Not what you think it is!

You have all the tactical movement in the game available to you. Ships have firing arcs, your ships can move. Go figure ! *GASP* Think about the wonders, you can actually flank ships but that must've escaped your mind.

And to the person who keeps begging for a naval expert: reconsider the issue and think it through carefully, failing that consult a scientist of the appropriate field(s).

Right now the game has a lot of movement, carriers of the TEC and the Akkan's both rotate to bring its guns that are all on the broadside of the ship and beam emitters are only FRONTAL ARC ONLY. Which means you actually can exploit some situations by repositioning and that I mentioned above.

If you think you're limited right now then you have a fairly limited imagination, furthermore no real sense of what 'tactics' are.

As for the sub systems, while that is a cool idea, you'll merely be playing the game into a twitch fest and if you implement it CoH style then it's a pure luck issue of whether or not your panzer (capital ship) ends up losing the engine on the first hit. Most people don't want luck to interfere with their game and considering some people flaming pirates they might just flame this even more.

Frigates don't maneuver because they aren't fast enough to out pace a turret. Fighters and bombers are excusable because they can out pace each other but against something that has 360 arc and fires a continuous beam weapon with good/perfect targetting they might as well be still.

As for those quoting movies/shows like Star Wars and Babylon 5, cease your blasphemy! Go look at the Battle of the Line for B5 and RotJ's last fight scene between the Imperials and Rebels at Endor, I see ships doing the following: Moving closer because they can or want to , ramming ( in one case falling (?) on and into the Death Star) , and sitting. Go through the series for B5 and you'll see that most movements are already done in Sins: Moving forward, turning 180 and retreating, moving on the Z axis, trying to get to another position where the enemy isn't going to fire.

So knowing all that, what are you even thinking? They're CINEMATIC only because of the CAMERA angles. Zoom out far enough and B5/Star Wars will look exactly like Sins. Why do Star Trek ships move around? Because of the following:

1: Their tracking blows so you can actually out run the computer but this really isn't consistent with the universe it presents the viewers with along with whatever canon materials.
2: Because it stirs the imagination of people (despite some rabid fans claiming the trek universe to be scientifically sound not just filled with techno babble)

Take that into consideration for Sins and the following results: Movement is superfluous and interferes with targetting thus making the game slightly more irritating. It isn't realistic and probably requires recoding the engine which equates to time wasted and better spent on introducing new units/factions/storyline/whatevers.

As for people who are talking about ship designs, all that matters is the firing arcs or the lack thereof on certain things. The way it looks should be addressed by the art department not here and not now or ever.

Next you guys will be flaming George Lucas for making the Death Star not move claiming it is unrealistic.

And to MrWaffles : All of that is in the game except you have to do it manually. The only micro that is ever reasonable (and no shifting your ships in and out of formation exploiting bugs is not necessary micro for anyone who is wondering - thus formations are also superfluous but it was nice that they added it in anyways).

And I sit back wondering why I wasted my effort to tell you this even though you already knew it - we all agree, movement is stupid on various levels let's just end it at that and find another way to make the game cooler ... like SUPER CAPITAL SHIPS! Size is everything.

please clarify ans you have left me confused as a drunk ant on a disco light

Navel is a belly button, I was just being a jerk

 


LOL missed that one my bad spelling thanks for pointing it out
  

Realistically is not a great word to use, but physics are physics and sense is sense.
So if we take into account the technology levels in this game, for example (IE no completely invincible shields that nothing can penetrate ever), ships in combat would be moving constantly. not to mention aiming turrets on the ships.

Also, I'll bet that any capital ship will deploy self-propelled weapon systems outside of its hull for better coverage and some risk minimization.

In any case, ships would be moving constantly to avoid being hit by 'dumb' projectile fire (and at breakneck thrusts. frankly, as big a G-force number as the technology/physiology of the crew can handle), and executing other kinds of defensive thrust against smart weapons like tracking missiles (these combined with defensive fire or chaff).

And thats just 1v1 combat.
fighter craft and smaller ships would be moving like crazy running circles around their bigger enemies and dogfighting a-la homeworld..
Bigger formations of ships will be moving to wherever enemy weapon coverage is smallest or wherever they could get the clearest positional fix (this kind of combat doesn't happen within visual range really.. and ships being as black as the night, my guess is you'll have to get positional fixes from the ships thrusters, in which case the best position to be in is behind it)

etc etc etc, I'm tired of writing so much, night

Lightzy

i understand your point but ask is it or would it be practical to manover an entire fleet like as that it could lead to collissions with freindly units or wors frendly fire as a ship accedentally crosses the line of fire of a frendly ship (oops sorry bout that   ) that and unfortunatly the only person that can awnser that is someone who has allot of knowlage on modernday fleet tacktics

futhermore i dont think consedering the volume of space and the hit to miss ratio of ships there in will any navy use dumb projectiles theres just to much space (pardon the pun) to miss in.

as usuall just my two cents

but if however people would like movig ships because it looks cool then i have no counter to that as it is a matter of opinnion and i have to respect that but agree to disagree

anyhow thanks for the post and it is good to hear diffrent points of view

Just get a mod team together and make a mod.

