245 posts over a period of about 14-15 months? I think I earned a break.
I'll beback later, hopefully with some more nerdy stuff to talk about.
Monday, September 14, 2009
Friday, September 11, 2009
Homeworld 2 mod
In the past I've discussed what I view as the greatest strength of PC gaming, the ability to Mod the games. Recently I dusted off my Homeworld 2 CD and tried out a few mods for it that hadn't grabbed me in the past. Homeworld 2 was not as successful for me as Homeworld 1, something about the feel of the combat never grabbed me, it felt too short. While the graphics aided in making it feel epic, the speed of frigate-vs-frigate combat removed the feel of the massive ship-to-ship combat.
This is fixed in the Tactical Fleet Simulator mod. Having downloaded and played version 2.6 (or is it 2.7? I'm too lazy to check) I was awestruck at the subtle tweaks in gameplay that made it feel more impressive, immersive and enjoyable. The battles feel a little lengthened, and there are genuine choices made for researching. A minute or two of research in a field will only open up the basic parts of that field (E.G. Researching bomber craft will only give you the basic bombers, you need to put more work into it in order to get the REALLY impressive bombers).
Despite the feel of the battles, and the thought required for research, something I was not impressed with was excess of information. Yes, too much information. I understand they want you to play the mod and get a feel for how it works rather then just have it handed to you, but I sit there just scratching my head at all the information they give me. I don't NEED to know exactly what armament each fighter craft has, and all the acronyms prefixing each type of fighter is just a bit too confusing for me to take in while desperately trying to shore up my fleets woeful inadequacy in an unexpected area.
The mod itself looks beautiful. Aside from only a few small examples, the newly inserted ships (the mod uses all the original-game ships as well) perfectly fit the aesthetic established for their race, and the emphasis the mod adds to missile-combat makes things look beautiful. I have to admit, despite being a beam-man in space combat, the sight of a flight of missiles closing in on a ponderous target and shattering the starboard side of the shipyard just... makes me all moist.
Linked in with the 'too much information' problem is the excess of choice. I went through three stages of appreciation of the large number of individual ship types. First I was overwhelmed, then I was thrilled, then I was... confused. The benefit to the simplistic "This is an Interceptor, it intercepts - this is an anti-fighter frigate, it blows up fighters" approach of the original Homeworld 2 system is that everything's purpose is very clear and undisputed. When I'm designing the final fleet I'll send against my enemy, I become very unsure of what I should put in it. Rather then "Ok, I'll put three Destroyers in here to give me some good firepower I can split up if needed", I'm forced into an indecisive state where I can't work out which of the three Destroyer-like ships I should get. Should I get one of each? Should I specialise? I DON'T KNOW.
It really becomes a situation of "I don't know what to get next", leaving you frozen indecision. There are three classes of anti-fighter fighters, and even knowing that one of them is just an opening "Protect your start base" fighter, I'm left wondering which of the other two I should get. I understand they were trying to simulate actual weapon system development, which goes through several generations of progress and concurrent design, but to me a slight simplification wouldn't go astray.
But, my complaint is already answered. I haven't had the chance to try it yet, but there's a game mode that promises easier ship choice. Yeah, this mod not only provides a new feel of gameplay and new ships, it provides new game modes. A couple really stand out for me. 'Risk', where you only have Frigates and up (except if you choose to allow bombers, which REALLY changes the playstyle). Skirmish, where you have a fleet of ships, no ability to create more, and you've got to outfight the AI (who are in the same boat). Strikers, like Risk but with only fighters and Corvettes.
All in all, give it a look see. Tactical Fleet Simulator.
This is fixed in the Tactical Fleet Simulator mod. Having downloaded and played version 2.6 (or is it 2.7? I'm too lazy to check) I was awestruck at the subtle tweaks in gameplay that made it feel more impressive, immersive and enjoyable. The battles feel a little lengthened, and there are genuine choices made for researching. A minute or two of research in a field will only open up the basic parts of that field (E.G. Researching bomber craft will only give you the basic bombers, you need to put more work into it in order to get the REALLY impressive bombers).
Despite the feel of the battles, and the thought required for research, something I was not impressed with was excess of information. Yes, too much information. I understand they want you to play the mod and get a feel for how it works rather then just have it handed to you, but I sit there just scratching my head at all the information they give me. I don't NEED to know exactly what armament each fighter craft has, and all the acronyms prefixing each type of fighter is just a bit too confusing for me to take in while desperately trying to shore up my fleets woeful inadequacy in an unexpected area.
The mod itself looks beautiful. Aside from only a few small examples, the newly inserted ships (the mod uses all the original-game ships as well) perfectly fit the aesthetic established for their race, and the emphasis the mod adds to missile-combat makes things look beautiful. I have to admit, despite being a beam-man in space combat, the sight of a flight of missiles closing in on a ponderous target and shattering the starboard side of the shipyard just... makes me all moist.
Linked in with the 'too much information' problem is the excess of choice. I went through three stages of appreciation of the large number of individual ship types. First I was overwhelmed, then I was thrilled, then I was... confused. The benefit to the simplistic "This is an Interceptor, it intercepts - this is an anti-fighter frigate, it blows up fighters" approach of the original Homeworld 2 system is that everything's purpose is very clear and undisputed. When I'm designing the final fleet I'll send against my enemy, I become very unsure of what I should put in it. Rather then "Ok, I'll put three Destroyers in here to give me some good firepower I can split up if needed", I'm forced into an indecisive state where I can't work out which of the three Destroyer-like ships I should get. Should I get one of each? Should I specialise? I DON'T KNOW.
It really becomes a situation of "I don't know what to get next", leaving you frozen indecision. There are three classes of anti-fighter fighters, and even knowing that one of them is just an opening "Protect your start base" fighter, I'm left wondering which of the other two I should get. I understand they were trying to simulate actual weapon system development, which goes through several generations of progress and concurrent design, but to me a slight simplification wouldn't go astray.
