Karmashock Karmashock

Thoughts on Sins tactics and ways to improve them.

Thoughts on Sins tactics and ways to improve them.

This came from a different thread, but I felt this deserved a new thread because I was going off topic.

I've pretty much given up on Sins have tactics of any kind in it. The game simply wasn't built for it. It's pretty much a realtime 4x game... which is fine. Sins will be fun regardless.


This is completely untrue. Have you played against a human yet? Have you watched any of the replays? A few of the best ones show a lot of great tactics and I've held my own against multiple people with larger forces using tactics alone. I know exactly what tactical elements you want and I agree, Sins doesn't have them all and won't, but it has plenty - more than a lot of pure-RTS's. I also know the other races will continue to expand the tactical aspects of the game.


 




No I haven't... But I have played the demo on a friend's computer against the AI...


The game feels a LOT like Frontier Wars... The concept is very similar. In fact, I would go so far as to say that Frontier wars is more tactically deep then sins as it currently stands.


There are a lot of things frontier wars also did that you might want to copy... and some others that you should really NOT copy.


Frontier wars had Officers. Subordinate AI's that you could put in charge of fleets. You would give them simple orders like "search and destroy" or Repair and refuel etc... They did all the micro stuff such as when to activate the special weapons etc. If you can copy that without getting sued, do it. It was a very smart way to deal with things. Because these ships don't fight alone. Your AI seems to be working on a per ship basis. To be useful all the ships need to work together. Thus put them all under a single AI much like all the ships of an AI player are under a single command. Obviously allow the player to override anything the AI is doing with complete impunity.


Second, supply ships... supply ships were great because they gave defending ships a huge advantage and forced enemy ships to either retreat to resupply or bring along a LOT of supply ships.


As it stands it seems like the ships can resupply if you just leave them alone for awhile which isn't realistic and tactically and strategically undesirable. You want the enemy to be forced to build a supply line from his home worlds to the enemy... just like he'd have to in a real war. Furthermore, it seems like AM is only really used at this point for phase jumping and special abilities.

It should also be used for shields and weapons. You should have a finite amount of power and when it's gone... you have to run. I'm not sure if I'd let people phase jump away without AM. Perhaps give them a special emergency AM reserve that allows you to make 3 or 4 jumps before it's dry... and I don't really mind if they can recharge their AM if they're in the GW of a star. But certain types of ammunition should require access to supply ships or supply yards. Obviously this is a weakness, so to counter that you make it more potent. Give missiles extra extra damage. Remember this is countered by their dependence on supply and likely limited magazine capacity.


Things you shouldn't copy:
2D playing field. Both Frontier wars and Sins have 2d maps... I know you're not going to ditch this as you're too committed to this already. But you shouldn't have gone this way... Frontier wars got away with it but that was so long ago in gaming time it's not even funny.



Simple things you could do which would make the tactics better:

Increase the speed difference between many of your ships. Some ships should be extremely slow, and some should be very fast. As you don't want to slow down the gameplay any more, I'd suggest just making some of the ships a lot faster.

Create harder counters for various ships. That is some ships should be completely DOMINATED by a bomber attack, some should COMPLETELY dominate against fighters/bombers, some ships should be destroyed very easily by missiles, some should be almost invulnerable to missiles, etc. That will force players to pay attention to which ships are attacking which ships. As it stands it doesn't really matter. Hard counters force players to start thinking tactically.

Add some special "modes" that ships can be in... For example, pumping more power to weapons and less to engines or shields, or more to shields and less to everything else, or more to engines. Those are just some mode ideas off the top of my head. You should try to think of something more original if possible... I'm sure others here will help if asked.

Make sensors important IN combat. As it stands, scouting or line of sight is only useful BEFORE combat because once you're in combat you can see everything. Perhaps some kind of jamming field, smoke screen, chaff, etc. Then provide some means to nullify that jamming.

Each race needs a siege weapon. As it stands each "gravity well" is it's own little map that can very easily be turned into a little castle. What is needed is a weapon that can be fired from one phase jump away that can damage defensive structures and perhaps ships without risking itself. It could be some big late game unit that camps next to the phase lane to the next system and then fires something into phase space... To counter this you could force the gun to only work against defensive structures or structures that have been previously scouted.

Increase the structure cap in all GWs. I know you have it where it is to make it important to expand, but I think it's so low that it slows the game down. You don't need to raise it by much... perhaps 20 to 30 percent increase will do it. But I think it's choking the early game.


