I feel like cards and phases is a good start, but it needs an overhaul to make combat more fun. Here are my suggestions.



Do away with the mandatory closing fights. It does not make sense that ships that are optimized for ranged combat would close to melee range with a ship that is optimized for that. Keep phases around, but treat them more like rounds.



Add more depth to the combat! Each phase/round should have multiple categories that cards can go into, assuming they have the cards available from developed tactics and technology. I would recommend having a (1) positioning/distance, (2) sensors/intelligence, (3) electronic warfare/countermeasures, (4) targeting, (5) engineering, and (6)weapon categories for each round, each with corresponding decks of cards available.



(1)The positioning/distance category would allow opponents to attempt to maintain, close, or expand the distance between combat fleets. Early tech could drive a player to create fleets that specialize in a type of ranged combat, while later tech could allow cards such as a “Captain’s Choice” that allows mixed fleets to attempt to optimize their distance based of the effective range of its weapons. Obviously this would add depth to ship design and the tech and make players include speed as a component for ship balance and design. Escape options should be available for those that can out run an opponent.



(2) Sensors/intelligence category. Why do all space combat games have “perfect” identify friend or foe? You always know who the fleet belongs to and where they are if they are inside sensor range. On the main map fleets should not be much more than radar blips, or at least be unidentified. Diplomatic relations with a race could allow for hail and response of vessels for identification purposes. Once combat ensues, sensors would learn more about the other fleet, automatically getting a good idea how many there are, but might not yet know ship class, weapons, weaknesses, or even empire it is from perhaps. Also how accurate your sensors are could have a realistic impact on accuracy of weapons. Example cards could be, “track fleet” for better targeting info, “track separating target” could detect beam or missile weapons aiding defenses against attacks, “scan defenses” could give an estimated value for deflective/shield/flak ratios, “Identify” attempts to id the empire and ship sizes more accurately. There is an opportunity for specialized modules to be added to ships, such as privateer (a suggestion by another post), low-observable (stealth), and specialized sensors that could be an important ship in any fleet that provides a supporting role. “sensor link” could tie sensor data from all of the ships to defeat electronic attack or aid targeting.



(3) Electronic warfare/countermeasures, I will be honest, the only reason I pre-ordered the game was because I saw a screen capture for offensive chaff, and the card for short circuit, which looked like you were including aspects of electronic warfare into your game. There is an amazing history of electronic warfare with modern militaries. Radars were attacked by electronic counter measures (ECM), which lead to electronic counter counter measures (ECCM), which was countered again… So it has since been renamed electronic attack and electronic protection, since ECCCM sounded silly. This category would pretty much effect the sensor/intelligence category, and have many other aspects to add depth. It should provide players with a variety of techniques to create miss distance and decrease the accuracy of the enemy’s weapons and sensors. Some example cards would be “chaff” the first electronic warfare method, “velocity deception”, “range deception” because misjudging velocity/range could potentially cause huge targeting errors. “False target generation” could include multiple techs that improve the quality of the false targets, maybe early tech would just be an extra radar blip, maybe tons of false targets (which could require an opponent to close distance to achieve “burn through”.) “Holograms” could have various tech levels, ones that dissipate on a hit, ones that distort with a hit, or ones that simulate weapons hit and could cause an opponent to keep attaching a fake target. Eventually the top of this tech tree could include

“directed energy” which could cause actual damage to the electronics of missiles or an opponent’s ships/shields/flak. If I were king, I would really run with this one. I would go as far as having sensor designs that include electronic protections being built in, such as Moving Target Indicator (to defeat chaff), Anti-Velocity and Range processing, various anti-false target techniques. Modern military equipment comes packed with features designed to protect against known electronic attack techniques.



(4) Targeting, many have complained that we cannot focus fire on specific enemy ships. That is where this category comes in. Cards such as “target weakest”, “target fastest”, “focus fire”, “target close/far” would be a huge step forward. “paint target” could improve accuracy for missile attacks, or the next round (that could be a sensor card also). If a player used “find weakness” from the sensor/intelligence category he could use a type of fire that an opponent is weak to. Additionally, selecting aimpoints such as “target engines, weapons, bridge, sensors” would all add something. I think if there is not something to allow a player to selectively target enemy ships, people will feel that ship combat might as well just be auto and will be unhappy with the combat system as a whole.



(5) The engineering category, almost self-explanatory. Repair hull, shields, weapons…many games have lip service to damage control, but here we have the opportunity to make it simple and meaningful. “Overpower/overcharge weapon”, “increase shields/deflection” could help balance your fleet design with the one you are facing. Specialized repair ships have been done, but are liked by most.