Lightzy:



You apparently took nothing into account: What do you know of their algorithms for targeting and their computational powers? Also, how do you dodge a beam of light? You assume everyone uses auto-cannons and you have no idea how they truly function either. Please tell me, did Stardock release every bit of information regarding the functions/science behind an autocannon? Are then beam emitters not using wavelengths and thus we must assume different physics?



Yeah, they're some times called fighters or in the case of TEC carriers a combination of those + missile pods. But honestly, you need to think about what you have just said for a moment: Everything depends on the specs of each weapons and hulls, you will also need to know HOW ships are constructed in the world of Sins.



Logical but unfortunately, if we're talking about Sins, visual range is far greater than weapon range. The color of a ship doesn't matter, there are sensors that somehow detect a ship's presence immediately in Sins. Therefore, initial positioning only matters in terms of where you land in the gravity well, from there on maneuvers to flank may occur or retreats or anything that's already seen in the game. No other movement is necessary nor realistic nor conducive to warfare in the world of Sins.

Hawk: Are you even reading the posts? Modern fleet knowledge does not equate to expertise in space warfare - in a matter of fact, it's all hypothetical and completely dependent on the lore set and if you want real life? Go make a game based on science then not on science fiction. There is a GREAT deal of fantasy and technobabble here (and none of it is even released). If you want to know more about how space warfare might be conducted go talk to the people at Star Destroyer or any of other Versus websites.



Rubbish; kinetic weapons take less energy than energy directed weapons. There will be some limiting factor be it the computational system, the reactor, or the maximum range. A magnetic rail hurling space rocks at sub light speeds with a good targeting mechanism is most likely going to be cheaper than charging your reactor to project a beam weapon or to fire a very expensive missile. A scenario like that may be plausible thus debunking your 'considerations'.

As another poster said: The targeting system REALLY matters. And as I pointed out , you really need to know the lore of the universe down to how many kilojoules / megatons / whatevers a single auto cannon shot does as well as each individual technology behind it.

So, basically, none of the posters have any scientific or logical reasons and they should not pretend to. In the end, it comes down to flavor, that is utterly subjective and generally a minor issue considering that this game is about empire building not a simulation of running a sector fleet.

The problem with FS' AI was that it basically consisted of broad-siding; stuff like the example you gave was done entirely by scripting it. If you plonked two FS (capital) ships next to each other, regardless of where their weapons were located, they'd either do a continuous circle round each other or proceed in a straight line 'race'. That's why I find the whole stand-off approach quite refereshing. Plus I guess (not having played much - only DL-ed this morning at work) you can use tactics with one set of ships holding down the front whilst others flank, kind of like using a phalanx+flanking cavalry in the Total War games.

[quote="Schod"]
homeworld has no more movement to its ships than does sins, I dare you to prove me wrong on that point.
[/quote]

Homeworld 2 vanilla, maybe. Post Point Defense Systems mod application, no. Frigates and destroyers in that mod constantly shifted positions when firing, not just getting in range, but circling their target, bobbing and weaving. All in order to minimize their profile and the chance of being hit.

As for the argument that huge battleships don't maneuver, that's a lie. I point you to the super heavy dreadnoughts of WWII. The 'fast' battleships like the Iowa class or the biggest ever, the Yamato and its sister ship Musashi, were all battleships that grossed at over 40,000 tons and were huge. Not one of them, in ship to ship combat, ever stayed still while firing at one another. At distances of only just 20km, with targets nearly half a kilometer long and a theoretical maximum velocity of 1,500 m/s (physical limitation of gas propulsion) a measly +25 knots and a few degrees on the wheel or firing batteries made all the difference between landing a solid hit or splashing in the water.

And somehow the immense vastness of space, where distances are measured in the hundreds or thousands of kilometers, valid military strategies that have been applied from the beginning of pointy sticks to massive dreadnoughts now plays no effect? Bollocks.

Edit: What's with the quote system?

In all honesty I never understood why frigs would just want to sit there anyway, they really don't have the armor to duke it out with the big guys. But I guess even in FS2 while they moved it really wasn't much. Even the smaller ships.

