They're picking on your spelling.

I honestly don't remember weather being an issue!

Good thing you pointed that out Evil, I would have never picked up on it. Especially since it was a typo. C-l-i-m-a-c-t-i-c. See I can spell.

Globe Trotter Algebra

Must be the new version of "Fuzzy Math".   

Hi,

So, here's how I'd do it.

0) When creating or modifying a fleet, each ship may be freely designated as one of three types: Escort, Warship and Non-combat. (Currently, all ships are grouped together.) A lone ship of any type is always considered a fleet containing a single Escort.

1) Each individual weapon is resolved separately:
a) An opposing Escort is targeted at random. If the enemy has no Escorts, a Warship is targeted at random. If the enemy has no Escorts or Warships, a Non-Combat ship is targeted at random instead.
The chance of a successful attack is equal to (Attacker's Weapon Strength)/(Attacker's Weapon Strength + Defender's Defense Strength + Defender's Hit Points).
c) A successful attack destroys the defender.
d) A failed attack does no appreciable damage.

2) A round of combat proceeds in three phases:
Escort Phase) All Escort ships on both sides fire their weapons. Each weapon attack is resolved independently, as described above, even if the ship has been destroyed during this phase.
Warship Phase) All Warships on both sides fire their eapons. Each weapon attack is resolved independently, as described above, even if the ship has been destroyed during this phase.
Non-Combat Phase) All Non-Combat ships that have no friendly Escorts or Warships in the same fleet fire their weapons. Each weapon attack is resolved independently, as described above, even if the ship has been destroyed during this phase.

3) Once space combat is initiated, it will continue, round after round, until one fleet is completely destroyed.

4) When a ship is destroyed, the race that owned the ship receives a number of BCs equal to a percentage of the ship's production cost (*not* BC cost). That percentage is equal to the race's Repair Rate.

Notes:

Ship combat is all or nothing. Hit points represent a ship's basic defensive capability rather than ablative damage. A single weapon with a high attack value acts differently from a battery of weapons with low attack values. Defense value is determined the same way (Full value of appropriate defense plus square root of first inappropriate defense plus square root of other inappropriate defense), but hit points add directly to this. Defenses become especially valuable, since weapons do not stack, though good defense never renders a ship completely invulnerable.

Fleet design involves tactical tradeoffs. Escort ships are completely vulnerable but are guaranteed to fire, even in the round they are destroyed. Warships cannot be targeted until all the Escorts are gone, but can be swarmed by enemy Escorts and destroyed before having a chance to fire, since the Warship phase comes after the Escort phase. Non-combat ships have even greater protection, but do not get to fire at all unless they are the only ships remaining on their side; this is not usually a great restriction, since these ships tend to have no weapons.


Anyway,

Ken

Good ideas Ken, but probably better suited to table top gaming if you ask me. I think there's just a little too much going on in your proposal to be considered feasible, but I could be wrong. Just giving my two cents worth.

1 I like expensive upgrades, ships don't last forever. Sell your old ships to your friends.

2 Mod the starbase HP to make them tougher. Can you do that, like with ships?

3 I like the current combat system. If anything it is biased toward the player in that a competent player's ships are always going to be better optimized against his chosen opponent than the AI, who makes an educated guess based on possible opponents.

4 Crazy talk.

@Ken:

But what if i play Giant growth and give my creature +3/+3 until end of turn? Oh, what? This isn't magic the gathering? Sorry, got lost in the complex rules.

All joking aside, there are a couple things I don't particularly care for about that system:

1) Repair is rendered completely useless. Yes, it is addressed by repair rate, but does not exactly reflect what repair does... at all. It also gives no strategical advantage to remove your damaged ships from a fleet to have them go repair. I know things aren't "damaged" now, but you're removing tactics from the game, not adding more.

2) Although it does address the odds issue, I can quickly see that this will turn into everyone making All-escort fleets with All-attack. Yes, my ships have a higher chance of dying... if my opponent gets to fire... but they have a tremendous chance at killing and will have lower logistics so they can be stacked in higher numbers.

