|
Title: H&R and SG battle tactics Post by: ars68 on June 09, 2006, 09:51:24 PM for the most part, all battles are simply hit and run for the most part, you go 1 round fo fighting, then leave. but if E ever gets the chance to put this in, I believe it would be awesome :) (although, yes, potentially abuseful as well)
Hit and Run: your fleet comes in, shoots, then retreats before anyone can bring there guns to fire back. however due to the rushing of firing the guns, your fleet receives a huge disadvantage to attack power, but in return cannot be fired back. attacker attack penalty: 50-70% defender attack penalty: 100% Stand Ground: Your fleet comes in with all it has, and does not give up till either your fleet or their fleet is destroyed. all penalties and bonuses:0%, once a combat round is over, another is started until 1 armada is totally destroyed. Title: Re: H&R and SG battle tactics Post by: ShAd0wS on June 10, 2006, 01:06:12 AM ok H&R totally overpowered since none of ur ships can even be touched... and SG way too powerful...
Title: Re: H&R and SG battle tactics Post by: Seither on June 10, 2006, 01:25:29 AM Yes, but you lose 70% of your attack power with it, so only weak ships would get destroyed. But I'd give them a 1 in 10 chance of hitting you back. But stand ground is perfectly fine.
Title: Re: H&R and SG battle tactics Post by: ars68 on June 10, 2006, 09:11:06 PM I agree, H&R IS too overpowered, even with the 70% attack reduction. a better replacement, however, is reconaisance, you fly in, see the enemy ships, and fly back before they can fire at you. since the point is to see what they have without a single shot being fired, the normal penalty will be 100% to both attacker and defenders attack, the drawback, however, is that you still generate a counter.
and one of the major reasons it is overpowered is especially if you use something like YJ's. but as far as stand ground is concerned, it is somewhat needed, as it will also lessen the need for marines in higher up battles, and lessen the effectiveness of simply using HP as a means to avoid any 'real' damage, and also increasing the usefulness of actual defense. IE: 1 supership vs 1 fleet of defense swarmers supership does 0 to swarm fleet swarm fleet does 1/4th damage to supership. (continues another 4 round till the supership is actually the one destroyed) shouldn't actually be to hard, I would guess, simply have somewhere where if not totally destroyed, repeat steps (whatever) unless it goes over so many rounds, then just end (running out of fuel/ammo?) Title: Re: H&R and SG battle tactics Post by: Gunfighter Frank on June 11, 2006, 04:47:00 PM that seems to be the problem with swarmers vs super ships. the swamers shouldnt even get a hit on the super ship. look at it this way. a .22 cal weapon cant touch an M 1 Abrams main battle tank. it dont matter how many you have. however that tank can do massive damage to the man using the .22. and a lot of them. there should not a swarm bonus to attack only defense. and hitpoints no swarm bonus. the only way any ship should go up with defense and attack is through crew level.
Title: Re: H&R and SG battle tactics Post by: Seither on June 11, 2006, 04:55:29 PM The swarme rbonus is ok, just, as you said, take the bonus away from attack.
Title: Re: H&R and SG battle tactics Post by: Chronos on June 11, 2006, 04:58:59 PM I think that the swarm bonus for attack is just as reasonable as the crew bonus for attack.
But, think about it, 20 M16s all firing on the same spot at the same time would do more damage then 20 times the damage of one firing on that spot. Title: Re: H&R and SG battle tactics Post by: Seither on June 11, 2006, 05:07:36 PM Yes, but lets look at it this way.