But, my complaint is already answered. I haven't had the chance to try it yet, but there's a game mode that promises easier ship choice. Yeah, this mod not only provides a new feel of gameplay and new ships, it provides new game modes. A couple really stand out for me. 'Risk', where you only have Frigates and up (except if you choose to allow bombers, which REALLY changes the playstyle). Skirmish, where you have a fleet of ships, no ability to create more, and you've got to outfight the AI (who are in the same boat). Strikers, like Risk but with only fighters and Corvettes.
All in all, give it a look see. Tactical Fleet Simulator.
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Others do my work
Rather then actually have to use my brain and think, I have decided to delegate my work to others for this post. What I actually mean is I've found some amusing websites and will send you there rather then write anything myself.
Some may notice a certain theme passing through these links. Don't pat yourselves on the back, the theme is bleedingly obvious. The theme is "Here are examples of stupid people."
Human beings who have done stupid things.
People with mobile/cell phones who have typed stupid things.
Patrons of businesses who have said/done stupid things.
People with computers who have typed stupid things.
People with functioning genitals who have said stupid things.
There, enjoy the fruits of others labour.
Some may notice a certain theme passing through these links. Don't pat yourselves on the back, the theme is bleedingly obvious. The theme is "Here are examples of stupid people."
Human beings who have done stupid things.
People with mobile/cell phones who have typed stupid things.
Patrons of businesses who have said/done stupid things.
People with computers who have typed stupid things.
People with functioning genitals who have said stupid things.
There, enjoy the fruits of others labour.
Friday, September 4, 2009
Ideal Space Empire game part 4
Now, let's talk about the final part of designing the ship. The subsystems, and bringing it all together.
As described in part 3, subsystems are balanced by four requirements. Manpower, energy, space and money. So those will be mentioned in the description of each part I talk about. If these subsections have special requirements, larger-or-smaller variants or improve with research (either automatically or opening up improved versions) I'll mention it.
Crew cabins
Manpower: Adds to your total (amount added depends on size)
Energy: Low drain
Space: Low-medium space (depends on size)
Money: Relatively low cost.
Description: These increase the amount of crew a ship can have. They range from small cabins (designed for corvette class ships) to massive living quarters (designed for destroyers and up). Since it is very difficult for research to make minimal living quarters smaller, these are relatively standard.
Energy generators
Manpower: Low
Energy: Adds to your total (amount depends on research level)
Space: Low space
Money: Moderately expensive.
Description: Most energy generators have a relatively similar size, some may be a little smaller, some a little bigger. The exception would be fighter/corvette generators, which would be smaller versions of the Frigate+ class generators. As research into generators improves, the generator designs both give more energy and cost more. However the generators in place in your designs will not alter, meaning to take advantage of generator research you must regularly update the designs.
Command center/Cockpit
Manpower: Moderate/adds to your total.
Energy: Low drain
Space: Low/moderate
Money: Moderate
Description: The command center is an essential part of the ship, no matter it's class. It determines the maximum amount of manpower and energy the ship can cope with, as well as giving slight bonus' (depending on it's quality) to all the ships abilities (accuracy, damage, speed, etc). Fighters have a different variety, the cockpit. This adds a very small amount of manpower to the fighter, usually just 1 (the pilot), but some larger varieties may add 2, potentially even 3, for fighters with turrets. Obviously command centers/cockpits will increase with research by a small percentage, but the true benefit to research will be to upgrade better varieties, and some more specialised versions.
AI banks
Manpower: Modifies Manpower requirements shipwide.
Energy: Moderate drain
Space: Low
Money: High
Description: AI banks are improved as research in their field improves, but the true benefit to doing the research is opening up even better AI bank designs. These function by reducing the manpower required by all systems by a set percentage.
AI Running
Manpower: Adds to your total
Energy: Moderate drain
Space: Very low
Money: Moderate
Description: While AI banks improve ship running by making things easier for the crew, AI running actively replaces the crew. Levels of research improve the quality of AI, meaning it grants both larger manpower bonus', and a lower penalty at a cost of increased energy requirements. AI running manpower lowers the capabilities of the ship in the same way command centers increase running.
AI Pilot (Fighter/Corvette only)
Manpower: Replaces total
Energy: Low drain
Space: Very low
Money: Low/Moderate
Description: Similar to AI running above, AI pilot is only for Fighter and Corvette class ships. It replaces the cockpit, meaning the ship is piloted by an AI as opposed to a living creature. This frees up more space for other systems, with the penalty that the AI pilot suffers a similar penalty to AI running, and are capable of only basic combat moves. This penalty is lessened with further research into the area.
Corvette/Fighter Hanger
Manpower: Very high
Energy: Low drain
Space: High
Money: Moderate
Description: Fighter and Corvette class ships are the only ship design that do not need to be given a ship drive. Instead a smaller ship engine can be mounted granting reasonable speed, acceleration and maneuverability at a lower cost, at the expense of being unable to move on the battle map. To counter this the Hanger is used. Fighter and Corvette flights are linked with a ship that holds a dock, and wherever the ship goes the fighter/corvettes will follow. This comes at the cost of lessening the capabilities of the ship hosting the hanger. Different types of hangers with different advantages (lessened space, lessened manpower cost, greater ship capacity, etc) will be found through further research. These must be placed on the ship's model in a location that will allow the ships to leave their host.
Ship launchers
Manpower: Low
Energy: Moderate
Space: Moderate
Money: Moderate
Description: The ship dock is different from a ship hanger, although it functions in a similar manner. All they really contain are the ships themselves, meaning pilots cannot enter and leave, nor the required support crews to look after the pilots. This means only AI piloted ships can use these launchers. These are the true benefit of AI pilot ships, since they are easier to contain on a larger ship then Hangers. Research opens up designs that can hold more ships. Similarly to hangers, these must be placed on the ships model.
