Post Reply 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Combat Depth Improvements
10-08-2014, 01:00 AM
Post: #31
RE: Combat Depth Improvements
(10-07-2014 11:59 AM)deusohan Wrote:  So what then am I supporting? I wonder if I can express this better with pictures.

I'm for an additional layer of importance to the game — the tactical layer; an additional aspect in which players can become skilled and gain an edge to separate themselves from one another.

Nice post Dohanlon, but I am not sure you captured everything tactical in the chart. You broke the chart down into Research, Production, and Income. Within those categories, I think you do a pretty good job looking at components. Research decisions include starting traits, building to improve research, picking the best tech. Production decisions include starting traits, picking the right planets (rich/very rich), building buildings, building ships, and managing production resources. Income includes traits, population, technology, buildings.

And in your last graph, you show Tactical Decisions (defined as "how ships operate on the battle field, relate to each other, etc.") as representing about 1 percent of the equation.

I'd suggest that there are more tactical decisions that go on. People don't just make research/production/income decisions in a vacuum, build a single big fleet, and meet at some neutral area at an agreed-upon place, to see who made the best research/production/income decisions in one large battle. Tasks that aren't captured in your chart:

1. Scouting to determine opponent's tech, strength, and strategy. Are they building up a fleet or building colony ships? If colony ships, do you have enough to attack, or should you also expand? If fleet, should you stop researching PCM and focus instead on military? This is huge. Some of this is strategy, but there are also tactics involved.

2. Placement and use of fleet once you do have one. It is foolish to just rush into a big battle unless you know you have a superior fleet. If you have better mobility, you can jump around and avoid their big slow fleet and take out worlds. What if you have troop ships (at the cost of CP) but a smaller faster fleet? Again, a lot of tactical decisions on fleet placement go on before any "big battle". You can set up feints (like send some unaccompanied troop ships to a planet, hoping to entice the opponent to attack, and you arriving to take them out with better star drive). You have your fleet, you could attack three different systems with star bases and one defending fleet, but which one do you choose (better to take out a lone star base than one with a fleet). And which one will your opponent choose? That is a tactical decision. A game of cat and mouse.

3. Leaders. This might go under income, but leaders can turn the tide of a game. And they have associated costs (lost tech opportunity by getting exopolitics, focus on income vs research/production).

And I am sure other people can think of more. I agree that there can be some improvements to the tactical decisions in the battle itself (as listed in this thread) but overall, we are playing a game of chess where we build the pieces. How we move them around involves a lot of tactical decisions that aren't captured in your chart. When a queen attacks a pawn, the pawn will lose. That doesn't make chess a non-tactical game. The queen beating the pawn is the result (sort of like a SO battle) of the long-term strategy and short-term tactics of the game, but the actual taking of the piece doesn't involve tactics. It is a foregone conclusion that the queen will win. But if the pawn was protected by another pawn, and the queen is lost the next turn, that is where the tactics of piece selection and placement comes into play.
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