More Theatrical Battles
Post ideas and suggestions on new features or improvements here.
posted on July 25th, 2013, 5:28 pm
Last edited by CreepersNemisis on July 25th, 2013, 10:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
CreepersNemisis wrote:"This is why I think the battles in fleet ops are a lot less spectacular than in star trek. In fleet ops, when two large fleets meet, you don't see each ship firing at ships near it, instead the whole fleet focuses it's fire on one or two ships at a time. It's good strategy wise but it kinda sucks theatrical wise... It would be interesting if the ships didn't always attack what you told them to attack but sometimes went after more immediate threats, like the ships shooting at them. As in clicking the attack button only assigns a weight to attacking that target." -CreepersNemisis
So, yeah, here are the basics:
- When ships in red alert are moved near enemy ships, they pick ships more appropriate to their firing range to fire at by default. Example: Artillery ships fire at ships near the back/middle of the enemy fleet, small ships fire at the front lines near them.
- When told to attack a target, ships fire on nearby ships as if trying to blow them out of the way(Should weaponsfire move ships? I would think not.) while trying to get within a good firing range of the target. (See dependancy 1.)When within a practical distance of the target the ships will fire at the target and also at the ships firing at itself.
- This system works on the principles of weighting, basically assigning values of probability to potential targets. The higher the probability, the more likely the ship will fire at it. There will also be a weighting system working in parallel that determines the probabilities that a ship will move. Assigning a ship a target will put a high weight on it, for both moving to it(with the exception of artillery ships) and attacking it. The weights of targets will increase the closer the ship is to the target. For instance a ship really close will have it's attack weight value multiplied by a high factor which may temporarily cause it's weight to be higher than the assigned target's weight. This will lead to the ship attacking the closer ship more than the target, proportionally to the weighting values and their multipliers or whatever system for increasing the weight by distance.
- Dependency 2
Depandancy 1:
The damage caused by most weapons should decrease as distance increases, making a good explanation for the reason ships would attack closer ships. Artillery weapons should not be affected much by this. Negative decrease values should result in damage gains as distance increases. This could be potentially useful for making new special weapons.
Dependency 2:
Repairing would have to be significantly nerfed, as Myles pointed out. Seeing as it would be harder to destroy ships, ships could run out of battle and go get repaired extremely fast. Which has to change. Another way to work around this would be to increase the offensive capabilities and decrease the defensive capabilities of all ships.
If you don't understand this please ask me to be less lazy. As usual, if you have anything to add to this, anything you don't like, or you would change, leave a comment and I'll take a look, maybe put it in the OP. =)
Edit 1:
Myles came up with the point that repairing would have to be nerfed. (See dependency 2.)
posted on July 25th, 2013, 5:41 pm
while theatrical battles looked good on tv, they are moronic.
no ships on tv ever tried the simple idea of running away when damaged.
in game, running away is bread and butter as far as moves go. the best way to stop a ship running away is to focus fire on it to blow it up more quickly. it's the strategy that makes the most sense.
to have theatrical battles in game by denying focussed fire, we'd need to remove the idea of running away. radically altering gameplay.
no ships on tv ever tried the simple idea of running away when damaged.
in game, running away is bread and butter as far as moves go. the best way to stop a ship running away is to focus fire on it to blow it up more quickly. it's the strategy that makes the most sense.
to have theatrical battles in game by denying focussed fire, we'd need to remove the idea of running away. radically altering gameplay.
posted on July 25th, 2013, 7:07 pm
You are dreaming about bridge comander cooperative multiplayer combine with strategic layout of armada 2....
I agree it would be awesome some day... have this supercooltrek game.
But i think it ruin fleetops.
So no, terible idea.
I agree it would be awesome some day... have this supercooltrek game.
But i think it ruin fleetops.
So no, terible idea.
posted on July 25th, 2013, 9:49 pm
The "not running away" thing is actually an issue caused by a central premise to Star Trek; Warp Drive.
Think about it. Why in naval combat in the past (and no, lets not turn this into "Star Trek =/= Naval" I know that but follow me here) did combatants not try and run away at the first sign that the battle was turning against them?
They were much much slower at manoeuvring and simple straight line movement than the weapons being hurled at them. Better to stay in the fight and try and disable the enemy (at least enough to withdraw without being under fire) than to try and run and simply get blown out of the water.