Tank vs 20 riflemen Tank shoots 1 shell and destroys riflemen. 20 riflemen shoot their guns empty and do nothing to tank. You multiply 20 as high as you like, the result is the same. A supership should not be easily destroyed by swarmers like that. Title: Re: H&R and SG battle tactics Post by: ars68 on June 11, 2006, 10:11:20 PM except you are talking about defense. imagine it this way:
defense = better armour hp = bigger ship (thus more damage required to bring it down) M1 has a lot of DEFENSE, not hp. if, say, a rocket hit it (or something else that would go through the armour) it wouldn't take that much to take it down. now let's take a house. it would have lots of HP (due to it being so big) but not very high defense (almost no real 'armour') if enough riflemen took enough shots, it could go through. but either way, you are actually talking about a weapons ability to pierce, not necesarily destroy. and even then, comparing what you have said yourself, would an M1 shoot once and wipe out 10 of those 20 people... then leave? of course not, he would finish the job. oh, and the theory of enough shooting at the same spot doing damage otherwise not present, is I believe based on the thing called 'death by a thousand cuts' and if you REALLY want to take it farther, anyone remember star wars and how they take out the deathstar? comparing the 2 ships is like comparing that person to that M1. but you have enough of them, chances are they can come in, find a weak spot, and exploit it. (IE, what if that rifleman got up close and shot through any openings in the tank he saw? my favorite spot to think of him shooting through is the tank barrel itself... but that's just my own little fantasy... maybe...) Title: Re: H&R and SG battle tactics Post by: Seither on June 12, 2006, 12:00:07 AM he does tat and it does nothing. Tanks were designed to be undestroyable by small infentry. I don't care if your soldiers are where titanium armor, if I shoot an explosive shell at them, they're going to do. And they can shoot all they want before hand, they ain''t doing jack squat.
Title: Re: H&R and SG battle tactics Post by: Chronos on June 12, 2006, 12:37:20 AM ... Twenty infantry will be more than twenty times as effective verses a tank than one infantry.
And a thousand infantry with M16s could easily take down a tank. Even if it's mearly by the intense heat of friction. And sense, in this game, both sides get a shot even if one wipes the other out in that change of fire, it still counts. Plus, it's harder to hit infantry then it is to hit a tank. Back to Star Wars, the towers could easily take out an x-wing, if they could hit the x-wing. But they couldn't. Title: Re: H&R and SG battle tactics Post by: Seither on June 12, 2006, 04:51:33 PM What part of tanks are DESGINED so that INFANTRY CANNOT do anything to it. Plus, a tank only has to hit near th infantry to kill them in 1 shot. Mthbusters did a show on this, hey set up 200 M-16s spaced out over a field and 1 military grade tank in the center. The tank had a computer programed to target the m-16s and destroy them, while the m-16 were set on a rig with the triggers pulled in. result: All m-16s destroyed. Tank had a couple of minor dents. Since so many people are wanting this game more realistic, then that's as realistic as it gets.
Title: Re: H&R and SG battle tactics Post by: Chronos on June 12, 2006, 05:37:06 PM Tank had a couple of minor dents. That ain't nothin'. Trust me, a tank can be destroyed if hit by a thousand fully automatic M16s. If you aim them all at one general spot, you could punch a whole through almost anything. In short, nothing is impervious. Water can take down mountains. Sand can bring down cities. A speck of water wouldn't kill you, but a tsunami would. Force and pressure is culmulative, synergetic, compounding. A little might not do much, but a lot of a little acts like a lot. Title: Re: H&R and SG battle tactics Post by: Seither on June 12, 2006, 06:24:42 PM you forget that all those things require incredibly long stretches of time to do. And that's IF the all aim at the same spot, which is near impossible to do. I say something needs to be done, and taking away swarm attack bonus is fair. or the defence bonus, one of the two, as the tank would be able to hurt the infantry no matter the type of armor.
Title: Re: H&R and SG battle tactics Post by: Chronos on June 12, 2006, 06:58:34 PM It can happen pretty quickly, you've ever seen a sand blaster?
And they only have to aim at the same general spot. And no, it doesn't take long for a thousand M16s to punch a hole in thick solid steel. And you still don't see my point. A lot of something is more damaging then a little something multiplied by a lot. One M16 might not do a thing, A.K.A zero. But a thousand M16s is at least gonna have an effect, if not destroy it. Thus (x > 0) > 0 * 1000. You with me yet? And an infantry is gonna be able to survive a shot from a tank if it has enough armor. Because armor has an effect, more armor has more of an effect. The summation of the increase of armor's effect is divergent, even if it's somewhat harmonic. Thus there is a number (a), where that amount of armor will cancel out the damage (b) of the tank shell. Title: Re: H&R and SG battle tactics Post by: Seither on June 12, 2006, 09:06:51 PM tank shells explode, there isn't an armor out there that can stop that, hence why bombs and such are so dangerous to our troops. I'm not saying destroying a tank with guns isn't possible, just not happening because the tank would destroy the infantry first.
