OnlyAnEgg OnlyAnEgg

Why the combat system should be changed

▼

Why the combat system should be changed

An essay

from GalCiv2 Forums
I've played many games from "tough" to suicidal in sandbox mode (not metaverse, could care less) and invariably the ai always makes the same mistakes that don't provide the challenge they were designed for. There are quite a few of these, from underestimating the military or potential military might of their opponents (which might be corrected at least partially by changing the military might calculation as per this thread Link To declaring wars that they aren't prepared to fight (the entire concept of sneak attack escapes them). Features that would incorporate ai changes that would make them effective at evaluating targets properly and gearing up for war, including creating battle fleets outside of sensor range complete with transports ready to invade all bordering worlds within 1 or 2 turns of declaring war, would be welcome additions but probably furthur off than we'd like them to be, realistically speaking.

Instead, my suggestion is a seemingly simple one and it's been said before but I'd like to elaborate on why the change would make the ai much more effective. The change I'm talking about is battle sequence...attackers shoot first, and defenders respond after taking losses, also known as first strike. In this, the current battle system, defenders really get the shaft...often taking losses to half their fleet or more before being able to respond. This by itself is not particularly bad, if there were two human players waging war this way it would be a real cat and mouse game as we each tried to get first strike on the other. The real problem is that the ai doesn't "get it". They build slow fleets, they turtle their ships on planets to defend rather than taking those ships out to engage the enemy, etc. So rather than change the ai with complex code to understand and fully take advantage of first strike...remove the game mechanic altogether and give defending ships the ability to fire before they die. It would be no more difficult than adding a flag to a defending ship that took enough damage to kill it (marked for death) it then gets to return fire along with all it's buddies before finally exploding. In short, attacking and defending fleets would effectively be firing simultaneously...sometimes resulting in complete destruction on both sides, yes, but also giving defending fleets the firepower that was robbed of them because they died without ever firing a shot.

Currently, most players seem to value speed highly...something that I also do, and probably would continue to value even after this change. I like having a mobile and flexible military that can respond effectively to threats. I also like having my newly built ships being able to reach the front lines within a few turns. Currently though, speed isn't just a benefit...it's THE deciding issue to who wins any particular engagement...Attackers win, usually overwhelmingly (especially mid-late game), all else being equal.

Though the ai could be better at building it's ships more often (said before), once designed they are actually quite effective...if only they get to fire. Most of the time, they don't. They also tend to leave their ships on their planet to defend when invaded (something human players do NOT do currently)...a competent and useful strategy in most games, just not this one. When left to defend their ships become nothing more than a minor annoyance, even if more powerful overall than the attacking fleet. Which actually leads to one other point.

Orbital fleet managers are redundant and should be removed from the game. There is no justifiable reason that ships shouldn't be able to defend in a fleet without a planet improvement. While the ai does build this somewhere around mid-late game...the planets he does not build this on aren't just easy to kill, but laughably so. The human players do NOT build this improvement currently (or I don't at least) since as stated before, they are only useful when defending and defenders get the shaft currently, so instead we pull our ships out into a fleet and attack the invaders. You could get the ai to learn to do this, or you could just change the game mechanic to reward their current behavior, I suggest the latter.

To sum up
- make ships on both sides fire simutaneously
- Allow fleets over a planet to defend using the current logistics ability by default

The end result would make the current ai behavior make much more sense, and create more challenge. Invading ai attackers wouldn't be able to be picked off with fast fleets that pack a punch but have no defenses to speak of. Taking over ai planets will be much more difficult and you might actually incur losses while doing so. All without changing a thing regarding ai behavior.

If the ai can't take advantage of the system, but the players can, then the system needs to be changed.
18,396 views 40 replies
Reply #26 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I would throw out the current combat system altogether, and implement a non-turn-based system. The weapons would get different ranges, and obviously longer range weapons with the same power would take up more space. Also, different weapons will have different reload times. Different hull sizes would get very different speeds, and faster engines would get improved speeds as well. So as soon as a ship comes within firing range of another ship, it can fire at it.

In addition, before the battle you would get to pick from a few different tactics to use during the battle. Think rock paper scissors like stuff, but less determinate outcome. Should the faster ships move forward and attempt an early strike at some priority target? Should they all stick together?

Also, noone should ever have enough power to take out another ship in a single shot. And perhaps some of the larger ships could be outfitted with a module to repair the smaller ships, so if they get damaged they retreat and are replaced by fresh reserve forces, while the damaged one gets repaired.

This should probably also include making weapons specific to other ship types, i.e. fighters which are mainly good against other fighters, and small fighter-bombers which are crap against other fighters but good against larger ships. Battleships OTOH would do little damage to fighters.

To simplify things to a manageable level, get rid of the different weapon and defense types. More advanced defenses just give better defense against any attack.


