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?

 

68,167 views 239 replies
Reply #51 from Sins Forums Top
(referring to post 50)
all that would do it seems to me is reduce the effect of what little tactics there are in the game... focused fire being one of the very few ways you as a player can use tactics to improve the auto-combat
Reply #52 from Sins Forums Top


That what a debris look like when it hit a solid wall. I just thought this might be bit relative because the more stuff we have in orbit=more residue debris in orbital that would be likely to influence near orbital battle. Source of info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_debris
SoundPackager - Customize the Windows sound scheme
Reply #53 from Sins Forums Top
you could also end up with ships with too much fire power

for instance the usa world war 2 battleships ie the new jersey class ships

when they fired a full broadside meaning firing all 9 main guns to port or starboard would send the ship slideing across the ocean in the oppisite direction

so in space when you fire what do you do with that recoil remember no friction


and as for extra hit if it was me i would stick the hot parts as far out into the biggest freezer in the universe ie the universe
Reply #54 from Sins Forums Top
Don't get me wrong, I am not suggesting getting rid of focused fire, but I think you can get to a point where fire is too focused. For instance, say you had a capital ship battle with over a dozen ships on each side. Having both sides go at each other one ship at a time would seem kind of boring. If you could shift it so that it was more advantageous to have only three or four ships concentrate on one enemy rather than eight or nine, it would create more interesting looking battles.
Reply #55 from Sins Forums Top
i think we should work on getting better ships than changing current physics in order to produce more interesting gameplay, let us control the fighters, add corvettes perhaps, make the battles less auto-controlled, more precision and more classes of ships (not just more types - i know they are coming, but lets branch out beyond just caps and frigs, with the odd auto-pilot bomber wing)
Reply #56 from Sins Forums Top
@Wraith - there are a few of us in the beta from the same school of thought as you and are pushing the view. Hopefully it is having an effect.

@danie - I have to disagree on the "too much firepower" argument. Surely the delivery systems would be far more advanced then simple HE chemical reaction propulsion. Moreover argument by analogy is not reasonable. Granted many things we are talking about in this game are pure speculation but we do have real experience with the physics involved for this specific topic. For example if firing a beam weapon which based on real tech today has no recoil how would you factor that into a such an argument? You cant. The way to go at the point you are trying to make in my opinion would be via ECM and ECCM technologies.

Reply #57 from Sins Forums Top
i believe it is secound lie of motion

all actions have oppasite and equal reaction

and if you don't think that light can move things

the first space shuttle mission to the space station

they had to push the station back into orbit becouse solar radiation had pushed it out of orbit

and if non beamed light can push a space station out of orbit what can a beamed light do

it wouldn't hurt the ship just would be fun to watch a ship slide sideways once in a while
Reply #58 from Stardock Forums Top
*unhijacks this thread*

Frogboy, I love your assumptions. Especially the bit about combined arms -- I can never get enough of unit mixing.

That being said, I do have two suggested additions to combat:

I want to see what *types* of weapons an enemy has. It makes perfect sense to me that this may require sensor technology/research/ships/skills/etc. But it is imperative that one has a clue what they're fighting, to more effectively target the enemy. Say I have a tendency to build bombers. Those poor guys are not terribly effective if they charge a wall of Flak Frigates. So I will probably make the tactical decision to destroy ships armed with Flak guns before committing my bombers. At the moment, I can mouse over enemies, and see that they're named "Pirate Raider" or "Pirate Stalker", but otherwise have no clue regarding their weapon makeup. So it's a crapshoot on what I target first, and the bombers are torn to shreds in the mean time. Making that info available to the player saves us from having to memorize weapon loadouts on every single unit -- possible, but that doesn't sound like the kind of game you're aiming for.

I would like to see some more player action involved in a battle. Right now, battles are basically just two fleets facing off. (Much like Multianna's picture) While I'm sure this is probably realistic, it just isn't all that much fun. Besides just manual targeting, and the occasional skill, there isn't much for the player to actually DO. Alternatives could be more skill micromanagement, (I don't think that's terribly popular?) or a bigger focus on positional combat. Rather than having two massive fleets go toe-to-toe for twenty minutes of volley's, make it so shots from the rear do more damage. Something to make the player break things up into a few smaller contingents, and get them maneuvering in space. You've got all that extra room in extra dimensions -- it'd be fun to start playing in it.