This is just off the top of my head. I might think of something else later and of course would like everyone's input. Obviously I'm not right about everything, but this is what makes sense to me.
11,814 views 49 replies
Reply #26 Top
castun... you interupted my editing process!
how does a fighter craft with fast firing cannons damage a capitalship with armor thicker then the whole fighter craft itself?


The physics don't work... so it's not simple... It is in fact - Wrong. As in 1+1=12 ... incorrect.

again with the apples and oranges karma...

technology some 1000 and somewhat years in the future, our conjecture is irrelevant.

not to mention the better analogy would not be "machine gun, tank" but "cannon, battleship" which, we've already discussed, causes damage.
Reply #27 Top
Seriously Karma, the fighter is absurdly weak against the capital ships... and who says those are regular bullets... maybe they are very simple direct launched missiles.. maybe they have plasma charges built in, maybe they are sabot rounds for space... maybe they have tiny black holes in them... I could go on for a while and say maybe they have fluffy rabbits.

It is completely believable that fighters can hurt larger ships... and in fact one of the nicer aspects of Homeworld was that fighters were a great counter to big ships. You would actually be limiting tactics with this not enhancing them.
Reply #28 Top
Another thing think that is needed to improve SOME tactics on a slightly larger scale would be by giving damage bonuses to EVERYTHING closer to the rear of the ship because, lets face it, if you get a gauss shell or rocket up an engine port on a ship, that ship is going to be in trouble....and as ships stop when they start to fight (don't know why they just do lol) that kind of thing could work.

Though that is a good point, we dont know WHAT fighters are packing, hell the could be packing anti matter shells for when they run out of soft (fighter/bomber) targets and need to be used against the larger foes.

Though trade ships don't even have guns do they? so they are more like the person trying to slap a tank with its palm XD though that brings up the whole idea of ramming a ship into another ship which could be a fun way to fight with trade ships 0.0
Reply #29 Top
You raise a much better suggestion; that hitting the rear of ships should have a bonus; it would also be nice if we could fire at longer ranges but have a significant penalty to accuracy.

1000 Miles accuracy 20%... meh not worth it

500 Miles 40%... Nope not gonna fire even though it could save my life.

250 Miles 60%... For Honor I will wait till I see the blue of their wind-shields!

125 Miles 80%... Now we shall fight for the TEC!



... Please give us dynamic ranges.
Reply #30 Top
hehe i could still see ships firing at 1000 miles away and landing a lucky shot
Reply #31 Top

Hi, there... it's called an analogy.


There are times when one must take one's own advice. Assuming tank is analogous to capital ship, find me a ship in game that's analogous to 'guy with gun'. The closest you'll come up with is trade ship/colony ship/fighter squadron, and in that case the analogy holds amazingly well.

No, how about the basic frigate?... You start with one on most maps I think... along with a scout and a colony ship. That's the equivalent of a guy with a guy. That or perhaps a fighter.


in either case they do damage to big capital ships which doesn't really make any sense. But whatever...


you know, it's easy to argue against someone's point if you change their point before arguing against it.


Reply #32 Top
No, those 2 Cobalts you start with are, indeed, equivalent to 'light tanks' to fit the tank analogy

Now, a better analogy would be to compare current naval frigates with current naval battleships/capital ships. Considering that most current frigates are fitted with missiles, they surely can inflict some damage on the larger/more powerful battleships!

So it's very much not out of the realm of possibility that smaller ships still have the firepower to inflict damage on the large ones.
Reply #33 Top
a small partol boat from WW1/2 would do no damage to a battleship from the same era. I mean, if you got lucky and hit the pilot house or something then sure you could do some damage... but you'd be completely unable actually damage the ship itself. The armor is too thick.


I'm tired of arguing this point... you're wrong and the game isn't going to change... so I'm wasting my point on this point.
Reply #34 Top
No, a gunboat of the WW2 era is equivilant to the fighters of Sins, the frigates are comparable to...frigates get it? lol frigates are frigates, cruisers are cruisers, carriers are carriercs...fighters are the gunboats and the bombers are the torpedo boats.

So it all still works with that analogy
Reply #35 Top
I do hope they make the AI very smart. Not everyone plays multiplayer, I do not. I wonder if I am in the minority.

I see you guys have a lively discussion on this gameplay which is good. Maybe some good ideas will come out of it. The other thread got locked.  
Reply #36 Top
No, I would say fighters are fighters and bombers are naval bombers. Why should it not make sense to think of SIN's fighters & bombers as similar to the WW2 or even modern era counterparts.
Reply #37 Top
And anyway, a fighter attacking a capital ships on it's own would not be able to damage it, the ship would regenerate faster than the fighter could deal damage.
Reply #38 Top
...Why why are you so intent on think that the frigate is the guy with a light gun...

