Preliminary Ground Combat Proposal

For what's not in 'Top Priority Game Design'. Post your ideas, visions, suggestions for the game, rules, modifications, etc.

Moderator: Oberlus

Message
Author
User avatar
Josh
Graphics
Posts: 452
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2007 10:49 am
Location: California, USA

Re: Preliminary Ground Combat Proposal

#31 Post by Josh »

Mikkom wrote:- Players should have a short list (not like in MOO 3) of possible grand strategies to both defend and conquer a planet. These strategies should differ from each other and these differences should be clearly presented to the player.
What sort of grand strategies do you propose?

User avatar
IConrad
Space Kraken
Posts: 163
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 5:55 pm

Re: Preliminary Ground Combat Proposal

#32 Post by IConrad »

If we're going to go the route of allowing ground-combat strategies, they should use something of a Rock-Paper-Scissor approach.

Aggressive -- 75% effective against Mobile, 150% effective v. Defensive.
Defensive -- 75% effective v. Aggressive, 150% effective v. Mobile
Mobile -- 75% effective v. Defensive, 150% effective v. Aggressive.

We can 'flavor-text' this pretty much any way we like; but the point is that if you go up against the wrong combat strategy you are 1/2 effective; if you go up against the /right/ combat strategy you are 2x effective; if both use the /same/ strategy then you're at "normal" strength. Yes, this is effectively random; but it can be made /less/ random by giving races "strategy" bonuses which are calculated //after// these approaches -- perhaps even a few techs that give extra % bonus to a given strategy. (Anti-Grav Harnesses = +10% all combat, additional +10% to Mobile). Etc. If you /knew/ that your enemy had a +20% racial bonus to Mobile techs and Anti-Grav harnesses, you'd be wont to use the Defensive option. Etc.

Also, these calculations would come //before// tech modifiers, of course. Using the wrong strategy but having personal-shielded, plasma-rifled, armored troops would pretty much guarantee a win against troops using gunpowder&lead rifles and kevlar vests.

User avatar
Krikkitone
Creative Contributor
Posts: 1559
Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2003 6:52 pm

Re: Preliminary Ground Combat Proposal

#33 Post by Krikkitone »

Actually, I would disagree with the RPS approach, because it is only RPS.

What the 'grand strategies' should be is based on your strategic situation.

... Primarily on intensity+collateral

Low Intensity, preserves your forces while continuing to bother the enemy
High Intensity, risks losses (high on both sides) but provides quick resolution

Low collateral, impaired combat ability, but provides better 'political situation' [less rebels join the other side]
Std collateral...... no effect
High collateral, not any better at combat, but useful if you want to hurt the enemy.. you don't intend on ruling this planet, or anyone that sympathises with them. (what a xenocidal race would do as a matter of course... not any better on combat because some ammo gets wasted shooting up preschools)

so for example,
Low Intensity, High collateral... the strategy of invading forces cut off behind enemy lines, doing as much damage as they can

High Intensity, High collateral-> rapidly crushing enemy forces and destroying their planet before reinforcements arrive to liberate it

High Intensity, Low Collateral-> if you want a rapid conquest/liberation to get the world yourself, and get it rapidly productive again before an enemy comes back

High Intensity-> drive back/stop an enemy beachhead to prevent them from landing more troops

Low Intensity, Low Collateral... the strategy of local militia defending after the enemy has swept over the territory

This way it is not a 'pick the right strategy'=combat bonus
it is
'strategy'=tell the game engine what goal you want to accomplish with your ground forces.




Also as for the "Control" that could just reflect the balance of force strengths after the combat.. no need for regions or meters, etc.

supermajority of forces on planet = control with an economic penalty for % of enemy forces on planet

less than 10-20% (number subject to balance) of forces on planet=new forces landed this turn have a penalty

Those would be the two "cutoff points" I would use

User avatar
mayday
Krill Swarm
Posts: 10
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 8:30 pm

Re: Preliminary Ground Combat Proposal

#34 Post by mayday »

Excuse me, but I do believe Krik's ideas are wonderful.

