Combat Discussion

[Iceman]

Yea, Misfire's previous experience in creating this type of engine is absolutely no match for this awesome combat engine

[Misfire]

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

Best I can do for now:
https://youtu.be/QWY4S4c_z-k

Crappy video with my barely functioning cell phone camera (my little laptop can't run video capture software without being really choppy). It's obviously not running within Supremacy in that video, I'm in the middle of re-writing some code and can't compile the game at the moment. I just use a separate app I wrote to send fake battle information that Supremacy would normally send to it for testing. There's another video I posted of it running within the game, but it's a much earlier version where you couldn't do anything yet. The video is of equally bad quality:
https://youtu.be/tkp8aYP2898

[Misfire]

How should the ships be grouped? I'm currently re-doing the code for spawning ships/fleets anyway. I have much more data available from Supremacy now and am also implementing AI orders based on diplomacy data. Couple options I can think of:

By the fleet they are assigned to.
pros:
-seems most realistic
-requires forethought on assigning ships to fleets
cons:
-slower ships in group would slow the whole fleet down
-random assignment of fleet starting positions could impact the battle.

By ship type.
pros:
-all ships in the fleet would have similar stats/abilities
-ships could be assigned preferred starting positions based on type, reducing the impact of random position assignments.
cons:
-ambiguity between assigned fleet and "combat fleet"

Somewhat related, the way I have targeting working currently, when the player orders a fleet to attack, you select a ship to target. Each ship then checks friendly fire interference. If there is interference, it will try to select another enemy target from that fleet, or of that same enemy. If a target cannot be obtained, the ship doesn't fire (this is updated continuously, so a ship may start/stop firing as it moves). Not much of an issue during small battles, but during battles with very large fleets, this is not a trivial problem. I haven't tested it but have a feeling that many small fleets would have an advantage over one massive fleet the way it is now. Increasing fleet spacing would probably help, at the cost of the ships becoming tiny on a complete overhead view.

[Spocks-cuddly-tribble]

By the fleet they are assigned to.
pros:
-seems most realistic
-requires forethought on assigning ships to fleets

I like the idea, but I'm not briefed how ships-in-sector vs combat works in Supremacy (in BotF all parties are forced into one battle per sector).

The map task force option (aka fleet) reminds me of Callahan's idea to allow reinforcements for ongoing battles in BotF, his workaround being lowering the default limit of 50 tactical turns to end battles inconclusive:

I did some testing with battles of only a few turns ( 4 to 6 mainly ) and I found the results quite interesting.
As most battles do now take several game turns, it is possible to bring in reinforcements into ongoing battles.
It is now also possible to invade a system even with superior hostile forces present.
This way even an inferior opponent can be a threat.

A better option would require more granularity for task-force map-speed within sectors. As simple workaround:
Arrival delay factor for each task force (fleet) = [task force travel distance in sectors] / [task force map speed]
All with equal or lower factors than the lowest enemy factor start at turn 1. Other reinforcements in later turns according to the relative delay factor.
It'd be cool to get reinforcements after turn X of the combat (finished earlier, it would be separate battles).

-random assignment of fleet starting positions could impact the battle.

Could be an interesting variation the consider the map flight directions of the fleets for the combat initial positions?

-slower ships in group would slow the whole fleet down

Means the task force map-speed, but inspired the idea for a 'stay in formation' feature for the unrelated impulse/agility of combat groups:

In BotF faster ships will leave slower ships in the combat group behind and may even take different paths (using the same command vs the same target).

How about an option to 'stay in formation' with group slowdown risk:
- your 'break from fleet/group' = solo-mode?
- your 'fleet/group order' = BotF default?
- 'stay in formation' = all selected ships in group have max agility of slowest ship?

-ambiguity between assigned fleet and "combat fleet"

Also the dependency of the concepts is unclear:

- starting positions, spawning ships/fleets
vs
- combat groups (in BotF you can set each group command/target and/or different solo-mode targets/orders for specific ships)

Real advanced & useful (intricate?) would be the option to customize groups in combat (select all ships for new custom group cf. ST:Armada) then go for target X (ignore old group) or gather at position X while random targeting enemies.

To simplify selection of commands for custom groups we'd need an auto replacement feature if the group command is invalid for certain ships:
E.g. (for BotF defaults) IF type 'artillery' AND custom group attack pattern 'Circle' THEN set to e.g. 'Flyby' or 'Hold' for this type only.

friendly fire interference. If there is interference, it will try to select another enemy target from that fleet, or of that same enemy. If a target cannot be obtained, the ship doesn't fire (this is updated continuously, so a ship may start/stop firing as it moves). Not much of an issue during small battles, but during battles with very large fleets, this is not a trivial problem. I haven't tested it but have a feeling that many small fleets would have an advantage over one massive fleet the way it is now.