Perhaps an idea for GalCiv3?
Reply #27 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Hey guys...it's me, the one who started this discussion.
I'd Quote you all but there's a lot of good stuff mentioned here.

I've played Stars! (gotta include that exclamation ) and I remember the initiative system, and late game you'd have hulls that were all initiative boosters with 1 weapon, and stack massive numbers of those suckers in a fleet, first strike was everything in the late game. I'm not asking for that.
In fact what I was going for was simplicity.

I like the current combat system overall, what I don't like is the ai doesn't seem to understand it. I'd ask for them to code a more tactically brilliant ai, but there's only so much they can code in a given period of time. If they code better ai behavior I'd rather see them code things like overall strategy, diplomatic savvy, and the fact that dumping influence starbases over most of their territory IS effectively an act of war and destroy said bases immediately, not after half their planets have rebelled, etc.

Has anyone here ever played Axis and Allies? Simple WW2 board game from parker bros. The way you did combat in that game is essentially the same as what I suggested here....defenders get a final parting shot. Effectively what happens is that while battle is sequential...( attacker fires...then defender fires just like in GC2) the consequences of battle are simultaneous (pieces aren't removed until both sides have fired and done damage). Then round 2 of combat begins and you do it all over again until one side or both are destroyed.

The point wasn't to completely overhaul the combat system, but rather to make one simple change that allowed defenders to be more than cannon fodder.

Let me walk through a simple attack with the old system and then with the new system that I (and several others) proposed. Though this change would affect fleets that have heavy firepower compared to defense the most, it would still make a huge difference even in early game battles where the firepower isn't sufficient to kill an opponent with one shot, but for simplicties sake lets go over a late game battle
2 fleets, 3 ships in each fleet, both have defensive systems but enough firepower to usually kill the other with one shot.
attacker 1 fires -> defender 1 dies
attacker 2 fires -> defender 2 almost dies ( good defense roll )
attacker 3 fires -> defender 2 dies
defender 3 fires -> attacker 1 dies
attacker 2 fires -> defender 3 dies

battle over...equal fleets and attacker wins with 2 undamaged ships left over
with the system I propose it might go more like this

attacker 1 fires -> defender 1 flagged to die
attacker 2 fires -> defender 2 almost dead ( good defense roll )
attacker 3 fires -> defender 2 flagged to die
defender 1 fires -> attacker 1 dies
defender 2 fires -> attacker 2 dies
defender 3 fires -> attacker 3 dies
defender 1 and defender 2 ships die

battle over and defender wins with one undamaged ship ( because of a lucky roll in this case, but they were equal fleets and without that roll they would both be dead, but at least he'd have killed off the attackers)

The entire point was not to rewrite the ai at all over this issue. There might be more depth to a tactical game of cat and mouse where first strike counts, but if the ai can't play that game well, then it ruins the rest of the challenge.
Start11 - Customize the Start Menu and Taskbar in Windows 10/11.
Reply #28 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Couple other thoughts that this change might make. (just off the top of my head)
I'm guessing that defense would be more of an issue than before...the idea of better hp's might be a good one but is something that could be tweaked later.
Speed would be an issue still but not nearly as much. Slow ponderous fleets heavy on defense designed to kill unmoving but well defended planets with few losses might be the way to go. There would definitely be more of a trade-off there for me in any case.
Starbases, while still fragile and easily destroyed, would at least be able to slap the face of those who destroy them.

The Omega super project that lets you defend with all ships over a planet (remember you can't have more than 10 in any case) becoming a more common improvement might also be a good idea, but again something that could be tweaked later along with a revamp of several other super projects (Secret Police Center comes to mind)

Beating the ai on suicidal might actually be...well...suicidal.
Reply #29 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
i say all ya gotta do is add up the total attack rating for both sides, then subtract the total defence rating, then whats left (if any) you strip off the total hit points. no need to decide who goes first. for example

fleet 1 : 20 attack lasers, 10 defence lasers, total of 300 hull

fleet 2 : 20 attack lasers, 10 defence lasers, total of 300 hull

20 (attack) - 10 (defence) = 10 hitpoint damage, 290 hull left for both sides after one round.

neither side has a real advantage, and the fight taken to the end would result in a defeat for both sides. the fun comes in changing the offence and defence as well as the hull strengths to ensure the right mix.

then end equasion will come down to two things, logistics, as well as total ship/fleet hitpoints as it should be, no way a fighter should ever be able to take out a huge hulled ship like it can now with ease.

it also has the added advantage for allowing the AI to concintrate on logistics as well as hull size and will be able to make for a much more effectave enemy, while still allowing the human to have an advantage in ship designs.

