space combat and normal combat

[DeathByTheSword]

well it looks to me like we are going to have spaceships and spacecombat....if i look at other strategy game that have spacecombat in it i always am amazed by the lack of tactics need in the actual fight....it is the one with the biggest guns, the best shields and foremost with the most ships....i find that boring....i am was thinking about this and also about how to change it then i came up with the game ground control...i dunno if someone played it ever but it is one of my favorite games....it is a realtime game but the way that fighter fight with each other i always like they are not simple going head to head with each other but are making a real dogfight of it.....maybe we can hace a realtime battle resolution in the game with very active ships and units...you give general orders before the battle begins and then lets it go its seperate way....maybe after a time you can give new general orders and ofcourse you can always say retreat something....but you wouldnt have direct control in battle in real life generals also dont have direct control over there units and have to give there orders before hand....some during....but most before the battle...just a tought.....so:
:realtime battle
:no direct control
:dogfightlike space combat


that are my ideas

[Jeremy Buloch]

I like them DBTS!
I dont like the Hit points and stuff like that. Cause sometimes the lower obsolete vessel might win. In real life that is. So therefore we should do this thing that DBTS is proposing. I dont have any marks to make about the Idea cause it is a real nice thing to have, I think.
-J.B.-

[Michiel]

I agree, but.. Isn't that exactly what Civ has? You choose to attack a unit, and the fight starts untill one wins. You don't have direct control over the battle.

And if we're not going to use hitpoints, then what? It's gotta have a name. Hitpoints, Ship-containment, Hull-integraty, Shield-status, whatever.. If we're not going to use something like this, then how does the game decide which ship wins?

I've got another fun idea to add. You can give the ship you want to send into battle an attack-pattern. There'll be attack-pattern Alpha, Beta, Ceta and Delta (or whatever, this just sounds cool ). The defending ship chooses a defense/evasion-pattern.

Attack-pattern = AP
Defense-pattern = DP

AT-A has an advantage over DP-B (AD = 2)
AT-A has a disadvantage over DP-D (AD = 0.5)
AT-A has an equal chance against DP-C (AD = 1)
AT-B has an advantage over DP-C (AD = 2)
etc.

It's like a rock-paper-scisors game, but we could make it more complicated than that (custom patterns for example). You must guess what pattern the enemy is going to use. Of course, a stronger ship still has an advantage over weaker ships. There will have to be some sort of equation for the damage.

Damage = AD*(Rest of equation)

'Rest of equation' will contain variables like defending ship's shield-strength, attacking ship's weapon status, etc.

Tell me what you think of my idea.

[DeathByTheSword]

yes that is what civ is about but in StP there are going to be armies not single units (i think to applies also too spaceships) but if we would make it Real Time we can use tactics instead of simple click on a unit to fires....but i like the idea of attack patterns that is what i ment with general orders

[Kuciwalker]

First, let's assume that there are five space weapon types: Projectile, Fragment, Laser, Plasma, and High-Energy Explosive.

Projectile - weapons that shoot projectiles that either explode on contact with an object or just don't explode at all. Railguns would fall under this catagory.

Fragment - weapons that either fire projectiles that explode when withing a certain proximity of an object, releasing shards and such, or weapons that just fire shards of stuff out of them. A shotgun and a flak shell would both fall under this catagory.

Laser - anything that fires a laser at a target. Duh.

Plasma - anything that fires some sort of object that damages an object on contact through heat. A plasma gun would fall under this category. Duh

High-Energy Explosive - Fission, Fusion, and Antimmater explosives. Also any other weapon we make up that causes damage in roughly the same manner as these do. A Yamato Cannon would NOT fall under this category - it would be either Laser or Plasma.

Each weapon would have charactaristics such a speed, acceleration (if missile), explosive radius, explosive energy, mass, heat (plasma), energy (laser), rate of turn (if missile), etc.

We would have different levels and different types of armor. Armor would have certain defense values against certian weapon types.

[Blake]

Firstly, spaceships will be grouped into fleets, and will fight under the rules of bastardized newtonian physics ()

skywalker, dollars to dimes your a Starcraft player, altough I deny ever playing starcraft I recognise the weapon/armour interactions (but only 3 weapon types in starcraft, IIRC), and the yamato cannon reference....