Repair systems
Manpower: Low
Energy: Low
Space: Moderate
Money: Moderate
Description: A series of automated drones held in the ship that can repair both the ship, or other ships in the same fleet. Research opens up more efficient (and more costly) designs and makes current designs slightly better.
Turrets
Manpower: Low (for individual turrets)
Energy: Low drain
Space: Low
Money: Low
Description: When placed on a ship, a further Mass Driver or Energy weapon of appropriate size can be placed in that turret, greatly widening it's field of fire. Turret turn rate and maximum turn arc is determined by their model, with more effective turrets having higher money, energy and manpower costs then turrets with a slower turn or limited arc. Using the right turret in the right location is crucial to making cost effective ships.
Based on how much I've crapped on so far about weapons and defences, I won't go on about them now.
Well, there you have it. A look at a primary aspect of my ideal game, ship design mixed with a bit of the research. This isn't even touching on ground combat, empire management, racial modifiers on empire management, different styles of combat ship (front on shooting Vs 'ship of the line' style), all that nonsense. Be glad, otherwise this series would go on another twelve posts or so.
Well, that should be all I want to say on this topic for a while. I'm vanishing off until mid next week to do work on my Thesis. Tah.
As described in part 3, subsystems are balanced by four requirements. Manpower, energy, space and money. So those will be mentioned in the description of each part I talk about. If these subsections have special requirements, larger-or-smaller variants or improve with research (either automatically or opening up improved versions) I'll mention it.
Crew cabins
Manpower: Adds to your total (amount added depends on size)
Energy: Low drain
Space: Low-medium space (depends on size)
Money: Relatively low cost.
Description: These increase the amount of crew a ship can have. They range from small cabins (designed for corvette class ships) to massive living quarters (designed for destroyers and up). Since it is very difficult for research to make minimal living quarters smaller, these are relatively standard.
Energy generators
Manpower: Low
Energy: Adds to your total (amount depends on research level)
Space: Low space
Money: Moderately expensive.
Description: Most energy generators have a relatively similar size, some may be a little smaller, some a little bigger. The exception would be fighter/corvette generators, which would be smaller versions of the Frigate+ class generators. As research into generators improves, the generator designs both give more energy and cost more. However the generators in place in your designs will not alter, meaning to take advantage of generator research you must regularly update the designs.
Command center/Cockpit
Manpower: Moderate/adds to your total.
Energy: Low drain
Space: Low/moderate
Money: Moderate
Description: The command center is an essential part of the ship, no matter it's class. It determines the maximum amount of manpower and energy the ship can cope with, as well as giving slight bonus' (depending on it's quality) to all the ships abilities (accuracy, damage, speed, etc). Fighters have a different variety, the cockpit. This adds a very small amount of manpower to the fighter, usually just 1 (the pilot), but some larger varieties may add 2, potentially even 3, for fighters with turrets. Obviously command centers/cockpits will increase with research by a small percentage, but the true benefit to research will be to upgrade better varieties, and some more specialised versions.
AI banks
Manpower: Modifies Manpower requirements shipwide.
Energy: Moderate drain
Space: Low
Money: High
Description: AI banks are improved as research in their field improves, but the true benefit to doing the research is opening up even better AI bank designs. These function by reducing the manpower required by all systems by a set percentage.
AI Running
Manpower: Adds to your total
Energy: Moderate drain
Space: Very low
Money: Moderate
Description: While AI banks improve ship running by making things easier for the crew, AI running actively replaces the crew. Levels of research improve the quality of AI, meaning it grants both larger manpower bonus', and a lower penalty at a cost of increased energy requirements. AI running manpower lowers the capabilities of the ship in the same way command centers increase running.
AI Pilot (Fighter/Corvette only)
Manpower: Replaces total
Energy: Low drain
Space: Very low
Money: Low/Moderate
Description: Similar to AI running above, AI pilot is only for Fighter and Corvette class ships. It replaces the cockpit, meaning the ship is piloted by an AI as opposed to a living creature. This frees up more space for other systems, with the penalty that the AI pilot suffers a similar penalty to AI running, and are capable of only basic combat moves. This penalty is lessened with further research into the area.
Corvette/Fighter Hanger
Manpower: Very high
Energy: Low drain
Space: High
Money: Moderate
Description: Fighter and Corvette class ships are the only ship design that do not need to be given a ship drive. Instead a smaller ship engine can be mounted granting reasonable speed, acceleration and maneuverability at a lower cost, at the expense of being unable to move on the battle map. To counter this the Hanger is used. Fighter and Corvette flights are linked with a ship that holds a dock, and wherever the ship goes the fighter/corvettes will follow. This comes at the cost of lessening the capabilities of the ship hosting the hanger. Different types of hangers with different advantages (lessened space, lessened manpower cost, greater ship capacity, etc) will be found through further research. These must be placed on the ship's model in a location that will allow the ships to leave their host.
Ship launchers
Manpower: Low
Energy: Moderate
Space: Moderate
Money: Moderate
Description: The ship dock is different from a ship hanger, although it functions in a similar manner. All they really contain are the ships themselves, meaning pilots cannot enter and leave, nor the required support crews to look after the pilots. This means only AI piloted ships can use these launchers. These are the true benefit of AI pilot ships, since they are easier to contain on a larger ship then Hangers. Research opens up designs that can hold more ships. Similarly to hangers, these must be placed on the ships model.
Repair systems
Manpower: Low
Energy: Low
Space: Moderate
Money: Moderate
Description: A series of automated drones held in the ship that can repair both the ship, or other ships in the same fleet. Research opens up more efficient (and more costly) designs and makes current designs slightly better.
Turrets
Manpower: Low (for individual turrets)
Energy: Low drain
Space: Low
Money: Low
Description: When placed on a ship, a further Mass Driver or Energy weapon of appropriate size can be placed in that turret, greatly widening it's field of fire. Turret turn rate and maximum turn arc is determined by their model, with more effective turrets having higher money, energy and manpower costs then turrets with a slower turn or limited arc. Using the right turret in the right location is crucial to making cost effective ships.
