Stalker0

Join Date 04/2009

+60

Supernova - The fundamental issue with the new combat system

One of the biggest changes in Supernova is the combat system adjustment. And I can understand why, the old paper, rock, scissor system is so....plain, so mundane, so....boring right? But I would argue that at its core, that system worked, and this system does not. And I will try to explain why.

The Fundamentals of Combat - The only thing that matters

At its core, the GC games are "big picture" type games. You focus on the big decisions, what my planets will build, where my fleets will go. This is NOT a tactical combat game, never has been, and probably shouldn't ever be. Now tactical combat games can be a lot of fun, but there is a style of game that caters to that, and GC is not that kind of game, again its the big picture of running a galactic empire, not getting into the mud with the grunts as you go invade a planet.

This is important to remember because the nuances of a given combat really don't matter to me. It doesn't matter how my ships maneuver, or what ranges they fired weapon X at, etc. At the end of the day, there is only 1 thing that matters:

How much damage did I do, and how much damage did I take.

When I make my fleets, I want to dish out as much damage as possible, while taking in little in return as possible. If I do that well I will win fights, and if I don't I lose them. Its that simple.

The RPS System - Why it worked

For all the simplicity of the RPS system, it focuses your decision making at the empire level, and most importantly, gives you IMMEDIATE AND CLEAR signals that you need to change strategy. If I have big lasers and high point defense against fleets using missiles with no shields....I am kicking butt. However, if I click on the new fleets and suddenly I see massive shields, I immediately know that I need to change course.

The combat again is focused at the empire level, what fleets do I build, what weapons/defense tech do I focus on? Do I push forward, or do I need to pull back and change up my fleets to stay effective? The key here is adaptation, the system forces you to adapt to changing conditions (which is good), and it does it in a way that is very easy for a player to understand (which is very good). Can you adapt faster and better than your opponents, that is a key part of the strategic combat model.

The New System - The Problems

Optimization without Adaptation

Past the very early battles, combats soon turn into battles where a lot of weapons get fired over a number of rounds. This means that the exceptions quickly shift into averages. So I don't care about that one string of evasions or that big barrage of damage I did at long range that one time. Again all I really care about is....how much damage am I generally doing?

The new system has lots of levers, range, mass, cooldown, damage, evasion, etc etc. It seems so interesting and cool....but at its core its just an optimization problem. Now its a complex one and a tedious one, one that many players won't ever think about, but for the die hards the problem is there to be solved. And solved it will be, players will figure out the best combinations of weapons and defenses....and then will start to use those all the time.

The new system doesn't really seem to have "counters" in the way the old system did. The old system put in a strong counter, use the right defense....and you mitigate LOTS of damage. Use the wrong ones, and you take LOTS of damage. The new one where all the defenses work together, well there doesn't seem to be any real "switch up", its just get more and more defenses, more and more weapons. And the die hards will figure out the right combinations to create the "perfect fleets", whereas the lesser involved players won't have a clue. And that brings up the next big problem.

No clear decisions = no strategy

Again if we look at the old system, I could click on a fleet, see its main weapons and defenses, and I had a pretty strong indicator if my fleet was good against there's or not. Its not perfect information, but its clear, concise, and easy to work with.

The new system on the other hand, is obfuscated with mechanics. How much damage does the enemy ship do? Well right now all I get is this "general combat strength score". I have no idea how strong the fleet is, what types of weapons and defenses its really using, and most importantly....I don't really have a good idea of how to counter it.

So....I don't counter it. I just get the best weapons and defenses I can, and then hope for the best.

But that is the problem.....GC is a strategy game, but this kind of combat is NOT STRATEGIC. I am not making interesting choices, I am just fumbling in a sea of obfuscation, slamming my fleets against there's hoping I made a good decisions....but I'll never know for certain.

Battle now devolves from a cat and mouse game of counters into just a raw slugfest. If I have more hammers and better tech than you do, I just win, and you won't really know how to change gears to stop me.

In Summary

While the original system could be considered dull, it provides the simplicity and clarity that a player needs to make good strategic decisions. The new system I believe fails to do that, and therefore, as cool and interesting as it might appear on the surface, it actually reduces the strategic fulfillment of the game.

galactic civilizations iv

+2 Karma

Advanced Search

Watch this post

Do not email me updates for this post Email me updates for this post

Successfully updated karma reason!

zichella1
Commander4X

This is a very well written post. I agree to the general problem you describe.

I try to add something of my own to reach a "solution".

The problem you describe would occur the most if everybody (players and AI) build the most efficient fleets. Now, this must not necessarily be the case. There are a lot of games that create enemies that have strengths and weaknesses on purpose and it is the players task to find good answers. So this can be true for GCIV AIs as well. A perfect balanced fleet would not be perfect to go against a fleet that has clear strengths and weaknesses.

Maybe Arceans and Drengins are proud of their gun ships. Arceans are so proud they want to be first at front. Drengins are just so afraid of Lord Kona... Altarians got more long ranged and energy weapons. This kind of stuff. This could also be randomised for each game and/or phases of the game (not switched too often to become purely random).

Successfully updated karma reason!

Hey, thanks for this feedback!

As far as I know, the new combat system has not been rolled out in it's entirity. So the issue of communication how it exactly works, is also due to it being in an unfinished state.
But this also means, that we can incorporate players' feedback and requests with ease

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting Zabik_2,

reply 2

So here is the task at hand:

"From the main screen, I should be able to click on an enemy fleet, very quickly have an understanding based on some stats shown of what it is capable of, and have an intuitive understanding of the way to build my fleet to counter"

Successfully updated karma reason!

