Author
|
Topic: Tactics and strategy of SC ships (Read 40465 times)
|
Valaggar
Guest
|
Just tractoring, no, of course, since it's just artificial gravity. What deals damage is the sudden stop of the ship - the kinetic energy accumulated turns into heat.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Valaggar
Guest
|
Why not?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Death 999
Global Moderator
Enlightened
 Offline
Gender: 
Posts: 3876
We did. You did. Yes we can. No.
|
A stopping force is not intrinsically different from a starting force, that's why.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Valaggar
Guest
|
Ah, oops. Better yet. You don't need two groups anymore.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Death 999
Global Moderator
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 3876
We did. You did. Yes we can. No.
|
So, let me get this straight:
When you do something one way, it lacks property A.
You assumed that when you did something another way, it has property A.
Then it was pointed out there is no difference between doing it the two ways.
You happily conclude that in either case, it has property A.
eh?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Valaggar
Guest
|
No, I say that in-game physics are simplified, and that in reality property A is in either case.
(reality=realistic Star Control)
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: May 17, 2007, 08:12:52 pm by Valaggar »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Holocat
Frungy champion
Offline
Posts: 84
|
the sc1 animation thread reminded me of an intresting point concerning strategy; In sc2, you can pretty much go where you want and do what you want, to a point. In sc1, there was a definite web of corridors to hyperspace.
There was a sort of strategy associated with this web of hyperspace corridors, and the nature of having rigidly defined corridors limited options in a strategic sense; Sometimes there was multiple routes to a star, and sometimes only 1. It allowed battle lines to form, with rear areas, embattled systems, choke points and such. You could fortify the system (laser forts) that would prevent passage through the system until they were destroyed, and different ships destroyed fortifications at different rates.
If I were playing a bonafide war game, I would probably prefer sc1's strategic map to sc2, though a combination of them would work well:
- A strategic map like SC1 with rigidly defined corridors, each leading to a SC2 system map, where you could orbit planets and add colonies and mines and starbases, and add system fortifications.
-The system map would act like a single, super-large supermelee map as well, where you fly where you like and engage who you like, real time. Heck, have the planets orbit the sun as well for more intresting contested-system play. Exit the map and you get booted to the sc1 starmap display, if there is no laser fort opposing you.
In a related tangent, I wonder how laser forts operate tactically. By rule, they don't actually harm ships, but do prevent their passage until they are destroyed. Any ship can make them with enough time, and any ship can destroy them with enough time.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Shiver
Guest
|
No, I say that in-game physics are simplified, and that in reality property A is in either case.
(reality=realistic Star Control) But in the game, A is true in neither case. Tractoring a ship does not heat it. Period. Full Stop. Please Stop.
Someone has not heeded the words of Dogar and Kazon.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Valaggar
Guest
|
No, I say that in-game physics are simplified, and that in reality property A is in either case.
(reality=realistic Star Control) But in the game, A is true in neither case. Tractoring a ship does not heat it. Period. Full Stop. Please Stop. has not heeded the words of Dogar and Kazon.
In a related tangent, I wonder how laser forts operate tactically. By rule, they don't actually harm ships, but do prevent their passage until they are destroyed. Any ship can make them with enough time, and any ship can destroy them with enough time. The animation shows that the laser forts are some small thingies on the surface of asteroids (or even moons, since Hayes says that the Ur-Quan destroyed some laser forts on the Moon), and that they are attacked from the opposite side of the asteroids (which are completely destroyed).
So it's just a bunch of traps that take time to disarm - you would be vapourized if you passed through the asteroids, since you wouldn't be able to avoid the smartly-placed laser forts, so you have to carefully destroy them.
And why don't they fill the asteroids with forts, you ask? To cover the same space (which would be necessary to avoid having the enemy go around the fortifications), you will have to waste a lot of valuable equipment and time, which you'd better spend on ships. Fortifications are like sandbags, improvised defensive lines to keep the enemy at bay while you prepare for a counterattack.
the sc1 animation thread reminded me of an intresting point concerning strategy; In sc2, you can pretty much go where you want and do what you want, to a point. In sc1, there was a definite web of corridors to hyperspace. SC1 did not have a (definite) notion of HyperSpace, and that's why it used the corridors; it would be hard to fit them into the Star Control lore. Besides, SC2 HyperSpace does have chokepoints - the portals leading to TrueSpace systems can be guarded. Also, it's more interesting to be able to deal and receive unexpected blows anywhere, not just at the two stars connecting your region to the neutral region. In addition, especially in linear constellations, to travel to your target via the shortest path (a straight line) gains time, but can lead to unwanted fights (since they are likely to defend the straight line), and taking a roundabout path is more secure, but takes more time - a new strategical option.
PS: Having a melee mode in which you control only one ship in a dozen is not so fun as it seems - try it in TimeWarp if you don't believe me. You either have standard Melee or a tactical 3D battle.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: May 26, 2007, 06:04:23 pm by Valaggar »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Holocat
Frungy champion
Offline
Posts: 84
|
From a gameplay perspective I don't like the idea of a completely free hyperspace playzone, a la SC2/UQM. You can protect a single system, but not nessisarily the systems around or 'behind' it.
Speaking from the perspective of a gamer that has played many other online tactical games, if there is no 'terrain' that forces people to move through certain areas, then it always comes down to numbers, rather than tactics; Defending an open field, particularly where you can always go around obstacles, is highly difficult, and usually nigh impossible in multiplayer. I would like to avoid that, and all the problems it has caused.
This is why the defined corridor concept of hyperspace appeals to me; It forces a strategic perspective that appeals to me.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Valaggar
Guest
|
Yes... true, but HyperSpace does not have to be an "open" terrain: there may be HyperSpace currents in some places, for example; other parts may experience storms; some areas may be filled with *Nnngn* and, thus, sensors and HyperWaves may penetrate them harder.
Also, don't forget that TrueSpace is a battlefield too; some systems are more worthy, others less; there are also the planets (and their size, gravity and number of satellites make a big difference), the star (in whose vicinity objects are protected from detection), the asteroid belt(s), the Oort Cloud.
And some systems are in nebulae (such as Gamma Serpentis, the Yehat home star), while others are not.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