In Star Trek, this just isn't so. We regularly see ships out run torpedoes and even phaser fire by entering warp. They turn quickly also, and thus can basically extricate themselves from battle whilst perhaps taking only one or two salvoes.
Not to promote my own mod here, but in KA2 i've lowered ship speeds and manoeuvrability down (and generally play with warp off, for the most part) so that this effect is toned down significantly. With this, having ships no longer focus fire on one target is no longer a game breaker. Ships can try and run, but they'll likely attract a pursuer. This is fine, as some ships in combat in the past did successfully disengage, it just shouldn't be a "punch it Mr Crusher!" and bam, out of there situation.
It's proof that when done right, this can work. However, whether it's in the spirit of FleetOps or not I am not in a position to say. And I suppose, that's ultimately the final step in the decision process of modding ("Is it doable?" "Is it worth doing?" "Will it fit in with the ethos of what i'm/we're doing?" )
Think about it. Why in naval combat in the past (and no, lets not turn this into "Star Trek =/= Naval" I know that but follow me here) did combatants not try and run away at the first sign that the battle was turning against them?
They were much much slower at manoeuvring and simple straight line movement than the weapons being hurled at them. Better to stay in the fight and try and disable the enemy (at least enough to withdraw without being under fire) than to try and run and simply get blown out of the water.
In Star Trek, this just isn't so. We regularly see ships out run torpedoes and even phaser fire by entering warp. They turn quickly also, and thus can basically extricate themselves from battle whilst perhaps taking only one or two salvoes.
Not to promote my own mod here, but in KA2 i've lowered ship speeds and manoeuvrability down (and generally play with warp off, for the most part) so that this effect is toned down significantly. With this, having ships no longer focus fire on one target is no longer a game breaker. Ships can try and run, but they'll likely attract a pursuer. This is fine, as some ships in combat in the past did successfully disengage, it just shouldn't be a "punch it Mr Crusher!" and bam, out of there situation.
It's proof that when done right, this can work. However, whether it's in the spirit of FleetOps or not I am not in a position to say. And I suppose, that's ultimately the final step in the decision process of modding ("Is it doable?" "Is it worth doing?" "Will it fit in with the ethos of what i'm/we're doing?" )
posted on July 25th, 2013, 10:03 pm
Just to clarify I am not talking about running away, that's all and good. I think the main thing here is the focused fire. Or maybe I just didn't explain it well enough and you all think I'm proposing something other than what I intended... Perhaps somebody could summarize what they got out of my topic so I can verify?
posted on July 25th, 2013, 10:11 pm
Last edited by Shadow24 on July 25th, 2013, 10:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The "not running away" thing is actually an issue caused by a central premise to Star Trek; Warp Drive.
Think about it. Why in naval combat in the past (and no, lets not turn this into "Star Trek =/= Naval" I know that but follow me here) did combatants not try and run away at the first sign that the battle was turning against them?
do not simplify naval combat, many times ship run, use smoke to run under cover, run for a night dark, run for a mist, run to harbor for safety.... running is not unique for warp engine. smaler ships was usualy faster... so weaker combatant (usualy faster) run all the time...
running is not unique for warp engine
far from it.
posted on July 25th, 2013, 10:14 pm
running away and focussing fire are joined at the hip.
currently ships can easily run away and repair almost instantly. the key to actually destroying ships is to have enough firepower focussed on one target, so that it can't run fast enough. that or just be much faster than the target so it can't run. special weapons allow limited violations of this, such as proximity torp on the monsoon destroying a ship before it can retreat.
take away focussed fire and running away to repair becomes ridiculously effective. to the point where no awake player should lose a ship unless outnumbered more than 5 to 1.
changing to this would radically alter gameplay. either running would have to be nerfed by changing how ships move, like squire james has for his mod, or repairing would have to be nerfed.
personally i'd like an optional game mode where you don't dock for repairs. you just park your damaged ship near a base/yard and it repairs slowly, multiple ships can be repaired at the same time by being in range. it would make fleetops radically different and present balancing nightmares.
currently ships can easily run away and repair almost instantly. the key to actually destroying ships is to have enough firepower focussed on one target, so that it can't run fast enough. that or just be much faster than the target so it can't run. special weapons allow limited violations of this, such as proximity torp on the monsoon destroying a ship before it can retreat.
