sneakerback1 sneakerback1

Turn based tactical battles that may please most or all

▼

Turn based tactical battles that may please most or all

from GalCiv2 Forums
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
28,981 views 53 replies
Reply #26 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Turn based tactical? YICHHHH! I'd rather have no combat at all


Who said you had to play tactical?
Reply #27 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Sneaker I think my point was that you have two strong opinions for or against tactical one side being against anything resembling tactical another side wishing something more. What you are proposing is something to please both camps which is a very tall or neigh impossible task.

And while your suggestion was a valid one, A game which is strategic, tactical and both 100% turn based takes us 15-20 years back in time to the KOEI produced games. Which I grew up with and loved but you don't see me running to install my Nobunagas Ambition and Romance of the 3 Kingdoms..

While you said you hated anything resembling RTS or Rome:TW you could use your own advice and turn combat off.. Even turning off tactical battles could give the same options Rome contained: Flee, Fight, Surrender etc Or even better a more updated set of options..

Lastly, turn based combat is slower than real time. And given how often you're in combat; this penalizes an aggressive player.
Start11 - Customize the Start Menu and Taskbar in Windows 10/11.
Reply #28 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I really have no interest in tactical combat for GC. I hope GCIII will have an option to turn it off. While it would be entertaining, it is really not the focus of GC. I might use the tactical combat from time to time in close battles, but most of the time, I'd prefer to let the computer play it out.
Reply #29 from GalCiv2 Forums Top

I seriously doubt that your form of tactical battles will please all. Since there are a good few people that would only be happy with tactical battles set to zero.


I am 1 of them.
Reply #30 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
100% turn based takes us 15-20 years back in time


Civ IV is 100% turn based. In fact even GCII is 100% turn based, so why not stick to turn based?



Sneaker I think my point was that you have two strong opinions for or against tactical one side being against anything resembling tactical another side wishing something more.


Then I did understand you, my point is that I believe there is at lest three camps, the other being turn based, going by the threads in here and other forums.



but you don't see me running to install my Nobunagas Ambition and Romance of the 3 Kingdoms..


I did play my old games until someone burnt down my house 3 years ago, I'm 45 and I bought my first computer when I was 19, and believe it or not but my first computer (Atari 400) is still working to this day, gave it to my son which gave it to his son. The graphics in some of the games back in the Atari 1040st days would even stand up to today, some of the games really had amazing graphics. But honestly I don't see what all that has to do with anything, they still make platform games and their almost as old as the computer itself. And some of the games made today are built upon the games of yesterday. To me games are very similar to games of yesteryear only they have added 3D, maybe more options and a little more in-depth, but the basic foundation is the same. For me in many ways GCII or GCI are very similar to MOO, You know go out explore, conquer type of thing, just a little change here and a little change there. So old formulas aren't bad, they are still used today.



While you said you hated anything resembling RTS or Rome:TW you could use your own advice and turn combat off..


Now what would be the point in that? I would not have tactical battles, and I'm one of those that want Tactical battles.



Lastly, turn based combat is not fast at all given how often you're hit in combat it would penalize an aggressive player.


Neither is RT combat. R:TW combat goes on forever, and feels like it goes on forever. And your constantly having to pause the game because your men are stuck somewhere, or even worse they take off in some direction you did not send them in, and get slaughtered, oh ya that's fun (just a little jab there). So again it comes down to taste. You could make a game that either pleases this camp or that, but you will always be leaving one out. But if you could please all camps and make it work then your in business. Maybe all it takes is a different way of thinking, not saying you will please everyone, but maybe you'll grab a bigger chunk.
Reply #31 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I'm wishing in GC3 you could pick RTS Tactical or TBS tactical and you choose which you want to use or not use it at all during game setup. that would make everyone happy.

1. TBS like Moo with it's extremly simple mechanics, move, shoot, move, shoot.

2. RTS Conquest Frontier Wars.

3. Not use Tac Combat.

NOW THAT would make everyone happy.

PS REALLY getting irritated by the GalCiv1 fanboys who don't want it.
Tired of hearing this: "Brad has given his views on TC, and it's irritating hearing the same old over and over again."

