Cosmic Supremacy Forum » Suggestions » Fleet behaviour realism » Hello Guest [Login|Register]
Last Post | First Unread Post Print Page | Recommend to a Friend | Add Thread to Favorites
Pages (3): « previous 1 2 [3] Post New Thread Post Reply
Go to the bottom of this page Fleet behaviour realism
Author
Post « Previous Thread | Next Thread »
Albatrossix Player-Rank: 2
Puts Shields on Colony Ships


Registration Date: 13.02.2008
Posts: 100

Thread Starter Thread Started by Albatrossix
Reply to this Post Post Reply with Quote Edit/Delete Posts Report Post to a Moderator       Go to the top of this page

Just a few things to uncountednose:

quote:

Master of Orion 2 came out in 1996 and is still the gold standard of space strategy games. There is no better comparison if you want to use other games as a reference.

Firstly i usually compare an aspect of a game with another, not the whole game, and 2ndly moo 1 was out earlier, and also used an order in which to do damage to different hp parts of the ship, so I probably meant that.

quote:

I never said or implied that the small ships in my example would be low tech, merely small. In fact it would be impossible to get the implication that i meant low-tech from my statement.

of course only you may imply inccorect assumptions out of my text (like you do to say I contradict myself on hitting targets.). It is u who used the term 'warrior' and warrior correctly impies 'lowest tech'. You should have used a different example if you didn't want to imply that.


quote:

I guess i regret even using civ as an example because the combat units are pre-made so the comparisons are flawed. I was responding to your use of it as an example and i should have refrained.

comparisons being comparisons, they are never 100% accurate, they merely try to explain an aspect in a different situation, and will always in some way be flawed. Sad I am to find you didn't understand why I used the comparison and what I was trying to emphasise.
Also what do you mean 'pre-made'? you mean you can't choose what to put on them? well that games solves that by adding enough specialised different pre-made units to cover all the most likely combinations. So I think there's plenty of room to make analogies.

quote:

You are right, i did not say that there was some merit to your idea of using waves. I meant to in my first post in this thread and i forgot to. Red Face So belatedly let me say that your idea about attacking in waves could have some merit but i think the exact mechanics of how it would work should be
worked out.


Working it out depends on weather I work it out for a situation where you can give positional orders or strategic orders.
With current game mechanics I'd think it'd boil down to doing the square root of the FP of the fleet in 1 turn. And the maximum losses would also be the square root (as you can only hit the front row of ships). Of course you could have the whole fleet pass in waves over a planet (for example) in one turn, then it would be a series of sub-battles.
Taking the square root of the fleets FP to be X-damage:
X damage is done by both fleets (or fleet and planet def). any surviving ships will survive till the end of battle (as their wave is done).
If planetary def destroyed all the ships, and there's still some FP left to fire with, planetary def will fire (with what's left) on the 2nd wave and so on.
So basically X damage is done to a fraction (wave) of each fleet and so on.

I hope this is somewhat clearer.


quote:

Your reported experience has already led you to multiple incorrect assumptions. I to have made incorrect posts in the not so distant past. It happens but you have made more incorrect statements in the last week than i have in the past year(within the confines of this forum of course).


have I also not posted more ideas (ie post where you have to do the thinking, not simply agree with someone else or disagree) in the past week then you probably have in the past year? Also I don't see how me making more mistakes than you constitues a valid argument to classify all my texts as 'poorly informed', which is pretty much how you're summerising it.

quote:

I don't even know how to respond to your accusations of me using poor logic to point out your contradictions. Taking them out of chronology? Do I have to see a contradiction in adjoining sentences for it to be valid? I have read the entirety of both of the posts that i am referencing within this thread and these statements contradict. There is no implication of exceptions and there is no language that would say that it only applies in certain situations. Lets look at one of your counter-arguments:

well if you can't see that they are not statements about the same thing, and that therefore there is no relation to base the contratiction upon... I'll leave it at that.




quote:

Since there is no mechanic in this game, real or implied, about small ships orbitting around a large one of course i did not account for it.


I used small ships orbitting around large ones as a subset for the second argument (of light-ships being only be able to be hit by light-weapons), so now I see why you neither read my response in the correct context, nor understand why the 2nd argument is talking about a different situation.
It might be less about poor logic, I see now, then simply forgetting half of the arguments used by me to come to a conclusion that then seems contradictory because you've taken it out of context.

quote:

Why would small ships orbit around a battleship, that implies gravity. I don't think battleships are quite that big.