I think what people want is something a little bigger than a fighter that has more firepower, and it can take a few hits, but still uses maneuverability over just armor/shields. Honestly everyone wants the Millennium falcon type of craft I think.

Look at Star Wars. There cap ships really didn't move it was more of the fighter craft that did all the major maneuvering. All the frigates where there for is to cover the cap ships in a Anti-fighter sort of way. In which case you would have a post and stay there, unless you have to fill in a spot becuase a ship can't fire anymore. The only other reason you would make the Frig move is to open a way for your fighters. Or your bigger ships.

The way it goes is this.

Bomber < Fighter < "Flak" Frigate < Combat Frigate < Cruiser < Battleships

But

Bomber>Combat Frigate*/cruiser*/battleship*

okay time to end it the ships sit still cus in this univers god said if your ships move during combat i will kill the whole universe
ps i like the fighters i will let them move but none others

end of the end  

Actually, you can move ships yourself - I've done it. In a recent battle, I had a fleet of 2 capital ships (the Kol and the missle barrage firing ship) and about a dozen frigates with a few cruisers thrown in. I was battling an enemy with a similar sized fleet, when I noticed my missle barrage ship was taking quite a beating. Since it has some range, I decided to take it out of the thick of battle, so I turned it around to move it out of the way. Much to my chagrin, the 2 enemy capital ships followed it in order to keep attacking (from behind), so I kept it running. What ended up happening was, I followed the 2 enemy capital ships with my Kol and a few other ships and fired on them from behind and ended up destroying them.

You can do tactical maneuvering in this game if you want to sit there and micromanage the battle. Most of the time I don't feel the need to do it, but in this particular battle I did, and it worked.

And that situation isn't valid in Sins because of the fixed hull mounted weapons having a narrow firing arc coupled by the fact that they cannot out pace the targeting systems. You can move in circles all you want because most Advent ships will still hit you due to their firing arcs, the only place that is safe is to stay in the rear. You can micro that on your own.

And even if you look at TEC ships their turrets have perfect tracking so all you do is run from one arc into the other, the only blind spot is with their emitters and again you can move manually - god forbid you click an extra once!

So is the universe of Homeworld a valid comparison? NOT REALLY . Read and think about what you post and if you did at least come up with counter arguments based in the world of Sins not Homeworld. Two different universes. Two different technology functions.



You obviously underestimate what technology can do. Yes, because warfare has been static for all these years. Because a tank didn't change anything at all and because a nuclear weapon isn't anything new. There are constants but knowing where to apply them is half the battle and I think you've lost that one.

Guess what? You can't even do that the way Sins is set up because of how the Advent work and because of the weirdness of the Vesari and because TEC computers have immensely good tracking and turret rotation with a few exceptions. There are valid military tactics for land, sea, air, and space . All of them are unique without much carry over value and you have failed to recognize that simple fact.

You would have (most likely) a valid argument if ships could maneuver better in Sins but apparently they can't, they're stuck like 2D RTS units and have to make wide movements (or maybe a better example are naval ships) thus really reducing the effectiveness of staying in a cap ship's shadow and while you're moving their rear guns are pelting you while you're effectively doing ZERO DPS. Go figure.

Here's a summary for those of you too lazy to read but chances are you're going to make the same post as all the other people who try to argue that moving/dodging/bobing and weaving has a sound scientific/military point:

1. Frigates in Sins have fixed turrets with the exception of few preventing them from dealing damage while attempting to flank.
2. Capital ships have almost 360 arcs in covering and often in the rear with the exception of certain heavy weapons such as emitters on a Kol Battleship.
3. Moving targets do not affect accuracy of incoming fire.
4. Moving targets cannot evade continuous beam weapons.
5. Ships have reduced maneuverability due to the slowness of their engines and the nature of gaming design that requires them to make wide turns. There have been no posts thus far to explain why they need to do this.
6. There are no hard points , critical spots, or whatever you want to call them on ships.
7. Rotation of a capital ship takes less time and is more efficient than the flanking motion of a combat based frigate (scouts can possibly keep up, but do you really want to micro that?)
8. Sins is its own unique universe with its own laws that may or may not coincide with your skewed vision of reality.


Seriously, unless the engine gets an overhaul or lore is issued, there really isn't anything realistic to having extra movement in your ships. Everything that is logically possible can already be done by clicking every now and then (not intense micro). Q_Q

Your misunderstanding is forgiven. Do try and read the posts, if you have any questions ask for clarifications.



