The Ur-Quan Masters Home Page Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
July 09, 2025, 06:11:58 am
Home Help Search Login Register
News: Celebrating 30 years of Star Control 2 - The Ur-Quan Masters

+  The Ur-Quan Masters Discussion Forum
|-+  The Ur-Quan Masters Re-Release
| |-+  General UQM Discussion (Moderator: Death 999)
| | |-+  Tactics and strategy of SC ships
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 Print
Author Topic: Tactics and strategy of SC ships  (Read 40301 times)
Valaggar
Guest


Email
Re: Tactics and strategy of SC ships
« Reply #120 on: May 30, 2007, 07:14:38 pm »

There was a discussion long ago (possibly with Guesst invovled) about a tactical SC1 remake. The idea was, that you'd use the SC2 Hyperspace map, but add the tactical part by restricting movement. I think the reasoning behind it was that the Precursor ship was the only one powerful enough to just go wherever it wanted, other ships doing the same risked destruction if they left charted regions (which is why any ship that follows you outside of it's own sphere of influence just disappears).

So there'd be a grid between stars in Hyperspace (within sphere's there'd be multiple passages, but in other parts of HS there'd be only a few strategic corridors, say between Shofixti and Human space.) This would let you play on the same map, but add some tactics.
Something like a schwaitzer? I like it, especially the reasoning with the Flagship.
« Last Edit: May 31, 2007, 08:24:54 pm by Valaggar » Logged
Lukipela
Enlightened
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 3620


The Ancient One


View Profile
Re: Tactics and strategy of SC ships
« Reply #121 on: June 01, 2007, 10:28:40 pm »

Er, Albert Schwaizer? I don't know what you mean.

The reasoning isn't flawless though, because in order for there to be safe charted passages, the same must be true inside SOI, meaning ship's aren't completely free to chase you around as they do. But maybe they just brave the elements. For added fun, certain paths could be closed every now and then because of "Hyperspace storms", and you could have a charting vessel to make new routes.
Logged

What's up doc?
Valaggar
Guest


Email
Re: Tactics and strategy of SC ships
« Reply #122 on: June 03, 2007, 08:42:22 pm »

Er, Albert Schwaizer? I don't know what you mean.
It's that cheese with holes in it. I guess it isn't the same in English as in Romanian.
Logged
Novus
Enlightened
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1938


Fot or not?


View Profile
Re: Tactics and strategy of SC ships
« Reply #123 on: June 03, 2007, 09:42:28 pm »

Er, Albert Schwaizer? I don't know what you mean.
It's that cheese with holes in it. I guess it isn't the same in English as in Romanian.
Swiss cheese, right?
Logged

RTFM = Read the fine manual.
RTTFAQ = Read the Ur-Quan Masters Technical FAQ.
guesst
Enlightened
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 692


Ancient Shofixti Warrior


View Profile WWW
Re: Tactics and strategy of SC ships
« Reply #124 on: June 04, 2007, 03:19:29 am »

There was a discussion long ago (possibly with Guesst invovled) about a tactical SC1 remake. The idea was, that you'd use the SC2 Hyperspace map, but add the tactical part by restricting movement. I think the reasoning behind it was that the Precursor ship was the only one powerful enough to just go wherever it wanted, other ships doing the same risked destruction if they left charted regions (which is why any ship that follows you outside of it's own sphere of influence just disappears).

So there'd be a grid between stars in Hyperspace (within sphere's there'd be multiple passages, but in other parts of HS there'd be only a few strategic corridors, say between Shofixti and Human space.) This would let you play on the same map, but add some tactics.

There have been several such discussions (it's a favorate fantasy of mine, 2nd only to getting my wife to wear a gold bikini and blue makeup) about revatilizing the SC1 strategy game, tho none to my memory with this specifics. I don't dislike this idea at all. I'd go into it more, but I have to go now.
Logged

A new game and it's code each week. Please visit Cymon's Games
Gaeamil
Frungy champion
**
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 58


Dragon of the Zeep-Zeep clan


View Profile WWW
Re: Tactics and strategy of SC ships
« Reply #125 on: June 10, 2007, 11:06:54 am »

I know this is a rather late idea, but here goes:

If one can get an Avatar to the far side of enemy lines, just take 2 Avvys and have them tractor the same ship in opposite directions.  It'd either totally immobilize the ship, or rip it in two.  Devastating to the enemy either way.  And, of course, once you have it frozen, the Unmanned Glory Device Railgun to blow it out of the sky.  Picking them off one by one, my favourite tactic.
Logged

Quote from: Valaggar
I tend to swallow some worlds at times.
Valaggar
Guest


Email
Re: Tactics and strategy of SC ships
« Reply #126 on: June 10, 2007, 11:20:43 am »

I know this is a rather late idea, but here goes:

If one can get an Avatar to the far side of enemy lines, just take 2 Avvys and have them tractor the same ship in opposite directions.  It'd either totally immobilize the ship, or rip it in two.
Two forces of equal magnitude acting in opposite directions on the same point cancel each other out. (the tractor beam is an artificial gravity field generator, so it acts on all points of the body). So it doesn't work.
Logged
Elvish Pillager
Enlightened
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 625



