Combat Mechanics

[Xrati]

Ideas for combat/movement system. At a time when Off Topic, became Topic!!!

[pydna]

Well since the ball is rolling.

I think some sort of ship orders system would be nice.

Attack Close - Vessel(s) will close to shortest range.

Attack Standoff - Vessel(s) will stay at long range from target.

Attack Vessel Type - This type of order means your ships will attack a certainly type of enemy ship and ignore others (e.g. go for the carriers)

Screen - Vessel(s) will always place themselves between the enemy and the fleet they are screening

Disengage - Vessel(s) will try and avoid combat and withdraw at the earliest opportunity.


I'm sure there are heaps of possible orders these are just some off the top of my head. I'm guessing that since the game is play by email battles would be resolved using some formula where player designs,battle orders and tactics would influence the outcome.

[Q]

One more ship/fleet order:
Stay close to ... (e.g. warp point)

What I strongly suggest is the possibility to define an initial placement of your ships and units: around colony/warp point/base.
And that the fleet/task force formation is always observed in a new combat and not just the last placement of your ships is used.

[pydna]

I see what you mean Q. Perhaps there could also be a general order such as Defend Starbase and/or Screen Starbase?

It all depends on the importance of Orbital facilities.

Say for instance planetary invasion cannot commence until the Starbase is taken out would make them very important :-)

Also do we know what time scale is going to be used for turns? Does each turn represent a month or a year of real time?

Another thing I've been thinking about is multiple targetting. Say for instance my vessel has three weapons pods I have two of them set with attack standoff orders and one set with defend orders. This means two are blasting away at the enemy and one is trying to shoot incoming missiles. I don't know if will work but something to think throw into the mix.

[Gregstrom]

Originally Posted by pydna

Another thing I've been thinking about is multiple targetting. Say for instance my vessel has three weapons pods I have two of them set with attack standoff orders and one set with defend orders. This means two are blasting away at the enemy and one is trying to shoot incoming missiles. I don't know if will work but something to think throw into the mix.

It's an interesting idea, but if fleets get sufficiently large I could see it turning into a MM hell of epic proportions.

[jars_u]

I agree with Gregstrom that sounds like MM Hell - I think SE resolved this nicely by having point defense weapons whose only function/ability was to fire on incoming missiles etc. - this affords the strategy without the Hell I think and also I believe to more realistic - you wouldn't fire on a cruise missile with a 16 inch gun etc.

[pydna]

Very true Jars_u, but you could also have a short range interceptor missile.

It would have a longer range than point defence but much shorter range than an Anti Ship Missile (ASM). This would would allow Ships with screening orders to shoot down inbounds that weren't necessarily targeting them.

Already there are several design strategies players could employ.

Do I build a large ship which has a mixture of point defence and interceptor missiles + ASMs and Beam Weapons??

Or do I build two classes of ship. One large ship with limited point defence, ECM and Targetting systems lots of ASMs plus a second lighter vessel which is fitted mainly with Interceptor missiles and given screening orders. Essentially you're building a Battleship and Escort class vessel.

[Q]

Yes Pydna, that is a good idea: strategies not only for the entire unit/vehicle but also target priorities for individual weapons.

What is the use of shield depleting weapons against a ship without remaining shields? And perhaps I would like to wait with the use of my armor (but not shield) skipping weapons until the shields are gone.

[MarcoPolo]

Once upon a time (1998) there was a marvellous game called Decent: Freespace. In fact it was so well developed and groundbreaking that the following year (1999)Freespace 2 came out. And to the satisfaction of all space combat sim fans, it was very good. With an epic storyline worthy of a blockbuster hollywood movie for both Freespace 1 and Freespace 2. And a space combat system that looked splendid and revolutionary as far as 3d gfx went for the time. It also completely immersed gamers everywhere with titanic capital ship battles that players would engage as fighters and bombers in. I remember targetting subsystems from engines to weapons and sheilds and feeling completely immersed.

Many years later when Volition revealed it was unlikely to make the long awaited Freespace 3, it revealed the source code and invited with this move many modders and programmers into the open source Freespace community. Mods like Battlestar Galactica called Beyond the Red Line as well as the original game with updated textures is a pretty sight to behold.

What I would like to know from the makers of Star Legacy is: if a game like Freespace was possible back in 1998-99 when PC specs were fairly modest and 3d technology barely running into 2nd generation hardware, can't this game (Star Legacy) have a combat system that is as extensive and as aesthetically pleasing as Freespace? Surely a 10yr old engine can be reproduced and made for a larger scale space strategy game yes? If anything programmers can freely check the open source code for any pointers or hints on how to make space combat epic again like in the 90s. Freespace employed realistic collision detection, unlike sphere based collision detection that would merely push the fighter in the opposing direction. This little attention to detail is what set it apart. And the amazing thing that it was acheived on a tight release schedule and with budget constraints.


Even the Direct X8 game "Hegemonia:Legions of Iron" that hit in 2002 held quite a few promising features. There have been very few games that push the envelope of realism and ingenuity for space combat games. One recent addition being Nexus Jupiter Incident and its never released sequel Nexus Jupiter Incident II were to boast the most spectacular realistic models of planets and ships effects known to the genre.

I guess all in all what I am posing is the question of how difficult is it to make a beautiful looking game? Logistically speaking, if a combat space sim game more than 10yrs old! (Freespace)could do it then. Is it realistic to ask that Star Legacy look at least as good? I just hope we don't fall into it looking more like Armada 2526 where combat is concerned. This game came out in 2009 and promised to be a Total War in space. In reality it was a humble effort more suited to a 1990s release date. Don't get me wrong the gameplay is more important than gfx, but c'mon we are in 2010 now and asking for the atmospheric gamestyle and presentation ala Freespace 1998-99 offered is not so outrageous now is it? Otherwise it seems games these days have lost its soul in some strange twist where recent games of this genre look worse than games of over a decade old!!!

Peace and looking forward to a top rate combat system for Star Legacy.

PS: I ask that the programmers doing Star Legacy's combat system and gfx, take a short look at Freespace 2 open source code. You will probably find a few pleasant surprises on how to better your own amazing game. If there is a game out there that had blood sweat and tears go into it, its definitely this one.

[Kwayne]

Originally Posted by MarcoPolo

I guess all in all what I am posing is the question of how difficult is it to make a beautiful looking game? Logistically speaking, if a combat space sim game more than 10yrs old! (Freespace)could do it then. Is it realistic to ask that Star Legacy look at least as good?

No. The only thing changed in the last 10 years is technology, so even if we could say we're well equipped, our professional knowledge and talents are still not in the same league with FS2's creators, not to mention our time and budget. Also, part of the SL agenda, namely "easy modability" is a limiting factor on graphical development. 2D-ness is one of the consequences of this agenda, and there will be numerous other "sacrifices" made so more and more people (including myself) will be able to expand SL after its release, without uglifying the game too much.

My goal is to make a small step beyond SEIV, so the default graphics style still requires the skills needed to make SEIV shipsets, with a small addition of a 2D editing skill requirement.