Next person that says that is getting flamed by 30 Master Of Orion fans.
Reply #32 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Can we get past "I don't like TB combat", "gee I hope they put in an option to turn it off", "I hope their not going to put in TB battles in GCII or GCIII" This post is not about whether you like it or not, it's not about whether they should put it in or not. It is about if they are going to put it in then what would you like it to be, and to discuss what would be the best way to put all those ideas together to make it work. I'm beginning to think some of these post are automated.

Someone mentioned that their not going to put in TB battles in GCIII, maybe their not, but then why have a poll? They must be at lest considering it for GCIII or maybe another similar game.
Reply #33 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I'm wishing in GC3 you could pick RTS Tactical or TBS tactical and you choose which you want to use or not use it at all during game setup. that would make everyone happy.

1. TBS like Moo with it's extremly simple mechanics, move, shoot, move, shoot.

2. RTS Conquest Frontier Wars.

3. Not use Tac Combat.

NOW THAT would make everyone happy.


Thank you S1Genocide, good input.
Reply #34 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Doesn't anyone want something maybe a little different then the same old same old. There are parts of TB battle like in MOO2 that did not work. Part of it was in some cases it was to easy to wipe out the other side (I guess this is a problem with all games to one degree or another), and for some, did not like the micro management. RT battles has it's flaws to, things like baby-sitting all your units, and that feeling of the clock is ticking got to click mouse, how fast can you go.

So maybe there is a better way of doing it.

I would prefer MOO2 type battles if done better, but I realize there is also the RTS fans. The non Tactical fans seem like a simple salutation to me, option not to have it. The problem I see is satisfying both the TB and the RT fans. I know for myself the one thing I like about RT is the life-like animation. So my suggestion was to have the life-like animation with a sped up TB. It's probably unlikely that they will make both TB and RT combat in one game. So I was looking for some way to marry the both, or maybe something completely different all together, else one camp will be left out.
Reply #35 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Sneakerback 1: Of course Stardock is considering tak combat for Galciv3. In another thread, Frogboy said he even voted for it in the poll. Don't let the No Tak Kombat Klub blow smoke up your ass. For some reason they all have hard-ons against tak combat. Their arguments usually go in one of two directions: 1. Stardock isn't capable of coding a tactical AI good enough to challenge them [which is rubbish] or 2. any time spent on coding tactical combat isn't time spent working on something they would rather have [which is just plain selfish].

Stardock gave us a list of preferences to vote on and all you have to do to see the results is look at the poll. The people have spoken!

Now to your original post: Your proposal looks like a good one. Stardock will have many different ideas to draw on for tactical combat in Galciv3. And I certainly hope that there is an auto-resolve button included so that some of the cry-babies on this forum can skip the fun that only tak combat can deliver.
Reply #36 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Of course Stardock is considering tak combat for Galciv3. In another thread, Frogboy said he even voted for it in the poll.


Yes I read that thread, Amen. And yes I agree, that's what the poll says "Which feature in a GalCiv III would you want the most? ", I was just try to make a point with that comment I made, but thanks I really appreciate the time you took to encourage me.

1. Stardock isn't capable of coding a tactical AI good enough to challenge them [which is rubbish] or 2. any time spent on coding tactical combat isn't time spent working on something they would rather have [which is just plain selfish].


Yes, I have noticed that as well. I agree those arguments don't hold water, and I feel are a bit insualting towards SD. But whatcha going to do?
Reply #37 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Who said you had to play tactical?


I just wouldn't but the game (if it had turn based tactical)
Reply #38 from GalCiv2 Forums Top

I just wouldn't but the game (if it had turn based tactical)


Liar liar pants on fire! you'd buy shit in a brown bag if it had stardocks name on it....
Reply #39 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Liar liar pants on fire! you'd buy shit in a brown bag if it had stardocks name on it....


NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
Reply #40 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I would like to see tactical combat added to a GalCiv game. However I envision it more as a chess match. When you combine your ships into a fleet you would also choose a formation. This formation would be automatically used when your fleet enters combat. Another option would be to have a setup phase before you actually entered combat. Once you enter combat your ships would be placed on an 8X8 or 8X10 "chess board". The order of play would be attacker moves one ship, then defender moves one ship and each ship would have movement points (mp) according to their size (i.e. 4 mp for a tiny ship and 1 for large or larger).

