Turn based tactical combat

This generally means that combat takes place in another 'screen' and each side takes turns. So if you went first, you'd move and fire the weapons on your ships, then you'd click End Turn. Then the AI would go and do the same actions. This would repeat until combat ended for a various number of reasons (ie: retreating, victory/defeat, etc).

If you can somehow pick up a copy of MoO1 or MoO2, this is some of the best combat you can get!

I have never played AoW3.

 

I always wondered if one could use the "crayon race" concept (I don't know how you call this in english, but bear with me, I'll try to explain...) for a slightly more realistic tactical space combat system.

You all know how tactical space combat movements worked in MoO2, so I'll skip explaining that. Now take the same basic grid, and the same "movement points" approach, but now introduce the following rule: in every turn, the first ship has to repeat the last move it made in the last turn - and the movement points attach from the endpoint of that repeated movement.

The good thing is, this allows you to introduce "inertia" on the fly. So if you want to accelerate out of the playing field, you can do that, ever faster, to the point where other ships cannot catch up with you (at which point you would probably exit the battle field). Alternatively, if you race past an enemy ship to attack it from close range, you have to turn around and come about to attack again. There are no static "standing battles" where ships fire at each other from close range, sailing-ship-era-style. Also, one could combine this with collisions, so it could become an option to send a small ship (or a "kinetic drone") to the fringes of the battle field, have it accelerate towards a large enemy battle cruiser at ever faster speed, collide it and thus take the cruiser down with it (you could even have debris clouds expanding from the site of collision at constant pace outward...).

Finally, you could have the basic grid warp around big planets (and moons?) on the battle field. This would actually allow you to "enter orbit" - just slow down so you can move along the grid lines around the planet - since the ship repeats the last move (e.g., move along 3 grid line units, with the units warping around the planet in its vicinity), if you do not change anything (i.e., you do not spend movement points at the end of the turn), you will keep circling the planet - essentially forever, or until the battle ends, whatever comes first. This "orbit" could then be used for orbital bombardment, or to repair engines, using the bulk of the planet to protect you from other ships, etc.

 

I have seen many varieties of combat systems in 4x games including RTS that was done very well... however, I think we need to stay on track here.
We have all been waiting for the spiritual successor to Moo2 for a long time now and I do not believe that introducing a radically different combat system would actually aid that goal.

If this is truly to be the game that reflects a logical evolution of Moo2, it would be best to either keep the combat system in place or strive to ensure that any changes are minimal.

In my opinion only a similar system should be considered with the possible exception of introducing WEGO turn based combat. This would eliminate the advantage of gained by the side that goes first.

 

I do actually agree - I think the MoO2 combat system was good as it was. But since we are thinking of ways how it might be improved one or the other way, or "evolved", I thought I'd bring up that idea that has been on my mind for a while (and I think it wouldn't actually be that much of a difference to the existing system). But I would be perfectly fine with a new combat system that looks like the old one, just graphically updated.

 

We-Go sounds good at first but poses so many questions and problems. How are conflict resolveds? If both players want to put a ship on same tile and game rules say only one ship per tile. Do you drop that rule somehow? If you order to attack a ship at the edge of your weapon's range and the other player orders it to move away. Does the attack connect? Can both sides die simultaniously? That probably the easiest question

Do you have an example of working We-Go? I thought about it for my project and dropped it in favor for modified I-Go-You-Go where you can do less actions per turn and ships don't truly die before the end of a combat turn.

 

Let me give this a try.

I would base this on an altered concept of Ageods Civil war which employs an excellent wego turn based system. For our game, the regions in ACW would correlate with the tiles.

Orders would be given to ships and other assets in the same manner as Moo2, the player would have the choice to decide if to move a ship first and then fire its weapons or vice a versa, targets would be selected. Upon pressing end turn the orders for both sides would be executed at the same time.

Should two ships wind up in the same tile we would mimic reality, you just had a collision. In reality however two ships would not be in the same tile but you would need code for the following.

Two ships, adjacent to each other, either or both of which have remaining movement, where said movement would result in the ships occupying the same tile, are immediately stopped, lose all remaining movement points and suffer collision damage.

