I could absolutely go for that -- in fact, it makes an awful lot of sense (both in earth-based naval battles and theoretical sci-fi battles... the whole "loser gets utterly wiped out" thing just doesn't happen that often).

The problem would be implementation --- does it make battles 'tactical' rather than just watch and enjoy? I.e., would I watch the first salvo knock out 1/3 of my fleet and decide to flee on the spot? Would it be random? Or would it be pre-programmed that a ship/fleet flees when a battle is obviously hopeless?

I don't particularly like the Civ system, I prefer having my combat be a little more dynamic. But I can support the whole mutual survival mechanic: perhaps each combat consists of only a set number of volleys (I suggest 5), and then instead of Victory or Defeat, we get a Draw result showing how badly each side was mauled? Only problem: I can see planetary defense ships being built with all defenses and no weapons to force the enemy to take weeks and weeks shooting them down before they can land transports: obvious solution is to have planetary defense fleets only work against transports if they actually have some kind of weapon on them. . . or even allowing a transport that survives that five-round combat drop its troops. i can see players building huge-hulled troop transports with massive armor and barrelling through enemy defense fleets now. . . hmmmm, more contemplation is needed.

Agreed. The combat model needs to be more intuitive and make sense in general.

Hi!

In my games that almost never happened, because I used well-defended ships with proper defenses for my current enemy. My gripe with DL was the loss of a superiorily-defended super-expensive huge ship losing to a bunch of all-attack mediums, because my ship rolled some bad defensive rolls. At the end I adapted to using big fleets of properly-defended ships, in order to destroy opponent's ships ASAP to lower the damage to my ships.


We have 3 weapon and 3 defense types instead. But I too would like to see some more important role for smaller hulls, even after bigger hulls are common.

BR, Iztok

Oh, I absolutely agree. I almost made this observation in my first post. I think its because the AI uses way points, and then auto fleets and auto attacks. Not a lot of strategy level code needs to be written to do this... but it is a brute force blunt approach with serious weaknesses. Fixing it... well, fixing it is almost certainly a problem for the next game.


Here here. I'm on board with you here as well. The reason I spoke up is because at this point the combat IS balanced as a stand alone system. Making changes to it to help the AI will have the inevitable effect of unbalancing the system. Which, in the long run will not help the AI, it will just give the player a new set of "optimal" ways to approach combat.


And this still works very much in DA, on the medium fighter level. See, at the Huge level there are only 5 ships you are talking about, every combination is easy to figure out. Combat is very all or nothing. At the medium fighter level, attrition is a fact of life (unlike with huge hulls) BUT you can significantly reduce attrition with matching defense. RPS of weapon types plays out perfectly. More logistics = more fighters = higher attack power = even less attrition. If there was only one size of ship (medium) this combat system is... spectacular. There are trade offs in different weapon and defense types, only so much space on each ship, and research strategy actually effects overall wars. Sadly...

The medium fighter level is almost never hit. The AI sticks with small and tiny hulls for too long, and when it DOES decide to go up in level it goes all the way to the top. Huge hulls are incredible against fleets of smaller craft, so the player is also motivated to move past the med fighter level and go straight to the capital ships.

Personally, and I know this will sound like crazy talk, but the solution I would like is only 1 capital ship per fleet - an additional restriction apart from their logistics cost. In this system, individual suicide capital ships lose their lustor, they are not taking out 3 enemy cap ships (and giving the player an attrition advantage). All defense huge hull ships are not going to kick out much damage, and will still lose to (large) fleets of enemy fighters. All offense huge hulls are going to knock each other out and be targeted first.

I know, I know, adding restrictions to the game typically just limits play styles. But I have thought about this and I think that would solve most of the current endgame problems. Tiny ships are still situational at best. And I'm not exactly sure how to balance large hulls (you don't want to turn the game into a bunch of fleets with 1 huge and all larges, that will lead to the same problems and further erosion of effective defense). But if you limit the player too much all fleets will look the same.

On the other hand, already all fleets look the same. 5 huge hulls. The thing I like the MOST about this is it is not only the best combat option, it comes with the least micromanagement. But obviously it has its weaknesses, chief amoung them being that the AI does not optimize its play for the current system.

As to your suggested solutions:

The better solution, but highly unlikely given the amount this would entail for Stardock. And lets be honest, 1.7 sounds great, but they DO have a new game coming out, and new projects they want to be spending their time on. I've been a programmer, I know how it is. At some point, you need to let old projects lie, warts and all.


Sadly, I don't really agree with you here. I liked the old model. But I like the dependability of the new model. The new system really enhances certain tactical and ship designing decisions in a way the old one did not. I like my capital ship knocking out several fighters in a round. I like that large fleets with weak weapons can wear away and do damage to moderately armored enemies (like you see at the med fighter level). The problem with the new system is also one of its coolest features. Huge hulls. And powerful capital ships are sweet. Problem is, they are all that exists.

Again, just my opinion.
~ Wyndstar

Don't talk about the civ combat system! hehehehe it is so funny to watch a knight manage to defeat a tank with it's little sword waving around.

Obviously it is not possible for a person with a sword to defeat a tank so yea, the combat system in civ3/4 is basically just a funny joke as far as i am concearned.

hahaha

That is about as funny as watching news reports of terrorists training soldiers. There they are holding a gun and crawling under barbed wire etc etc, when what they should be teaching them is how to use radar and then run realy realy fast when they detect planes coming!

It has nothing to do with Graphics, but just the simple realities of combat. Obviously if you want to defeat a tank in combat, you need some kind of weapon to penetrate its armour, and a sword is definately not one of them! Such units shouuld be unable to inflict damage on tanks in civ games, just so it is a bit more realistic.

Hi!

Ermmm, the icon on the screen is the only thing that diferentiates that unit from some other one, without checking its stats. Following your argumentation would mean all chess pieces could look equal. Ever played Stratego?

If the game is an open-information game, the icon on the screen simply must represent unit's correct value. When unit is upgraded, its icon also needs to change, to represent its new value, at least after I had a new scan/look on it. So if swordsmen now wield bazookas, I want their icon change to anti-tank infantry.

BR, iztok

An even worse parallel...I have lost undamaged Stealth Bombers and Battleships to Phlanax units. Given that they haven't been upgraded to a higher technology with some form of ranged weapon like musket men (who I still will not buy for stealth bombers...I want to see a flying unit of something that might remotely have AA) and even assuming an "elite" version of a Phlanax this is a completely ridiculous situation.

In a strategic melieu, with turns representing years or months, no TACTICAL technique/outcome is guaranteed; indeed discussion of whether the accepted battle field tactics of the lower tech unit will stand up to the higher tech unit on a conventional battlefield are meaningless. At the micro level, way below what the game is simulating, it is only going to happen maybe one or two times; then the lower tech force is going to find other means to resist/attack. Witness current Iraq; witness Finland. No tank is immune to a spearman if the night before the tankers plan to fight, 50 spearman martyrs sneak into their camp, smash the crews heads with rocks, and set the fuel on fire. But the game isn't simulating that, either, it is simply simulating that, over the course of a very long turn, there are options for lighter forces vs heavier forces.

drrider

I suggest looking at how well Polish horse cavalry did against German tanks before World War II before we start talking about asymmetrical warfare.