Okay consider that the frigates have anti-matter... to spare for special abilities no less... that means they have an anti-matter generator on board... I don't care if the armor on cap ships is as thick as 10 frigates, the frigate with an anti-matter generator can produce enough energy to cause damage.

Since anti-matter isn't reduced by firing, they even have a more efficient method of producing damage then just throwing anti-matter explosions at it! (or they are and it is just accounted for that the ship will lose X amount every so often) My god frigates are firing anti-matter or better...

Find me a armor 'matter' that is going to react Hunky Dory to 'anti-matter'

Sins on a tactical level would be less engaging if units had to obey a rock paper scissor formation too severely. Frankly capital ships are so good that Everything needs to be able to hurt them.
Reply #39 Top
Considering that most current frigates are fitted with missiles

vs
a small partol boat from WW1/2 would do no damage to a battleship from the same era.


Reading comprehension ftw
Reply #40 Top
That would be fine, except for in the game all the character and player will do is noob a huge force of guys pistols at the tank that will stand around like idiots taking pot shots at it... while for "some reason" the tank loses health to pea shooters.


You didn't ask me about an in game situation, you asked me about a real life analogy. And any army that sends people out, armed with only 9mm pistols, deserves to loose.


Hi, there... it's called an analogy.


Then why are you ignoring the fact that it is an analogy and trying to argue it as if it were a game?

how does a fighter craft with fast firing cannons damage a capitalship with armor thicker then the whole fighter craft itself?


The physics don't work... so it's not simple... It is in fact - Wrong. As in 1+1=12 ... incorrect.


Um... actually they work quite fine. How does armor thickness change the rate at which its ablated?
a small partol boat from WW1/2 would do no damage to a battleship from the same era. I mean, if you got lucky and hit the pilot house or something then sure you could do some damage... but you'd be completely unable actually damage the ship itself. The armor is too thick.


Yeah, but the contemporary ship armor was designed to deflect / absorb incoming damage. This isn't going to be possible in space, you can use ablative armor, but you really can't hope to stop damage.

The more powerful modern day weapons show this trend -- nukes and FAE -- as they are so powerful as to render trying to simply "absorb" them on armor difficult and or impossible. If you have to face such weapons, you design your armor to ablate -- to absorb the damage by vaporizing. To paraphrase one of my favorite authors, when it comes to space weapons things don't melt, the energy transfer will be too sudden, to voracious for that. They explode.
Reply #41 Top
I think I've just concluded that Karma isn't interested in listening to anyone who doesn't agree with his point of view.

To summarize, Karma wants a game where more micromanagement (what he calls tactics) are necessary. I don't care for micromanagement, and I'm very happy with the level currently required by Sins.

Thank you for bringing up both Conquest: Frontier Wars and Nexus: The Jupiter Incident (the small squad game where the carrier has a massive fortress shield). You classify both of these games as failures. I heartily enjoyed them both.

You also ask to name games where the scale was made larger, and what you call "tactics" suffered as a result. I suppose both Supreme Commander, its spiritual predecessor Total Annihilation, and the open source remake of TA named Spring would fit that description. Again, I consider all of these games among my favorites.

I think the bottom line is that Sins is just not the right kind of game for you.
Reply #42 Top
Fighters in sins are most likely using rail gun equivalent projectile speeds, hitting anything so small with projectile weaponry is going to require much faster velocity than modern projectile weaponry can achieve. A rail gun firing a small chunk of aluminum would make a very large hole through any armor we can make. Not only would it make a hole, but the super heated plasma would vaporize said armor on contact and burn everyone to death inside the target. We're in space so it wont be so messy, no air resistance for instance, but then there's no air resistance to slow the projectiles down either. A pistol damaging tank armor would be a neat trick, a bullet moving a few thousand miles a second is not going to flatten on impact. You can put a blade of grass through solid steel if you can make it move fast enough.

It's not a pea shooter bouncing shots off it's target, it's a horrific little bastard armed with hyper velocity guns that can and will turn anything to goo if it can shoot the thing long enough. Cobalt frigates aren't even firing measly projectiles, they use lasers. You have no valid argument on the principle that it's impossible for them to damage the larger ships.

