This thread is strongly influenced by my other ideas for combat located here. However I feel the ideas in this post will be good if implemented independently also.



One of the greatest frustrations in combat is the difficulty in using mixed fleets and various hulls. Endlessly losing corvettes and 'suicide' destroyers isn't the worst mechanic but it would be nice to have other options for these ships in combat. To that end I propose a new modifier for all ships: Signature Radius. Signature radius would dictate the chances of a ship being targeted and how much the accuracy modifier on enemy weapons would affect their attacks. It makes sense enemy ships would be attracted to target and engage ships that are 1. Enormous on their sensors and 2. Easier to hit with their weapons. It makes sense that your leviathan dreadnaught shouldn't be hit more often and not have he same accuracy standards for hitting it as a miniscule corvette.



With this modifier in place cards could affect it, and within my complete combat system these would primarily be the second set: Formation and Doctrine cards. Cards that affected signature Radius could do so by ship class so that you can try and screen by formation damage going to your destroyers and instead absorb it with your super tanked battleships. Of course these cards could have counters also just like the systems combat cards such as 'Improved Targeting' increasing enemy sig radius by 10% across the board making your weapons more accurate, just for example. If implemented in the current 1 card combat system I would imagine this would replace abilities like sabotage.



Modules could also affect signature radius. Signature dampeners to become more discrete or some sort of module which steals signature radius from each other ship in the fleet (+ 2% Sig Radius for each other ship in fleet, - 2% Sig Radius on each other ship in fleet).



If you like this idea please show your support, and by all means I welcome criticism also. This needs to be a discussion and I hope other enthusiasts will consider presenting their system ideas. This is still very rough, and only an idea, but since I get such a strong feeling from the community that we desire a more in-depth and enjoyable combat system it's important we try to figure out exactly what it is we want.



Edit: If you missed the link: https://www.games2gether.com/endless-space/forum/28-game-design/thread/11640-5th-tech-tree-military-doctrine

Not a bad idea at all. I also think there'd need to be more phases to the combat, because even with 2 cards to select, that's only 6 options for actions to take. I also would like to see the ability to split formations or move ships individually, so you could pull a pincer movement or similar things. The main thing I feel the combat needs is more diversity and more control, however it's done.

Another idea that just popped into my head that may or may not work: Prior to each phase of combat, however many there end up being, each player is given say 10 seconds or however long, to come up with a battle plan for the next phase, whether that being using this card and that, this formation and that etc... or telling which ships to go where and where to fire. Then after that time period both sets of actions are conducted simultaneously. This would give the players a much greater level of control but without the frantic twitch reflex based style of an RTS form of battle, and would also add the tactical layer of trying to predict what your enemy will do as well as where they will do it. Might work, might not, just throwing it out there

stirge_jr wrote:
Another idea that just popped into my head that may or may not work: Prior to each phase of combat, however many there end up being, each player is given say 10 seconds or however long, to come up with a battle plan for the next phase, whether that being using this card and that, this formation and that etc... or telling which ships to go where and where to fire. Then after that time period both sets of actions are conducted simultaneously. This would give the players a much greater level of control but without the frantic twitch reflex based style of an RTS form of battle, and would also add the tactical layer of trying to predict what your enemy will do as well as where they will do it. Might work, might not, just throwing it out there

I'm not sure how this is so different from the current phase system. Most certainly we need some time in between phases, probably 5-8 seconds would be my guess.

I'd like to see units use specialized roles. The signature theory shall we use a WoW term, Agro, would be great. You got your dreadnoughts who are easy to hit and can take a beating while giving it back. Then you have your other ships, use smaller, faster frigates to get into melee range where they can engage a cruiser withing its minimum effective accuracy range. Have missile frigates/cruisers say back. Introduce a Elec. Warfare/Support ship that buffs friends or hurts enemies. If they're implemented, Carriers hang back and release their fighters to attack and haggle close support defenses/fight other fighters so that friendly missiles/bombers can get in.



