Yamota Yamota

Enchancing combat without introducing tactical combat

▼

Enchancing combat without introducing tactical combat

from GalCiv2 Forums
To my dissapointment the Dark Avatar expansion does almost nothing to enchance the rather weak combat part of this game even though there are many things they could introduce to make combat more exciting and fun than it currently is without adding tactical combat.

Here are my few suggestions for this:

Hero characters

I dont know how many here have played Lord of Magic, its a very old fantasy strategy game which had heroes to enchance your armies. I think something similar could work quite well in GC II. What would happen is that from time to time named "heroes" would approach you and at a monthly fee would offer their services. Those services should be mainly combat related like boosting any fleet that it is part of but they could also have empire wide bonuses like bonus to diplomacy, economy and espionage. Ofcourse to use the bonus they give in combat they have to actually be part of combat and as such could risk dying and since they are unique, once they are gone they could never come back again so you have to plan carefully of when using them.

Turret tracking speed vs ship signature

As it is now there is little point of having small ships once you get the bigger, more powerful variants so why not introduce the concept of tracking speed. The bigger the ship the largers its ship signature would be and the lower tracking speed. Smaller ships would then be harder to hit by the biggest ships making it neccesary to have a healthy mix of small and big ships to counter your enemies smaller ships. It would be kinda like in the original Star Wars where they set out to destroy the death star and the death star couldnt hit the small rebel fighters.

Weapon range

Every time a new weapon is researched you will have two variants of the weapon. One with shorter range but more powerful and one which is long range but less powerful. One could then have the ships with long range weapons at the back out of range of ships with low range. For this to work the space which combat occurs must be increased and another feature needs to be implemented....

Formations

Before the battle you have the option of setting a formation. Like putting your vulnerable transports or ships with long range weapons at the back along with heroes perhaps.

Starbases

I think most veteran players aggree that starbases arent really worth building since they take a long time to build properly and even then they are relatively weak compared to even one of the bigger ships that you have at later stages of the game. They also arent very useful since the only thing they ever can protect are resources. So my suggestions to making them more useful are:

Everytime a battle occurs within its sphere of unfluence then the starbase will be present in that battle. If you have more than one starbase in that area the one which is more powerful will be present. Also add more hps to it so it can properly defend itself. Also if a starbase is attacked directly then the largest fleet within its sphere of influence would be present at that battle. This means ofcourse that an armed starbase within close range of a non ally would be detrimental to the diplomatic relations between the two.

Add a training module to starbases. A training module will cost quite alot to build and have a montlhly cost but if you do build one (only one is allowed for each empire) then it would slowly train any units within its sphere of influence. This would introduce a strategic element to the game since there are only one of these you and they are rather expensive you wont want them too close to your borders because of risk of them being destroyed but then on the other hand you want them close enough so you can use their bonuses.

The third "enchancment" is maybe a bit controversal since it is a nerf but I think it could add a twist to the game. The suggestion is to reduce the range of all ships by a significant percentage maybe even 50 %. This would force you to build starbases so you can reach colonies that are far away and in effect you would then have a supply line to defend in the event of war. This would be rather interesting I think because then an offensive campaign wouldnt then just be about building tons of ships and zerging your enemy but you also have to think about maintaining your supply line.

This what I got so far. What you guys think?
16,766 views 37 replies
Reply #26 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
You forgot to mention multiplayer and carriers.


If you ask me, we should have tactical combat, where we could crash carriers into planets as a form of orbital bombardment. In multiplayer.
Reply #27 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
And Azrune, shut up. You can't be tatical in space....it's not logical.


I wasn't going to weigh in on this thread until I saw this. Misspelling aside, how the hell does anyone figure that you can't have tactical combat in space? Besides the obvious fact that 'any' combat form is considered to be 'tactical', what insight do you have to lend to your argument that you cannot have tactical combat because you are in space? I am not trying to flame anyone over this but come on... as a devoted tactical enthusiast who was always pushing for something more in this game tactics wise, I get a little pissed when I run across a comment like that. Please explain yourself if you would.
ObjectDock - Access shortcuts and frequently used applications from an animated dock.
Reply #28 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Yeahs, thats kind of like saying that there aren't tactics in Naval battle..
Reply #29 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
And Azrune, shut up. You can't be tatical in space....it's not logical.



This one makes no sense to me either. But as the devs have said that there would be no tactical combat in this game its better to just ignore it as this thread should be about enhancing combat without introducing tactical combat.

