Combat targeting - summary
Posted: Sat Nov 02, 2019 12:18 pm
Hi all,
The current MP game has got to the point of big fleets and comsat spam (discussion here). This led to me reading up a bunch of threads, some a year or two old, on targeting and on combat more generally. As a keen player who is not very learned about the FO code or design principles, there were a lot of references to future features that I didn't fully understand (leaders, influence, empire-wide government policies, etc.), but I wanted to summarise what I think I have learned from all those threads so that (i) people can point out if I've got anything wrong and (ii) my views can be understood in that context. So here we go:
1. FO has always had in its future some sort of "tactical combat". One of the threads noted that this must not require more player interaction, and this is crucial: FO is a turn-based game, and the sort of between-turns tactical combat that occurs in MoO2/3 is a death sentence for long-turn multiplayer. So whether or not such a system is implemented for SP or real-time MP, an alternative non-interactive combat system will continue to be needed for asynchronous MP.
2. Current combat has almost totally random targeting. Everything visible is a target: all ships and planets whether armed or not, and all launched fighters ("boats"). Every weapon picks a target totally at random, with the exception of flak cannons which only target boats. (I'm not sure if interceptors fall into that category too. I have never used them.) One of the threads refers to a PR-2330 which was apparently merged into master and implements some targeting priority system, but it doesn't seem to have changed the random targeting yet in real play in current weeklies. Perhaps all its defaults replicate the random system. (Or perhaps the only difference beyond flak/interceptors is that ships prioritise targeting planets, which is why I waste so many shots on planets.)
3. The discussions seem to have reached a consensus that a system of structured/tiered randomness (stochastic?) is better than a system of absolute non-random prioritisation (deterministic). There seem to be two ideas for approaching this:
(a) Targeting priorities are set through some sort of policy/scripting. This then leads to discussion of how much control to give players, vs micromanagement risk. Whether policies are per-ship or per-fleet or per-system etc.
(b) Targeting priorities are set through ship parts. As Vezzra pointed out in one thread, this simply changes the micromanagement from the policy interface to ship design and fleet composition.
[(c) There was some discussion of weapons having or developing intrinsic targeting preferences but I didn't really understand this so cannot really comment.]
4. The discussion concluded that given the cost of late game ships and the consensus on not having deterministic targeting, the use of chaff/decoys to absorb shots that would otherwise hit expensive ships is basically inevitable, and the discussion is now about how to balance them (e.g. increase the production cost and/or upkeep cost and/or build time of the colony base hull, remove it, require a shipyard, reduce its target priority, etc.). Through one lens, boats are just another type of chaff - but they're armed, and they replenish for free next turn if you're in supply.
So, if all that is roughly correct, what problem(s) are we trying to solve:
1. Spinal Antimatter Cannons (SAC) should not target boats. They're for planets and big ships, and it's frustrating for them to target small ships or chaff.
2. Comsat/chaff spam should be a more difficult / less obvious choice of strategy.
3. Boats should not soak up so many shots. IMO this applies to planets too, though I own that this is my personal bugbear and not a feature of the threads I read.
For what it's worth, here are my views:
1. I don't think it's necessary to try to remove/ban comsats or chaff more generally. It's all about balance; players will not build chaff if it's too expensive, or takes too long, and if it's better to build real warships. Targeting is only part of this problem - the other part is that big ships take many turns to build while chaff take only two or three. Putting comsats to 4 turns and medium & robotic hulls to 3 would alleviate this a bit - the only two-turn hulls would be tiny ones like the small hull, small asteroid, compressed energy, spatial flux. Even better would be to allow high upkeep costs to increase build times, but I suspect that's quite hard to handle code-wise. Another possibility is to penalise use of chaff with a morale-like penalty associated with ship destruction (I guess this might be part of the Influence mechanic?). Also the discussion about limiting the number of build locations (through influence or infrastructure or whatever) is relevant here.
2. The introduction of boats really increases the need for less random targeting. One change that does not require the implementation of either policies or ship parts for targeting is to remove destroyed objects immediately, without waiting for the end of the combat round. So boats only soak up one shot, and chaff/planets are removed/incapacitated with the minimum number of shots. This would make combat quite a bit more predictable, though still random enough to feel like it does now. It would also make flak cannons/interceptors more valuable.
3. I would much prefer the use of scripts/policies for targeting to the use of ship parts. I love ship design, but it feels deeply immersion-breaking to need ship parts for this. I have two ideas for simple scripting implementation:
(a) Use the existing fleet-level clickable button, which currently has only two states - Hide and Attack All. Without too much work we could also cycle through Attack Carriers, Attack Warships, Attack Troops, Attack Planets. Those would provide that fleet with initial priorities (assuming the use of flak/interceptors so no need for Attack Boats; I never use pop killer bombs but perhaps Attack Bombers too). Targeting would default to random if no objects of the chosen type remain.
(b) Implement very simple Battle Orders like in the Dominions games (see pp54-55). These allow attack/hold/retreat with a simple choice of target types like (a) above. It would need an additional UI openable from the fleet screen, and immediately gets into a debate about whether it's going to be too much micro in the late game to be fun. But the Dominions games are incredibly fun, and despite the battle orders being unsophisticated, unconditional and simple, the battles are really really satisfying to watch. I'd strongly recommend considering this for the "tactical combat" approach in the longer term.
On the whole I think players do want to have some control over targeting, as watching your ships waste shots on already-dead boats and planets is deeply unsatisfying. But I'm quite happy with the idea of that control being gated behind research (or leaders, or whatever other mechanic you choose). So in (a) above you could have a chain of techs to unlock each of the Attack orders (suggest order Warships, Carriers, Planets, Troops). In (b) you could have techs to unlock additional choices of battle orders.