(6) Weapons. “Fire everything!” can be really boring. I would love it if you just ripped off the mechwarrior concept in some form. Ship capacitors, heat sinks, accuracy scales…something to drive a player to choose what weapons he will fire. Since I do not think you will go with the mechwarrior option (perhaps to in-depth), I would recommend everything firing automatically, but have cards to boost the performance of type of fire. Kinetic guns can be “Aimed fire”, “Sweeping fire” (think of tracer fire from the gulf war news reals), “wall fire” (like sweeping but graphically a vertical pattern in front of their fleet/ship), or “barrage fire” guns fire into a sector, has the heaviest volume of fire but least amount of accuracy. Each weapon type having a number of rounds to accuracy value or maybe double the missiles at lower accuracy this rounds, but not available next round due to reloading. Missiles could have cards that alter the rate of fire or the manner of warhead/guidance/propulsion configuration. “Ballistic firing” could be fast but horribly in accurate. “Passive guidance” guides in on heat or sensor/engine emissions, great guidance but easily countered perhaps. Beam weapons could have similar cards to kinetic guns.



I am looking forward to the improvements made between Alpha and Final. I am open to criticism, comments and questions.

there is such a thing as 'trying to be too many games'. the core of ES is in the epic 4x strategy. the battles are nice but not the main focus and putting too much emphasis on them detracts from the actual core game. too much micromanagement or details to worry about would just cause people to autocalc every battle from midgame on.

that's not to say the current battle system can't be improved, but you seem to be looking to change the games entire focus here.

Intel_4_Life wrote:




(1)The positioning/distance category would allow opponents to attempt to maintain, close, or expand the distance between combat fleets. Early tech could drive a player to create fleets that specialize in a type of ranged combat, while later tech could allow cards such as a “Captain’s Choice” that allows mixed fleets to attempt to optimize their distance based of the effective range of its weapons. Obviously this would add depth to ship design and the tech and make players include speed as a component for ship balance and design. Escape options should be available for those that can out run an opponent.

I really would like to see something like this. Perhaps even add a prior-to-combat screen where the defender can pick where his ships start and the attacker can pick a general location to teleport into (With potentials for mishaps of course). I agree though, I dislike designing a missile ship only to watch it approach the enemy with ballistics weapons, so these kinds of mover order cards could really add some more strategy to the game.

Intel_4_Life wrote:


(2) Sensors/intelligence category. Why do all space combat games have “perfect” identify friend or foe? You always know who the fleet belongs to and where they are if they are inside sensor range. On the main map fleets should not be much more than radar blips, or at lease unidentified, diplomatic relations with a race could allow for hail and response of vessels for identification purposes. Once combat ensues, sensors would learn more about the other fleet, automatically getting a good idea how many there are, but might not yet know ship class, weapons, weaknesses, or even empire it is from perhaps. Also how accurate your sensors are could have a realistic impact on accuracy of weapons. Example cards could be, “track fleet” for better targeting info, “track separating target” could detect beam or missile weapons aiding defenses against attacks, “scan defenses” could give an estimated value for deflective/shield/flak ratios, “Identify” attempts to id the empire and ship sizes more accurately. There is an opportunity for specialized modules to be added to ships, such as privateer (a suggestion by another post), low-observable (stealth), and specialized sensors that could be an important ship in any fleet that provides a supporting role. “sensor link” could tie sensor data from all of the ships to defeat electronic attack or aid targeting.

Agreed again, I find it a little too easy that I see a ship in my sensors before it even arrives at a planet and I already know who I'm dealing with. The combat scanning and sensors could definitely add another level of strategy and depth to combat, which is imo the weakest part of this game.

Intel_4_Life wrote:


(3) Electronic warfare/countermeasures, I will be honest, the only reason I pre-ordered the game was because I saw a screen capture for offensive chaff, and the card for short circuit, which looked like you were including aspects of electronic warfare into your game. There is an amazing history of electronic warfare with modern militaries. Radars were attacked by electronic counter measures (ECM), which lead to electronic counter counter measures (ECCM), which was countered again… So it has sense been renamed electronic attack and electronic protection, since ECCCM sounded silly. So this category would pretty much effect the sensor/intelligence category, and have many other aspects to add depth. It should provide players with a variety of techniques to create miss distance and decrease the accuracy of the enemy’s weapons and sensors. Some example cards would be “chaff” the first electronic warfare method, “velocity deception”, “range deception” because misjudging velocity would cause potentially huge targeting errors. “False target generation” there could be multiple techs that improve the quality of the false targets, maybe early on just an extra radar blip, maybe tons of false targets (which could require an opponent to close distance to achieve “burn through”.) “Holograms” could have various tech levels, ones that dissipate on a hit, ones that distort with a hit, or ones that simulate weapons hit and could cause an opponent to keep attaching a fake target. Eventually the top of this tech tree could include