But as not one single dev have replied to this thread I guess that wont happen either.... have the devs something against combat or something?
Reply #30 from Stardock Forums Top
A lot of people in this thread are posting ideas on making small craft more competitive in the latter stages of this game.

Don't small fighters have enough advantages already? They're cheaper, faster to produce and have smaller weapons. Adding another bonus seems a bit excessive.

As soon as your empire has reached the resource potential to field a large number of strong big ships small ones become obsolete, seems logical to me. I generally look at ship size as a measure for energy/mass potential. Energy/mass can be used either either for offence or defense. A large ship will have large reactors/ weapon & armour factories and is thus capapble of putting op a much better defense and inflect a lot more damage.

Reply #31 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Logical? Well havent really thought about the logical part. Im more interested in making the combat more multidimensional and I believe giving smaller ships a role even at later stages of the game, and thus encouraging empires to still build them, would make the combat more interesting as there would exist more choices.

But if you really want to put a logical twist on it then it would make sense that small fighters, which has alot less inertia and size, would have an advantage over big ships with high inertia and size. They should at the very least be harder to hit because of this difference.

Also they should be more cost efficient to build since large ships would be required to be assembled in space because it would be very hard for them to overcome a planets gravity once they are assembled because of their enormous mass. Im not a physicist but I believe the formula goes like this:

Energy required to overcome a planets gravity = G*M*m/r. Where capital letters are planet specific constants and r is the radius of the planet so in other words an object with greater mass would take a greater amount of energy to overcome a planets gravity and reach escape velocity.
Reply #32 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
A lot of people in this thread are posting ideas on making small craft more competitive in the latter stages of this game.

Don't small fighters have enough advantages already? They're cheaper, faster to produce and have smaller weapons. Adding another bonus seems a bit excessive.


In Dread Lords, they had two advantages: the effects of military starbases, and the fact that a large ship might end up wasting all that firepower they've got taking down a 6hp fighter. The latter is the big advantage.

In Dark Avatar, that disappears, as a suitably powerful ship can wipe out an entire fleet of fighters in a SINGLE SHOT.

As for cost/benefit, all the bigger hulls have always been better in that regard... even the small hull gets a far better ratio of hp, attack, and defense versus the cost to build them. Tiny hulls are ENTIRELY useless unless you're relying on multiple military starbases for your attack power.

In my opinion, the smaller ships should have a better cost benefit ratio than larger ships, but a lower effectiveness when fleeted (less efficiency with logistics), or vice versa: Make a swarm of fighters more effective than a fleet of large hulls, but make fighters more expensive compared to their damage potential. Either way, the tiny hulls are obsolete right now entirely... yet, the AI still likes to build small ships even when the more efficient huge hulls are lying around.
Reply #33 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Either way, the tiny hulls are obsolete right now entirely... yet, the AI still likes to build small ships even when the more efficient huge hulls are lying around.


Yep, definetely something the devs should look into to if theyre not improving smaller hulls. No reason why the AI should keep using tiny/small ships mid/late game.

Reply #34 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
And Azrune, shut up. You can't be tatical in space....it's not logical.

I must agree with Evil and the others on this... Please explain your train of thought on this, I am really interested in hearing what you have to say regarding this -Spencer

Besides, the game isn't about fighting.

I also do not agree with this statement. It may not be about tactical combat, which is probably what you meant, but it most certainly is about conflict. If not between you and the AI, then AI versus AI.

when a combat unit could travel in 360 degrees it makes tatics worthless. Basic physics.


Again... Huh? This you may have to explain a bit better also, and what exactly does it have to do with physics? A ship in space not only moves horizontally 360 degrees but also vertically, on top of that you can add velocity. A ship within a vacuum can still be turned if need be to face an enemy ship closing in at a 45 degree angle, while still maintaining forward momentum. Simply cut the main engines and use the directional thrusters to rotate the ship. Sounds pretty tactical to me.

As for Starbases.... I believe they serve their purpose as they were intended and are fairly accurate. I have said this a thousand times. Starbases are huge, immobile fixed objects which would not be able to bring all of its weapons to bear on a single target. Where as a fighter is extremely small, and extremely fast, and has this huge immobile object to shoot at. Lastly, add range to this and it would become extremely difficult to hit a small, fast moving target.

My thoughts on Tactical Combat as previously posted by me on 10/26/06 in the Greatest want or need thread.

I would like to see a little more detail in the fleet combat area.

