Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Battle Lineup
03-14-2013, 11:16 AM
Post: #21
RE: Battle Lineup
3 rows makes sense. I agree with Diebo. I'd be ready and willing to test this.

Writer and all around crazy person.
GC ID: falanor4421 *** Sandbox : falanor4421 (I think...) ***
Always looking for a game
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
03-15-2013, 12:59 PM (This post was last modified: 03-15-2013 01:01 PM by tactfulgamer.)
Post: #22
RE: Battle Lineup
However this comes about, which with this community and an excellent dev like Rocco.

I hope The Roc decides to add some kind of battle simulater so we can try out our theoretical formations/attack lines and test/tweak before engaging them in actual combat.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
03-15-2013, 01:47 PM
Post: #23
RE: Battle Lineup
(03-15-2013 12:59 PM)tactfulgamer Wrote:  However this comes about, which with this community and an excellent dev like Rocco.

I hope The Roc decides to add some kind of battle simulater so we can try out our theoretical formations/attack lines and test/tweak before engaging them in actual combat.

If you join the Beta you get something very close to this Wink

GC ID - VanderLegion, GMT-9. Sandbox GC ID (Beta) - VanderLegion
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
03-15-2013, 02:03 PM
Post: #24
RE: Battle Lineup
Cool. I did join the beta, I think I have another week to wait before I get it.

So I guess, I will take that as a hint, it may make it to full retail version at some point. Nice Smile
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
03-15-2013, 02:09 PM
Post: #25
RE: Battle Lineup
(03-15-2013 02:03 PM)tactfulgamer Wrote:  Cool. I did join the beta, I think I have another week to wait before I get it.

So I guess, I will take that as a hint, it may make it to full retail version at some point. Nice Smile

Nah, it's something beta exclusive that's just in there for testing stuff. Doesn't mean it COULDN'T end up in the live version eventually, but don't know of any plans for it. And can't wait for the next beta to start to play with the cloud AI and whatever else rocco adds for us to play with.

On the plus side, once you do actually get a beta build, you can keep it around between betas and still have access to the afore-hinted special feature.

GC ID - VanderLegion, GMT-9. Sandbox GC ID (Beta) - VanderLegion
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
03-15-2013, 02:28 PM
Post: #26
RE: Battle Lineup
Now that's cool! I'm excited about this one.
Though, I will be getting trounced on the MP side of the test field - I'll have a blast messing around with all the new stuff, when even the old stuff now, is still new stuff to me. Lol.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
03-21-2013, 03:21 AM
Post: #27
RE: Battle Lineup
(03-13-2013 05:43 AM)rocco Wrote:  I kinda like the idea of new tech that allows finer control over fleet positioning. Just because a race has interstellar vessels does not mean they have the military discipline and control necessary to handle complicated fleet maneuvers. I kinda like the idea that a tech be created that's related to ship size; so positioning frigates and destroyers comes for free, and you tech up "combat tactics I" to allow positioning of cruisers and battleships and "combat tactics II" to allow for titans and mammoths.

The ability to position ships is more of a player thing than a game thing to give the human players the illusion of greater control and greater immersion into the game at the tactical level.

If you like to add the impact of C2, training and discipline on a strategic level then combat tactics I, II, III could provide combat penalties when you exceed your C2 limit.

For example the base could be under 10 ships no penalties and then some level of penalties up to say -50% attack and hit points as you exceed the limit as a multiple. Or a simple -1% for every ship over your limit up to 50 would work.

With CT I you could have 20 ships, CT II 30 ships, CT III 40 ships before the penalties start.

If you wanted to make C2 an even greater impact you could ONLY allow the first X many ships to participate with the rest showing up as reinforcements over the next turns.

Certain races could get benefits and penalties on these numbers. Same for leaders.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
06-07-2014, 04:45 AM
Post: #28
RE: Battle Lineup
Bumping this for SO2.

If I could ask for one thing for SO2, I think this would be it.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
09-24-2014, 01:52 PM (This post was last modified: 09-24-2014 02:19 PM by deusohan.)
Post: #29
RE: Battle Lineup
(03-13-2013 05:40 AM)rocco Wrote:  Battle formations has been a long time request. Some of the issues I've had with it:

1) I like players being able to see formations immediately upon entering combat. So in my mind formations need to be set prior to any combat, and battle orders are set during combat (tweaks to a pre-set formation, as it were).

2) Battle formations should not add more time needed to resolve combat (so no extra turns to specify formations)

3) Saving formation across games is difficult, unless they're done in generalities and not specifics.

The natural thought given the above is to be able to specify a formation for a fleet in the galaxy screen. However, fleets in SO are very fluid things, as they are the combined forces of all ships at a system. Updating fleet formations each time another ship gets added would introduce a lot of micromanagement headache.

I find this a bit confusing. Please humor me.

Makes sense why people would want to save formations across game, but #3 is a legit and very technically challenging question, given the amount of potential variation between SO games.

I agree with #2 in principal, the thing is it's just necessitated by constraint #1. So examining constraint #1, my question is, why?

In real combat — be it land, naval, aerial — you frequently (if not always) don't get to know what your opponent's posture is before entering combat. So #1 is not for realism reasons.