User avatar
IConrad
Space Kraken
Posts: 163
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 5:55 pm

Re: Preliminary Ground Combat Proposal

#35 Post by IConrad »

I'll concede; that's a much more elegant solution than mine. :)

User avatar
MikkoM
Space Dragon
Posts: 318
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 12:32 pm
Location: Finland

Re: Preliminary Ground Combat Proposal

#36 Post by MikkoM »

Josh wrote:
Mikkom wrote:- Players should have a short list (not like in MOO 3) of possible grand strategies to both defend and conquer a planet. These strategies should differ from each other and these differences should be clearly presented to the player.
What sort of grand strategies do you propose?
Well, Krikkitone`s suggestion might already include at least some of the ideas that I have, but here are my early thoughts.

I can think of at least two concepts, which might serve as a foundation of building these strategies. The first one is the strong planetary shield. The planetary shield protects the planet from orbital bombardment and so supports the idea of the attacker taking the planet quickly with ground troops, before the defending player/AI can send help. The second one is that if it takes some time and effort to transport ground troops to an enemy system, and ground troops have some sort of a price, the attacker might want to minimize casualties/tied troops while taking planets, so that he/she/it can move on with the attack without having to wait for more ground troops being shipped to enemy territory.

And now to the strategies. I have put some possible strategies inside parenthesis (), because I am not sure if they are needed or not. Note that the names that I use here might not be the best names for these ideas. Also note that I haven`t mentioned here other things that hopefully will affect the ground battles like techs, environments etc.

Attacker strategies:

- Aggressive attack. The attacker tries to take the planet quickly and attacks the defender`s positions aggressively. If the attacker has enough troops the planet falls quickly. However using the aggressive attack produces more own casualties than using the standard attack.

- Standard attack. The battle for the planet takes longer than in aggressive attack. However there are also fewer own casualties.

(- Cautious attack. The battle for the planet takes very long as the attacker seeks for easy/sure victories. However the amount of casualties is the smallest. )

- Burned ground and citizens. Only half of the attacker’s strength is focused on fighting against enemy troops. However during the fighting the attacking force tries to destroy everything on the planet, infrastructure, citizens etc. (planetary meters go down, population decreases).

(- Burned ground. Only half of the attacker’s strength is focused on fighting against enemy troops. However during the fighting the attacking force tries to destroy the infrastructure of the planet [planetary meters go down]. )

Defender strategies:

-Passive defence. The defending troops retreat to a few well selected and prepared defensive locations. The planet is lost quickly, but the casualties that the attacker sustains are higher than in active defence.

-Active defence. The defending troops try to defend every section of the planet as long as possible. The battle for the planet takes longer than in passive defence, but the enemy doesn’t sustain as many casualties as in passive defence.

- Guerrilla warfare. The planet is lost without any enemy casualties. The defending troops break up and spread out to the civilian population. Based on the amount of defending troops (it might be wise to offer only a few steps here) the planet gets a negative special/event for a certain period of time. This special/event requires the conqueror to keep more ground troops on the planet than usual or else the planet will be lost again to the defender.

- Burned ground. Only half of the defender’s strength is used to fight against enemy troops. However during the fighting the defending force tries to destroy the entire infrastructure of the planet (planetary meters go down).

(- Burned ground and citizens. Only half of the defender’s strength is used to fight against enemy troops. However during the fighting the defending force tries to destroy everything on the planet, infrastructure, citizens etc. [ planetary meters go down, population decreases]. )


I realize that it might be nice if some elements from these possible strategies could be put together in an all new strategy. However like I said earlier I have tried to keep the amount of strategies quite low, so that each of them might offer something different, and so that MOO 3 kind of situation where there are like a million different options in a list that deal with not the most important part of the game could be avoided.

marhawkman
Large Juggernaut
Posts: 938
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2006 9:34 pm
Location: GA

Re: Preliminary Ground Combat Proposal

#37 Post by marhawkman »

Mikko's Idea has considerable merit. It looks like a somewhat polished version of Krik's.
Computer programming is fun.

User avatar
Bigjoe5
Designer and Programmer
Posts: 2058
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2007 6:33 pm
Location: Orion

Re: Preliminary Ground Combat Proposal

#38 Post by Bigjoe5 »

IMO, ground combat should take place at the same time as space combat, and there should be only one unit type (Ground Combat Unit) with one stat (Ground Combat Effectiveness).