--LordPixie
Reply #59 from Stardock Forums Top
for instance the usa world war 2 battleships ie the new jersey class ships

when they fired a full broadside meaning firing all 9 main guns to port or starboard would send the ship slideing across the ocean in the oppisite direction


*Succumbs to the temptation of hijacking*

Danielost, in WWII, the New Jersey was an Iowa class battleship. Those babies were indeed massive beasties, with boatloads of firepower. However, they don't actually move sideways. The math just doesn't work out -- projectiles are small. Even when accelerated to very high speeds, they don't have that much energy. Not compared to a _MASSIVE_ battleship, that's firmly rooted in water. It's similar to small arms -- they do their damage by focusing their energy in a tiny area, not by a huge amount of energy overall. That's why you're not thrown in the air firing one, nor your target when hit. (Not in real life, anyways)

While this may be slightly more of a problem for frictionless space ships, they can also counteract with thrusters. Especially when using spinal mounted guns.


--LordPixie
Reply #60 from Sins Forums Top
ok your guys win all those military shows i have watched and studied means nothing
Reply #61 from Sins Forums Top
conerning the damage modell: star trek armada in fact had an interesting modell. basically each ship had five sub systems: shields, live support, engines, sensors, weapons and drive systems. the point was that any system could be damaged and if it were knocked out the ship would lose some capability, such as failing to maneuver, inability to fire weapons systems and so on.

repair was gradually managed by crew members depending on how fully staffed the ship was and the chance for system damage was greater when shields were depleted (but systems could fail even when some shield capacity was existing)

so in particular for larger ships a modell such as this could make battle more interesting in trying to get damaged ships out earlier, trying to target key areas of opposing ships and so on.
Reply #62 from Sins Forums Top
@Shadow - That is the type of system we are pushing. Independent subsystems with individual critical hit points. We can only hope it will be implemented. Interesting enough after looking at some of the code there appears to be a critical hit system already in the embedded. However it appears to only be a general damage modifier.

Regarding the OT, the more systems or subsystems that can be added to improve the player interactive dynamic the better the game will be in my opinion. Every system should have an auto function as well as a manual one to please the "micronauts" (like me) who believe more control is better and the "macronauts" who think micromanagement is somehow inherently a bad thing.
Reply #63 from Sins Forums Top
agreed. this was also something I rather disliked in homeworld 2. it just played so much faster and hectical. part one had this epic feel and I really enjoyed a battle between a handful of capships that was not over in a minute but lasted a little while (which also allowed to bring in reinforcement of even draw out of the battle)
Reply #64 from Sins Forums Top

@Shadow - That is the type of system we are pushing. Independent subsystems with individual critical hit points. We can only hope it will be implemented. Interesting enough after looking at some of the code there appears to be a critical hit system already in the embedded. However it appears to only be a general damage modifier.

Regarding the OT, the more systems or subsystems that can be added to improve the player interactive dynamic the better the game will be in my opinion. Every system should have an auto function as well as a manual one to please the "micronauts" (like me) who believe more control is better and the "macronauts" who think micromanagement is somehow inherently a bad thing.


nice. and yet ... I still wouldn't put too many. lets say a general weapons system would be nice, but multiple individual weapons (I am thinking along the lines of those wing commander style games) might be too much considering we are dealing with a large number of ships.

what I do think is a good idea is having bigger ships having more subsystems. taking out a figher's or frigate's system won't be worth your time because the ship will be destroyed easily enough. but nice to hear that so many cool concepts are noted, this looks really quite intriguing even at this stage.

now, finally through most posts: someone mentioned an example that you compose your fleet according to your assumptions of an enemy's strategy (like carrier maniac and so on) which led me to a question: how is spying going to handled? a general idea of the strengh and placement of the enemy forces would be of vital information, so what ways would there be in determining this apart from sending around scouts?

which brings me to the next point. depending on the way this information exists, it would make a valuable trading item. a more economically oriented player could for example profit from selling / providing other players with vital strategic information if those are better equipped to take the common ennemy out. again, just an idea.

also, an option to gain insights into opponents technological capabilites would be vital, say, if I know that with the technologies he has, he cannot build certain ships, then obviously on the short run I will not have to worry about them and get an idea, what he might be heading for. so, again, any ideas how you could get that information.

sry for being a little bit off topic, the mind is just spinning like crazy.
Reply #65 from Sins Forums Top


i seem to be one of the very few here that want a tactical element to this game

i for one would never play this game if all it was about was collecting resources and building fleets


I do tend to agree to a point with you on this. I can understand some people wanting to take total control of their fleets like in HW. You can to a point in Sins but it still needs some work, and polish. Formations need a little more work, and variety. Id love to see X, Wall (it is the default group jump formation now), and Delta formations in the game. Aggressive, Neutral, and Passive tactics would be nice as well. You can move ships on the Z axis but there is no point, because the AI doesn't take any advantage of this other than to move away from obstacles. In most battles i wind up micro-ing, and ordering my ships what to shoot at, because sometimes the AI will make the ships shoot at low priority targets, and ignore important targets like key enemy ships, bombers, gauss guns, and planetary shields. For example if i let the AI control my fleet it will make a small group start nuking/razing the planet (with the shield generators still up). Another group will attack a broadcast center with gauss guns right next to it ignoring the gauss guns, and enemy frigates nearby shooting at my fleet. AI controlled fleets seem to ignore incoming bombers altogether unless you have alot of flak frigates with you.