Title: Re: H&R and SG battle tactics Post by: ShAd0wS on June 12, 2006, 09:18:02 PM yeah if you were to put enoguh armor on an infantryman to stop a tank shot i doubt he would be able to move under the weight :))
Title: Re: H&R and SG battle tactics Post by: Chronos on June 12, 2006, 10:13:04 PM tank shells explode, there isn't an armor out there that can stop that, I never said it existed, I just said it was possible. yeah if you were to put enoguh armor on an infantryman to stop a tank shot i doubt he would be able to move under the weight :)) I never said it was practical. I'm not saying destroying a tank with guns isn't possible, just not happening because the tank would destroy the infantry first. In this game, both get off a full exchange of fire. And one burst from a thousand M16s is more then enough to take down a tank. Imagine a thousand people with guns. If you lined them up in rows and columns, each one taking up six square feet (not that big, if you think about it), they'd cover over a square mile. Title: Re: H&R and SG battle tactics Post by: ars68 on June 12, 2006, 10:47:52 PM luffy, you said small dents with only 20 M16's. he is saying THOUSANDS of M16's. and in this game, you are having one ship versus possibly MILLIONS of the smaller thing. enough said right there.
oh, and btw, me starting that really had almost nothing to do with swarmers, I just sued it as the example. most of the time it is from 2 tanks shooting at each other, where the bigger WOULD have won hands down, excepot that they only fired once, and left. IE: ship A 10 mil att and 10 HP ship B 4 mil att and 20 mil hp end of round 1: A= 6M HP left B= 10M HP left end of round 2: A= 2M HP left B= 0 HP left (destroyed) as you can see, how it is now, it would simply classify both as a draw, but if it were to continue even one round, ship A would win. now if there were 2 of the ship B... end of round 1: A= 2M HP left B1= 10M HP left B2= 20M HP left end of round 2: A= -6M HP left (destroyed) B1= 0 HP left (destroyed) B2= 20M HP left again, ending at round 1, it would STILL end it with a draw, but continuing to round 2, both sides would lose 1 ship, but overall ship B would win, instead of ship A. however, there is further risk to the attacker as it may backfire on him as well, like if the owner of ship B were the attacker there and only sent 1, that would mean he just lost that ship for nothing, and could have had a draw not going with SG. but it may also be: ship A: 10M att, 10 HP ship B: 5M att, 15M HP end of round 1: A= 5M HP left B= 5M HP left end of round 2: A= 0M HP left (destroyed) B= -5 HP left (destroyed) which then means that going that extra round ended up killing BOTH fleets. as you can see, this opens up a LOT of possibilities, but probably also the importance of, and how, balanced you make HP and attack, and defense. Title: Re: H&R and SG battle tactics Post by: Seither on June 13, 2006, 01:12:36 AM Oh, so you're saying the this ship I have with 99% acc that has a attack power of 600B will do 600B damage? Yet I failed to destroy a ship with only 450B hp and defense combined (that's converting the 1 defense to 10hp). So obviously you don't get to use ALL your strength in an attack. And I'm not saying not to makemore rounds ars, I like that idea. I just think swarmers need their bonus changed somewhere, as there is no way a tank wouldn't destroy SOME infantry with it's damage, no matter how heavily defended they are. Maybe making defense per ship only rather then having to go through every ships defense first before you can destroy 1 will do it.
