You can institute sub factions based on an initial homeworld? How does that work long term? Can you influence/conquer them on their planetary tiles? That seems like an impressive mod.

Either way, that likely DOESN'T factor in the other end of my suggestion, that of then taking on "Dread Lord" type threats later on by unifying local powers into a larger entity...if you can before the Dread Lords/Borg/Daleks/Replicators find you that is.

And then moving on to intergalactic threats.

Here is something that would either make the combat system better or REALLY screw it up, I cannot think of what @ the moment: Combat directives. Before you entered combat, you would have a pop-up that allows you to select which "personality" your ship would follow. Some of these may be deleted and some could be added to/changed, but here is a basic list. The attacking ship would have these options:

• Standard: A regular attack similar to what we have now.
• Aggressive: Faster, more shots/damage per turn, but with defense and escape(which I will get to in a moment) penalties.
• Cautious: The opposite of agressive: it takes more turns and does less damage, but you have better defenses and can escape easier.
• Hit & Run: I see this more as a check-box than as a button like the others. If oyu selected it, you would have two numerical fields to fill in. Your ship would keep attacking the other ship using one of the above tactics UNTIL the enemy's HP dropped to the number (or % of max) specified in the first field, OR its own HP dropped to the number/% specified in the second field. When either of these happened, the ship would attempt to escape. Maybe even have the two conditions selectable indapendantly, so that you could have your ship only leave when enough damage was inflicted on the ship, or only when it was too badly damaged.
• Oh, yes, I forgot: a check box to attempt escape after a certain # of turns had passed.

Escape is a new feature I came up with. When it comes time for a ship to attempt escape, it would try to leave the battle. The time it takes to do so is dependant upon its own speed, and the speed of the attacking ship, which gets to shoot at its target during the entire chase.

The defending ship would have these options available:

• Stand And Fight: Just what it sounds like: the ship sticks around and dukes it out with the other guy.
• Attempt Escape: Ship doesn't bother with fighting, and just tries to leave as quickly as possible.
• Esacape After...: Ship fights until it takes X amount of damage or Y number of turns have passed. More of my lovely user-controlled numerical fields again.

UPDATE: Yet another idea: while we are rethijnking esbionage, here is a potential way to spice up the agent system:

if you place a spy on an improvement, it just sits there until you give it an order. When it is dormant, it cannot be detected unless one of their spies is placed on the same planet or they build a special improvement. You can order the spy to sabotage the improvement, which has a small % chance of destroying it and a larger % chance of taking it out of action for a few turns. Sometimes the spy gets away, sometimes it doesn't, and sometimes it gets captured, which causes a brief but nasty diplo penalty. If you capture a spy, it appears on your diplo screen and you can trade it back to its handlers like any other item. There is also a button that does something specific for each kind of improvement:

• Steal Reserch: For labs. Adds a % of the lab's TP output to your own TP. The lab's output is unchanged.
• Steal Tech: For labs. Every time they developo a tech, you have a small % chance of getting it, and a great chance of learning that they have it.
• Embezzle: For econonics bdgs. Gives you a small income boost, larger with the more powerful buildings.
• Poison: For farms. cuts off a lot of food for a few turns, and kills a small % of the population.
• Subvert: For morale and culture imps. Decreases the influence and morale of a planet for a while.

The moment you use one of these options, your spy becomes visible and can be nullified. If you have more than a few visible spies in a race, they will give you a diplo penalty that, if you quickly remove your spies, goes away, but eventually becomes permanent.

You forgot (c;) have an overall negative effect on the game because it's a bad idea.

TBS tactical combat has a lot of inherient problems, and solving those problems will often result in compromising gameplay somewhere.

That's a patch fix; the UP needs an overhaul. It's just too simplified and random of a system.

Bad for several reasons:

1: In reality, supernovas are not spontaneous. You can see them coming years in advance, especially if you're in the system. You may not know what day it's going to happen, but you should at least know that certain stars are nearing the end of their life expentency.

2: Taking something from someone thanks to a random roll of the dice is exactly the kind of thing that should not be part of the game.

To make combat directives work, you need a better combat model than just "bigger number wins." For example, if special ship abilities are a crucial part of the combat model, certain combat directives could be things like, "prioritize attacking ships with global abilities". If your combat model includes ship positioning (without tactical combat. Just ships being able to protect one another), then you could have combat directives that key off of those positions (prioritize targets that attack a defensive ship). And so forth.

