Combat Discussion

[Misfire]

Yes good questions. If shields go down does that power prevent damage by continuously regenerating shields? Or does the power automatically go somewhere else?

I do agree, it could be hard to balance this feature and could become quite complex. It should be "limited impact" Like Spocks suggested. Something you could ignore is most cases but could tip the scales when you know you're headed into an evenly match battle.

Not trying to make this overly complex, but BOTF's combat certainly needed a little more than it had (IMO). It's just a starting point, all up for discussion.

[Silverbreaker]

sorry, but I hope that this pics are not just a photoshop-fake. I wish it would be true because I love the combat feature in botf so much^^

[Flocke]

The pics look great so far. Am looking forward on what you get done!

Regarding combat options and complexity I agree that the plain BotF combat is a bit over-simplified. Even worse it is pretty repetetive.
To get things right I guess there is a lot experimentation needed. And when some options don't work out so well, maybe you can introduce some special circumstances where they totally make sense. E.g. some combat in a nebular, where shields are pretty inaffective anyhow, or close to a star, where you need shields to prevent radiation and such.

[Spocks-cuddly-tribble]

If shields go down does that power prevent damage by continuously regenerating shields? Or does the power automatically go somewhere else?

I wouldn't overthink it, it should be about the option to push functions beyond their nominal output at the cost of overall efficiency and/or with other risks (as you hinted).

- for balance issues / malpractice -> restrictive effect limits + overproportional compensation costs?

So if you push any function beyond its nominal output you lose overall power efficiency (realistic)

-> e.g. for +25% weapon accuracy (max sensors), or +25 agility, you have to trade -50% firepower?

In most cases a disadvantage, but sometimes you might really appreciate the option to make that call
(e.g. in my last BotF ECM game playing cardassians against a max-teched klingon fleet).


- for individually adjustable GUI clarity -> maybe a hide function for GUI sub-menus (cf. ST:Armada)?


In case you revisit the idea of system failures due to Hull-% loss in the main game, only GUI requirement would be displaying lowered system outputs in Red e.g. taskforce map-speed, cloak button, shields, weapon number/strength or any other feature (self-explaining for damage).

- ships that stay in the back by default like Strike Cruisers can lower their shield and propulsion power allocations, for sensors and weapons.

Weapon range goes both ways and in some cases, some players love to ram the enemy Strike Cruisers with their fast Attack Group in turn 1 (they might get in weapon range). And that's the beauty of the feature, there is never a guarantee that the gamble will pay off.

Also the interface doesn't need to reflect that certain ship types have different nominal outputs & energy requirements (e.g. strike cruiser low agility/engines) and a redundant weapons display for some colony/TT should be no issue.


I'd ask the guys from the BotF multiplayer discord about their opinions: viewtopic.php?p=53766#p53766

The feature might have far more potential than we're able to comprehend right now....

[Misfire]

sorry, but I hope that this pics are not just a photoshop-fake. I wish it would be true because I love the combat feature in botf so much^^

Not a fake. Would put out a demo but it would be kind of pointless. It is playable in the game, but diplomacy data isn't being brought in yet, AI just always attacks. Many features are half finished or not implemented yet.

The interface between the combat engine and the game needs further work too. It won't work after retire then starting a new game, doesn't handle alt+tab in and out well either. It's in the works though.

[Misfire]

- for individually adjustable GUI clarity -> maybe a hide function for GUI sub-menus (cf. ST:Armada)?

I actually had started working on implementing that already, some can collapse when the header is clicked. The screenshots were also at 1366x768 resolution. Screen space would be better at higher resolution.

[Misfire]

The pics look great so far. Am looking forward on what you get done!

Regarding combat options and complexity I agree that the plain BotF combat is a bit over-simplified. Even worse it is pretty repetetive.
To get things right I guess there is a lot experimentation needed. And when some options don't work out so well, maybe you can introduce some special circumstances where they totally make sense. E.g. some combat in a nebular, where shields are pretty inaffective anyhow, or close to a star, where you need shields to prevent radiation and such.

Thanks. We'll see how it works out, wouldn't be the first feature I've scrapped but think it should work out in some form.

[Misfire]

Misfire did add buttons for "apply to whole fleet" (ship type?) to help with part of that

Right now the "fleet" is the fleet of ships as assigned when the battle starts. Could be changed to apply to ship type instead.

[Iceman]

Yes good questions. If shields go down does that power prevent damage by continuously regenerating shields? Or does the power automatically go somewhere else?

During battle, when shields are totally depleted, they won't regenerate anymore.

I do agree, it could be hard to balance this feature and could become quite complex. It should be "limited impact" Like Spocks suggested. Something you could ignore is most cases but could tip the scales when you know you're headed into an evenly match battle.

We could have this be tied to having an officer in the fleet/battle - that is, if you have an officer, you can access the power allocations. This might be too restrictive though.
Or having the ability to push past normal limits only be allowed by having an officer, the limit being determined by that officer's stats.

[Iceman]

Misfire did add buttons for "apply to whole fleet" (ship type?) to help with part of that

Right now the "fleet" is the fleet of ships as assigned when the battle starts. Could be changed to apply to ship type instead.

Maybe having both options?
Not that I'm expecting there'll be too many fleets of (different) support ships, but these could use the "fleet" option. The "type" option would probably be best for large heterogeneous fleets.

[Silverbreaker]

pls make a demo

[Danijel]

pls make a demo

Would put out a demo but it would be kind of pointless. It is playable in the game, but diplomacy data isn't being brought in yet, AI just always attacks. Many features are half finished or not implemented yet.

The interface between the combat engine and the game needs further work too. It won't work after retire then starting a new game, doesn't handle alt+tab in and out well either. It's in the works though.

► Show Spoiler

[Silverbreaker]

it's just for Reassurance... I just can't believe it - it just looks like a PS-fake... can't help it

[Danijel]

it's just for Reassurance... I just can't believe it - it just looks like a PS-fake... can't help it

In that case, you'll just have to sit tight and wait,...if its any comfort, we'll all do it too

[Spocks-cuddly-tribble]

you'll just have to sit tight and wait,...if its any comfort, we'll all do it too

Meanwhile enjoy the Birth of the Empires Combat Simulator.

The Supremacy guys will never be able to compete with this topnotch 4-k high-end interface. BotE's CS features astonishingly realisting high definition real-world 4D engines, with graphics so real, your brain could never hope to comprehend the full extent of mind numbing beauty this Combat Simulator exudes: http://birth-of-the-empires.de/wiki/ind ... tSimulator