Initiate Battle and Formations of ships

[LienRag]

I would like to hear your idea

Here you go : viewtopic.php?p=95945#p95945
There's a lot more details and progress in my head, but nearly none on my hard disk...

I truly believe it will be a great addition to the game, but I first need to learn enough Godot to make a mock-up, and I already forgot everything I learned in Godot a few months ago.

[Ophiuchus]

was your suggestion, not mine

I said fixed or no bonus (no bonus it is) for the non-building-up thing you suggested.

For the building-up bonus you suggested (one turn delay bug is not a problem there), I say use Defensive Hide, not Passive, to not force fleet toggle micro.

Id say rather both of the stances then. Does not make sense to force a ship you want really to hide to Defensive Hide (to get the stealth bonus) when what your really want is Passive Hide

[wobbly]

was your suggestion, not mine

I said fixed or no bonus (no bonus it is) for the non-building-up thing you suggested.

For the building-up bonus you suggested (one turn delay bug is not a problem there), I say use Defensive Hide, not Passive, to not force fleet toggle micro.

Id say rather both of the stances then. Does not make sense to force a ship you want really to hide to Defensive Hide (to get the stealth bonus) when what your really want is Passive Hide

I'd say both stances. Probably requiring a military policy.

[Daybreak]

I would like to hear your idea

Here you go : viewtopic.php?p=95945#p95945
There's a lot more details and progress in my head, but nearly none on my hard disk...

I truly believe it will be a great addition to the game, but I first need to learn enough Godot to make a mock-up, and I already forgot everything I learned in Godot a few months ago.

Ok similar idea, and I agree, it would add more strategy toa game. If we take both ideas and merge them, but keep it simple. A basic positioning of ships at the front, middle, or back.

1) We have only a 6 formations (based on 3 positions), which can be chosen for a specific fleet from, as you mentioned in the other thread, a drop down list. It would be completely separate from the current designations, like "Initiate Combat".
2) Hulls need a secondary designation (Unless they already exist) being size.
3) To simulate distance we use a chance of damage, so ships at the back of a formation would have lower chance to get damaged, and of course ships at the front would have a higher chance to be damaged/take damage.
Front: 100% of whatever damage they would have taken
Middle: 80% of whatever damage they would have taken
Back: 60% of whatever damage they would have taken

To stop users putting large warships at the back, their weapons (other than fighters) are reduced in effectiveness based on position
Front: 100% effectiveness
Middle: 60% effectiveness
Back: 20% effectiveness

If we keep it simple I am hoping Devs will see the avantages.


I would still like to see the other new designations as well

* Initiate Combat: As is. When defending planet defenses are not used unless fleet is destroyed, which is what happens now.
* Obstruct Passage: Fleet blocks enemy fleet passage through its system but does not initiate combat. It may still participate in combats initiated by other empires or fleets, however. Useful in multiplayer games, when you don't want to let an empire at peace with you to go sniff your backyard but also you don't want to kill its prying ships to avoid war declarations. STILL DOES NOT MAKE SENSE - if they still send a fleet, how is it blocked without combat?
* Passive Hide: Used for stealth ships so they are not involved in battle. New: ships without stealth or not stealthy enough try to hide away from battle, but are then restricted from participating for one turn, as they have moved too far out within the sytem while they were hiding to then rejoin the fleet. If fleet is destroyed they are also destroyed as enemy ships pursue them.
New * Attack Passives: Ships with this setting will attempt to attack both figher and troop carriers, but may take longer to come into range of those ships, and therefore risk destruction by other warships who are protecting carriers. This will allow Troop carrier sniping.
* Defensive Hide: Fleet will attempt to stay hidden unless combat occurs; it will not blockade enemy fleet passage or initiate combat. It may still participate in combats initiated by other empires or fleets, however.
New * Planet Defence: Hides unless combat initiated by another empires fleets, but planet defences also play a part in the battles.

[Ophiuchus]

If we keep it simple I am hoping Devs will see the avantages.

i like the principle idea of your front/middle/back implications (less prone to damage, but less able to do damage). There is a standing decision that there probability should not be involved in damage calculations, but it might be that a multiplier (after applying shields) is ok.

i think the formations ideas as brought forward need a lot of implementation work (UI) and the UX is hard to get right and I fail to see the benefit. so this would need somebody to invest heavily in prototyping the system and then probably be denied anyway. so impossible to happen if you do not implement it. main points also even if somebody does the work: how/does it solve a problem? is the benefit higher than the introduced level of necessary management?

