No. Flanking means attacking a unit or a formation's weak sides, where armor or firepower is the weakest. None of this applies to LRM.

No, flanking means to attack from the side(s). Since LRMs can only shoot directly in front of them, it applies utterly to them.

What strikes me as awesome is that thecaptain_ps is able to change the combat system more to his liking, since Ironclad has been cool enough to open the game up to mods. That's a pretty smart thing for a dev to do.

Coming from the whinefest and bickering that is the World of Warcraft community, it's a huge breath of fresh air.

They can TURN.

They turn SLOWLY

Slowly? LRMs have the fastest turn rate in game except scouts. They also have longest range. By the time your "flanking" ships get in range, LRMs have already turned around and fired first.

Uhuh

Very insightful.

What's to be insightful about? It's been my experience (and seemingly everyone else's) that LRMs have a terribly slow rate of turn. I haven't checked the game files; if you want to and prove me wrong then that's all you need to do. I'll do it tonight when I get home. You misquote flanking, for whatever reason. You don't get that flanking is best when done from both sides at once. Basically, you're adding nothing. When you do I'll be sure to be insightful.

LRMs turn much faster all cruisers and cap ships. As I have said before, only scouts can turn faster. If you played the game you would have noticed this. If you think flanking is a counter against LRM that's even more of a stretch.

Don't assume that silence means people agree with you. In this particular case anyone that's played the game has already seen that Spacedebris is correct about LRM turn rate, so it's not really a subject that it makes much sense to debate.

The game has no strategy at all to speak of... I'm sorry I bought it frankly. It is C&C in space. Build more tanks (sorry Starships) and throw them at your enemy. Lame and dumb. Granted the space setting is cool, but it doesn't make up for the total lack of strategy. Gal Civ II is so much better than this game. It is a different game but I think this genre is better suited to turn based than real time. Play CoH, it blows this game away.

Not whilst firing on a single target, which means they can be flanked. And capital ships can be flanked, since certain weapons require forward facing in order to fire.



Flanking is merely attacking the enemy from the sides or rear, although what you say can play a factor.

Where would a topic be without the complimentary troll post.

Sadly I'm forced to agree. It tries to be a hybrid of RTS and 4X and in doing so loses the depth of gameplay of both genres. It's pretty to look at, but a game should never be more fun to watch than it is to play.

I still think the game's a viable platform for a real strategy game if they have an interest in making it so, but there's a lot of rampant denial about the depth of the present product so I don't get my hopes up.

s/everyone else/everyone else who commented in this thread about turn rate, if you insist on pedantry. I wasn't assuming anything, but now that you mention it, since (a) it was posted three times other than by me that they turn slow, without contest and (b) this forum is full of offensively argumentative posters (like most of the internet :P), I don't see it as that bad of an assumption.




So they don't turn much faster than all the basic frigates? The staple ships of the game? I know for a fact they don't turn faster than LRMs, which in all likelihood the attacker is using. Let's forget about that anyway, since the point is completely irrelevant. It doesn't matter how fast LRMs turn relative to the flanker; it matters how fast LRMs turn relative to how fast the flanker can get into firing range. Again, not looking at figures, but with light frigates being quick, lrms having long range and enforcers having intercept I'm confident that the flanker will get into firing position long before the target LRMs have turned.

Let me delve into an example, which I hope will show why flanking is a good thing. Lets say we have 10 LRMs each. I split mine into two flights of 5 each, and come in from your flanks. There are a few things you can do from here:

1) If you're lazy, or letting the AI control them, your LRMs start to focus fire on one ship; thus, they start to swing round toward it. While they are turning all my ships get off free volleys. Once I see which way you are turning, I know which flight you are going after. I can retreat it, I can dive it through your lines, or I can start to wheel it round, trying to stay ahead of your turn. Regardless, my other 5 ships are pummeling you.

2) If you're more on the ball, you can split your fire; 5 of your ships turn to one side, 5 to the other. Now all your ships are firing at me, and vice versa. Except! Your focus fire is split; You'll have done half-damage to 2 of my ships at the point where I kill the first of yours (less actually, since I got free volleys to start with).

3) You can get your ships the hell out of th... wait. Why are you moving your ships, if there's no advantage to flanking?

4) I don't got one. If you know something else you can do from this position then that's something I'd appreciate knowing.