Currently when you invade a planet you get a little pop up that allows you to select the different ways you can inflict damage. Each with it's strong points and weak points. I would like to see something similar added for fleet battles.

Different formations give you a tactical advantage in one way or another.

**example**

(Delta formation) Would give you a bonus to your attack but leave you more vulnerable to enemy attacks.

(Strafe) Allow you to do a hit and run maneuver where you are in combat for a round or two then retire.

(Gamma Formation) would give you more of a defensive posture and give you a defensive bonus while cutting the damage you inflict.

(Retreat)Allow a defending race (one who did not enter into the combat) to withdraw after a single round of combat. They would take damage and would escape without returning fire.

Things of this nature I believe would add some excitement into the game while not being to overly complicated. At the moment I feel the fleet battles are lacking.

Those were my thoughts on the matter then, and they are the thoughts I still retain.   

I have always liked the idea of "Hero Ships". No idea how to implement them however.

Reply #35 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
As for Starbases.... I believe they serve their purpose as they were intended and are fairly accurate. I have said this a thousand times. Starbases are huge, immobile fixed objects which would not be able to bring all of its weapons to bear on a single target. Where as a fighter is extremely small, and extremely fast, and has this huge immobile object to shoot at. Lastly, add range to this and it would become extremely difficult to hit a small, fast moving target.


I'm going to have to disagree on both realism and gameplay grounds.

Realism: with the kinds of distances and speeds involved with space combat, the only advantage that a fighter brings to bear is a small target profile... they wouldn't handle like modern aircraft at all, so flying loops around a space station is a bit out of the question! I'd tilt the firepower advantage towards the space station, which would have ample sensor warning time and far more potent weapons than mounted on any ship... the ships have to watch space considerations due to their hyperdrives, the space station can be as bulky as it wants to. By that token, starbases should be able to mount far more weaponry than they do... they can afford to mount a skyscraper sized railgun, a warp capable ship generally can't.

Again, the only advantage a fighter would have (and it wouldn't extend to a capital ship) is a small target profile, and GC2 doesn't take that kind of thing into account. If you were to take my targetting/evasion modules idea and make the sizemod for the evasion techs favourable only for tiny and small hulls, then tiny fighters would have that advantage...

Gameplay: If the weapons AREN'T going to be worth our while, they shouldn't be there. As it is, they're (almost) a useless feature, and certainly far too costly past the very early game...
Reply #36 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
A ship in space not only moves horizontally 360 degrees but also vertically, on top of that you can add velocity. A ship within a vacuum can still be turned if need be to face an enemy ship closing in at a 45 degree angle, while still maintaining forward momentum.


Can anyone say 'Asteroids'? Asteroids demonstrates what you are saying exactly.
Reply #37 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
As for Starbases.... I believe they serve their purpose as they were intended and are fairly accurate. I have said this a thousand times. Starbases are huge, immobile fixed objects which would not be able to bring all of its weapons to bear on a single target. Where as a fighter is extremely small, and extremely fast, and has this huge immobile object to shoot at. Lastly, add range to this and it would become extremely difficult to hit a small, fast moving target.


With a little bit of sci-fi common sense: because mass and energy consumption would be much less of an issue to a starbase than a starship, why wouldn't a starbase specifically constructed for military purposes be able to use batteries of powerful sensor arrays combined with high energy/mass attack and defense systems?
I can imagine that it would be difficult for a regular fighter/bomber type of ship to approach a starbase if the starbase could detect the threat with long range sensors, defend itself with high powered shields or massive armor and would be capable of deploying for instance long range guided missiles with equal maneouverability of the fighter/bomber to destroy it before the starbase was even within sensor/weapons range of the fighter/bomber.

If you have the resources, you can make a metal frame in space and fit in a giant powerplant. Then mount an incredible amount of sensors, defenses and weapons on all sides of the platform. Voila, a powerful military starbase.

If you're from the Starwars universe, remember this:
1. Install the shield generator within the shield radius.
2. Put some grills in front of your exhaust ports.



Anyway, I don't get the whole vulnerable starbase opinion. There's only one problem with my mighty starbase idea, and that is if you want to move it, you are sorry that you've made it so big and heavy, and it might be impossible. But that's why you made it a starbase and not a starship.

Finally, modern time forts were strong, battleships were strong, aircraft carriers are strong. They're all vulnerable because they are big and more or less mobile, but you can't just defeat them with a couple of fighters. It takes time and/or big/smart weapons to defeat them, and so should it be with starbases.

I rest my case.