Idea: First strike, fast and slow weapons

Good post.

I think it would be better with more character in the weapons.
At present they are about as characterful as rock, paper and scissors.

In reality they are very very similar. Seldom is there any other consideration than "what is everyone else researching". Your suggestions would make a real difference.

How about as a varient, order of fire being made on type of weapon:
beam, projectile then missile but with the damage (and size) being greater on the latter categories.

This means that even if you choose to attack, if the opposition has faster weapons then THEY get first strike. That would make defence a necessity if you used missiles, as you'd nearly always have to face a beam volley when attacking.

I can see that this could lead to some very interesting new ideas on combat.

I like that idea- it means that a gang of fighters now has a more realistic chance of destroying a big ship without sheilds this will encourage interesting combinations.

No

at the moment the system is devised in such a awy so that u hav to choose the right weapon agianst the right enemy
adding more complications wud just 1/2 tak awy that idea however having weapons like a fast beam weapon, does little dmg wiv a fast fire rate, n aswell av a slow beam wepon, more dmg less fire rate, WOULD be a gd idea

stardock staff shud work on this

I disagree i would like the complex stratigies you need top use in a battle - sheilds would mean that first strike beam weapons wouldnt work and more developed battles would arise. i do agree that some weapons should be able to have different fire rates.

It all comes to one thing Fragboy would not like - we want tactical combat

But as idea it is , I think while it sounds nice it does not see how it fits current combat model.
I like the idea atacker having adventage only at first shot more.

I like some of the OP ideas but am also afraid this would create the need for control of single ships during battle ... maybe a petition to CA for "SPACE: Total War" helps ??

I agree, we need more tactical say in how we send our fleets into battle. Attacking the enemies weakest ship is stupid.

Yeah, lowering the threat the quickest way possible? pfft, whose idea was that?

So I will see you in the scrapyard sir!

Oh, I think first strike= bad. Attackers already get a bonus applied to ships. Weapons are fired at the same time. It's a good system.

There is no need to possess direct control of each ship durring combat. Hell, there isn't ANY need to have direct control of any ships. The weapons systems definitely need to be thought out and fleshed out more. Giving the player choices before combat would be an EXCELLENT addition. Such as How to attack/defend. Don't need to be any great number of them. Hell, a simple "bumper car" program would take care of most of it.

Stardock-

I believe the biggest problems are the weapons systems. We see 'em and expect to see at least SOME realism/reality/whatever in them. And there isn't any. I have no idea about the programming involved but I DO believe you should shove some serious effort into this department. Game feels, as like GC1, that it was pushed out too soon. Before it was finished. I'm hoping, nay I'm praying, that such IS the case. It appears that you are doing this and then raking in all the player requests and ideas for future products. I just hope to see a "finished" product sometime.

There is no need to possess direct control of each ship durring combat. Hell, there isn't ANY need to have direct control of any ships. The weapons systems definitely need to be thought out and fleshed out more. Giving the player choices before combat would be an EXCELLENT addition. Such as How to attack/defend. Don't need to be any great number of them. Hell, a simple "bumper car" program would take care of most of it.

Stardock-

I believe the biggest problems are the weapons systems. We see 'em and expect to see at least SOME realism/reality/whatever in them. And there isn't any. I have no idea about the programming involved but I DO believe you should shove some serious effort into this department. Game feels, as like GC1, that it was pushed out too soon. Before it was finished. I'm hoping, nay I'm praying, that such IS the case. It appears that you are doing this and then raking in all the player requests and ideas for future products. I just hope to see a "finished" product sometime.

Weapons fired at the first time is both good and bad. Double edged sword like everything else. I agree the defender should get some shots off in the first round but I don't agree with them getting a full powered shot. The attacker should get something for, well, attacking. Otherwise what's the point of making ships that can catch or out-run your enemies? If you both are gonna be able to rail on each other anyways well then screw it. All you'd hafta do is save some space by removing all but perhaps 1 engine, put on a lot of weapons and a lot of defense and then you'll once again be taking advantage of the AI.

Giving the player choices before combat would be an EXCELLENT addition.