Altough it is a fairly good system in any case, used by virtually every RTS game in some shape or form, so it cant be too bad . I also quite like your weapon classifications, altough not sure if plasma is realistic, and beam would be a required weapon type (ie ion cannon)


I think one important aspect of space combat should be ship orientation and profile, if you dont get what I mean check the attached image.

Anyway, the smaller the profile a ship presents to the enemy, the less damage it takes, through a combination of extra armouring and a higher chance to miss, and in the case of fragment weapons, being hit by less of the fragments.

This would be especially important for capital ships, the wedge would probably be some sort of battleship, equiped with many weapons and prehaps fighter bays. It obviously prefers to present the leading edge, because that is the smallest profile, it can be shaped to deflect hits, and armoured to reduce damage.

The cigar would generally house a single very large weapon that uses electromagnets to accelerate stuff, ion cannons and rail guns come to mind. For several reasons the cigar wants to point at the enemy, it's harder to hit that way, and it also needs to point in the general direction of the enemy in order to smoke them.
Technical note: Electromagnetics can be used to "aim" the beam or projectiles, using technology very simialler to that in your television. So the cigar doesn't have to point exactly at it's target.

The sphere deserves special mention, because there is no better shape when being attacked from all sides.

So anyway, against wedge and particullary cigar shaped capital ships flanking would be an effective tatic.

However do remember, that realistically, in space 2 things will be very important in deciding the battle
Outrange (a cumulation of projectile speed, beam coherence, accuracy, and detection range)
Outnumber

Also of importance will be countermeasures, like if the enemy is using a lot of missiles it'd pay to have anti-missile systems installed, if they have shown a love of fragmentation weapons, then thicker armour or deflection fields would help....

[Gateway103]

Hey Blake, do you know how MOO3 handle space combat? From the report of MOO3 beta-testers, the combat system is adequate enough to involve actual tactics and strategy. Maybe worth a look.

There are too many threads on this topic in the Infograme forums (as well as other sources), but perhaps one quick stop to the Beta Tester Impression thread may help a bit, here is the link,
http://www.ina-community.com/forums/...hreadid=239742

Please post any questions here, and I'll get back to you when I can

-Gateway103

[DeathByTheSword]

btw shogun: Total war is also a good example of real time fight in a turnbase game i am not suggesting such a system but still may take a look

[Kuciwalker]

I hate Starcraft.

[targon]

I have another one wierd idea: integrated space and ground combat system, so fleets on orbit may target and shoot up surface critters (missing infantry by 50m of course ). Ground troops also may blast these ugly shades just below the stars and why squad of high-tech tanks is unable to fry destroyer? Of course, some surface troops are simply too unprecise to track even low orbit, but why restrict energy based weaponry to planetary targets only?

And one more: urban combat. In traditional Civs city is single sector despite its pop and is't especialy fortified. But modern warfare denotes urban combat as themost difficult one, so we may add special rules for storming "uplifted" areas or even treat them as some structure with its own map etc...

[Kuciwalker]

Only big, powerful weapons should be able to hit spaceships from the ground. However, spaceships SHOULD be able to bombard planets from space.

[DeathByTheSword]

the HARP cannon was made in the `90 and it was able to shoot things in to orbit....that was more then 10 years ago and it wasnt that big....so i think that planetary defenses are a real possiblity

[Kuciwalker]

Yes, but I don't think that normal armies should get them. I think they should be reserved to buildings.

Also, you should be able to sort of control any battle at which your flagship (and by extension, you) is present.

[Jeremy Buloch]

Yes Planetary Defense is possible. The U.S. Government is working on a system to do that. I think. I might be wrong but anyways its still theoretical. So its very possible indeed.
-J.B.-

[targon]

Skywalker, both US and Russian armies (at least!) have things called "anti-sattelite missiles", mounted on interceptors. This stuff kills sattelites at low-to-medium orbits. Of course, AFAIK it's very simple kinetic weapon based on "dust cloud" idea (no need for precise targeting) so it's really humble against even light armor, but it's just beginning, is't it? Modern aircrafts seems to steadly dissolve atmosphere-orbit "border" and thus must obtain some spaceborn weapons somehow. Surface based troops will need something to keep this guys at bay, like modern SAMs do. It's just an evolution.
If we'll let orbital weapons for buildings only, any invading force will be in unrealistic disadvantage if any defender ships are still at orbit.

