I know a lot of suggs have been made (yes, sorry for the mistakes in english. I'm not english ) and I only propose my own more or less complete idea about a combat system.

First, I keep the cards for the battle. I think it's a great idea and really tactic.



I would like to introduce first :



1): The ships dispostion in the fleet.



Right now, when you have, let's say 5 ships, in the battle you see 5 ships. They can appear in any order and position.

My idea is to introduce 4 different "places" in a fleet which could look like this.





.........back.............

............[]...............

.............................

..........[]...[]...........

....[]......[]......[].....

.............................

.......[]...[]...[]........

...[]..................[]...

.........[]....[]...........

.............................

.....[].....[].....[]......

.........front.............



Don't mind the number, or the exact place. I want to show an idea, not a final version.

The first place : in red, the attacking ships.

Second : in green the support ships.

Third and fourth : in blue the defensive ships protecting the attacking and the support ones. Like shields.



Each places would have bonus or malus.



For example :

-The the support ships wouldn't be able to shoot but they could have extra bonus from the support modules the transport. The repair module have already two actions. In general one for the battle (+X hp per phase) and one for the outside (+X per turn). It could have a third action like "increase +200% the reparation bonus" or "+X hp for the fleet per phase add to the first one"...



-The defensive ships could attract kinetic, beams, missiles to not let the other ships they protect be shot. Then, being touched all the time, they could have a malus in targeting of they have weapons.



-The attacking ships could have a bonus in targeting for the opposite reason.



A lot of bonus malus allowing real placements and role according to the place in the fleet could be invent. Some ships already have a reduction of the costs for defensive modules. They could be perfect in defensive places. Other modules for support ships could be made like a one to help target enemy ships.



2): Squadrons



This placement could allow the appearance of squadrons (idea already submitted). Squadrons could have special targets like the supports ships for bombers or attacking ships for more mobile ones. The defensive ships could have a double role. protect the other ships and destroy squadrons, maybe release themselves squadrons of fighters to defend. Squadrons modules could be for defensives ships for fighters and for attacking/support for bombers/anti fighters.





3): Use of the alignement of a faction with a general battle order.



Like you saw I put different number of ship for different positions in the different roles. The number of ships in the same category could be limited. Limited by two things :

-The fleet cap first. More you can put ships together, more you have free places.

-A general battle order. With 3 different orders : Attack, Neutral and Defensive.

A fleet from an attacking faction could put more ships in the attacking role while a nation with defensive order could have less attacking ships but more defensive ones. The neutral order could have more support ship or no bonus/malus.



"An example : During an invasion, the invaded one would have more interest to have a defensive order, putting more defensive ships to resist better, blocking the invasion."



Using the faction's alignement like Evil, neutral or Good, it could gives bonus to a given order.

While evil could have more advantages to be in attacking order, the Good ones could have more bonus when defensive. Of course none would have malus if in the other way. A defensive Hissho would have no malus. An attacking UE would have more bonus than an attacking Sophon.





4): Difference between little and big ships.



A problem is with a fleet of smaller ships, you can defeat an entire fleet of Dreadnoughts.

To answer this, I would like to submit an idea. An increase of the place for bigger gun to smaller ship.

Example :



...................Small...........Medium..........Big ship

Beam lvl 1......+0%..............+0%..............+0%

Beam lvl 3.....+20%.............+0%...............+0%

Beam lvl 4.....+60%............+20%..............+0%

Beam lvl idk...+100%...........+50%.............+0% tonnage





Something like this. You still could place the last missile on your small ship but it would take more place. Like reinforcment of the main structure to allow the launch...

A big ship could for example have more malus being a support ship. Few small ships can repair more or their allies. A big one can't be everywhere at the same time during a battle.



In addition, with the system describe in 1), Bigger would be the ship, no matter how much defensive ship protect it, more "chances" it could have to be touched. It would be still better to have small ship as support in late-game.



----------------------------------------------



Please, understand they are all suggestions and what I would like is to imporve them to help the devs find something (if they need). I suppose a lot of you will want to give their opinion and I would like too also. Please use the number I wrote before each propositions in order to know about what you want to talk. Thank you.



If I have other idea, I will add more number, sure.



I took ideas from other players. I hope they are ok with that and I thank them. I wanted to include them as part in my first suggestion.

No comments about it ? It's perfect or totatlly crazy ?

Hmm...



