Author
|
Topic: Tactics and strategy of SC ships (Read 40485 times)
|
Valaggar
Guest
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
Valaggar
Guest
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Valaggar
Guest
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
Valaggar
Guest
|
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
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
multivac
Zebranky food
 Offline
Posts: 1
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
Zeracles
Frungy champion
Offline
Gender: 
Posts: 69
Icon of X
|
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.
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.
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 
|
|
|
|
« 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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
