The combat system in the game won't be that complicated otherwise turn times would get huge.

But each class of ship does have a distance before they can fire.  For example:

Fighters have to get closer than other ships before they can attack but their defense is much much higher against bigger ships.  

Ships don't miss (evasion and accuracy are not in as they are very hard to communicate to players and are one of the biggest causes for late game turn times).  Thus, we will be beefing up attack and defense ratings to communicate better.

So in this example, when a fighter is attacking a capital ship, its defense is always going to be 4 (1 + 3) even if the player doesn't equip any defenses to the ship.  When we play test, we may even increase this further.

Similarly, the fighters move a lot faster than other ships so while they don't have great weapons range, they do get into range fairly quickly but they will have to deal with capital ships likely getting the first shot.

With regards to rate of fire. Let's talk about that:

For instance, missiles won't fire as often but when they do damage, we increase it by more to make up the difference.

Similarly, when figuring out damage, did they hit, etc. This is how that will work:

There are only 15 rounds in a given turn.  We want big battles to take several turns to finish and this lets us reduce turn times late game.

In all these types of games, we have to balance realism and sophistication with the fact that most people don't want to wait 5 minutes between turns late game when there are thousands of ships on the fleet.  We also have to make sure that we have a clear UI to communicate damage to the player.  This is why missing is always a tough thing in thse games because it's hard to communicate this.

there's some really good changes in there, very nice i esp like the combat changes and the research changes. the random research roll was very frustrating for many ppl, and could be pretty bad if u get very unlucky, but this system where u can pick what u want but get discounts for breakthroughs should solve that problem while still giving the random feel you were going for, very nice.

a couple quick thoughts on the combat... I want to address what i see as a potentially big problem, the targeting. i think the targeting can have default targets, but needs to be able to be chosen by the player and AI each turn if they choose. there could be default choices for targeting for ppl who feel it's set up good and just want to skip that part, but when you have auto targeting like "fighters ALWAYS attack bigger ships first" then once a player recognizes this, they can just build a tank or tanks for your fleet if you see your opponent is using a swarm tactic, and then the opponent's swarm tactic will always be useless because the pilots will be insanely trying to take out a large tank doing no dmg to them while they're getting killed by glass cannons. I think the default should be able to be chosen so that ships can be chosen to attack the most threatening ships first by default,  unless the player/AI can identify better priority targets, such as a large ship with a low defense rating. Autotargeting should be based on hull size as well. since tiny ships have good defenses vs larger ships now (great change btw, love it) it would make sense that the larger ships should autotarget other larger ships whenever they can since they will usually be doing much more dmg to larger targets than smaller ones. this reflects how combat usually works in the movies n stuff as well. big ships are often trying to get into range of, and then target, larger targets, and are not usually focused on fighting swarms of ships. They leave that to their fleet's smaller ships that have more maneuverability and better accuracy and targeting ability. when their ships are so small that they're evading our turbo-lasers, it's time to destroy them ship to ship. get the crews to their fighters. 

I also think that there should be multiple kinds of ships for the same hull size, that can have different tasks and priority targets. for example, instead of just having "fighter", it could be broken up into things like "dogfighter", and "light bomber". Dogfighters could be designed to fight other small ships and target smaller ships first by default, while "light bombers" could be designed to try to just rush to large targets and burst them for a bunch of large dmg that would be very effective vs a med and larger hull, but might have trouble targeting other small craft, esp if it's using something like missiles for large burst dmg but slow regen rate.

so much of combat is decided by targeting. I really think it needs to be a big focus for the expansion. players keep finding out how the AI targeting works, and then making "unfair" fleets against them designed with tanks to absorb all the dmg paired with glass cannons to kill everything fast. all the AI can do is endlessly target the tank because they are apparently insane and have no idea how fleet combat works, so victory is assured almost every time. this gets very boring very quickly, and combat in the game becomes less about designing good fleets that can evolve in how they work over time based off on the universe you encounter which leads to good fights, and more about playing whack-a-mole with a really big stick. the AI needs a way to detect the offensive, defensive, and support rating of a ship, and then use that info to decide any priority targets. stop forcing the AI to target tanks and I think the combat will get a lot more interesting for players

cant quite tell what you're thinking for defense btw... were you going to roll all 3 defenses into just 1 stat? cause i think you should at least keep the armor/shields. armor could be a set dmg reduction to the hull, while shields could absorb a certain amount of dmg each turn. could help add different fun tactics and support items, such as support ships that can increase the effectiveness of shields or armor, or support ships that can give the ships in your fleet things like armor-penetrating and/or shield-penetrating weapons to help get through tanky ships.

Looking good! keep up the great work! 