Realistic disadvantage for larger fleets. In BotF ships are not solid, so myriads of ships can and will occupy the same space and fire at the same enemy ship without any interference. If ships are solid, so one cannot fire or fly through own or enemy ships, this leads to the question of unwanted random collisions in chaotic battles. Some old star trek games featured the risk of destroying/crippling own ships due to collisions (annoying issue with the 'Dominion Wars' warp drive in combat).

Increasing fleet spacing would probably help, at the cost of the ships becoming tiny on a complete overhead view.

Narrow/wide group/fleet formation could be another selectable option (and/or clusters of small groups)
So higher risk of blocked targeting due to own ships with 'narrow' vs possible weapon range issues with 'wide'.

---

Coincidentally I read in a film/tv forum about Voyager 4:17, it features at least two ideas for tactical combat:

Photonic pulse (e.g. disrupt enemy sensor for 1 or 2 tactical turns) https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Photonic_pulse

Isokinetic cannon (another shield penetrating weapon): https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Isokinetic_cannon

[Silverbreaker]

please release the combat-feature and than you can finetune it how you like together with the community... game is already alpha
even this 'one model for all' (prometheus model) is okay for an alpha phase of the game

[Danijel]

please release the combat-feature and than you can finetune it how you like together with the community... game is already alpha
even this 'one model for all' (prometheus model) is okay for an alpha phase of the game

I wonder, what would you do with it? (to make this clear, even i dont know what i would do with it atm )
Its not rly usable yet, playable even less, at least in form that You expect it to be .

[Iceman]

I like the idea, but I'm not briefed how ships-in-sector vs combat works in Supremacy (in BotF all parties are forced into one battle per sector).

Same thing, all fleets in the sector take part in a single battle. Assuming the conditions for a battle exist, of course.

[Iceman]

How should the ships be grouped? I'm currently re-doing the code for spawning ships/fleets anyway. I have much more data available from Supremacy now and am also implementing AI orders based on diplomacy data. Couple options I can think of:

My first reaction would be by fleet. Like you said, fleet composition would require more thought, especially escorts for support ships - could allow sniping at say unescorted colony ships or TTs even when outnumbered.

Somewhat related, the way I have targeting working currently, when the player orders a fleet to attack, you select a ship to target. Each ship then checks friendly fire interference. If there is interference, it will try to select another enemy target from that fleet, or of that same enemy. If a target cannot be obtained, the ship doesn't fire (this is updated continuously, so a ship may start/stop firing as it moves). Not much of an issue during small battles, but during battles with very large fleets, this is not a trivial problem. I haven't tested it but have a feeling that many small fleets would have an advantage over one massive fleet the way it is now. Increasing fleet spacing would probably help, at the cost of the ships becoming tiny on a complete overhead view.

Slightly related, torpedoes vs beams, and range. Should torpedoes fire first, particularly those of Strike Cruisers, etc.

[Spocks-cuddly-tribble]

torpedoes vs beams, and range. Should torpedoes fire first, particularly those of Strike Cruisers, etc.

First, I hope you and your wife had a great time.

In BotF it's technically not the ship function. Given targets within the torpedo min-max range and firing arc, strike cruisers might fire earlier due to higher torpedo max range, depending on the current combat situation. But there is also some sort of phaser glitch (RateOfFire bug?) i.e. in turn 1 most ships fire first out-of-range phaser shots (all missing). Misfire is going to implement this feature for nostalgic reasons, of course (see his name).

The real question for torpedoes with the new/realistic solid/interference setup in Supremacy is torpedo detonation colateral damage (the min distance feature gives a hint for safe zone) and torpedo flight paths. Means unforseen friendly fire hits due to erratic/fast movements and/or unwanted/reduced colateral damage due to detonation proximity. On the plus side, one could use new tactis for certain ship types e.g. go into close dog fight (cf. DS9 Defiant Pulse weapons vs Negh'Var) and/or hiding behind other ships.

[Iceman]

First, I hope you and your wife had a great time.

Yea, thx, though part of it was cleaning up the (alt/summer) house.

