Arcen Games

General Category => Stars Beyond Reach Beta Discussion => Stars Beyond Reach... This World Is Mine => Stars Beyond Reach Beta Phase 1-2 Discussion => : kasnavada June 08, 2015, 06:41:15 AM

: Combat
: kasnavada June 08, 2015, 06:41:15 AM
Currently, I think the combat system of the game has some rather huge flaws.

To "not" orient the debate I'll put my thought there in spoiler mode, but what do you think ?

PS: I intentionally limited my games / remarks to early / mid game, as if it's not fun, few will bother going to end-game. Even if end-game is the funniest balanced piece of gaming art in the world. So there may be good ideas at end-game which make the game better, but I don't know them yet. Please share =).

Defending against rogue : not seen one in 200+ turn games at normal difficulty. I think that's wrong.

Defending against saucers : the current system features a huge bonus to the defender as it takes too many turns for the attacker to really spawn. With spare money, I can just NOT bother to build anything ever, wait for them to spawn, and build my defenses as an exact counter to what is spawning.

Attacking rogues : Errrr.

Attacking other "towns" :
Ok, the current best strategies are
- "building in the middle of the enemy camp" or "by placing your "turrets" in range of enemy buildings. The enemy doesn't take offense, then you declare war, destroy all of their military at turn one of the war with no retribution whatsoever. However, if that part is resolved, there is going to be a problem with that part :
- "building missiles". If the enemy is already hostile, you can easily outrange 80% of it's defenses with it, if it has only "lesser range" buildings you'll save money by using helipads. You actually know of all of their defense beforehand, so it's trivial to build an assault base which will destroy them in a few turns. I haven't yet been "jumped at" by saucers when assaulting someone, but given the current spawn time I'll go into my "too easy to defend" case above

There has been a decision made not to bother with units. I will try to respect that.


Basically my problems with this combat system is that it's very static.
I think the issue with rogues can be discussed and solved there:
http://www.arcengames.com/forums/index.php/topic,17709.0.html

Issues with defending against saucers is that basically you've got the complete initiative over your opponents But, if you didn't, and they appeared out of nowhere and destroyed stuff as soon as they appeared, you'd be dead in a matter of turns (IE if they all target your energy, you're dead as it's impossible to retaliate).

Issues with attacking is that I get no feel of advancing ever. I'm intentionally forgetting the part where the enemy is not hostile, because there it's rather trivial to set-up military buildings which will crush the opponent in a single turn. However, with the current "fixed" attack buildings, I will run into the issue of never being able to attack unless I largely outbuild my opponent / outrange. If my enemy has a range 12 building, and I don't, that means I must place enough buildings in the 12 range (or closer) in order to be able to shoot at it. I find that mechanic VERY boring. If my enemy has a "maximum" of range 8 building, a range 9+ on my side will destroy him. Oh, he could have counters to that building put in place, but that would just mean I have to build enough to prevent him from closing in.

I "could" imagine finding fun by slowly advancing while trying to advance, preventing the enemy's fire by building counter-measures, and matching attack / defense but I don't really think possible that the AI could be matching players. Also, the "turn based" nature of combat gives WAY too much importance to the first hitter, and you can actually choose, as an attacked, what's going to be countered in the case of "guard" posts and similar buildings.

Basically, I'm having the issues that units in a 4X game are here to prevent: turtling is going to be very powerful in a turn based game with no units. And with no units, the game feels static.



When I read the description of the game, I thought you've have a few turrets to defend yourself, and that you'd build barracks, helipads, missiles and so on - they would make your "standing" armies. You'd play your "city-building" turn, then, on "end-turn" it would be "warphase", simultaneous attacks from both sides, marines / robots / planes rushing to defend your place and kll stuff, killing armies or destroying the closest buildings, then coming back home. You would "decide" where they would attack, then intercept / be intercepted depending on their orders. Of course, "no limitations of range" by turrets in that mode - you can attack stuff next to your territory with whatever you want. I know it sounds like a series of guerrilla attacks, and I think that seems to fit the videos well from what I've seen.
: Re: Combat
: nas1m June 08, 2015, 07:56:55 AM
I love the idea of dedicated phases for building and war. Having the latter one resolve things simultaneously might just be the idea to resolve the ongoing issue of first hitter advantage!

If this is feasible, that is  :-\.
: Re: Combat
: kasnavada June 08, 2015, 08:08:15 AM
Thanks  ;)

But, in the case it's not, could you share your thoughts about the current system / how to improve ? Then I'll "summarize", and mantis it to let them know.
: Re: Combat
: crazyroosterman June 08, 2015, 11:05:08 AM
over all I agree with everything said here apart from units preventing turtling in my experience(which is tiny compared to yours I will admit)  in civ 5 usually I would put my land units at choke points and murder any of the ai that tried to come at me(granted it should be taken into account that the ai in that game is utter crap) also I think that helipads are a bit over powered I cant really think of a way to rectify that though at the moment aside from taking a few hexes of range from them or making the underground more important to war.
: Re: Combat
: nas1m June 08, 2015, 02:51:19 PM
Thanks  ;)

But, in the case it's not, could you share your thoughts about the current system / how to improve ? Then I'll "summarize", and mantis it to let them know.
Sorry for the late reply. I was limited to my phone ;).

My main problem with the current combat system is that Chris' design as he described it multiple times, i.e. building up to a flash of violence for a longer time, "stalking" the opponent, matching his moves, waiting for an oppening, mixed arms warfare, rock paper scissors, etc. simply is not yet fullfilled by it - in my book.