I'd like to see underutilized mechanics be brought up to par - like deception, diplomatic capital, ascension crystals... It seems like there is quite a lot of emphasis put on them, with whole culture traits set aside, but no way to apply them effectively to the game. I understand that they are there to be "expanded" upon in the expansions, but as of now they are just traits that you would never consider useful and be inclined to take.

And, as always, the AI... I can only talk about it in very general, dilettante terms. My dream is to see the AI able to competently pursue and achieve any and every type of victory, as well as to determine which one is best for it, given the circumstances. Right now it's really only the Mimots that ever have a decent shot at Conquest, due to their passive bonus, and even so I'm yet to see them win it. If the AI is incapable of winning, what is the point of playing against it? It really demonstrates a fundamental ineptness that even their considerable bonuses (on incredible/godlike) don't seem to offset.

As with most turn-based 4x strategies, the basic game trajectory is: the AI initially gets far ahead due to bonuses, then you INEVITABLY catch up to it and get ahead, due to being "smarter". Is there any chance at all we can finally move past this inevitability?

I hope that as you make it more competent, you will actually be able to LOWER its passive bonuses, substituting them with better abilities to solve the planetary hex minigame (right now I always tear down everything on conquered planets and build anew, because I just can't look at it), better invasion planning, better trade, etc. I feel that the AI should have access to all the tools and mechanics that the player has. Otherwise I feel like I'm the cheater.

Basilisk83,

Autotargeting is important to keep turn times low.  Giving players that much control over battles dramatically increases the time it takes to get through each battle.  If the player is willing to take that time to fight each battle individually, they will perform better against the A.I., the A.I. will need to be improved to fight these battles, and now players that don't want to choose targets now have to because if they don't, the A.I. will sweep them.  I think the better solution is to clearly state to the player in what order ship classes will target, as well as making the targets intuitive.

Example: Fighter vs Bomber class ( Think F-18 vs A-10 or X-wing vs Y-wing)

The fighter should in theory be designated as a way to destroy other smaller enemy ships like other fighters or bombers, but they are less effective against frigates, cruisers, or battleships.  It would make sense for fighters to target smaller ships like fighters, bombers, and gunships before they go after larger ships.

Bombers on the other hand are good at punching through heavily armored large ships because they carry larger payloads.  They are slower, and less effective against smaller ships such as fighters as they are unable to outmaneuver them, and their munitions often travel slower.  It would make sense to make bombers target larger ships first before trying to fire at smaller ships.

This brings me to my second point, how do you portray this in Gal Civ?

As you've mentioned, you can do this through modules.  Making changes to how the weapon types work.  Changing variables such as range, power, fire rate, critical hits, accuracy.  The problem is many players utilize the auto generated ships, and don't want to fight their way through the ship designer.  On top of that, the A.I. needs to be able to generate useful fleets to combat the player. 

I think the simplest and best way to show the difference between classes is to give them buffs and nerfs against other classes.  Giving 200% attack bonus to fighters against other fighters, bombers, and other small classes makes a fighter distinct from a bomber without increasing the difficulty for the players who don't use the ship designer, and makes ship and fleet creation about the same level of difficulty for the A.I.

The A.I. can combat the player by looking at the makeup of the players fleets, and building ships that are strong against whatever classes the player is building.

I don't consider it a fun game if I steamroll the A.I. and vice-versa.  A fun game is when the A.I. made meaningful decisions and it led to a close match. Even if I lost.  I lost a war once in GC III where I was forced into full retreat losing all of my main planets and my home world.  I stayed alive by conquering the guy below me.  One of the best games I ever had.

With the holiday break I'll only be able to answer these piece meal so no mega messages.

With regards to fleet battle distances, we internally do have a meters distance between them.  So then it's just a matter of deciding what the numbers are and then iterating until we get the feel we want.

The ship class (not the weapon type) will determine range.  I know that lots of people would like to see weapon range based on the type of weapon and not the class, but I think it'll get too confusing for players given the scale of the game.  Therefore, the class of the ship will determine the weapon range.

Now, I assume people have played previous GalCiv games so most of this is going to play out pretty similarly to previous games.

Re combat rolling: It's literally the attack of all weapons being rolled.

Now as for when damage gets played, I know we've played around with this in the past.  We generally let, in a given round, let all ships fire that are elible to fire that round. 

Since the ship class determines range, the only thing that determines what weapon is firing that round is whether it is that weapon's turn to fire.  Where we will have to play around with things is terms of determining damage since, as mentioned earlier, different weapons fire at different rates.

When it comes to combat, the biggest gripe I've had is that that the mechanics are opaque.  For example, if a ship has 2 potential targets, who will they fire at first?  If a fighter only has 1 target it will fire whatever that is first.