Collision damage is affected by size, where the heavier ship has advantage, armor class, where the higher tech armor has advantage and speed where any remaining movement points increase damage by an equal percentage for both ships, these factors stack. Shields would not be factored in collisions, (just my touch here). Personally though, I think collisions will be low, especially with experienced Moo2 players.

Fighters would not suffer collision and could occupy the same tile as in Moo2

Range works the same as in Moo2. If your target moves out of range before you fire your beam weapons, the weapons would not fire, they would however be available as automated point defense.

Missiles and torpedoes are not affected by range.

And yes, both sides can die at the same time, just as in real life. Ships can be hit while moving too.

Tell the truth, it would not be a problematic system and if you kept close to the combat maps and number of ships you had in Moo2 it would play nicely. I realize it would be a change and some new tactics would be needed from the players but it could be seen as a true evolution of Moo2 turn base combat that better reflects reality. After all, in battle, no one waits for you to finish your turn.

 

Just to clarify this would not be a 3D space combat, but rather 2D?

 

Personally, I prefer pauseable 3D real time space combat. Realistically, you'd have hours, perhaps days to prepare for combat, that would be probably over in the few seconds that you passed each other. For excellent example sci-fi on combat PM me.

Turn based always struck me as very unfair. Initial strike was usually devastating enough to tip the scales.
Perhaps a way to redeem it would be similar to heroes V initiative system? Smaller unit, greater initiative, more movement per turn, which in turn means you move unit by unit in decreasing order of initiative with smaller units being able to move second time per turn after all other units have moved once, 3rd after all second movement has finished and so on. I think that would open up a whole new field of tactics.

To return to SOTS, I'd prefer even a semblance of 3D vs 2D. I mean, why call it space when you can't actually get on top of your opponent?
That being said, 3D requires much more resources to implement. Arcs have to be coded to calculate 3D coverage, fleet disposition also has to be 3D, collision avoidance becomes an order of magnitude more complex... and that's only for friendly units.
That would explain early space sims being flattened to 2D, but I think tech is advanced enough to crunch 3D today.

 

Hi Obi Mark, yes it would be 2D.

I know there are many types of combat that could be introduced to 4X space game but not if you wish to be TSSTMoo2 ( The spiritual successor to Moo2).

In attempting to create TSSTMoo2, Adam Solo does not have the same flexibility as other developers when it comes to the combat system.

I have seen excellent RTS combat, which can be paused at any time and where each ship can be given orders on an individual or group basis. The combat itself would played out like the combat in Star Trek Wrath of Khan and you did not have either side gaining an advantage from going first nor did you wind up with a click-fest.

This is a moot point however. Anything other than an IGO YOUGO or WEGO turn based combat system would not be in the spirit of MOO2. Furthermore, any introduction of inertia, Newtonian physics or 3d combat could also cause more negatives with the fan base as well as requiring that a new combat system be learned to properly play the game. A radically different combat system would also have a huge impact in the way that ship design actually manifests itself in combat.

I am all for innovation in this game but that innovation must stay true to the concept or risk becoming the death of a thousand cuts. In other words, If you develop a mechanically sound game that is full of little things that don't feel right, (Single planet systems, clunky combat, logistics becoming a chore, etc), you will wind up with yet another failed attempt to capture the feel and flavor of MOO2.

Were this game not attempting to follow in the footsteps of MOO2 my input here and on other threads would not be the same but if we are going to follow this path then I suggest we stay very close to the same. This is not to say that we should not innovate but rather that any innovation we introduce can be seen as a logical extension and evolution of MOO2

 

I don't feel the need to have everything more or less same as MOO2. Remakes are made years, sometimes decades after original and should reflect changes in technology and general outlook on life. Spiritual succesors even more so. So yes, I would take a chance with real time tactics or barring that some major changes to turn based combat mechanics.
I know hardcore fans would say it's no longer MOO2, but I don't think it would be fun to play same game where in late game you just launch 20 doom stars and in the first turn they demolish 80% of enemy fleet. It's sort of fun first few times, but after that... it becomes tedious and almost every game becomes similar weather you play Darlok, humans, Alkari or any other race.
Plus, races in original weren't differentiated enough, no special techs, special buildings, specials ships or anything else (except available techs depending on creative trait) to feel different when you play either as human, Psilons, Klackons or any other.
I would like each race to have distinct style, Alkari would be fighter heavy, Bulrathi would have lots of assault pod carriers, Darloks would use misleading and ambushes whenever they can (perhaps they could bring portions of fleets from warp in waves or something similar, have more efficient stealth fields...), Meklars could have bonuses on mechanical engieering, Psilons bonuses to sensors and shields....

