Perhaps your sorry, but you do have a point. The design on a lot of the frigates "feels" small, even though those things are huge.

That said, please consider these things in your re-hash of prior debates:

1) According to the devs, sensor and computer technology has advanced to the point where you know where the enemy is, and can always put a round where you want to. The only targets that you can miss are those that can generate a miss (i. e. change their position enough between firing time and impact time to no longer be there).

2) Ships are big. A "mere" cobalt is 500 meters long -- and the cobalt is amongst the smallest ships in existence! That is a lot of ship to target... and a lot of distance to move in order to generate a miss.

3) Ships are slow. It takes them time to move, maneuver, turn, and the like.

I think the better term is believability, which unfortunately is very subjective. For instance with my real world experience in fields that are frequently the subject of movies and games I find many things to be unbelievable in both. This can range from the absurd (bunny-hopping in FPS games) to the minor annoyance (3 rockets always kill a tank regardless of where you hit, or a sniper rifle hit to the arm is always lethal, etc).

I'm willing to sacrifice a lot of believability for the sake of gameplay but not for the sake of eye-candy alone.

So moving fleets around really boils down to how believable is it for you and what does it add to the game? Considering that I already dislkie the apparently random maneuvering done to line up the fleet having any effect even remotely similar while in combat wouldbe about as fun as getting a root canal, for me. As a few people have already mentioned there are several cases where moving into a different position can be very advantageous in SINS, but none of those would be improved by ships randomly drifting off into the sunset. In fact, a lot of valid tactics that make the combat fun, such as punching through their line of light frigates to get at their LRMs, would be distorted, hampered or even lost entirely. That said, and considering how well the AI handled target priority, if you even do something as minor as move your own LRM frigates around to keep them out of range of the enemy ships you will suddenly end up with a very dynamic battle as the AI will respond by chasing you which in turn gets the rest of your fleet moving to face them or stay in range.

So, seriously, for those of you complaining about static battles, try to approach them tactically rather than like a slugfest and see what happens, you just might find exactly what you've been asking for. And who knows, you might even enjoy it

Actually, I beg to differ about the computer supported aiming on WWII battleships. They did have them, just very large, crude, vacuum tube based calculating machines that were essentially specialized ballistics computing devices.

At least...I'm pretty sure they did if I remember my History/Discovery Channel correctly.

QFT

Those of you who have already played Nexus have seen that ships moving in battle is not just a very cool idea, but is also very doable. Ships simply feel much more real.

Those that haven't, I can see why you may think that battles in Sins look cool .

I think I like the combat and the non moving ships for many of the reasons already mentioned.
1. It seems it would be hard to select individual units or sets of units if they were all constantly swarming around.
2. With so many other things going on in the game it is nice to be able to leave one battle, go to another battle, or another planet or whatever and come back and still see your units in a similar spot from when you left.
3. I have a pretty old machine (P4 2.8Ghz; 1 gig Ram; Radeon 9800) and the game currently runs pretty smoothly at decent resolution. I really want to upgrade, but I don't want the game to stop working on me in the meantime.

Hawk: You've yet to take anyone's advice on the forum, I think you don't want real answers that being said you're still looking in the wrong area.



That's too complex for the average gamer. No sarcasm. And it requires some degree of proficiency in micromanagement and understanding of game mechanics beyond what the tool tips suggest.

And Tholan, I think Nexus pales in comparison to RotJ's Battle at Endor, and oh wait those ships didn't move much. You may think it feels real but anyone who looks at it critically would realize it is borderline retarded and that really kills the whole 'immersion' thing. Or if you play any game competitively you'll realize how ridiculous it is.

Nexus: Jupiter Incident.

How many scientific appraisals has it had? How many units has it sold in comparison to Sins? How many top RTS players even bother with that game? Which scientific community endorses it?

As you can see, this supposed example of the paragon of space combat is clearly lacking in so many departments. Why not generate some 'originality' (be it conceptual, scientific, or personal) instead of being lazy and pointing at an obviously flawed material that is already dated (and it doesn't fit the bill to begin with)?