1-2.) I don't know about this. I kind of like the combat system as it is. It's nice and simple, easy to figure out, yet there's still a decent bit of strategy to keep you thinking if you decide to do manual. In terms of the positions of the ships in the fleet it just seems like it would add an unnecessary level of complexity, the same with squadrons and being able to target specific parts of a fleet.



It might just be because of my playing style (fill my fleets with mostly dreadnoughts, wrap up any remaining CP with what will fit), but it just doesn't seem like it would be useful at all.



3.) And as for a faction's alignment giving them bonuses to battle...I just don't see how that's realistic at all. Just because someone is evil or good doesn't mean their fleets would be superior at attacking or defending.



4.) And this we already see, really. The stronger weapons already require more tonnage, letting you put less on smaller ships than you can on bigger ships. Do we really need to penalize them more?



These are just my opinions.

Photon_Ventdesdunes wrote:
No comments about it ? It's perfect or totatlly crazy ?

Well I certainly like some version of #1 #2 and perhaps #3, I imagine the implementation of this would require significant changes and time. If the Battle AI turns out to be modifiable or replaceable I could definitely see some version of those being popular.



Not sure I fully understand #4 or the need now that tonnage stuff is working again, I need to play more though.

FinalStrigon wrote:
Hmm...



1-2.) I don't know about this. I kind of like the combat system as it is. It's nice and simple, easy to figure out, yet there's still a decent bit of strategy to keep you thinking if you decide to do manual. In terms of the positions of the ships in the fleet it just seems like it would add an unnecessary level of complexity, the same with squadrons and being able to target specific parts of a fleet.



It might just be because of my playing style (fill my fleets with mostly dreadnoughts, wrap up any remaining CP with what will fit), but it just doesn't seem like it would be useful at all.

I saw people ask for an improved battle system and I wwanted to propose my idea which can be mixed with others to finalize something better. I also very like the actual combat system but I wouldn't mind something more realistic and adding more strategy. The fact you can pack dreadnought and destroy everything is not anymore very strategic to me.

FinalStrigon wrote:


3.) And as for a faction's alignment giving them bonuses to battle...I just don't see how that's realistic at all. Just because someone is evil or good doesn't mean their fleets would be superior at attacking or defending.

Evil, neutral and good are the usual reaction the factions adopt against a problem with another faction. While evils prefer generally resolve it with a war, good will prefer diplomaty.

I think a faction using war as its primary response can have more experience in the offense domain while the diplomats prefer talk, wait and see even they should defends after.

FinalStrigon wrote:


4.) And this we already see, really. The stronger weapons already require more tonnage, letting you put less on smaller ships than you can on bigger ships. Do we really need to penalize them more?



These are just my opinions.

KnightHawk wrote:
Well I certainly like some version of #1 #2 and perhaps #3, I imagine the implementation of this would require significant changes and time. If the Battle AI turns out to be modifiable or replaceable I could definitely see some version of those being popular.



Not sure I fully understand #4 or the need now that tonnage stuff is working again, I need to play more though.

About the point 4), I suggested the small ships would have malus with more advanced weapons. They are already heavier, but for every ships. Here they could clearly take less. But they could have a bonus in support like carrying more repair kits than the bigger ships.

The full small ship full attack is also a problem players are talking about right now. I wanted to propose an idea based on my first and main proposition.

How about a simplification of #1.



Each ship can be told to go to the back, middle, or front of a fleet. Also, all defenses would probably have to be rebalanced downwards (more on this in a bit).



The front ships have a greater chance of being targeted and due to the defense rebalance, probably get killed more easily.



The middle ships have a moderate chance of being targeted, but get a small bonus to their defenses based on the front row's abilities. For example, the front row can shoot down a missile headed for the middle row, but with a penalty. They would also have a slight accuracy penalty as the other ships get in their line of fire.



The back ships have a minimal chance of being targeted and get some defense from all of the ships in the fleet (that missile now had a chance of being shot down as it passed the front 2 rows). The back row ships would be taking a severe penalty to accuracy trying to find shots around 2 rows of friendly ships.



The reason I say the defenses would need to be rebalanced is because there are possibly going to be many "rolls" on any given shot.

Photon_Ventdesdunes wrote:
I saw people ask for an improved battle system and I wanted to propose my idea which can be mixed with others to finalize something better. I also very like the actual combat system but I wouldn't mind something more realistic and adding more strategy. The fact you can pack dreadnought and destroy everything is not anymore very strategic to me.