“directed energy” which could cause actual damage to the electronics of missiles or an opponent’s ships/shields/flak. If I were king, I would really run with this one, I would go as far as having sensor design that would have electronic protections built in, such as Moving Target Indicator (to defeat chaff), Anti-Velocity and Range, various anti-false target techniques. Modern military equipment comes packed with many features that are designed to protect against known electronic attack techniques.

Holograms are an interesting idea, though I think if they are put in there would need to be counter measures to detect false ships. The methods for blocking or making targeting ships harder seems like a simple addition of techs/cards so it should theoretically be easy to do.

Intel_4_Life wrote:


(4) Targeting, Everyone has complained that we cannot focus fire on specific enemy ships. That is where this category comes in. cards such as “target weakest”, “target fastest”, “focus fire”, “target close/far”, “paint target” could improve accuracy for missile attacks, or the next round (that could be a sensor card also). This would give a player options once he learns more about the enemy ships and designs from the sensor/intelligence category, “find weakness” could have select aimpoint cards. “target engines, weapons, bridge, sensors” would all add something. I think if there is not something to allow a player to selectively target enemy ships, people will feel that ship combat might as well just be auto.

Being allowed to focus fire and target specific parts was one of my first suggestions on the forums. I 100% back this idea being put into the game.

Intel_4_Life wrote:


(5) The engineering category, almost self-explanatory. Repair hull, shields, weapons…many games have lip service to damage control, but nobody has had the opportunity to make it fast and simple, where your cards and phases/categories makes it fast and adds depth. “Overpower/overcharge weapon”, “increase shields/deflection” could help balance your fleet design with the one you are facing. Specialized repair ships have been done, but are liked by most.

I really like the idea of overpowering/overcharging weapons with the benefit of more powerful shots but overheating the systems and losing them for the next turn.

Intel_4_Life wrote:


(6) Weapons. “Fire everything!” can be really boring. I would love it if you just ripped off the mechwarrior concept in some form. Ship capacitors, heat sinks, accuracy scales…something to drive a player to choose what weapons he will fire. Since I do not think you will go with the mechwarrior option (perhaps to in-depth), I would recommend everything firing automatically, but have cards to boost the performance of type of fire. Kinetic guns can be “Aimed fire”, “Sweeping fire” (think of tracer fire from the gulf war news reals), “wall fire” (like sweeping but graphically a vertical pattern in front of their fleet/ship), or “barrage fire” guns fire into a sector, has the heaviest volume of fire but least amount of accuracy. Each weapon type having a number of rounds to accuracy value or maybe double the missiles at lower accuracy this rounds, but not available next round due to reloading. Missiles could have cards that alter the rate of fire or the manner of warhead/guidance/propulsion configuration. “Ballistic firing” could be fast but horribly in accurate. “Passive guidance” guides in on heat or sensor/engine emissions, great guidance but easily countered perhaps. Beam weapons could have similar cards to kinetic guns.

Like #4 a lot of these seem like simple additions to the card system, so they shouldn't be too hard on the devs I'd presume. It would definitely add more to the Military tree than just new weapons. Could have an entire branch dedicated to just tactics.



Overall I really like most of your ideas, some of them might be a bit too complex to add into the game as it is now (I.E. Holograms and whatnot), but I think a lot of them would really improve the currently lackluster combat system. I hope the devs take some of your ideas to heart and implement them!

Suggestions belong in the Design Discussion sub-forum. That's quite a monster of a first post though

Whenever I see a post like this, I always think, "you know, if they made Serious Sam into a tactical shooter, it would be a lot more fun".

Good sugestions but many might be to complex to effctivly implement still would like to see some of them like the engineering ideas.

Perhaps movement cards that dictate what phases your ship will enter into. Long-range, mid-range, and melee. So if your ship is optimized for long-range, then pick 3 long-range cards and it will stay at a long-range (provided the enemy doesn't have a strong armored ship that will survive your volleys until he can draw close to melee and whip your butt). If it is a multi-use type of ship then select long-range, mid-range, and melee cards to mix it up and make use of that type of ship. If it is a strong melee-type then you could pick 3 melee cards and hope you can draw close enough to tank the enemy before your shot to bits.