Instead of e.g. using multiple types of arms, interceptors buffs etc. all I seem to do is plopping down the highest range building that I can afford, which mostly is sufficient to outrange at least a significant part of the opposition - allowing me to get a major advantage in a trivial way.

One idea I had that could maybe remedy this is to make your neighbors react to buildings under construction e.g. by starting to build counters (interceptors, faster to build, shorter range buildings, ...) to those five missle silos I just plopped down the moment they start construction.
This, combined with suffciently long build times for high range and/or high damage military buildings, could allow the mutual stalking that Chris is presumably after.

The big problem here seems to be that the AI appears to be largly disinterested when the player starts to construct military buildings that would have the ability to strike at it, i.e. a real border conflict only seems to happen once the player starts to strike - which is too late for a meaningful prelude.

Note that I am talking mostly about combat involving regular buildings at the borders between cities here.
Saucers are a different story altogether...
: Re: Combat
: nas1m June 08, 2015, 03:09:45 PM
Reducing the range of all military significantly (like in: cut them in halve) also might go a long way to achieve a more ponderous style of combat that is befitting the idea of "cities doing battle", which is how I always envisioned the stuff described by Chris to play out.

Imagine behemoth cities crawling around the map like living things, doing battle at their fringes and occasionally devouring each other ;).
: Re: Combat
: kasnavada June 08, 2015, 03:15:08 PM
I hear you on that one =). Shorter range could help =).

I've no idea where Chris is heading though, so I'm trying to focus on brain-storming about the current idea and ideas about going wildly off-track.
: Re: Combat
: kasnavada June 08, 2015, 03:19:29 PM
The number of turns that AI saucers are holographic is now based on the difficulty level. Previously it was always 5. Now it is:

    Easy: 5
    Normal: 3
    Hard: 2
    Harder: 1
    Nightmare: 0
    Thanks to kasnavada for inspiring this change.

I think this thread triggered this. The guys attempting nightmare are going to hate me =).


Anyway, others having ideas and / or opinions ?
: Re: Combat
: tigersfan June 08, 2015, 04:26:44 PM
The number of turns that AI saucers are holographic is now based on the difficulty level. Previously it was always 5. Now it is:

    Easy: 5
    Normal: 3
    Hard: 2
    Harder: 1
    Nightmare: 0
    Thanks to kasnavada for inspiring this change.

I think this thread triggered this. The guys attempting nightmare are going to hate me =).


Anyway, others having ideas and / or opinions ?
If they've played any games designed by Chris before, they won't hate you. If you play on Nightmare (or Misery) in an Arcen game, you probably know what you're getting into. :)
: Re: Combat
: tigersfan June 08, 2015, 04:36:40 PM
When I read the description of the game, I thought you've have a few turrets to defend yourself, and that you'd build barracks, helipads, missiles and so on - they would make your "standing" armies. You'd play your "city-building" turn, then, on "end-turn" it would be "warphase", simultaneous attacks from both sides, marines / robots / planes rushing to defend your place and kll stuff, killing armies or destroying the closest buildings, then coming back home. You would "decide" where they would attack, then intercept / be intercepted depending on their orders. Of course, "no limitations of range" by turrets in that mode - you can attack stuff next to your territory with whatever you want. I know it sounds like a series of guerrilla attacks, and I think that seems to fit the videos well from what I've seen.

I threw this in Mantis for you: http://www.arcengames.com/mantisbt/view.php?id=17197 .
: Re: Combat
: Cinth June 08, 2015, 04:43:08 PM
Nice to see you're still around Tigers. 
: Re: Combat
: tigersfan June 08, 2015, 05:02:33 PM
Nice to see you're still around Tigers.
Thanks, clearly I'm not full time here anymore, I've been contracting for a while, but my focus has been on handling stuff coming in from other places (Steam, stuff like that). For the next few weeks I'm going to be focusing on getting SBR suggestions into Mantis and stuff like that.
: Re: Combat
: kasnavada June 08, 2015, 05:12:42 PM
When I read the description of the game, I thought you've have a few turrets to defend yourself, and that you'd build barracks, helipads, missiles and so on - they would make your "standing" armies. You'd play your "city-building" turn, then, on "end-turn" it would be "warphase", simultaneous attacks from both sides, marines / robots / planes rushing to defend your place and kll stuff, killing armies or destroying the closest buildings, then coming back home. You would "decide" where they would attack, then intercept / be intercepted depending on their orders. Of course, "no limitations of range" by turrets in that mode - you can attack stuff next to your territory with whatever you want. I know it sounds like a series of guerrilla attacks, and I think that seems to fit the videos well from what I've seen.

I threw this in Mantis for you: http://www.arcengames.com/mantisbt/view.php?id=17197 .

Thanks for that =).

I thought I'd gather a bit more opinions before mantising it with other ideas that this thread would have gathered, but if someone that worked there thinks it's good enough to place in mantis right now =). It's quite a huge change - and I'm really not sure of the ramifications of that one, or how it fits within Chris' vision.

