Turn based tactical battles that may please most or all

sneakerback1

Join Date 03/2006

Turn based tactical battles that may please most or all

Turn based tactical battles that may please most or all.

I think a good tactical battle would involve turn based 3D environment like the map environment in GCII. Logistics would still be in play, so that would help keep the number of ship down that could be in a battle. And like logistics you could research systematization, it would work similar to logistics but work within battles. So if ten ships enter a battle and you researched "echelon systematization II" then you would have 3 ships out of ten that can move and fire per turn, which could give advantages and disadvantages. With research you could be limited to 1 or 6 ships moving per battle turn or what ever your research level is at. One turn could consist of attacker and defender adjusting shields to front, sides, rear or what have you (like Star Fleet I - The War Begins! (I think it was that version)) . Then targeting ships and/or its components, and which square to move to and fire. Then pressing the next battle turn button for the next battle turn.

To elaborate on this a little more...

I'll be using the same 3 out of ten ships per turn example scenario for attacker and defender, of course this would change depending on research.

On entering a 3D environment battle mode the attacker would go on the attack first (this means "could" get the first shot depending on experience, and defender can only respond to the 3 ships that are attacking) and may have an advantage as described later. Now these 3 ships could be moved selecting pre designed formations or user controlled, or both (which ever works better). In pre designed formations a variety of formations would be available to select from, default would be (that is if you did not select anything for formations and moves) AI would choose best formation and squares to move to. Then adjusting shields or leaving it to the AI to adjust. Then you could choose ships and/or components to attack and/or attempt boarding a ship (if boarding is in GCIII), default again would be AI would choose best ships and/or components to attack or board. So on default you could be hitting next battle turn button until battle is resolved without getting involved, and you could intervene at the beginning of any battle turn if you felt it necessary, of course all this can be bypassed as described later. After selecting all your options or just hitting the next battle turn button, up to 3 ships from attacker and defender ( that is if both attacker and defender have the "echelon systematization II" researched) would go into action.

Depending on defenders experience they may have a response delay, so if a defenders ship had a response delay of 2 because of experience, that ship would have to wait 2 movement point before it could fire any weapons. On the next battle turn those ships that moved would have an icon signifying they can't move this battle turn, and up to 3 more ships can move and/ or fire weapons on this turn, this would carry on like this until battle is resolved. There could also be an option on the battle screen to skip to end of battle which you would just watch the battle play out similar to the way GCII does it now. Of course there would be an option in the options menu to skip the battle screen mode altogether. So the battle could play out in a part RTS (meaning you cant intervene in RTS part of the turn) and TBS. In this way I think it could please all or most of the different tastes that are out there that people have. It would have RTS and TBS, you could just control formations (maybe even player pre designed formations) or micro manage weapon firing, you can get involved in some of, or all of, or none of the battle turns. If you had 5 ships per battle turn to move you could control 2 ships and let the AI control the rest. So you decide how involved you want to get

Locked Post

Advanced Search

Watch this post

Do not email me updates for this post Email me updates for this post

Successfully updated karma reason!

If you want to autoresolve something, you have to simulate the combat in some way. The problem is then on which data will this autoresolve be based. If its based on the abilities of a average gamer it would be not accurate for a experienced gamer, nor accurate for an inexperienced one. If it's based on a experienced gamer it would be the same, etc.

So the autoresolve would need to be differently for different skills of players to be accurate. You can, of course, say that it doesn't need to be very accurate, but in this case autoresolve wouldn't be a real alternative to playing the battles yourself.

Yeah I agree. TC has advantages and disadvantages, but you can only take the whole package so in the end its only the question what you rate higher, the pros or the cons.
I don't think an inexperienced player has problems with autoresolve though. Because he's a shitty player he will always hit autoresolve, for him the battle system would be equal to the current system, lay back and whatch the battle unfold. Who cares if the battle represents the players skills in that case.
And for the case of experienced players: For an experienced player the autoresolve is no good option, true. It doesn't matter how good you make the ai, there will always be players being better than the autoresolver.
But honestly, it would make abselutely no sense to create an TC that perfectly represents the players skills. What do you have TC for ? Of course so you can play your unique battle styles, find great tactics and new possibities to succes. If you had an autoresolver which would do all this the same as good or even better than the human, why would you even try to fight battles on your own than? br/>
TC isn't made anyhow to hit autoresolve. When you implement TC than for the reason because it's fun, and than you don't want to hit autoresolve. TC is a core element of the game which is meant to be played, not to be skipped. Autoresolve is for mini battles and for situations where the outcome of the battle is clear.
You still can make TC optional, anyone disabling it though will have to expect a drawback in battle efficiency though. If the TC is well done this drawback should be relativly little though. This is the nature of TC, take it or leave it.

