Frogboy Frogboy

RTS Battle Mechanics and Ships

▼

RTS Battle Mechanics and Ships

Let's brain storm together!

from Sins Forums

By now some of you have probably realize just how much power you have in the beta process. That this isn't some late stage marketing excercise. We (you guys and us) are helping make a game together.

So let's talk about battle mechanics in space.  How do we make them more fun? What do we have to work with that will be intuitive from a strategic point of view and enjoyable to make use of?

Let's start with ships (in no order):

ASSUMPTION #1: Swarming is bad, combined arms is good.

In my opinion, we need more ships in the game. I also think that the FLEET should be the key building block of your strategy. That is, the player who utilizes "combined arms" with their fleets should be able to do vastly better than the player who is just swarming.

ASSUMPTION #2: Fleets should work together as a single combined arms fighting force

In most RTSs I play, I select several units, hit Ctrl-# and the units are grouped. I then right-click wherever and they scatter.  If I hold down the right keys, I can get them to move as a single force.

I think in Sins, it should be the opposite. A fleet should move together as a single formation by default. I should be able to put together the right mixture of ships to counter my opponent's strategy and be able to right click on the other fleet and let them fight it out while I go work on another battle elsewhere if I want (sure, I *can* micro manage the battle but I shouldn't get much, if any, advantage to doing it IMO).

ASSUMPTION #3: The fleet mechanics should be logical and require no explaining

What I mean is that I shouldn't have to look at the manual or some strategy site to figure out how to put together a good fleet or counter to an enemy fleet. 

This means we have to work with things that are obvious on screen when it comes to ships.  So what can differentiate different ships:

  1. How fast they move.  A battleship might pack a powerful punch but move and turn very slowly for instance.
  2. Rate of fire.  Some ships might shoot lots of wimpy but constant shots. Others might shoot less often but more devastating shots.
  3. Range. Some ships might have long range shot capability while others can only shoot short-range.
  4. Accuracy. How often the ship hits its target can be based on the accuracy of the ship.

Based on thes 4 simple game mechanics, one can imagine how one could put together various kinds of ships that counter someone else's fleet.

For example, you could have a Targeting Frigate which improves the accuracy of ships in a given fleet (as long as it's relatively close).  You could have a ECM Frigate which decreases the accuracy of ships in a given fleet.  Ships that have a long range may be more depenedent on accuracy than shorter range (for obvious reasons). 

Another example, a fleet that is heavy with big slow but powerful ships might be more vulnerable to an attack by a fleet of more nimble ships and fighters.  But that fleet might be countered by putting in a few anti-fighter frigates in with the fleet.

What I'm referring to here isn't rock-paper-scissors per se since one doesn't completely counter the other. It's reduction or maginfication of effectiveness that we're talking about. 

IMO, the true tactical skill in the game is the person who relies on combined arms.  The guy who just cranks out tons of heavy frigates and tosses them at their enemy should get mowed down by the player with a more thoughtful strategy.

The key thing though is that I really think that the strategies in this game should be straight-forward and intuitive.  In one of my favorite recent games, Company of Heroes, the replayability comes from having so many strategic options. And the game only has a handful of units. 

What's your view?

 

68,244 views 239 replies
Reply #176 from Sins Forums Top

One thing that I would like to see is the ability to set the targeting priority of my ships. Basically you would select an enemy and hit a key and this would change how likely your ships are to target that particular enemy.
As an example:
you have a fleet with two destroyers, a carrier and a mixed group of scouts and flax frigates, the capital ships are lvl 4-6, so you also have 5-6 fighters and bombers. You send them to an enemy system that has 3-4 hanger and the same number of gauss cannons plus a destroyer and a similar number and composition of frigates. A quick assessment of the situation would led you to believe that the destroyer and the hangers are probably going to give you the most trouble. So, you would click on those and set the attack priority on them to high. Your fleet would then work together to destroy these targets first and then move on to the other less dangerous enemies.