 

How about no. Literately every commercial MoO 2 spiritual successor did that. They'd leave colony mechanics more or less the same and change space combat in every way imaginable. Admittedly their "innovations" turned out bland more due to not having equivalent of special equipment then going real time.

If you get to build 20 doom stars then it's your fault that the game is lasting too long. You should have either attacked Antares long time ago, won by election, wiped out at least half of the opponents at the phasor age with cruisers, battleships and maybe a few titans.

2 titans with shield piercing phasors can destroy 100% of maximal enemy fleet in the first turn. 4 titans if they sport energy absorbers then and with distruptors if they have have hard shields.

Darlok ar bit bland but can make nice situations when saboteur destroys star base on exact planet you are about to attack. Have you tried asking for star systems with humans? They can expand that way very easily. Alkari great example how MoO 2 races are designed compared to MoO 1. All races (except Darloks) have mix of race stereotype traits and economy traits. Alkari for instance have their old evasion bonus plus early game research bonus. If you wait until 20 dooms stars it won't make much difference but if you play the game from turn 1 then it will allow you to quickly research ECM and inertia stabilizer, capitalize on ship defense bonus and make nearly impossible to hit ships.

I dare you to play Elerians the way they are ment to be played: build cruiser ASAP and take other player's homeworld. For start go with medium map size and 4 players. I can drop you a few more hints if you want me to spoil the fun.

 

I do believe you argued my point quite nicely. If you know you can win with just two, 4, or hell, even 20 titans, that you can topple interstellar empire with such a small number of ships... game loses appeal. It becomes tedious. You KNOW you're gonna kick enemy fleet the way to Antares and back. Antares themselves are not such a grand menace that they can't be beaten quite easily as soon as you have titans.
It's a common theme of 4X, the END game problem, though in MOO2 it comes even faster than in modern 4Xs. Not to mention the fact that cruisers and even battleships usually lost their utility maybe after half of game time.
Now be honest with me, how many times did you actually give your beam weapons full 360 degree firing ability?
I bet it can be counted on the fingers of a single hand. Because there was actually no need for that. Now if you have real time combat, you can actually make decent tactical choices.
For example, send squadron of cruisers on one flank, keep battleships/titans/whatever honest on the front with evasive actions and let's see how that forward firing arcs fare against someone who can keep dancing around your forward arc.
Sadly MOO2 lacks that tactical depth.
Especially sabotage you mentioned with Darloks.
I would like more tactical depth from spiritual successor to MOO2. If it comes with real time tactics than turn based gameplay, so be it.
And yes, each race has their traits, but ALL THEIR BUILDINGS LOOK THE SAME. Now what are the odds of that? That's just for start.
As for your Elerian point, it really shows that you can play any race in the same style regardless of their racial traits. Refer to buildings in the line above.

 

AI is so bad at designing ships that I can't even tell if it is because the AI is not playing the same game the player does or if there is genuine game design issue. MoO 2 has two combat modes, tactical on and off. I have played a few games with tactical turned off and it's super weird. I've asked on MoO:CtS forum about got some info from MoO2 v1.5 patch author: http://www.spheriumnorth.com/orion-forum/nfphpbb/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=33498

Long story short, you can't design ships in non-tactical, ships have fixed number of best (highest tech level) beams, missiles, bombs and other equipment, there is no miniaturization, all weapons hit immediately (including missiles) and ship quantity trumps quality. In tactical games AI seems to follow some rules from non-tactical, jack of all trades ship designs, always equipping the highest tech level weapons, not caring much about miniaturization and completely ignoring initiative mechanic. Because of this player can easily make designs which always play a turn first. Additionally AI doesn't bother with hyper advanced technology levels (in it's eyes there is no miniaturization mechanic) so once it researches all regular technologies it moves all scientists to production and starts building gigantic fleets, probably supplied with trade goods and/or industry taxation. If an AI had more awareness about the game it's in, it could easily counter 2, 4, 20 titans by either trying to get higher initiative or with better beam defenses.

