sorry have to dissagree there you do stand still BUT only when your in cover and as stated in anothere post most battlefield movment is to get from cover to cover

Seeing as in space there is no cover and the devs already stated computers dont miss whats the point of wasting tonns of fule and manuvering huge ships that frigate are in this game unless it to correct for drift

seriosly the devs have in my opinion naild it on the head





please read other posts as it avoids going rond in circles


as for the drift on capital ships you may have a verry valid point but i dont know enough about the phisics in zero g, vacum to comment futher

Please, read the message that I actually was quoting and see why I deliberatly used the word "Dumb".

What I would really want to see implemented is a ‘patrol’ move order that would loop a movement route.


Maneuvering considerations for vessels in space (assuming near 100% accuracy)

1) Energy loss or gain: it may be important in a gravity well to maintain a high orbit in order to conserve energy (especially if fleeing is an option) Exploiting orbital dynamics would also be key. Mission specific reasons for maneuvering are the prime reason.
2) Weapon geometry of offensive vessel. Given the current weaponry and distribution around the hull it is useful to reorient on any given vector to bring maximum firepower to bear or to spread firepower across selected targets effectively. This reorientation can force an opponent to move simply due to the thruster/weaponry geometry of the vessel. This can be bulk applied to fleet tactics in target selection and squadron manuvering.
3) Defensive geometry: there may be weak points on a vessel that need to be kept away from the enemy or damaged sections that need to be rotated out of the line of fire. This introduces behavior like chasing the tail; both ships are aiming for vulnerable components… this can applied to defensive fleet tactics as well.
4) Gunnery drift: recoil would cause substantial drift and may be utilized to shift the vessel rapidly as a defensive or offensive maneuver. (would require multiple vectors of offense and defense to make practical)
5) An effective defensive AI would orient the ship based on all sources of damage probability to best optimize gunnery, it is a risk calculation on how much damage the enemy can deliver along a given vector. This would be combined with tactical knowledge to not expose the vessel to new threats. The offensive AI would attempt to do the opposite to targets.
6) Smaller vessels would maneuver to find optimal positions between enemy fire arcs depending on the vessel design. Frigates would probably make passes or orbit vessels with large spinal mount weaponry or heavy turrets. Closing the distance is usually key as fewer weapons can be brought to bear at point blank range (or exceed mount rotation capability)
7) At long range the maneuverability of the vessel vs. light speed weapons is actually a significant factor in its survivability, especially at ranges over 100,000 km, gunnery orientation is critical at these ranges. Salvos would have a larger spread to bracket an opponent and combined fire would be crucial for bracketing. At shorter ranges the field of fire can become more focused as the bracketing effect is more severe.
8) Energy output vs acceleration trade offs may be very high depending on the tech. A vessel may not be able to accelerate if power is diverted to weapons.

Unfortunately given the lack of subsystems or location based damage there is no reason for 2 and 3. 1 is eliminated primarily by the lack of a proper orbital mechanic, but goal based behavior is a major driver. 4 would be hard to implement even in a pure simulation correctly. 5 is covered by the current target selection AI.
7 could be simulated, but it is better to simply introduce a range/accuracy modifier and hold a suspension of disbelief that vessels aren’t right on top of each other, but rather 10’s or 100’s of thousand of kilometers apart or more. 8 would introduce too much micro management unless the acceleration vs weapon power was an automatic mechanic. In such case it would be very useful to introduce a fleet maneuver tactic setting separate from an ‘aggression/ weapon power’ setting.

6 would be useful as an option especially in cases where small vessels are opposing a ship with spinal weaponry, allowing the frigates to maneuver as a fleet tactic would increase there survivability (but only at close range otherwise 7 would be a better answer)

In short for sins there wouldn’t be much of a point for true maneuverability, however it would be nice to have some bulk drift to battles and occasional small adjustments for ships.

When micromanaged maneuvering has been attempted in the game I have been pleased with the results, in fact I drove a heavily damaged advent capital repeatedly through a pile of kols and laughed as they had to slowly turn around, it was an effective tactic to keep the ship in system while reinforcements arrived.

I do believe that the implementation here is what matters, the broad concepts are just that and really add nothing to this conversation.



And yes, we are wasting time for the sake of ego stroking. Did it never occur to you to look at the official stance Stardock has?



You haven't played the game extensively have you? And if you find fault in my arguments go tear them apart, do not tease . That last number was a may or may not. However, why ignore the other seven points? Are they not valid? If so, explain.



My ships move forward, I don't know about yours but maybe it is because I tell them to because I find that there are advantages in doing such. Perhaps, you should invest in micromanaging your fights every now and then I heard interaction makes a great game!

And you're right about the other point, that is about having more fun but what you've suggested can be done by the player and should be done by the player otherwise we can completely abstract combat and put it on pure dice rolling + number crunching. Master of Orion 2 had an option of doing that same with Medieval Total War... that is auto combat without going to the tactical screen.