Based on how much I've crapped on so far about weapons and defences, I won't go on about them now.
Well, there you have it. A look at a primary aspect of my ideal game, ship design mixed with a bit of the research. This isn't even touching on ground combat, empire management, racial modifiers on empire management, different styles of combat ship (front on shooting Vs 'ship of the line' style), all that nonsense. Be glad, otherwise this series would go on another twelve posts or so.
Well, that should be all I want to say on this topic for a while. I'm vanishing off until mid next week to do work on my Thesis. Tah.
Thursday, September 3, 2009
Ideal Space Empire game part 3
Now, let's get to the nitty gritty of designing, the actual design.
The basic system used by Galactic Civilisations II works. Each size of shit chassis has a certain number of 'points' of size, and when you add a useful (I.E. Not aesthetic) piece to the ship it takes a certain number of size points. It's the general way it works. Their miniaturisation system was a bit odd, but let's just ignore that.
Upon choosing the size of ship you're going to design, you then get to work within that size limitation to create the ship of your dreams. However there are some limitations.
First off, each useful (not aesthetic) piece you put on the ship will cost at least SOME of the following.
1. Manpower. This is how many people will be required in the ship to keep it operating at peak capacity. Ships will be designed to contain the ideal number of crewmen/women needed to operate parts. Some pieces will need little manpower (Shielding will require only a few engineers to keep it functional) while other pieces may need a great deal (repair systems capable of fixing other ships in the fleet will require a large number of crewmen).
2. Energy. Ships will require energy to run, and individual parts will alter the energy requirements. Ships will need to satisfy this requirement before they can be considered a viable design. As with manpower, some parts will have a higher energy cost then others. Energy weapons and shields will require a large amount of energy, while mass drivers are comparatively energy free.
3. Money. Ships will cost money to produce. Little in life is free, and galactic warfare is no exception. The individual parts put on a ship will increase the cost of the ship as a whole. Some parts will be relatively cheap (armour plating will be mostly pretty cheap) while others - such as high end energy generators - will be quite expensive.
4. Space. Each non-aesthetic piece put on the ship will take a certain amount of space on the overall design, as described above.
So as you can see, designing a ship is a delicate balancing act of energy requirements, manpower requirements and cost, and fitting all that on the ship in question along with the facilities you require.
Now, what haven't I covered? OH YES, engines.
GalcivII had a basic "engine gets better" research system. In this ideal game of mine, though, it's a bit more complex. Keep in mind since there is actual manouvering done in the game, there's more to consider then simple engine speed.
Now, let's consider three different Engine types, just to make things interesting. We'll go soft science, because the alternative is too difficult to work with. Let us consider what they are as a basic idea, coupled with the advantages they would bring in-game. To make things simple, let's say that ships are not allowed Drives of more then one type, but each type has two different engines 'speed' engines and 'maneouver' engines.
1. Inertialess drive. As a basic rule, the reason faster-then-light travel is considered a holy grail of physics is because as you increase in speed, the amount of energy that is required to increase a step further in speed increases. Current understanding is that JUST BEFORE you hit light speed, the amount of energy required to go that final extra step is approximately infinite. The inertialess drive cancels this out and creates a general, flat ratio of energy-to-thrust.
On the game map Inertialess drive ships would move straight. This means they are unable to move through obstacles and must pass ships that may be attempting to block them, rather then go round them. The inertialess drive is relatively easy to maintain (at least compared to other hyperadvanced FTL drives) so cost less manpower, but requires a constant input of energy, so has a higher energy cost.
On the battlemap, the inertialess drive's advantage is that it has a rapid acceleration rate. It may not be faster then other drives, but it can accelerate from a stopping point much quicker. However it's turning speed is not particularly impressive. This is represented in it's 'speed' engine having a high acceleration stat, but it's manouver engine having a relatively higher cost for the same effect, compared to the other drives.
2. Warp space. Another method around the FTL limitation is simply to sidestep physics. Well, I say 'simply', in reality it's an incredibly complex procedure, but once a ship has stepped out of the real world and into the dimension past this one, normal laws of physics as we know them don't apply. A short distance in that dimension could be an incredibly long distance in our own.
In the game map, Warp space means the ship ceases to exist in our reality, travels a distance, then drops back into the reality we know and love in a different location. This means they can sidestep obstacles that may impeed their progress. Inertia drives are VERY complex to maintain, not to mention the task of navigating from one location to another in the other reality, then dropping out in the right spot is incredibly difficult, requiring a large amount of manpower. In addition, the requirements to pass from one dimension to another are very, very energy draining. This is offset somewhat by the slightly lower price of these drives, but mostly in place to make up for the immense ease they have in getting from point A to point B.
In the battle map, the pinpoint maneuverability required in the alternative dimension pays off, as the maneuvering engines are quite effective. However their speed engine has lower acceleration and top speed.
3. 'Jump' drive. While somewhat similar in appearance to the warp drive, the main effect is somewhat different in impact. The warp drive jumps the ship to another dimension to carry on it's travels. The Jump drive actually physically transports the ship from point A to point B without traveling through any of the intervening points. Literal teleportation. Unfortunately these teleportation jumps are limited in distance.
On the game map, the Jump drive is halfway between the two alternatives. It functions by making a series of short jumps, making a number of them over a turn. Though it can be fiddly, the drive can jump around some obstacles if positioned properly. However it does reappear in 'real' space often enough that it cannot bypass everything. The system does not require as much energy as one might assume, but the drives require careful preparation for each jump, meaning it needs a reasonable amount of manpower to operate.
Finally, the battle map shows the real strength of the Jump drive. While it has average speed, maneuverability, and acceleration, it has another strength. Ships equipped with Jump drives are able to physically teleport across the map once per battle. This gives them a definite advantage in tactical moves.