AHA! so you are basing your critisim on my model based on what you think battships are like (and I assume taking sea-battleships as illustration).
Since you don't agree with my format of battleships, you have no understanding of the situation I'm describing, and very little basis for me to take your critisism seriously.

And yes, gravity of the ships is the dominant gravity in space so it would work. Go see star wars or something (it's flawed in thousands of ways, but it also has a few good ideas, notably the relationship in size between small ships and captital ships. Also note that in starwars all captital ships are light-ship carriers, and that a formidable weapon as the death-ray only fits on a moon-sized ship. (due to the huuuge amount of fuel/ammo needed to power it). There are however no torpedoes or missiles in star wars. (assumably these are all destroyed by point-blank weapons. (a type of weapon not even mentioned until now, so don't start on contradictions or anything)))

Sorry, I think it's you that (misled by the iconism of the ships as represented in moo2 maybe?) have the wrong view of what spaceships and hence spacebattles would look like.


quote:

And being no time to target lock? our current weapons can lock onto a target on the other side of the world in seconds i have doubts that this ability will not improve. If its big enough to mount an engine and carry a crew there is no reason to think that it cannot be targetted.

none YOU can think of, indeed.

the other side of the world is a very small distance in cosmic terms.
and a few seconds and IMMENSE amount of time. Once again you'll lack the perspective to see this, no doubt.

that being said, I too am done with this sub-thread of the discussion. I'll probably rewrite the original text somewhat to leave no doubt as to there being no contradictions, since so much unclarity was brought out of it.
24.03.2008 13:56 Albatrossix is offline Send an Email to Albatrossix Search for Posts by Albatrossix Add Albatrossix to your Buddy List
Albatrossix Player-Rank: 2
Puts Shields on Colony Ships


Registration Date: 13.02.2008
Posts: 100

Thread Starter Thread Started by Albatrossix
Reply to this Post Post Reply with Quote Edit/Delete Posts Report Post to a Moderator       Go to the top of this page

on DarkLStrike's and other replys

quote:

I've tried 50 test frigates against 10battleships, 10/11 of the times tried, the battleships won.

Then I tried 50 test frigates vs 9 test battleships, the frigates won every time. Here's a sample battle:
[quote]

and uncountednose's reply to this

[quote]
its interesting that you got those results. when i ran some simulations i was requiring about 50% more resources for the frigates to beat the resources. of course i was using my tech level at the time in gal 78 which included gaussian shields. that probably tipped the balance in the favor of larger ships.


And you think it's fair that light-ships become gradually less cost effective as tech increases? why? Isn't enough that you can build your ships for slightly less production or require less people.
And as DarkLStrike said: it seems pretty balanced. My example was actually with the highest tech (singularity drives and more), so the balance would be even more towards cost-effective battleships, and thus in my situation it would start to look unfair. (or make frigates seem useless, cloak not accounted for.) Admittedly the techs I used for the calculation may have made my results somewhat different and led me to different conclusions.

Also the main fleet -quick side fleet strategy does drastically change combat and what situations occur. But you're not awake or activily playing at all times with long games so it still sounds a bit risky.

Lastly I'm not really complaining about ships getting slower with more weapons and faster with less weapons.

To sum up:

My main issues with combat boil down to:
-light ships getting less and less useful (if capital ships are already better I see no reason why they should get even better as tech increases, and why light ships don't. Surely this is overkill)
-Heavy weapons doing a % of their damage to light ships. Ie: weapon types should be distict types that are incompattible.
24.03.2008 14:14 Albatrossix is offline Send an Email to Albatrossix Search for Posts by Albatrossix Add Albatrossix to your Buddy List
DarkLStrike Player-Rank: 3
Assigns Gov Schwarzenegger to all Planets


images/avatars/avatar-1237.jpg

Registration Date: 14.01.2007
Posts: 925

Reply to this Post Post Reply with Quote Edit/Delete Posts Report Post to a Moderator       Go to the top of this page

quote:
Originally posted by Albatrossix

And you think it's fair that light-ships become gradually less cost effective as tech increases? why?

yes. It is fair, as the modules get bigger and bigger, the ship size must also increase to accommodate them.

quote:
Originally posted by Albatrossix
My main issues with combat boil down to:
-light ships getting less and less useful (if capital ships are already better I see no reason why they should get even better as tech increases, and why light ships don't. Surely this is overkill)


without subspace controllers, capital ships are only slightly better, and that doesn't warrant the amount of turns of research put into them. By researching equipments of a higher tech, it makes your initial input worth something. Surely, if you skipped hull researches and went straight to darkmatter tech, then massed a decent amount of frigates, you'd win against a battleship fleet of a lesser tech.

quote:
Originally posted by Albatrossix
-Heavy weapons doing a % of their damage to light ships. Ie: weapon types should be distict types that are incompattible.