[On Espionage]

Espionage tends to be fairly boring in most TBS games. It's pretty one dimensional and it's usually not capable of being a real part of any comprehensive strategy. Here is one idea that should be able to be much more effective.

Espionage is based on "holds" of influence over a planet. Any race can (theoretically) have holds of influence on any inhabited planet.

The race that actually owns the planet has a hold for owning it. If someone is trading with that planet, then that civilization gains a hold on it. Planets with special constructs on them can directly claim a hold on any planet you already have a hold on, though doing so will cost you money for each turn you want to maintain that hold. There should be other ways to gain holds over planets too: some based on starbases, some based on ship abilities, and so forth. Most of these should require that you already have one hold on the planet.

If a foreign race has more holds than the owner, then they can start to sabotage the planet, or steal money/resources from it in some way. This is considered a hostile act. If a foreign race has more holds over the planet than everyone else combined, then they can subvert it outright (no dice rolling). All of these actions require money.

Holds can be negated by various effects. This doesn't cause the source of the hold; it merely shuts off the effects. If you do something that negates a hold on the planet due to a foreign planet's construct, then that foreigner can continue to pay to keep trying to acquire that hold. Doing so forces you to keep doing whatever it is that negates that hold. In this way, you have the equivalent of actual combat.

You can even combine holds of influence with "morale" of sorts. The more people there are on the planet, the more of the owner's holds are negated. So keeping even a minimal level of influence on a big planet can require some investment. Foreign holds are not negated (though if you subvert or conquer the planet, your foreign holds become domestic, and people start to hate you for keeping their population high).

Then, all i can recommend to you for a clear demonstration by Mythos & Julian Gollop that sold more than 4,000,000+ (and counting) copies worldwide to people who think otherwise; X-Com:UFO Defense. Although, anyone could pit the 11mils of StarCraft against it... but, it's RTS. Tactical Combat level is a context & has certain limits that only RTS can strangely hide from us.

Or even, treat yourself with a quick rundown of the principles here;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real-time_vs._turn-based_gameplay

in order, to grasp the entire controversial opinions!

Seriously, TBS & tactical gameplay are not mutually exclusive. To the contrary - it's a coding challenge that some developpers turned into RTS to snatch the adrenaline rush crowd of players away from intellectual strategic planning that true, well designed, TBS is.

In a sense, we can react to conditions & activities during a game fast enough to prove a capacity for better reflexes or think ourselves out of any situations intelligently.

Well, this is a direct form of Tactical Combat in Space. Are you against or for it?

Here's part II, Alfonse...

2--

3-- But, i must insist... it IS a Tactical Combat in Space system.

4-- mp, tp, sliders, etc... are values. Replace any with "something" else, you are doing another game.

5-- Assuming you refer to my earlier "definition" of the term TRADE.

6-- Keep them as is... but, design a much better automation feature.

7-- Tie this with a Map Editor that can load a saved game (the map conditions & configuration, only) for later edits.

8-- I'd re-use a Troops Transport though and link it all to Espionage features. As explained in previous threads.

9-- Have i just read the T word again?

10-- Simplicity doesn't equal challenge. Thinking more, maybe.

11-- Rated R and keep going. The kid doesn't like it, gimme your last result in Algebra and then, maybe Dad will let you try figure out what this feature means in such a COMPLEX game. Otherwise, go to your room and study until you're ready for worst.

12-- Same reasons as above.

14-- You know why.

16-- Amounts, clutter, visually appealing, Jupiter.

18-- RTFM... Republic or Federation, BCs are at stake and Morale stuff tilts to create context.

21-- Gimme the Super-Defense, though.

22-- Unless proven otherwise, it is pure Innovation & Strategic.

24-- Mining is a fact. It's cumulative, progressive mps. They must be made unflippable by a module , though.

25-- Ethics, completely revise the entire process. Balance their individual impact on decisions made. Make them intuitively good & neutral & bad, as in fairly distributed results. Make a drop-down list upon setting up a game and let me choose which i want or not.

28-- Yes/No... during gameplay. Popping up.

29-- Replacing Oranges with Apples - you still have a Fruits basket.

30-- I need Fuel to drive my car. And the distance covered depletes it.

32-- You will be assimilated Borgs are organic & physical. They too scare the hell outa my mood and once Panic starts on Earth, everybody stops working.