[Kuciwalker]

EXACTLY! Space superiority should be the most important aspect of this game!

Plus, defenders will have the advantage of numbers. How many troops can you really ferry between worlds?

[Jeremy Buloch]

How many troops?

Well that depends on the size of the craft, lifesupport, etc. So therefore, I think there is no limit. well it would have to be small enough to fit on the planet it was built on. Unless docked at a space station. With shuttles going to the planet and back.
-J.B.- and/or someone else

[Blake]

Okay, how does this sound:
Orbit -> Surface
Spaceships (and spacestations) with long range beam weapons can fire at ground targets, because these weapons are designed to destroy small targets at extreme ranges, they are good for selectively eliminating medium sized targets, for example ships are comically easy to eliminate from orbit. However these weapons are not for use against entrenched targets or for mass destruction.
Spaceships can be equiped with bombs, bombs are only good against surface targets, and come in many shapes, forms and sizes, some examples being:
Tatical Nuke: Eliminate small armies and large facilities with these.
Dirty Nuke: Good to destroy cities and make planets generally uninhabitable.
Netron Bomb: Great for killing off population while leaving infrastructure intact.
Antimatter Planetbuster: Makes big craters where enemy cities once stood. Altough they dont release dangerous levels of radiation, they do tend to ignite the atmosphere and evaporate oceans. A single planetbuster will decimate a planets biosphere. Two is overkill.

Surface -> Orbit:
Virtually all surface units will be unable to hit orbital targets.
There should be a stationary "Defense Cluster" with big guns capable of hitting spaceships, and also anti-bomb systems, capable of destroying *some* bombs, it wont hit all, and it wont hit those that detonate in high atmosphere, some bombs will be hardened or cloaked, giving them a better chance of getting through the Defense Cluster anti-bomb systems.
Targon raises a good point, some High Atmosphere/ Low-Orbit fighters should be able to target spaceships.

However, generally if you have ground troops on an enemy planet, and lose control of the orbit, those troops are going to be pretty much doomed unless you take the orbit back double quick. Things wont be so grim if enemy spaceships are in orbit of a friendly world, because it will have Defense Clusters and fighters.
A fleet equiped to destroy planets (ie lots of bombers) will be able to do very serious damage in just a few turns, however because bombs are strictly useless in a space battle it will be harder to take the orbit, so balanced somewhat.

And hey, High Atmosphere Low Orbit Fighter = HALO Fighter, seems like a good name, seeing there primary function will be defensive

[targon]

Originally posted by Blake
...ships are comically easy to eliminate from orbit.

Subs?

However these weapons are not for use against entrenched targets or for mass destruction. Spaceships can be equiped with bombs, bombs are only good against surface targets

Anti-ship nukes may be in fact used against surface targets.

Antimatter Planetbuster... dont release dangerous levels of radiation

Wrong. It does. Different isotopes, but who cares?

...they do tend to ignite the atmosphere and evaporate oceans. A single planetbuster will decimate a planets biosphere. Two is overkill.

Right, I think. Especialy "ignite the atmosphere". Nitrogen fires are't easy to create but really impossible to extinguish. And why not "explode oceans"? Hydrosphere may be in fact treated as really nasty H-bomb. Hard to ignite though, but if you can afford several kg of AM it is't any problem.

Surface -> Orbit:
Virtually all surface units will be unable to hit orbital targets.

IMHO, _majority_ of the energy weapons, some kinetic and some specialized missiles are really good against spaceships. You see, any surface-to-surface attack must travel several (dozens) of km full of air, while atmosphere of Earth (-like world) is't especialy thick. The only problem is targeting, but spaceships can't really hide

There should be a stationary "Defense Cluster" with big guns capable of hitting spaceships, and also anti-bomb systems, capable of destroying *some* bombs, it wont hit all, and it wont hit those that detonate in high atmosphere, some bombs will be hardened or cloaked, giving them a better chance of getting through the Defense Cluster anti-bomb systems.