No, it's a problem of players not playing the game until end game. It's like playing Civilization by ignoring military and diplomacy until you get tanks and nukes. If you are going for Star Trek fantasy MoO 2 will ask you to play 21st, 22nd and 23rd century before getting at 24th century content. You won't suddenly start with while alpha quadrant in federation YOU will have to make it happen and that means actually playing early and midgame. Endgame content is there to deliberately unbalance the game in order to brake a stalemate and bring the game to conclusion. If you want to spend more time in endgame, I hear Stellaris is good there.

No they don't unless you are short on command points. Smaller ships have higher cannons per industry point ratio making them better choice if you have command points to spare. I find battleship big enough for the late midgame, it packs enough fire power, can be built before it becomes obsolete and greater quantity gives more flexibility at distributing ships on the galaxy map. I rarely build doom stars because they take too long.

Never or maybe once. Default 90° + inertia stabilizer good enough for most situations and 270° effectively covers all angles. I used backward facing a few times for shooting at star base while running away from missiles . I believe weapon facings were not designed well. Choosing between them would more meaningful if ordinary forward facing was more restricted, say 45° or 30° and extended forward was not wider then 180°. I suspect they took a shortcut and applied shield facing math to weapons instead of making separate logic.

MoO:CtS show us what herding cats in real time looks like. Good luck at executing flanking maneuver there. MoO 2 actually has more tactical options in flanking department. You can turn your ship away from opponent in order to hide failed shield facing from ion cannons and other situationally nasty stuff. You can indeed dance with faster ship around the slow one much like you would when fighting alien derelict in SotS 1. Have you ever been on the receiving end of black hole generator? That's one of the weapons AI knows how to use, immobilize your ship, move to blind spots and make you curse for not having least one 360° mount.

I don't understand you, how buildings look like has zero influence on play style, that's not what play style means. Race specific buildings are aesthetic issue which can easily be rectified by simply throwing more money at artist (in contrast to changing actual game rules which requires both money and redesign risky). Play style on the other hand in determined by which actions you take. Human traits make diplomatic and research actions more efficient while Elerian traits make planet capture more efficient but you can play Elerians like you would Humans if you so desire. It would be harder but you can.

 

Human player still have much more flexibility and brainpower than best 4x AI. By the time you reach endgame, your empire is, unless you play with personally chosen handicap, far more powerful than any other empire, probably all others combined. I disagree that endgame is problem of not playing until endgame. It's more of the opposite. You continually expand and reach endgame phase before other AIs. You reach final techs and then... you basically send 4 ships to each enemy remaining system and it becomes boring.

Didn't play MoO: CtS, can't comment on that. Homeworld series had excellent real time tactics (plus it was 3D). Sots had pretty decent combat as well.

All tactics become obsolete in the face of 10 titans or 15 battleships.

It sure as hell doesn't help with the immersion. What I probably didn't clarify enough was that each race should have distinct building style COUPLED with race specific buildings. Same for ships. I wouldn't mind if Alkari had restriction that their ships have to have at least 40% (or some balancing number) of their ships devoted to small craft operations. It would fit with their philosophy and play style.
Race should affect play style by enforcing some rules on ship design and colony development. Darlok ships MUST have stealth system mounted, Psilons sensors use half as many space, but are twice more efficient, Silicoids would armor even their bulkheads so Achilles wouldn't have effect on them (or something less drastic)... and so on. It could be even something unpredictable, for example if race is race of individual warriors that compete for honor, captain could go berserk and attack nearest ship with twice the standard rate of fire at the cost of overkilling it. That would force player to certain playstyle. MOO2 did not have any similar restrictions.

That sums up the point. Elerians are meant to be played certain way, but game never actually forces you to do so. Any race can be played like any other race. That translates to combat that is never really different whether you play as Humans, Psilons, Elerians, Klackons or any other race. I think this game should do better.

Especially considering all the passionate fans.