Don't forget the AI: it must be able to handle the new feature in an intelligent way . And that means being able to design ships or launch attack knowing that a specific feature must be triggered when entering the combat.

If the AI can't handle it, then you are asking a new way to weaken the AI

Don't forget one problem in 1.11 for the AI: it doesn't grasp the value of being the attacker

The weapons would have to be completly reworked too. As it is now there would be no advantage to having tactical command since the only difference it would make is in the positioning of your ships. None of the weapons have minimum nor maximum attack ranges or any of those things necassary to create a tactical experience. To impliment this feature stardock would need to rework and rewrite so much of the game that just in terms of cost it wouldn't be worth it. It would almost be a whole new game. I know I wouldn't wanna be the guy to tell stardock they hafta work all summer long on something that most likly wouldn't work correctly anyway.... I mean.... need I cite MOO3?

Just bear in mind - regardless of the feature, any feature that requires more than a few hours of development/testing is not going to be in some update. It's going to be either expansion-only or in a sequel.

I am not going to commit to tactical combat or something similar in a sequel but I wouldn't rule it out. I am not against tactical combat, it is only that it would require immense AI work in order to have computer players that use it effectively.  I don't want people who hit "auto" to be at a disadvantage.

It would also require more sophisticated weapons -- range, targeting, initiative, firing rate, special weapons, etc. in order to be "fun" IMO.

One could picture a ship that fires an ion canon that damages an opponents targeting computer which makes their ability to hit decreased. Another ship that fires a weapon that damages the manuevering thrusters of another ship which slows down their combat speed. Another ship that has a mega canon that can only be fired once every 3 cycles and so forth.

THAT is what tactical combat would mean to me.  And it can be done but it needs good AI. I know people say "But MOO had it.." yea, and in MOO even amateur players could defeat armadas without much work because the AI wasn't set up to play effectively.  And even with the work I'd put in, there'd still likely be players who would find some perfect combination.

Can we have that stickied to try and stop the flow of "Tactical combat is so easy! zomg this game MUST have it!" threads?

Brad, I think we appreciate the effort involved in making a complex tactical system and the AI required. What about my idea of something as simple as letting the type of weapon determine order. Make beams fast but lower the punch at the top end of the tech tree. Then it would make some interesting choices but without a big re-write of how it all worked. (It is still one weapon per turn, same rules as now just the order is switched around.) (I know 1.2 has chosen the "everyone shoots" route but I'd prefer the ability to have quick and nimble vs slow and powerful).

Ah yes. Taking out entire armadas with just a few ships in MOO and MOO2 brings a misty gleam to my eye *sigh*

Frogboy-

So, I take it, that I shouldn't expect my pipe-dream to come true? LOL What if the combat was reworked for a multiplayer function? Would the AI work be as extensive and/or required? And can I have a job?

I have no idea about the manpower requirements needed for programming and such. Would you be able to give us some ideas?

Tactical combat is bad, mmmkay? I mean really, the weeks if not months of programming time spent on something like making tactical combat and an AI that players couldn't totally rape could be spent doing interesting things with say, every other facet of the game. AND tactical combat could make a long game about twice as long. AND I've noticed that the multiplayer crowd is also the crowd that wants tactical combat. SO... multiplayer tactical combat, eh? Yeah, let's completely change the game's focus and make a product that's just like every other crappy strategy game to come out in the last year or three. Somehow, I don't think Stardock is trying to be the other Firaxis. Anyone tried CIV III online? Manage to finish a game? I didn't think so. That said, diversity in the game effects of the weapon types would be awesome, as would special weapons. Another thought: Why not have a few global strategy options available? (1. Bum rush 2. Hang back at maximum range and take pot shots 3. Flanking or whatever) and have the special weapons play into those options? Granted, there is still some AI work involved, but it would really add a LOT of flavor to combat, and it couldn't be as bad as programming Tactical Combat.

Why not have a few global strategy options available? (1. Bum rush 2. Hang back at maximum range and take pot shots 3. Flanking or whatever) and have the special weapons play into those options?