Assuming a projectile moving at X speed, a ship moving at at least half-X should be reliably able to dodge that projectile. While you may say area matters, it doesn't if the ship is fast enough or has a tight enough turning radius. I see no reason a frigate or cruiser could not dodge a typical non-beam shot in Sins by simply using evasive maneuvers. The caps aren't fast enough to overcome their large area disadvantage, but frigates could quite easily roll out of the way of incoming fire having seen their scale next to, say, an autocannon shot, and their relatively high speed.

Holy smokes! I just read all three pages. Do I get a medal?

In all seriousness though I think people are missing the point.

Instead of having a geek battle about which form of space combat is more realistic (I don't mean this in derogatory manner I am a nerd and I absolutely loved reading that debate) we need to debate what is more fun.

I also request a developer to come in here and clear the record.

Everyone keeps talking like they actually understand the mechanics. One person comes in saying that they managed to flank a ship and do more damage to the rear, when another comes in and says that there are no firing arcs and everything auto hits. How does the game actually work? I read another post that said the code wouldn't allow for X, Y, and Z. Did you code it? Is the source code in the modder? Did I miss something?

Someone even said that you can manipulate the Z axis?! What the heck!? Is this true? Elaboration please!

If ships have 360 degree firing arc, cannot shoot while moving, and do not get a evade (miss) percentage, then what besides range placement, is tactically viable?

Is the game is designed to avoid tactical combat at the fleet engagement level? Can we please get a developer response?

I don't think people realize how big these ships are. In Return of the Jedi, the big ships were not moving much. It's the fighters that do the moving.

Ever watch Babylon 5? A *frigate* in Sins is about the same size as a Hyperon class destroyer (1200m).  If you look in the manual, the capital ships tend to have tens of thousands of crew on them. Think super star destroyer size.  How much movement would you expect there?

This is a game not a sim, and we already pretty much now that Sins is not based in our universe..hence the FLT drives. So why not at least make the frigates move around more? Cruiser to would be nice..however the big cap ships..You have to consider the scale. Look at the cap ship then at planet. Sometimes they are 1/4th the size of the planet.

I always looked it that way. Frigates are massive compared to what most pepole think as a frigate. Watching a Cobalt do loop-de-loops would be like watching a Star Destroyer do loop-de-loops. It doesn't seem right does it? That, and quickly having large fleets would become a pain unless you wanted to degrade your self from Emperor to system traffic cop. It would be to hard to keep track off. I have hard enough time with just fighters when there intermingled with the opposing fleet.

Thank you for the developer response. I would like to know however what is true regarding firing arcs and the like.

Also can you answer my question regarding game design?

Is the game designed to avoid tactical strategy? Is the goal just galaxy wide strategy?

Once you get moving ships going... get space structures to start orbiting planets... and planets to orbit their stars...

How about someone who read every single post for 6 months? I have a fairly good grasp on it.

There is no "flanking damage" in this game.

Weapons do have firing arcs, and it varies from ship to ship.

Ignoring possible ability / area effects, there is 100% chance to hit frigates and capitols, but not fighters, but the code does exist for misses.

Devs have stated that technology has advanced to the point where "you can't miss" due to computers and sensors.



I don't bother with it -- and I don't even remember the key anymore, it used to be ~, but it changed -- but you can use the Z axis if you REALLY want to.



I call BS. It isn't just enough to move at a given speed, you have to be able to clear the location in question at a given speed. So area / size does matter. And frigates are slow moving enough that you should be well aware that you can't generate amiss with them -- just play the game a bit and look at how slow they move!

Hey Ron I appreciate the knowledge bud thanks for clearing most stuff up.

Here is one for your dumn brain. How can you make a complete stop, in space, of a space 100 of not 1000 tones in weight? you surelu don't.

Object in space would "drift" it would require lots of power to get them moving and a lot to make them stop right away.

I think it would add "realism", yeah, I used the word here, if ships would move. capital ships could have "drift" movement with small course correction while frigate and other small ship could move a little faster and try evasive manoeuvre.

Also, it's tactic #1: you never, EVER stand still in combat. You'd think they would have figure that out in the future.

I believe ships aren't moving because it was technically easier for the dev to do so. I hope that with some more time, they will provide us with a patch that will rectify this. I mean, it's not impossible, Homeworld had their ship move, in 3D instead of the 2d plane that we are restricted with in Sins.