you could also toss in a random "under the hood' calculation that could adjust the total damage per side say 1-3 hitpoints per attack (roll 1 die 6, 1-3 and you loose an extra 1-3 points, roll 3-6 and you gain an extra 1-3 points), that could be enough to take away the pure math, and change the corse of a battle on a totaly random basis as real world battles are. just enough so that you dont KNOW your going to win if you have a mear 1 attack/defence advantage but not enough so that you could loose either should you lay a really good ambush and totaly outclass the enemy

the bottom line is that no matter what way you cut it, there will allways be a way to 'exploit' the battle system, ANY battle system. the only way to minimize it is to make the battle system simple enough so that your AI can use it well, adding complications is just pathing the way for more human exploitation in my opinion.
Reply #30 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Lets look at it logically. Right now with the comabt system as is, the AIs already have their hands full. If you were to change any of the fundemental rules governing combat, the AI would need to be re-written to take the new rules into consideration.


Actually what the proposal does is to change the rules to fit the way the AI plays.

What if we froze the AI, and starting changing the rules so that the play the AI plays becomes more optimal.....

Ai likes embassies? Make embassies good. (moddable).

AI doesn't value speed? Nuke speed by making it far more expensive and costly for higher techs. (moddable)

AI doesn't like scanners? Make base sensors better...

All this changing of AI, actually makes thing more murky, because it is hard to judge what the AI's weaknesses are, before yet another round of patches changes the behavior. I doubt even the developers get more than a approximate feel of the AI, given all those rapid changes.


Reply #31 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
with transports ready to invade all bordering worlds

Well, I always create transport on planets that have reached their population limit. It is a nice way to create huge fleets of transports without reducing importantly your income.

And I park these tranports on a specific tile in space away from the AI planets to avoid trigerring a war declaration.

Reply #32 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Now I would agree with an Axis & Allies type killed ship gets at least one parting shot type tweak to the combat. However I don't think overall it would solve very much. But if nothing else this change would require no changes to the AI. Hard to say if they'd consider something like this.

Anyone that thinks you can tweak it by upping the HPs or changing att/def values by all means mod the game files and let us know what you find out

As I said before the current flaw is the AI's ship designs. If you set up evenly matched fleets it's not so bad. It's just that the human player's current tactics of waiting till the last possible moment to attack or building fleets after war is declared with the best possible ships puts the AI at a major disadvantage. We've just got to be patient. I'm sure they'll figure out how to adjust the ship building such that it can counter what a human is doing. I say this because in v1.1 they've almost negated the human speed advantage. I've seen AI ships flying around with 16 mp recently
Reply #33 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I find the AI builds fast ships but it has a hard time getting the initiative it seems.

I'd like to see something where defenders get at least 1 shot off.
Reply #34 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Going to simultaneous combat solves the issue perfectly and simply. Every round every ship fires at the same time. What's so hard to understand about that?

Adding initiative and ranges and all that would be interesting, but require additional balancing and AI optimization. I wouldn't even think they'd consider it for 1.2, maybe for GC3.

There have been other threads about the AI issues with sensors and how this impacts not just their use of speed but also their ability to respond to first strike waves. I agree with the OP though that the simplest fix is to change the most abused game mechanic so that its no longer such a penalty for the AI.
Reply #35 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Anyone that thinks you can tweak it by upping the HPs or changing att/def values by all means mod the game files and let us know what you find out


On furthur thought, adding hp's *should* at least marginalize the effects of first shot...so I did just that, created a mod that gives all ships (starbases also) 10 times as many hp's...but changes nothing else. Gonna fiddle with the planetimprovements.xml and see if I can get initial colonies to replicate the fleet manager effect as well. I'll let you know what I find out after play testing it a bit.
Reply #36 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I think the AI needs to be updated to take advantage of this, but I like the idea of the first strike system. It makes the movement if ships on the map a little more tactical.
Reply #37 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Hi!
Attacker 1, Defender 1, Attacker 2, Defender 2, etc, etc would work fine I think




BR, Iztok
Reply #38 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Hi!
Initiative was a factor in ship design in Stars! and it could make a huge difference if you had 2 powerful ships. I think initiative was controlled by ship speed though

It still is. But in 2.6/7 it's "built-in" in a hull and in a weapon. You can also increase it with adding more computers.

BTW please don't use that also in GalCiv. I like the simplicity of its ship design. Just change the the order of firing to "best attacker", "best (survived) defender", "second best (survived) attacker", second best (survived) defender...

BR, Iztok
Reply #39 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I think alot would be done if HP would scale up with weapons. There should be a line of HP giving techs. Late mid-game, a medium ship can have something like 30 attack and 10 defense while it has merely 18 hp.

Or perhaps make the standart hull-building techs give hp bonuses when you research them.
Reply #40 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Some of the ideas mentioned here to help the AI are actually moddable right?