Don't know if the tech tree is implemented yet. I had a thought on the text-step combat model though. I have been watching a FreeOrion playthrough and of course it is single stepped in the combat, just comparing numbers for the player and for the opponent and going straight to win or lose. But it made me think...
That if Chris stepped the decisions (as he mentioned) then the cumulative dodge, or hit or miss steps, and the cumulative hull strength, or the shield strength, or the guns that were selected would result in a unique outcome for these particular ships in this particular engagement.
What it would also mean, at least it seems to me, is that the upgrade on the ships would indeed be useful and factored into the equation of the battle.
(someone had mentioned that the ship upgrades would be useless, but i believe that is a wrong assumption.)
With higher levels of weapons rating, and higher levels of hull strength or shield power giving a minus on the incoming strike power of the opponent weapons. In addition, if there were dodge, hit, or miss on the opponent side, then each battle is different and the opponent has just as much chance of winning or losing as the player does. When all of this is factored, it leads to a multi-step process that is interesting and unique and detailed on both sides, but does not involve actual visible combat, and ends in a result that is then handed back to the solar map side with attendant rewards, or losses, or free damage fix for the fleet, or requiring the player to purchase a fleet damage fix from the black market. What ever is appropriate.
Now the actual steps and the number of steps it seems to me, is something that would have to be worked out. If we have a combat between two ships, or our player ship and several others, then combat may proceed, at least in the text stepped version in a more turn-based manner, with a menu of choices of actions coming up for the player and the attackers, presenting us with choices to dodge, shoot, move right, left, forward, or back, each action with a random, or decided percentage of success. Then of course presenting the same menu of choices to the attacker. Continuing on a revolving basis, until all the opponents and the player have made a choice. The process would then rinse and repeat. And with each 'step' or turn, we could change our decision of whether to shoot, or to dodge, or to advance, or pull back. This of course would lead to a very detailed and/or drawn out encounter. Which depending on the player, could be something they enjoy, or want to throw up their arms and scream about!
If that is the case, then the number of steps could be artificially lowered, say i determine the base state of my ship, or ships with a known value for weapons and their strength, with my hull armor value and my shield strength. And that becomes step 1. Then the two ships come into battle, and perhaps the steps only now involve several (1, 2, 3, or 4?) dodges and strikes which are determined immediately as successful, or not. And that could be determined as step 2. Which then determines a result from that encounter and drops me to a result screen, as step 3, and the last step in the shortened encounter model. This shortened version is not as detailed, and perhaps not as visceral for the player (I personally would like something drawn out like the first example, but of course not everyone will.) But for those that are not inclined, the shortened version may offer enough interactivity on the player side for them to feel, yes, they have contributed input into the battle and therefor made it something other than just the RNG making decisions that they were not a part of. The shortened version could also be used by those that still want a fairly quick pace to their game, even while using the text-stepped combat instead of the tactical action combat in place now. Anyway, that is my opinion of it.
Or of course, if there were time, we could have both, and have the player decide which they want when the combat screen choices screen comes up.
Haha, just my plug for this idea!
So, detailed step by step, or a shortened and quicker step process may be preferable to a large strategic audience that would prefer the strategic combat vs. the more hands on tactical and of course visible action combat.
Anyway, this is probably a simplistic view of something Chris and company have already figured out, but i thought i would throw my idea out and see if it was worth thinking about.
Thanks for listening,
-Teal