Had to quote the entire thing but Agent of Kharma and other posters who have found these things (and some actually use the Z-Axis to their advantage) have shown that Sins HAS TACTICS and plenty of it provided you have the mental aptitude or learned it from someone else. That is all the maneuvering that is necessary in this world unless the engine gets a slight overhaul or the ships get reprogrammed, then it's a different question. Maybe.

Not at all. Nexus did it really well and is a very realistic space battle sim.

The idea is relatively simple. Ships don't necessarily have to move forward or backward but should be able be able to twist and turn on the spot using thursters. In combination with an electronic counter measures system to disrupt the targeting systems of the opponent, it can be enough such that enemy fire harmlessly deflects off your shields. This is applicable even for very large heavy ships, but of course less so.

I find such battles incredibly immersing whereas the battles in Sins are somewhat bland by comparison.

[/quote]Your misunderstanding is forgiven. Do try and read the posts, if you have any questions ask for clarifications.
[/quote]

hi there
there is no misunderstanding on my part just tired of discussing this thread
  
further more i have been trying to get someone’s opinion who knows a hellova lot more about naval tactics and physics (seeing as thats the closest thing this game seems to be based on)than we do even if it is based on space and a game engine

as that person should be intelligent enough to be able to take that into account

and all of that i was trying to do to discount the reality of arguments and the mass furball arguments  


or the what if we put a ship in space would it not manoeuvre allot well if out modern day ships do then it probably would if they don’t manoeuvre en mass then they probably wont

ps ww2 is to old to compear for this game as they had no jets back then and don’t talk to me about the nazi jets those were to few and far between youd need an expert who knows and is up-to-date with Current military doctrine and fleet tactics to draw a parallel in order to figure out if they would indeed do it

that deals with the realism argument

NOW whether it is codeabal that the ai could manoeuvre the ships in the manner posted on#89 that’s a another story and wed need an expert in computer programming and language compilation of which im sure everyone here is an expert. but i am not so from that disscusion i will refrain

ps ps it would be nice for the ai to pull out ships it they get damaged

thank you all for the patiens and understanding in your posts i yet another reson why i like this forum we can actually discuss things here in a civil (mostly) manner  

I know of one game out there that offers unparallel space battle experience and that is Nexus: The Jupiter Incident. This game sets the bar in space battle.

Check out the videos at Gamespot and you would never play any space game where the ships doesn't move in battle anymore. Well, maybe Sins of the Solar Empire.

http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/nexus/media.html?om_act=convert&om_clk=tabs&tag=tabs;videos

for all the talk of moving ships it really doesn’t matter. I mean it would be fun and a little more entertaining (just like I would prefer to see the ships take damage per shot not a all the damage on the first round that hits the ship) but its really a mute point.

Even if they did put in ships that moved in combat there are really three things you have to over come.

1) Most ships only have front firing weapons and while a smaller class can out maneuver a bigger class if the class of ships were the same all you would see is a standoff a them going in circles

2) Right now most ships don’t miss and the ones that do the projectiles they fire track so it doesn’t really matter. I mean yea you could in theory add the ability to bursts your engines but as the mechanics stand now it would matter you would still get hit.

3) things like ramming for damage are pretty much out of the realm right now. The game doesn’t not have the coding in the engine to handle collisions much less collisions that cause damage. The most you could get right now is a weird form of space bumper cars which would be fun but serve no real purpose.

All that said I am not against any of the above ideas in fact I think they would make the game more enjoyable to play (including the damage per bolt not lump sum idea). All I am trying to point out is that there are other issues with the game mechanics that need to be solved before any ideas like those have a chance of being worth the effort to code in. Besides while this is a RTS it is at least in part a 4X game which means they will be more likely to change the AI and the diplomacy and cultural stuff before the combat so that there is more depth to the game.

EDIT

Just a quick thing I noticed, the AI will pull out ships at least it will with its planet killer fleets if enough get damaged in single player. I have yet to try a MP AI.

Just because you dont agree doesnt make him a troller..
I dont know what you know about space, but 500 meters is NOTHING in space.. If you fight at distances up to 50 miles or something, having the 500 meter frigate just stand still in space makes it super-easy to hit, even with projectile weapons.
However if its moving around, how do you expect to hit it?? Its gonna be a nightmare, by the time your shots have reached the target, he has turned another direction already.

Get my point? it IS more realistic to have them move around, trying to evade fire AND trying to get in a better tactical position. Thats combat, you dont just stand still and make yourself a huge immobile target.

I love the game, and i havent really been annoyed by it, but the fact still remains that it isnt "realistic".