3) Each individual weapon resolving differently gives me no incentive to research really high weapons. Say I'm fighting a ship with 20 hp and 5 laser defense ability, and have the choice between putting 2 psy beams or 8 phasors. The 2 psy beams have 12 attack would have a 12/37 chance each, totaling a 24/37 chance. The phasors (i think it's 3 off the top of my head, can't remember but this is to give them equal total attack strength) have a 3/28 chance each, totaling 24/28 chance. Not to mention the fact that the phasors have 8 potential kill shots, while the psy beams only have 2.

4) AFAIK experience of a ship also increases it's chance for a critical hit. Experience, besides the one meager hp point it gains, is now pretty useless

5) the proper defense will completely run away with the game on huge warships. I would only need one high attack weapon, and could stack defenses like crazy to make hp look like chump change. If i have 400 defense points allocated properly (easy for all D), even a weapon with something as high as 40 damage only has a 40/500, or 2/25 chance of killing me. This would also argue again for stacking small weapons, because you're going to want as many rolls as possible going up against low percentage situation like this.

6) That's an incredibly radical change

Although it's a cool system that has some thought behind it, I don't think you thought it through.

A failed attack does no appreciable damage.

So what you are saying is, you either hit, or you miss? There is no wounding? No other type of damage? Either you destroy it or miss. Hmmm, not liking the sound of that. My reason for this is a simple one. If I attack a fleet with another fleet and lose, then follow up the same turn with my back up fleet, the remaining ships that survived the first attack in the enemy fleet, would be fresh. Which makes no sense. The ships would have to repair damage, reload weapons, and may even have some of the crew compliment injured or killed due to the initial attack.

When a ship is destroyed, the race that owned the ship receives a number of BCs equal to a percentage of the ship's production cost (*not* BC cost). That percentage is equal to the race's Repair Rate.

Why? They lost their ships, in essence they lost that particular part of space as well, so they would not be able to recover anything useful in any short amount of time. If anything they should be charged credits for the burial of the crew, monuments they build in remembrance of said crew, so on and so forth.

Overall I like the ideas you have presented but it seems to be a bit complicated and way off the code already used within GalCiv2.

They're picking on your spelling. I honestly don't remember weather being an issue! Good thing you pointed that out Evil, I would have never picked up on it. Especially since it was a typo. C-l-i-m-a-c-t-i-c. See I can spell.

Sorry, Quixen, just a joke!

This would also argue again for stacking small weapons, because you're going to want as many rolls as possible going up against low percentage situation like this.

Maybe it's just the roll system that is wrong? Logically, the % should be in some form related to the damage the weapon does, so that high damage weapons have higher chances for crits. I think this is a basic assumption.

Maybe it's just the roll system that is wrong? Logically, the % should be in some form related to the damage the weapon does, so that high damage weapons have higher chances for crits. I think this is a basic assumption.

I don't think you read the post I was replying to very well... there are no crits in his system, just kill or miss
Even though it's like cryptic D+D rules

Actually I did. When I said crits actually I was refering to a critical hit that would make the ship explode. If a ship explodes from a single normally non-lethal hit, that's gotta be a crit, correct?
I wasn't really expressing my opinion on any of the systems. Individual weapons resolved separately is logical, and the chance for a "concussion" explosion should be proportional to weapon damage. All or nothing, that's not a good idea though, but the current system is far from being perfect too. The rock-scissors-paper thing is so basic to the point of almost being childish IMO.

So,

I notice that one poster said that my proposed system is flawed because defense would obviously run away with the game, and another that swarms of all-attack escorts are the way to go. *grin* This sort of "consenus" suggests that my system might have something to it.

On to some specific issues.

1) Complexity: What I proposed really isn't very complex at all. However, I described *all of it* in sufficient detail for a programmer to just code it, as though from a design spec. (I didn't spec out a UI for fleet composition, but some straightforward implementations come to mind. There's also some AI work needed, because forming and reforming fleets on the fly becomes incredibly useful; that's less straightforward.) In some ways, this system is more straightforward. For example, a player doesn't need to think too hard to figure out which ship in his fleet will be attacked first.