The point is that sooner, or later you will have to take control, and manage your fleets personally to keep them from doing stupid things like mentioned above. A little work on AI targeting priority's should fix this. Being a former HW player myself id rather take total control, and get into the thick of it, but at the same time i would like an AI that can handle itself if my attention needs to be elsewhere.

There is still a heated debate going on about the jump lanes if you look around the boards. IMO removing them will increase the tactical element, but discussion is still going on elsewhere.

In any 4x, or rts you need resources, or an economy of some kind. Otherwise how would you expand, and replace your losses? Take the economy, and empire building element away, and you dont have a 4x game.

I am still curious to see what type of espionage element is going to be in game. If its spy ships like in haegemonia, or will it be a system like in GC2?

Subsystem targeting IMO shouldn't be in, but i do like the idea of random system failures in ships damaged in combat. I didnt like hw2's subsystem targeting.
Reply #66 from Sins Forums Top
Frogboy has created a very lively discussion about ships, fleets and tactics.
In many ways, I agree with everything that has been said in this thread.
However, in order for the game to be playable on a wide spectrum of systems, there will have to be a limit as to what can be included. I am all in favor of using fleet organization - it will make this a much improved game. Personally, I like the system employed by Space Empires IV. Ships can be added to fleets. Within fleets you can also create Task Force. Each ship in a fleet can also be assigned a function - escort, picket, core etc. The fleets can can also be assigned defensive and offensive stances, each with formation options. This gives the player a variety of options to counter opponents tactics & fleets. When battle commences, the fleets will follow the preset plan. If you then want to micro-manage, you can then select individual ships or Task Forces and remove them from the fleet and give them individual orders. You can even control the whole fleet yourself, if you wish. All in all, the fleet system use in SEIV in very flexible from a user standpoint.
Reply #67 from Sins Forums Top
@Yorkie - that is a most excellent system and it addresses both the macro and micro issues reasonably well. I would also add comprehensive battle stats component for each fleet and task force to further improve the immersion value. I believe this game must have such a system for it to truly become a "classic" with a longterm shelf life and all the financial rewards that come with such status for the developers.
Reply #68 from Sins Forums Top

multi, amazing graphics skills!

yeah, well next time ill try do 4D

Makes sense but to point out the obvious 3D movement in space the pattern should be more like the layers of an onion rather than a 2D slice. Even a Naval carrier/battle group has a 3D element with planes in the air and submarine(s) below the surface.

indeed. But it was just an example, and my 4D skills wasent to good that day

Frogboy has created a very lively discussion about ships, fleets and tactics.
In many ways, I agree with everything that has been said in this thread.
However, in order for the game to be playable on a wide spectrum of systems, there will have to be a limit as to what can be included. I am all in favor of using fleet organization - it will make this a much improved game. Personally, I like the system employed by Space Empires IV. Ships can be added to fleets. Within fleets you can also create Task Force. Each ship in a fleet can also be assigned a function - escort, picket, core etc. The fleets can can also be assigned defensive and offensive stances, each with formation options. This gives the player a variety of options to counter opponents tactics & fleets. When battle commences, the fleets will follow the preset plan. If you then want to micro-manage, you can then select individual ships or Task Forces and remove them from the fleet and give them individual orders. You can even control the whole fleet yourself, if you wish. All in all, the fleet system use in SEIV in very flexible from a user standpoint.



great idea
But if i had to micro alot of the units within my fleet, to do different tasks. Id like them to be there until i change them.
So if i was to move and handle the fleet, the option i told them should return when i stop commanding them.
Reply #69 from Sins Forums Top
I do tend to agree to a point with you on this. I can understand some people wanting to take total control of their fleets like in HW. You can to a point in Sins but it still needs some work, and polish. Formations need a little more work, and variety. Id love to see X, Wall (it is the default group jump formation now), and Delta formations in the game. Aggressive, Neutral, and Passive tactics would be nice as well.


