Ship Combat in GalCiv2

Okay, this is going to show my background as a wargame geek, but here it goes.

There are generally two kinds of combat simulation models usually applied to something that can be extended to the kind of thing being played at by GalCiv2 ship combat.
First there is the "tank combat" hard-target (armored, unlike say a truck) point-target (as opposed to an area effect like against a dispersed target like an infantry unit) model.

Here essentially you check for a projectile to hit the target and if it hits you check to see if it penetrates or defeats the armor. But usually any hit which penetrates results in a kill. This would apply to space combat if you presumed that the ships were small relative to the damage caused and/or the need to contain an atmosphere aboard the ship results in explosive decompression when the target's defenses are compromised.

GalCiv2 essentially follows this model for small ships but for larger ones there seems to be an effect where the ships are large anough to soak up the damage and seal off compartments or whatever.

Which takes me to the second model...
The second model is naval combat, such as battleship gunfire. This is what you get normally where the target is a large enough vehicle that a single penetrating hit (even by a huge 18" AP shell weighing several hundred pounds) does not result in a kill such as it does for tank combat.

Now, here the norm has always been set by systems that use a target's displacement (hull size or hit points, hard to tell exactly but they seem to track roughly more or less) as a value against which to accumulate damage.

GalCiv2 kind of does this but interestingly does not carry it through in the way that most naval combat simulations do.

First off, there is the complication, seemingly unnecessary, of having both a hull size which you use to load modules and a separate but related hit points value (aside from armor defense). Partly, okay, this is to account for miniaturization.

Anyhow, the more critical difference is that most naval combat simulations apply the amount of damage taken, as a percentage of the displacement, to all areas of the ship's operation in and after the battle. So for instance speed, attack, defense, sensors, range, number of troops would all be affected by a percentage equal to the perentage of damage taken against the total hit points.

Some naval combat sims also allow for 'critical hits' that remove certain systems entirely like a particular weapon mount or engine or say a construction or mining module etc.

But the point is that in GalCiv2 ships which are sitting at 1hp (and very kewelly shown on the screen as smoking and sparking) are just as lethal in attack (and just as fast, etc, etc) as those at full strength. This is something that does not seem like a big deal to implement, especially if you ignored the 'critical hit' aspects. And I would argue that it would improve the game albeit making a bit of change to strategy.
As one more note...

Man those starship types are some brave dedicated poor sobs! They never flee.

It really seems odd to me that a fleet of ships which is faster than the enemy does not break off combat against an enemy which outguns them when they can outrun that enemy.

Unless the player does this by avoiding combat in the first place, but that provides the sensor range exceeds the enemy movement so no suprises happen, and the AI certainly does not seem to act this way in any case.
Anyway, maybe a "not gonna happen" but those are just my thoughts I decided to share based on my experience in things only tangentially related.
10,240 views 16 replies
Reply #1 Top
man how the heck do I (a) edit my posts, or (b) insert paragraph breaks? yes 18" shells are no doubt several _hundred_ pounds which is what I thought I typed. blah blah blah.
Reply #2 Top
There's an edit link if you click the Tools button at the top.
Reply #3 Top
hmmm... will not let you edit a reply, then? just the initial post? also how is it that everyone else seems able to add paragraph breaks and I can not?
Reply #4 Top
okay, sorry, just testing the 'advanced mode' for
's. nope the enter key still does not add one, let's see if the
when typed in does.
Reply #5 Top
and yes it does. very, very clunky (since the enter key does not generate a para break) but okay at least now I can do it. only in advanced mode tho? let;s try
there, did that do it?
Reply #6 Top
funny, also, that last post shows up with a edit link, but none of the others do, odd. btw yes the html tag works even when not in advanced mode, but weird the enter key does not generate the tag, maybe a conflict with the 'focus' for the enter key being set to the submit post button or something?
Reply #7 Top
okay, some moderator type can delete all my experiments, did not want to mess up the original post I made on this topic but had to see how the dang edit and break controls work, and now I have.
Reply #8 Top

Anyhow, the more critical difference is that most naval combat simulations apply the amount of damage taken, as a percentage of the displacement, to all areas of the ship's operation in and after the battle. So for instance speed, attack, defense, sensors, range, number of troops would all be affected by a percentage equal to the perentage of damage taken against the total hit points.

Some naval combat sims also allow for 'critical hits' that remove certain systems entirely like a particular weapon mount or engine or say a construction or mining module etc.