Now, for the final post (hopefully tomorrow) I'll discuss different types of ship subsystems.
The basic system used by Galactic Civilisations II works. Each size of shit chassis has a certain number of 'points' of size, and when you add a useful (I.E. Not aesthetic) piece to the ship it takes a certain number of size points. It's the general way it works. Their miniaturisation system was a bit odd, but let's just ignore that.
Upon choosing the size of ship you're going to design, you then get to work within that size limitation to create the ship of your dreams. However there are some limitations.
First off, each useful (not aesthetic) piece you put on the ship will cost at least SOME of the following.
1. Manpower. This is how many people will be required in the ship to keep it operating at peak capacity. Ships will be designed to contain the ideal number of crewmen/women needed to operate parts. Some pieces will need little manpower (Shielding will require only a few engineers to keep it functional) while other pieces may need a great deal (repair systems capable of fixing other ships in the fleet will require a large number of crewmen).
2. Energy. Ships will require energy to run, and individual parts will alter the energy requirements. Ships will need to satisfy this requirement before they can be considered a viable design. As with manpower, some parts will have a higher energy cost then others. Energy weapons and shields will require a large amount of energy, while mass drivers are comparatively energy free.
3. Money. Ships will cost money to produce. Little in life is free, and galactic warfare is no exception. The individual parts put on a ship will increase the cost of the ship as a whole. Some parts will be relatively cheap (armour plating will be mostly pretty cheap) while others - such as high end energy generators - will be quite expensive.
4. Space. Each non-aesthetic piece put on the ship will take a certain amount of space on the overall design, as described above.
So as you can see, designing a ship is a delicate balancing act of energy requirements, manpower requirements and cost, and fitting all that on the ship in question along with the facilities you require.
Now, what haven't I covered? OH YES, engines.
GalcivII had a basic "engine gets better" research system. In this ideal game of mine, though, it's a bit more complex. Keep in mind since there is actual manouvering done in the game, there's more to consider then simple engine speed.
Now, let's consider three different Engine types, just to make things interesting. We'll go soft science, because the alternative is too difficult to work with. Let us consider what they are as a basic idea, coupled with the advantages they would bring in-game. To make things simple, let's say that ships are not allowed Drives of more then one type, but each type has two different engines 'speed' engines and 'maneouver' engines.
1. Inertialess drive. As a basic rule, the reason faster-then-light travel is considered a holy grail of physics is because as you increase in speed, the amount of energy that is required to increase a step further in speed increases. Current understanding is that JUST BEFORE you hit light speed, the amount of energy required to go that final extra step is approximately infinite. The inertialess drive cancels this out and creates a general, flat ratio of energy-to-thrust.
On the game map Inertialess drive ships would move straight. This means they are unable to move through obstacles and must pass ships that may be attempting to block them, rather then go round them. The inertialess drive is relatively easy to maintain (at least compared to other hyperadvanced FTL drives) so cost less manpower, but requires a constant input of energy, so has a higher energy cost.
On the battlemap, the inertialess drive's advantage is that it has a rapid acceleration rate. It may not be faster then other drives, but it can accelerate from a stopping point much quicker. However it's turning speed is not particularly impressive. This is represented in it's 'speed' engine having a high acceleration stat, but it's manouver engine having a relatively higher cost for the same effect, compared to the other drives.
2. Warp space. Another method around the FTL limitation is simply to sidestep physics. Well, I say 'simply', in reality it's an incredibly complex procedure, but once a ship has stepped out of the real world and into the dimension past this one, normal laws of physics as we know them don't apply. A short distance in that dimension could be an incredibly long distance in our own.
In the game map, Warp space means the ship ceases to exist in our reality, travels a distance, then drops back into the reality we know and love in a different location. This means they can sidestep obstacles that may impeed their progress. Inertia drives are VERY complex to maintain, not to mention the task of navigating from one location to another in the other reality, then dropping out in the right spot is incredibly difficult, requiring a large amount of manpower. In addition, the requirements to pass from one dimension to another are very, very energy draining. This is offset somewhat by the slightly lower price of these drives, but mostly in place to make up for the immense ease they have in getting from point A to point B.
In the battle map, the pinpoint maneuverability required in the alternative dimension pays off, as the maneuvering engines are quite effective. However their speed engine has lower acceleration and top speed.
3. 'Jump' drive. While somewhat similar in appearance to the warp drive, the main effect is somewhat different in impact. The warp drive jumps the ship to another dimension to carry on it's travels. The Jump drive actually physically transports the ship from point A to point B without traveling through any of the intervening points. Literal teleportation. Unfortunately these teleportation jumps are limited in distance.
On the game map, the Jump drive is halfway between the two alternatives. It functions by making a series of short jumps, making a number of them over a turn. Though it can be fiddly, the drive can jump around some obstacles if positioned properly. However it does reappear in 'real' space often enough that it cannot bypass everything. The system does not require as much energy as one might assume, but the drives require careful preparation for each jump, meaning it needs a reasonable amount of manpower to operate.
Finally, the battle map shows the real strength of the Jump drive. While it has average speed, maneuverability, and acceleration, it has another strength. Ships equipped with Jump drives are able to physically teleport across the map once per battle. This gives them a definite advantage in tactical moves.
Now, for the final post (hopefully tomorrow) I'll discuss different types of ship subsystems.
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Ideal Space Empire game part 2
First, something I forgot to discuss in the above discussion on research. Defenses.
Galactic Civilizations, which this system is heavily based upon, uses a simple three-for-three method. Lasers are countered by shields, Mass drivers countered by armour, Missiles countered by point defense. Having high protection against one will give you great survivability for that sort of attack, but also a much smaller degree (square root it) of defense against other attacks.
In this ideal game I've got in mind, there is a relatively similar system where each of the areas of protection have their best effect against their counterpart, but this effect is felt differently. Shields would automatically counter a certain amount of damage before 'shorting out', at which point they would have to recharge, with energy weapons only countering as a percentage of their total damage towards that 'short out' phase.