2) No incentive to research good weapons: Hmm. An example was given comparing Phasors to Psyonic Beams, suggesting that Phasors are better in my system. So. A Phasor is size 7+4%hs and a Psyonic Beam is size 8+4%. In the example provided, it is suggested that a ship can either contain 8 Phasors or 2 Psyonic Beams--which is clearly not the case. The ratio is close to 1:1, although the PB ship will cost much more--as it should.

3) Fleets of all-attack, all Escorts are the way to go: I think said fleet will not enjoy an encounter with a fleet of Escorts with some defenses protecting Warships with all attacks. In the proposed system, defenses are *good*.

4) Defense will run away with the game on large warships: This, from the same poster who suggested #3! Defenses *should* be good. Here again, however, I believe that determining the optimal ship is not simple. First, low-tech weapons are not efficient for size compared to more advanced versions; you cannot fit 2 Phasors into the same space as 1 Subspace Blaster! Second, a ship that loads up on all defenses and only a single weapon is not necessarily going to do well against a ship that is slightly less well-defended but has a second weapon of the same kind. Third, battles involve fleets, which might do well to contain ships of different kinds.

5) Fleets ought to be damaged after a combat: Why? The timescale of GalCiv is so vague anyway. Does anyone really consider each game turn to be a week? Maybe the ships were repaired between combats. As for attacking a damaged fleet, that fleet will probably have lost ships from the previous combat, weakening it. And, if it did not, maybe the initial attack was a mistake! Swarming advanced ships with neolithic canoes becomes less useful; you might get lucky but are more likely just to scratch the paint. Keeping up with technology matters more. Finally, the AI isn't very good at dealing with being swarmed, or at swarming; reseting damage between combats ameliorates this. And more than finally, tracking and swapping out damaged ships gets really, really tedious.

6) Realism: Hmmm. Realism. Sort of like the one where in the course of a few weeks, billions of taxpayers appear on newly colonized planets. Or the way I can upgrade a ship that's in the middle of nowhere. And if my version of repair is unrealistic, then what about overhauling a ship in the middle of nowhere, and for no expense? Or sending the money or insight for an anomaly found on the other side of the galaxy back home (where the bonus is assimilated and put to use all in a single week)? Or loading two billion people onto a single ship, sending it to an enemy planet a sector away, training them as soldiers to get a bonus, killing their enemies to the very last child and then resettling the planet, all within the week? ;/

7) Rigorous analysis: I haven't crunched the numbers in detail.


===

A Variant:

Kill hitpoints entirely, leaving the rest of my proposed system intact. However, any ship other than a cargo ship can take a number of weapon hits equal to its logistics cost before being destroyed. Experience applies to a ship's attack and defense, not hit points.

Under this variant, repair rate might do one or both of the following:

a) At the beginning of each round of fleet combat, every damaged but undestroyed ship has a chance to recover one level of damage. That chance is equal to the repair rate.

Rather than having damaged ships emerge from combat unscathed, a ship has a chance to regain one level of damage each turn based on its repair rate. (I still prefer damage to reset fully between combats.)

Hmm. I think I like this variant, with repair rate as (a), as much as my original. Hull size now acts differently from ship defense. Building ships with only attack is obviously a bad idea except on the smallest ships.



Anyway,

Ken

I notice that one poster said that my proposed system is flawed because defense would obviously run away with the game, and another that swarms of all-attack escorts are the way to go. *grin*

Nope, same poster idiot, try reading what's there and not what you want to hear.

) Defense will run away with the game on large warships: This, from the same poster who suggested #3! Defenses *should* be good.

But then acknowledges it? I think i initially gave your intelligence too much credit.

you cannot fit 2 Phasors into the same space as 1 Subspace Blaster!

not always about size. It's about $. Especially when you can't *save* your *damaged* ships.

) Fleets ought to be damaged after a combat: Why?

That one speaks for itself. If not, allow me to punch you in the face and see if you're damaged after combat.

And more than finally, tracking and swapping out damaged ships gets really, really tedious.

And the truth comes out. "I want my radical system change that would cause lots of work for the developers because I, myself, am lazy"

p.s. don't make a 'variant' when everyone shoots down your original idea. We were being polite at first, but you had to go and follow up with a page-load of stupid spooge.

Sorry, Quixen, just a joke!

