Combat Initiative...

[evan42]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Talenn:

Sure, you can always choose to defend the warp points but then why bother having the rest of the system maps? Just have Warp points and planets as that is all that will ever matter. No battles will ever be fought in space as the weaker force will always retreat. IMO, there is no way to implement a retreat system that cant be exploited given the 'IGO-UGO' turn system. Maybe someone can come up with one, but I seriously doubt one that isnt ridiculously complicated can fill the role.

---

Actually, this problem has been solved in many other strategy games. I have been playing a game called Stars for a long time, and it too has a battle board (but much much smaller).

Basically, when a ship wants to retreat, it will take a fixed number of turns. So, let's say it will take 10 turns to retreat from a battle in SE4. When the retreating ship runs to the edge of the map trying to avoid the attacker. If the attacker can apply enough damage to the retreating ship before the 10th turn, it wins. Otherwise, the other ship will successfully retreat from the battle.
I am not too sure about the exact number of turns for a ship (with 3 movement points) to move across the battle map. If it takes 10 turns to do it, then we can make it 12 turns to retreat from the battle. That will give the attacker 2 turns to attack. If the ships involved has higher movement points, then it will take even less time to move through the map.
So if the retreating ships has higher MP than the attacker, then it might retreat without a scratch. OTOH, a slower or same speed retreating ship will have to endure at least 2 turns of attacks to retreat.

[ColdSteel]

Evan42,

I think that sounds like a balanced solution and would work. Wonder if MM ever tried that and, if so, why they didn't implement it.

[Talenn]

Evan and Coldsteel:

IMO, that would still not work. Dont get me wrong, I'd LIKE to see retreat be an option, but not at the cost of no longer being able to fight decisive battles. And that systems for retreats still doesnt solve that problem IMO.

Its nearly impossible to cross the tactical map in 10 turns (or whatever) let alone actually inflict meaningful damage. Even if you lengthened the time required to 15 or so, it still wouldnt be enough to stop someone from simply refusing to give battle if that was their intention (and it would be every time they felt outgunned). I think ColdSteel summed it up well if you interpret the 30 turn limit as the 'auto-retreat'. Maybe it should only end the combat in 30 turns if one side has pushed a 'retreat button'? If that was done, I'm sure that it would FEEL different and that retreat was possible.

No, something far more complex would be required I'm afraid. IMO it would require an actual 'inertia' movement system so you cant simply reverse direction at will etc. Then you could require a player to enter with 'x' base velocity (maybe based on their movement strategically beforehand?). If they could overcome or convert their velocity and then still be able to turn around and run, then fine. That would also give the enemy time to build velocity for pursuit etc. But that is adding whole new layers of complexity to the game--turn modes or whatnot and thrust capacity etc. It would be neat, but prolly aint gonna happen any time soon.

Given the current 'abstract' movement system, any form of retreat will be far too easy to accomplish before the enemy can prevent it and we are left with the strategic impasse that I mentioned below. Trust me, I've worked on many a turn based game system and its a difficult problem to solve. Even games like Age of Wonders (fantasy turn based) eventually had to adopt a system in which only the attacker could retreat.

The ability to force a decisive conflict MUST be present or the game falls apart. As of yet, I dont see how a system that allows the weaker force an easy escape to be able to still have decisive battles.

Talenn

[This message has been edited by Talenn (edited 01 January 2001).]

[Barnacle Bill]

Talenn:

Under my proposal, you could only retreat if the other side doesn't have a speed advantage.

If you are faster, you SHOULD be able to evade the defenders in open space and get at the planets.

This is realistic. Let's look at the early 20th century naval paradigm. A force of "fast" (30 knot) battleships could evade an intercepting force of "slow" (25 knot) battleships and accomplish its mission.

How do you defend against this? First off, it gives smaller but faster ships an important role throughout the game to delay raiders until your heavies can catch up. This would be true both at the tactical level (preventing retreat) and at the system level (intercepting a heavier raiding force with the intent of sacrificing themselves to hopefully inflict engine damage on enough raiders that the raiding force cannot outrun your heavy force that arrives later).

Admittedly, it would work best with proportional movement at the system level.