Don't call people dumb .

mRWaffles, I am surprised you questioned the manipulation of the Z axis since you're senior to myself on the board. Go look in the key bindings and you'll see Z Axis movement that is currently unbound and requires an unique key to access it. I am far too lazy to use it but some times I do just to make enemy ships rotate everywhere to fire at my ships when I think it matters.


There are firing arcs, observe the TEC Kol Battleship's beam emitters and see if they fire off or deal damage when someone is behind it. The Kol has a rear auto cannon however so watch that.

As for your game design question it is a proprietary blend of tactics and strategy. Here's a thing though of common sense: If there are unique abilities , unique units, movement, there will be tactics and strategies present. How much? That is not something that can be quantifiable. The instinctual reply is: Whatever is conducive for overall fun - take it as what you will, but I think that's basic game design knowledge.

Frogboy has already hinted at why we cannot make quantifiable judgements - we don't know the ships specs, weapon specs, how their technology works. With these elements in mind, you cannot make a scientific judgement. In the end, it comes down to what is MEANINGFUL and FUN at the same time that is LORE ACCEPTABLE.

Indeed, Frogboy, we certainly don't know how big the ships are perhaps when you're bored you can write up a short story or something that details the technical aspects of Sins of a Solar Empire, perhaps that fiction might become part of the driving plot in the mysterious campaign one day.

I'm sorry for the spelling but I wrote it fast and English is NOT my main language. Yeah, I speak more than one languages. so when you can write without spelling mistake in your second or third language, then you could lecture me on spelling...

Schod declared that HW2 didn't have ship evasion beyond the corvette class. I am setting the picture straight.



So far as war is concerned, the tank is to the basic infantryman of WWI onwards what the chariot and mounted knight was to the footsoldier of medieval times. The nuclear weapon, the new siege weapon. The constants didn't change. Just the implementation. Aircraft on the other hand, provided a new paradigm. But only in the sense that it opened a new theater from which war could be waged from. Did it change anything about the fundamentals of warfare?

Hardly.

Sun Tzu's art of war, nearly two millenia old, still holds true today as it did when the best people had were spears, arrows, and swords.



And this is the primary point being debated. Ships being able to maneuver while still engaging their targets. If we wanted to argue on what made sense and didn't without changing anything about how the game functions, then we are merely wasting time, effort, for the debatable benefit of ego stroking.



I would suggest you do a little research on tactical and strategic positioning and repositioning before you claim one's view of reality is skewed.

Only a senior by a minute I'm sure, and I always assumed there was no Z in the design.



I don't think your language fluency means you can call people dumb

Brad, in Starwars, Star Destroyer were still constantly at least moving forward, make it engine push or drifting. You just can't stop a XXXX tons ship just like that.

in the end, like many said, it's about fun. I think it would make the battle more FUN to watch if that were more movement/action on the screen. Right now, you can't wash out the feeling that the ships are just standing there shooting at themself, just like they use to do war when they first colonized America ie: Line up on a plain field, fire at the other line of lined up militia, rince, repeat.

There is massive irony when you wrote this, but I digress.

We are not restricted to a 2D plane, your ignorance is acceptable since many people don't bother going through the key bindings or reading posts - sometimes I am guilty of that too.

There are a few ways you can look at it and that's one of them, however, you also must take into account of Stardock's official technical layout on how ships target each other and how well their computational systems are lore wise. All of them are valid especially if none of them contradict themselves.

However, in regards to your tactics statement, it seems like you aren't paying attention to your own actions. They don't stand still unless you want them to. You can flank. You can drag their aggression, you can do plenty of things and all of them require some movement. But taking up the spirit of your argument, I can only say: You cannot dodge the Death Star. Yes, please, dodge something that has 360 cover , perfect targetting systems, and who has turbo laser bolts that move way faster than you can even conceive of moving - we're talking about frigate class here at minimum.

In the grim future of Sins of a Solar Empire, there are only times of war that are upon us. By that I mean, moving to evade fire is stupid but moving to produce 'flanking' and other things is not and that requires PLAYER ATTENTION. The computers are not smart enough to figure it out , otherwise we would've long invented an AI script capable of playing Go on the highest levels.