Armour is always effective, but in a manner stolen from the Heavy Gear games, the more damage it blocks, the less effective it is against future attacks (with solid stage mass driver weapons counting as only a percentage of their actual damage against the armour). To be precise, the armour completely ignores a certain amount of damage - meaning it may not take any damage at all - but the amount it auto-reduces is lessened by the amount of health the ship has. This means that a 'fresh' ship with high armour can take a hell of a beating, but once it's a bit more battle damaged then those small fighter attacks become more dangerous.
Missiles, as with the previous post, are the odd one out. Missiles function as normal against shields and armour, but their countermeasure (Missile point defenses, not to be confused with the point-defence turrets mentioned previously, although there could be a little overlap) are an all-or-nothing affair. Large missiles are either shot out of the air, or not, with no middleground. Smaller swarms of missiles may have some shot out of the air while others get into contact. Point defences, for obvious reasons, are useless against Mass Drivers and Energy weapons.
As you might guess from this, while each is more effective against a particular type of attack, it is certainly effective to have a ship possessing two (or even three) types of defenses. Missile defences do seem somewhat uneven, but perhaps this could be countered by giving the missiles higher damage, to provide some incentive to research countermeasures rather then just relying on the shields and armour to see you through. After all, it's a common cliche in space opera that the bombers still launch large missiles. Then again, with guided missiles there is no real concern over fire arcs and turreting. Perhaps missiles could be grouped based on their guiding? Unguided rockets and guided missiles... Hmm, it's a consideration.
Let's consider something I teased around before. Turreting. This links directly in with the ship design process.
Something I wish to consider in the designs of the ship is weapon arcs. In Galciv2 there was no difference where you put the weapon, since in the combat cinematic the weapons would often fire through your own ship in order to follow the line between your ship and theirs. However in a process of designing your own ship for a 3d space-based RTS game there needs to be more consideration for it. Part of the design process of creating your own ships would be weapon arcs. I know it seems needlessly complex, but I believe it would add to your enjoyment of seeing your own ships out in the depths of space.
First off we'll say you've created the basis for your ship (I'll cover things such as engines (which affect speed and manouverability later), life support, fighter decks, extra systems, etc, later) and now you're up to the stage of arming it. Obviously you want to put the heavy guns here... but wait! Do you want to attach it directly?
Instead this system would allow for 'turreting'. With turreting some of the ship design pieces you have access too are turrets. These have their own stats such as 'Maximum turn degree', 'available weapon classes', 'turn speed', 'cost' and 'manpower' (discussed later). These must be weighed up to judge which turrets you want to place where. Point defence weapons (as mentioned in part 1) are automatically turreted so they can just be placed wherever you wish. Heavier weapons (the medium and large weapons) can either be placed flat, in which case they have a very limited arc they can fire in. This may seem negative, but it is far cheaper then turreting, and allows for simpler, more streamlined designs. Alternatively turrets can be used. Turrets capable of full 360 rotation will either be relatively slow in their movement, or VERY costly, and possibly not even able to hold the largest class of weapons.
So in designing ships, the player must weigh up firing arcs. Do they want their ships to be far more expensive but have no 'blind spot'? Or perhaps this is a ship meant for engaging slow vessels and as such it doesn't need to alter it's firing arc much? Maybe the ship itself is highly maneouverable, so it doesn't need particularly impressive/costly turreting systems. Or perhaps the player will return to the 'good ol' days of ships having their heaviest armaments along their port and starboard sides. This way the player knows perfectly well how to arrange the ships in formation so they can fire effectively. As mentioned, Missiles have no fire arcs since they are able to change course in mid flight. This allows them unparralled versatility, but if the enemy has appropriate defences missiles are a very hit-or-miss affair.
All these things must be weighed when creating a ship, along with a vast array of others. What others? I'll explain in more detail in the next post, when I discuss extra systems such as: Engine, Life support, manpower, generators, and even things like docking.
Galactic Civilizations, which this system is heavily based upon, uses a simple three-for-three method. Lasers are countered by shields, Mass drivers countered by armour, Missiles countered by point defense. Having high protection against one will give you great survivability for that sort of attack, but also a much smaller degree (square root it) of defense against other attacks.
In this ideal game I've got in mind, there is a relatively similar system where each of the areas of protection have their best effect against their counterpart, but this effect is felt differently. Shields would automatically counter a certain amount of damage before 'shorting out', at which point they would have to recharge, with energy weapons only countering as a percentage of their total damage towards that 'short out' phase.
Armour is always effective, but in a manner stolen from the Heavy Gear games, the more damage it blocks, the less effective it is against future attacks (with solid stage mass driver weapons counting as only a percentage of their actual damage against the armour). To be precise, the armour completely ignores a certain amount of damage - meaning it may not take any damage at all - but the amount it auto-reduces is lessened by the amount of health the ship has. This means that a 'fresh' ship with high armour can take a hell of a beating, but once it's a bit more battle damaged then those small fighter attacks become more dangerous.
Missiles, as with the previous post, are the odd one out. Missiles function as normal against shields and armour, but their countermeasure (Missile point defenses, not to be confused with the point-defence turrets mentioned previously, although there could be a little overlap) are an all-or-nothing affair. Large missiles are either shot out of the air, or not, with no middleground. Smaller swarms of missiles may have some shot out of the air while others get into contact. Point defences, for obvious reasons, are useless against Mass Drivers and Energy weapons.
As you might guess from this, while each is more effective against a particular type of attack, it is certainly effective to have a ship possessing two (or even three) types of defenses. Missile defences do seem somewhat uneven, but perhaps this could be countered by giving the missiles higher damage, to provide some incentive to research countermeasures rather then just relying on the shields and armour to see you through. After all, it's a common cliche in space opera that the bombers still launch large missiles. Then again, with guided missiles there is no real concern over fire arcs and turreting. Perhaps missiles could be grouped based on their guiding? Unguided rockets and guided missiles... Hmm, it's a consideration.