: Re: Combat
: tigersfan June 08, 2015, 05:14:55 PM
I'm not sure how it fits his vision either, and I'm not saying it's going to be in the game. But, it being in Mantis will ensure Chris sees it. :)
: Re: Combat
: jerith June 08, 2015, 05:24:26 PM
I was just thinking that with the increasing forum and Mantis volume and number of similar issues I've seen recently (although that might just be because I read through about four days worth in one afternoon) it would be good to have someone around to help wrangle them into some sort of order so Chris and Keith don't have to spend so much time on it. I can't think of anyone with better credentials for the job. :-)
: Re: Combat
: tigersfan June 08, 2015, 05:28:52 PM
I was just thinking that with the increasing forum and Mantis volume and number of similar issues I've seen recently (although that might just be because I read through about four days worth in one afternoon) it would be good to have someone around to help wrangle them into some sort of order so Chris and Keith don't have to spend so much time on it. I can't think of anyone with better credentials for the job. :-)

:-) Thanks jerith
: Re: Combat
: Cinth June 08, 2015, 05:50:08 PM
Nice to see you're still around Tigers.
Thanks, clearly I'm not full time here anymore, I've been contracting for a while, but my focus has been on handling stuff coming in from other places (Steam, stuff like that). For the next few weeks I'm going to be focusing on getting SBR suggestions into Mantis and stuff like that.

Yeah, I remember.  Still good to see you around.   :)
: Re: Combat
: kasnavada June 08, 2015, 06:11:06 PM
I love the idea of dedicated phases for building and war. Having the latter one resolve things simultaneously might just be the idea to resolve the ongoing issue of first hitter advantage!

If this is feasible, that is  :-\.

About that one, the "battle" and "construction" phase don't have to be separated actually. What they did in M.A.X. was introducing "sentry" mode and  "reaction" fire. Basically anything that didn't shoot in its turn, was woken up by "incoming" fire and, if possible, would shoot back at the offender as a reaction.

That's not my video but it tests the mechanics, and does a "decent" explanation of how it worked (first 50 seconds only).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjNaYGtlmxQ

In the video it reacts to movement, but in game it reacted to shooting too, and other stuff (like failing a hack).
: Re: Combat
: ptarth June 08, 2015, 08:28:27 PM
I don't think separating build and combat into different phases is going to accomplish anything. You can simulate the effect now by building everything first in a turn, saying "Start Combat Phase" and then performing your combat actions. For your suggestion to work you'd need a long period of turns between combat phases, which I'm imagining would be very awkward to experience as a player.
: Re: Combat
: kasnavada June 09, 2015, 03:17:16 AM
@Ptarth. Sorry. Are you taking into account the simultaneous part of the combat ?

Anyway, I agree that it could feel kind of awkward and would require lots of planning - not to mention probably a large rework of coding. However, the "main" issue I see with that proposal is combat on a large scale, if everything happened at the same time in 2 different places it would be complicated to work out a system which would enable the player to understand what happened.

Anyway, whether it may or not be possible would not be my decision =), I'd have to work at Arcen to decide and I don't. And maybe it'll create some idea in Chris or Keith's head. He mentioned territories in another thread, and targetting territories instead of buildings, then having a combat phase sounds leagues ahead of what I proposed. This could also allow "replaying" last turn combat for each territory, and solve the above-mentionned problem of combat in multiple places (since it could be by solved by territory). Then again, maybe it's something completly different that he has in mind.

Looking back to it what I proposed in my 6:11 post sounds simpler, more intuitive and easier to implement for close results to a simultaneous resolution.

That said, if, possible, I'm more interested in gathering other opinions / ideas that debating that one - I know it has flaws. Could you share your thoughts ?
: Re: Combat
: ptarth June 09, 2015, 03:46:01 AM
The major concern was the sequential problem. That would lead to the "Now I have twice as many "turns" but only 1% more interesting activities" problem. Plus the AI has its turns after us, so it would have the initiative against us or we would against them, because building isn't simultaneous. If everything was simultaneous, it then turns out to be a completely different game system that what is being done now.

As for combat my basic thoughts are here:
http://www.arcengames.com/forums/index.php/topic,17586.msg189761.html#msg189761

Given that Chris is re-balancing combat to fit an unknown design document, I haven't wasted too much energy on thinking about it further. I skeptical of any design that takes its influences from Risk, but I'm guessing the comparison is very weak. I'll see what Chris comes up with.

The problem of combat simplicity is that it leads to: Phage Wars and clones (e.g., http://recessive.wikispaces.com/).
: Re: Combat
: kasnavada June 09, 2015, 04:04:25 AM
I skeptical of any design that takes its influences from Risk, but I'm guessing the comparison is very weak. I'll see what Chris comes up with.

Couldn't agree more with that part. I really don't like that game - but the "dicey" and "one player eliminated in the first 20 minutes while the other play 4 hours" is kind of a major part in my disliking it, compared to territories and conquering stuff being the "good" part in that game (as in most board games, like smallworld, or endless legend).

That said, I'm rather waiting for what's coming here. I'm probably not imagining what's coming.

The problem of combat simplicity is that it leads to: Phage Wars and clones (e.g., http://recessive.wikispaces.com/).

That's an endless debate you know ? That's heavily based on personal preferences. Complexifying for the sake of complexifying leads to grindfest among other things. Rest assured that I'm not proposing simplifying for the sake of simplifying - my main focus is to ensure that the game "flows".
: Re: Combat
: jerith June 09, 2015, 07:32:24 AM
Complexifying for the sake of complexifying leads to grindfest among other things. Rest assured that I'm not proposing simplifying for the sake of simplifying - my main focus is to ensure that the game "flows".

Yes. The trick is to have the right complexity. This is something AI War does better than any other strategy game I've played and Arcen has a pretty good track record in this department in general.
: Re: Combat
: Misery June 10, 2015, 07:48:14 AM
I can agree about the combat, it really does feel very static and stale.  This is one of the things that has me currently pushed away from the game quite a bit (thus my lack of any sort of presence during most of this beta) is that it has this feel to it.