Something could also be done similar to "Stars" in which ships can be ordered to intercept an opposing force. It seems like in one of the MOO games, enemy seekers moved during your turn - one square toward your ship on which they were targeting every time your ship moved one square. Sort of automated proportional movement. A fleet ordered to intercept an enemy fleet would move like that during the enemy's turn, borrowing against its movement allowance from your next turn. Fleets could be given orders to intercept anything coming through a warp point, with options for threshholds (number and/or type of ship) and/or ignoring the first "x" targets that warp in. This would limit the ability of the invader to decoy the interceptors and set up sort of a guessing game (which is very realistic - look at real life naval history).

Finally, the best defense is a good offense. If your own raiders wack the enemy refueling bases they won't have the endurance to reach deep into your territory. This could be enhanced by eliminating quantum reactors. Purpose-built raiders would have to sacrifice weapons for fuel load-out. While I was at it, I'd doctor the ship designs & components to make sure you can only build a cheap tanker on a slow "freighter" type hull and extending warship range would be expensive in both resources and hull space.

[ColdSteel]

Talenn,

I see the point. After thinking about it some more I think that we have to consider the 30 turns a "tactical combat round". In between these combat rounds, weaker ships that survive the initial round have a chance to flee if they desire. So, in SE4 retreat actually occurs but it occurs outside of tactical combat altogether and between the "rounds". I think this is one of those cases where the SE4 combat and the MOO combat, though sharing many similarities, also have some profound differences that aren't apparant until you play it a while. I'm having to restructure how I think about it for SE4.

I think this is where a decent (thick) manual that at least outlines this kind of stuff would have been helpful for those just learning the game. Let's hope someone, somewhere puts something like that together.

[Talenn]

Barnacle Bill:

Yes, I have a tendancy to want to make the game have Naval traits too. But SE4 has some fundamental differences from the Wet Navy . The most glaring would be that large ships can usually achieve the same speeds as small one (and more efficiently). Not until BBs do they start to slow down.

Smaller ships sacrifice a far greater capability to achieve speed 6 than large ones in SE4 which is quite the opposite of water based BBs and BCs vs CLs and DDs. 60kt of engines propels a FG or a BC at speed 6 but its a SIGNIFICANTLY higher percentage of the ship mass on the smaller hulls. There is little trade-off in making your ships faster. A 10kt differnce in other components in negligible. Personally, I liked the older SE3 model where it took more engines to propel the larger ships or the Starfire model where the larger ship's engines were simply bigger.

So the upshot of all of this is that you only see speed 6 ships until tech allows them to go higher through better engines and/or solar sails. And even at that the progression will be similar between players. So, for the most part, all ships will be the same speed. Given that, the disengagement rules wont work as everyone is going the same speed (roughly).

Even assuming it DID work correctly, would you really want 'raiders' being able to move around behind you at will? I know I wouldnt and it opens all kinds of cans of worms. Certain techs and trees would be so absolutely critical that players are pigeon-holed in their choices. IMO, that is bad as it makes all games feel the same when you are forced into researching the same items game after game in order to compete.

Of course a system COULD be implemented that could handle all of this, but it certainly isnt in place and adding a forgiving retreat would be very bad without significant change to the game mechanics and tech tree. Again, this is something that I just dont see happening in the near future if ever. So, IMO, a retreat system should stay out until/if the mechanics are capable of handling CORRECTLY. As usual, I dont see that it could hurt having it as an option for players who really want to give it a try or who want to mod their techs to allow for it.

ColdSteel:

Yes, SE4 and MOO2, while similar, definately have varying dynamics and interactions. Small ships could barely hurt a world in MOO2, but a few Frigates can easily glass a planet in SE4. That makes it an attacker's game and if you prevent the ability of the defender to intercept the enemy, it becomes much like the 'Mutually Assured Destruction' of the Nuclear Age..ie both player simply fly around and vaporize each other's econs while evading the enemy fleets.

So far, this has been a great discussion and I've enjoyed it very much. I hope that we have given SG and MM some interesting food for thought and that at the very least, an initiative system grows out of it.