Let's consider something I teased around before. Turreting. This links directly in with the ship design process.
Something I wish to consider in the designs of the ship is weapon arcs. In Galciv2 there was no difference where you put the weapon, since in the combat cinematic the weapons would often fire through your own ship in order to follow the line between your ship and theirs. However in a process of designing your own ship for a 3d space-based RTS game there needs to be more consideration for it. Part of the design process of creating your own ships would be weapon arcs. I know it seems needlessly complex, but I believe it would add to your enjoyment of seeing your own ships out in the depths of space.
First off we'll say you've created the basis for your ship (I'll cover things such as engines (which affect speed and manouverability later), life support, fighter decks, extra systems, etc, later) and now you're up to the stage of arming it. Obviously you want to put the heavy guns here... but wait! Do you want to attach it directly?
Instead this system would allow for 'turreting'. With turreting some of the ship design pieces you have access too are turrets. These have their own stats such as 'Maximum turn degree', 'available weapon classes', 'turn speed', 'cost' and 'manpower' (discussed later). These must be weighed up to judge which turrets you want to place where. Point defence weapons (as mentioned in part 1) are automatically turreted so they can just be placed wherever you wish. Heavier weapons (the medium and large weapons) can either be placed flat, in which case they have a very limited arc they can fire in. This may seem negative, but it is far cheaper then turreting, and allows for simpler, more streamlined designs. Alternatively turrets can be used. Turrets capable of full 360 rotation will either be relatively slow in their movement, or VERY costly, and possibly not even able to hold the largest class of weapons.
So in designing ships, the player must weigh up firing arcs. Do they want their ships to be far more expensive but have no 'blind spot'? Or perhaps this is a ship meant for engaging slow vessels and as such it doesn't need to alter it's firing arc much? Maybe the ship itself is highly maneouverable, so it doesn't need particularly impressive/costly turreting systems. Or perhaps the player will return to the 'good ol' days of ships having their heaviest armaments along their port and starboard sides. This way the player knows perfectly well how to arrange the ships in formation so they can fire effectively. As mentioned, Missiles have no fire arcs since they are able to change course in mid flight. This allows them unparralled versatility, but if the enemy has appropriate defences missiles are a very hit-or-miss affair.
All these things must be weighed when creating a ship, along with a vast array of others. What others? I'll explain in more detail in the next post, when I discuss extra systems such as: Engine, Life support, manpower, generators, and even things like docking.
Monday, August 31, 2009
Ideal Space Empire game part 1
Tonight I'm going to do a blog post that is of no interest to anyone but me. It's discussing an ideal game I have in mind that I am well aware will never happen.
One of my ideal games is a 4X style space-empire sim game (in this case, Galactic Civilisations II) crossed with Total War crossed with Homeworld. The ideal is that you're guiding a space empire in it's development, getting into wars, resolving situations diplomatically, directing trade, etc. One of the major appeals of GalCiv II is the ability to design your own space ships, both aesthetically and functionally. So, let us consider how this 'design your own ship' idea could function in a game like this on a larger scale, especially for use in the RTS parts of the game
The first item to consider is research. The ship cannot be designed until it's associated parts are researched. GalcivII used a three-pronged battle research system where you could focus in either Mass Driver weapons, Energy weapons, or Missile weapons (and their respective countermeasures). While it took a great deal of research points, something I found interesting was how unchallenging it was to research ALL the type of weapons over the course of a long game. Let's consider ideal concepts for this ideal game.
1. Weapon Differentiation.
The different types of weapons should have genuine differences in gameplay and design rather then merely causing different types of damage. Energy weapons and Mass Drivers are relatively similar in function (direct fire weapons). Perhaps the difference between them could come in the direct effect of the weapons, with different 'classes' of energy weapons being better at their respective focuses and worse at areas outside that, while different classes of Mass driver aren't quite as good at their focus, but better at their weak area. Missiles would be different, since most of them would naturally be able to adjust course and target nearly any vessel. However, this higher accuracy would come at the cost of delayed damage.
2. Weapon Classes
Rather then merely putting the exact same weapons on different ships, let's vary it up a little. Fighter, Point-Defence, Medium, Large. With each degree of research, different 'classes' of weapon open up. Let's take Energy weapons as an example.
The player completes X degree of research and has opened up four different types of energy weapon, we'll call these Blaster (fighter class), Laser Turret (Point-Defence class), Laser Cannon (Medium) and Lance (large). The Blaster can be equipped easily on small fighter-class ship chassis very easily, but their lack of power and inability to be 'turreted' makes them poor choices for much larger classes. The Laser Turret is a naturally turreted weapon that can be equiped on all classes of vessel. On a fighter it is very large, taking up most of the space, while large classes of vessel could have dozens dotting them. It's main advantage is against fighter-type vessels, since it naturally has a fast turret, making it ideal to dot around large vessels to defend them from fighters.
The Medium class Cannon is too large for fighters, and only the largest corvette would be able to fit even one. At the cost of increased price and space they can be turretted, allowing them a larger arc of fire on the vessel, in which case their arc must be carefully positioned to allow the player to use them effectively. Finally the Lance would be a very large, very powerful weapon, restricted mostly to very large vessels, and very, very costly to put on anything but a quite restricted turret. These would be the primary armaments of capital vessels.
You can imagine this would be similar with Mass Drivers and Missiles. Larger versions of each would be available, going from anti-fighter missiles/gatling guns as point-defence weapons, all the way up to anti-matter torpedoes/Coil-Cannons as the medium or large weapons. Or alternatively the classes may be different for different research-types of weapons. Missiles may have "Light anti-fighter" as fighter, "Light anti-capital ship" for bomber-types, "Guided seekers" for point-defence, and "Heavy Torpedoes" for heavy capital ship weapons.