But to me it's not JUST the combat, but pretty much.... everything.  I just dont find any sort of flow or momentum to it, and when the combat happens, it almost feels like tower defense... without the waves of enemies that make such a thing work.  Towers VS other towers just constantly feels strange to me.  Unintuitive, as well.  It doesnt make a whole lot of sense.

Currently I'm just waiting and watching to see if anything major changes soon (not just with the combat), but for now I havent really had any desire to fire up the game in awhile.
: Re: Combat
: Billick June 10, 2015, 08:52:43 AM
The combat doesn't feel tactical.  Positioning and terrain aren't really that important.  If you're in range you can hit, if you're not you can't, and that's that.
: Re: Combat
: MayhemMike June 10, 2015, 10:07:08 AM
I agree that the combat feels indeed very static and using buildings instead of units to attack gives it an additional odd feeling.

I think having your own units would really give it more momentum. Use the buildings as a garage where the units "sleep" and don't use additional resources and when deployed they become really expensive and only move very slowly, that could add much more depth to wars and form real frontlines between neighbors and since you can not quickly move them from one side of the city to another you would have to pay more attention to your surroundings.

: Re: Combat
: bormoth June 14, 2015, 09:29:39 AM
: Re: Combat
: kasnavada June 23, 2015, 11:59:47 AM
Thanks for that post bormoth (sorry for the late answer).

Basically the system changed so range isn't that important an issue now, but we're full blown into the "same range" so "next to impossible to attack battle ready opponent with fixed building requiring large amount of time to build".

I'm at a loss about finding "unit-less" solutions here. You guys have ideas ?

I'd pick ideas from bormoth and what's in the game. Basically, I'd propose that:
- A limitation to the number of military buildings (maybe via the "command" military building ?),
- Military buildings can create "camps" from population, each one enabling a "single" camp.
- Camps are established in a single turn (or maybe tie that to the diff level, easy = 1 turn, hardest = 3 turns).
- Camps can be placed anywhere within teleporter range.
- Camps have the "current" attack capabilities of military buildings (attack / defense)
- Military buildings (not camps) would gain an attack bonus if not deployed, making it easier to defend key areas.
- Camps have a limited lifespan (to avoid abuse) and then need to "replenish".

Basically it would be an equivalent to the AI's saucers to assault other places, more or less.
: Re: Combat
: Gwmngilfen June 23, 2015, 02:35:49 PM
I'm liking this, I think, kasnavada. It's the equivalent to the scouting solution, for the military; in the sense of having some deployable "units" without too much of the tedium that comes from having to move them around. I particularly like the possibility of attacking a strong enemy on two fronts, forcing them into difficult decisions of where to deploy the camps.

One possible tweak (I'm just ruminating here, do point out flaws) is to limit the camp system to counter-attack buildings. That way your war might go like:

* Wipe out an edge territory
* Deploy guardpost/countermeasure camps to protect under-construction buildings
* Finish construction of new military
* Move forward into new territory and press the assault

This means the defender gets some breathing space - your camps can't be immediately deployed into the new territory and used to assault the next one. Instead, they form a defensive barrier (if you have enough) to get the new military buildings built. As the defender, you have some time then to prepare yourself for the next offensive (possibly investing that time in diplomacy... :P).
: Re: Combat
: bormoth June 23, 2015, 05:27:35 PM
Well for me it is a bit strange to see barracks o missile bases on frontlines. Sorta if you forced to train and quarter full time your troops on front line, most likely you have no choice. Hence my idea. Though never played this game and have seen only one short video, which is hardly representation and read forums, so if every one thinks another way is better then so be it.
The whole idea of long time attack camp building and invulnurability was to hinder wrecking ball  strategies(well invulnurability protects them from utter obliteration the turn you put them) and retreat time vulnurability to hinder blinking annoyance from redeploying camps.

In general your idea is just slightly resembles mine, completely different and looks band aidy for current system, I'm not sure it would help alot.

 Gwmngilfen
Not sure your idea would work, considering that  PC is not dumb and targets your actual military buildings in construction, you would have pretty small chances to establish covering with camps. This forces to farther confrontation already with camps and lucky military  building survivors for next territory, so basically your main military sorta never fights, but rather stands behind.
: Re: Combat
: Gwmngilfen June 23, 2015, 05:43:46 PM
Not sure your idea would work, considering that  PC is not dumb and targets your actual military buildings in construction, you would have pretty small chances to establish covering with camps. This forces to farther confrontation already with camps and lucky military  building survivors for next territory, so basically your main military sorta never fights, but rather stands behind.

The counter-attack buildings intercept incoming attacks (I think; it happens quite quickly). Therefore, if you have enough deployed, attacks will not reach the under-construction military buildings.
: Re: Combat
: kasnavada June 23, 2015, 05:46:15 PM
Well, currently one part that you don't seem to know about is the ability of your opponent to declare war against you... and they do so by "holoporting" saucers to kill whatever objective they're after. Basically that means that your barracks ain't safe. Sorry if I assumed wrongly  :-[.

My idea and Gwmngilfen could work because they allow your base to be defended as well as allowing attacks - and because attacking means lowering your defenses. But, yours could to. It currently feels strange in the game because the enemies defend themselves... but they don't really attack back, at least yet. I expected saucers to appear the turn after I "declared" war but I'm still waiting for them. Maybe it's for later.
: Re: Combat
: Gwmngilfen June 23, 2015, 05:50:16 PM
I expected saucers to appear the turn after I "declared" war but I'm still waiting for them. Maybe it's for later.