Unless you have further solid evidence that all the X's above (by me) intend to alter GC3 soooo much that it won't be playable anymore, i'd prefer you consider ADDING constructive criticism of actual features such as Ultimate Espionage... cuz, it would most probably be in GC3.

Retaliatory & Final comment #3; that makes sense.

About your contribution, anyway!

I'd like to see some sort of easier starbase deployment and servicing.

You should be able to design base foundations for a starbase which contains the attack/defense parts, and addon foundations containing the other parts. They should be packageable into modules so a special constructor equipped with both parts can deploy the complete starbase at given location - it may even take an appropriate amount of time until its ready. An upgrade of a starbase should be similar to ships. Of course you could alternatively send a constructor with the upgraded module to do the same.

Ship upgrading should also be improved: Improve all ships of this in this sector/fleet should be added.

Where is this RTS stuff coming from? I said nothing about RTSs in reference to tactical combat in TBS games.

There was a long series of posts (not just by me) about why tactical combat is a bad idea in a TBS game. Please review that discussion before further commenting on this topic.

No, it isn't. There is a difference between making moment-to-moment decisions during a battle and making a single command decision at the beginning of that battle. Even moreso when that decision is selected from a small palette of about 4 possibilities.

Stop trying to move the goal posts; we all know what tactical combat means.

Chess and Go have more challenge and depth than all the TBS games ever made put together. They are also much simpler than any TBS games.

Maybe there's something to that. Maybe overcomplicating a game is not the way to create real, lasting challenge and depth.

It's still just a free bonus for researching a technology. If your Morale is so poor as to be unable to actually keep hold of the government, you have bigger problems than the negative bonuses for losing your government (not to mention the obvious degeneracy that can result when your governmental bonus is a morale buff).

I have never had a government go rogue on me.

What does that even mean, "Mining is a fact?" It's a game mechanic. DL didn't even have them. DA added them in, and they added nothing to the game.

If you're going to have a mechanic where off-planet constructs can aid a planet's productivity, asteroid mining as DA implemented it is not the way to do it. It's too simplistic, boring, and one-dimensional.

Better to just provide the ability to build colonies on asteroids. They should function a bit different from colonies on planets, though. Perhaps they'd be a bit more limited or something, or whatever.

Or maybe not colonies themselves, but something like colonies (in that they have similar levels of complexity. They can have buildings or other constructs that enhance their abilities, etc) that instead of producing stuff of its own, helps other planets in a radius produce stuff.

The Carrier mechanic is entirely different from fighters. They respawn, so even if the enemy shoots them down, if your Carrier ship survives, they'll be back in the next battle.

First, the range doesn't work that way. Range is an arbitrary distance, not a "ship has X fuel and therefore can only move Y squares" mechanic, which is how a fuel-based mechanic would actually work.

Second, this is space, not the ground. Fuel is everywhere in space; Hydrogen (the only fuel that matters in space) is literally the most common thing in the universe. Even if you can't put a ram-scoop on your ships, all you need do is stop by a star and visit any comet; it'll be bristling with hydrogen (in the form of water).

To be honest, I don't care what you consider to be "playable". You aren't the supreme arbiter of what is and is not a good idea. If you don't like an idea, say so, but that doesn't change anything about the objective quality of an idea.

Further, I don't know why you're digging up posts from months ago.

Well, i'm sorry to say but you're simply arguing for the sake of arguments.

-- I introduced RTS to give you a hint on how tactical mechanics can enhance TBS, but since swiping the tables off everything you don't want to at least consider in a rational perspective OTHER than being a fanatic against someone else's point or that yours are always more reasonable than other's - then, what's the point. I can't convince or persuade enough unless an open-minded individual is there to talk with.

I agree, wholeheartedly -- TBS uses the latter, tactical decisions are not about when but if some different gameplay situations can spawn from having the feature.

Devil's advocate would claim oversimplification can ruin everything too. It's a very thin line between challenge and how it is perceived.

That Bonus is Economic is both scope & effects. Have a look at all these percentages and tell me what is the exact word on the UI.

So, in THAT case, overcomplicating is okay? Like it or not, there are real Asteroids inbetween Mars & Jupiter, most of which have minerals that if you don't mined, just stay there.

What's a Fleet of ships to you? Four ships in a group or on a Carrier that respawns. Same concept, but adding a strawberry into the basket.