The reason I prefer a "chess" like TB combat is because chess AI has been around for decades and has proven to be very challenging and the ship design in it's current form wouldn't need to be radically changed.
Reply #41 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Guys they are not going to make a game that is incredibly deep strategically, and incredibly deep tactically, it simply doesn't happen.

ROME TW was pretty simple above the tactical level, and was crippled by an AI that simply sucked at tactical fights. You think Stardock has the resources to make a game where you can ignore 50% of it and it will still be fun?

ROME TW was a joke if you auto resolved.
Reply #42 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
ROME TW was a joke if you auto resolved.


GCII auto resolves now as it is.
Reply #43 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Kingmaker: " Guys they are not .... blah blah blah. " Another poster 100% sure of what stardock is and isn't capable of. Sheesh!
Reply #44 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
ships would be placed on an 8X8 or 8X10 "chess board"


Good idea, though it has been done before to a certain degree in a colonization type game can't remember the name now something like Kingdoms or something. Battles were resolved by placing infantry, cavalry and canons on a grid and you moved one man at a time, or I think you moved one man at a time, it's been a long time now. In some ways it wasn't bad but it just didn't have the feel of a battle, though I do remember it had the feeling of a chess game, which isn't bad, but I'm guessing many would want it to feel like a battle, and the AI in that game was not to good. But if there was some way you could use part of that idea and still make it feel like a battle then you may have something there.
Reply #45 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
GCII auto resolves now as it is.



Frankly, there would be a big difference. The current autosolve is quite accurate enough because the current system is simple enough. But if the system would be changed in complexity to something just a tiny bit like homeworld tactical combat (for example) an accurate autosolve would be nearly impossible.
Reply #46 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
But if the system would be changed in complexity to something just a tiny bit like homeworld tactical combat (for example) an accurate autosolve would be nearly impossible.


Well one thing it does not have to be like Homeworld tactical combat, I don't believe RT is the way to go, but then it doesn't matter what I think... I'm not making the game. And two if there was an option for no tactical combat the system would not have to follow the tactical combat system to a tee, because tactical combat would not come into play. Three we don't know how deep or simple of a tactical combat SD is thinking of.
Reply #47 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Of course Stardock is considering tak combat for Galciv3. In another thread, Frogboy said he even voted for it in the poll.


Of course. But when talking about Galciv2, TC is the incarnation of evil and hence we don't need it.

It's a *completely* different matter when talking about Galciv3 of course... Even though chances are it will have 99% similarly to Galciv 2.

Just as race design and ship design is evil in Galciv1....
Reply #48 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
. Once you enter combat your ships would be placed on an 8X8 or 8X10 "chess board". The order of play would be attacker moves one ship, then defender moves one ship and each ship would have movement points (mp) according to their size


Its a nice idea with some real tacical depth, but the acual battle would take too long and for once i agree with the no takkers. There needs to be more fluidity. The battle ground itself needs to be larger, this would give us space to form complex manoeuvres like pincer movements and enclosures . Also, depending on he region of space i'd like destructible terrain such as space debris and asteroids and whatnot. This would mean hiding places. If we were in the operational region of military starbases there should be an analogue for that which fires at the opposing team. I like to think that smaller ships are more manoeuverable than larger ships, so small ships move first from attacker, then the defender ships and so on. The attacker still gets a bonus but its not as much as if all ships went and had a go. And importantly this is quicker than one ship at a time.

Guys they are not going to make a game that is incredibly deep strategically, and incredibly deep tactically, it simply doesn't happen.


And why not? Where in the rulebook for developing turn based strategy games does it say this? Nowhere thats where. Its true that this has never really occured with any game to date with regards to turn based games, yet, but its only a matter of time. All it needs is for some set of developers to really, really want it to happen and then make it happen. The stratgic element of GC2 is improving steadily, the people at stardock really give a shit and love their work. Maybe stardock is that set of developers and maybe GC3 will be that game. Never say never.

But if the system would be changed in complexity to something just a tiny bit like homeworld tactical combat (for example) an accurate autosolve would be nearly impossible.