That's a really good point - I haven't seen any saucers arriving after my declaration of war either. That might lead to a simpler solution to my stalemate situation (from my other thread) - if killing saucers consumed buildings (i.e the saucers are the result of the AI "camps"), even temporarily, then I'd be able to destroy some resources that might then enable me to move in on the captured territory. Maybe we just need to see how the AI reacts to war once the new diplomacy is in place...
: Re: Combat
: Shrugging Khan June 27, 2015, 03:44:50 AM
So, with Diplomacy and Trade getting some much-needed attention in the coming times, I'm guessing combat development is on ice for now. But to be quite honest, I feel that combat is in an atrocious state. It's tolerable on the defensive, but offensively it just feels like there is no design behind it at all.

So what are some minimalist changes that could be shoehorned in during the Diplomacy/Trade phase, that would still significantly improve combat play? Cooldowns, long-range special attacks, movable buildings?

Any small yet potent ideas?
: Re: Combat
: nas1m June 27, 2015, 04:03:27 AM
I feel like the omission of attack range aside from territories combined with unlimited military buildings and easy to come by crowns is too much. Limiting the number of total military buildings a given territory can support based on size/tech/whatever as well as possibly their total number based on e.g. city population might help to remedy this e.g. by forcing the player to decide where to place his limited buildings as well as what to place in a given territory (Focus!).
: Re: Combat
: Rythe July 19, 2015, 08:55:08 PM
Well, I haven't played the game at all, but from reading this thread, I get the strong sense that combat is going to be a huge 'bleck' for me.

I also don't think that a separate combat phase is going to do any good, really.

So what seems to be the problem is that range is everything, and that range is tied to static structures that have a build time. This makes fortified areas all but impossible to invade as said fortifications just blow up the 'attacking' buildings under construction.

The easy but bland solution would be to prefab military buildings, place them as a non-attackable icon on the map that the opposing factions can see, then have them appear fully built in a turn or two. Following turns would have the military installations shoot each other up as normal. Someone mentioned invulnerability period somewhere in here I think, so basically that.

I don't think that setup will ever be particularly interesting or satisfying though. It's just a slight extension of a brute force economic battle.  The only real wrinkles would be to get another faction to sabotage or sap your opponent's economy while you're attacking them directly. But if the AI understood the system, they would understand that in doing so, they are handing you territory as well as hurting a mutual enemy. The only way for them to really break even in the exchange is if they gobble up as much territory as their contributions to the fight merit, but if they're not interested in territory, then it's a matter of trusting you more than whoever you're attacking and desiring the fall of the faction you're attacking.

I think a better solution would be to create defensive fortification buildings and offensive military bases. Defensive fortifications can project their umbrella of protection into neighboring territories while offensive bases can possibly project an attack up to two territories away. This would fix the range issue. At a strategic level, you could specify what facilities are protecting/attacking what territories within their range.

I would also like to see logistic and production added into the equation, rather than it being simple resource and money income being turned into buildings wherever. So have factories produce pseudo units that get posted at the fortification and base structures that would modify the capabilities of said structures. And said structures having a limit to how many of these pseudo units they can support. Easy unit categories for our rock/paper/scissors types (people who aren't me) would be attack type units (2 territory range), defensive type units (1 territory range but tougher), and siege type units (can blow up buildings good, 1 territory)*. By 1 territory range, I mean 1 territory outside of the territory the structure is located in.

And now that I think about it, a better way to separate fortifications and military bases would be to have the fortifications provide a passive defense bonus to the territory they're in while military bases can house more units. The units themselves would decide military power at which range (in units of territory).  And when combat happens, it's the pseudo units that die first, then buildings in the defending territory, probably with some nod to collateral damage if the defenders aren't overwhelmingly dominant. Fortifications could reduce collateral damage as one of their possible passive bonuses.

...Is there spying and espionage in this game? Because if there is, you could use spies to determine where units are being posted by other factions with the strategic 'decide which territory your military structures are attacking/defending' part.

*That I consider this a 'RPS' setup might tell you how much I despise actual RPS setups.

(Edited to clarify and add a few ideas)
: Re: Combat
: Shrugging Khan July 20, 2015, 03:30:11 AM
Right now, Defenders can defend within a territory while attackers can attack neighbouring ones.

Your suggestion contains the idea that it would be better if defenders could defend neighbouring territories, while attackers could attack two territories out?
Isn't that pretty much the same situation, just with extended ranges?
: Re: Combat
: bormoth July 20, 2015, 09:55:31 PM
Right now, Defenders can defend within a territory while attackers can attack neighbouring ones.

Your suggestion contains the idea that it would be better if defenders could defend neighbouring territories, while attackers could attack two territories out?
Isn't that pretty much the same situation, just with extended ranges?
Not particulary true. Using his idea, defender can encroach and use defence of established base to build attacking base and pepper enemy offences, infrastructure, or defenses.

With way it is currently in you stuck on territory you are in, and endlessly may contest neighboring territory because, building defences and offences are destroyed as soon as they ordered to be built, on contested territory.
: Re: Combat
: kasnavada July 22, 2015, 04:26:52 AM
I don't see where this does not end in being the same situation with extended range. However, for me the main issue is that it slows the gameplay even more than what's currently in. I mean, to attack, if at war, it means that "first step" you have to build enough defenses to be able to build, then "second step" to build "attack" buildings. I agree completely that the current system has issues though.