Matter of perspective or interpretation... all i know is that Pioneer 11 & Voyager 2 both are on the rim of our solar system waaaayyyyy beyond Pluto and we'll soon loose contact with any. And i'll bet their onboard batteries are depleting too.

Maybe that's just it, Alfonse - *You don't care* about the objective quality of other idea(s), bet it mine or not. I said so, with a bunch of X's.

Maybe that's just it, too -- *You don't know* if your own nonsense triggered my need to figure out where & how this turned into a global fight against Tactical gameplay because you were backing up your agenda ever since so much that nobody caught you in the act. But i did, if only to prove that any supplemental arguments after this reply will be yet another unconstructive contradiction for all to read about.

Believe me, i tried many times over.

So long.

EOF.

Using the same list as Zyp above (from post 103 of this topic, on page 5):

2&3:   These are, to a degree, mutually exclusive. Removing any random elements from combat will give battles where you can be absolutely certain in advance the results before the battle happens. Your "properly composed" fleet takes the place of the current "bigger number" fleet without actually making a functional change in the (completely predictable) outcome of the battle. Besides, tactical combat of some form is a given at this point.

4:   I'm all for greater visibility, but flatly reject being limited to moron math. I'm not in 5th grade, and I don't like my games insulting me by assuming I am. Besides, this would limit the game to pretty linear mechanics, generally resulting in the "bigger number wins" scenarios you hate so much.

5:   Good in theory, perhaps even doable - but it would be quite a stretch. For instance, before WWII, Germany's largest trading partner was France, with Poland also being a significant trade partner. Unless the smaller civ can prevent the larger from simply TAKING the resources they need, this model won't work.

6:   Rework the current mechanic for building them, yes. Scrap the entire concept, no.

7:   More flexible map generation is always good.

8:

9:   Designs that are better at one over the other, yes. Designs that can only do one, no. Arguably that mechanic is already present, as ships without engines are pretty ineffective as attackers, while ships with engines can attack easily at the expense of some combat power.

10:   Again, I don't like being limited to math I can do in my head. Great for a pencil and paper game, not so much for a computer game.

11:   See #4 and #10.

12: Meh. I'd prefer the current system, but yours isn't necessarily bad. It would need to be more filled out to make an accurate judgement.

13:   I have no experience with Civ, but the basic idea sounds flawed. It screams "rich get richer" to a point where even *I* object to it.

14:   Maybe not scrap the whole thing, but there are definitely points that need improvement.

15:   Planet viability IS the terrain equivalent for GalCiv. No cookie-cutter planets, please.

16:   Colonizable, no. Usable in some form (larger versions of asteroid mines, fuel sources, etc) yes.

18:   Perhaps each gets a down side as well as an up side. Currently there is no disincentive to move up in government techs.

19:   Not that I like your idea any better than the current system, but improvement is necessary somewhere.

20:   I don't particularly like the mutualy exclusive tech trees you want, but tech liscencing is a good idea. Although if tech can be stolen, this will relate to #5 above.

21: Meh, I'm good either way.

22:   This ship's pretty well sailed. Now it's just a matter of how it's implemented.

23:   Might be a good idea, but marketing the game is a lot easier with a campaign.

24:   An inhabited asteroid can not match the size or production of a real planet, and should not be depicted as that. Asteroid mining might change some, but hopefully not to that. The only real changes I'd like to see is the use of multiple mine ships to improve them faster, and perhaps a better culture flip defense (assuming culture is basically the same as current.)

25:

26:   As I brought up when this post was new, the current system is not absolutely starbase-dependant either. Nor should the culture mechanic be exempt from the same issue as trade in #5 above. Nonviolence is a great philosophy, but only if your opponent is willing (or forced) to play by the same rules. Grapeshot trumps the crap out of a nonviolent protest.

27:   Reluctantly, I have to agree. Not because of the AI issue you sited, but because it's going to be nonfunctional in a multiplayer setting.

28: Bleh, I refuse to play with either system. There's a damn good reason you can turn surrenders off.

29:   Essentially, the current tiny class IS a corvette size. And hopefully Stardock NEVER includes a carrier concept. Magic reincarnating ships? No thank you. That carrier damn well better need to visit a planet to rebuild its fighters, or need a resupply ship, or use up expendable onboard resources or SOMETHING to get more fighters.

30:    Only replace it with a fuel requirement, or an actual life support requirement, or mainenance requirements or something. A ship constantly on the move for 5 game-years is going to need the occasional refuel, refit, and maintenance cycle.