Hmm...I see what you mean. As much as I like the simplistic combat system, a little bit more depth and strategy would be nice. I'm just afraid of it turning into something more like an RTS-style battle, which I am absolutely horrible at. A selfish reason to resist change, I know, but it's my reason.

Evil, neutral and good are the usual reaction the factions adopt against a problem with another faction. While evils prefer generally resolve it with a war, good will prefer diplomaty.

I think a faction using war as its primary response can have more experience in the offense domain while the diplomats prefer talk, wait and see even they should defends after.

I still disagree, simply because despite what alignment a faction is said to have, how they react is still up to the player. I play the UE, an "evil" empire, and my reaction to things is rarely outright war. I don't have a lot of other real options, seeing as this is the alpha, but instead of attacking them I just defend myself and build up. Also, the empire descriptions go a bit against this. With the way the UE, for example again, is described, they would probably seek retribution against the other races primarily through economic means. The Hissho seem more likely to just declare war.



Sorry, I'm getting off topic now. I get what you mean, but in general, I don't like the alignment system in the game to begin with.

About the point 4), I suggested the small ships would have malus with more advanced weapons. They are already heavier, but for every ships. Here they could clearly take less. But they could have a bonus in support like carrying more repair kits than the bigger ships.

The full small ship full attack is also a problem players are talking about right now. I wanted to propose an idea based on my first and main proposition.

I admit, I don't quite understand this "full small ship full attack" problem. I've seen it mentioned, but I've never seen it in game. Is it something players are doing to the AI, or that the AI is doing to them? I'll withhold comments on 4) until I understand this a bit better, although I do stand by my original statement...Note, I do have a bias to stop using the smaller ships once I until Battleship/Cruiser/Dreadnought.

werewolf_nr wrote:
How about a simplification of #1.



Each ship can be told to go to the back, middle, or front of a fleet. Also, all defenses would probably have to be rebalanced downwards (more on this in a bit).



The front ships have a greater chance of being targeted and due to the defense rebalance, probably get killed more easily.



The middle ships have a moderate chance of being targeted, but get a small bonus to their defenses based on the front row's abilities. For example, the front row can shoot down a missile headed for the middle row, but with a penalty. They would also have a slight accuracy penalty as the other ships get in their line of fire.



The back ships have a minimal chance of being targeted and get some defense from all of the ships in the fleet (that missile now had a chance of being shot down as it passed the front 2 rows). The back row ships would be taking a severe penalty to accuracy trying to find shots around 2 rows of friendly ships.



The reason I say the defenses would need to be rebalanced is because there are possibly going to be many "rolls" on any given shot.

The type of battle you describe is a full frontal attack while now it's more like galeons on sea side against side.

Moreover, my idea is more based on the fact to give a special role depending of modules and places in a fleet to a ship. "My warrior ships can attack more or less safe thanks to my tank ships which took the damages until now."

FinalStrigon wrote:
Hmm...I see what you mean. As much as I like the simplistic combat system, a little bit more depth and strategy would be nice. I'm just afraid of it turning into something more like an RTS-style battle, which I am absolutely horrible at. A selfish reason to resist change, I know, but it's my reason.

I keep the cards and the fact you can't decde what to do IN a battle. What I propose concern only when you prepare your ships and your fleets.

FinalStrigon;33496I wrote:
still disagree, simply because despite what alignment a faction is said to have, how they react is still up to the player. I play the UE, an "evil" empire, and my reaction to things is rarely outright war. I don't have a lot of other real options, seeing as this is the alpha, but instead of attacking them I just defend myself and build up. Also, the empire descriptions go a bit against this. With the way the UE, for example again, is described, they would probably seek retribution against the other races primarily through economic means. The Hissho seem more likely to just declare war.

Sorry, I'm getting off topic now. I get what you mean, but in general, I don't like the alignment system in the game to begin with.

As I wrote, you have no malus to not be in the same mode as your alignment. Besides I don't know exactly how this description is useful now in the game so why not trying to give it an importance, even a small one.

FinalStrigon;33496I wrote:
admit, I don't quite understand this "full small ship full attack" problem. I've seen it mentioned, but I've never seen it in game. Is it something players are doing to the AI, or that the AI is doing to them? I'll withhold comments on 4) until I understand this a bit better, although I do stand by my original statement...Note, I do have a bias to stop using the smaller ships once I until Battleship/Cruiser/Dreadnought.

It's a technic for players to beat the AI. You build destroyers, best engine, full beams and you can destroy any fleet in the first two phases of the forst turn before any deadly missiles were launched. And the ennemies beam and kinetic are often too dispersed to make real damages, especially with two engineering turns after.