CornhuskerMac, I can take a joke sir! This joke however, went clean over my head. I did not even know you were joking about the spelling until Evil pointed it out. I seriously thought you were bringing weather into the fray, hence the post about the weather. So that made your joke not only funny, but quite halarious!

As for Kens last post... My eyes hurt.

4) AFAIK experience of a ship also increases it's chance for a critical hit. Experience, besides the one meager hp point it gains, is now pretty useless

That is not true, see this thread:
https://forums.galciv2.com/?forumid=346&aid=132232&p=2

reply 53

Experience only increases hitpoints

Now that I have had ample time to rest my eyes, I will explore Kens last post.

Complexity: What I proposed really isn't very complex at all.

Simply put, what you proposed may not be all that complex but it is vastly different than what the game relies upon, in the way of combat, as of now. Therefore, the "complexities" of trying to add this system over the existing system are far greater than you may realize.

For example, a player doesn't need to think too hard to figure out which ship in his fleet will be attacked first.

It really is not all that difficult figuring that out as it stands. However, a bit of thought is a good thing. I find in my games that if I even question the result of the battle, I tend not attack. I am the type of player that loves to overwhelm my enemy with Tech.

The timescale of GalCiv is so vague anyway. Does anyone really consider each game turn to be a week?

Again I must disagree, it clearly states the game time between turns is a week. It even gives exact day, month and year. How is that vague and why would you not consider it a week if that is what it says?

Fleets ought to be damaged after a combat: Why?

So what you are saying is, you either hit, or you miss? There is no other types of damage? Either you destroy it or miss. Not a good idea. If I attack a fleet with another fleet and lose, then follow up the same turn with my back up fleet, the remaining ships that survived the first attack in the enemy fleet, would be fresh. Which makes no sense.

The ships would have to repair damage, reload / recharge weapons, repair damaged weapon systems, sensors, engines, life support, and may even have some of the crew compliment injured or killed due to the initial attack. As a commander my second fleet would be within striking distance of the first fleet, a few hours (at most) away. Not a week. Which should give the second fleet an advantage. To have ships never taking any type of accumulating damage is weak at best.

tracking and swapping out damaged ships gets really, really tedious.

This is the job of the Fleet Admiral, which in the case of this game, is your job. The better you handle this the better your chances of surviving. This is one of the Tactical strategies the game allows you to use. You should covet this, not shun it.

I think for your original idea (post #27) Evil and n0v4k4n3 described it best...

But what if i play Giant growth and give my creature +3/+3 until end of turn?

better suited to table top gaming

One last question. I see you revised your rules to include damage to ships but to a really small degree. What exactly do you have against the current damage system?

Just my overall opinion sir.

So what you are saying is, you either hit, or you miss? There is no other types of damage? Either you destroy it or miss. Not a good idea.

Hmm, it is *space* combat, so he is to some degree correct. A hit is usually a very bad thing, most probably fatal - doesn´t actually have to make the ship explode or kill the pilot, just has to disable the vessel in a way it can't be recovered. Much like submarines, it's mostly hit or miss.

This is the job of the Fleet Admiral, which in the case of this game, is your job. The better you handle this the better your chances of surviving. This is one of the Tactical strategies the game allows you to use. You should covet this, not shun it.

Actually, your job is to be the Emperor, not the FA. You don't really need a FA since the game doesn't have a-not-to-be-mentioned feature


Some people here should keep away from the keyboard, or at least from a forum called Game Talk, if they can't keep it civil.
(point defense ready to take on the incoming fla... plasma bolts - but wait, PD shooting down energy emissions?! )

n0v4k4n3,

I find you impolite to the point of barbarity.

I have no problem with disagreement, even boisterous and vehement. You went beyond that, using vitriol and insult to "make your point."

I would like to believe that no one from Stardock has been reading this thread, because I have seen no indication that you have been warned to behave civilly or face banishment from these forums.


Anyway,

Ken

n0v4k4n3, I find you impolite to the point of barbarity.

a-not-to-be-mentioned feature

Yes! I know this one! can I say it?

n0v4k4n3, I find you impolite

I agree, please keep it civil! It's my post, respect my authority!

I find you impolite to the point of barbarity.

Now why can't I get compliments like that?