In BotF it's technically not the ship function. Given targets within the torpedo min-max range and firing arc, strike cruisers might fire earlier due to higher torpedo max range, depending on the current combat situation. But there is also some sort of phaser glitch (RateOfFire bug?) i.e. in turn 1 most ships fire first out-of-range phaser shots (all missing). Misfire is going to implement this feature for nostalgic reasons, of course (see his name).

ROTFLMAO.
There's really no reason for STKs to fire first, yes, they're just "missile boats". Maybe give them better accuracy (which they already have against ground targets), and/or longer range if we add ranges to weapons.

The real question for torpedoes with the new/realistic solid/interference setup in Supremacy is torpedo detonation colateral damage (the min distance feature gives a hint for safe zone) and torpedo flight paths. Means unforseen friendly fire hits due to erratic/fast movements and/or unwanted/reduced colateral damage due to detonation proximity. On the plus side, one could use new tactis for certain ship types e.g. go into close dog fight (cf. DS9 Defiant Pulse weapons vs Negh'Var) and/or hiding behind other ships.

Or stations.
Colateral damage could also depend on the type of torpedo (plasma, ion, etc). Though we can easily get lost in minutiae in combat.

[Spocks-cuddly-tribble]

There's really no reason for STKs to fire first, yes, they're just "missile boats". Maybe give them better accuracy (which they already have against ground targets), and/or longer range if we add ranges to weapons.

Plus other basic stuff like more torpedoes per turn (means also +fire rate/rapid launchers) and more launchers/better firing arcs (works great for STKs in BotF). With options for good positioning in the fleet and right AI control (keeping right distance depending on relative weapon stats) they should do nice.

[Spocks-cuddly-tribble]

Wrt the development of the combat engine don't forget about a special initial placement option for cloaked ships/fleets in tactical combat.

In BotF (and often in Star trek canon) cloaked ships de-cloak within the target's main weapons firing arc. I guess I'm just too retarded to grasp the deeper wisdom behind this tactic.... I would expect most surprise attacks from behind, laterally, top or bottom.

---

Another unused/unfinished feature in BotF is different cloaking devices (shiplist.sst implies at least 4 sub-types).

This would allow for a better cloak, with fewer disadvantages, depending on tech development (the same goes for cloak counter measures, of course).

- setting task force (fleet) to red alert -> more maintenance/energy cost?

OT: In BotF I miss an option to temporary lower ship support via some sort of protected storage function (at the cost/risk that they would be inactive, sitting ducks when attacked). Very useful if you don't have enough ship-pop-support yet, but you need to build a fleet in preparation for later confilcts.

[Iceman]

In BotF (and often in Star trek canon) cloaked ships de-cloak within the target's main weapons firing arc. I guess I'm just too retarded to grasp the deeper wisdom behind this tactic.... I would expect most surprise attacks from behind, laterally, top or bottom.

I guess one could understand that for the Klingons, but not really for the Romulans. Being... secretive... and all.

Another unused/unfinished feature in BotF is different cloaking devices (shiplist.sst implies at least 4 sub-types).

You mean Stealth and Cloak?

OT: In BotF I miss an option to temporary lower ship support via some sort of protected storage function (at the cost/risk that they would be inactive, sitting ducks when attacked). Very useful if you don't have enough ship-pop-support yet, but you need to build a fleet in preparation for later confilcts.

The original design for Supremacy had a Mothball option for that purpose. The cost/risk just seems a bit... non-risky.
Doesn't it sound a bit like an exploit? I mean, build a bunch of ships and mothball them, declare war, take the credits hit for a few turns while you demolish the opposition, mothball again whatever you don't need anymore (with your own losses taken into account). Rinse and repeat.
To fight a war, you should need a large war chest.

[Spocks-cuddly-tribble]

I guess one could understand that for the Klingons

One might think so, but "In war nothing is more honorable than victory." beginning with the 'brave' klingon cloak attack on the Grissom in ST3....

You mean Stealth and Cloak?

It's the data location in shiplist.sst (the term 'Stealth' was made up by modders). I was referring to the default values vs the unfinished/inconsistent codes in trek.exe (an unfitting bitmask check treats the defaults 2/6 same as 0/4).

The original design for Supremacy had a Mothball option for that purpose. The cost/risk just seems a bit... non-risky.

Of course you have to balance/tweak it (e.g. still 50% support plus re-activation fee in credits, max-% of fleet etc.) And it's a nice opportunity to sneak in a ship depot (maybe with a cloaked fleet) and destroy them before having declared war (i.e. no building/system attack). Also they could be easier to 'mass' steal/destroy via intel....

[Iceman]

Polaris Sector, for some ideas.