Proposed 'Quick Fix' for some Combat 'Anomalies'

[Talenn]

Hey Folks,

I just wanted to throw an idea out there that's prolly been mentioned before but....

Anyways, we've all had issues with the tactical combat, whether its the 'missile dance' the hit and run on bases etc. What I have been experimenting with in tactical test battles is a possible quick-fix.

Basically, just prevent a ship from moving after it fires...ie, movement is set to 0 after shooting any non-PD weapon. It shouldnt be difficult to implement from a coding standpoint most likely. While this sounds odd, it might really help solve some of the problems:

1) The hit and run on bases and sats...gone

2) The missile dance...not gone, but more difficult.

Of course it makes the disengagement 'run' more difficult (ie you arent returning fire unless its from maximum range). It does help reward long range weaponry a bit which is a good thing IMO.

If you want to get fancy, just add a 'movement point penalty when firing' to each hull type. That way it can be different for different sizes of ships. It would be possible to have Frigates, Destroyers etc capable of 'shoot and scoot' (make their 'penalty' 0 or 1) while large ships cant (penalty 3+). It could actually extend the usefulness of small hulls in this way.

But at the very least, the basic system of preventing movement after fire will be an added abstraction that helps solve some of the 'silliness' that occurs in tactical combat.

Anyone have any thoughts on this?

Talenn

[raynor]

This sounds like a good idea to me.

It has always bothered me that I could move my ships just inside the firing range of the enemy satellites or planet, fire and then move out again. This would be a very easy way for MM to address that problem.

Good thinking, Talenn!

[Tampa_Gamer]

[quote]Originally posted by Talenn:
[b]

If you want to get fancy, just add a 'movement point penalty when firing' to each hull type. That way it can be different for different sizes of ships. It would be possible to have Frigates, Destroyers etc capable of 'shoot and scoot' (make their 'penalty' 0 or 1) while large ships cant (penalty 3+). It could actually extend the usefulness of small hulls in this way.

I like this. Your right, it should help on both counts. I think Aaron would enjoy a "quick fix" until he has time later on to make more advanced fixes. You got my vote.

[Barnacle Bill]

I would strongly prefer a "Steel Panthers" style opportunity fire system to this. There is no reason why a spacecraft would have to stop to fire.

[Talenn]

Barnacle Bill:

You are absolutely right from a realism point of view. But this is an abstraction, just like the rest of the tactical combat engine. There is no reason a ship could move in any direction it wants to without regard to inertia either, yet it's in the game...so one abstraction is demanded by another.

Also, like I mentioned, this is a 'quick fix'. It should require minimal coding and still addresses the concerns. Adding 'op fire' like in SP would lead to host of other issues, not the least of which is that (like in SP) you'd use 'useless ships' to draw enemy op fire and then kill them your 'real ships'. In a game like SE4, it could be heavily perverted due to the construction system...how difficult would it be to design a class of ships with nothing but shields/armor as 'op fire decoys' and then design mostly firepower ships to capitalize on it? This would lead to EXTREMELY silly tactics IMO, far outweighing any benefits that could be gained from the Op fire.

So, in summary, REALISM, has to go out the window every now and then to make the abstract game engine work. Its the same thing with the disengagement rules. Nope, it aint 'realistic' but the game does WORK with it.

Talenn

[HreDaak]

quote:

---

If you want to get fancy, just add a 'movement point penalty when firing' to each hull type. That way it can be different for different sizes of ships. It would be possible to have Frigates, Destroyers etc capable of 'shoot and scoot' (make their 'penalty' 0 or 1) while large ships cant (penalty 3+). It could actually extend the usefulness of small hulls in this way

---

I too think that this is a great idea.

[Daynarr]

I agree with you guys. However, all this talk is useless unless you mail this to MM. Also, it would be nice if more of you mail MM about this so it gets their attention and put it on top of the list. Same thing goes about construction queues (the other topic on board) - Mephisto's mail may not be enough for MM to put it on top. And, IMHO these two things should be TOP priority, since they both cripple AI significantly.

[Atrocities]

I do like this idea a lot. The benifits far out weigh the drawbacks, and it prevents one sided tatical games. Very good idea.

[ColdSteel]

This is actually quite similar to some other tactical games I've played where the attack itself costs the attacker movement points, which is basically what you're doing here. Good thinking.

[Tenryu]

The better solution is the opportunity fire suggestion by Bill. I'm not so sure I like the no moving after shooting suggestion, Talen.

What do ya do if you have a ship with long range and short range weapons on it. It is your turn. You are within range of the enemy with all your weapons.

Forget about what the enemy is going to do or can do for a minute.

Should I move to maximum range for my shortest range weapon( I might be there already) fire and maybe get more pounded in return or move to maxium range for my longest range weapon and lose the use of my shorter range weapons and maybe get less pounded.

All because if I shoot even one weapon I can't move.

Hmm, sorta sounds like trading one problem for another to me.

Maybe I'm not understanding something fully
though.

I am not trying to be a nay-sayer or bust on your idea Talen. I really am not sure if it makes things really any better ... maybe just different.