Seems to be unfair advantage to hit-and-run tactics, unless we'll force prior neutralization of any defender fleet.
For example, in Stars! you are able to bring _any_ starbase down with kamikaze tactics ships regardless of defending fleet and level the planet next turn.

However, generally if you have ground troops on an enemy planet, and lose control of the orbit, those troops are going to be pretty much doomed unless you take the orbit back double quick.

So you expect defenders will bomb their own planet into stone age due to some guerilla commando regiments?

[Blake]

Well I should hope they dont use "strategic nuke" scale weapons, however consider this:
Command posts / Headquarters can be eliminated by the use of beam weapons or small bombs.
Invading forces cannot be resupplied, unless they have a large basecamp (vunerable to bombs) or friendly supply ships in orbit. They can probably hold out on supplies and caches for 2-3 years, but I dont think their morale would unless they really are guerilla types. Thats why I said you have to take the orbit back double quick.

Seems to be unfair advantage to hit-and-run tactics, unless we'll force prior neutralization of any defender fleet.
For example, in Stars! you are able to bring _any_ starbase down with kamikaze tactics ships regardless of defending fleet and level the planet next turn.

Obviously such things are subject to playtesting.

Wrong. It does. Different isotopes, but who cares?

Well, I mean the majority of damage is done through vaporisation, shockwave, heat etc, any radiation will be inconsequential. Unlike the dirty nuke, where the radiation will be half the fun.

Subs?

Good point, actually I can see no reason whatsoever why subs wouldn't be useful, if somewhat specialized. They can hide on the seafloor and provide monitoring duties.

Take a self-contained, automated sub with nuclear ICBM's. Load it in a large spaceship, and deposit it in the oceans of a contested world. It can monitor activity, and if the enemy founds some cities, KA-BOOOOOOM!

Another idea is a Spaceship / Submarine combination. It is strong enough to withstand high pressure so can hide under the oceans, to evade pursuit, lay in ambush or repair.

[targon]

OK, supplies may be major problem, but I think fast ship may break any blockade providing that it's really stealthy and is't especialy concerned in returning home (e.g. one-time supply capsule). And what about planet settled by two factions or in civil war etc?

[Blake]

Cities will provide virtually limitless supply. Armies will be resupplied just fine so long as they have access to a friendly city.

So if you want to stay on an enemy planet for a long war, you would do well to make a decent settlement. It would start as little more than a military camp, but grow into a city as you convince population to immigrate (note population wont really want to immigrate to danger, so you'll need to provide incentive, be that positive or negative...). Once you have a couple of decent sized cities on a world it wont matter if you lose control of the orbit for a few turns, cities will be hard to destroy, beam weapons wont do much against a city. So the enemy will either need to overpower you with ground forces, or resort to obliterating your cities by bombing them.

For a force too small to protect a base camp or capture a cit, I think morale would be more an issue than supply.

[Kuciwalker]

You should have to have some sort of infrastructure in place before you get resupply from a city. You can't just make replacement parts and ammunition with your hands. It takes specialized machinery (sometimes VERY specialized) to do it.

[Kuciwalker]

Re: subs

The owner of the planet would undoubtably have subs to counter your nuke sub (and they would know where it was initiallly - just look at the spaceship). About a spaceship/sub combo, wouldn't it have some difficulty returning to space? Maybe it should be a sub with some engines and a reentry shield attached.

Re: spaceships are easy to hit from the ground

I know but it is better gameplay if we make it hard. This is a space strategy game, after all. Troops will likely be prolific on the ground, but you won't have many spaceships per planet, so you went them to be more powerful (but not uber-large powerful, as in powerful due to size).

Re: bombs may be too powerful

You would have to provide sufficient defense to engage enemy ships before they reach firing range.