that somewhat mirrors something I posted either in this thread or in the other longer one about strategy discussions. I just proposed a little adjustment based on relative location and adequance of target for units.

as for bombers owning cap ships: a) they are supposed to (maybe not to the degree you experienced) b) as far as I understood there was no deliberate stress on balance so don't even think it would be like that in the final product. good that you mentioned it, the devs will surely consider that for later, but don't get too upset just yet.

edit from page before:


@Maxxa - Welcome


Also concerning this, I think it would be pretty cool if there were some sort of bonuses for attacking ships from the top/bottom/side. Realistically, the armor on ships would be less on the top, right?



Not really - If you know that you are going to be operating in a 3D environment, you would build your ships/vessels to have 360 degree scan/fighting/defending capabilities in the x, y, and z planes.



technically that would be possible, but considering that the amount of weigth / armor that can be fitted on any hull is likely to be limited, it could well be that front armour is heavier just because you expect to get attacked from that direction most.

without being a military expert I could imagine that modern tanks for example do not have their armour distributed equally, but correct me if I am wrong.
Reply #177 from Sins Forums Top
In my view, a game where targetting multiple targets works better than focous fire would be genius. Just about EVERY RTS rewards focous fire, because units fire at same rate regardless of hitpoints. Some sort of recoil system that slows down the firing of ships taking damage, and a shield system that increases the amount of damage negated based on the amount of damage recieved would put a stop to this.

I also like combined arms vs swarming... but both should be valid tactics probably. It's just that swarming would be easier to counter, while it would be easier to build and manage.

However the biggest pain of combined arms is rebuilding the damage portions of your fleet. Because you have to actually take time to figure out what ships died to replace them. Where as swarming, you just build mroe and more ships.

In the grand scheme of thigns it will be hard to make a game that would be true to real life strategy. Most games are as akin to real warmaking as dominos is to the stock market.
CursorFX - Customize your Windows cursor
Reply #178 from Sins Forums Top
Hmmm Astax, the idea of making ships that are taking damage suffer a loss of accuracy would be an amazing idea for reducing focus fire.

The shield concept you mentioned in your post is already implemented in Sins.
Reply #179 from Sins Forums Top
Yeah I kidna noticed it. But I haven't seen it's full potential yet

Mostly my idea was for ships to have increased reloading time, but accuracy works too.
Reply #180 from Sins Forums Top
The idea of reduced efficiency has already been talked about with regards to critical systems and hits. Your memory is slipping Para.
Reply #181 from Sins Forums Top
Well it's different where the ship is totally damaged, than if it is merely taking fire that hasn't gone through the shields.
Reply #182 from Sins Forums Top
The only means to prevent the usual fire focus is to make the usual battlefields (spread of ships within a fleet) larger than the weapons range. Otherwise the focused fire pays out - just like in the real battlefield.
Reply #183 from Sins Forums Top
First of all, sorry if anything I say has been mentioned but I've only read half the posts here so far, its taking me a while.

Secondly it seems to me that from Frogboy's original post that fleets should play a major role in the game (which I agree with).

When not in a fleet a single ship would be very vulnerable, for frigates they would be picked off easily by bombers etc, for capital ships their expense and slow movement means an enemy fleet could do costly damage if caught off guard.

Just an idea of how it could be possible to implement fleets:

If every type of ship has a two values,
range: how far a ship can travel away from a friendly planet, asteroid etc
supply: a value which determines its contribution to a fleet (just given as a number for each type of ship).

Range. If a ship exceeded its range it would suffer some sort of attrition (reduced attacks, speed etc) until it returned to friendly territory.
Ships in a fleet would have extended range based on the ships in the fleet, eg several capital ships could be added to the fleet adding large amounts of resources and allowing the entire fleet to operate at a much greater range.