31: Meh. The current system is fine, but I'm open to improvements.

32:   No conceivable positive outcome can result. Change the mechanics, sure; ditch teh entire system and replace with nothing, no.

For the more current issues:

No, we clearly do NOT agree on the definition of tactical combat. The difference between this and anything else is a matter of degree of control. There are quite a few steps between this and full tactical control. For instance, you tell your ships to target enemies with fleet bonus modules first. Once those are destroyed, does your fleet continue the battle uncontrolled, or do you get a choice to retarget another type of ship, or retreat? Now if you get that choice after every round of combat, does THAT qualify as tactical control, or are you still just givign general directions?

I know I've said this before, but you clearly missed it or misunderstood. If we *wanted* to play chess, we would be playing chess.

That directly contradicts your uber-simplified, playing-chess model. What explains your preferences toward simplicity in some areas and your extreme dislike of simplicity here?

Here is a thought: you should be able to "turn off" improvements. They would not produce their benifit, but you would not have to pay the maintenance. This would be useful if you took a planet with lots of imps your economic infrastructure colud not support (say, someone else's reserch world), and needed some time to compensate.

Good points. Maybe instead of no maintenance, have it be, say only 25-50% of max. Also, I see this feature as something like rallypoints: not TERRIBLY useful or important, but it takes 5 minutes to code, and it doesn't hurt anything, so why not put it in.

I didn't advocate "lurching" to any extreme.

That much I know. I don't have a solution yet for how to make this work, which is one reason I haven't explained a mechanism to do it.

No, it's not; it's really a very sharp distinction. If you are making decisions that affect the outcome of the battle during the battle itself, it's tactical combat. Otherwise it's not.

There's no waffling or haggling to be had. This is a black-and-white issue; a thing either is or is not tactical combat.

Constructing a fleet is not tactical combat because it happens outside of battle. Giving general instructions for strategy during a battle, whether as standing orders or right before each fight begins is not tactical combat. It has to happen during a battle to qualify.

Einstein once said that a theory should be as simple as it needs to be, but no simpler. I see no reason why game design mechanics can't work the same way. Asteroid mining is simpler than it needs to be; other aspects of GC2 are more complex than they need to be.

No, it's very a very different thing. Ships that will resurrect themselves after the battle are, basically, free damange and attacks. Time the enemy ships spend shooting at fighters is time they're not spending shooting at things that don't respawn. It is a substantial change to the combat system.

It is complexity; Chess is not a complicated game. You can learn the rules of Chess in an afternoon. It is the interactions between the very simple rules that gives Chess its enormous depth. Simple rules + lots of interaction between rules = depth.

I get that. There are still a number of problems:

1: Invading your opponent's planets is already impossible, because invasion of a world requires specialized tech. So it will be a while before anyone is able to actually take your stuff regardless of range. So it is redundant.

2: Colonizing worlds close to your opponent already has intrinsic disadvantages. In GC2, it meant that the world was likely to be bathed in a radius of enemy influence, possibly to the point of flipping to their side. It's much harder to defend, one world has difficulty building starbases for itself, so it will be weaker than your core worlds, etc. Again, it is a redundant mechanic.

3: It doesn't work well with a slot-based construction system. In the GC2 module-style, spending 10 modules on range isn't an unreasonable thing. It doesn't limit a ship's abilities that much compared to a ship without that range. Contrast that with a slot-based system. If most ships have maybe 3-4 module slots, are you really going to give up a precious attack module for range?

In short, the problem it is proported to solve is already solved. And it makes problems for new mechanics that one might want to use.

If you're going to have a range-like mechanic, then build it around the concept of supply lines. The radius of range should be much smaller than it is now, maybe only 12 squares. Certain ships (colony ships, constructors maybe, etc) would be able to break range, but combat vessels would not. The way you launch attack fleets is with supply ships, which produce a radius of range. Those supply ships would be able to break range. But they would also be vulnerable to enemy attacks.

Indeed, you can even incorporate these supply ships into other mechanics. Take the idea of a "mothership". They could be these supply ships. Maybe you can upgrade motherships at special starbases or whatever, to give them different powers: give ships in the supply radius bonus attack or defense, acquire influence holds on planets in the radius, act as a mobile repair bay, etc. It could even be, in the late game, the platform for creating super-weapons.