I don't think this is a good idea, but I believe the percentage should be very low, like 25% or even 10%.

__________________

24.03.2008 14:49 DarkLStrike is offline Send an Email to DarkLStrike Search for Posts by DarkLStrike Add DarkLStrike to your Buddy List
Albatrossix Player-Rank: 2
Puts Shields on Colony Ships


Registration Date: 13.02.2008
Posts: 100

Thread Starter Thread Started by Albatrossix
Reply to this Post Post Reply with Quote Edit/Delete Posts Report Post to a Moderator       Go to the top of this page

quote:
Originally posted by DarkLStrike
quote:
Originally posted by Albatrossix

And you think it's fair that light-ships become gradually less cost effective as tech increases? why?

yes. It is fair, as the modules get bigger and bigger, the ship size must also increase to accommodate them.


Surely the advance in technology would benefit light ships too, and they too would improve, to keep their role in warfare. Maybe they would develop better tactics on how to deal with capital ships too.
Also miniaturization is also technological advancement, thus there should be counterparts to the bigger and bigger modules.


quote:

without subspace controllers, capital ships are only slightly better, and that doesn't warrant the amount of turns of research put into them. By researching equipments of a higher tech, it makes your initial input worth something.


Well, I think that higher tech does not warrant the amount of turns spent on light ships becoming useless either.

A new idea this gives me is:
Maybe light ships could evolve, later in the tech, around the time battleships become really good, into fighter-squadrons (that can be put on ships), thereby retaining usefullness alongside battleships, and not in competition with them. But this idea diggresses from my other ideas.

quote:

quote:
Originally posted by Albatrossix
-Heavy weapons doing a % of their damage to light ships. Ie: weapon types should be distict types that are incompattible.

I don't think this is a good idea, but I believe the percentage should be very low, like 25% or even 10%.


I can find peace with 10% or 5%, but no more. This means fleet builders will have to put decent effort into building counter-measures for light ships.
Also many heavy weapons already do 10% or more damage in light, added to the heavy... so I'm just inclined to stick with 0%. (the fact that these weapons do both light and heavy damage is already a representation of that weapon being able to hit both kinds! So I don't see why there should be an extra rule allowing even more damage to be done out of it's kind, at all. It also makes for a choice: build that extra powerfull anti-capital ship that's vulnerable (introducing the concept of 'weaknesses') to light-ships or build that not so good ship but that doesn't have to fear light-ships in particular.

This post has been edited 1 time(s), it was last edited by Albatrossix: 24.03.2008 15:54.

24.03.2008 15:20 Albatrossix is offline Send an Email to Albatrossix Search for Posts by Albatrossix Add Albatrossix to your Buddy List
Albatrossix Player-Rank: 2
Puts Shields on Colony Ships


Registration Date: 13.02.2008
Posts: 100

Thread Starter Thread Started by Albatrossix
Rock Papor Scissor Reply to this Post Post Reply with Quote Edit/Delete Posts Report Post to a Moderator       Go to the top of this page

I assume most peopl are aware of the rock-paper-scissors model for combat where one type is particularily weak against another type and particularily strong against yet another type.

With only light and heavy ships it can't be done.
But if you added a missile class of ships you could come to the following relationship:
>> means defeats.

missile-ships >> heavy-ships
heavy-ships >> light-ships
light-ships >> missiles from missile-ships (nullifying their damage (ie use FP to reduce opponents FP))

See, then it would be ok if battleships owns lightships, for there's a third type of ship you can make that owns battleships.

To make an analogy: missile-ships and missiles are like carriers and their planes. In modern warfare there's carriers, destroyers and subs so the balance is a bit different. You could also make cloaked a special class that has first strike, making them function like missile-ships, as they can 'creep-up' to a heavy-ship, but then cloaking modules might have to become more expensive/bigger. On the other hand cloaking is more like first-strike and represent subs in the analogy.
I think that to complete the analogy:
missile ships are carriers
light-ships are destroyers
cloaked light-ships are subs
heavy-ships are island bases (they are relatively immobile but much bigger)
Well, that's the analogy as I see it anyway.
Basically that's HOW BIG I think capital ships are to warrant them being a 'class-appart'

This post has been edited 2 time(s), it was last edited by Albatrossix: 24.03.2008 16:09.