GC3 is at least a couple of years away, I'm betting that advances in the game industry and the skills of stardocks dev team will be sufficient to cope with the increased level of complexity.

And two if there was an option for no tactical combat the system would not have to follow the tactical combat system to a tee, because tactical combat would not come into play. Three we don't know how deep or simple of a tactical combat SD is thinking of.


Apparently the choice to play a tak game will be in the pre game option screen. Im hoping for a decently balanced tak system where its not too complex but with plenty of options for the players. don't want to scare the new set of noobs too much...

Of course. But when talking about Galciv2, TC is the incarnation of evil and hence we don't need it.

It's a *completely* different matter when talking about Galciv3 of course... Even though chances are it will have 99% similarly to Galciv 2.

Just as race design and ship design is evil in Galciv1....


Angry again mate? I might be inclined to agree with you if you decreased your percentage to about 75 . To be fair though GC2 is fairly different from its predessessor, okay its got the same races, but its got customisation, miniturization and ...er (help me here someone) oh yeah planetary systems and planet tiles with bonuses and we can choose and customise races. It is a steady progression, I admit, but it is not something that we should really be derogatory about, call it evolution or whatever. Every company does it to some degree or another. How different is Ninja gaiden from ninja gaiden black? They were practically the same game. At least with gc2 there are definite improvements.
Reply #49 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
GC3 is at least a couple of years away, I'm betting that advances in the game industry and the skills of stardocks dev team will be sufficient to cope with the increased level of complexity.


Not necessarly, since this is an inherit problem of any autoresolve system.

The problem as I see it is the following.

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.

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.


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. )

Also while cheating and/or boni can be used in the normal game to make it harder for experienced players, that would nearly be impossible and/or at least be inaccetable to have in a tactical combat.


All this makes it quite hard to do a satisfying tactical combat for the game. I wouldn't be satisfied of a simplistic MoO3 move and shoot system, nor a quite complex Total War like system with it's useless autoresolve and weak tactical battle AI.

Tactical combat should be an enhancement, and not the main point of the game and it also shouldn't be the way to win by microing all your important battles and winning the game even though your enemy has a quite large advantage but is to stupid to use its troop right in a complex tactical battle. (Emphasis on the tactical battle AI which is quite harder to make a good one then making a good strategic AI.)

If it's implemented correctly it could improve the game a lot. But if not it could wreck the game, at least if it's activated in the game options, since it would be optional, thanks to Brads: "More power to the gamers!" motto.


Well, that's how I see this discussion about tactical combar or not. Not that somebody cares.


Btw. FROOKIE, what that with always writing tactical, tactic, tac, etc. with a k instead of a c? Is there some deeper meaning in that?
Reply #50 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
All this makes it quite hard to do a satisfying tactical combat for the game. I wouldn't be satisfied of a simplistic MoO3 move and shoot system, nor a quite complex Total War like system with it's useless autoresolve and weak tactical battle AI.

Tactical combat should be an enhancement, and not the main point of the game and it also shouldn't be the way to win by microing all your important battles and winning the game even though your enemy has a quite large advantage but is to stupid to use its troop right in a complex tactical battle.


And that's why I suggested what I did in the OP.

You could still input what weapons to fire on which targets and ship components and so forth and so forth..., but both attacker and defender are resolved at the same time. This way you can have that epic atmosphere of a 3D battle, and see you weapons fire where you commanded them to fire and so forth as you would do in a RTS game but with more depth if you wish, yet also have some of that feel of a turn based combat. Also defense could have slightly different commands, like attempt to face enemy for a smaller profile with all shield power redirected and focused to the front, but it will be the AI playing it out. Sort of like... or a lot like auto-resolve, yet tactical because you could have a lot of input. Also with what I suggested you could have 8 ships pitted against 6 ships, but because of experience points in tactics and formations and the like... you may only be able to move one ship at a time or 5 ships at a time, this can add to a more difficult AI opponent, because you could set a race to have tactics and formations points as a natural ability setting.

This would also solve the problem of the unfairness of the attacker always going first, but as I suggested in OP, attacker could still possibly get an advantage. So with this system it can help to make the game as challenging or easy as one likes.