Suggestion re: Tactical Combat

from GalCiv3 Forums

How about 'games within the game' ('not-so' mini-games)?

1) recognize that there are a few modes for tactical combat, currently: ship v ship, starbase v ship, and planetary combat; ship v surface (orbital bombardment and surface to orbit interdiction) was not fleshed out or animated in gc i or gc ii but could be included.

2) create a battle (resolution) queue for each player - this would deal with synchronicity issues and battle ingress and egress. The battle would be automatically queued when the battle's initialization/instantiation conditions are meet. Combat would not start until it was the battle's turn to be processed. Only one battle is processed at a time. Battles are processed at the end of the turn, after all other moves are done. advanced features could be the ability to pause a battle and (the player) pop in/out of a battle, the ability to select the battle process order, etc.

3) rework the current combat system so that it is, code-wise, 'black-box' modular... it should be able to 'consume' all of the objects in the battle in their current state and return all of the battle objects in their post-combat transformed state. Ship this with the 'official' release.

4) develop three tactical combat 'expansion' modules (see below)... the modules should be developed to play the gc iii objects in greater detail adding functionality as appropriate for the battle scenario (see below)... release sometime in the gc iii upgrade/expansion cycle.

4a) the fleet battle module: primary added function - the ability to fight (give instruction to) your ships; as a fleet and/or as individual ships... at minimum the ability to give targeting orders (standard weapon selectivity would be an added bonus but special weapons selectivity a necessity) and perhaps maneuver orders (especially withdrawal).

4b) the station battle module: primary added function - the ability to 'fight' the station, to give targeting orders with weapons of choice... secondary added functions - sim 'boarding' & 'repelling' ops.

4c) the surface and orbit battle module: primary added function - the ability to 'fight' the surface battle, to target and maneuver field forces on synthesized terrain that is reflective of the planetary map... secondary added function - to sim (with selective control) landing ops, bombardment ops, and orbital interdiction ops.

I recognize that these three modules are in fact three additional games, so I don't think they should be included with the base package with the initial release; but, I also don't think the tactical combat situation will be resolved to the majority's satisfaction any other way... weapon effect could be dealt with, shipyard options could have real meaning, tech enhancements like 'stealth' could be realistically incorporated, etc.

-David S.

17,234 views 6 replies
Reply #1 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

2) if the battle is only processed after moves are done how do you use any remaining moves? As in fight, move, fight again, move, invasion

4) the devs have said that you will only be able to effect the battle in a general way "roles" you will NOT be able to say ship A attack ship X

Reply #2 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Quoting androshalforc, reply 1

if the battle is only processed after moves are done how do you use any remaining moves? As in fight, move, fight again, move, invasion
End of androshalforc's quote

I should clarify ... after moves are done for the turn... assume the ship's movement is terminated at the battle's inception (they 'drop out of warp')... at the end the end of the battle, new movement orders can be issued for resolution in future turns.

Quoting androshalforc, reply 1

the devs have said that you will only be able to effect the battle in a general way "roles" you will NOT be able to say ship A attack ship X
End of androshalforc's quote

Yes I know... that is what item 3 is all about... I'm not asking this current team to completely redesign the game, just redesign the current combat code to be modular so it can be REPLACED by the tactical combat modules that I have described.

In item 4 I am actually asking for the development of three NEW games. These games would take the gc iii objects and (micro) scenario as initial play conditions; 'enhance' the objects' attributes (auto-synthesize new attributes as appropriate); 'fill-in' and/or synthesize scenario details as necessary; process (play) the objects with the additional functionality afforded in the expanded/enhanced game engine; then when done, return the objects 'normalized' (all additions/enhancements removed) in their new states to gc iii.  Having three tc-xmods allows variations and customization to the scenarios, i.e.: for surface battles - interpret it 'civ v' like; for space battles - perhaps model them 'sins oase' like; etc.