Supply. This is only used when a ship joins or forms a fleet. Every ship in a fleet contributes its supply value to the total limit of the fleet (supplies held in cargo hold etc) but also uses up a value based on its size.
For example frigates could contribute a supply value of 0.5 (small holds) to the fleet but might require a supply of 1 from the fleet. Whereas an Akkan or Sova contribute 20 supply and cost only 5 from the fleet (or a Kol which would provide much less as it is smaller and more space is taken by guns, could require 5 supply and contribute 7 say).
Assuming any ships can form up as a fleet then if a fleet has a starting base supply value of 10 (from ships more efficiently sharing resources between them) and added to this is whatever value given by the ships in the fleet.
This gives a limit to the size of fleets unless support ships are added. An all frigate fleet would have a short range and (using the above example) would only be able to sustain 17 frigates in the fleet. This makes swarming a poor tactic when a balanced fleet can be larger and more well equipped.

Fleets would then confer advantages to the ships within, for example keeping carriers in the centre making them harder to hit.
This also means that a fleet in enemy territory which loses a support ship might suffer massive overall attrition making them a tempting, if difficult to hit, target.

There could then be a tech tree which could add to the size of cargo holds (adds supply to each ship) or logistics which increase efficiency of fleet resource sharing (adds to base fleet supply level).

Just an idea anyway.
Reply #184 from Sins Forums Top
I like the idea of supplies, it was done well in Conquest Frontier Wars. Ships in that game could form a fleet with an admiral, and each ship had it's own amount of supplies. Supplies drained over time and if the ships were in combat they drained even more.

I'd like to see fuel/supplies on ships.

Imagine this for a strategy. Your fleet needs fuel or maybe supplies, where do you restock them?

Refuel stations. You can build them around planets and they could produce supply frigates that go around refueling fleets and ships. Imagine having a whole network of fuel stations supplying your fleet. Now imagine the enemy wiping out tons of your fuel stations crippling your ability to manage and maneuver your fleet. New layer of strategy to the game.
Reply #185 from Sins Forums Top

I like the idea of supplies, it was done well in Conquest Frontier Wars. Ships in that game could form a fleet with an admiral, and each ship had it's own amount of supplies. Supplies drained over time and if the ships were in combat they drained even more.

I'd like to see fuel/supplies on ships.

Imagine this for a strategy. Your fleet needs fuel or maybe supplies, where do you restock them?

Refuel stations. You can build them around planets and they could produce supply frigates that go around refueling fleets and ships. Imagine having a whole network of fuel stations supplying your fleet. Now imagine the enemy wiping out tons of your fuel stations crippling your ability to manage and maneuver your fleet. New layer of strategy to the game.


agree. I too like the idea of supplies, even liked the way it was done for fighters and corvettes in homeworld 1. also earth 2150 had a decent supply system even though its not a space game.

so, finally a reason for space stations away from planets.
Reply #186 from Sins Forums Top
@ Kzeanu (#170)

When this happens, expand the planet on the left and look at the bomber icons' strength lines - that will give you some feedback as to how much damage they are taking. (whether or not the special effects show it) Also, you mention that you have upgraded them via the carrier heavy fighter attribute - you're right - that does make a difference in their effectiveness. If you also activated the instant-build attribute of the carrier, those 3 squadrons will get replaced instantly, so you're not really talking only 3 squadrons, you're talking 3 squadrons at a time with constant replacements - big difference. Even if you haven't activated the instant replace attribute, replacements for lost fighters are constantly being built.

Also, I'm not sure of what level the carrier was or how many missile levels had been activated, or how far into missile enhancements in the tech tree you had gotten, but the missile platforms that the carrier kicks out can be pretty effective, too.

@ Shadowwhal (#176)

You are correct that tanks do not have their armor distributed uniformly - but they are not really an example of a 3D weapons system. The best example I can think of is a submarine. They have 3D sensors (passive and active SONAR), can track and fire in the x,y, and z directions, and their armor is uniformly distributed.


