Proposed 'Quick Fix' for some Combat 'Anomalies'

[Talenn]

Lucas:

Yes, some folks have experimented with teaching the AI to 'missile dance'. Unfortunately, it simply makes missiles a 'trump' card and pigeon-holes players (and AIs) into researching them and PD weapons up every game. IMO, it detracts from replay value as you know that EVERY game you have to research this stuff or lose. I much prefer options to requirements.

And yep, my first testing was done with stopping movement after firing a seeking weapon, but direct fire weapons didnt suffer the same penalty. It worked well. But I figured why not make it pertain across the board and remove the 'hit and run' problem as well?

Its really not to difficult for anyone to test what it feels like. Simply use the combat simulator and play both sides. Try it out both ways and see what you think.

The difference in 'penalty' by ship class was simply for flavor. I'd like for small ships to have some sort of 'maneuverability' advantage over the capital ships and this is nice, simple and abstract way to represent it.

Thanx for the input.

Talenn

[Barnacle Bill]

This is one suggestion that I hope MM does not listen to, or if they do listen then impliment it in a way that I can undo via mod. I don't buy this stuff about "its all an abstraction, anyway". Of course, some compromises are necessary to translate even a science fiction inertialess system into turn-based movement, but those compromises are inherent in turn-based movement. This is not. Having spaceships stop to fire feels totally wrong. Although I would like to see the "missile dance" & "hit & run" things addressed, I would rather live with them forever and have no effective weapons in the game except missiles than to have spaceships stop to fire. It would totally ruin the game for me. If this change is made in a way that I couldn't undo it, I would stop playing the game.

[Taqwus]

Others have suggested numerous ideas, such as a phased combat system (I believe Stars! currently uses both movement and firing phases), and impulses (again, more discretization).

Simply plotting movements (perhaps for all ships before a phase, then all ships move simultaneously albeit not necessarily with equal speed) with AI fire control (mostly) might be a good idea.

As for decoy ships, perhaps they can be avoided by specifying a targetting priority series like (Has Weapons, Strongest, Most Damaged, Nearest). If Strongest refers to attack power that is... the whole strategy bit could use more documentation/options (e.g. ordering ships to ram if crippled, and so forth).

------------------
-- The thing that goes bump in the night

[Daynarr]

quote:

---

If this change is made in a way that I couldn't undo it, I would stop playing the game.[/b]

---

You are out of line here BB. What if we all start saying that we don't want to play game anymore if MM doesn't do as we want. We are not a bunch of newbees that have no idea how the game works and should work, but people who are here for a long time and have contributed for the game during that time. You are, also, not the only old time gamer this site - lots of us have been with these kind of games long before SE series, of PC computers for that matter. To brush of somebody's suggestion like that really sounds like an insult to the rest of us.

[Talenn]

Barnacle Bill:

Well it was not my intention to completely remove the enjoyment of playing the game for some folks. I definately favor ALL changes like this to be 'customizable' by an option to have or have not.

But to me, your logic is just a bit out of whack. Having spaceships stop to fire feels totally wrong, but having them just sit there and NOT fire while the enemy closes, fires, and then leaves is fine? That makes no sense to me. I understand that you may not be interested in replacing one abstraction with another, but at least the one proposed removes certain exploits of the system as well as allows for fixed defenses to actually have a purpose.

In other words, if you are so against a change like this that you would rather reduce the game to just ONE type of weapon, I'm not sure what you want out of the game. It certainly isnt realism and it certainly isnt 'playability' (for lack of a better term).

Finally, if the tac combat is NOT an abstraction what could you could consider it to be? 'Realistic' in any way, shape, or form? I dont think so.

Anyways, I'm just baffled by the logic behind your complaint with it. No biggie though, it was just a suggestion and my world wont end by not seeing it implemented. In fact, that was the very reason I posted it here rather than Emailing it directly to MM. I wanted to get feedback.

Talenn

[God Emperor]

As an interim fix, I have modded my files to enable point defence at game start, have the AI design its ships so that they have 2 PD per 100 kT and reduced the space requirement for PD for computer players to 15kT.

The AI ships are slightly lighter punch wise but they can only be killed by massed missiles or fighters. They are still susceptible to "beam dancing" but overall they are much more challenging. If they get a slight tech edge on you, they are very challenging....

[Tenryu]

quote:

---

Originally posted by God Emperor:
As an interim fix, I have modded my files to enable point defence at game start, have the AI design its ships so that they have 2 PD per 100 kT and reduced the space requirement for PD for computer players to 15kT.....

---

Emperor,
What exactly did you do. I saw your post on the 1 per issue, not that I really understand, because I haven't yet messed with the AI files.

Advice on what to do to get my AI files adjusted as per your PD thing would be appreciated.
Thanks

[God Emperor]

Will upload them into the Mod Archive when I get home from work in about 7 hrs time.

What I have done is to edit the AI_DesignCreation files for the Attack Ship and Defence Ship on the point defence lines, and the Components file for point defence (Space Tonnage lowered from 20 down to 15).
This does lower the cost of PD for me too, but, I build my ships as though they cost 20 space (leave 5kT free per PD that I include). I didnt see much point doing a more complicated mod to make them cost 20 for me and 15 for the AI as a "house rule" seemed does the job fine and means that the mod will be more capatible with the next patch.
This mod doesnt actually improve the AI's tactics, it just designs the ships better for the AI's current tactics....

[jowe01]

has anybody mailed MM about Talenns original proposition ? As far as I am concerned it is an excellent and easily implementable way to remove some of the weak spots in tactical combat.

[Talenn]

Nitram Draw:

Well, the objective isnt to make it fair for both sides but 'fair' within weapon Groups. When one weapon type has a tremendous advantage over the others, something needs to be adjusted IMO. The mark of a good game is that it takes differing weapons systems and units to achieve victory, not just using the same one over and over. Also, firing outside their range DOES make sense, but entering their range, firing, and then leaving without being shot at doesn't and that is problem I am trying to see corrected.

A side benefit of that change would be an increase in the usefulness of orbital and planetary defenses. It also gives a new hook on which to hang small ship 'maneuverability'...ie, the small ships CAN hit and run, but the large ones must commit. I think this is the best option as well, but I'd be more than happy to see anything that works that will aleviate some of the more persistant problems plaguing the tactical combat.

jowe01:

I havent emailed MM with this suggestion. I was hoping to post it here and generate feedback and potential modifications. I kind of hope that MM or other testers read stuff like this and can draw their own conclusions as to what is good for the game or not. If they dont get the time to check out this board, I suppose I should send them a note pointing them to this thread so they can see the pros and cons of the idea.

Talenn