The reason I want ground combat to occur during space combat is that it adds a new strategic meaning to space combat. If other things aren't going on simultaneously, the only goal is to do as much damage to the enemy fleet as possible so that you can have your way with the planets in the system after that.

If things are going on at the same time however, there's a whole other strategic dimension in play.

My goal in space combat isn't always the annihilation of my opponents' fleet; I might be trying to run a scout or colony ship past their system, drop a covert operative onto their planet, deliver a nova bomb to their star, destroy/capture a specific building, or capture the colony. These last two can possibly be accomplished via ground combat. (I know that
Geoff the Medio wrote:Things like sabotaging a particular building or killing population would be among the acts that spies would be employed to perform.
,but IIRC, the plan is for players to have many paths available to them to do a single thing. Destroying enemy buildings should be a viable option for both military and espionage oriented players.) If this is the case, then ground combat should occur during space combat so that after a building has been destroyed, the player can recollect their troops and leave. Or, if the player has taken control of a specific building on the colony which has effects in space combat, this can be immediately used against the enemy.

Don't misunderstand, however. It is my intention to make ground combat as simple as possible. In fact, in order for it to be strategically interesting in space combat, it must be very simple on a tactical level, otherwise there will be far too much to keep track of.

Suppose there are ship components called troop modules, requiring an internal slot. These will hold a set number of ground combat units based on the size of the slot. These troops will automatically be of the race on the planet where the transport is built. Because of this, however, it is necessary to specify that the environment of the planet will not affect the outcome of the battle. The justification for this is that it is far too much micro to check all your transports to see what species of troops is on them, and then send them each to their EP to fight. It also hinders the ability of the player to predict the outcome of the battle when half his troops prefer the environment of the contested planet and half do not (and consider that EP is scalar, not binary). This way, the only thing the player has to take into account is the ground combat bonus of the given race. This makes planets with strong ground combat races valuable for building troop transports, adding strategic value to said planets.

Troop modules give the ship the ability to land on enemy planets and begin ground combat (the effects of orbitals and shields on this process is a topic for another day). On the turn that the transports land, the player is given his short list of targets: the colony itself, and any buildings present on the colony. I'll deal with these two things separately.

First, the buildings on the colony. He has two options: Capture, or Destroy. When the player makes his decision, ground combat begins and proceeds for a predefined amount of time based on the difficulty of the mission (Destroy vs. Capture) and comparative ground combat strength. This strength is not the strength of the ground combat troops stationed on the planet, but a separate rating given to the building itself, which may be in part determined by the strength of the troops stationed on the planet. Success or failure is likewise determined by mission difficulty and comparative strength. Once a building is captured, it can be used in combat (if it is of the type that can be used in combat), but if the planet's ownership remains the same at the withdrawal of the transports on the planet, ownership of that building will be restored to the defender. Very simple.

Secondly, the colony itself. IMO, the "region" thing is unnecessary. The whole planet is a unit and should be treated as such. As such, conquest of the colony in ground combat continues until one side is destroyed or withdraws. However, even if combat is carried over for multiple turns, the planet will be under the complete control of the defender until it is fully captured (the penalty for the defender comes in the form of the blockade of the ships escorting the transports, and the damage to infrastructure done by the troops themselves). As has been suggested, there should be the options of setting the amount of collateral damage. However, this should come in the form of a sort of "focus" option which allows the player to indicate what he wants his troops to destroy - either infrastructure, or enemy troops. Since the destruction of all enemy troops means that the planet has been captured, setting primary and secondary foci to troops would be the choice for trying to capture a planet. Other options for foci would be infrastucture, population and balanced, and the defenders focus would always be set entirely to troops and require no input from the defending player apart from possibly landing his own transports on the planet to help out.

Which brings me to another point: the addition of new troops to an already active mission. Preferably, from the get go, there would be the option to send your ground forces on multiple missions. Just a little slider at the top of the ground combat UI asking how many of your troops to deploy on the mission you're currently ordering. If you reduce it from the default (all of them), the mission order sequence will restart with the remaining troops. Simple. Now, presumably the math of ground combat will take place mathematically as a number of iterations (say, one per combat turn) of a formula involving the numbers of troops on both sides and their ground combat effectiveness. Assigning more troops to a mission which is already in progress will simply modify the numbers which are used for the following iterations (and the predicted amount of time remaining in the battle). Simple.