View Profile
Re: Tactics and strategy of SC ships
« Reply #127 on: June 10, 2007, 12:12:13 pm »

Normally, because of SC2's weird physics, Valaggar would be wrong. However, the tractor beam is an exception. Two from opposite sides _would_ cancel.
Logged

My team of four Androsynth and three Chmmr is the most unfair team ever!
My mod
Valaggar
Guest


Email
Re: Tactics and strategy of SC ships
« Reply #128 on: June 10, 2007, 01:14:27 pm »

SC2's weird physics shouldn't be used in a "realistic" 3D battle (except the gravity whip which is referenced in dialogue). It's either everything or nothing.
The momentum conservation of projectiles should also be kept as it is in SC2, since it helps for extra tactical depth.
Collisions (and the planet and screen wrapping) should definitely be realistic, though.
« Last Edit: June 10, 2007, 01:29:28 pm by Valaggar » Logged
Valaggar Redux
Guest


Email
Re: Tactics and strategy of SC ships
« Reply #129 on: January 17, 2008, 03:00:28 pm »

By the way, Gaeamil's idea would actually work, if the two groups of Avatars, instead of targetting the whole ship, targetted just diametrically opposite chunks of the ship.

And the two groups of Avatars don't even have to be on opposite sides of the enemy. They can just tractor the enemy at once, so that it passes through the space between the two Avatar groups, and then the Avatars target chunks of the enemy ships, therefore breaking them into pieces.

Nah, the Avatar's tractor beam is badly overpowered.
Logged
Elvish Pillager
Enlightened
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 625



View Profile
Re: Tactics and strategy of SC ships
« Reply #130 on: January 17, 2008, 04:16:36 pm »

Actually, the more interesting thing you could do with two tractor beams is spin the enemy ship around and around. Wheee! Grin
Logged

My team of four Androsynth and three Chmmr is the most unfair team ever!
My mod
multivac
Zebranky food
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1



View Profile
Re: Tactics and strategy of SC ships
« Reply #131 on: January 18, 2008, 05:21:32 pm »

If the focus was on realism, rather than on creating a more traditional RTS-style experience, as the comments on physics suggest... then a lot of this wouldn't work. O_o Because space battles would quite probably be very different from sea battles or air battles...

Firstly, space is mostly empty, and there's a lot of it. In a space battle, you'd have plenty of room to spread out your line of ships and maneuver them however you want with zero risk of hitting any other ship.

Secondly, for the same reason, short-range weapons in a space battle would make very little sense... There's just so much room for the other ship to retreat to wherever it pleases. O_o

Next, maneuverability would probably make much, much more difference than it does now... The Star Control melee arena wraps around, but in space, once your ship starts going in a given direction, it will just keep going that way, and you'd have to turn it 180 degrees before you end up flying far from the field of battle. During actual battle, a more maneuverable ship would find it very easy not only to evade enemy fire, but also to retreat, since they'd be well on their way by the time their less maneuverable foe could even get their engines to face the right direction.

Plus, to be realistic, you'd have to eliminate 'maximum' speeds for all ships, and replace them with maximum acceleration, which would mean, amongst other things, that even just to stop you'd have to fire your engines in the direction of your motion for the same length of time you fired them to get going. With maximum speed removed, just changing your ship's direction would become quite difficult.

Overall, space battles would probably need to be quite different from the dog-fighting sort of combat found in SC2... It might be a bit more similar to naval battles, but the 'space is an ocean' analogy has its own problems. Because there is no air or aerodynamics or restrictions on maximum speed, executing maneuvers during battle would be very difficult; because there is so much empty space, you'd likely only see enemy ships as little pin-pricks of light, just barely within reach of your most long-range weapons (and you--within theirs), and, due to the complexity of the whole thing, the most minor maneuver and operation would probably take the longest time to plan and execute.

The best SC2 ships here would likely be Maulers, which not only have an extremely powerful long-range weapon, but could also use it as their main engine, and be essentially impossible to intercept or catch if they retreat... although there is the question of how exactly the Avatar tractor beam would work, and over what range...
Logged
Elvish Pillager
Enlightened
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 625



View Profile
Re: Tactics and strategy of SC ships
« Reply #132 on: January 18, 2008, 06:37:51 pm »

...and you'd have to turn it 180 degrees before you end up flying far from the field of battle.
Well, not really. Ships wouldn't use the silly design of affixing engines to one side of the ship. You'd have multiple engines facing in different directions and/or ones that rotate freely from the main ship.

...and if you're going for realism, Druuge won't work (like all the other ships, I guess...) - they get the large recoil by firing a high-mass projectile, which you can't keep up because in space there's nowhere to replenish the lost matter from.

I'm rooting for the Orz with their 9-to-1 advantage. Marines with no max speed, and probably even harder to shoot down than in melee...
Logged

My team of four Androsynth and three Chmmr is the most unfair team ever!
My mod
Zeracles
Frungy champion
**
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 69


Icon of X


View Profile WWW
Re: Tactics and strategy of SC ships
« Reply #133 on: January 18, 2008, 10:12:14 pm »

I'm mostly quoting from a conversation with Valaggar on the ultronomicon.