take away focussed fire and running away to repair becomes ridiculously effective. to the point where no awake player should lose a ship unless outnumbered more than 5 to 1.
changing to this would radically alter gameplay. either running would have to be nerfed by changing how ships move, like squire james has for his mod, or repairing would have to be nerfed.
personally i'd like an optional game mode where you don't dock for repairs. you just park your damaged ship near a base/yard and it repairs slowly, multiple ships can be repaired at the same time by being in range. it would make fleetops radically different and present balancing nightmares.
posted on July 25th, 2013, 10:25 pm
Myles, you got me idea.
repaire is fast , need to be for balance with borg
but i like idea of slower repaire, and more if building ship in yard and another comes for repaire , which one has priority ? for yard crew i mean.
so either building should stop, or ship for repaire wait, or bouth jobs are slower by 50%....
or we can add special repaire station, no build, just repaire and can repaire any ship from any race (not borg of course)
and third thing "engineering teams" from a2 nebula class, it can be used as generix upgrade but a little bit slower... so not good in battle but in safety nice job engineers.
repaire is fast , need to be for balance with borg
but i like idea of slower repaire, and more if building ship in yard and another comes for repaire , which one has priority ? for yard crew i mean.
so either building should stop, or ship for repaire wait, or bouth jobs are slower by 50%....
or we can add special repaire station, no build, just repaire and can repaire any ship from any race (not borg of course)
and third thing "engineering teams" from a2 nebula class, it can be used as generix upgrade but a little bit slower... so not good in battle but in safety nice job engineers.
posted on July 25th, 2013, 10:28 pm
Myles wrote:changing to this would radically alter gameplay. either running would have to be nerfed by changing how ships move, like squire james has for his mod, or repairing would have to be nerfed.
This is a very good point. I never thought of that.
posted on July 25th, 2013, 10:29 pm
Shadow, I never said running away was unique to warp drive. Notice...
However, the difference in Star Trek is how fast ships can manoeuvre and escape relative to weapons fire. Therein lies the issue.
As mentioned in another thread, for most of Star Trek this isn't true; Large ships and small ones alike can reach similar warp speeds, and outside of Trek games, they aren't shown to have a significantly different impulse speed either.
To throw the cat among the pigeons, Star Wars doesn't have this issue. Sublight and Hyperspace speeds are both seen and stated to vary radically between ships of different sizes, and ships are slow and manoeuvrable enough to make running away in anything larger than a Corellian Corvette a mute question.
As noted many times, Star Wars and Star Trek combat differs greatly, and the details of how are exactly the issues that a strategy game designer faces when trying to make Star Trek combat close to the show yet not hopelessly in favour of booking it as soon as a shot is fired.
Ships can try and run, but they'll likely attract a pursuer. This is fine, as some ships in combat in the past did successfully disengage..
However, the difference in Star Trek is how fast ships can manoeuvre and escape relative to weapons fire. Therein lies the issue.
smaler ships was usualy faster... so weaker combatant (usualy faster) run all the time...
As mentioned in another thread, for most of Star Trek this isn't true; Large ships and small ones alike can reach similar warp speeds, and outside of Trek games, they aren't shown to have a significantly different impulse speed either.
To throw the cat among the pigeons, Star Wars doesn't have this issue. Sublight and Hyperspace speeds are both seen and stated to vary radically between ships of different sizes, and ships are slow and manoeuvrable enough to make running away in anything larger than a Corellian Corvette a mute question.
As noted many times, Star Wars and Star Trek combat differs greatly, and the details of how are exactly the issues that a strategy game designer faces when trying to make Star Trek combat close to the show yet not hopelessly in favour of booking it as soon as a shot is fired.
posted on July 25th, 2013, 10:48 pm
yes i agree, in star trek running to safety can be matter of seconds, this is unique. for star wars i dont know i am not a fan ...
i love many stories from naval combat (napoleonic wars, or ww2 naval battles) so i just tried to opose your sentences:
sometimes they stay because that was their orders...
sometimes they underestimated the oponent...
sometimes they just spot eachother and run like hell...
and sometimes when even damage enemy seems to be imposible , they tried run in small hope of survival, and died...
basicly i agree with your opinion on principles in game or series, but disagree on some of your view on naval combat...
i love many stories from naval combat (napoleonic wars, or ww2 naval battles) so i just tried to opose your sentences:
Why in naval combat in the past (and no, lets not turn this into "Star Trek =/= Naval" I know that but follow me here) did combatants not try and run away at the first sign that the battle was turning against them?
