Idea: First strike, fast and slow weapons

Join Date 05/2006

Idea: First strike, fast and slow weapons

Just an idea came to my head. First strike does gives an advantage and it's good, it looks like real life. You may remember world war 2, when agressor's tanks or planes had very litle defence, since they had this "first strike" and were not supposed to be attacked.

But you can make first_strike weapons weaker than deffencive weapons. Imagine a beam weapon is fired as it is now ni 1.11 with first srtike, so let the missiles wich are usually slower have no first strike advantage but be twice efficient on the same tech level as the corresponding beam.

In this case we can select which kind of a ship we build. Deffencive should have shilds to overcome enemy's first strike and then definitelly destroy with more efficient "slow weapon". Or we build the attacker, fast and furious (and may be cheep?) but useless when defending.

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!

What a fantastic argument! Is it your own? Jeez, the ultimate argument used everywhere by the motley bunch under the banner of no tactical combat. No matter what change is made to any aspect of any thing in the whole world: an exploit is waiting to happen to it. Its pretty much a universal law. Exploitation is a fact of life, get used to it.

What? That was an introductory sentence, not my argument.

Have you ever played MOO3? That was a turn based game with tactical combat, and it the combat was just absolute cheese. I'm just tossing out ideas that I think of that I don't think would run the risk of making the game lame.

Successfully updated karma reason!

MOO3 was sheer unadulterated drivel. It was just about the worst game that i have purchased. I read the reviews and I refused to beleive them because I liked playing MOO2, which had tactical combat and was probably one of the most enjoyable games I have ever played alongside Alpha centauri and later civ3. I stopped playing moo3 after my first try as i could see that it was all true. One day, when I am old and decrepit I might try it one last time, but I have the feeling I might end up throwing a woolen slipper at the screen and give myself a hernia for my trouble.

Sorry Big Jim, that exploitation thing just makes me so mad sometimes

, I've re-read your piece and I like the battle options idea as a stopgap measure until Tak combat becomes a reality, I don't think Frogboy would have mentioned it if they weren't close to it - yup i'm fishing.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Yeah MOO3 sucked hard. Sad. For me personally, when I see ideas on changes to the game posted here, I often think, "Hey that's just what MOO3 tried to do. OH GOD NO." Some posters here have outlined ideas for espionage improvements that end up being exactly like MOO3, which also sucked and was worthless. I think change is really good, and tactical combat would be good, but Stardock, or whoever makes the next great game, definitely needs to think outside the box and make sure they don't make other's mistakes.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Sounds like you went in too deep into MOO3 before extricating yourself. I think it left scars man

But I'm completely in accord with you, I'd hate it if GC2 went the way of MOO3. But its also true that just because MOO3 failed to succeed at something it does not mean the GC2 has to do the same. GC2 is not a flawed behemoth of a game, and stardock is not whatever that other studio was.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I'd definately like to see more options in combat. The present "Rock, Paper, Sizzors" approach is just too limited and I have lost interest in playing the game at this point.

First Strike weapons would be great.
Long and Short Range weapons would be good.
Giving Sensors the ability to affect battle (1st strike or better to hit) would be awesome.
Let Sensors play a bigger role in the game... Minesweeping, Detect Stealth/Cloked, Fire 1st, etc
Adding Carriers and Fighters would be great.
Adding more weapon types and options, Compared to MOO2, GalCiv2 weapons are Kindergarden level.
Different Ship Designs such as Command & Control, Minesweepers, Cloaked Ships, Carriers, etc

For those people who want LESS in the game, make them an option to play at Pre-School level but PLEASE give the rest of us MORE. This is a Fantastic Game but I am getting urges to go play MOO2 or BOTF so I can get a taste of what I am missing.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Franco fx

Join Date 04/2003

+59

More than tactical I support any enhancements to the weapons systems that add complexity and the possibility of discovering new weapons/defense combinations that give an edge.

Things like early fire power that will cost you later and fleet combinations that make the whole greater than the sum of parts.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Real time" combat solves all the problems of first strike advantage, etc., etc. Now, if you add in what some of you are talking about ... more variety in weapon characteristics (firing rate, damage, etc), that would make it even better.

I understand it would not be in an update, but it certainly can be considered for a future expansion. Please DO consider it. GalCiv3 -DESERVES- "real time" combat. I also think that after seeing what Stardock has been able to do with the present AI they will likely be able to create a better "real time" combat system than anyone has to date.

NO RTS!! I can play other games for that. I LIKE it now.

First Strike weapons would be great.
Long and Short Range weapons would be good.

Adding Carriers and Fighters would be great.

This is a good idea. no rts plzzz!!

Successfully updated karma reason!

By tactical combat, we mean the ability to direct the the battle ship by ship. just like chess.

Thanks, Frookie! If that could be implemented it might give me some of the abilities I am hoping for in future fleet combat sequences.

