Suggestion: Aggro to solve Corvette Swarms

[octagon999]

I understand that there is probably not a more cost effective solution to defeating someone's hordes of 1000 ton corvettes than another, bigger swarm of your own. However, perhaps a solution for AI in another genre would be of assistance.

 

In a game such as EverQuest, there is a factor called "aggro". Or a "hate list" if you will. Boiled down to its essence, every round of combat, an NPC will evaluate just who is causing it more damage (not just physical either, but other battlefield effects such as snares/roots, etc).

 

Not to get too deeply into the weeds, but it seems to me that if the AI could, after the first round of combat, determine which ships are causing the greatest amount of damage to its fleet, it could then weight the random chance of targeting appropriately.

 

I'm not saying that when the big battlecruiser sitting behind 1000 corvettes opens up with its big guns, that automatically every ship opposing it targets it for annihilation, but what I AM saying is that it definitely strongly influences target selection.

 

Put another way, if you were actually commanding a battle, would you direct your capital ships to concentrate on a 1000ton floating piece of iron doing nothing to you, or would you order them to fire on the Battlestar Gallactica pumping out fighters and standoff missiles?

 

If you wouldn't do it yourself, why would you want a battle system that would?

 

Aggro works for other games, and I believe it would improve AI in this one. For those who have invested until now in mega screens who may have objections, I would suggest two thoughts. One, do you REALLY want the rest of the game to be won by the side with the biggest screens, or the best screen killers, or do you want to see huge fleet battles between capital ships? Two, your screens will still be useful, as location still is a weighting factor, as well as pure randomness.

 

Respectfully submitted to the community and the GM's/Designers.

Tom Adams

The Rathe

[Lord SaHeru]

Pete at one point indicated that there were some technologies that did just that. Now I haven't seen anything with a description anything close to that but maybe someone else has...I would assume that all of the various bridge components like Fleet Patrol sensors and Fleet formation sensors should do something along that...

 

I think your suggestion is a good one, as well, but I would like to see a specific tech help in that area rather then just the AI.

 

Maybe certain tech could just add to that decision..

 

Lord SaHeru

[Ur Lord Tedric]

Whilst we understand the sentiment, it seems to us that many are looking at the 'screen ship' and the underlying tactics with too narrow a focus.

 

Even if they are minimally mobile, we prefer to think of the small 1000t screen strategy as minefields - which exist in many games and even more stories of the genre.

 

When conducting an attack, you have to get through the minefields - and it takes time and it costs ships.

 

Or looking at it another way - it's really not a proper spaceship until it mounts a Transwarp Drive - which is also the only thing that makes it strategically mobile.

 

These minefields are, by their very nature, defensive and also exist, we believe, to act as a reasonable defense for someone's HW - a purely game mechanic, but a good one - and not wholly unreasonable. Only a poorly played, or totally pacifistic, empire should thus lose its HW unless faced by overwhelming odds.

 

We would, however, support one implementation of the 'Aggro' idea - if it doesn't shoot, then it's not part of the battle! And more, could be captured at the end of the battle. This would at least stop the 1000t of pure armor (sic) junkers.

 

So, when faced by 'mines' build 'minesweepers'......

 

O2CW

 

Chief Warmaster to Ur-Lord Tedric

[octagon999]

Sorry Ur-lord but I have to respectfully disagree with you. You cannot build enough "mine-sweepers" for an empire dedicated to building mines.

 

Period.

 

As much care has been placed into attempting balance, at this point in the model, massive screens ARE the "best" strategy, and being so makes it a problem.

 

Best regards,

Tom

[Ur Lord Tedric]

Sorry Ur-lord but I have to respectfully disagree with you.  You cannot build enough "mine-sweepers" for an empire dedicated to building mines.

 

Period.

 

As much care has been placed into attempting balance, at this point in the model, massive screens ARE the "best" strategy, and being so makes it a problem.

 

Best regards,

Tom

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You're quite at liberty to disagree!

 

So we have to ask the lateral follow-up....

 

What threat does an empire dedicated to building mines pose, being totally defensive in nature, that forces you to then attack them?

 

Chief Warmaster to Ur-Lord Tedric

[hobknob]

There are plenty of ways to take out a screen of puffballs. Now that we all know and understand the game mechanics of targeting we can all design the approprite response.

 

Once you get to a certain tech level, the puffball strategy loses much of its appeal. It is then relegated as just one more trick in your bag, no more powerful than any other and with its own set problems and issues.

 

[General Miles Avatar]

There are plenty of ways to take out a screen of puffballs.  Now that we all know and understand the game mechanics of targeting we can all design the approprite response. 

 

Once you get to a certain tech level, the puffball strategy loses much of its appeal.  It is then relegated as just one more trick in your bag, no more powerful than any other and with its own set problems and issues.

