Priority targeting

posted on July 15th, 2009, 12:33 pm

The thing is... when you have a battle, your ships always target the weakest ship or the most damaged ship (if you don't manually target other ship), which is fine, but not in all situations.

When you command a group of... let's say Sovereigns and Descents and you encounter and an enemy group composed of battleships, and some smaller ships like cruisers and scouts, you don't care much about the small ships, you want to take out the battleships which can do the most damage. Sure you can manually target the battleships but when the first battleship is destroyed, your ships will often fire an entire new volley at some scout or cruiser, before you have time to manually target another battleship - suffices to say, this is not very effective and you might lose because of it.
(+ your torpedo based Sovereigns and Descents will often miss the small ships)

So here is what I propose:
We already have low/medium/high weapon/movement autonomy settings. Why not have targeting as well?
low - it would be a default setting as it is now - target the weakest or the most damaged ship
medium - target the closest ship
high - target the most powerful ship (highest offensive value)

What do you think about this idea? Am I the only one who would like to see battleships primarily target other battleships?

posted on July 15th, 2009, 12:47 pm

I never really pay attention to who hits what, but the suggestion looks interesting.

posted on July 15th, 2009, 1:00 pm

I didn't pay attention to it either at first, but the truth is you lose more ships because of this than you would in "real" battle.
It would be just a small addition that would improve gameplay a lot for me. 

posted on July 15th, 2009, 1:21 pm

but the truth is you lose more ships because of this than you would in "real" battle

I believe I am inclined to disagree. Most support vessels are either small or medium vessels. For instance, if you do not target Canaverals, Generix Support Refits, S-2's etc first, you will surely lose (or at least there will be a much greater likelihood of losing. Likewise, by destroying small ships first you can wipe out more of the opponent's base firepower quicker. Look at it this way, if you are face with a few Assimilators and a Cube, trying to destroy the Cube means that you are being hit the entire time with full firepower from all forces. If instead you destroy each weaker Assimilator, you incrementally lesten the amount of firepower you receive over time. Additionally, if you fail to destroy that Cube--all is lost, because the entire fleet's firepower will still be there.

(+ your torpedo based Sovereigns and Descents will often miss the small ships)

This is a good point. The autonomy idea you have proposed could indeed be very useful for each ship class (depending on weapon complement etc). As you said, battleships (with torps) targetting other battleships. I have no idea if it is feasible, as this has been discussed somewhat cursorily a year back or so with no real conclusion....

posted on July 15th, 2009, 2:21 pm

I often find turrets need different settings too, they waste too much firepower on weak targets. Who needs 60 quantum torpedos to take out a dominion bug for example. 

posted on July 15th, 2009, 2:27 pm

Quantum Torpedo Turrets are set to randomly target units on purpose: you cannot force fire them on a particular unit.

[Tyler]

posted on July 15th, 2009, 2:37 pm

Last edited by Tyler on July 15th, 2009, 2:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I wonder if DS9's firing during the Klingon attack inspired the Turrets unique way of attacking?

posted on July 15th, 2009, 2:48 pm

I believe I am inclined to disagree. Most support vessels are either small or medium vessels. For instance, if you do not target Canaverals, Generix Support Refits, S-2's etc first, you will surely lose (or at least there will be a much greater likelihood of losing.

I know what you mean and I agree completaly. High targeting autonomy (battleships) isn't for every single situation. When there is a suport ship you must take it out first.

Likewise, by destroying small ships first you can wipe out more of the opponent's base firepower quicker. Look at it this way, if you are face with a few Assimilators and a Cube, trying to destroy the Cube means that you are being hit the entire time with full firepower from all forces. If instead you destroy each weaker Assimilator, you incrementally lesten the amount of firepower you receive over time. Additionally, if you fail to destroy that Cube--all is lost, because the entire fleet's firepower will still be there.

First, Borg are kind of special, every ship in their fleet is very powerful. The more ships you destroy in lesser time the better. So targeting their "battleships" first would be ineffective and you might lose a battle that you could easily win.
However, in other situations where you have several groups (battleships, cruisers, support ships), different targeting autonomy would be useful.

posted on July 15th, 2009, 2:57 pm

Let me put it this way then, if you are faced by two Excelsiors and a Galaxy, you take out the Excelsiors first as the Galaxy will do less damage over time and it is much harder to destroy than both Excelsiors combined. I think the logic still holds. If you are facing a fleet of 1-2 battleships, 5-6 cruisers, and 8-10 destroyers, I take out the support first, then the destroyers, then cruisers, and then battleships. The destroyers represent the largest investment the opposing player has, and the battleships are the smallest investment (I'm talking about cost effectiveness). There is also the added tidbit that battleships are usualy very slow and usually medium range, so once you destroy the quicker and longer ranged destroyers/cruisers, you have the time and range advantage to take out the retreating battleships.

Nonetheless, I of course still agree that

However, in other situations where you have several groups (battleships, cruisers, support ships), different targeting autonomy would be useful.