Yet, there is possibility (when diplomacy is in) that the combat is going to move toward "artillery" combat, in the sense that most factions are at peace most of the time (therefore the issue of not being able to build things is irrelevant), and just "declare" war for "small scale" and short guerrilla-style wars rather than the full blown annihilation wars that 4X typically implement. In which case minor adaptations to the current system would be enough. And, while I've no idea if the combat would be "exciting" this way, it would push the game toward diplomacy being important rather than "just" military conquest, like most other games.

Thing is, while changing combat is fine because it has issue, I think that SBR already has a rather strong and rather complex city-building component, that Chris aims to have a strong and complex diplomacy system... If the combat system gets complex too, it will focus the game away from diplomacy and city-building elements (for me, that's bad), and could just become too complex as a whole.

For me it's "fine" if the combat system is "simple" with some "issues" because it's not supposed, AFAIK to be the focus of the game.
: Re: Combat
: bormoth July 23, 2015, 05:42:31 PM
Current -- you build 3 military buildings on newtral territory(am I right? You have amout of buildings per territory.) They are blown up, at time you build them, due to lack of defences.
Or you build 3 military buildings and they covered with enough defences to neutralise agression. And they finish.

Other then that there is no large difference,except efficiency. Each building still defends once per turn except over wider area. so you still need the same amount in the end, except you can frontload your defences, with his idea, while as it is now you just need to establish new base under the bombardment.

Maybe I misunderstand and AI cities don't have bombardent anymore?
: Re: Combat
: kasnavada July 23, 2015, 07:33:00 PM
About proposing "larger range for defense buildings"

Mostly what you're proposing is useful if at war, and makes war (if at war) a 2 stage scenario : first, build defense, then expand. That means 2 scenarios if at war:
- you build defences the AI can't ever hope to hit anything you're building, and create territories they can't even touch, then you build attack buildings which can ever be touched, and kill him without any hope for retaliation ever.
- on the other side, if an AI decides to expand and has strong defenses in place, you can't scratch a thing toprevent him from advancing.

Basically... it means that offense is unstoppable. And, since it's a 2 stage war, it's going to be a long war.
Currently, I agree it's the opposite, offense is nearly impossible to advance if at war. The issue is that since it's basically impossible to advance ever unless highly overbuilding your opponent. So, basically, it's going to be a very long war.

The whole "territory" change was AFAIK in part due to offense being unstoppable and boring (because higher range building can level anything with little to no retaliation).


If at peace - no matter the system spoken of in my post here - before starting the war, the problem is that currently since you have a complete view of the opposing forces, you just build everything needed to "one shot" it, then grind it into dust on the following turns.


That's why I don't see the difference, except there is an extended range. For me to think that the combat system is different, it needs middle ground, and not to move from one extreme to the other.
: Re: Combat
: bormoth July 24, 2015, 06:55:49 PM
You are speaking true( even with leaky defences and if they done correctly you would still be able to hit something unless you sacrifice economics for military pressense.
Thats's why never liked Risk(they are too simple mechanics, and don't give too much place for maneure and covert actions ). Pretty much same mechanics. No way to threaten other then have more adjacent territories to attack.
    . 2
1 x 2

Empire 2 would win territory "x" due to larger coverage, and pssible contest of territory "." provided deffences and offences shared ad work only once per turn.

That's why my idea was proposed, because it generally gives counterweight between offence and deffence, as well some sabotage, and decoy actions, I don't think it would even make hard to programm AI(AI war level would be sufficient). At this point i personally think enviormental hazards, and planet reaction through events, as well as economic competition would work better(even static).

There was one excelent disaster/economy colony building RTS called Outpost 2. They nailed awesomely eviormental and economicmissions, but failed with combat in general, so missions with combat were worst missions. And the more I think the more I sorta convince myself (from point of my really limited knowledge of the game) that combat not really fit as it is in this game. You can still use military to fend off agression events, but hardly useful to take strategic and tactical decissions of let's say "AI War" levels. And wars would really look lame.

While game would look much better with you want their lands:
Mash it up against region stability(people more likely to listen someone who promices better when they are at bottom), development, police rating. Maybe with only way of ultra expensive agression of Cobalt bomb(ruins region completely or large chunk of it to be any use for anyone) for times it is only option.

For me looks much better direction to work then combat as it is now, here i less becomes like small not maching but necessary separate game element, but long term way to unswer to events,tool if you wish, and possible social or diplomatic agression.(kill rebells,  seek and jail diversants, combat indiginous life forms coming to say hi to your cities as reaction to your pressense in region, e.t.c.). Also as bonus no annoying every turn click 20 buildings to kill that target.
: Re: Combat
: Rythe July 25, 2015, 03:17:00 AM
There's one part of my proposal that seems to be largely overlooked here, and that's the part where factions would have to designate which territory their military structures are attacking or defending. A defensive building could only defend one territory per turn, even if six were in its range of protection, and the faction needs to designate where that defensive power sits for the turn (defaulting to previous selection or origin territory of course, so only need to fiddle for changes) This way, defense isn't able to be impenetrably deep across a whole cluster of territories just by being a cluster of territories. Defenses would either be poor to mediocre across or consolidated into a select few very powerful territories among them.  The other thing is, attack structures would act as defense structures until turned to the offensive. The units 'housed' at the offensive military bases would default to defending the territory they're in if not positioned to defend somewhere else or attack. Same for defense structures being able to send their more limited number of housed units on the attack.

This creates a situation similar to Risk where you may have a few frontline territories with loads of units on them whereas your rearguard areas and secondary territories have relatively few.