To the first point, we're talking about WWII and trying to apply that to Sins? Couple of things here that totally null and void your arguement. Even in our current, modern day warfare, this no longer applies. The majority of combat occurs beyond the horizon (no need for tactical maneuvering other than getting the jump on someone, certainly not weaving); our (U.S.) carrier groups are based around keeping the enemy outside of cruise missile engagement range, because they know that once an enemy is able to get within range, that no amount of maneuvering is going to be able to avoid incoming fire. Additionally, WWII did not have computer-assisted aiming; I sincerely doubt that if you were to have had just modern day solutions that WWII naval battles would have had as much maneuvering as they did.

Now, a step beyond that, we're talking about futuristic, space based battles. Yes, the distances are larger, but: 1.) The ships are a helluva lot larger (even those frigates vastly outsize what we currently have) and 2.) There is negligible atmosphere/gravity to interfere with firing solutions, making even kinetic rounds deadly accurate.

Honestly, the only maneuvering that I can see in space warfare is of two types: individual axis rotation if ships have different concentrations of weapons in different firing arcs, and fleet based formations (again dependent on firing arcs) such as in Jack Campbell's The Lost Fleet series, where tactical formation developments allow for superior weapon coverage of one fleet while minimizing the enemy fleet's coverage on yours. Even in The Lost Fleet, he prominently features perfect hit weapons within the engagement ranges Sins deals with; the only exceptions being VLR fighting, in which he heavily features time-delay (both in orders and in firing solutions) as factoring in.

So, again, I see no need for ships to be weaving in and out, or to move much at all. Perhaps if Sins put a higher emphasis on fleet formations and firing arcs, and much longer standard engagement ranges, some maneuvering would become more advantageous, but realistically, there's no real need to move as it stantds.

You miss his point - in today's "modern day" ships are constantly on the move. But let us put realism aside because when it comes down to it, it is somewhat unimportant. I want ship movement because the current combat system looks like something out of the early nineties. All the ships stop on a dime and everyone just faces off and throws rocks at each other until one person falls down. I am not asking for capital ships that swoop and dodge, but the baseline frigates should at least feel more maneuverable. I find the ship-to-ship combat in this game is just really bland. Everything else in the game shines so I was surprised with the combat.

ok, the main point in ships moving around eachother would be to target various weakpoints and subsystems. but to implement subsystems would be quite tricky, especially when you have 200 ships vs 200, each of them trying to hit some other ships "engines". nobody here ever played Nexus? that's the only game i know of where frigates AND capships were maneuvering to hit various enemy subsystems (ofc, the caps were not doing a great job:D ) . moving ships are a good eyecandy, but to make the movement important you should implement subsystems for the ships. if that were done, this would be the greateast game ever:D

Hmmm... Well, if in-combat movement where to be implemented, new ways of targeting units would need to be implemented. I remember a nice function from HW (2?) where, if you hold down Alt and drag selected enemy units, your selected ships would automatically cue up and select appropriate targets within the "box". As i stated before, i already have problems when cuing up atacks with your fleet. I often end up with, after cuing up 5-6 attacks to accidentally miss a target so instead a move order gets cued up. And i have to redo the cue from the start. With a moving fleet it would be even more frustrating.

Furthermore, even if this game is similar to Homeworld in some ways, its scope is on a completely different scale. Here you can have 3 or 4 different battles going on in different solar systems, while having to deal with bounty placing, research, planet building, defensive turret managing, diplomacy making, black market manipulation and so on.

And finally, no, we shouldn't be talking about realism. Maybe "lorealism" (yes it's my trade mark). Personally i have really no idea if there is some scientific lore to build upon.

If we where to approach the battles realistically, there would be need to make another game. I mean if we base ship combat on today's research and future probable scientific advancements, no fleet would even see another fleet. Distances would be counted in light minutes and not kilometres or miles. Inertia would make any realistic evasion impossible for any larger ship. It could probably move around some, in a pre programmed evasion pattern to minimise hits from non guided systems, but that movement would be minimal. Just the energy required to turn a 3 kilometre ship around would be immense. Add to that the stress on the internal structure. But, with inertia suppressing technology that wouldn't be a problem.
And there i just went ahead and discussed exactly the things i said was irrelevant to discuss. Silly me.

So, is there a point to my argument? Well, yes. What it finally comes down to, for me, is that i don't want this game to be about micromanaging your fleet. It should help, but not be crucial to victory, just give you a slight edge in the battle. What should be important is the composition of the fleet you send into battle.

Ah, forgot one more point against moving fleets: The gravity wells in which the battles are being fought are really small (compared to the ship sizes in the game). If your fleet started to move around, they would continually end up within range of the defensive turrets you always try to avoid. There's simply not enough space for a visually appealing space battle.

Cheers