One more thing: Don't let all these fairness and ai concerns blind you. If you'd really want a 100% fair video game, the only game you could play is chess. NO Videogame else can REALLY cope with an human player, therefore no game is fair. Exactly in that moment when you let the Game automate actions or let the ai "think" you have already created an unfair game. So don't you let yourself be blinded by this 100%-fairness-desire, you might just miss many fun things, because a prejudiced mind is truly blind.
The ai isn't as smart as an human, at least not yet, just accept this and don't let that always be an argument to dismiss fun things, it is just natural for today's videogames. All you can do is try to make the ai as much as a challange as possable to the human, more not.
By the way, I'm sure everybody would cry around on these forums if the ai of GC2 was equal or smarter than your own brains.
"Stardock, Help!!! This game is more intelligent than me!!, make the ai more stupid please!!!"

@Vandenburg I'm not calling you prejudiced, you have good and valid arguments. I'm talking in a more general way.

Successfully updated karma reason!

If you want to autoresolve something, you have to simulate the combat in some way. The problem is then on which data will this autoresolve be based. If its based on the abilities of a average gamer it would be not accurate for a experienced gamer, nor accurate for an inexperienced one. If it's based on a experienced gamer it would be the same, etc.

The level of quality should reflect the level the player is using during the game.
simple tactics for cakewalk plaayers and complex multilayered tactics with advanced kick ass analysis for the suicidal mob.

Successfully updated karma reason!

"So how do you tweak the simulated outcomes of an autoresolve to the real world outcome of the player playing the tactical battle for himself?

When you have a simplistic system, it's not that hard to simulate it accurately since the options avaible to the player for winning the battle (or at least for losing it in a agreeable way) are quite limited. The more complex the system the more options and possibilities arrise, some being better or not and, depending on the skill of the player, being used or not."

Every single thing we do can be broken down into a series of short actions and The Tak systems will just be a model created to simulate the behaviour. If other developers can create enhanced physics engines with a super high polygon count. then isn't it conceivable that a model can be created to simulate a decent battle sequence? I think so.

"Add to that the fact that there is currently (and as it looks like wont be in the next decade) an AI that will be able to beat the human player on equal opportunities. This get worse the more complex any given game gets. Famous example is the Total War series in which an experienced player was able to beat the AI with quite big disadvantages in numbers and troop quality which made your actual progress on the world map quite unimportant. (From Shogun over Medieval to Rome, the AI didn't improve a lot (it was even worse in Rome than in Shogun) and was never a match for the player. On a slightly unrelated note, I've had and still have the original Shogun table top game when the pc game came out. )"

Do not be too sure about that particular statement. First it was graphics and realism, then recently physics was the most important issue. I think the spotlight will be switching to Ai fairly soon and when it does...Revolution! Things are moving in the right direction for us. Are you sure about shogun TW? I remember it has having a very decent tak AI. I was never able to win when seriously outnumbered, but the poor strategic side let the game down. And it was Tabletop? wow.

The thing is the, only REAL Issue is whether or not a decent tak system can be built. Again I say, yeah it can. With the right balancing of scripting and open choices for the AI.... Also the Strategic AI needs a boost aswell, so Tak gets a chance. Whats the point of the AI being good at Tak if their ships are way behind on the Power level...

As for why I use Tak and occasionally taktic? Its from stephen kings desperation. Its from an alien language where the tak sound is used a lot. The race of beings are very violent and their host bodies soon fall apart. Tak sounds good. felt right too.

BTW sorry about the poor presentation. I am unable to use quotes at the moment. And Its bugging me. Anyone have any ideas on this. The new system is not very good.

Successfully updated karma reason!