It's also been mentioned that Chris wants military expansion to be slow and expensive, which I imagine is part of the reason for the tower setup now. That's also why my proposal ties units to structures too, because it slows down and disperses the Risk-style death clumps, but it also keeps the Risk-style death clump weakness of having a lot of relatively under and basically undefended territories that can be attacked when things get concentrated for a roll. If the attacker has the forces to win their objective, the defender still has the option to strike back somewhere, and relatively easily given the 2-territory units.  The idea is that defenders would use their heavier, 1-territory units to try and soak up or slow an assault force while sending their 2-territory units to hit back at the same time in some (hopefully) under-defended territory, which includes the option of the defender just dumping all their units from their defending territory(ies) into the territory(ies) launching the attack for some mutual destruction and hopefully buy themselves time to build up their military into a more effective response. A possible outcome here is the attacker's bases get destroyed which could send their assault forces back to other territories that can still support them (potentially degrading them in the process).  Attacking is an invitation for reprisal in this system, and I think there's a much better chance for that reprisal to actual be an effective one compared to a lot of systems I've seen.

Another aspect that seems a bit overlooked is dealing with the pseudo units themselves. It's not just about plopping new military bases and fortifications in your new territory and continuing the roll. You also have to have the production capabilities to cover your unit losses in the march forward, and the defender can shift their own units from other territories to cover loses and oppose your advance that way.  To keep momentum, an aggressive attacker has to have the capability to replace units and continually build a whole slew of new bases each time it advances, whereas the defender can concentrate more on units and improving their economy to tip the scales back in their direction. If the defender breaks the attacking army, that actually weakens the defenses of the attacker's territories and gives a better chance of reprisal and turning the situation around too, especially if the attacker uses up their 1-territory units trying to take an adjacent territory.

Thirdly, if a conflict concentrates units on a particular battlefront risk style, this gives better opportunities for a strike from another direction and even from another faction.

I'm essentially trying to blend the economic and force projection complexities of traditional, unit-based 4X military models with the more static and streamlined structure-based model SBR is currently in while adding a bit more strategic flexibility to the mix than is typically possible in either.

The biggest weakness I see is giving the defender at least the opportunity to counter a spearhead attack where the attacker has only one territory in reach while the defender has multiple ones, in that the attacker could draw defending forces to one territory then shift its forces to another and decimate it. Would probably have to implement something to show enemy unit movement out/through territories you own with units only able to move one territory a turn as an addition to the spying bit revealing the marching orders of other factions on success.

Edit: To answer kasnavada a bit better -

Why should you be able to see what units are housed in enemy military structures? Unless you have really good spies of course.  In my system, having a base or fortification in place doesn't mean said structure actually has any teeth at all. It could have none. (Ignoring possible passive bonuses with fortifications for the territory they're in).
: Re: Combat
: kasnavada July 25, 2015, 07:56:55 AM
Hum, sorry if I'm being misunderstood on one point. About "building and housing" units, setting places and so on, I'm not contradicting that part. I think it's a good source of inspiration actually. I'm worrying that it's too complex, but that's about it and probably can be tweaked.

Since some were in favor of "just" increasing the range of defenders, I'm just stating "just that" does not work, at least for me.

2 minor points here:
- I hate the combat system in risk, the way troop movement is handled, and the elimination system. So I'm probably not the best person to speak about that part. If taking units into account, I think SBR could take inspiration from games like Rune wars, with other AIs fulfulling the role of other players.
- I think that Chris went for unitless, and this implements units.


Documentation (for those that don't know the game):
https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/59294/runewars

=>The victory conditions not tied to the elimination of others. Actually it's tied to "capturing" some artefacts, which grant you victory when you control 6 of them. They can be gotten via quests, military conquest (as they are tied to a territory, capturing enemy territory can capture them) and some other conditions.

Runewars "wars" are set via orders. On a very short explanation, basically on a turn you "target" places and you move available units. This is rather similar to what you said Rythe. There is a limit of unit per territory which is there to prevent massive amount of troops at available places and a limit of the quantity of each kind of troops (to prevent anyone from controlling the whole map). It's still possible to "concentrate" troops when attacking but, but "survivors" have to respect the "limitation / territory" otherwise they move back (and die if there is no place to move back, if I remember well, it's been a while since I played).

This basically means that the attacker is "winning" if it concentrates troops, but the movement mechanic and limitation / territory means that attacking creates flaws in your defense for counter attacks if you concentrate too much. Also there is no point controlling every part of the map as it's not a victory condition in the first place.

Adapting it to SBR could mean a change to the territory mechanics, with the possibility of leaving them, conquering them, and having a "faction-capped" (with research ?) limit of "units". "Units" are necessary to control a territory, so if you overexpand, you're vulnerable. Then have diplomacy limit the quantity of attacks and movement. It would also require that the "core" of any faction can't be captured (but that doesn't mean it can't be subdued). To do that I'd propose a split between "core" territories where you can actually build and "held" territories, from which you extract resources, and can conquer things, but can't build. With a rather "low" limitation of the number of "core" territories" and a limitation of "held" territories by your "units".

(The Runewar system is a bit more complex than this, but it's been a while since I played that game. The rules are available online though).
: Re: Combat
: nas1m July 25, 2015, 10:09:55 AM
There's one part of my proposal that seems to be largely overlooked here, and that's the part where factions would have to designate which territory their military structures are attacking or defending. A defensive building could only defend one territory per turn, even if six were in its range of protection, and the faction needs to designate where that defensive power sits for the turn (defaulting to previous selection or origin territory of course, so only need to fiddle for changes) This way, defense isn't able to be impenetrably deep across a whole cluster of territories just by being a cluster of territories. Defenses would either be poor to mediocre across or consolidated into a select few very powerful territories among them.  The other thing is, attack structures would act as defense structures until turned to the offensive. The units 'housed' at the offensive military bases would default to defending the territory they're in if not positioned to defend somewhere else or attack. Same for defense structures being able to send their more limited number of housed units on the attack.