 

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Hobnob is correct. There will come a time in the not too distant future where weapons techs and FC tech will become so powerful that your 'screen ship' will be able to target 20+ enemy puffballs

with enough firepower to annihilate them in a single round. The screen ship itself will become a

'capital ship' backed up by even larger captial ships. Of course then we will have screens ships

in the million ton range with nothing but armor shields and CIDS and perhaps a few fighter bays. etc etc etc....

[octagon999]

OK departing from the specific issue of swarms and the various remedies...

 

Does no one else want an AI program smarter than either random chance or an orc in charge of your fleets?

 

Would not identifying the major source of your pain go a long way to remedying that?

 

Sitting here in total disbelief,

The Rathe

[Ur Lord Tedric]

OK departing from the specific issue of swarms and the various remedies...

 

Does no one else want an AI program smarter than either random chance or an orc in charge of your fleets?

 

Would not identifying the major source of your pain go a long way to remedying that?

 

Sitting here in total disbelief,

The Rathe

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes,

 

But we don't see that happening until SN:IV Online.....

 

Then there will be the opportunity for the protagananists to log on to the RTG server perhaps 5 times during the two week turnaround period (so battles would be slightly offset) and make some general tactical decisions and so influence the actual battles.

 

The mathematical + random input will still be there for the less important ones.

 

But, this version is a grand strategic level game and individual battles are less important. Just like chess/go, the basic rules and engine should be simple and fair - it's what we do with it that matters.

 

For us we just want that Naval Combat Supplement so we can have all the basic rules laid out before us so we can write the Force Battle Plans that will have a chance of doing what we want and being able to design the ships of the appropriate classes.

 

The most important single bit of which, in our opinion, is the Fighter & Drone tactics....we still haven't a clue what happens......

 

Chief Warmaster to Ur-Lord Tedric

[ali-t-akua]

But, this version is a grand strategic level game and individual battles are less important. Just like chess/go, the basic rules and engine should be simple and fair - it's what we do with it that matters.

I would just settle for fair. Simple is nice but I like having some complexity. I think Pete has done a good job on that portion. However the jury is still out on fair in my book and will be until the Naval Combart Supplement comes out. Then we can judge the fair portion.

 

PS I am not saying the current system is unfair, just there is not enough information to judge.

[WKE235]

Well, with the advances I have, I am currently building some ships (call them Fly Swatters) which have a fire rating in the 50's (IE .. 50 different ships). With the Superior class weapons on board, these ships are designed to travel alone looking for packs of corvettes, taking out small ones, while then swarming towards larger groups like kamikazze. In theory I expect to see more corvettes (in weight/materials) get lost than these ships (which are not expected to survive big groupings). At least I hope it works that way. We'll see.

 

My hope is another tech advance or two, and I can create well armored ships that may last a couple rounds even against the big fleets, really whittling down the corvettes.

 

Tech is the key.

[SargonKingOfSlith]

Octagon, I have to weigh in on the side of forbearance. I think it is still a little too early to say the there is one, and only one, winning strategy.

 

I personally have a screen-clearing strategy in mind, somewhat similar to WKE’s. I don’t particularly want to list all the details here. Not that I think I have such a great idea that I have to keep it secret. It’s just that I don’t want to get drawn too deeply into this argument.

 

In other words, I think we need to give it some more time, let the technology develop, get the full combat rules, and see what turns out. If it turns out that I’m wrong, then we can all throw in the towel with disgust over the lop-sided combat system.

[ShadowKitsune]

While Tech is key, or rather the proper application of the correct Tech is key, we still have the issue of the "AI" being rather ... um ... uncomplicated. I will readily admit that my reading my not be a vast an the Ur-Lord's, I still find the 'blob' combat model a little too simplistic. Even Victory! allows you to choose a primary target type: Carriers, Large Warships, Small Warships or Auxiliaries.

 

Maybe the sophistication is actually in there and our problem is that our current average [game wide] sensor technology is so abysmal that all each of Fleets can see are varying sized mass-blobs. Even then, I think my commanders can figure out that the big blobs are probably more dangerous than the tiny blobs.

 

I think part of the problem is still that the documentation/explanation of the combat system is not allowing for a clear understanding of what is really happening. Therefore, we're all bringing a lot of assumptions to the discussion that may or may not be correct.

 

Fortunately for my Empire, I haven't had to go to war with another Empire. But I am not so delusional as to think that this state of affairs will continue indefinitely.

 

YMMV,

-SK

 

PS - I'd rather get the Naval Combat Update before I ask Pete to adjust the Combat Engine.

[hobknob]

I would certainly hope that my ships using point blank weapons are able to tell what they are shooting at. If they can make that determination then they should also get to make some choice as to target type.

 

I would really like to see some more sophistication added to the combat system. As commanders of our fleets in abstentia we should have tons of options for our remote commanders to use to execute the battle. To date there are very few options and they don't seem to make much visible difference anyway.