Well that suppose having range for weapons. Currently the weapons have unlimited range in the combat

i have to say, as much as i'd like to see tactical combat ala MOO2, i'd have to agree that it would be a bad idea for this game, but the ideas of combat strategies and 'first strike' are both really nice and would add to the gameplay, one possible addition would be an 'artillery' type of weapon that could strike ships that are a parsec or two away, possibly a starbase module

Ah yes. Taking out entire armadas with just a few ships in MOO and MOO2 brings a misty gleam to my eye *sigh*

Aww, shucks! You've got me going now..*sniff*.

Yup, fighting was extremely gratifying in the old days before threedee, but we definitely settled for less.

I want it, you want it, even the people that say No want it - they just don't know it yet. Hell, even my imaginary friend wants it: don't you fred (fred nods emphatically). he doesnt talk much, but he knows what he wants.

One could picture a ship that fires an ion canon that damages an opponents targeting computer which makes their ability to hit decreased. Another ship that fires a weapon that damages the manuevering thrusters of another ship which slows down their combat speed. Another ship that has a mega canon that can only be fired once every 3 cycles and so forth.

Man, thats taking tactical combat to the next level. Love the way you think! Even if the final product of your dreams isn't close to being difficult enough to make auto resolve a definite alternative to fighting each battle: Having combat options such as these, and the plethora of others you've got up your sleeves, will add more to the game than detract from it.

It does sound like Brad has some ideas for possibly implementing tactical combat. I am glad to know this and would gladly pay $20 for an expansion containing this. From the posts on this thread I dare say many others would also like it. As one poster put it "tactical combat would add fun"!

To those who belong to the No Tak Kombat Klub [and everyone knows who you are], if this idea is ever implemented in an expansion feel free not to purchase it. The thousands of us personally controlling the war against those accursed Altarians won't miss you [oh, I might miss your whining just a little]. Seeya!

One could picture a ship that fires an ion canon that damages an opponents targeting computer which makes their ability to hit decreased. Another ship that fires a weapon that damages the manuevering thrusters of another ship which slows down their combat speed. Another ship that has a mega canon that can only be fired once every 3 cycles and so forth. Man, thats taking tactical combat to the next level. Love the way you think! Even if the final product of your dreams isn't close to being difficult enough to make auto resolve a definite alternative to fighting each battle: Having combat options such as these, and the plethora of others you've got up your sleeves, will add more to the game than detract from it.

Try StarWars: Empire At War!

I am not sure I understand what everyone means by "tactical combat", but I think the real solution for fleet combat in GalCiv is "real time" combat where I fully control my ships as to whether or not they attack, which of my ships attacks which of the enemy's ships, etc., etc.

"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.

I think that combat could be enriched without giving people more ways to exploit the AI. Weapons are already different stat-wise with a few sweet spot weapons that people use to beat up the AI, like nano-rippers. I would like to see the ability to set a fleet's agression style before battle. You could choose from the following selections in the manage fleet screen:
Battle: Like the standard fleets, it attacks the highest attack-to-defense ratio ship.
Strike/Attrition: Attacks the ships first with lowest defense and hitpoints first.
Assault: Attacks the biggest baddest ship first. The one with the most hitpoints and guns or the largest hull class.

I would say that unarmed and unarmored ships should always be attacked last since the escorts would make a point of engaging the attackers first.

I would also like to see a battle time limit implimented, especially now in 1.2 since battles can end in draws where both fleets are destroyed. I would say that after 10 or 20 rounds, ships should withdraw until next week. The only exploit I see for that is putting 1 attack 100 defense ships in orbit around planets, but retreat could force the losing unit to move one square, effectively moving it off the planet for the next turn.

I am not sure I understand what everyone means by "tactical combat",

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

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.

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 think that combat could be enriched without giving people more ways to exploit the AI

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.

In a world where everyone wants more, on these forums I keep seeing people who want less, who are happy with a shallow combat system, happy with the way things are and not liking it when things get changed. where every single idea or thought expressed by anyone is treated with contempt and trashed upon as soon as its posted. This is usually without any argument put forward - "Thats rubbish, get a life!" - while very expressive, its not exactly clever or usefull and all it will do is stem the tide if inventive ideas that seem to come not from veteran gamers, but usually from people who are new to strategy games and have a fresh perspective on things.

Rant over, but i am not sorry!

Help Noobs! They're our future!