On the other hand, what would you do with this 'opponent's formation info' even if you did have it? Of key importance, it wouldn't make sense to let people change formations based on the opponent's formation. Then everybody's just changing their formations anyway! So at best you could change your orders but not your formations. Weird to be able to shift one and not the other, assuming you'd think they go hand in hand.

Part of any good strategic game is taking a guess at your opponent's intentions in the process of trying to rationalize your own. That's true when selecting tech, why shouldn't it be true on the battlefield as well? That's just adding more to the fun. And over the course of a match you could pick up a bit about your opponent's tendencies, which in turn invites them to consider and break their own tendencies, and for you to try to anticipate whether they'll go textbook or "fake the fake".

(03-21-2013 03:21 AM)nigel_ht Wrote:  The ability to position ships is more of a player thing than a game thing to give the human players the illusion of greater control and greater immersion into the game at the tactical level.

If you like to add the impact of C2, training and discipline on a strategic level then combat tactics I, II, III could provide combat penalties when you exceed your C2 limit.

For example the base could be under 10 ships no penalties and then some level of penalties up to say -50% attack and hit points as you exceed the limit as a multiple. Or a simple -1% for every ship over your limit up to 50 would work.

With CT I you could have 20 ships, CT II 30 ships, CT III 40 ships before the penalties start.

If you wanted to make C2 an even greater impact you could ONLY allow the first X many ships to participate with the rest showing up as reinforcements over the next turns.

Certain races could get benefits and penalties on these numbers. Same for leaders.

I like the sound of this: Anybody can do it on a basic level, but you have to research 'Advanced Tactics' to do it effectively at a higher level — coordinating a higher number of ships.

GC: dohanlon

Yes, my avatar is an impossibly cute rendition of Garrus Vakarian. No, I am not a 12-year-old Japanese girl. Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
09-25-2014, 01:07 AM
Post: #30
RE: Battle Lineup
(09-24-2014 01:52 PM)deusohan Wrote:  
(03-13-2013 05:40 AM)rocco Wrote:  Battle formations has been a long time request. Some of the issues I've had with it:

1) I like players being able to see formations immediately upon entering combat. So in my mind formations need to be set prior to any combat, and battle orders are set during combat (tweaks to a pre-set formation, as it were).

2) Battle formations should not add more time needed to resolve combat (so no extra turns to specify formations)

3) Saving formation across games is difficult, unless they're done in generalities and not specifics.

Makes sense why people would want to save formations across game, but #3 is a legit and very technically challenging question, given the amount of potential variation between SO games.

I agree with #2 in principal, the thing is it's just necessitated by constraint #1. So examining constraint #1, my question is, why?

In real combat — be it land, naval, aerial — you frequently (if not always) don't get to know what your opponent's posture is before entering combat. So #1 is not for realism reasons.

On the other hand, what would you do with this 'opponent's formation info' even if you did have it? Of key importance, it wouldn't make sense to let people change formations based on the opponent's formation. Then everybody's just changing their formations anyway! So at best you could change your orders but not your formations. Weird to be able to shift one and not the other, assuming you'd think they go hand in hand.

Part of any good strategic game is taking a guess at your opponent's intentions in the process of trying to rationalize your own. That's true when selecting tech, why shouldn't it be true on the battlefield as well? That's just adding more to the fun. And over the course of a match you could pick up a bit about your opponent's tendencies, which in turn invites them to consider and break their own tendencies, and for you to try to anticipate whether they'll go textbook or "fake the fake".

I think what Roc was saying about #1 and #2 is that this is a multi-person online game and adding extra turns for combat would slow it down too much. It is a compromise. Realism takes a back seat to playability.

Think of what would happen if you had an 8-player game, and everyone had to stop for extra turns while Player 2 positioned their single scout against a monster (or another player's single scout). To keep things moving, battle needs to be resolved in the same turn as all the other stuff in a turn. An alternative would be to have 2+ turns per turn (everyone takes turn 1a, where you do most everything as it currently is, as well as set up combat, and turn 1b, where you resolve combat). But that would potentially decrease game speed in half, on a game that can take a month or more to finish.

RE: Realism. Given that battles happen in space, and people have good scanning technology, I am assuming that people could scan and see fleet position from the start (unless they all warp in and suddenly appear?).

The solution developed on this page would allow for people to more-or-less predetermine starting position for their ships. This would be a big improvement. Let's say you have 50 nuke 3 frigates. Right now they are all spread out in a line, and the farthest ones can't even hit a star base until they move closer. PDS is spread all out and can't effectively stop incoming weapons. If the ships could be grouped in lines of 3, that would really help. If the plasma/nuke/proton ships were in back that could help protect them.

The quickest way to get an idea implemented is to have be simple, intuitive, and "low-hanging fruit" material. Battle formation isn't "low-hanging fruit", as it probably would require significant programming/testing, and trying to explain how to set up the fleets to newbies might not be simple or intuitive. But it is something I would like to see for SO2.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Forum Jump:


User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

Contact Us | Starbase Orion | Return to Top | Return to Content | Lite (Archive) Mode | RSS Syndication