het2 het2

ship combat - one thing I really hate :(

▼

ship combat - one thing I really hate :(

from Stardock Forums
GlaCiv should be superb game for me, but ship combat totally ruined all fun...

I have no problems with non-customizable ships designs (they are ok). I have no problems with lack of tactic in ship combat (this is not tactical-combat simulator but strategic game as it was described by Frogboy in another post). BUT I have serious problem with ship combat mechanism itself. This idea of only one ship vs. one ship combat seems to be heavily unrealistic, little bit stupid and above all its SAD (i will describe later).

First of all this stupidity and unrealitsticity (wonder if such weord exists:). Ten Drednoughts (me) vs One Drednouht (enemy) (for example). If the enemy has some bonuses so his Dreadnought is better than mine, my first attacking ship will be destroyed (no way how to prevent this). Same in combat of 100 dreadnoughts vs 1 drednought (or 100 frigates vs 1 drednought etc.). This is really stupid and unrealistic because in reality 10 ships will probably wipe out single one from the sky faster than one can imagine. And know for the SADNESS, its same problem I really hate sending my first ship and its crew to combat they cannot win. There is no chance for them and they are sacrificed in order to weaken enemy ship (hmm... Has someone same association like me? Kamikadze pilots in WW2 or suicidle attackers killing US troopers in Iraq now.) Same problem with troop combat. Combat transport has capacity 5 millions. I am able to send dozens of them towards enemy planets, but if they have large population and relatively same advantage, every single trooper from my first transports will be killed...

And the solution is so simple. Its not necessary to implement tactical combat with additional screens etc. Allowing ships to be grouped into fleets will be sufficient (hand to hand with minor updates of algoritm which resloves combat).

2,589 views 70 replies
Reply #26 from Stardock Forums Top
I agree there are two valid arguments here; but what I find strange is that; up to certain technological limit quantity CAN beat quality. Its only when technology/quality gap becomes so large that 1 unit can fend off hordes (think battle of Roarke's Rift, or heh even the current Iraqi war, or the film the Last-Starfighter). However, numbers of smaller, less powerful/advanced unit can defeat another single unit. The vision i have here (again sci-fi) is the battle of Yavin or (history) any major battle in Russia after Stalingrad. Its not like the Rebel Alliance sent 1 starfighter at a time (ok getting shot up the exhaust port helped but) or the Russians send in one regiment at a time.

I can see Brad's point, but i'd really like to see some sort of playability to older and weaker units to make numbers count. Perhaps some sort of upgrade functionality (for an upfront cash cost)

On a related matter. Yes I think the late game needs some sort of balancing to the large offensive units. the late game feels more like a knife fight since it gets almost impossibel to defend well with oodles od dreadnoughts and rangers hopping about everywhere. I know there are planetary defences; but they really dont seem to add much.

dawg


Reply #27 from Stardock Forums Top
I dunno what to say...The fact is that a swift group of fighters SHOULD be able to take down a huge chunky and slow moving ship...So then we have the reason to escort the large ship with some fighters...so this way it's balanced...I really liked the formation\guard\escort strategies in HW and CAT...but that's a different game type alltogether...But I agree that formations should provide bonuses. After all, escorting a big ship with some fighters, slows the fighters down...so the fighter escort should provide, in exchange, a attack bonus vs large ships and\or a defense bonus vs small ships...
Curtains - Customize Windows with additional styles
Reply #28 from Stardock Forums Top
That would be interesting fat wofl. If you gave size bonuses/negatives. Say fighter class ships would get an attack bonus vs lg ships or some sort of "evasion" ability. It would make prowling around the galaxy with a behemoth risky ask tons of small fighters coudl still do you in. This would make for some inetersting strategies as opposed the bigger is better mentality.

Dawg
Reply #29 from Stardock Forums Top
Yup, that's exactly what I wanted to say...After all I felt pretty invincible with a few thousand tones'o steel around me...should be different...a swarm of fighters should be able to rip you to shreads...and this way, small ships never get old and useless...
Reply #30 from Stardock Forums Top
My bucket of water on this fire: If numerical superiority ever absolutely trumps quality in this game the AI will have literally *no* chance against me unless I played at Insane levels. I don't want masses of ships deciding the total outcome of battles. If the AI is lucky enough to have a few *great* ships then good- I'll bring enough power to that region to destroy them by using my own strategies and superior intelligence.