formations and tactical stances (ie aggressive, neutral, evasive) are not what we need, they played almost no part in skilled games in hw1 or hw:c, ive played all 3 hw games (and got quite good at the first 2) and i used very little formations (and NEVER for frigs or caps) and i never changed out of neutral tactics, i think people take a quick look at what differs b/n a tactical RTS (like the hw series) and soase and immediately see the lack of formations and tactical stances, well, those may be some differences, but they are useless differences, direct control over all ships (and additional classes with non-faked weaknesses and strengths to other classes - i mean for example multibeams vs fighters is good, but a dread can't take down acolytes very quickly, not because the devs "faked" or forced in fighter weaknesses to beams, but because beams travel faster, have a high recharge rate and do less damage than a dread's missiles or large ion) is the key difference

subsystems might be a decent addition, but hw2 had subsystems and i think most of us agree they weren't a smash hit, im not gonna push subs unless the devs refuse to change anything else i've been talking about



Reply #70 from Sins Forums Top
@wraith - I dont think it so much a matter of "pushing" anything in so much as it is the devs wanting to know what we really want in the game as well as the reasoning behind it. Speaking of which, your wording worries me a little. This is so because I hope the feedback is not being perceived as a negotiation session between us (players) and them (devs) by many people. If so then this entire venture has been a colossal waste of time for many people.

Until told otherwise I shall assume that if the devs flat out refuse to add something that has been reasonably justified and generally supported by the community it is because of either technical difficulties and limitations or a valid belief that it would not add anything to the game worthy of the investment of resources to make it happen.
Reply #71 from Sins Forums Top
A lot of people seem to be pushing for capital ships with very limited roles, rather than the Army-of-One Capital Ships that Sins has right now. Another permutation of this is limiting fighters to carriers. I think both of those are mistakes and somewhat against not only Sins current design but against its models too, since all the capital ships so far have fighter bays.

Regarding subsystems... The best reason for this is to discourage concentrated fire, which tends to rule hp-based games. Take, say, a 3v3. If you split your fire equally and the other guy concentrates on one ship, you'll lose a ship (and 1/3 of your firepower) while he just has 3 ships damaged to 33% and full firepower. If you have subsystems, 3 ships damaged to 1/3 might have reduced firepower or capability, making that fight more even.

In Sins this is dealt with somewhat with shield mitigation, but given the speed shields can go down sometimes I'm not sure that's enough.
Reply #72 from Sins Forums Top
@yorkie:

interesting post: what I saw here is that the game enabled you to do a lot a micromanagement BEFORE the battle and during the battle it was mostly adjusting and fine tuning. this would in fact be a system I would love to use because you usually have a few minutes to give your units precise orders (such as, fighters 1 - 3: protect carrier group from oncoming bombers; cap ships: concentrate fire on enemy flag ship(s); carriers: stay behind and deploy bombers against high damage units) I don't know, something along the lines of more complex, intelligent unit orders that do not require constant baby sitting.
Reply #73 from Sins Forums Top
OK... After re-examining Frogboy's original post, I will try and address the core issue of intuitiveness of fleet mechanics.

Absolutely, it should be readily apparent how to put together an effective fighting force that can deal with a myriad of different situations. However, if you do not have a certain amount of nuance lying below the surface, then how do you seperate the great players from the merely good ones?

In the same way a master chess player can manipulate a less skilled opponent into a specific course of action, you should be able to build a fleet can has the ability to feint and direct its opponents attacks in order to create openings and deficiencies in the opposing defenses. A fleet needs to known not only what to attack, and in what order, but when to attack, where to attack from, what formation configuration to use, and when and where to retreat to.


Reply #74 from Sins Forums Top
one thing i would want in fleets

and that is that the fleet jumps together in other words the cruiser doesn't jump without the frigates or vice versa
Reply #75 from Sins Forums Top
@Wraith:

I'd also like to see more tactical control of units in battle and while additional stance/behavior options might not be the perfect answer I think they can certainly help. For example I'd like to see all ships get the traditional defend target(s), defend area, assist target, hold ground (not fighters and bombers), etc so that at the very least I'm not having to look after stray carriers that decide they want a closer look at the enemy's gauss gun. This would hopefully change the player's role from babysitter to that of commander. But for any of this to be useful I think as other ppl have said the acceleration and max speed of ships needs to come down and the size of gravity wells need to be increased a fair bit so you actually have room to maneuver.

I'm not sure if this has been mentioned yet but I'd like to also see some kind of command and control capital ship (flagship maybe) that when present at a battle gives access to "advanced orders/controls" e.g. set 10/20/50% of fighters to escort bombers, all bombers attack target x or ship type x, set target priorities for a ship type or for your entire fleet, etc.