I've tried to keep everything as simple as possible. Unloading troops is simple, assigning missions is simple, adding more troops to combat is simple. But the overall strategic effects of ground combat are significant.
Warning: Antarans in dimensional portal are closer than they appear.

User avatar
IConrad
Space Kraken
Posts: 163
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 5:55 pm

Re: Preliminary Ground Combat Proposal

#39 Post by IConrad »

IMO, the "region" thing is unnecessary.
The only reason I introduced the concept of "regions" was so that the same combat engine being used for ship-to-ship troop combat could be employed in planetary conquest, without it happening over the course of just a single turn.

In other words, rather than have to create another system of calculations and have ship troops be different from ground troops, etc; I figured it made more sense to simply use the same system in both places and just have, for purposes of determining who's got control of the planet, the planet count as a whole bunch of immobile ships. Each turn, they could -- in "automation", transparent to the player -- attempt "boarding actions" upon one another and that would play out as a give-and-take during the course of the ship-to-ship combat which would let it play out.

I was /hoping/ that, should the idea above be adopted, it would simplify the programming taskload. If it isn't liked, it can be scrapped. :)

User avatar
Bigjoe5
Designer and Programmer
Posts: 2058
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2007 6:33 pm
Location: Orion

Re: Preliminary Ground Combat Proposal

#40 Post by Bigjoe5 »

The region thing is relatively intuitive, but IMO adds an unnecessary, if small, layer of complexity. Multi-turn ground combat battles can occur in the same way as multi-turn space battles. Just save the numbers and start from there next turn. Either way, the implementation of another ground combat engine during v.6 is trivial compared to the work that's being done for v.4.
Warning: Antarans in dimensional portal are closer than they appear.

User avatar
IConrad
Space Kraken
Posts: 163
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 5:55 pm

Re: Preliminary Ground Combat Proposal

#41 Post by IConrad »

Either way, the implementation of another ground combat engine during v.6 is trivial compared to the work that's being done for v.4.
Every little bit helps though, right?
but IMO adds an unnecessary, if small, layer of complexity.
Only if the region thing isn't transparent to the player. Which isn't what I was suggesting -- rather, I was suggesting that it simply be used for mathematical "behind-the-scenes" purposes. If it makes it easier on the programmers and doesn't add to the complexity of gameplay... do we really //need// to do something else instead?

I'm not trying to be rude, I'm just asking. :) (And I'll shut up now, too. )

User avatar
Bigjoe5
Designer and Programmer
Posts: 2058
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2007 6:33 pm
Location: Orion

Re: Preliminary Ground Combat Proposal

#42 Post by Bigjoe5 »

If it makes it easier on the programmers, then I guess they can do that. With or without regions, the fundamental principles of ground combat are more or less the same, as long as the # of regions you possess at the end of the combat turn doesn't denote any partial ownership of the planet (as would seem to be implied to the player).
Warning: Antarans in dimensional portal are closer than they appear.

User avatar
IConrad
Space Kraken
Posts: 163
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 5:55 pm

Re: Preliminary Ground Combat Proposal

#43 Post by IConrad »

as long as the # of regions you possess at the end of the combat turn doesn't denote any partial ownership of the planet (as would seem to be implied to the player).
I think that was pretty much the consensus, with the exception that it might be possible to give planets in ground combat certain "states"... I.e.;
  • Beachhead: >10% of planetary regions under enemy control. Planet morale declines; unrest/revolt more likely.
  • Invaded: ~25% of planetary regions under enemy control. Production down by X%.
  • Contested: ~50% of planetary regions under enemy control. Planet ceases to contribute to external pools.
All the player would see is "Planet X has Beachhead event!" or "Planet X has been Invaded! The enemy grows stronger with each day..." And that would of course work both ways with the "Contested" thing showing on both player's screens.

That's what I'm /thinking/ anyhow.