I'm glad Brad is taking the position he's taking, ultimately it will make for a better *gaming* experience.

I'm tired of the gripes with this game that seem designed not to increase the fun factor so much as to make the experience that much easier fo the human. As great as the AI is right now, I don't want to see anything break it.

As as far what "should" or should not "realistically happen, all the arguements are moot- because Brad could, in paragraph, wipe out all your reasonings by something like:

"Ships like fighters lack sufficient energy generation to overcome capitol ship impeller shields no matter HOW MANY there are; since corgative-minorite energy (used by their main weapons) is not additive as it is confined to infinitesimal space and no super computer yet exists that can coordinate it in the 3d-space, multiple firings do not affect superior 4d-phasing defenses of any capital ship." BLAM, all arguments are stopped. Even a billion fighters to one BB.

~SDC~
Reply #31 from Stardock Forums Top
I think instead of being able to group large capital ships together you should beable to construct a fleet around a capital ship and have it count. Like a wing of fighters or possible corvets escourting ONE capital ship. Kind of like today with the aircraft carrier as the capital ship that travels with escourts. There would be a limit on the number of escourts because the capital ship would have to supply and support the fleet. So the progression of capital ship technology would increase the number of escourts it could have.

However i fear that in the end it might not effectively change the dynamics since it would just raise defense and attack rating for the individual ship.
Reply #32 from Stardock Forums Top
People, exactly how is the AI going to do this well? If it doesn't devolve into simple and boring number crunching in this case, it'll just be another nail in the AI's coffin.

Besides there is still some impelling reasons for the smaller ships in even the late game. I use quite a few numbers of Corvettes and Frigates even when Dreads are around. Not to attack, that would be insane, but having >30 of them behind enemy lines make his trading and transports live very short lives (unless he bothers to send combat transports). Overall I find a combnation of units makes me tactically invincible usually.

Also, the bottom line to this arguement seems to be people wanting spearmen to be useful when tanks come around in Civ... sorta strange way of framing things.

~SDC~
Reply #33 from Stardock Forums Top
uhhh, i hate to contradict you brad, but fleets do have a use other than convenience. stacking high offense with high defense ships is a valid tactic. so is stacking transports, constructors or freighters with military escorts.

if the AI actually used fleets in this manner it would increase it's chances in combat drastically.

but i agree with you in that i do not see any need for some kind of "fleet attack" bonus.

cheers

h
Reply #34 from Stardock Forums Top
Unfortunately in retrospect there is a down side; why would anyone build large vessels (and research weapons tech) once they had fighter craft; since 10 billion cheapos can do the job. (ie old Civ joke; why build anything but phalanxes as enough of them can kill anything)

Thus ideally the evasion idea is better (they have chance at avoiding damage ever round) rather than better damage.

dawg



Reply #35 from Stardock Forums Top
Ugh...thank you verry much, Dearmad, for killing our enthusiasm LOL ....anyway I really can't stand using ships as kamikaze...I always think about the pilots...kamikaze is inhumane... (for goodness sake ! I even preserved those two headed squirells !) now, fighter formations would put an end to insane kamikzing...
Reply #36 from Stardock Forums Top
While this is topic is hot, let me remind Brad that there is a bug with stacked fleets and movement bonuses (ie, you lose your base-added bonus when stacked for no apparent reason) and I like to stack for the convenience of it. Hopefully this is a simple fix to get stacked fleets to keep their movement bonuses from starbases.
Reply #37 from Stardock Forums Top
My 2 cents:

Frogboy is right. Damn near any game where you can group up lots of ships and destroy smaller groups without much loss turns into a "battle of the megafleets and then it's over." Or worse yet, "one megafleet chases the other megafleet around the damn map forever trying to destroy it so that it will be over, but afraid to split up and achieve parallel objectives because then it'll be smaller than the opposing megafleet and will get killed". That just isn't fun. Probably the only thing wrong with MOO1, IMHO.