This creates a situation similar to Risk where you may have a few frontline territories with loads of units on them whereas your rearguard areas and secondary territories have relatively few.

It's also been mentioned that Chris wants military expansion to be slow and expensive, which I imagine is part of the reason for the tower setup now. That's also why my proposal ties units to structures too, because it slows down and disperses the Risk-style death clumps, but it also keeps the Risk-style death clump weakness of having a lot of relatively under and basically undefended territories that can be attacked when things get concentrated for a roll. If the attacker has the forces to win their objective, the defender still has the option to strike back somewhere, and relatively easily given the 2-territory units.  The idea is that defenders would use their heavier, 1-territory units to try and soak up or slow an assault force while sending their 2-territory units to hit back at the same time in some (hopefully) under-defended territory, which includes the option of the defender just dumping all their units from their defending territory(ies) into the territory(ies) launching the attack for some mutual destruction and hopefully buy themselves time to build up their military into a more effective response. A possible outcome here is the attacker's bases get destroyed which could send their assault forces back to other territories that can still support them (potentially degrading them in the process).  Attacking is an invitation for reprisal in this system, and I think there's a much better chance for that reprisal to actual be an effective one compared to a lot of systems I've seen.

Another aspect that seems a bit overlooked is dealing with the pseudo units themselves. It's not just about plopping new military bases and fortifications in your new territory and continuing the roll. You also have to have the production capabilities to cover your unit losses in the march forward, and the defender can shift their own units from other territories to cover loses and oppose your advance that way.  To keep momentum, an aggressive attacker has to have the capability to replace units and continually build a whole slew of new bases each time it advances, whereas the defender can concentrate more on units and improving their economy to tip the scales back in their direction. If the defender breaks the attacking army, that actually weakens the defenses of the attacker's territories and gives a better chance of reprisal and turning the situation around too, especially if the attacker uses up their 1-territory units trying to take an adjacent territory.

Thirdly, if a conflict concentrates units on a particular battlefront risk style, this gives better opportunities for a strike from another direction and even from another faction.

I'm essentially trying to blend the economic and force projection complexities of traditional, unit-based 4X military models with the more static and streamlined structure-based model SBR is currently in while adding a bit more strategic flexibility to the mix than is typically possible in either.

The biggest weakness I see is giving the defender at least the opportunity to counter a spearhead attack where the attacker has only one territory in reach while the defender has multiple ones, in that the attacker could draw defending forces to one territory then shift its forces to another and decimate it. Would probably have to implement something to show enemy unit movement out/through territories you own with units only able to move one territory a turn as an addition to the spying bit revealing the marching orders of other factions on success.

Edit: To answer kasnavada a bit better -

Why should you be able to see what units are housed in enemy military structures? Unless you have really good spies of course.  In my system, having a base or fortification in place doesn't mean said structure actually has any teeth at all. It could have none. (Ignoring possible passive bonuses with fortifications for the territory they're in).
I would love to see and try out the overall flow of combat you outline here in-game.This might well be what Chris is after - going from what he outlined on previous occasions. Especially the dynamic and by default hidden routing of power/defenses definitely sounds like a significant step in the right direction!
: Re: Combat
: Misery July 27, 2015, 02:36:26 AM
Hm, so, has any of the combat stuff changed at all recently? 

I havent played this in ages, so I'm curious as to changes that may or may not have happened.  Dont like the current combat model (or what I saw last time I played it anyway) one bit. 
: Re: Combat
: nas1m July 27, 2015, 06:19:29 AM
Hm, so, has any of the combat stuff changed at all recently? 

I havent played this in ages, so I'm curious as to changes that may or may not have happened.  Dont like the current combat model (or what I saw last time I played it anyway) one bit.
Next to nothing since the original introduction of territories, I am afraid.
Focus has been on diplomacy for the past few weeks.
: Re: Combat
: Traveller July 27, 2015, 07:02:18 PM
There was one excelent disaster/economy colony building RTS called Outpost 2.
Just wanted to aside to give props where props are deserved.  Outpost 2 is incredibly underrated, and did a great job of salvaging its poorly-rated-and-deserving-it precursor.  The single player campaign had some pretty amazing and frantic player-versus-environment missions with no combat.  It's incredibly dated now, in that awkward early-Windows-9x era that's so hard to get compatibility to work with, but if you're okay with doing a bit of archaeology I recommend it as a neat piece of overlooked RTS history.  Also it came with a surprisingly compelling novella; the story was about on par with Alpha Centauri's world building.

I might be looking back with some very rose colored glasses, who knows...


Speaking of combat though, Malkari is another game archaeology case from the same era.  Fabulous idea for a 4x, terrible execution, but the whole game was made with simultaneous-plan, simultaneous-execute turns.  It might require a VM to run, it was a hack and a half even when it was new...  but I keep wanting to mention it whenever people talk about novel ways to handle combat turns.  That, plus the surprisingly thought out ship designer and research system, and not too shabby faction differences, is really worth looking into if you nerd out over that stuff.  (Maybe track down the manual and read that instead of trying to play it.)  I wish the lead designers had been given Sid Meiers' or Will Wright's implementation teams because there was some brilliant stuff.  Maybe if they'd given it another year in the workshop; the company closed its doors pretty soon after it came out, so I imagine what came out just wasn't finished.