Let's go back to the energy weapon examples now. Let us say nowIf the player then researched further down the research tree for this specialisation and has unlocked two further techs. Laser Cannon II and Plasma Blaster. The Laser Cannon II is a relatively simple upgrade of the Laser Cannon tech and would be automatically applied to vessels with the Laser Cannon (possibly at a small fee). However, the Plasma Blaster is a completely new Fighter-class weapon, and new fighters would have to be designed to bring this weapon into battle.
As you see, this makes research very attractive without requiring very regular redesigns of ships. Galciv's "one research opens one better weapon" method worked for it, but for a more hands-on RTS style game it would need to be streamlined a little with different types of weapons that can be used. This means fighters aren't stuck with the same types of weapons
3. Research variety
It was a bit too easy to get THE BEST weapons in multiple areas in Galciv. Maybe instead the players should choose a focus. This would be determined by the first area they begin research. All subsequent research in that weapon area is a little easier, while research in other areas is a little more costly and time consuming. A relatively arbitrary artifical scaling would work. Opening weapon research costs X research units, while researching into a different area costs X1.5, and the final area would cost X2.
Hopefully this would mean that players wanting to specialise in one area can do so, while players wanting different types of weapons (for the advantages each offers) are still able to do so.
Next post: I'll explain what I mean by 'turreting', as I talk about actually designing the ships.
Yeah, sorry this is so dull, pretty much just doing this for me.
One of my ideal games is a 4X style space-empire sim game (in this case, Galactic Civilisations II) crossed with Total War crossed with Homeworld. The ideal is that you're guiding a space empire in it's development, getting into wars, resolving situations diplomatically, directing trade, etc. One of the major appeals of GalCiv II is the ability to design your own space ships, both aesthetically and functionally. So, let us consider how this 'design your own ship' idea could function in a game like this on a larger scale, especially for use in the RTS parts of the game
The first item to consider is research. The ship cannot be designed until it's associated parts are researched. GalcivII used a three-pronged battle research system where you could focus in either Mass Driver weapons, Energy weapons, or Missile weapons (and their respective countermeasures). While it took a great deal of research points, something I found interesting was how unchallenging it was to research ALL the type of weapons over the course of a long game. Let's consider ideal concepts for this ideal game.
1. Weapon Differentiation.
The different types of weapons should have genuine differences in gameplay and design rather then merely causing different types of damage. Energy weapons and Mass Drivers are relatively similar in function (direct fire weapons). Perhaps the difference between them could come in the direct effect of the weapons, with different 'classes' of energy weapons being better at their respective focuses and worse at areas outside that, while different classes of Mass driver aren't quite as good at their focus, but better at their weak area. Missiles would be different, since most of them would naturally be able to adjust course and target nearly any vessel. However, this higher accuracy would come at the cost of delayed damage.
2. Weapon Classes
Rather then merely putting the exact same weapons on different ships, let's vary it up a little. Fighter, Point-Defence, Medium, Large. With each degree of research, different 'classes' of weapon open up. Let's take Energy weapons as an example.
The player completes X degree of research and has opened up four different types of energy weapon, we'll call these Blaster (fighter class), Laser Turret (Point-Defence class), Laser Cannon (Medium) and Lance (large). The Blaster can be equipped easily on small fighter-class ship chassis very easily, but their lack of power and inability to be 'turreted' makes them poor choices for much larger classes. The Laser Turret is a naturally turreted weapon that can be equiped on all classes of vessel. On a fighter it is very large, taking up most of the space, while large classes of vessel could have dozens dotting them. It's main advantage is against fighter-type vessels, since it naturally has a fast turret, making it ideal to dot around large vessels to defend them from fighters.
The Medium class Cannon is too large for fighters, and only the largest corvette would be able to fit even one. At the cost of increased price and space they can be turretted, allowing them a larger arc of fire on the vessel, in which case their arc must be carefully positioned to allow the player to use them effectively. Finally the Lance would be a very large, very powerful weapon, restricted mostly to very large vessels, and very, very costly to put on anything but a quite restricted turret. These would be the primary armaments of capital vessels.
You can imagine this would be similar with Mass Drivers and Missiles. Larger versions of each would be available, going from anti-fighter missiles/gatling guns as point-defence weapons, all the way up to anti-matter torpedoes/Coil-Cannons as the medium or large weapons. Or alternatively the classes may be different for different research-types of weapons. Missiles may have "Light anti-fighter" as fighter, "Light anti-capital ship" for bomber-types, "Guided seekers" for point-defence, and "Heavy Torpedoes" for heavy capital ship weapons.
Let's go back to the energy weapon examples now. Let us say nowIf the player then researched further down the research tree for this specialisation and has unlocked two further techs. Laser Cannon II and Plasma Blaster. The Laser Cannon II is a relatively simple upgrade of the Laser Cannon tech and would be automatically applied to vessels with the Laser Cannon (possibly at a small fee). However, the Plasma Blaster is a completely new Fighter-class weapon, and new fighters would have to be designed to bring this weapon into battle.
As you see, this makes research very attractive without requiring very regular redesigns of ships. Galciv's "one research opens one better weapon" method worked for it, but for a more hands-on RTS style game it would need to be streamlined a little with different types of weapons that can be used. This means fighters aren't stuck with the same types of weapons
3. Research variety
It was a bit too easy to get THE BEST weapons in multiple areas in Galciv. Maybe instead the players should choose a focus. This would be determined by the first area they begin research. All subsequent research in that weapon area is a little easier, while research in other areas is a little more costly and time consuming. A relatively arbitrary artifical scaling would work. Opening weapon research costs X research units, while researching into a different area costs X1.5, and the final area would cost X2.
Hopefully this would mean that players wanting to specialise in one area can do so, while players wanting different types of weapons (for the advantages each offers) are still able to do so.
Next post: I'll explain what I mean by 'turreting', as I talk about actually designing the ships.
Yeah, sorry this is so dull, pretty much just doing this for me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)