Title: Re: H&R and SG battle tactics Post by: Chronos on June 13, 2006, 02:32:24 AM Maybe making defense per ship only rather then having to go through every ships defense first before you can destroy 1 will do it. That would make defense completely useless. It'd be like HP, only five times more expensive. Swarmers need at least one bridge to get past their casm of inability. Title: Re: H&R and SG battle tactics Post by: Seither on June 13, 2006, 03:08:01 AM expet that 1 defense = 10 hp! i don't exactly call that worthless. And being able to buy 10k swarmers that cost 1B TOTAL and have them able to destroy a 1T ship is fair and not completely useless to buy a supership? I've seen this done, and it's not right.
Title: Re: H&R and SG battle tactics Post by: ShAd0wS on June 13, 2006, 10:15:14 AM you guys are leaving otu shields though, 80% on a tank makes a huge difference... 200bilHP = 1 trillion...
Title: Re: H&R and SG battle tactics Post by: Chronos on June 13, 2006, 02:33:46 PM expet that 1 defense = 10 hp! But defense costs fifty times as much as HP! If they work exactly the same, you're loosing in a 5:1 ratio. Title: Re: H&R and SG battle tactics Post by: ars68 on June 13, 2006, 02:45:25 PM swarmers = better defense, HP and attack to cost
superships = better ACC and ABS it has always been that way. Title: Re: H&R and SG battle tactics Post by: Chronos on June 13, 2006, 02:47:31 PM Ya, but he's saying what if we make defense apply to individual ships.
Oh, and things are definentaly going to become much more complicated if he ever implements AP and SP. Title: Re: H&R and SG battle tactics Post by: Seither on June 14, 2006, 12:01:06 AM Oh yea ars, superships really have an advantage there, the fact that their acc doesn't stop them from failing to destory 1 ship and the fact that their 80% absorb doesn't stop them from being destroyed, it's great. Swarmers still have too much of a bonus, something needs to be changed. At least give superships a bonus of their own then, so it is fair.
Title: Re: H&R and SG battle tactics Post by: ars68 on June 14, 2006, 11:27:08 AM but that is how many to how many? several trillion swarmers to a single enemy supership? if they don't have enough to do the damage they need to do, they can end up losing their entire fleet and doing nothing.
Title: Re: H&R and SG battle tactics Post by: ShAd0wS on June 15, 2006, 04:35:09 PM Well ya figure a multi-trillion dollar ship would have a heck of a lot of point defense guns... maybe if it is supership vs swarmer they should ge ta bonus (if its possible coding-wise)
Title: Re: H&R and SG battle tactics Post by: ShadowBlade on July 10, 2006, 07:53:50 PM If we're going for realism, why not have the number of weapons have a major effect on it. If there's a hundred guys running and dodging and ducking from the tank, it's not going to wipe them all out with it's big gun. Sure, if it's placed right it may take out 10-15, and wound or disable a couple, but firing a big gun doesn't mean everything in the area dies. If you took a BFG and fired it at one troop in an army that had you surrounded, it's not going to wrap around and kill all of them and not you. Not saying it would be easy to do, but when you designed a weapon, you could have like a # of turrets option, no effect on price, but each would have it's own chance (based on the accuracy of the whole) to hit something, and the power would be divided by # of turrets. So, in the tank example, compared to one 102mm canon, you could have 30 50 cal guns, and as each fired, it either hit or missed one guy. Of course, this all assumes that it's KER and not HEAT or HEAPer rounds.
Title: Re: H&R and SG battle tactics Post by: Lammalord on July 11, 2006, 09:26:12 AM no one would want to do this.. looks like its to powerful or something
Title: Re: H&R and SG battle tactics Post by: ars68 on July 11, 2006, 10:31:05 AM well, H&R idea IS to over-powered, I'll even (and am now again) admitting that. imagine sending in 1 tril yellow jackets on the H&R mission, knowing not a one will get destroyed, but possibly wiping out the entire enemy armada. probably create havoc on missions and encounters as well.
but the SG idea is not actually as powerful as you say, it is a 2-edged sword of sorts, it gives you more then 1 round to 'finish off the enemy' but it also gives them the chance to do the same. hp boat does 0 damage to swarmers swarmers does 1/4 total damage to hp boat normally, it would end there, but if it continued, the hp boat would lose horribly, this would also put more emphasis on defense (as far as I can tell, defense would have to work 5+ times to be as effective as just going with hp, this giving it it's chance to subtract damage 5+ times) also... you might have more of a point on the gun turret thing then you may think... looks like I will be putting up another suggestion, lol. (though probably to super-complicated to actually be put in, but meh, probably not as much as that galaxy project and council :)) ) Title: Re: H&R and SG battle tactics Post by: Demitrious Ducas on July 20, 2006, 01:35:46 AM Ars you have alot of good ideas here and in your other threads like Turrets/ Weapons and Ship classes. I think you should compile all of them into a single thread.