An example for a known problem in combat: that is as the raw power is sum(damage)*sum(structure) i.e. that splitting your fleet in two halves the effective raw power (2 * sum(damage/2) * sum(structure/2)). That is size of death stacks are 95% of what determines outcome. Which is boring.

i think the combat system is complex enough right now. so also some variation of front/middle/back is out for at least 0.5

* Obstruct Passage:... STILL DOES NOT MAKE SENSE - if they still send a fleet, how is it blocked without combat?

it makes sense in real life and is used all the time in negotiations and politics: threatening to ~kill vs ~killing (the other party has the option to escalate)

* Planet Defence: Hides unless combat initiated by another empires fleets, but planet defences also play a part in the battles.[/b]

not sure i read you. planet defences always play a part in combat.

For the other suggestions for stances - again - what problems do they solve?

note about stances that they are intended as a strict linear hierarchy (so no special cases for a certain stance in the middle of the hierarchy). e.g. if a stance blocks the supply, a stronger stance will also block. if it does not block supply, a weaker stance will also not block supply.

[Daybreak]

If we keep it simple I am hoping Devs will see the avantages.

i like the principle idea of your front/middle/back implications (less prone to damage, but less able to do damage). There is a standing decision that there probability should not be involved in damage calculations, but it might be that a multiplier (after applying shields) is ok.

i think the formations ideas as brought forward need a lot of implementation work (UI) and the UX is hard to get right and I fail to see the benefit. so this would need somebody to invest heavily in prototyping the system and then probably be denied anyway. so impossible to happen if you do not implement it. main points also even if somebody does the work: how/does it solve a problem? is the benefit higher than the introduced level of necessary management?

Not sure what UX means.
The problem I see, is all ships in a fleet face off against an enemy fleet irrespective of what they are, which would never happen in real life (RL). To me this is a big hole in the way battles normally would work.

An example for a known problem in combat: that is as the raw power is sum(damage)*sum(structure) i.e. that splitting your fleet in two halves the effective raw power (2 * sum(damage/2) * sum(structure/2)). That is size of death stacks are 95% of what determines outcome. Which is boring.

I did not know that - From what I understand you are saying, it is better for 2 fleets to be combined than keep them separarted inthe same battle, becuase otherwise they lose half effective raw power.

* Planet Defence: Hides unless combat initiated by another empires fleets, but planet defences also play a part in the battles.[/b]

not sure i read you. planet defences always play a part in combat.

hmmm ok, from what I have seen, defending fleets have to be destroyed before the planet defences come into play. I will relook at that - Maybe I have been fooled by shields being depleted only.

For the other suggestions for stances - again - what problems do they solve?

The new stances were designed to
a) Planet Defence: Bring planet defences into play first or at same time as fleet defence. It was based on my above assumption, which I need to now check, and also that battles may be further away from planet defences or close by in RL
b) Attack Passives: Sometimes you may attack and enemy fleet for a loss, but with the intention of only taking out Troop Carriers. The problem being you can't direct weapons, so then you are fighting the whole fleet. Maybe change to Attack Troops. Was also mean't as a partial counter for ship positioning, where troop carriers may be placed at the back.
c) Passive Hide: Was meant to enhance this stance. At the moment its only good for stealth ships who are stealthy enough. Edit: on second thought maybe a little too powerful, as all troop cariers could be set at this stance.

[Ophiuchus]

I did not know that - From what I understand you are saying, it is better for 2 fleets to be combined than keep them separarted inthe same battle, becuase otherwise they lose half effective raw power.

No, the fleet organisation is irrelevant for a battle.

[drkosy]

The problem I see, is all ships in a fleet face off against an enemy fleet irrespective of what they are, which would never happen in real life (RL). To me this is a big hole in the way battles normally would work.

I see another problem:
In principal you have two options to build your fleet.
1.) You build a lot of small ships (e.g. robotics)
2.) You build some large ships (e.g. titans)

Something in between is irrelevant, because you do not have any rock, paper, scissors mechanics. It makes fleet-management and production a bit boring. There should really be something more interesting than to decide how many flak I put on my ships.

Maybe there could be something like "initiative" that decides which ship fires first. There could be 3 initiative classes (IC) and 12 combat turns
turn 1: IC 1 firing
turn 2: IC 2 firing
turn 3: IC 3 firing
turn 4: IC 1 firing 2nd time
and so on

IC could be determinded like: IC 3 is lowest initiative in combat / IC 2 is IC3 + 10 points / IC 1 is IC 3 + 20 points. Iinitianive points could be depend on ship speed, tech (e.g. computer could be added) and ship-size. Fighters could have an fixed IC of 2. That would make small carriers less effective because fighters could be killed before they reach the ship.

That shouldn't need that much work on the UI and the formations could be added as well, if there is someone who likes to implement it.