  . Your idea additionally would lead to less of the "gang-bang" style of attacking in FO and Armada in general... where all ships persistently target one vessel after another--leading to very ugly and non Star Trek like battle sequences 

posted on July 15th, 2009, 3:09 pm

Your logic is undeniable.
Nevertheless, I'm glad for recognazing this, as a good idea.

Only thing I would like is a reply from someone who works on the FO so I knew if this will be implemented or at least considered.

posted on July 15th, 2009, 3:15 pm

It seems that destroyers, then cruisers, then battleships, and such get destroyed, in that order.  It would be easy to fix, because they did the same thing with the turrets.  I think if enough people want it, it will be done.  I definitally support the Idea.  The largest threat should always be destroyed first.

posted on July 15th, 2009, 4:44 pm

"The largest" is in this case no the battleship.
If you fight against 10 destroyers, 5 cruisers and 2 battleships (lets say, the firepower of 10 destroyers, 5 cruisers and 2 battleships is equal), then it wont make any sense to attack the battleship first.

You have also 10 destroyers, 5 cruisers and 2 battleships.

Situation begins:
You attack at first the battleships, the enemy battleships attack at first your destroyers. You need a lot of time to destroy the enemy battleship. In this time, 5 or 6 of your destroyers are gone.

You lost 6 destroyers, the enemy lost 1 battleship.

Next turn: You attack the next battleship. 4 of your destroyers are gone, the enemy battleship is gone.

Now you have 0 destoyer, 5 cruisers and two battleships, against 10 destroyers an 5 cruisers.
Next turn:
You begin to attack the enemy cruisers, and the enemy also attacks your cruisers.
The 5 vs 5 are equal and lets say, they got blown up equal to each other.

Now you fight with 10 destroyers against 2 battleships. The battleships wont hit much, because the destroyers are small. The destroyers will hit, because the battleships are large. End of the game: You lose.

The cube example explained it very well.

I think, that destroyers should attack other destroyers and then cruisers, cruisers against cruisers and battleships and battleships against cruisers and battleships.

posted on July 15th, 2009, 4:49 pm

I think, that destroyers should attack other destroyers and then cruisers, cruisers against cruisers and battleships and battleships against cruisers and battleships.

Sounds about right to me Sheva. One thing left to consider that Cinzano8472 brought up is the weapon complement. For instance, a Phalanx (a battleship) is actually better off targetting destroyers and cruisers, rather than Battleships, due to its area of effect weapon damaging easily clumping units more (aka, small units) and its pulse armament (which does less damage against cruisers and battleships). This might be too complex to code though, because this is more an exception to the rule.

[tom]

posted on July 15th, 2009, 4:53 pm

Last edited by tom on July 18th, 2009, 2:16 am, edited 1 time in total.

there is a single sentence explanation: "u want ur enemy DPS to be the lowest possible." u do that by killing his ships not by scratching shields of battleships.

as for targeting. i would rather have my ships attack the closest target then what we have now. i hate when entire fleet focus fire single ship. it's just a waste of damage. if i want to focus fire i will tell them myself correct me if i'm wrong but in most rts units attack closest target, right?

posted on July 15th, 2009, 5:32 pm

You have also 10 destroyers, 5 cruisers and 2 battleships.

Situation begins:
You attack at first the battleships, the enemy battleships attack at first your destroyers. You need a lot of time to destroy the enemy battleship. In this time, 5 or 6 of your destroyers are gone.

You lost 6 destroyers, the enemy lost 1 battleship.

Next turn: You attack the next battleship. 4 of your destroyers are gone, the enemy battleship is gone.

Now you have 0 destoyer, 5 cruisers and two battleships, against 10 destroyers an 5 cruisers.
Next turn:
You begin to attack the enemy cruisers, and the enemy also attacks your cruisers.
The 5 vs 5 are equal and lets say, they got blown up equal to each other.

Now you fight with 10 destroyers against 2 battleships. The battleships wont hit much, because the destroyers are small. The destroyers will hit, because the battleships are large. End of the game: You lose.

The cube example explained it very well.

I think, that destroyers should attack other destroyers and then cruisers, cruisers against cruisers and battleships and battleships against cruisers and battleships.

Perhaps you misunderstood me. I'm not saying that targeting battleships first at all time is a good idea. In situation you described it certainly wouldn't work. You proved that 

How about a different situation:
It is a progressed game and you have 3 or more groups of ships. Group 1 is there to counter enemy battleships, therefore is mainly composed of battleships, groups 2 and 3 are there to act as a counter to small ships and as a support. Groups 2 and 3 have easy job because they target small ships automatically. But what about group 1? They will target the small ships as well and waste a lot of torpedoes because they will miss. This is a situation where I would appreciate an option to change targeting priorities.

It is quite logical - imagine some Star Trek battle: Romulan Star Empire vs Dominion - 2 D'deridex warbirds + 2 Talon like ships (TNG 3x10 - The Defector) vs 2 Battleships + 2 bug ships. It is clear that the warbirds would attack the battleships while Talons would engage the bug ships. I doubt that all 4 Romulan ships would attack the closest bug ship.