I wouldn't want to see many changes at all. The starbases allow you to impose sort of a sector by sector 'terrain' advantage/disadvantage, and too many more details would make it a tactical game instead of a strategy game. And I'm definitely not interested in what 'should' happen in this or that sci-fi situation... just so long as what we end up with makes for good strategy.

Let's also not forget that old ships *do* pick up periodic attack/defense upgrades via the techs that improve all your weapons or defenses. I interpret this as having everything pick up a bonus representing the latest doohickey that got slapped onto every hull in the fleet, which is as good as I could expect from an upgrade feature, anyway.

But hey, if someone had a really good idea that kept it simple and strategic overall, I certainly wouldn't say no.
Reply #38 from Stardock Forums Top
The thing that would make it balanced would be to have a limit the to the number of ships that can be grouped. Large ships could only have three for instances, small ships can have six. I also like the idea of the evasive abilities for the small ships. May not be realistic, but hey, it's better than nothing.
Reply #39 from Stardock Forums Top
Why not some middle ground here? Have fleet set ups limited to say one Dreadnaught, 2 battleships, 4 frigates, and 8 star fighters? Or any other balance that would seem right. Then the fleet fights as a single ship, witha power factor, defense factor and a manuver factor. then when ships or fleets meet it is one attack with total damage spread out over the entire fleet. This 10 on one resolved as one on one over and over only takes away tatical choices, makes the military aspect of the game so boring and what I pick as the 2nd most reason I find this game NOT fun to play. The first being the abiltiy to fly entire fleets thru the "air space" of other races without politcal intereaction at all. The basic game is great, it is the details that bring it down, and rather then just dismiss good suggestions try getting them to work. More military and political options may make it harder on the AI but it sure makes the game more fun.
So what do you want? A game that has a tough AI simply becuase you have NO options to be flexable with or a game that gives you options and tatics to use even if you have to compensate by giving the AI built in cheats. Personally I will take the game where I have options and tatics I can use to one that has very few.
Reply #40 from Stardock Forums Top
NO options to be flexible? Have you even read my responses or others? There are a lot of tactics involved already and as many playing styles as players. I described some of mine and my uses for small ships in the late game.

Built in AI cheats? What are talking about? Ok, this thread is dying rapidly now. :(

~SDC~
Reply #41 from Stardock Forums Top
Dearmad Wrote: "Built in AI cheats? What are talking about?"

Oh come on now I have been playing computer games since PC's were first out (I know showing my age) and there has never been a good "against the computer AI" game that the AI was not given "help" It comes in all kinds of forms, better production rates, an edge in power in like military units, on and on. Why are these cheats given? They have to be becuase there is yet an AI that comes close to the ability of the average gamer to adapt and think on the fly. AI is ALWAYS the weak link in any game that has human vs computer. You can balance this in two ways, by giving the AI side built in cheats (or handicap if you like) or by limiting the things you allow the human player to do. Frankly the more you limit my play style and my options the less fun the game becomes. You think fleet operations are over powering, fine don't use them, but from my stand point a 10 on one battle resolved one on one 10 times is just lacking reality, options and fun.
Reply #42 from Stardock Forums Top
I understand what Frogboy is saying but there have been good ideas given there doesnt need to be an additional Fleet bonus given. I also think the limiting the size of fleets to say 4 or whatnot is a good idea and will hopefully be easy enough for the AI to implement. I do hope some more thought on this can be given instead of just "NO" since it seems this is what some people are interested in. Perhaps as an option that can be turned on or off like the differing levels of AI can be implemented if people do not like the fleet idea
Reply #43 from Stardock Forums Top
OK - so Frogboy says no stack bonus - fair enough.

But it seems a lot of people are sick of the auto-suicide way that battles currently play out.

Perhaps a compromise (don't know if doable) - a stack of ships gets no "attack" advantage, but once they get close to dieing, they retreat, let the next ship in the stack fight unitl almost dead, retreat, repeat. You keep going until you are back to the starting ship (which is almost dead) - it now continues the fight to the death ... this would stop:

1. mega fleets being invincible
2. weaker ships being completely useless
3. no benefit of being stacked

its a bit like the Armies concept of Civ3 ... sorta ...