Ok so now having given some critiques, lets look at some solutions. I think one of the ways you can do this is to further differentiate missiles. Lets go even more different!

An example: Lets say missiles have the same range, cooldown, mass, and accuracy as lasers (again these levers sound cool....but they are just all flavors of the same thing.... DPR). Now we make missiles have much lower damage, maybe 1/4 the damage. Missiles have 1/4 the DPR of a laser lets say.

We then make it where only missiles have the missile burst on the main screen, and perhaps its 8 waves of missile damage (or whatever is needed for balance).

So the idea here is.... in a fight, missiles are TERRIBLE, just garbage. Instead, the focus is on the out of combat bombardment use of them. So effectively a missile fleet becomes artillery, you want them pounding at other fleets from range, but never actually engaging in the fight itself. In effect, a missile fleet becomes a ranged unit in games like Civ 5, designed to stay out of the frey and soften up foes.

Now countering missile fleets becomes intuitive, I need to get in there and fight them! High speed fleets and such.

Using missile fleets becomes intuitive, I want to pound things from range, and keep other fleets between the enemy and me, as I never want to attack with them directly in combat.

So now missiles have both a distinctive niche completely different from the other weapons. The niche is clear because the stats are consistent with lasers so a user can directly compare them and come to the conclusion (oh missiles are really bad in actual combat, ok I don't want to get in a fight directly). I also have introduced a key way to counter them. That's great, now we have strategy again.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Nice post. You nailed the old system perfectly. If I wanted a space-based tactical combat simulation game - I'd buy it. Then I can look at all the various tactical decisions that go into crafting an awesome space fleet. The strategic decisions (research/production/growth) are almost abstracted in that case. But does influence your spaceship configuration. Almost seems like a good idea for a GalCiv spin off game...................

I like GalCiv because it's a strategic space game. New combat system seems to be making it more tactical and complex.

When Supernova goes production, there needs to be practical documentation on the new combat system. On everything really but it seems like the combat stuff is most radical

Successfully updated karma reason!

I wanted to add my 2 cents here.

I agree that they need to better convey how the system works so that you can make more quick tactical decisions.

I don't think the RPS system was that great. If was functional sure, but it was too simple. I would like a much more complex underlying system that has a simple user interface overlay.

Take chess for instance. The rules and logic are relatively simple and easy to interact with, but I'll never beat a grandmaster because even though I know the rules, the master has a much deeper understanding of those rules, strategies, and flow of the board.

A more complex system in GC4 like chess could be how the class and weapon systems could be made to interact.

Each class acts as a "piece" on the board. How you combine those pieces will improve your odds of victory.

Weapons and defenses could actually still be made to act similar to what they did previously with how they function mechanically.

Evasion vs Kinetic: Kinetics already low accuracy paired against evasion would make hitting the enemy ship a chore and could drastically reduce the amount of damage a kinetic weapon can do against an enemy ship with high evasion. Mitigation could also be used to work against kinetics.

Absorption vs Beam: Because of beams 100% hit rate you would want to focus on absorbing as much of that damage as possible rather than trying to avoid it.

Mitigation vs Missile: Missiles have a chance to miss and they have a slow cooldown. Mitigation could probably be adjusted to work best against missiles or kinetics depending on how you balanced it.

I don't mind the artillery options, but I wouldn't make it so the only option for close combat is kinetic. That reduces the design space and player options. It would practically only limit me to using kinetics because I really don't use the artillery options. I've tried, but I just didn't find them compelling.

Missiles already struggle to keep up in close combat because how long it takes them to reload.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Frogboy

Join Date 03/2001

+2411

More thoughts here: GalCiv IV Supernova - The Combat System Discussion » Forum Post by Frogboy (galciv4.com)

Successfully updated karma reason!

Side note why I think a chess like system would be fun.

I doubt most players play against Godlike or Incredible A.I. Most of the time it's extremely difficult to compete with speed, combat, manufacturing, and research buffs these A.I. recieve. I generally play against at least few Incredible A.I. that I up to Godlike when I start to catch up.

A chess like system has benefits for both types of players.

Players playing below Incredible wouldn't really have to worry about in depth fleet composition or care about the ins and outs of the combat as they can get to the point of out building the A.I. so a couple battles lost isn't devastating. They still get to enjoy the new system without feeling pressed to know everything about it.

Players who want a much more in depth experience with combat could use it to win battles that should otherwise have been lost creating a rewarding experience for paying attention to enemy fleet compositions and loadouts.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Naval History is littered with stories of new ship designs or weapons that were supposed to change warfare forever, but failed miserably. It's also littered with stories of how unexpected innovations changed it forever. I like that this element is finally getting introduced to Gal Civ.

Dreadnaught-style (20th century) battleships were supposed to be the Kings of the Ocean. Yet, even at Jutland, no two battleships ever fired on one another throughout the wars of that era. Aircraft Carriers were a novelty, and supposed to just be support vessels. Now, after the way carrier aircraft were utilized in the War in the Pacific, the carrier (and how to to kill it) has become the central component of naval strategy.

There's something exciting in GC about sending a class of ships into battle for the first time, just to see if they will live up to the hype you've given them in your head. Warfare is supposed to be unpredictable, and making it so in the game makes playing for a conquest victory more than just going through the motions turn by turn.

Successfully updated karma reason!