 

Sorry I disagree. Play style should come from the strategic and tactical choices that players make throughout the game, rather than having something "forced" on them from turn 1. Also, I imagine that having qualitatively different rules for different races will use a lot of developer time and be much harder to balance - I would much rather have one good system of mechanics that works for everyone.

Obviously there should be racial bonuses and AI style preferences, but having different hard-coded rulesets for each race is both complicated and gimmicky.

A final point - there's a limit to how much you can directly pander to "passionate" MOO2 nostalgia, because I imagine the Orion races will all be copyrighted and unusable, so there won't be any Darloks etc anyway.

Back to the general points about combat - I was surprised to see anyone suggesting changes to the MOO2 2D turn-based model since that was a cornerstone of why that game was loved. It was crisp, clean, and simple to understand, but did allow for some quirky tactics to be used if you wanted to experiment.

That said, some battles did descend into fairly basic affairs where you simply parked next to each other and traded lasers. From memory, whilst an incapacitated or tractor-held ship was easier to hit as it lost its evade chance, a ship that had decided to stop moving did still retain its evasion. Maybe there is some argument to include a simple momentum or speed tracking system, to avoid that situation (I would suggest that, if you are going slow, you are easier to hit - but on the flipside, it is also easier to aim your own lasers from a stationary position).

There was an old turn-based aerial combat game called "Over the Reich" which had a nice and simple movement system - you selected the throttle and steering settings each turn and were shown the arc of movement that created on the map:

Spoiler

At a basic level, the throttle / steering system was fun to use, and it might translate to MOO2 quite well to create more dogfight-style battles.

 

Then what's even the point of having different races? They could be as easily named as human faction 01, human faction 02, human faction 03... And so on. perfect place to save resources for development right there! No need for races, hell, they can all even have same ships. Hey, just found another place to save resources!
What I'm trying to say is that if race doesn't affect what you can research and build then don't go with races at all. Yes, there might be lots of design, changes and fine tuning, but end result would be much more satisfying. Take a look at starcraft, warcraft, even sots 2. What you choose affects how you play. First two were enormous hits precisely beacaus of that. I won't go into reasons last failed. Not relevant here.
As for combat, it was great for that time. Since then technology did progress and now there are both hardware and software opportunites for better. Sure, we don't have to do better, but is that a reason not to try?

 

On impossible difficulty it's AIs who continually expands and player has to go through them in order to gain ground. They don't lag in technology department it's just they focus too much on chemistry and not enough on computers.

That it true for real time too where pathfinding can produce spectacularly stupid behaviours. Plus it is prone to devolving into Starcraft like clickfest.

Racial traits don't force hard rules but do a lot to encourage player to take one path over another especially when see how it interplays with other game mechanics. Silicoids don't eat food so they don't have to build (nor can research) food production improvements and don't have to overexert themselves with terraforming. Klackons don't worry about morale so loss of homeworld doesn't cripple them. Bulrthi can utilize large rich planets from the start. Mrrshans don't need accuracy improving technologies that much so they can concentrate on force fields early on instead of physics and make ships with high damage resistance.

The game doesn't force you but it does tell you. You get omniscience so you know where everybody are from the start, you telepathy which can mind control a planet without ground combat and you get feudalism which along with research penalty gives you 33% ship construction discount. I quite clearly tells you "build a cruiser and pick an easy victim, research can wait". Oh and turn 20 combat is very different from turn 300+.

This I agree with, there is room for improvement. This doesn't mean to completely overhaul everything like MoO 3 and CtS (going real time and dropping special weapons and equipment) but building upon old thing. As Sid Mayer used to say, one third same old, one third improved old and one third new. I miss repulsor beam (pushes approaching ships away) from MoO 1.

 

This isn't going to be an asymmetric real-time strategy game so I really don't think the design decisions in those games translate to this. Whilst obviously the races will have different traits, if you use that to dictate exactly what weapons and strategies they will use, then you're basically ditching the whole customized ship strategy element (which was a big part of the old MOO2 appeal) in favour of RTS-style predetermined unit designs.

Frankly, you'll need to look elsewhere if you want 3D RTS and the gameplay that goes with it. It's a completely different genre.