But the point is that in GalCiv2 ships which are sitting at 1hp (and very kewelly shown on the screen as smoking and sparking) are just as lethal in attack (and just as fast, etc, etc) as those at full strength. This is something that does not seem like a big deal to implement, especially if you ignored the 'critical hit' aspects. And I would argue that it would improve the game albeit making a bit of change to strategy.
End of quote


I agree that in terms of "realism," it might not make sense that a heavily damaged ship still has full attack power. But in my opinion, it's a simplification that's justified by the automated, pre-destined nature of combat in GalCiv.

If there was an across-the-board reduction in firepower as a ship is damaged, it might result in longer battles, and it could also change the balance of attack and defense you'd want for the ships. The devs (and most players?) seem happy with the current system, as far as balance goes. I like the way battles are resolved faster with ships retaining full firepower to the end. Real space combat probably wouldn't be a long, drawn-out affair.

If even more realistic, system-level damage was modeled -- say, one salvo might take out the engines, another might take out individual weapons, then the game would be adding tactical elements that we have no control over. It also adds some random elements, if the game is throwing a random number to determine whether the first crippled system is the engine, or a weapon. I don't think it's appropriate to add things like individual system-level damage that can change the tide of a battle, when the player (and AI) can't respond dynamically.

As long as the game doesn't include full tactical battles (which is a whole other argument that's been done elsewhere here), I think the focus should remain on battles being determined by comparing ship stats before the battle starts, and vastly simplifying everything that happens after that point.
Reply #9 Top
I think the reason why GalCiv falls into both categories of systems is because of the vast difference in hull sizes, HPs and space for modules. Add to this that modules and miniaturization change things radically as the game progresses and you get a very fluid environment. Such an environment needs a very stringent (reducing options) or robust system (capable of widely varying variables) to balance out.

The current system is, however, easier to use for the AI. In Dread Lords, you could happen on situations where you could build nigh indestructible ships but the AI can't recognize those. It just compares attack/defense/HP and if it likes the result, it'll go to war, unaware of the kicking it's going to get. Given the current system where attrition is far harder to avoid, the comparison is far more accurate. Ship combat becomes more like a Greek wrestling match (defending yourself is considered dishonorable) meaning the 'quality' of ships is more alike and therefore, so are the military points attached to them.
Reply #10 Top
I would not expect the 'critical hit' level of detail in a game like GalCiv2, only mentioned it for completeness sake. But I do think think reducing the stats (attack, defense, speed, range at least) makes sense within the system. Still not likely to happen, but hey I thought it would be interesting and a new thought for some folks to lay out the case for it.

Reply #11 Top
Anyhow, the more critical difference is that most naval combat simulations apply the amount of damage taken, as a percentage of the displacement, to all areas of the ship's operation in and after the battle. So for instance speed, attack, defense, sensors, range, number of troops would all be affected by a percentage equal to the perentage of damage taken against the total hit points.

Some naval combat sims also allow for 'critical hits' that remove certain systems entirely like a particular weapon mount or engine or say a construction or mining module etc.

But the point is that in GalCiv2 ships which are sitting at 1hp (and very kewelly shown on the screen as smoking and sparking) are just as lethal in attack (and just as fast, etc, etc) as those at full strength. This is something that does not seem like a big deal to implement, especially if you ignored the 'critical hit' aspects. And I would argue that it would improve the game albeit making a bit of change to strategy.
End of quote


Of course ships at 1 hp are as strong as those at full hp. Ships at 1 hp are as structurally sound(as far as systems are concerned) as those at full hp. They're held together by a "subspace field", or in more advanced cases, a "Q-Field". This field takes all the beating and provides the 'hitpoints' of a ship. But it does get degenerated with enough pounding and the hull eventually gets hit and destroyed when hp runs out.

Armor takes beating from mass driver slugs so the subspace/Q-field needn't be active while armor is still intact. Point defenses of course try to explode missiles before they get in damaging range, and shields try to dissipate beams similarly. Top-end weapons cause subspace/Q-fields significant trouble in holding the ship together by making some attempt to circumvent it(using black holes in case of the BHE and BHG, and multiple weapons to occupy the field and damage the hull in case of the Doom Ray). Psionic weaponry takes out the crew and puts the systems out of action using 'psionic pulses' along with normal weaponry to cause significantly extra damage than conventional versions of the weapon.