24.03.2008 16:06 Albatrossix is offline Send an Email to Albatrossix Search for Posts by Albatrossix Add Albatrossix to your Buddy List
jackjack Player-Rank: 2
Rules with an Iron Pinky


images/avatars/avatar-1220.jpg

Registration Date: 04.07.2007
Posts: 1,379
Location: UK

Reply to this Post Post Reply with Quote Edit/Delete Posts Report Post to a Moderator       Go to the top of this page

I agree with albatrossix

... this is going to keep popping up unless it gets resolved Tongue (I wish we would just agree, instead of everyone snipping each others ideas as to complex or too simple)

there are 6 ship types, shuttles 15% the size of a battleship

to have light weapons target all 3 light ships equally is nonsense

----

I get the Erwin's point that people would be turned off battleships if they could get porned by fighters

---

I think evasion should be added, but to counter act evasion, smaller ships should have some sort of other penalty

range-- the smaller the vessel, the less crew to take shifts, hence the further distance traveled, the less effective the unit due to fatigue (reason for carrier unit)

recharge- the smaller the vessel the less the ship can recharge its weapons

...that would mean shuttles could avoid % of hits, fire on the enemy, then retreat while they recharge (again without some kind of carrier unit, the shuttles would take unacceptable length of time to recharge as a penalty)


..you could expand it, so a battleship would have frigates as a protective screen against shuttles,

hence shuttles have the potential to kick ass, but with escorts a battleship still owns over shuttles

_____

on a side note I was thinking, though this adds another complete change

to steal stabby/uncountednose idea Tongue Big Grin the weapons proton laser etc should be added as default,

then you can select what ship type you want them to focus on, which is then set in stone for that ship design

hence you would have Anti-Shuttle Light Frigates, or Anti-Battleship Heavy Frigates

----

to reiterate in the last tread of this sort, this individual weapon type for ships would be simply added up on a fleet basis, then dealt out according to ship type on a random basis

the battlecalc, would change, but remain as simple as possible

__________________
Warrior poet tripping on acid.
28.03.2008 20:27 jackjack is offline Search for Posts by jackjack Add jackjack to your Buddy List
Erwin [CS] Player-Rank: 2 Erwin [CS] is a male
Admiral Moo


images/avatars/avatar-124.gif

Registration Date: 26.12.2004
Posts: 8,568
Location: Vienna, Austria

Reply to this Post Post Reply with Quote Edit/Delete Posts Report Post to a Moderator       Go to the top of this page

I certainly agree that a rock-paper-scissors system would be great for ship-classes or ship-components. Also see the todo list for Major Gameplay Suggestions, entry #6 and #18 (I added your suggestion as well).

The entire topic of improving the combat system and adding a rock-paper-scissors style system into it would of course have to be discussed in a LOT of detail. However, as with every major gameplay feature, I would like to discuss that once I am ready to implement it, because otherwise all the fine details of a discussion might get lost once I try to implement it. Also, you don't want to discuss something and then having to wait several months until you actually see it in the game.
29.03.2008 13:18 Erwin [CS] is offline Search for Posts by Erwin [CS] Add Erwin [CS] to your Buddy List
Albatrossix Player-Rank: 2
Puts Shields on Colony Ships


Registration Date: 13.02.2008
Posts: 100

Thread Starter Thread Started by Albatrossix
Reply to this Post Post Reply with Quote Edit/Delete Posts Report Post to a Moderator       Go to the top of this page

quote:
Originally posted by Erwin [SC]
However, as with every major gameplay feature, I would like to discuss that once I am ready to implement it, because otherwise all the fine details of a discussion might get lost once I try to implement it. Also, you don't want to discuss something and then having to wait several months until you actually see it in the game.


Ok, let us know (by for example starting a new thread to get our attention), when these 2 entries are going to be 'what you want to implement next'.
The whole rock-paper-scissor concept has been worked out well in many other strategic games (especially japanese strategy games), so it shouldn't be too hard to get it all worked out.
(and thanks for adding my suggestion Smile )

On a sidenote, the todo page doesn't mention what you're currently working on, or if there's any order you're resolving them. I'm guessing bugs, governors and admirals are the top priority atm?
29.03.2008 20:12 Albatrossix is offline Send an Email to Albatrossix Search for Posts by Albatrossix Add Albatrossix to your Buddy List
Pages (3): « previous 1 2 [3] Tree Structure | Board Structure
Jump to:
Post New Thread Post Reply
Cosmic Supremacy Forum » Suggestions » Fleet behaviour realism

Forum Software: Burning Board 2.3.6, Developed by WoltLab GmbH