I'm not for the idea of having to micromanage supply/logistics. The most onerous imposition of tactical supply I would be willing to see is the need to be able to trace a supply line to a friendly planet/location. Yes - logistics is important, but I would rather see it handled by having a healthy economy.
Reply #187 from Sins Forums Top
But if you were the commander of an empire or even just the military you would have to make sure that your men were supplied just because you have a healthy economy that dose not mean that you have a well supplied military. Take England for example in WW2 they had a good economy but they needed supplies from the USA to fight there war and the Germans hampered the supply lines. That in turn made it harder for them to fight.

Fleets also would not have unlimited supplies. So I think that they should have to resupply. You could have fast resupply ships or resupply fleets that would meat up with your fleets. So that way there would be some down time wall the attacker is repairing and resupplying his ships. It opens up a time for the defender to lunch a counterattack and try and push out the invaders.

I think having some thing like that would make it more realistic as for replay it would have to be put in to the game before we could really tell.
Reply #188 from Sins Forums Top
see, the issue is that there already is a sort of "resupplying", antimatter

sort of the root of everything, no need for gasolene, probably have some sort of material manufacturing thingymaboba setup to create food etc if you see the TEC as that developed.

logistics are already incorporated into the economy, that includes repairs and (I'm assuming) the occasional food shipment. there really isnt a need to expand it further.

although, I have to admit, I do find myself doing my homework while playing the game. it sounds the most like war that I've ever heard in a game; long, dry times of boredom followed by short, intense times of panic and (in this case anyhow) great fun

there does indeed need to be something to fill the gap in between. crossing my fingers that IC will remedy this in Beta 2
Reply #189 from Sins Forums Top
although, I have to admit, I do find myself doing my homework while playing the game. it sounds the most like war that I've ever heard in a game; long, dry times of boredom followed by short, intense times of panic and (in this case anyhow) great fun

And that time should be filled with strategy... And there MUST be some time left just to think and wonder. So some "boredom" is essential if this is not to be called "a total RTS".
Reply #190 from Sins Forums Top
I agree with everyone else. I play the game in a window and watch a movie on my computer. It definitely has stretches where there is nothing to do.

I think the Civ/City management of the game could use improvement to fill the gaps of war.

Right now I just blindly click on the build button repeatedly, not even really caring where things are built around my planets or what is built.

It feels too much like a dry cut and paste kind of thing. I build stuff around a planet, I colonize another planet, build the same things around it.

I think if there were more unique structures or something to do when not in combat to fill the void. Managing the government, negotiating in actual conversations with the enemy/allies. Real diplomacy options....

I remembered after posting about supply lines that that is basically what the antimatter generators are. I still think starbases are a good strategic option in game.

Reply #191 from Sins Forums Top

@ Shadowwhal (#176)

You are correct that tanks do not have their armor distributed uniformly - but they are not really an example of a 3D weapons system. The best example I can think of is a submarine. They have 3D sensors (passive and active SONAR), can track and fire in the x,y, and z directions, and their armor is uniformly distributed.


I'm not for the idea of having to micromanage supply/logistics. The most onerous imposition of tactical supply I would be willing to see is the need to be able to trace a supply line to a friendly planet/location. Yes - logistics is important, but I would rather see it handled by having a healthy economy.


hmm, I suppose that is a good example and if it is as you say then it may be realistic to keep it uniform in the game as well. however, this does not mean it has to be that way. I still would like to have it, maybe not for all ships, but for some. would just make 3D thinking and flanking so much more interesting.
Reply #192 from Sins Forums Top
I have mentioned this in another post, I hope I'm not breaking any forum rules, but my idea seems to fit better in this section.

I had a brainstorm for how ships could have an upgrade limit, have custom upgrades (scouts, defenders, etc.), and yet keep micro-managing to a minimum.

First, it would probably be a good idea to set an upgrade limit on ships (Only upgrades that would be limited would be engine, sensor, weapon, armor upgrades) so that you don't end up with one player who is dominating because he has unlocked most of the upgrades and created a 'monster' ship that can kill anything with two shots.

Now I would like to suggest that the developers create a "upgrade preset creator" for ships.(Similar to the MechLab in Mechwarriors) How it would work is as follows: Before you go into multiplayer, you would enter the preset creator and set the upgrades for particular ships and give them a variant name. (Suppose I want to create a scout variant on a cruiser with a max. upgrade limit of 8; so I give 4 to sensors, 2 to engines, and 2 to countermeasures.) The variant would appear in the build que during multiplayer, so you don't have to upgrade every individual ship to your preference manually. In addition, as you unlock more of the tech-tree, the variant ships you have created are upgraded automatically according to their preset.(So if I unlock engine upgrade level 4 and I have a scout variant cruiser already built with level 3 engines, the game would automatically upgrade the engines on the cruiser.) The developers would have to impliment a stock preset, of course, so that you could play right away. But just think, no more danger of a 'monster' ship that has all the upgrades. Less micromanaging. More customizing of your fleets roles. And best of all, no two players fleets will be alike; each will have it's strenghs and weaknesses depending on the upgrades each chooses.

The only downside it the developers would have to do quite a bit of work to implement this into the game. I personally think it would be worth it; adding to the have-it-your-way reputation of Stardock and Ironclad.
Reply #193 from Stardock Forums Top
I would like to see point defenses - light guns for shooting down fighters, yes, but also for shooting down incoming missiles. The delicate balance between fighters, missiles, heavy guns, and point defenses was one of the high points of the Master of Orion series.
Reply #194 from Sins Forums Top
To expand on what Timber and other have referenced, personally speaking I would like to be able to design my own capital ships and name them (not a requirement but a sweet bonus) as well as use the stock ones. I think that will be big huge selling point of the game.
Reply #195 from Sins Forums Top
To expand on what Timber and other have referenced, personally speaking I would like to be able to design my own capital ships and name them (not a requirement but a sweet bonus) as well as use the stock ones.

My guess is... Sins 2.
Reply #196 from Sins Forums Top
Custom-designed ships are not happening for Sins.
Reply #197 from Sins Forums Top
I like the idea

I've had enough of the foo-foo "Lets spend time building our own ships" idea. it rarely works well.
Reply #198 from Stardock Forums Top
As it stand now you have a level limit of 10 experience levels on a cap ship and when all is said and done the "special abilities" are 3-3-3-1. How about letting the max level on special abilities go higher than 3? Or have more "abilities" available? That way you could further specialize your cap ships without having to go the "custom" route.
Reply #199 from Sins Forums Top
Custom-designed ships are not happening for Sins.

In RT such ships aren't the best possible solution anyway. Perhaps for SP in the future or something, I guess it depends on the future development of the franchise.

What I don't like about the current system is the upgrading.

Firstly it's unrealistic that ships can be upgraded with experience limits. The only real limits should be money and/or resources. Each player would definitely upgrade the ships with best expperience. An automated upgrade system is still possible - only upgrade ships with exp. level over XX etc..

Secondly it's unrealitic that one ship can get such and such upgrades and other ship other kinds. IMO every ship of certain class (size) should be able to be upgraded with a limited number of any upgrades available for that size - or smaller. So the upgrades would be somewhat universal and the ships would mostly differentiate by the original design. Naturally some systems can still be reserved for a certain ship type, let's say because of the energy consumption.

Meh, I'm going too far into beating a dead horse. Just give us the game!
Reply #200 from Sins Forums Top
I actually got this particular formation from Walter Hunt's The Dark Wing. The enemy were suicidal, xenocidal, bird creatures and they were trying to do anything they could to destroy ships, especially the flags.


this concept was used by the zulus and was very effective.

the only problem they ran into is that the british had gun powder and they didnt'