Combat: Do you control or do you watch?

Asmodean · March 6, 2003, 18:57

I got to thinking. I just don't seem to get the hang on combat, and I was wondering if I was the only one. In my last to games, I have ceded control of combat completely. I just make sure that every time I choose combat, I go in with overwhelming forces, so that I don't have to wonder whether I could have done better myself.

What I find confusing is that I have a hard time seeing what TF contains which ships, and thus I can not decide whether to assign it this or that task. Anyone agree?

Don't get me wrong. I like the game. I just find combat pretty darn hard, if the two sides are even in strength.

Asmodean

Harry Seldon · March 6, 2003, 19:30

I'm a voyeur at heart when it comes to combat. I just wish you could watch and hit the general retreat if you're getting murdered.

kalbear · March 6, 2003, 19:33

I love playing it. I usually have overwhelming force, but sometimes I don't (or I'm getting creamed) and I have to start guessing. And then it becomes really, really fun when I guess right and obliterate the opponent.

Tuberski · March 6, 2003, 21:22

I am starting to control combat, y ships seem to do a better job.

I just wish you could pause in combat, sometimes it's a little tricky target moving ships. Pausing would simplify things.

Ground combat has been pretty tough for me so far, I'm not quite sure what is the best to use with what yet.

ACK!

vmxa1 · March 6, 2003, 21:29

I use control if I want to bombard the planet. I wish you could expedite the combat once it has been engaged.
IOW, I see the fight is being won and I just want it to end quickly.

Eric S · March 6, 2003, 21:30

I just watch. I've got senate vote turned off in my current game, and when I get around to crushing the last non-Anteran race, I might practice on that victim. I don't like realtime games. That's why I mostly play TBS rather than RTS. I'll agree that the MoO2 combat model wouldn't scale to the number of ships that I've had in some MoO3 battles (over a hundred ships on each side), but that doesn't mean that it has to be realtime. Needs to be a compromise, or at least make the bloody "General Retreat" button work even if I'm just watching.

Some of the other reasons I watch rather than fight is because my better TFs seem to know more than is shown on the screen. Perfect example: I've got a LR Armada composed of Titans, with SD scouts (with the best ECCM/scanning I've got) in the picket. The first step of watching them is always to zoom out all the way, otherwise they can see and shoot off the screen if you've got them centered. Then, I watch them take off in what seems to be no particular direction, since the enemy isn't visible. Then, all of a sudden, they'll start firing off into what appears to be empty space, and those big red numbers will magically appear, followed shortly by either by an explosion, or a TF fading into visibility.

I don't know if the AI is cheating here chasing or firing at something that it shouldn't be able to see or if I should be able to see it but can't, but watching this happen, and remembering how well my first combat against a gardian went when I couldn't see what was shooting at me, there's no way I'm going to take charge of combat.

Arnelos · March 7, 2003, 01:38

I play them, mostly. The tactical AI is competent, but not much more than simply competent. The tactical AI does some annoying stuff that I like to avoid.

The other reason is that I've noticed that the tactical AI never retreats, even when you're clearly beaten and you aren't going to do any more damage if you stick around... you might as well bug out with whatever you can manage to keep alive.

Epistax · March 7, 2003, 01:50

I would control more if they gave you some indication as to where the enemy starts

asleepathewheel · March 7, 2003, 02:08

I would control more for the same reasons above, pause.

But I just love watching hundreds of fighters buzzing around crafts and destroying them. Sweet. Almost makes me wish I could control one, ala X-wing or Tie-fighter.

Starlord · March 7, 2003, 06:38

Usually I watch. I only select control if I know that my fleet will get massacerred by the enemy if I can´t give retreat orders.

Starlord

MarkG · March 7, 2003, 06:54

Quote:

Originally posted by Harry Seldon
I'm a voyeur at heart when it comes to combat. I just wish you could watch and hit the general retreat if you're getting murdered.

what he said

Proteus_MST · March 7, 2003, 08:20

I like it to have full control over my Fleets.

Only on rare Occasions, for example one Silicoid Ship tries to attack 16 of my Battleships I cede control to the Computer

N4M8- · March 7, 2003, 11:37

If I trip across a Guardian I take control so I can give the General Retreat order (you'd figure a scout would realize he can't take on such a thing and would do so automatically). Other than that I simply watch.

Ghostbear · March 7, 2003, 11:55

control combat, then what do you actually do besides click the next turn button?