I'll take this comment back then. I must have "miss" that key. I'll check it out myself in a few minute. In any cases, it's obviously not as "user friendly" as the other functions in the game.



for the argument, unless I am mistaling, The Kol capital ship for the TEC cannot shoot it's main weapon emitter at all 360 degres. So there would be a tactical advantage to move outside of that weapon's range. Also, and this might need to be researched, but do all weapon to the same amount of damage? do the turrets behind a capital ship make the same amount of damage as the ones located in the front? If not, there is another reason you would want to move away from the fron of a capital ship.

I think acceleration/deceleration would work a lot better and probably be simple(r) to implement. Basically when a ship gets in range, or maybe just about in range, the ship's engines will cut out and it'll "drift" into position, maybe giving it a slight random yaw and pitch so they arent in the exact direction they were facing, noticeable enough that you notice it, but subtle enough it doesnt really effect firing arcs that much. If you apply this across a fleet, the net effect would be that you can plainly see that the ship are interacting with the z-axis, and would give you a sense of "ordered chaos" essentially, with the ships being slightly out of formation, at a minor angle, etc. Makes the battlefield a lot less sterile without effecting gameplay at all.

To Eville:



Inertial stabilizers/nullifiers on weapon systems prevents them from moving the ship after firing and beam weapons don't recoil.

But your conclusion is fairly accurate, however drifting might make microing even more of a pain in the ass and would largely be a waste of resources - a better diversion of programming should be the inclusion of super capital to doom star construction or new factions. Go for big swings with small movements, pretty elementary.

And to Hawk:
Read, research, say something. You might get flamed for being an idiot by some people but at least you learn. You should comment regardless so long as you put some thought into it or at least effort failing that. You should also go to Stardestroyer.net and post your thoughts and suggestions there... you'll most likely get a combination of hatred, hard science, speculative science, and opinions. Failing that, there are other sites that debate things like this on a daily basis and many of the contestants hold PHDs in the sciences.

I believe that could be a small change that could actually add a more random/realism to the battles.

You're correct on the Kol Battleship using its emitters. But my main point was that you are in charge of those tactical decisions, ships should not move on their own because they do not know what you wish of them . You may change your tactics at whim and you may find that the Kol trying to flank to avoid being fired upon by another Kol has now interfered with your options. That's what my main beef was about your statement in regards to space ships not moving on their own or in the future that they don't move. They do and only do if you tell them to.

Players do not like elements out of their control even in the slightest, we see a MASSIVE complaint about the pirates (and equally massive about why the whiners are just that). If we take that to heart we can understand why ships should not move on their own unless ordered to .

Weapons do different damages. Autocannon/Beam/missiles have different associated damage profiles that have different multipliers depending on what armor they're facing. A typical RTS formula.

If Sins weaponry consisted solely of guided missiles, you might have a point.



They did. Just because they didn't have Pentiums doing the math doesn't mean they didn't have computers then. Or radar slaving, to track where shots landed for recalculations.



At the distances involved in a planets gravity well, even mass drivers can miss. All it takes is for a ship to slow down, or change course slightly, and they'd miss.

For a working analogy, think of your kinetic round as an unguided torpedo, and your target is a destroyer/cruiser some five kilometers out. A lot can happen to turn that hit into a miss, especially if they spot it in time. The same principle applies here.



As it stands, I'd rather see an automated system of bobbing and weaving. Depending on how the code is set up, it could be simply applying the flight behavior(lowered intensity) of fighters to frigates and cruisers. It will be a cosmetic effect anyway, since from observation, Sins applies hit damage even before the projectile makes contact, with the possible exception of missiles. I suspect it may use a base hit percentage rather than any physics based impact calculation.

The only problem is that ships interact with each other, bump into each other and what not. More chaos and less control the player has, in essence, it will have an effect and it is superfluous at best. The battle field looking sterile is subjective and if we talk about fun there are better ways to make this game more fun than to make ships drift or whatever else .

Nothing larger the a corvette made any evasive actions. AT ALL. Ships would move to bring the most guns to bear as possible, but SoaSE does that too. Frigates and up can move in combat but the player has to actively order it.

Watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMFa0K6MbBU&feature=related

Yes. The Battle cruiser gets in range and stops moving. Wow. So much movement, SoaSE Should totally be like that.

Oh wait.




Umm. A tank is more analogous to a knight. A APC is more analogous to chariot. A infantry man is more analogous to a... infantry man. The nuclear bomb is not a siege weapon, it doesn't starve out the a fortress. It blows it up and makes the ground uninhabital for extended periods of time. Sun Tzu's Art of War isn't about how to command on the field of battle, its about strategy and useful tips. Modern war is very different on the tactical level, infantry are much more independent and actively work together with the "cavalry" were they used to be much more tightly controlled and kept more independent between cavalry and infantry. Unless your telling me infantry line up in large blocks and tanks are used as skirmishers, warfare has changed, just not on the strategic level. Oh wait, nukes and air power changed that too.

Fortunately we can stop ships in seconds on this game..if we couldn't what would become of all those space ponies?...:\

Depends on how fast the projectile is moving and depends on how fast you can move. Are the specs released for the said weaponry? No.