The problem is gc iii is a strategic game with a 'galaxy' wide scope/scale... the objects in that game are huge and numerous... objects are not detailed to any great depth... (if they were, there would be tooooo muuuch information in the game and it would be unplayable...) in that system, combat is an exercise of statistical reduction.

To do the tactical combat that we all want to play, we need tactical game engines.

For space battles the scale is on the order of an astronomical unit (not light-years or parsecs) and the number of objects that is in the scenario will be limited... therefor, each object can have orders of magnitude more detail and with enough detail we can do 'physics' and 'physical' combat resolution... this additional detail is synthesized by analysis of researched techs, the ship's specs and the ship's state, etc... this detail is synthesized just prior to combat and released after combat resolution... the engine may cache individual ship details before the details' release in order to possibly reduce the time spent on synthesis in a future battle, but this would be held independently from the main game data.

For surface battles the scale is planetary and some of the objects are extremely vaguely defined (at the strategic level)... in this case the requirement of additional detail will mean wholesale invention... yes do an analysis of researched techs, but since the base game only has info on size of the fielded forces, the composition of those forces will have to be 'invented'... the map of the surface with terrain details will also be an 'invention' that uses the current planetary map from the main game as a initial template... once again the additional detail (with the possible exception of planet terrain details) will be synthesized as a precursor to combat and dumped after combat is done... as for planetary terrain details, the entire planetary colonization sequence could be viewed as a specialized set of tactical ops... at the beginning of colonization the standard map is generated by the main game and the detailed terrain map is then generated by the tc game engine and independently stored (to be updated and used with surface battles involving that planet)... at the start of colonization operations, with the ideology scenario generated by the main game, the ideological choice prompt is raised by a surface survey op... finally the choice of where the 'capitol' goes is made in a colonist landing op.

I've gone in some detail about what each engine needs to do, to highlight that fact that the needs require different engines and that they are, in fact, different games... The main gc iii game will, in essence, be paused while one of the tc xmods is run... that is the reason for item 2...

Adoption of these measures would give the player unprecedented command and control across all the phases of the game.

This is more than building a mod, this is changing the main game so that it could integrate with three other games and then developing those games.

-David S.

P.S. Now, if someone from Stardock dropped me a line I could easily be convinced to do a labor of love in making those extra games!!!

Siege of Centauri
Reply #3 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

I guess I like it....but it doesn't sound as sexy the way you worded it. This would be a best selling expansion though. :)

Reply #4 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Wow, first time I've seen a volunteer! Hats off to you bro. But ground combat is really harder to do, stick with the space combat people want it.

Reply #5 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Quoting DARCA1213, reply 4

But ground combat is really harder to do
End of DARCA1213's quote

Not really... Future Tech ground combat is no worse than ships... individual units are more powerful per unit than earlier times so you need less of them and the unit types are also less - you basically have the following: un-powered infantry, powered infantry, mechs, speeders, tanks, bolos and (atmospheric) fliers [strategic artillery is handled by surface bases and orbital platforms, whereas tactical artillery is handled by mechs, tanks and bolos with everything having the equivalent of personal mortars]... you throw in unit parity: a platoon of un-powered infantry = a squad of powered infantry = a mech, a platoon of speeders = a squad of tanks = a bolo... and goal seeking automation for each unit... then you can build a surface tactical game where you don't micromanage with flexible command and control.

In fact, if you allow for pre-fabricated deployments, formations, and attacks - it can play like football (American, Australian, European, I don't care - they are all variations of the same theme) without the focus of a ball... surface battles become an exercise of 2.x dimensional tactics in 2 to 4 layers (sub surface, surface, atmospheric and orbital), whereas battles in free space are exercises in 3 dimensions (which is computationally harder).

All in all I think it is very doable.

-David S.

Reply #6 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Quoting thetechangel, reply 5

where you don't micromanage with flexible command and control
End of thetechangel's quote

should read - where you don't micromanage and you still have flexible command and control

-David S.