Movement cards sounds a nice idea, kinda a bit annoying to see kinetics ships stay afar and slowly come to short range where they should be just putting full speed to get in that damn short range



Same for missiles ships, sounds idiot to see long-range ships moving towards the ennemy fleets. "Hey guys, we're long range ships, let's go where we are useless !"

Quote Originally Posted by Intel_4_Life View Post



(1)The positioning/distance category would allow opponents to attempt to maintain, close, or expand the distance between combat fleets. Early tech could drive a player to create fleets that specialize in a type of ranged combat, while later tech could allow cards such as a “Captain’s Choice” that allows mixed fleets to attempt to optimize their distance based of the effective range of its weapons. Obviously this would add depth to ship design and the tech and make players include speed as a component for ship balance and design. Escape options should be available for those that can out run an opponent.

I really would like to see something like this. Perhaps even add a prior-to-combat screen where the defender can pick where his ships start and the attacker can pick a general location to teleport into (With potentials for mishaps of course). I agree though, I dislike designing a missile ship only to watch it approach the enemy with ballistics weapons, so these kinds of mover order cards could really add some more strategy to the game.







And I'm going to obligingly not close to close range to allow you the missile advantage because, why? Nor am I gonna obligingly engage you where I don't have to defend something. You are attacking for the colonies. You want them, come get them. Couldn't care less if you sail around letting interplanetary debris abrade your hull.



That said, I'm all for a 4th battle round, or a first, that consists of a missile exchange as you close to energy/kinetic range. Would give me a reason to put missiles on my ships. As it stands now, I just load up on beams and destroy whoever showed up in the first volley, letting them explode with the missiles unfired. Course, I probably still wouldn't bother with missiles, unless they let engine speed dictate whether you can close range on someone. I'd just add enough counter missile to turn your missiles into pretty little puffs before they hit my hull, THEN rip you to shreds with my beams anyway. :} I used to use missiles at first. But the wait to fire, (why wouldn't you develop targeting solutions as you close to firing range, btw) plus long reload means I tend to not loose ships to missiles. Except in cases where an AI designed pure missile ships with heavy enough armour to survive the first round. Occasionally saturation fire works. Then I redesign my counterbatteries to take their saturation philosophy into account. Don't need one battery to one missile, btw. Least it doesn't seem so.



Course, as everyone keeps saying, Alpha. I'd imagine lotta stuff will change by Beta, much less full release.



I would like to see engine speed mattering, as in whether you can close on an enemy that doesn't want to be closed on cause they design long range ships, while I prefer medium range ones. Not that I've noticed a real problem, besides accuracy, with beams at long. And then, there is "my" saturation philosophy in effect there to manage that. As it stands now, I don't use engine upgrades till I have the "Container" tech researched. Rather the space for more guns.



Oh, yeah. Positioning. WHY wouldn't an unarmed ship fly in a formation that used the armed ships as a shield??? Why daws along out in the open soaking up fire when you are just a fat and lazy target, well, if you aren't my colony ships. Since that annoys me so I always arm mine so they can at least help. 3 or 4 guns, depending on type, is better then none. Makes the diff between a battle taking to long and getting destroyed, while the escort sits there watching the colony ship turn into a plasma cloud.

Moved to game design proposals

Intel_4_Life wrote:
I will be honest, the only reason I pre-ordered the game was because I saw a screen capture for offensive chaff, and the card for short circuit, which looked like you were including aspects of electronic warfare into your game.

Interesting. What convinced me to pre-order SE was seeing the simplified combat system. I like that all I have to do is choose 3 battle cards. In a game genre that seems to add more and more micromanagement (and I having less time to play), it is nice to see this style being used. I would hate to see the final combat system become overly complicated.



That being said, I did like the first suggestion. A missle-heavy fleet shouldn't be forced to close in on an enemy. Perhaps instead, each round you can decide whether to Get Closer, Maintain Distance, or Move Away. Your decision + Enemy's decision is then compared against the current distance to determine Long/Medium/Melee for the round.



Ideas (2) and (3) I would rather have incorporated somehow into ship design, not combat. If at all.

Your poll lacks a "none of the above" option. I like the simple battle cards. Picking 6 cards per phase per combat sounds like overkill to me. I would never choose manual if that were the case.