The reason we've always made it opaque (and like I said, I don't like it but I don't like the alternative) is that if you make it too obvious who fires at what in what order we will end up in an endless cycle of having to plug exploits.  As a practical matter, one should assume that if a ship has 3 targets, it will randomly choose (even if that's not the "smartest" thing to do).  Because you get into a very slippery slope to people wanting total control over every tactical battle.  Just assume your admirals are "good" but not "great".

Thanks for taking time during the holidays to answer questions!  Glad to hear numbers will be adjusted until they look good.

Personally, I'm good with limiting weapon range to ship class.  Makes sense for larger ships to have longer range than smaller ships.  It should also solve the fleet splitting problem I mentioned.

I think the random targeting is the best way to go.  Makes battles a little more interesting.

If I would change one thing about targeting I would make all ships that fall in a certain class lumped together as possible targets.

Example: If I have four fighters, but one of them is a different type, all four would be possible targets, rather than 3 and 1.  I've had elite ships in GC III get wiped out in the first round of firing because they stood out from all of the other ships despite being the same hull and role.

I think letting players know in what order they can expect their ships to set targets will be plenty. Hopefully it'll be somewhat intuitive based on the class.  Currently ship roles are just too opaque.  I usually just use interceptor or assault because I have an idea what those do.  I've tried other styles, but usually end up with the split fleet problem.

Please provide documentation.

I would be happy to help document!

I have played the game many times, and there are still things I don't understand.

This is really good news! To keep it short, my main questions are these:

- Will there be some changes on how the AI makes fleets? My main "annoyance" with the game is the AI sending small after small fleet, filling the game tiles with lots of units, with the combat becoming too much of a pope-a-mole instead of fleet-vs-fleet fights.

- Will there be some tweaks on how colony upgrades work? Especially them being permanent. Many were quite situational, and many times I didn't pick any waiting for the resource gathering ones to unlock. I believe that a cooldown or heavy cost increase for switching them can work better. Also it would be nice for resource gathering to be possible from the get go the same as capitals, especially since you can "cheat" by assigning a governor, building the extractor, and removing the governor. The process is more of annoyance than a true limit, and I think it would be nice to invest in extractors early on on small planets.

Thanks, and I can't wait to give the game another try after these changes

Its great to see combat, invasion and ideology get an overhaul, I also feel diplomacy could do with some attention.

Currently the diplomacy screen shows you the civ's friends and enemies but it doesn't show any info about their trading partners, this would useful if you wanted to use the trade embargo treaty.

Also I think it would be nice some additional options in terms of demands you can make of the other civs such as removing starbases  from within your sphere of influence or hand over colonies/core worlds within your influence (perhaps diplomatic capital could be used here.

Or perhaps a system where grievances can be triggered and they can either converted into demands or denounced in favor of diplomatic capital (Humankind's grievance system is quite good as an example, however it is also tied to a war score system which I recognize might not suit Gal Civ 4).

Also alliances in Gal Civ 4 feel like they are too shallow and provide no benefit outside of the alliance victory, it would be good to see them fleshed out more and given extra depth.

As I said above its great that combat and invasion are getting an overhaul but I think the more peaceful paths to victory should also get some love.

I actually tend to agree with you regarding the ideology system, I don't believe it is broken.  It works and is understandable, I just included it as Brad plans on reworking it as he himself isn't happy with its current state.  

Also agree the faction system is not hugely useful (effectively its a dumping ground for your excess leaders late game).  

Was playing a game last night where I managed to get alliances with both civs in my sector.  It took a good bit of effort and it just felt so anticlimactic whether its part of the upcoming update/expansion or not I really feel diplomacy in general needs more depth.

Love it! Excited to see what you guys come up with!

When worlds are colonized, it's not really massive cityscapes.  Those don't develop for decades if not centuries.  Instead it's a few habitable buildings that are very vulnerable to an attack from space.  A single ship targeting life support systems would be absolutely devastating for a colony and lead to a quick surrender.  That being said, Draginol mentioned they are planning on giving planets seige ratings to reduce single ships taking control of planet.

As explained above, damage is rolled between 1 to the actual combat rating.  If my ship has damage equal to 15. It actually does damage between 1 to 15.  Average of 7.  This can lead to frustrating losses, and surprising wins.

Unfortunately we're trained to always believe the estimated outcome.  If the computer tells us we'll win, we expect to win.  We almost always prefer to pick fights where the computer guarantees victory.  If we lose because of bad rolls, we are frustrated because we were told we would win. 

If you want an example of this, think about Risk where you have 10-30 troops vs 1 enemy troop.  You are pretty much guaranteed to win.  However there is an incredibly small chance they will manage to roll above you every time and somehow come out on top.  This can happen as well in GC4 because the system generates damage randomly.