First of all, isn’t most of the “rock, paper, scissor” effect supposed to act as if they are flanking, dodging, and so on. That’s why fast shooting weapons are better at hitting small, fast ships (like fighters.) By adding the “flanking” AI in, all you’re doing is making the battles prettier. (unless, of course, you mean that the user has to do it manually. I wouldn’t try to do this while having 4 battles going at the same time)

Secondly, I could argue, that due to the distance involved in space battles, the ships could be very far apart (distance is not to scale in this game, after all) and it would be impossible to flank effectively. Thus, is not counted as a bonus in the game. (Scifi is speculation, after all)

That being said, I do wish the game had more macro strategy, but the amount of micromanagement needed for single battles feels just what was intended. A real time interpretation or a turn based game. Don’t be surprised that you bought a car boat that can’t go 120 mph on the freeway.

(sorry for the long post, just my 2 cents)

Sideshow you have good tactics theories, but the Sins game mechanics does not reward the tactics you mentioned. You need to try your theories in the game against massed LRMs and see why they don't work.

When LRMs are in a blob formation, all of them can fire on the same target at once and achieve optimal DPS. If you split your group of 10 into 5/5, you basically gives the blob 2 to 1 advantage if you try maneuver while the blob heads directly to you. Trying to hit and run with half a group is a very bad idea since LRMs have the longest range and fastest turn rate. You are giving the entire blob free shots while only half of your group can fire.

Well, yeah, but the point of flanking someone is that you flank them. Of course if they see you coming and turn before you get there it won't work, but in that case you won't be flanking shit, you'll just be charging at double numbers. Sure, it's not easy to get the drop on them, but that's why the better player wins. You can't just say "Hey, I'm gonna flank you now, OK?", and expect him to sit there and take it. But if you do manage to outmanouver him, you are going to be rewarded for it. Which I think is the point of this thread, in that the OP claims there are no tactical considerations in this game, which I disagree with.

Do you know if turning counts as movement, with regard to the accuracy penalty? If I'm circling your guys, and they turn to track while shooting, do they get penalised?

Yeah, sure....Please, tell me what this game needs in order to be strategic, since none of you have really provided anything.

I think just adding facings would make a huge difference in game play. Instead of having the shields just drop they could have front shields, rear shields, side shields, and upper and lower shields (Which would make moving on a Z access more tasty) As well as armor under the shields being diffrent for diffrent sides. That way attacking a battleship from the front might have you encounter 4 armor while attacking it from behind is only 1 armor or attacking its belley is .5 armor. Something that simple might make a big difference in the way people play the game.

Very doubtful....Particularly when looking at the scale of the game.

play online. let someone wow you with how quickly they can crush you. Yeah sounds like an RTS, because it has major rts elements. Does that make it bad? Hell no, it's good and it takes skill to win a game. Try it out, and as for comparing space games to world war 2....no...

The cobalt has something like 1000 crew. These ships aren't small. There ARE strike craft u kno...

Would you rather I compare it to a Greek phalanx or a Spanish tercio?
Sorry, just being antagonistic.

I actually think that this game is a bit like chess. You move, then they move. Wash, rinse, repeat. When your bishops (fleets) hit their forces, the fireworks begin. Vinraith makes a good point in that it sacrifices some of the 4X depth of GalCiv and some of the RTS depth of, say, Age of Empires (throw me a bone here, I havn't played any RTS's besides Empire at War or Dawn of War in a couple of years), but I disagree in that it maintains enough of the strategies from both to make it a fun game.

Might as well.





Funny, I recall EAW playing like an outdated C&C, with space combat thrown in the mix. And DOw, whilst explosive and intense, really wasn't that advanced, same old base building, unit counters, etc.....

In Sins I have the ability to manipulate pirates, spread an enemies forces thin (please don't bring up DoW with it's choke points or EAW with it's "forced to fight" ecounters), devastate an enemies economy by attacking crucial targets, have to carefully chose what to research (depending on the situation), actually feel like I'm fighting a real war, seamlessly; can actually cut off enemies trade routes, have to consider what ships to utilize in combat (same as anything else, right), have to make sure my planets stay loyal, certain units actually gain experience, have to choose what to build on certain planets, etc.

And how is this game like chess? Wouldn't a be better comparison for a game like Gal Civ? Very poor comparison dear sir.....

And please explain the immense strategic depth of Age of Empires.