N4M8- · March 7, 2003, 12:34

The little things:

Decide what type of spies are necessary and where they should be.

Design ships and decide where they should be built.

Diplomacy

Planetary development

Determine allocation of research priorities

Direct ships to the various places they need to be.

Assemble military units.

Frankly I'm curious what you do that allows you to have fleets in the first place if all you do otherwise is press the next turn button.

Asmodean · March 7, 2003, 16:43

Don't mind Ghostbear. He's just a troll.

Asmodean

Ghostbear · March 7, 2003, 17:39

I've been playing quite a bit, really trying to like it. However, last night I was on or about turn 100 and realized I was clicking through 5 to 10 turns waiting for ships to arrive.

Maybe I am trolling, I guess complaining is no longer making me feel any better.

However, there simply didn't seem to be anything worthwhile to do during all those turns. You could do stuff but it didn't seem very useful to the game effort.

For instance,

Diplomacy - I try and stay friendly, but don't understand why I get asked every 10 turns for a trade agreement (again). Do they get better each subsequent time? If they do I haven't found it (doesn't mean its not there somewhere).

Research - Occasionally I reset the sliders to catch up on an area I've let slide. You can't stop research on projects, so thats about the extent of research.

Spying - I've never been big into this area of 4X games. In MOO 3, it seems to be either a nuisance or far to powerful. Spies are either killed time after time or steal the other empires blind.

Ship design - Again, why? You have access to all weapons techs, so there's very little decision making. Also, ships are obsolete so fast, you have to deliberately let designs age or just change and change and change.

I applaud people for liking this game. However I have lost interest.

See Ya...

Asmodean · March 7, 2003, 17:42

That's better, Ghostbear. Allthough I don't agree with you, it's still better than your last post.

Asmodean

vmxa1 · March 7, 2003, 18:27

All TBS games hit points where there is nothing for you to do for a few turns. Even those that force you to do everything.

Proteus_MST · March 7, 2003, 18:29

Quote:

Originally posted by Ghostbear

Diplomacy - I try and stay friendly, but don't understand why I get asked every 10 turns for a trade agreement (again). Do they get better each subsequent time?

Yes they do get better each time.

Thats the reason why it those subsequent times it means: "Improve Trade agreement"

ChaotikVisions · March 7, 2003, 18:36

I control combat, despite the computer maybe being better equipped to handle combat I just like doing things myself. Also allows for manuevering my ships, and of course retreating if things are going very badly. Combat could use a bit more feedback, but i'm starting to be able to tell weapons by how they look. And since you can also check damage of task forces(including enemy ones) by selecting them I know what to focus my fire on.

kalbear · March 7, 2003, 18:40

On ship design - I find that the computer does not do a perfectly optimal means of designing ships. For instance, it'll install the longest-range weapon you have, even if a slightly shorter range weapon can do more overall damage thanks to multiplication and miniaturization. It also won't use anything other than miniaturization, so if you want armor piercing or enveloping, you need to do that yourself.

Similarly on missiles, I find that I can make my boats much more potent simply by using better missile chassis and whatnot.

Then there's the speed - reducing speed to add components.

Then there's PD - the computer favors the best PD it can get always, similar to LR. Replacign it with more numerous shots can make a big difference.

Research is one of those things that you can let slide, unless there's a problem or a juicy tech you want. I usually check in every so often to make sure everything is all right.

Diplomacy does help a lot, both in money and relations. Tedious? Perhaps, but also voluntary. You can choose to make your government better or not.

Spying...ah, spying. I love spying. I love the whole game around it. It's cool.

Eric S · March 7, 2003, 19:30

Quote:

Originally posted by kalbear
On ship design - I find that the computer does not do a perfectly optimal means of designing ships. For instance, it'll install the longest-range weapon you have, even if a slightly shorter range weapon can do more overall damage thanks to multiplication and miniaturization. It also won't use anything other than miniaturization, so if you want armor piercing or enveloping, you need to do that yourself.

Agreed for the most part, but I find that armor piercing and enveloping isn't always the best way to go, if I'm reading the descriptions correctly.

AP makes the weapon 33% more effective against armor, but causes the weapon to be 50% larger. It is more cost effective, but I'm usually more worried about space efficiency.