Thanx,
Talenn

[God Emperor]

Talenn, I agree with you entirely regarding the reasons not wanting to change the existing system, despite the "oddities" that it imposes. The other main problem with any fix, and you have touched on it, is that the current arrangement works strategically for a turn based system. If it was possible to have your fleet track an intruder on the strategic level (at the owners descretion), then retreats could be allowed. With the current strategic system though, any one who was allowed to retreat from combat could, as you indicated, just move on and pound undefended planets.
Therefore, the current combat system has to remain if the strategic level is to continue to work. MOO2 retreats worked because the retreater was forced to have to go back to their nearest system and could not therefore take advantage of the fact that the other player had committed their fleet to battle.
Sorry guys, I dont like the concept of being pounded in a corner either (although I do get a sense of fun about pounding someone else in a corner)but any retreat solution has to take into account the strategic game level (which is difficult).......

[evan42]

Perhaps my original proposal of having a "fixed number of turns to retreat" can still be worked around by the attacker. But I think if we make some simple changes to it, it can still work.

You are worrying about the attacker having the ability to avoid decisive battles. And you made my proposal sound like a few turns of attacks won't even inflict any damages on the retreating side. But it will. Especially if the defender(attacker in the battle) is equiped with shield/engine zapping weapons.

And we can always increase the number of turns required to retreat, so it will give the other side more time to inflict damage. Perhaps the retreating side will not always be destroyed, but many of the ships will be crippled.

A decisive battle happens when BOTH sides are commited to the battle. (one side might not be willing to fight, but has no choice but to defend the HW for example) If one side chose to evade by taking some penalties, then they should have the right to do that. In that case, it will no longer be a decisive battle. We can make the penalty a little higher to persuade the retreater from retreating. But, they should have been given the option.

Also, what I have said is for normal space combat. But, if a battle occurs at a warp point, then it's a different ballgame. For one thing, the starting positions for both sides will be much closer together (if not right next to each other). In this case, the defender of the warp point should have enough time to attack regardless of the number of turns required to retreat.

In the case of battle at a warp point, I agree that the defender should be able to choose where to place their ships. So the defender will always have the upperhand by having their ships at the optimum firing range.

[Trachmyr]

Here's an idea... Why not require a ship that wants to retreat to put a minimum distance between it and its opponets closest ship... say 30 range. The combat map will have to be made with "near-infinate" scrolling ability. This allows both speed and tactics to play an issue to retreat. For warp points, the vessel must enter the center for two rounds and must turn off its shields.

BTW, I think that there should be a definate "fix" to make larger ships require HEAVIER engines to get the same speed (acceleration?). Possibly through "Mount Types", but it would require both a min. and Max. size entry in the .txt files.

[evan42]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trachmyr:
Here's an idea... Why not require a ship that wants to retreat to put a minimum distance between it and its opponets closest ship... say 30 range. The combat map will have to be made with "near-infinate" scrolling ability. This allows both speed and tactics to play an issue to retreat. For warp points, the vessel must enter the center for two rounds and must turn off its shields.

---

Putting a minimum distance of X in order to retreat will make the battle nearly impossible to play. If the opposition decides to evade the battle, he only needs to have the same speed. Sure, he won't be able to retreat, but he can just keep running infinitely, because the battle map is now "made with near-infinate scrolling ability". If the 30th-turn mandatory end-of-battle still exists, then he can still retreat without a scratch.

quote:

---

BTW, I think that there should be a definate "fix" to make larger ships require HEAVIER engines to get the same speed (acceleration?). Possibly through "Mount Types", but it would require both a min. and Max. size entry in the .txt files.

---

Agreed. Increasing the size of engines on larger ships through the use of mount types is a good idea. But I don't believe there is enough mount types to be used for every ship size in the game.

Another idea is to set the mass of an engine on a ship equals to a fixed percentage of the total mass of the ship. But that might require many changes to the codes.

The easiest way to go is to have larger ships required to have more engines. Which means only the maximum number of engines for each ship hull needs to be changed. So, for an escort, it needs 6 standard engines to achieve speed 6. But for a frigate, it will need 8. destroyer needs 10... and so on. Although there is still the rounding of movement points to be sorted out, but this method will be the easiest to implement.