Search

Forum Home | Login

Den of Earth

Join Date 09/2006

0

Weapons - Field of Fire

Basically, the idea would be to assign fields of fire to weapons, restricing them to certain directions based on weapon type, placement and possibly special weapon mounts. It would add an element of strategy in placing weapons in the ship designer. Also, battles would be more interesting to watch, as ships maneuver to bring weapons to bear, or avoid enemy fire. Ships would have a maneuverability rating based on hull size, with some tech based modifiers like "inertial dampeners" of StarTrek yore.

Perhaps this may not be realistic considering the programming challenges to implement such an idea, but would certainly add a lot to the game.

ideas

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!

Such things may be possible in a tactical battle system depending on how detailed it was made (tac is under consideration for GC3). But as GC2 simply crunches the numbers and shows you a pretty scene to illustrate the results, there's really no way to add any sort of special things like that in the current system.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I've always thought that, often ships would fire through their own hulls to get a shot in, so something like this would be nice in GC3

Successfully updated karma reason!

Such things may be possible in a tactical battle system depending on how detailed it was made (tac is under consideration for GC3). But as GC2 simply crunches the numbers and shows you a pretty scene to illustrate the results, there's really no way to add any sort of special things like that in the current system.

Thanks for your consideration of my idea. I didn't expect it to be possible to add to GC2 but it would be great to see GC3. Btw, the current system IS very nice, much better than just seeing a numeric representation of the battle.

I bet the programmers wouldn't care much for the idea...

Successfully updated karma reason!

For my 2¢

Its neat seeing the glory and 3d battles and all, but in the end is is 100% eye candy with no real representation of actual goings on, just we get to see the numbers being crunched.

That said, I would like to see a bit more control, but not down to the Moo2 level (that was insanity). Here are my silly ideas for a game thats likely several years away...LOL

Free camera (with presets of course) but I want a much larger starfield/battlefield area, with complete freedown to move and pan around to watch things.

Tactical control should be limited to the types of ordered a fleet commander would make. Issuing large broad orders easily (target the dreadnaughts, Close, try to outflank etc), and have specific orders to specific ships also avalable. Battles should be a bit slower, to allow for real time control, and still keep them reasonable in length.

On the 'field of fire' idea, its a fun idea, but implementation is very difficult. To make it mean anything you also must have armore/shields covering certain areas (for/aft/port/starboard) and program the heck out of the AI to avoid explots.

Good luck

Successfully updated karma reason!

Nah... the field of fire merely would mean you could fire the guns in that area, and cover approaches at the specified angles. What's that have to do with armor and shield protection covering certain areas? Didn't matter so much in MoO2, and the fire arc feature (along with the weapon mount sizes) did a decent job, I think. I tended to use Extended Forward Arcs, though, with a rare 360 turret. I preferred the flexibility. Meant I could turn my starboard or port shields to the enemy if my forward shields were about to go down, but still bring to bear full firepower. The 360 tended to be handled by missiles/torpedoes, as they came as full-cover weapons, instead of needing to be modded into such.

.. unless you mean the defence thing like I gave an example of, where my forward shields were failing, and I have to turn my ship so my starboard or port shields are facing the enemy instead, both of which would still be stable and capable of taking the hits.

I figure fighters would have to almost always have forward-arc weapons. Exceptions to this would be craft such as the Terran Confederacy's A-17D Broadsword Heavy Bomber, which has forward guns as well as aft, port, and starboard neutron gun turrets. A bomber, I suppose, would be the exception to the rule...

Successfully updated karma reason!

Such things may be possible in a tactical battle system depending on how detailed it was made (tac is under consideration for GC3). But as GC2 simply crunches the numbers and shows you a pretty scene to illustrate the results, there's really no way to add any sort of special things like that in the current system

I do not believe that this is true.
Why shouldn't it be possible to crunch numbers for, say, a battle of my lasers with shieldpiercing enhancement against a high (but only standard) laser defense?
Why shouldn't it be possible to crunch numbers for, say, a battle where my boarding troops have a certain probability to conquer an enemy ship (if engine hit for example)?

These elements do not necessarily require tactical combat IMO, but they would add a lot more fun to ship design in any case.
In the end, it's all about numbers!

At the current state, I see it like this (and find it quite boring):

GC2 Ship Design = pure eye candy + take the best weapon there is
REAL Ship Design = eye candy + strategic choice of weapons/devices

...my 0,02 Euros

Successfully updated karma reason!

I agree that it might fit in well with tactical combat in GC3, but not in GC2. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Why confuse the AI with a feature that doesn't really add much to the present system?

For GC3 though, it could be fun, like carriers (also not a good idea for GC2). Larger ships with large turning times assisted by smaller ships that are more maneouverable, make for more interesting fleets. The more manouverable your ships, the more you can concentrate your firepower into one arc. Remember though, that the more complicated it gets, the more tricky it'll be to make the AI use it properly. You need a good balance of depth, fun, complexity, and ease-of-use.

Successfully updated karma reason!

this would be splendid idea coupled with 3d space. not much use in having manouverable ship when it get blocked by a behemoth and has to go around it instead over or beneath it.
also, you'd have to monitor condition of each ship, that would track what's destroyed, which vector you opened, where's the enemy vulnerable.
add directional shielding and armor, lot of combat support thingies and you have combat simulator where tactis would really come to play.
I would buy such a game regardless of price.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.

There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting and posting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!

Sign in or Create Account

View all recent posts

Mark all posts as read Delete cookies created by the forum Return to Top

Stardock Forums v Server Load Time: Page Render Time:

About us | Contacts | Privacy Statement | Register

©1995-2025 Stardock Entertainment. Galactic Civilizations is a registered trademark of Stardock Entertainment. Steam and the Steam logo are trademarks and/or registered trademarks of Valve Corporation in the U.S. and/or other countries. Bank Gothic is a trademark of MyFonts and may be registered in certain jurisdictions. All rights reserved.