You make a lot of assumptions about Sins and their technology. The only thing you do know beyond the obvious is that their targeting formulations and systems are flawless.

The standard engagement range is pretty small if you want to take the game and scale it to 'reality', problem is that in itself is a logical error.




... Yeah really. Wait, why are we talking about cosmetic effects when there are better things to do? Do we even want to discuss what cosmetic effects can do to player psychology? Let's just leave it out since it's fine the way it is and most gamers would agree.



It might as well be, pray tell, would you care to dodge a flash light? I bet you I'll hit you regardless of range , in a matter of fact I don't think you'll even know it's coming till you're hit with it.

And who knows, their auto cannon shots might be guided too! They auto hit anyways! Gyro rocket auto cannon rounds with laser guidance and computational adjustments on board! TEC INSIDE!

I don't know every world war navy movie I have watched the battleships with 1000+ were in constant movement to try and not to get hit. This included the radar guided ships. You stay in constant movement to keep from getting hit. That missile may be guided but if you can move beyond it's fuel range it isn't going to hit you.

Well Busby, I think he was more interested in the fundamentals that is holding high ground, out maneuvering someone though his delivery contained a million fallacies which you have more or less nailed.

That being said, the fundamentals are still obeyed in Sins but the implementation matters just as much and it would be pretty retarded to ignore that simply because it changes the dynamics. That is what we're arguing right now.

There was no real point to this post but to merely reaffirm what we're arguing/debating about.

I won't even talk about the shot guns and beams of light. ok I will talk about them

These weapons would be fired at where the ship is going to be not where it is.

I'm quite aware of what their stance is, but does that mean those of us who intend to mod the game into incorporating these mechanics when the tools become available should do nothing?



Enough to be frustrated by the frigates inability to keep their forward arcs pointed at an opponent while moving. A Kol has 100% coverage, yes, but that doesn't mean their rear arcs are as powerful as their forward arcs.



Since you asked so nicely



Addressed above. I would rather they adopt Soviet gunship tactics of the 1980s that were exceedingly effective. Constantly circling a target zone while facing it to ensure constant fire while minimizing exposure to heavy return fire.



And you want your ships to be in the fire arc of the heavy weapons why? Does it not occur to you that your arguments against are actually arguments for this sort of tactical flexibility?



Addressed in No. 2



I've seen ships turn on axis, although only when not in motion. This negates your point.



But there are firing arcs. A Cobalt frigate will survive longer behind an enemy Kol than in front of it.



Addressed in No. 1

There is a flaw in your assertion: You cannot out run a missile as a capital ship in the navy.

Another note: space battles have very little to nothing to do with naval battles. I implore you to think things through and failing that to post your entire thesis on why you think otherwise. More details please.

Marshadar,

When the tools release do as you please, but don't call it realistic.

My arguments are against superfluous movement, as in ships maneuvering themselves without your consent. You have yet to figure that out after reading all my posts.

Knowing that, tell me why ships should move on their own with the additional consideration of those points.


As for your counter to point number five, you still need to tell me why they sometimes make wide turns instead of rotating. Thus, in effect, ships do have REDUCED MANEUVERABILITY.

The whole reason I wrote those points was to point out that moving around was fairly pointless for eye candy purposes excluding TACTICAL movements which I already SAID were in the game and had to be CONTROLLED by the player.

Yeah, sure you would like to have your silly circling and weaving, but it interferes with micro and if your brain was hooked up to the machine you would do that anyways but on YOUR terms.

It's about player control/interaction, eye candy is secondary.

Micro better and you might see better results. Do you want everything to be automated?



For the sake of debating purposes despite the fact that I already addressed what those points were meant for I'll toss out this : In Sins, it's a pure DPS race . I guess you haven't really played or paid attention. The only time where movement is acceptable is when you're being focus fired on otherwise it takes WAY too much time to get into position and make up for the DPS loss. Damage tends to avalanche and losses are exponential , think about it. Your starting position matters a lot more than your engagement position if you review your games carefully. There are a few exceptions and we're not talking about those.

Again, I'd like to point out that the OP post is more about small movements rather than maneuvers a player can execute in which case all my points cover why small movements aren't a benefit and why big ones are unnecessary.

I think your wrong. I think a space battle will be the same as a naval battle only with more distance involved and a battle field that is 3d instead of 2d. oh wait with aircraft and subs naval battles are 3d as well.

the last battleship battle ever was fought using radar the two sides never saw each others ships.

any warship that stops during a fight is considered a sitting duck. examples pearl harbor and the 4 british battleships the day after pearl harbor

You didn't really read my post regarding this did you. I said post PDS mod.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z61bKT-m0UE

Not moving huh?



Which more or less fits with what I've mentioned earlier.



Siege weapons don't starve out fortresses. They smash them. Do you have any idea what a siege weapon even is?



And strategy includes, at large scales, flanking maneuvers. Which do require that at said scale, the ones doing the flanking are capable of doing so while keeping the business ends of their weapons pointed in the right direction.



They just added another theater to conduct war over. They didn't change anything at the strategic level.