User avatar
TerranStarCommand
Krill Swarm
Posts: 11
Joined: Sat Sep 26, 2009 7:59 am
Location: Venice, CA

Re: Preliminary Ground Combat Proposal

#44 Post by TerranStarCommand »

I really like MikoM's ideas as a refinement of Krikkitone's - there are some subtle nuances of both that should be merged.

The "Regions" idea of planetary combat might require a bit too much additional code/development/planning/complexity, but perhaps we could simplify it?

Each side has a number of "Military units" they can produce - these can be deployed in troop pods for space combat, or on the ground. Military units cost 'upkeep' per turn.

Planets with large populations have "Cities" where percentages of the population reside. A just-started colony only has one city, with (effectively) 100% of the colony's population.

At a certain population threshold (determined in data) the colony 'grows' another city, with a seed value of some percentage of colony population. For colony management purposes, this is almost completely negligible - though the option to build planetary improvements in specific cities might be... interesting. (all the shield generators and planetary defenses are in Chicago, while the science buildings are in Berlin, and the deep core mines are in London)

The planet requires ONE military unit minimum per city - the upkeep costs and initial military production could be handled. Producing additional military units consumes productive citizenry, but allows you to assign those military units to cities.
When the planet is attacked, the attacking player must be able to eliminate all military units on the planet (as in previous MOOII ground combat).

All cities have to be subjugated in order to own the planet. Using Krik + Miko's "combat leanings" approach would determine how long it takes to defeat the military in each city.

A player with a large, strong military would easily crush opposing forces and control all cities quickly.
A player with a strong military but few troops (elites) could easily blast the defenders, but wouldn't be able to control all cities at once.
A player with a weak military but many troops would incur heavy casualties, but could easily subjugate the planet once all enemies were eliminated.
A player with a few, weak troops could perhaps destroy infrastructure or deal enough damage to strategic targets to buy time.

More on this later... :-D
"I was boarded by Reavers and all I got was this lousy T-shirt."

User avatar
Bigjoe5
Designer and Programmer
Posts: 2058
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2007 6:33 pm
Location: Orion

Re: Preliminary Ground Combat Proposal

#45 Post by Bigjoe5 »

TerranStarCommand wrote:At a certain population threshold (determined in data) the colony 'grows' another city, with a seed value of some percentage of colony population. For colony management purposes, this is almost completely negligible - though the option to build planetary improvements in specific cities might be... interesting. (all the shield generators and planetary defenses are in Chicago, while the science buildings are in Berlin, and the deep core mines are in London)
That sounds very similar to "Regions" in MoO3. I for one, am against throwing in that extra level of complexity unless someone can demonstrate its strategic value. The option to build planetary improvements in specific cities, for example, would be insignificant, and kind of a pain (and impossible, since "planetary improvements" as such are abstracted into the meter system). Overall, I think it's far too complex.

The idea of setting a "battle intensity" as Krikkitone and MikkoM have described, does have some tactical merit if ground combat occurs during space combat. If intensity is high, the defenders are at an advantage, but the battle will be over more quickly. If intensity is low, the attackers are at an advantage, but will be vulnerable for much longer.

This opens different tactical options, such as bringing in lots of poorly escorted troop transports and relying on stealth to get to the planet, then blitzing through the enemy ground forces, or bringing in just enough troops to take the colony, but escorted by a large fleet that can survive long enough for the troops to win a low intensity battle.

If troop transports have to go into planet orbit, then land in order to drop off their troops, and stay there until the ground combat is over, this makes them vulnerable to attack from above, and makes the attacker think about how to protect his transports. On the other hand, perhaps he doesn't want to protect his transports and is simply on a suicide run to destroy a vital building. Either way, getting the transports back would be an advantage. Perhaps during the later game, there could be a tech such as teleporters or autonomous troop pods, so that troops could be dropped from orbit without the ship landing and leaving itself unprotected. This could either be a tech that allows regular troop pods to do that, or a separate, more expensive ship part, or both, the former occurring later in the game.

It seems reasonable to use "regions" to represent how close the battle is to being finished, and in whose favour, but a "% Complete" or "Turns Remaining" and "Combat Strength" would work just as well.
Warning: Antarans in dimensional portal are closer than they appear.

Post Reply