(perhaps can add a tech here: battle tactics or something to be able to do this??)

Well, I don't know, what do people think?
Reply #44 from Stardock Forums Top
Sir Oscar,

Correction: The more *your* play style and *your* options are limited the less fun *you* have. Limited breadth, for me, isn't limited depth. I don't look for reality in games, only at the game.

~SDC~
Reply #45 from Stardock Forums Top
SirOscar:

One of the things I find most exciting about this game is that it has a good shot of being perhaps the first strategy game that can put up a fight *without* resorting to cheating AI. I'd hate to see that effort end by throwing in a bunch of cheats now.

I personally feel like I've got plenty of combat options. I don't much care for extra-detailed tactical combat. To me it seems that in 4x games which give AIs massive production bonuses, the only way to win at the highest levels is not so much to be smart but to exploit the computer's stupidity (there's a difference). I don't find that fun. Simply put, there's a lot to this game. If we can't add more without making the AI into a drooling idiot, we shouldn't add more. And I'll trust the developers' judgement as to what can be added without breaking something.
Reply #46 from Stardock Forums Top
I agree i trust Brad and their team to take their time to consider play balance. That said though my big concern is that seeing the AI take soo many "suicide runs" just makes the AI look stupid; even if it isnt. Planetary defence is easily vieable by anyone except under PFOW (until discovered); hence ther eis no reason for the AI to launch piddly fighters vs. my dreadnoughts in orbit..

Speaking of AI though the one thing that does bug me mor ethough is how teh specials (random monsters..etc) seem to bee line always for my planets and my ships.. "oops built another ship.. that shark comes back..". It just sometimes doesnt seem like FoW is being obeyed.

dawg
Reply #47 from Stardock Forums Top
I strongly oppose the stacked combat. As it is now, peaceful civs are already at disadvantage – they play less aggressively and they have fewer ships. The ability for the aggressive player to create a stack increases his advantage. And the whole game becomes of who builds the greatest stack.

I strongly suspect that people tried in 4x games during design process to have stacked combat. It is not new idea after all! The fact is that most of the games do not have it, or have only very limited amount of it (like damaging other units in the stack in Civ3 or rare possibility to create a stack in AC). So I guess that stacked combat spoils gaimplay. I do not care how realistic or unrealistic this can be, but

GAMEPLAY FIRST, REALISM SECOND

MxM
Reply #48 from Stardock Forums Top
I think we could have fleet stacking without the "mega fleet" scenario. After all, it is impossible IRL to control massive amounts of forces easily. There could be a maximum number of ships that can be in a fleet for it to fight effectively, and anything beyond that incurs penalties. Hearts of Iron introduced this somewhat through commanders, who, based on their skill level, can command certain numbers of divisions effectively.

So maybe have a fleet maximum, and then have techs to research that increase the number of ships that can effectively work in a fleet to get stacking bonuses.

Of course, yes, gameplay first, but it may be something to toy around with.
Reply #49 from Stardock Forums Top
Thats exactly what I would like. A limit to the amount of ships n a fleet. Ok so people would rather go 1-1 what about having fleets made up of a max just 2 ships in a fleet. that would at least make Corvettes stand up to a Battlecruiser or at least a frigate instead of just suiciding into the larger ship. So what is bad with having a fleet of just 2 ships with NO special bonus, can someone telll me why that would be such a drag on the game?
Reply #50 from Stardock Forums Top
Well realism is not as important as game play but to have a 10 on one fight resolved one on one ten times is NOT good or fun game play, it is just lame. Maybe since my early gaming was board war games and I am a turn based war game stratgy nut I see it differnetly then some of you. It just drives me nuts to see those one on one attacks when I have a fleet of ships, I KNOW this is not a war game but war/combat is a good 25% of this game, more if you play it that way, and the way fleet operations are carried out now just seems weak.

I am not asking for mega fleets, limit it to 4, or a certain combantion of ships if you want, I am not asking for tatical battle, the way comabt resolves now is fine, just let it be in fleet mode not one on one over and over. Please give this some thought and don't just dismiss it out of hand, it is important to some of us.