I don't like how the limit on fleet sizes works, if anyone has played Gratuitous Space Battles, the way they limited fleet sizes was by pilots, or in this case, we could do crew. Make the cost go up the more equipment a ship has, more equipment means more crew needed to run it. Offer specialized training so that ships perform certain functions better, this one excels at speed, this one at maneuvering, firing, repair, shields, etc. Costs money to train them, but could affect how your battles come out. Right now, its if they have more defense to your weapon, and you have no defense against their weapon, you will lose. Its just a fact, players have little on the outcome other than adapt and start pumping out new ships that use better defenses/weapons.



Formations could be used in many ways. Fighter screens, smaller weaker ships fly between vulnerable ships; Flanking, half your fleet engages and then the other half warps in a hits the enemy from the other side; Guerilla, ships move in quickly, attempt to destroy a ship and then flee out of weapons range (For scouting fleets); or your typical long/med/short range warfare options.



Just food for thought to go with ArrowLance, dunno, give me criticism where its due too

I do agree the fleet sizes are very small, and I don't know how much I like the 1 fleet v 1 fleet at a time deal. If I have 30 ships rolling in an invasion armada, when I go into battle, I'd rather like to see and, more importantly, use them all. Again going back to MoO2, you could have any number of ships in your fleet. I once literally had a battle with 200 ships on either side. Granted, when it gets to that level it gets a bit tedious of course. And we clearly need some bigger ships. I wanna be able to make a Death Star, damnit!

stirge_jr wrote:
I do agree the fleet sizes are very small, and I don't know how much I like the 1 fleet v 1 fleet at a time deal. If I have 30 ships rolling in an invasion armada, when I go into battle, I'd rather like to see and, more importantly, use them all. Again going back to MoO2, you could have any number of ships in your fleet. I once literally had a battle with 200 ships on either side. Granted, when it gets to that level it gets a bit tedious of course. And we clearly need some bigger ships. I wanna be able to make a Death Star, damnit!

I do like the capped fleet size, it makes sense only so many ships could work and cooperate in one space at a time. It also prevents someone from producing a 200 destroyer fleet that can out-blob any other player.

I see what you're saying, but I disagree somewhat. If we can pull off large naval exercises nowadays, or hell, in the 17th century they actually HAD coordinated naval battles with over a hundred ships on each side. If they can do that with hand and arm signals, I think the races of a 1000 years from now could do it with FTL communications and what have you. I understand the need to cap it down a little for gameplay, and that's fine. Even organizing them into fleets, I actually like that. I just think you should be able to make slightly bigger fleets at the least. And definitely the bigger ships. With only 5 or 6 sizes, that don't even get that big, or really much difference, it seems a bit bland. Why NOT be able to create a giant moon sized space ship? I mean, did the Germans need to make a 31 inch rail gun that weighed 1350 tons and fired a 7.1 ton round 39km? No, but they did it because they COULD. What better way for your race to stick it to the rest of the galaxy and say you're the best by making gargantuan space ships with planet destructive capabilities?

stirge_jr wrote:
I see what you're saying, but I disagree somewhat. If we can pull off large naval exercises nowadays, or hell, in the 17th century they actually HAD coordinated naval battles with over a hundred ships on each side. If they can do that with hand and arm signals, I think the races of a 1000 years from now could do it with FTL communications and what have you. I understand the need to cap it down a little for gameplay, and that's fine. Even organizing them into fleets, I actually like that. I just think you should be able to make slightly bigger fleets at the least. And definitely the bigger ships. With only 5 or 6 sizes, that don't even get that big, or really much difference, it seems a bit bland. Why NOT be able to create a giant moon sized space ship? I mean, did the Germans need to make a 31 inch rail gun that weighed 1350 tons and fired a 7.1 ton round 39km? No, but they did it because they COULD. What better way for your race to stick it to the rest of the galaxy and say you're the best by making gargantuan space ships with planet destructive capabilities?

Perhaps, but blobbing destroyers just seems like it would be too powerful.

Not to mention your in space! moving at stupidly high speeds shooting eachother with god knows what!

Agree with original post.



Agree that it would be good to have more hull types.

I'm glad to have so much positive feedback. In my other thread we have gotten some dev attention as well. It's very good to see the community discussing this topic.