Has anyone been able to determine if the combat algorithms consider a volley of missiles a single target? If it does, then more damaging weapons make sense for point defense. If one shot can only knock down one missile then it does make more sense to stick with the lighter weapons, but I'm getting the feeling that a single "big enough" weapon could knock out multiple missiles/fighters, provided it's in the right mount. Maybe I'll set up a multiplayer game against myself just to find out. PD stellar converter, anyone?

vmxa1 · March 7, 2003, 21:52

I have no facts to answer that, but I tend to go with the idea that if I can hit the incoming hard enough to destroy it in one shot that is better than needing two shots or more. Especially since I can not put an unlimited number of guns in. You need to prevent saturation and that means numbers to some degree. It will take observations to get the relationship.

kalbear · March 7, 2003, 22:37

A volley of missiles is not considered one target. It's considered a LOT of targets. If you have a lot of PD weapons, you'll do better against missiles than if you had more powerful but fewer PD weapons.

IME, of course.

Vince278 · March 8, 2003, 02:14

I like to watch but prefer to be in control.

Seriously though, I see little difference.

vmxa1 · March 8, 2003, 03:00

Quote:

Originally posted by kalbear
A volley of missiles is not considered one target. It's considered a LOT of targets. If you have a lot of PD weapons, you'll do better against missiles than if you had more powerful but fewer PD weapons.

IME, of course.

I think that is what I said, with the caveat that you need fewer guns if they can stop one missile apiece.
The deal is to find that point and it is moving all the time, but you have room for a finite number of guns.
Of course ROF is a factor as well.

Proteus_MST · March 8, 2003, 06:16

But Weapons have two kinds of damage.

Near Damage and Far Damage (look at the Weapons-Table in the Spreadsheets.mob).

This lets me assume that some Weapons not only damage the Target which they hit, but also targets nearby.
The truely interesting is, that the Lightning-Field which is said to be very effective against Missiles has the same Value for Far Damage as it has for Near Damage (36).
This lets me assume that it (and maybe also other Area Effect Weapons (those with a significant Far Damage)) may be able to take out several Missiles/Fighters at once.

Trystan · March 8, 2003, 08:33

I think the near/far damage is damage reduced over range. Closer the target is, the more damage you do.

I'll cede combat if I'm not going after the planet. Otherwise I only control it in order to get to the bombardment screen since the computer will dump all my troops on the planet when 1 experienced army of battleloids is overkill anyhow.

As for combat, they didn't balance the weapons very well. It's hardcoded too so no mod would fix it unless you turn off the fighters and missiles. PD weapons don't work all the time, but that's not the real problem.

The real problem is that you go in with a lot of carrier TF's and maybe 1 or 2 missile TFs. Attacking planets is easy. Launch a wave of missiles, then launch the fighters whenever you see another target pop up. The fighters stay out until they're dead and have a huge range on them. You can sit outside of the planet's sensors and send in the fighters. Fighters have their own radar so will find enemy TF's for you around the planet. Also, fighters will keep fighting even if the carrier that launched it dies. No reason for LR or SR TF's.

Proteus_MST · March 8, 2003, 09:56

Quote:

Originally posted by Trystan
I think the near/far damage is damage reduced over range. Closer the target is, the more damage you do.

For the Damage-Reduction over Range I have identified the DmgDelta as the correspondig Value.

As it says in the Manual (ans we also know from previous MOO-Games) Mass Drivers don´t have their Damage reduced over Distance, whereas Plasma-Weapons have a really bis Damage Reduction.

Now look at the Values for Mass Drivers.
All of them have a to-Hit Accuracy of 0,5 whereas their Damage Delta is always 0.
Most Plasma and Particle Weapons on the other Hand (with the Exception of the Mauler and the Lightning Field) have a rather large Damage Delta.
As far as I see it, the Damage Delta seems to be linked to the Near Damage of a Weapon.

I don´t know for sure, but I think up to a Distance equal to "DmgDisSt" the Weapons damage their Target equal to the Full NearDamage, whereeas at a Distance equal DmgDisEn the Damage of the Weaponsd is calculated by:
Dmg = "Near Damage" - "DmgDelta"

And I assume that Values between DmgDisSt and DmgDisEn are calculated according to the Distance travelled.

As I said, I don´t know for sure, but for all I know of the game it makes sense that the Damage Delta is de facto responsible for the degradation of Damage over Distance.

And therefore I also assume, that the Far Damage may be the Damage to Targets which are adjacent to the Ship which is being hit by the Weapon.