Zeracles: I saw the talk in the dreadnought=banana boat thread on UQMF and actually I think one of the main reasons for the weakness of the dreadnought is that the limited number of directions is a disadvantage for any ship with long range weapons which do not track the enemy. This effect we could test by seeing what happens when we add more directions. There are many other interesting speculations like this too.

For instance, it was also mentioned that the dreadnought was not designed for retreat, it is for frontal assault. Now, I think that because one is never really concerned with holding a position in melee, ships against which this would be difficult are disadvantaged. Like the dreadnought, which is no banana boat, at least as I argue here, because melee doesn't do it justice.

I also think the dreadnought is better in numbers, and that there are some ships which would be terrible in numbers like the eluder.

Oh and it was also mentioned in the dreadnought=banana boat thread that the marauder was better - just as an aside, I suspect this could change completely with numbers. Both of the marauder's weapons are more likely to cause friendly damage than the dreadnought's.

Valaggar: But what do you mean with the Marauder causing friendly damage? The Marauder doesn't collide with its own shurikens or F.R.I.E.D. jets.

Zeracles: About the marauder, I was just assuming that while an individual marauder can't hurt itself, it would still be able to hurt its friends. I suppose because if melee was to be extended to third person, it would be natural to be consistent and allow friendly fire for all the ships (but obviously kzer-za fighters will have enough sense not to attack friends). Still, it could be argued that it would be equally consistent to retain all the settings of the first person melee, then again we know it wasn't designed with third person in mind.

Well, how's this for a tactic dreadnoughts could employ in numbers (which marauders couldn't!) - the fighters don't necessarily return to the ship from which they came. They return some friendly ship which is low on crew, to make it last a bit longer (or even be sent out only for the purpose of jumping into a friendly ship rather than attacking the enemy - with enough support, the front line dreadnoughts could be virtually indestructible!). These are the sorts of interesting tactics not reproduced in third person games I have seen. But then again the only third person games I've played are Dune II and StarCraft (terminators are the zealots of Star Control, are they not?).

<end quoting>

With this tactic, dreadnoughts would be formidable in numbers. No banana boats here. A Chmmr countermeasure to this might be to tractor spent troopships from behind the front dreadnought line to immediate destruction. Arilou skiffs might also be good at hitting these weakened vessels.

About terrain types, corridors, et cetera - except planetside, this is a chance to be original. How about combat in orbit around a more realistically-sized planet, complete with moons. The Syreen ambush at Organon springs to mind. Also, how about variable asteroid densities. Asteroid fields could provide shelter for ships with short range. Voids could for example be a real problem for probes.

I don't think any of the ships should be redesigned for third person. I think they would more interesting as they are. Also I don't think there's much value in making it real. Max speed sounds fine to me, space is never really empty you know.

Quote
short-range weapons in a space battle would make very little sense... There's just so much room for the other ship to retreat to wherever it pleases. O_o
So go after them, or let them retreat, abandoning their starbases and such. The short range weapons are powerful. Think zealots.

Quote
although there is the question of how exactly the Avatar tractor beam would work, and over what range...
Probably you can tractor it if you can see it, but how sight works in space will depend on the density of gas and dust in the intervening space and resolution (assuming adequate sensitivity) of your telescopes. Here's a case for building some space telescopes Smiley
« Last Edit: January 18, 2008, 10:28:11 pm by Zeracles » Logged

Fear not the Arch Viles and Spectres of the Deepest Reaches, for the X is strong in this place.
Resh Aleph
*Smell* controller
****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 319


Rottem Tomatoes


View Profile
Re: Tactics and strategy of SC ships
« Reply #134 on: January 19, 2008, 04:05:04 am »

Yay, time for some space war philosophy!

I'd imagine space battles to be a war of technology. The race with the better technology will have better maneuverability/range/accuracy/intel/counter-intel/shielding, and have absolute control over the battlefield, even with much less resources. Only if two races happen to have the same level of technology, will resources/firepower be a significant consideration. But that doesn't seem that likely to me. It seems likely that one race will have been starfaring for thousands or millions of years before the second even begins to.

I also imagine that billions of tiny AI-remote-piloted fighters would be way more powerful than hundreds of massive powerful ships (built from an equivalent amount of mass). The fighters would be extremely difficult to hit due to the maneuverability their small mass allows them. And the fact they're remote-piloted means they can withstand outstanding g-loads.

The AI will allow the fighters to use their engines/weapons in an optimal way. A master AI will quickly adapt the overall strategy to the situation. They would all be scattered around the battlefield with great distances from each other, and attack a big ship by firing at it together at once. It won't stand a chance against billions of beams! (Projectiles would only be used if they can be fired near the speed of light.)
Logged

Marines on Maulers and limpets on Earthlings  /  Bright Podship plasma and warm Kohr-Ah death rings  /
Shofixti Scouts doing gravity whips  /  These are a few of my favorite ships!
       © meep-eep
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!