaneous resoltion of movement and combat firing should include oportunity fire or just like we have target priorities, we could have target fire priorities like:

Fire at range 'x'
Fire at max weapon range
Fire at max damage range
Fire on command (manual)

Then ships would automatically fire based on these rules.

------------------
In difficult ground, press-on;
In encircled ground, devise stratagems;
In death ground, fight.
Sun Tzu (circa 400 B.C.)