For game play, it's fairly obvious what is and isn't there. The turning speed of a marza screams a derogatory challenge to take it from behind. I take issue with the lack of variety myself, but it's not because this or that can or can't damage something, that's absurd bullshit invented by game designers because they couldn't design a physics engine worth mentioning. Not that sins is using physics to determine projectile hits either... I would like javelis to have much longer range, and cobalts to be significantly faster. Right now, they really aren't that different, just minor variation that comes into play when you're up against static defenses. A javelis wont get that many more hits off against a slower ship than it will against a cobalt, so the speed isn't particularly valuable there. The biggest factor is weapon coverage and turning radius. You can kill a marza with ten cobalts if you're careful and it's not level 6, you'll never kill a kol with so few. The reason you can kill the marza is it's too slow to turn around and re target your ships, you can circle around with the targeted units and evade it's narrow firing arc. The kol has very wide coverage and can't be dodged like that. Once you get up there in the tech department, units start to really diversify, but aside from the capital ships there isn't a whole lot of variance in ship on ship combat outside of carriers and capital ships. Once up there though, you have repair, shield restoration, range increased splash damage javelis, anti-matter draining cobalts, carriers are still carriers and flak frigates are still flak frigates, but the game is almost a good tactical game once you've researched most of the tree. The javelis become the cleanup crew of all things small and numerous, the capital ships eat them for breakfast, and the cobalts neutralize the capital ships special abilities and turn them into very expensive paper weights while the carriers bomb the shit out of everything once the flaks die off. I don't even need to play other people to tell that.

It's less impressive than I'd like, what flagship you take probably has more impact on your strategy than what units you research first will, but oh well.
Reply #43 Top
I think I've just concluded that Karma isn't interested in listening to anyone who doesn't agree with his point of view.


So? Its still fun calling him on his BS.
Reply #44 Top
Yawn. I think I'll go play the game.
Reply #45 Top

To summarize, Karma wants a game where more micromanagement (what he calls tactics) are necessary. I don't care for micromanagement, and I'm very happy with the level currently required by Sins.


Yes, I think the way things are now is just fine, with maybe a little tweaking. I think nobody will argue though when I say that the way that Sins AI prioritizes targets needs work, as well as the fact that the faster ships in a fleet will happily rush off to their doom (fighters and bombers excluded.) Fleets need to stick together period to improve their survivability.
Reply #46 Top
you know I keep wanting to defend Karma when you attack him Ron... but he always ruins it by saying something god-awfully rude or convoluted.

Therax - Conquest Frontier Wars was a fantastic game in particular, and I whole heartedly agree with your entire post - I played all of those too except for Nexus.

Reply #47 Top
you know I keep wanting to defend Karma when you attack him Ron... but he always ruins it by saying something god-awfully rude or convoluted.


lol
Reply #48 Top
i appologize that i didnt read the whole thread, its late and im tired.

I like the mode idea... ive been saying for a while we need a more indeapth tactical fleet managment system. currently its slopy at best and is annoying. I WANT TO BE THE GRAND ADMIRAL of my fleet not just the president of my civilization. I want to be able to control not just fleet make up but behavior. i want to be able to tell my robotics cruisers that are part of say fleet 3 to go around fixing fleet 3 and not actually attack whatever target i just told fleet 3 to attack. i can not tell you how many times ive seen my robotics cruisers and command cruisers out infront of my front line steaming toward some random target... im like NO!! GET BACK TO WERE ITS SAVE!! very annoying. but then i cant just tell them to guard a particular ship in fleet 3 because then if that ship dies they are on their own and i cant ever find were they were meant to be... not to mention if i accidentally drag select a portion of my fleet. that always screws up whatever complicated guard orders i may have given. i dont like being confided to ONLY using my fleet numbers. its a pain and i only have 10!

I would settle for just having a "guard" order lock, so that no mater what i tell that ship to do, afterwerd it will always go back to guarding after it has compleated that imediat task.

however like ive said befor, this slopy way of dealing with detailed fleet controle is, as stands, enough to make me just forget about it and focus on what sins is good at. its sad. this could easily become one of my favorate parts of the game if it is implemented right!

PS if im wrong and im just missing how to correctly do stuff, PLEASE tell me. i dont mind being wrong if it means im gonna have more fun!
Reply #49 Top
as well as the fact that the faster ships in a fleet will happily rush off to their doom (fighters and bombers excluded.) Fleets need to stick together period to improve their survivability.


Quoted for emphasis. Although the current fleet formation makes it quite 'packed', ideally your Cobalts won't charge into an enemy fleet leaving all your other ships behind, and then get slaughtered because they're the only targets the enemy has in range

This is most common with gauss platforms.. ship targeting combat AI usually prioritizes other ships for enemies, so they end up near your main/slower fleet eventually..