Here is something I posted about similar issues in another thread... I don't want an overly complex system, I liked the simple combat system as it exists, but it's lacking in depth to handle issues outside of normal war (pitting player#1's best ships vs. player#2's best ships and rolling the dice)... For example the issue with infinate scouting from another thread. The idea here is that infinite scouting isn't sporting when used to make real attacks without the resulting counters, most people would consider this bad form since it is used against a player... But, a similar case I have made is using decoy ships in missions, it works, it is allowed by the rules, but it just isn't in the spirit of honorable hunting... most people said this shouldn't be fixed or isn't an issue when I made a post about it because it is only against the computer fleets. My point in both issues is that, the lack of sportsmanship doesn't come from the target it has to come from within yourself for it to mean anything. But, in the hardnosed edge of gamming there is almost no honor among player, everyone is out for themselves or group and will do or try nearly anything to get an advantage. I think this is why a most advanced, but not overly complex, combat tactic system is needed, to disuade players from using loopholes to an advantage not intended by the rules. I REALLY enjoyed the pen and paper space games of the 70's and 80's many of them were simple formula combat with dice to find a bit of random factor, but MOST of them had advanced combat tactics and options to choose that made that combat interesting and made the outcome based on more than just 3 simple fleet propeties (Atk, Def, HP). The ship design and componant design portion of this game kicks ass it is nearly infinately variable and can be used to make a multitude of ships with different purposes. SO uses such cool ships in a combat system that just falls short of the high mark set by the ship design portion of the game. This is more evident because in most cases, it is an active player attacking an inactive/ off-line player, all the options and output go to the attacker, the player off-line gets no choice of tactics (only which ships to leave out) and get a very minimal combat report that lacks nearly any useful information about the attacker that could be used to make a counter attack. Scouting to gain ship/ fleet make-up for the defender is then essential when they get back on-line to find the've been attacked. The defender should atleast get the same attack report the attacker sees. Then there are the hit and run issues where it isn't even possible to bring most or any of your real combat ships to make a counter attack since the initial attacker put them into reserve before logging and has much reduce total power So as a result you get a game full of power ship blasting back and forth, back and forth without doing any real damage to either side except for a few unexpected losses or unprepared for defenders... it just can't hold the interest of most people and they end up leaving the game, playing alts, greefing others, or trying to exploit every possible loophole or bug hoping not to get caught. Title: Re: H&R and SG battle tactics Post by: Iamcatfu on September 18, 2006, 04:43:37 PM I still like the stand ground idea, hit and run is pretty much what happens now (minus the overpower), but what about a "grapple" strategy. Kinda like a cross between SG and Board, they close to transport range, and battle it out with big guns shooting each other, and marines fighting it out inside, but the trick is that the person you're attacking can have more marines and take some of your ships if you're not careful.
Title: Re: H&R and SG battle tactics Post by: SirEmi on September 18, 2006, 06:18:39 PM I dont know if anybody knows this, but when I designed the boarding system, it was like that, the marines fought each other untill one fleet was captured, the attacker or the defender. Was cool, but it just made people upset in the end... losing way too many fleets for their taste.
Title: Re: H&R and SG battle tactics Post by: ars68 on September 18, 2006, 08:25:52 PM really? wow... actually, it would seem a pain to lose some bil - tril - quad worth of ships simply due to not having enough marines, lol. although right now, this would put a very quick end to someone using a boarding strategy early on, and hits the wrong person...
anyway, ya, this was before I joined, I had no idea, lol. |