HTH
CC
The current MP game has got to the point of big fleets and comsat spam (discussion here). This led to me reading up a bunch of threads, some a year or two old, on targeting and on combat more generally. As a keen player who is not very learned about the FO code or design principles, there were a lot of references to future features that I didn't fully understand (leaders, influence, empire-wide government policies, etc.), but I wanted to summarise what I think I have learned from all those threads so that (i) people can point out if I've got anything wrong and (ii) my views can be understood in that context. So here we go:
1. FO has always had in its future some sort of "tactical combat". One of the threads noted that this must not require more player interaction, and this is crucial: FO is a turn-based game, and the sort of between-turns tactical combat that occurs in MoO2/3 is a death sentence for long-turn multiplayer. So whether or not such a system is implemented for SP or real-time MP, an alternative non-interactive combat system will continue to be needed for asynchronous MP.
2. Current combat has almost totally random targeting. Everything visible is a target: all ships and planets whether armed or not, and all launched fighters ("boats"). Every weapon picks a target totally at random, with the exception of flak cannons which only target boats. (I'm not sure if interceptors fall into that category too. I have never used them.) One of the threads refers to a PR-2330 which was apparently merged into master and implements some targeting priority system, but it doesn't seem to have changed the random targeting yet in real play in current weeklies. Perhaps all its defaults replicate the random system. (Or perhaps the only difference beyond flak/interceptors is that ships prioritise targeting planets, which is why I waste so many shots on planets.)
3. The discussions seem to have reached a consensus that a system of structured/tiered randomness (stochastic?) is better than a system of absolute non-random prioritisation (deterministic). There seem to be two ideas for approaching this:
(a) Targeting priorities are set through some sort of policy/scripting. This then leads to discussion of how much control to give players, vs micromanagement risk. Whether policies are per-ship or per-fleet or per-system etc.
(b) Targeting priorities are set through ship parts. As Vezzra pointed out in one thread, this simply changes the micromanagement from the policy interface to ship design and fleet composition.
[(c) There was some discussion of weapons having or developing intrinsic targeting preferences but I didn't really understand this so cannot really comment.]
4. The discussion concluded that given the cost of late game ships and the consensus on not having deterministic targeting, the use of chaff/decoys to absorb shots that would otherwise hit expensive ships is basically inevitable, and the discussion is now about how to balance them (e.g. increase the production cost and/or upkeep cost and/or build time of the colony base hull, remove it, require a shipyard, reduce its target priority, etc.). Through one lens, boats are just another type of chaff - but they're armed, and they replenish for free next turn if you're in supply.
So, if all that is roughly correct, what problem(s) are we trying to solve:
1. Spinal Antimatter Cannons (SAC) should not target boats. They're for planets and big ships, and it's frustrating for them to target small ships or chaff.
2. Comsat/chaff spam should be a more difficult / less obvious choice of strategy.
3. Boats should not soak up so many shots. IMO this applies to planets too, though I own that this is my personal bugbear and not a feature of the threads I read.
For what it's worth, here are my views:
1. I don't think it's necessary to try to remove/ban comsats or chaff more generally. It's all about balance; players will not build chaff if it's too expensive, or takes too long, and if it's better to build real warships. Targeting is only part of this problem - the other part is that big ships take many turns to build while chaff take only two or three. Putting comsats to 4 turns and medium & robotic hulls to 3 would alleviate this a bit - the only two-turn hulls would be tiny ones like the small hull, small asteroid, compressed energy, spatial flux. Even better would be to allow high upkeep costs to increase build times, but I suspect that's quite hard to handle code-wise. Another possibility is to penalise use of chaff with a morale-like penalty associated with ship destruction (I guess this might be part of the Influence mechanic?). Also the discussion about limiting the number of build locations (through influence or infrastructure or whatever) is relevant here.
2. The introduction of boats really increases the need for less random targeting. One change that does not require the implementation of either policies or ship parts for targeting is to remove destroyed objects immediately, without waiting for the end of the combat round. So boats only soak up one shot, and chaff/planets are removed/incapacitated with the minimum number of shots. This would make combat quite a bit more predictable, though still random enough to feel like it does now. It would also make flak cannons/interceptors more valuable.
3. I would much prefer the use of scripts/policies for targeting to the use of ship parts. I love ship design, but it feels deeply immersion-breaking to need ship parts for this. I have two ideas for simple scripting implementation:
(a) Use the existing fleet-level clickable button, which currently has only two states - Hide and Attack All. Without too much work we could also cycle through Attack Carriers, Attack Warships, Attack Troops, Attack Planets. Those would provide that fleet with initial priorities (assuming the use of flak/interceptors so no need for Attack Boats; I never use pop killer bombs but perhaps Attack Bombers too). Targeting would default to random if no objects of the chosen type remain.
(b) Implement very simple Battle Orders like in the Dominions games (see pp54-55). These allow attack/hold/retreat with a simple choice of target types like (a) above. It would need an additional UI openable from the fleet screen, and immediately gets into a debate about whether it's going to be too much micro in the late game to be fun. But the Dominions games are incredibly fun, and despite the battle orders being unsophisticated, unconditional and simple, the battles are really really satisfying to watch. I'd strongly recommend considering this for the "tactical combat" approach in the longer term.
On the whole I think players do want to have some control over targeting, as watching your ships waste shots on already-dead boats and planets is deeply unsatisfying. But I'm quite happy with the idea of that control being gated behind research (or leaders, or whatever other mechanic you choose). So in (a) above you could have a chain of techs to unlock each of the Attack orders (suggest order Warships, Carriers, Planets, Troops). In (b) you could have techs to unlock additional choices of battle orders.
HTH
CC