They were much much slower at manoeuvring and simple straight line movement than the weapons being hurled at them. Better to stay in the fight and try and disable the enemy (at least enough to withdraw without being under fire) than to try and run and simply get blown out of the water.
sometimes they stay because that was their orders...
sometimes they underestimated the oponent...
sometimes they just spot eachother and run like hell...
and sometimes when even damage enemy seems to be imposible , they tried run in small hope of survival, and died...
basicly i agree with your opinion on principles in game or series, but disagree on some of your view on naval combat...
posted on July 25th, 2013, 11:30 pm
Again you are mincing my words.
I never mentioned sighting the enemy and withdrawing before combat began. So that's..
..Out of the picture. I only stated, as you quoted, why they wouldn't run when the battle began to turn against them.
In theory, yes. In practice, no. Navies in all periods understood that a ship was more valuable afloat (and somewhat serviceable) than sunk over a matter of "Not one step backwards!" type orders. Ships often would withdraw on sight even when ordered explicitly to sink an enemy vessel due to conditions being unfavourable. Better to retreat and plan a different attack than to go ahead when everything is against you.
But that's not why they'd choose to stay. It's why they'd have to. If you're enemy significantly outguns you and you made the mistake of not realising that until battle was engaged, you're best hope was to try and outmanoeuvre him to bring as many of your guns to bear whilst minimising the number of his bearing on you. Running away would be, as mentioned, suicide.
You can outmanoeuvre the majority of his guns, but never all, and you can never outrun a cannonball or shell. Running would merely expose your stern (a weakpoint in any era) and cost you any advantage you had in manoeuvrability, since to put maximum distance between yourself and an enemy you'd have to travel in a straight line (and again, being able to withdraw outside his firing range before his guns could fire enough salvoes to slow, disable or sink you is virtually impossible)
Not usually. There were very few times in history that one vessel was completely unable to damage another. Even during the Second World War, there was a case of a US Destroyer that disabled a Japanese Battleship. And that's all you have to do. If you remove the enemy's ability to fire his guns, bring them to bear or close to range, you have hamstrung him and left him vulnerable to further attack by allied forces. You can then withdraw safely.
In short, you do not withdraw under fire.
I never mentioned sighting the enemy and withdrawing before combat began. So that's..
sometimes they just spot eachother and run like hell...
..Out of the picture. I only stated, as you quoted, why they wouldn't run when the battle began to turn against them.
sometimes they stay because that was their orders...
In theory, yes. In practice, no. Navies in all periods understood that a ship was more valuable afloat (and somewhat serviceable) than sunk over a matter of "Not one step backwards!" type orders. Ships often would withdraw on sight even when ordered explicitly to sink an enemy vessel due to conditions being unfavourable. Better to retreat and plan a different attack than to go ahead when everything is against you.
sometimes they underestimated the oponent...
But that's not why they'd choose to stay. It's why they'd have to. If you're enemy significantly outguns you and you made the mistake of not realising that until battle was engaged, you're best hope was to try and outmanoeuvre him to bring as many of your guns to bear whilst minimising the number of his bearing on you. Running away would be, as mentioned, suicide.
You can outmanoeuvre the majority of his guns, but never all, and you can never outrun a cannonball or shell. Running would merely expose your stern (a weakpoint in any era) and cost you any advantage you had in manoeuvrability, since to put maximum distance between yourself and an enemy you'd have to travel in a straight line (and again, being able to withdraw outside his firing range before his guns could fire enough salvoes to slow, disable or sink you is virtually impossible)
and sometimes when even damage enemy seems to be imposible , they tried run in small hope of survival, and died...
Not usually. There were very few times in history that one vessel was completely unable to damage another. Even during the Second World War, there was a case of a US Destroyer that disabled a Japanese Battleship. And that's all you have to do. If you remove the enemy's ability to fire his guns, bring them to bear or close to range, you have hamstrung him and left him vulnerable to further attack by allied forces. You can then withdraw safely.
In short, you do not withdraw under fire.
posted on July 26th, 2013, 12:17 am
not mincing, your first post was hmm short and uncomplete, now you are expresing yourself nicely and more complex.
thank you for nice debate.
thank you for nice debate.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests