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?

 

68,198 views 239 replies
Reply #201 from Sins Forums Top
i agree with all that has been said but when commanding the whole fleet u can click attack a battleshipe for example but only the ships that are good at killin capital ships should attack it and other ships stay to defend from fighters and such and other ships that may have no wepon but increase range of ships arround them sould not ingage the enemy cos in some games if u command the whole fleet like in homeworld the def shield frigate will go and fly up next to the enemy ship and get blown to bits and not do its job of acctually defendin i think this is stupid.
Reply #202 from Sins Forums Top
I also think that with the critical hits they shold be moduals like homeworld 2 and should be able to traget them individually if the shields are down or the big ships should have less of a chance of being crippled but i dont like the idea of limmited ammo that sounds crap or u could have a large ammount of ammo and in massive ships would be able to produce their own ammunition like in battlestar galactica. Finally energy wepons should not reely run out of ammo for obvious reasons but maby u could have the weapons over heat but i think the weapons should have extreme ammounts of ammo or no cap at all. I think that critical hits like hitting the in the reactor should do mmore harm and there should be various other soft spots but u dont aim for them u just hit them randomly like when u fire a volly of rokets or shells u should have a chance of hitting. Another thing is that the game dosent want to be too complicated so dont make it complicated leave it simple i think that simple is best but not too simple. Finally I think that there should be some kind of energy allocation system like in star trek legacy so u can swop energy from wepons to shield and maby ships can outo do this in a fleet like long range ships have most power on weps cos they stay back and fire but this could make them vunerable from sneek attacks from behind.   
Siege of Centauri
Reply #203 from Sins Forums Top
Bah! The Galactic Patrol is the true master of the Cone formation.
Reply #204 from Sins Forums Top
If any of you have played Sword of the Stars I think some ideas could be taken from there. I would really look forward to begin able to target certain sections of a ship. This will really give players a lot more strategy and make things very interesting. For example, you can target engines, weapons emplacements, bridge, hanger bays, everything really and they all can have different armor hit points.

So if you are going up against an enemy with a massive force, you would be able to send in faster ships and bombers through their formation and maybe take out a battleships engines. This will make them still capable of fighting, but only from their position. If they were moving at the moment, you can let the ship slowly drift into the battle. You may also be able to target bridge structures, although it would be more difficult, but if damage, the ship will be unable to move or maneuver. It will also be able to fire its weapons systems, but not in any coordinated manner.

This would also allow a ship with weapons damaged the ability to still retreat from the battle and allow for a far more interesting fight. You would be able to see different weapons systems slowly getting disabled one by one before all are take out.

Another idea is that maybe fighters and bombers could have different weapons choices. Maybe before launch or even after, a player can refit their bombers with bombs instead of missile. These will do great amounts of damage, but also make the bomber get really close and give it a higher chance of getting killed. If you don't want bombs, you could load out with missile and not have to come so close and be more accurate, but do less damage.
Reply #205 from Sins Forums Top
everyone would refit with bombs, as the bombers are free. not to mention the fact that range has little to do with anything.
Reply #206 from Sins Forums Top
well range could limit intercept ability. Like bombs can't be intercepted, but missiles and torpedoes or any other ranged ordinance can be by point defenses.

It's only an idea though
Reply #208 from Sins Forums Top
if we dont have rock-paper-scissors you have swarms.
we hate swarms.

rock paper scissors it is!

keep in mind that RPS is a realistic thing.
Reply #209 from Sins Forums Top
I dont think an RPS setup is necessary as long as there is some balance. However RPS is what most people consider balance.
Reply #210 from Sins Forums Top
what is the contrary? there really isnt another balanced or realistic system.
theres always the rock-scissors-scissors, or the rock-paper-scissors-grenade styles, I dont prefer either.
Reply #211 from Sins Forums Top
Well a system with more then three variables would be nice in my opinion. I like complexity for the games I play because I need to think to have fun otherwise I get bored so fast.
Reply #212 from Sins Forums Top
Hi all,

First time poster here. I'm coming into this with a background of playing RTS games from Dune 2 up to Company of Heroes. Also, I'm coming into this with a background of playing EVE - the MMORPG which has large space fleet battles.

Thus, I'd like to point out a few suggestions which come from my experience playing these other games:

1. All ships have to be viable in most, if not all, phases of the game in order to MAKE people want to do combined arms. The basic frigate HAS to be useful in all stages of the game in order for combined arms to make sense for people. Otherwise people in the end game will just build tons of battleships, EVEN IF it means losing a lot of battleships to a combined arms player. They'll take the loss and just build more battleships.

Past bad examples: In previous RTS games people would start out with basic units, discard them in mid-game for more advanced units, and then discard those in the end game for the biggest baddest units around. Thus, even in games where one would think combined arms is a good idea, the player with the mass of big end game units would still win against the player with combined arms.

Current good examples: In EVE, the lowly frigate can still be seen in massive fleet battles. Why? Because the frigate can get in close to a cruiser or battleship (hereby referred to as a capital class ship), and at close range the larger ships cannot track the frigate with turrets and their electronic signature means they can take a few heavy missle hits.

On the other hand, a close-in frigate can basically "lock-down" a capital class ship by scrambling its warp engines (preventing it from escaping) and webbing its impulse engines (slowing it to a crawl and making it a big fat immobile target for everyone else).

Of course, swarms of frigates shouldn't be able to take down capital ships all by themselves, so you have a few capital ships in your own fleet to shoot at the "locked down" ships of the enemy.

2. No Rock-Paper-Scissors play

RPS gameplay locks the player into finite strategies and fleet composition. I need to build X to kill Y, but I also need my own Y to protect against his Z. Instead, units should be limited by their capabilities - with a possibility of upgrading units as higher levels of tech are researched or as units gain experience.

Current good example: Company of Heroes

The basic American infantry squad starts out only being able to damage other infantry squads. But, as higher tech levels are researched it gets the ability to throw grenades, thus being able to kill higher-level infantry units (machine gun teams or AT gun crews) faster. Then it gets a stickybomb upgrade so now it can finally hurt vehicles. Finally, it can get the BAR upgrade, allowing it to suppress and pin enemy infantry units and keep them from moving around.

Thus (keeping with point 1) the infantry squad never becomes obsolete and since its not an RPS gamestyle one isn't locked into ALWAYS having to build these upgrades. For example, say the Germans decide to swarm with infantry. Thus, the grenade upgrade is good - but the stickybomb upgrade is almost useless, so one doesn't spend the resources on it.

It becomes a trade-off in how one decides to upgrade his units. This lets the interplay between accuracy, firepower, defense, and mobility decide how one uses units, not the artificial factors that are built-in a la RPS.

3. Please add (or keep if its already there) weapon arcs
This goes back to the original post about the 4 qualities one might use to describe a ship in SoTSE:
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.

And addresses point 1. Besides trying to come into range why else would a ship need to turn and maneuver?

Good example: Starfleet command 1 and 2
These were computer games which basically took the boardgame Star Fleet Battles and translated it into a real-time strategy game where the player controlled one ship, maneuvered his ship, and controlled the weapons and power modules to fight effectively.

By restricting the phasers, photon torpedoes, and other weapons to only fire in certain arcs (like 180% forward arc or 60% to the side) it forces the player to maneuver his ship so he can bring his weapons to bear on the enemy. You can't just turn willy-nilly in space and fire anytime your weapons are ready and in range. You have to actually point your ship in the right direction so it can shoot. Of course the enemy is trying to do the same thing, so you both are maneuvering to get in range and in a proper position to fire.

Bad example (no weapon arcs): Star Trek: Legacy
This recent game has no weapon arcs. The player can fire his weapons anytime as long as he is in range. Maneuvering becomes a simple matter of playing "follow the leader" and now combat has become stale and boring.

Anyway, those are my thoughts for now. I can't wait to get into beta 2 later this week!
Reply #213 from Sins Forums Top
Can ships slowly repair them selves i havent got beta 1 but iv preordered so im gonna start beta 2
Reply #214 from Sins Forums Top

Hi all,

First time poster here. I'm coming into this with a background of playing RTS games from Dune 2 up to Company of Heroes. Also, I'm coming into this with a background of playing EVE - the MMORPG which has large space fleet battles.

Thus, I'd like to point out a few suggestions which come from my experience playing these other games:

1. All ships have to be viable in most, if not all, phases of the game in order to MAKE people want to do combined arms. The basic frigate HAS to be useful in all stages of the game in order for combined arms to make sense for people. Otherwise people in the end game will just build tons of battleships, EVEN IF it means losing a lot of battleships to a combined arms player. They'll take the loss and just build more battleships.

Past bad examples: In previous RTS games people would start out with basic units, discard them in mid-game for more advanced units, and then discard those in the end game for the biggest baddest units around. Thus, even in games where one would think combined arms is a good idea, the player with the mass of big end game units would still win against the player with combined arms.

Current good examples: In EVE, the lowly frigate can still be seen in massive fleet battles. Why? Because the frigate can get in close to a cruiser or battleship (hereby referred to as a capital class ship), and at close range the larger ships cannot track the frigate with turrets and their electronic signature means they can take a few heavy missle hits.

On the other hand, a close-in frigate can basically "lock-down" a capital class ship by scrambling its warp engines (preventing it from escaping) and webbing its impulse engines (slowing it to a crawl and making it a big fat immobile target for everyone else).

Of course, swarms of frigates shouldn't be able to take down capital ships all by themselves, so you have a few capital ships in your own fleet to shoot at the "locked down" ships of the enemy.

2. No Rock-Paper-Scissors play

RPS gameplay locks the player into finite strategies and fleet composition. I need to build X to kill Y, but I also need my own Y to protect against his Z. Instead, units should be limited by their capabilities - with a possibility of upgrading units as higher levels of tech are researched or as units gain experience.

Current good example: Company of Heroes

The basic American infantry squad starts out only being able to damage other infantry squads. But, as higher tech levels are researched it gets the ability to throw grenades, thus being able to kill higher-level infantry units (machine gun teams or AT gun crews) faster. Then it gets a stickybomb upgrade so now it can finally hurt vehicles. Finally, it can get the BAR upgrade, allowing it to suppress and pin enemy infantry units and keep them from moving around.

Thus (keeping with point 1) the infantry squad never becomes obsolete and since its not an RPS gamestyle one isn't locked into ALWAYS having to build these upgrades. For example, say the Germans decide to swarm with infantry. Thus, the grenade upgrade is good - but the stickybomb upgrade is almost useless, so one doesn't spend the resources on it.

It becomes a trade-off in how one decides to upgrade his units. This lets the interplay between accuracy, firepower, defense, and mobility decide how one uses units, not the artificial factors that are built-in a la RPS.

3. Please add (or keep if its already there) weapon arcs
This goes back to the original post about the 4 qualities one might use to describe a ship in SoTSE:
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.

And addresses point 1. Besides trying to come into range why else would a ship need to turn and maneuver?

Good example: Starfleet command 1 and 2
These were computer games which basically took the boardgame Star Fleet Battles and translated it into a real-time strategy game where the player controlled one ship, maneuvered his ship, and controlled the weapons and power modules to fight effectively.

By restricting the phasers, photon torpedoes, and other weapons to only fire in certain arcs (like 180% forward arc or 60% to the side) it forces the player to maneuver his ship so he can bring his weapons to bear on the enemy. You can't just turn willy-nilly in space and fire anytime your weapons are ready and in range. You have to actually point your ship in the right direction so it can shoot. Of course the enemy is trying to do the same thing, so you both are maneuvering to get in range and in a proper position to fire.

Bad example (no weapon arcs): Star Trek: Legacy
This recent game has no weapon arcs. The player can fire his weapons anytime as long as he is in range. Maneuvering becomes a simple matter of playing "follow the leader" and now combat has become stale and boring.

Anyway, those are my thoughts for now. I can't wait to get into beta 2 later this week!



good post.

another example for a imo well done weapons arc was homeworld (I think both parts, part one definately). even cruisers couldn't fire 360° and the ion cannon frigate was so nicely strong even against cap ships, but had a ridiculously narrow weapons range.

so ... yes, there are many variables along which you can differentiate ships.

just a question: does RPS always mean you have to have just 3 kinds of units that counter each other? for mean it just stands for the general understanding that there are certain counters for units and that each units does have a purpose in the sense of fighting a few other units.
Reply #215 from Sins Forums Top
Can ships slowly repair them selves i havent got beta 1 but iv preordered so im gonna start beta 2


yes
Reply #216 from Sins Forums Top

Can ships slowly repair them selves i havent got beta 1 but iv preordered so im gonna start beta 2


yes


only once hull repair has been researched... else you have to take them to a repair bay...
Reply #217 from Sins Forums Top

good post.

another example for a imo well done weapons arc was homeworld (I think both parts, part one definately). even cruisers couldn't fire 360° and the ion cannon frigate was so nicely strong even against cap ships, but had a ridiculously narrow weapons range.

so ... yes, there are many variables along which you can differentiate ships.

just a question: does RPS always mean you have to have just 3 kinds of units that counter each other? for mean it just stands for the general understanding that there are certain counters for units and that each units does have a purpose in the sense of fighting a few other units.


Hi! Thanks for the compliment. And yes, Homeworld also had a weapons arc system which worked pretty well. I'm glad you bring up the ion cannon frigate because that's an excellent example of an extremely powerful weapon that's now made vulnerable because of a narrow weapons arc and a slow turning radius. One which I'll use as an example in how you don't need to have RPS to have balanced gameplay.

To answer your question, no, you do not need just 3 kinds of units for gameplay to be considered RPS. RPS defines a combat resolution system where the resolution is always fixed, i.e. rock will always beat scissors. ALWAYS, regardless of whether scissors has the high ground, is entrenched, has an upgrade, whatever. Rock always beats scissors.

Take the example of the ion cannon frigate from Homeworld. It has a big damage dealing weapon but has several disadvantages. First, it has a slow turning speed and slow velocity. Second, the weapon has a narrow firing arc and has to be pointed at the target in order to fire and hit.

At first glance one would think - A-HA the rock that beats the ion cannon frigate (scissors) would be bombers and more maneuverable frigates. Yes, that's true. But it is also true that a single ion cannon frigate is vulnerable to two cruisers that approach it from opposite ends:

(cruiser A)> ion frigate|---- <(cruiser B)

Here the ion frigate has a choice. He can hit cruiser A and suffer damage from cruiser B's guns or hit cruiser B and get hit by A. The frigate is defeated not by a RPS system but by superior positioning of forces that take advantage of its weakness.

It is also true that the ion cannon frigate can blast into bits a fast moving frigate who is now (for whatever reason) stopped in space. Pretty easily in fact. In an RPS system that could never happen. Rock would always beat scissors and maybe scissors might do a small amount of damage to rock.

But Homeworld isn't an RPS system. The ion cannon frigate does X damage to the target. The only stipulation is that the target has to be in the firing arc. But because the ion cannon frigate turns slowly, moves slowly, and has a narrow arc of fire it is inherently hard for it to target and hit fast moving ships - BUT only when they are moving! And only because the movement takes them out of the arc. If the target becomes immobilized then it becomes a dead target once the ion cannon is pointed at it.
Reply #218 from Sins Forums Top


good post.

another example for a imo well done weapons arc was homeworld (I think both parts, part one definately). even cruisers couldn't fire 360° and the ion cannon frigate was so nicely strong even against cap ships, but had a ridiculously narrow weapons range.

so ... yes, there are many variables along which you can differentiate ships.

just a question: does RPS always mean you have to have just 3 kinds of units that counter each other? for mean it just stands for the general understanding that there are certain counters for units and that each units does have a purpose in the sense of fighting a few other units.


Hi! Thanks for the compliment. And yes, Homeworld also had a weapons arc system which worked pretty well. I'm glad you bring up the ion cannon frigate because that's an excellent example of an extremely powerful weapon that's now made vulnerable because of a narrow weapons arc and a slow turning radius. One which I'll use as an example in how you don't need to have RPS to have balanced gameplay.

To answer your question, no, you do not need just 3 kinds of units for gameplay to be considered RPS. RPS defines a combat resolution system where the resolution is always fixed, i.e. rock will always beat scissors. ALWAYS, regardless of whether scissors has the high ground, is entrenched, has an upgrade, whatever. Rock always beats scissors.

Take the example of the ion cannon frigate from Homeworld. It has a big damage dealing weapon but has several disadvantages. First, it has a slow turning speed and slow velocity. Second, the weapon has a narrow firing arc and has to be pointed at the target in order to fire and hit.

At first glance one would think - A-HA the rock that beats the ion cannon frigate (scissors) would be bombers and more maneuverable frigates. Yes, that's true. But it is also true that a single ion cannon frigate is vulnerable to two cruisers that approach it from opposite ends:

(cruiser A)> ion frigate|---- <(cruiser B)

Here the ion frigate has a choice. He can hit cruiser A and suffer damage from cruiser B's guns or hit cruiser B and get hit by A. The frigate is defeated not by a RPS system but by superior positioning of forces that take advantage of its weakness.

It is also true that the ion cannon frigate can blast into bits a fast moving frigate who is now (for whatever reason) stopped in space. Pretty easily in fact. In an RPS system that could never happen. Rock would always beat scissors and maybe scissors might do a small amount of damage to rock.

But Homeworld isn't an RPS system. The ion cannon frigate does X damage to the target. The only stipulation is that the target has to be in the firing arc. But because the ion cannon frigate turns slowly, moves slowly, and has a narrow arc of fire it is inherently hard for it to target and hit fast moving ships - BUT only when they are moving! And only because the movement takes them out of the arc. If the target becomes immobilized then it becomes a dead target once the ion cannon is pointed at it.


ah, that clears up some things. glad to have provided you with an example.

I love it that you bring those points about maneuvering and positioning of forces because that is what I argued when I expressed my wish for a 3D friendlier combat system if you want to call it that. I come from the "a ship could have less armour at certain points to make flanking more interesting" but someone said it was unrealistic which it eventually was. but your approach would make all this more interesting again, so obviously I love.

besides ... you did forget one option the frigate would have (if the battle lasted long enough). try to move a bit away from both cruisers so it would face them both more straighforward, so in a 60° angle instead of a 180° angle. this would get into too much micro imo, but still worth a thought.

so as we both said, firing arcs would make it much more interesting to structure your attack fleet in a few groups and attack an enemy from different sides instead of merely going one to one style. hell, you could even arrange it for a reserve fleet to jump into the back of an enemy and mop them up from behind. imagine all those carriers at the back lines getting wiped out by a small surprise force. and mind it, that is strategy and tactics at a planing level not at an fastest clicking level which is exactly what makes games cool.
Reply #219 from Sins Forums Top
so as we both said, firing arcs would make it much more interesting to structure your attack fleet in a few groups and attack an enemy from different sides instead of merely going one to one style


Ships in sins do indeed have firing arcs. There is some research to increase maneuvering speed on your capital ships, so they can bring their main guns about more quickly (important especially for ships like the Kol, where most of the firepower is in the front arc).
Reply #220 from Sins Forums Top
a better example is the Vaygr Battlecruiser with ist trinity cannon in its nose. its extremly powerful but cant use it if u take out is engines. And very norrow fire arc.
Reply #221 from Sins Forums Top
@ raydude

homeworld 1 is a perfect example of an RPS system, and your definition is too narrow, there is no game where one strategy (or ship, or fleet) no matter how badly executed will ALWAYS beat another, RPS is a generalization

one of the biggest reasons i liked cataclysm more than homeworld was that hw1 was extremely RPS - there were basically 3-4 (no, the RPS description doesn't mean there are necessarily exactly 3 major strats/ships) major strats each of which had an extremely effective counter. this alone doesn't necessarily make it RPS, what makes it RPS is the unflexible nature of the build/research orders in skilled games. basically, if you are playing in a skilled 2v2/3v3 type game, once you commit to a certain strat you are stuck with it (at least for a significant portion of the game). this makes for good teamplay (you have to come up with a good oevrall team strat that minimizes potential weaknessess) but because as a single player you have to commit to rock paper or scissors, then it ends up being almost chance. sure, a skilled player scouts b4 committing, but if everyone is skilled you end up having to commit sooner or later and if you pick a strat thats weak to your opponent's, then you're screwed and it would take overwhelming skill to beat him now.

that's basically what an RPS game is, it entails not only counters (strengths/weaknesses) but also inflexibility of strats.

im not saying however that you should be able to switch strats on a dime, the key to all these disputes is balance, you gotta find a decent in b/n
Reply #222 from Sins Forums Top
Ok, first of all, some of this may have already been said, but I don't quite feel like looking through all the posts.

Formations/Fleets:
Formations are an excellent idea but they need something else. So far I have seen people discussing the ctrl+# groups as fleets, unfortunately this is not what they are, they are currently just selection groups that are useful for flipping between groups of ships. The only game that I have seen that did a great job of implementing fleets was conquest:frontier wars; although I did admittedly only play the demo. The ships in fleets in Conquest were not controlled individually if you had selected them by fleet, instead there was a special button box format that was used for fleets that allowed you to control all the abilities available to ships in that fleet from that one single button box without having to tab through ships in the heat of battle to find the ship with the ability that you needed for any given situation. This would be the way to implement fleets in my opinion because it makes them FLEETS not just groups of ships that you hapen to order around together. You could also add in formation control from this button box and controls for the behavior of each class of ship for during combat or out of it. For example you could set a percentage of your light units as scouts thereby having them fly ahead of the main fleet encountering and engaging units before the rest of fleet.

Gravity Well's/Engagement Areas:
Ok, I like the idea of having gravity well's prevent hyperlight travel but there are currently three things that are in need of changes about the gravity well's/engagement areas. First of all the gravity well's are not reasonable sizes. I mean we are talking about something that should be an actual hindrance to interstellar/interplanetary travel instead of simply a way of ticking off time on the early game clock. The gravity well's should be at least half again as big as they are at the moment although I would like to see them be two times as large as they are at the moment around actual planets (ie volcanic, ice, arid, terran). Around the asteroid planets I think that there should either be no gravity well or a miniscule gravity well because these are pieces of rock out in space that have miniscule gravity if they have gravity at all and in order for a gravity well to be formed, the planet/planetoid would have to actually generate gravity. Second, Why can't ships fly beyond a gravity well on sublight engines. These gravity wells aren't forces of nature that prevent ships from cruising out past a certain distance on sublight drives. The addition of an engagement area outside of the gravity wells would allow tactics such as engagements without being trapped. The third problem is more of a question; Why don't planets have moons or colonizable asteroid rings around them. Planets do not exist by themselves in their orbits, there are moons, rings(as in the case of our own saturn), and various orbital detritus both man made and natural. The space in Sins is shockingly empty it is the cleanest void ever imagined. This question may not seem like a tactical consideration but if there were non resource orbital bodies around a planet, such as say an uninhabitable moon, it could be turned into an extremely powerful static point defense and orbital bodies such as defendable asteroid rings could become extremely powerful encircling defenses that would add much to a planet's defensive power.

There is just one more note. I would prefer to see each gravity well be based around a star with mutliple planets/planetoids present within it but I can understand the gameply reasons why this is not feasible although I think it would be worth looking at ways to make the solar systems seem more cohesive than just a random collection of phase lines connected to one interstellar collection of phase lines.
Reply #223 from Sins Forums Top
wow, nice post dude. agree with everything except
2. No Rock-Paper-Scissors play

the reason I dissagree is that the system you described would not fit here (because you dont upgrade to new types of weaponry) and second because what you described still sounded like R-P-S, the unit is good against infantry but can damage a tank is not the same as the unit is good against both infantry and tank.
does RPS always mean you have to have just 3 kinds of units that counter each other?

no, its used to represent a system of hard counters, tanks are good against light vehicles, light vehicles are good against infantry, infantry are good against anti-tanks, anti-tanks are good against tanks etc. etc.
To answer your question, no, you do not need just 3 kinds of units for gameplay to be considered RPS. RPS defines a combat resolution system where the resolution is always fixed, i.e. rock will always beat scissors. ALWAYS, regardless of whether scissors has the high ground, is entrenched, has an upgrade, whatever. Rock always beats scissors.

whoa, not true.
RPS means a system where one unit has a distinct, but not overpowering advantage over another. that means that it'll win in a 1v1 or a 2v3, but not nescessarily in a 1v2 etc. situation.
But it is also true that a single ion cannon frigate is vulnerable to two cruisers that approach it from opposite ends

if you have two cruisers and you're choosing to have one shot at, you dont ahve to come from two different directions...
and yes, HW does indeed use a RPS system, only its far more complexly webbed.
that's basically what an RPS game is, it entails not only counters (strengths/weaknesses) but also inflexibility of strats.

you're refering to RPS as described from strategy, not units
Reply #224 from Sins Forums Top
Hey Im new also, I like this idea of ship damage becoming alot more complex , like modules being installed like on hw2 (I know its comletely different but the concpts good)and a number of ways of targeting it, like its power or targeting systems, etc,

What every one on this forum hasnt really touched on , is if you want these ideas to be applied, I think we all should be asking how developed the game is , I mean to say can any of our ideas truely really be implemented??

Any one think the same ?
Reply #225 from Sins Forums Top
yes, currently the devs are working out the hitches in gameplay and mechanics. after that they will likely start implementing "flair" as blair put it. that will probably include modules and other somesuch.