Additional complexity should be approached from the perspective of how it impacts gameplay.



This system, on the surface, appears to be more complicated. It is certainly more complicated to conduct and to understand. The problem lies in the fact that it is only marginally more complicated with regards to strategy. The total level of skill that can be applied in this system is only marginally increased, and in many ways is reduced, because of how obvious proper positioning is. That is not to say the system itself is purely awful, but it just does not seem worth implementing at this time



In Short: Alot of added superficial complexity, but rather minimal changes to strategic implications.

It's to balance and improve it I proposed this suggestion in a first place.

Photon_Ventdesdunes wrote:
As I wrote, you have no malus to not be in the same mode as your alignment. Besides I don't know exactly how this description is useful now in the game so why not trying to give it an importance, even a small one.

I'd say it would be easier to do away with the alignment system and gives these bonuses out bases on race. If you want a bonus to attacking, pick the Hissho. If you want a defensive bonus pick...hmm, maybe the Amoeba or Sowers. I'd say Sophons, but I remember a note in the race description that they are as likely to run from attacking animals, as to stay and count the number of teeth they're being bit with. It would help make the races a bit more unique.



That said, if there's no malus attached to it (as in mine, I guess it would be implied the strong attacking Hissho might have weak defenders), I guess there really isn't much of a problem to give some attribute like this based on alignment. I just assumed originally you had the same implied malus as I just mentioned for my thought.

It's a technic for players to beat the AI. You build destroyers, best engine, full beams and you can destroy any fleet in the first two phases of the forst turn before any deadly missiles were launched. And the ennemies beam and kinetic are often too dispersed to make real damages, especially with two engineering turns after.

Huh, alright. It isn't a tactic I've ever tried myself, and I'm curious to see how it would do against my Dreads (hold my doubts), but okay. This isn't really something that can be figured out until the beta.

I'd like to see a simplified version of the formation system suggested in #1.



On #1

Being able to assign a position in the fleet which grants boni and mali to attack and defense seems very intriguing.

Three rows.

First row get's neither boni nor penalties.

Second row get's boni on defense, mali on offense.

Third row increases effects of second row.



It would give me the chance of placing, say a colonizer, in the last row, so it is less likely to be hit by the enemy. Same goes for ships I designed for support.



As the combat system shouldn't be too complicated you can even tune it down to only two positions. Front and back, breaking the difference of ships down to combat ships and anything else.



On #2

Squadrons would make things too complicated imho, given you start letting them attack several subsystems and what not.

If you really have to add them as a new weapon category they might go as:



Attack with full force from medium phase onwards

Distribute damage evenly on all ships, disregarding position in fleet.



On #3

I don't like it. Makes things too complicated given there are already race specific boni and mali on combat. It's kinda redundant.



On #4

Same as #3





#1 seems relatively easy to implement (No new art, no tech tree changes, slight AI changes...), just choose the position during ship design, while #2 actually takes a lot of work (Adding whole weapon systems, modifying tech tree, new art, more AI coding etc...)



#3 and #4, well, I feel like they are redundant, so no further comment on that...

Mermel wrote:
I'd like to see a simplified version of the formation system suggested in #1.



On #1

Being able to assign a position in the fleet which grants boni and mali to attack and defense seems very intriguing.

Three rows.

First row get's neither boni nor penalties.

Second row get's boni on defense, mali on offense.

Third row increases effects of second row.



It would give me the chance of placing, say a colonizer, in the last row, so it is less likely to be hit by the enemy. Same goes for ships I designed for support.

.

It's already what I propose, but instead rows, places are defined like it could be with a real space fleet. Anyway, it's the idea.

Mermel wrote:


On #2

Squadrons would make things too complicated imho, given you start letting them attack several subsystems and what not.

If you really have to add them as a new weapon category they might go as:



Attack with full force from medium phase onwards

Distribute damage evenly on all ships, disregarding position in fleet.

Squadrons will be implemented. I only wanted add them in my proposition.

Mermel wrote:


On #3

I don't like it. Makes things too complicated given there are already race specific boni and mali on combat. It's kinda redundant.

Some wanted to have stronger difference between races to have a real different gameplay.

A lot of the ideas seem valid, though these seem like an awful lot of changes to the current system. Almost a redesign. I would agree that I would love to have a little more control over the battle itself, however, retreat was voted down!

Retreat, I think will be played as a card and I really don't want they delete them

I personally would like all of these changes.