Re: number of troops depends on ship size

That was a rhetorical question. Your spaceships will probably not be many kilometers long (at the LARGEST). It would require an immense transport fleet to match carry a match for the army of an entire world. Therefore a preferable strategy would be to secure a small continent (like Australia), build some orbital defenses on it to secure the space above the continent, and then ferry troops in, as well as establish some manufacturing and resupply infrastructure on-planet.

[targon]

If we really introduce some kind of Star Gates, single ship may bring virtualy any army on the planet. Read "Hyperion" saga (sci-fi, not novell).

[targon]

Originally posted by Blake
And hey, High Atmosphere Low Orbit Fighter = HALO Fighter, seems like a good name, seeing there primary function will be defensive

Unit type: H.A.L.O. (High Altitude - Low Orbit) Fighter
Name: HALO-6K
Nicknames: Grasshoper, Halloween
Modifications: HALO-8S orbital launch, HALO-6F navy version, HALO-9U short-range space fighter
Size: length: 24 m; span: 28 m, height (undercarrige up) 10 m
Mass: dry: 58,640 kg, take-off: 79,400 kg, landing: 62,000 kg.
Crew: one gene-boosted pilot or Class D AI
Capabilities: atmosphere range: 8,500 km, maximum orbital altitude: 1,200 km (Earth), atmosphere cruise speed: 1,200 m/s
Power Plant: two HU-86 H.A.D.E.S. dual-purpose convertible jet/reactive magneto-chemical drives, A05 fusion cell.
Avionics: HA-65 semi-sentient plasmotronics system,T4 all-direction sensor grid, HG-1R Level IV stealth module, HY-147A control system, "Coffin-8" acceleration control system (human pilots only).
Weapons: one "Sling-4" heavy two-stage railgun (muzzle velocity up to 18 km/s); two HU-86 H.A.D.E.S. jet lasers (orbit only), 4 missile bomb/missile mounts (up to 750 kg each).
Description: Light, cheap and lethal, this high altitude - low orbit fighter/bomber is priority one threat for any invading force. Far more than single wave of troop transports was massacred by wings of that units suddenly appearing form the atmosphere. Even heavy ships like planetary class cruisers can't simply ignore this threat. Basic design is very simple and retargetable. It's based on original concept of coupled jet drives/lasers (Hydrodynamics Aerial Drive and Emission System, H.A.D.E.S.). While accelerating, this devices work like simple hybrid magneto-chemical jet, heating air form the intake via chemical reaction and then accelerating it by magnetohydrodynamical effect. Then jet drives aren't needed, they may be converted into chemical jet lasers of immensive firepower. As additional measure of destruction, HALO-6K has heavy railgun, it's extremely deadly weapon even in atmosphere. The only bleak side of this excellent fighter is its bad turn rate, especially at low altitudes.

[Kuciwalker]

Regarding the HALO description, it should have some sort of counter-gravity device - not to be confused with anti-gravity. I'm using counter-gravity to mean a field in which gravity itself is weakened or dispelled altogether. The HALO could use this to help it reach low orbit.

[targon]

Originally posted by skywalker
Regarding the HALO description...

It isn't any description. It's a joke

...it should have some sort of counter-gravity device - not to be confused with anti-gravity. I'm using counter-gravity to mean a field in which gravity itself is weakened or dispelled altogether. The HALO could use this to help it reach low orbit.

Wrong, I think I missed something in that "description". It's ordinary jet drive, but you can't bring jet rocket to sub-orbital drive via chemical drives only (too low specific momentum). Hence, this drives accelerate heated (== conductive) air via magnetohydrodinamical (MHD) drive. This phenomenon is used for prototype power plants and consist of vanilla Amper force acting on any conductor under current in the magnetic field. Power plants deccelerate the stream of plasma (not especialy hot, ~3000 C) and got some electricity in the process, and this jet use this stuff reversed.

[Kuciwalker]

If gravity around the HALO was weakened, centrifigul force (this would only work near the equator) would help push it into low orbit. This wouldn't be its actual engine. It would just be a sort of helper.

[Kuciwalker]

Oh, and because it would make these fighters most useful near the equator, they would for a "halo" around the planet