Its a turn bases strategy game, and having realtime will negate some of the potential tactical combat options an turn based system can cater for: pincer movements, fighting wedges, flanking, to name a few. A free for all melee a la RTS is not something that should be promoted too heavily as some of the finesse will be lost.

I am very happy that this is a turn based game, and I like it. However, the fleet combat screen is not to my liking. I don't like the computer controlling my ships during the combat because it does not fight the way I would, and neither would I fight every battle the same. I would like to totally control my ships during fleet combat ... deciding which of my ships attack which of the enemy ships, etc. Total control is possible in 'real time' combat. I am NOT wanting the game to become an RTS ... only real time combat in the fleet combat screen. Neither do I want "a free for all melee".

I have played Rome: Total War which is a turn based strategy game with 'real time' combat. The combination works very well in that game, and you can do the things you mention (pincer movements, fighting wedges, flanking) and much more. In it you have total control of each of your units. The player controls whether a particular unit fitghts or stands and watches the battle, which units attack which enemy units, which units should run away, etc, etc.
However, if the 'tactical combat' will give me that same control I would be happy with it. It is just that I know 'real time' gives me the control I want while the 'tactical combat' is an unknown quantity to me.

Now, you might say to me to go back to Rome: Total War [grin], but I greatly favor space based games. I think Gal Civ is a great game, and I will likely continue to play it even is it stays as is.

Successfully updated karma reason!

NO RTS!! I can play other games for that. I LIKE it now.

TyrGodOfWar, I am not suggesting to turn the game into an RTS ... only 'real time' fleet combat screen. I like GalCiv as a turn based strategy game. If there is some method (other than 'real time') of combat where the player controls his own ships during fleet combat it might satisfy what I am hoping for. I just don't like the way the computer uses my ships during fleet combat. Right now we have total control during all except fleet combat where the computer controls both the enemy and my ships.

Wouldn't you like more control of your ships during the fleet combat sequences?

Successfully updated karma reason!

Even if you just had three options....

1) Normal All out Battle
2) Concentrate on Transport Ships
3) Defensive - Flee Combat if possible.

Battle should be of limited duration. A ship should have a chance to survive a battle and a chance to flee.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Classic military doctrine is to engage all targets with some sort of fire, even if it is just suppressing fire. Classic naval doctrine calls for engaging all enemy ships rather than concentrating fire on a few; being fired at keeps enemy accuracy down and keeps them from manuevering freely. Having multiple ships firing on the same target creates fire control problems since you can't tell who is doing the damage and what corrections to make.

A simple improvement would be to pair up ships from smallest to largest size, allowing any 'extras' to start a second line. This allows each ship in line to shoot / be shot at by its opposite number and allows smaller vessels to 'screen' bigger ones. The best part of this method is that it is automatic and requires no advanced thinking from the AI; it also rewards keeping smaller vessels in a fleet as a screen.

As an example, consider 3 small and 2 medium ships attacking 3 medium ships. The 3 small pair up against the 3 enemy mediums with 2 mediums in second line:

m s m
m s m
s m

The medium and the small fire at the first enemy medium; the 'screening' small takes the return fire. That's hard on the 'small boys', but that's what they're for. If ships die the line is reordered.

Will this be 'exploitable' in that you can pack some ships with defenses? Yes, if you can always guarantee the numbers will work out right, and if small ships can carry enough defenses to make it worthwhile. In practice, balanced designs will usually be superior to extremes.

The only other thing I can think of is to add 'critical hits' which would cause the recipient to miss a firing turn, lose firepower (or defense) points, or just blow up. Again, these don't need any changes in AI programming, but if critical hits were tied to the amount of damage done, they would encourage using defenses. Having high speed and great firepower sounds good, but as in the case of HMS Invincible, Queen Mary and Hood it is not always viable. If a critical hit could only occur if the damage was, say, double the defense points, and then happened randomly (say, on average once in twenty shots (5%)), that would add some chrome without adding to the AI's burden.

Having the option to retreat from combat sounds great, until you consider the likely effect: attack, fight one round, AI retreats. Advance 1 square, attack, fight one round, AI retreats. Rinse and repeat... no, thank you, none for me.

Successfully updated karma reason!

i would like to see some options for space combat much the same as their is for ground combat, but at the moment i dont have any real problems with space combat as it is now
i dont want tac combat .... and these are my reasons
ok well i do want it, who wouldnt, if it was done right, BUT, i dont think it would really add that much to the game and the time spent doing the programming would be better spent on other facets of the game
and of corse the big one, can/would the ai beable to cope with tac combat, because if it couldnt it would quickly turn the game into crap

ask yourself, do you really want tac combat or just a deeper combat system?

Successfully updated karma reason!

ask yourself, do you really want tac combat or just a deeper combat system?

I want tak combat AND a deeper combat system! What can I say I want more

Apart from the exuberant Kosty, has anyone had a go at the beta yet?

Successfully updated karma reason!