This babble of course, is pieced together from reading several tech descriptions on 'Research Complete' screens. :p

IMO, future versions of GC should adopt the Sins system of combat: small & tiny hulls count as 'strikecraft' which can't even be shot at by huge lumbering warships, but get torn to shreds by dedicated 'flak' systems on larger ships. The flak systems, however, are useless against large ships. The system of combat between mediums/large/huge ships should remain the same, but huge ships should be able to convert a significantly huge amount of experience into 'special abilities', like maybe a First Strike ability, fleet defense-projection, an ability to heal itself with the defense/hp modules from dead ships, or an ability to use one defense type equally effectively against all attack types.
Reply #12 Top
yeah, yeah, yeah, and you can say similar things about 'battleship' warfare, but at some point it was figured that silly things like crew fatalities and smoke and fire on board and water (atmosphere) damage would wind up degrading system operations ship-wide, enough so that almost every major naval combat sim uses a system akin to this (I think the originator of the idea was Fletcher-Pratt, not to be confused with Fischer-Price :)).

and, after all, the graphics _do_ show those ships spewing fire and smoke and sparks all over the place, clearly not entirely up to snuff.

also, this is really not an impact to combat performance on your PC since the ships (and each weapon mount) are already having all kinds of mods figured into them dynamically.

but, anyhow, not likely to happen just think it is reasonable.

Reply #13 Top
Actually, there is one other side effect that I think would be a great thing if you cut the stats as you took hits. Right now the combat system attacks the ship with the highest attack factor. Unfortunately, this means you only at most have one ship after a combat which is damaged. If you kept exactly the same targeting method and cut the stats as you got hit then the damage would be distributed throughout a fleet so after a battle odds are (except where one fleet is way superior of course) that every ship in the surviving fleet might have little scratches on it. That, to me, would have a better 'feel'. Personally I _like_ a game where ships are damaged and not all operating at full ability all the time.

Reply #14 Top
Actually, it might have more important effects than that. Consider a fleet of 10 small hulls pitted against one big hull. The small ships have 10 defense, 10 hp and 5 attack. The big ship has 100 defense, 100 hp and 50 attack.

Assuming everyone scores max on their rolls, the current system weights in favor of the big ship. It takes 50 damage on its defenses while it would wipe out two ships with some to spare.

If the ship was forced to spread its weapons fire over all enemies, fleet attack would be matched against fleet defense and small versus big would be even. Whether this is intended or not I'll leave out of the discussion.

As to your preference for systems damage; I don't think it would be feasible in the current system. Ships often get obliterated in a single attack so there's not much room or use for modelling the more intricate details of damage. ;)
Reply #15 Top
the systems modding by a percent is already modelled tho by all the bonuses etc so there really is not much more junking up that this would do. you may be right about the small versus big, it is hard for me to get my head around that still and you make no mention in your example about number of weapon mounts which is critical to a small versus large battle as I now understand it (but hey who knows if that is correct at all). In a one-round battle (assuming there are at least 10 weapon mounts on the big ship) the big ship still wins if each mount can kill a target, no real change there. And maybe it is actually more effective for the big ship to fire on and damage more targets than to overkill fewer targets, I dunno.

Reply #16 Top
Ive been thinking about this topic a lot lately myself. I did notice that the crew of these ships are very brave and there is now way to retreat when faced against the worest odds. I also think the targeting system is a big issue, as every ship targeting the same ship and being able to unload 100% of its weaponry and hit every round is something i think would be better represented by a randomized targeting system, maybe pre ship or per weapon.

all these are small issues to me, while the big issue is the HP of ships. i think its strange that you spend great effort into build ships that have 100s and 1000s of weaponry and battles come down more often than not to whoever attacks first is going to win. while this is strange, it wouldnt be such a big issue if the game was PvP, but the AI seems to only understand an all out strategy and will bring groups of fleets right up to you but not enough moment to attack and then you simply pick them off one by one.

to prevent this i gave ships HP numbers starting from 75 for tiny to 1400 for huge. its almost the same ratio of HP as the original 5 for tiny and 90 for huge. i then added a 4 points to size for every hull, and by keeping that number the same i thought it would be a bigger advantage to the smaller ships and compensate somewhat for the fact they are incredibly out numbered in hit points. i also raised the HP bonus for ship fortification mods.

the result has been satisfactory. now the stronger fleet almost always wins in a battle, no matter who attacks first. and to me its fun to see big ships that you pay for and put time into building sticking around and doing some real damage before biting the dust.