proposition: Galactic Strategic Warfare Awareness

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

proposition: Galactic Strategic Warfare Awareness

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Distant Worlds 1 Series >> proposition: Galactic Strategic Warfare Awareness

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

proposition: Galactic Strategic Warfare Awareness - 5/19/2010 7:57:53 AM

Bartje

Posts: 308
Joined: 4/27/2010
From: Netherlands
Status: offline

DW may not be just about war and conquest but it's certainly a major part of the game.

I'd love to see the AI more strategic in this sense or perhaps it's global strategic context to be more visible to player.

With this in mind my newest proposal for a DW enhancement is:

Galactic Strategical Warfare Awareness & Visibility

Overview:

Strategic warfare is commonly perceived as being a relatively new (WW1 or Napoleonic Era) concept but it actually as old as war itself.

Being at war and aiming to win demand strategy.

Good strategy demands taking care to know your own Strengths and Weaknesses as well as those of your enemy.

I'd like to see this mirrored in Distant Worlds.

Luckily most if not all of the variables are already present in the game, such as fleet strength, comparisons etc..

Different Strategies & Situations:

- Decisive Battle: Our fleet is stronger; we should seek to end this conflict quickly and smash our enemies space navy in one stroke. This strategy would mean an Empire would actively try to force a confrontation. Options here are attacking very valueable assets that the enemy cannot afford to lose. Assets such as his homeworld or most important colonies / resources. (Pearl Harbor anyone?

) This strategy seeks pitched battles. This strategy seeks a quick and decisive and to the war. Reconaissance is important in order to determine when & where to engange in battle meaning that our intelligence service as well as pirates could prove invaluable for information gathering purposes. (Imagine Japan vs USA; The enemy knows he doesn't have the industry to maintain a protracted war)

- Battle of Attrition: A direct confrontation is undesirable (outcome unpredictable) and we should there for strive to slowly incapacitate our enemy by picking off valuable lightly protected assets in hit and run attacks (traders / freighters optional but not the main target). This strategy avoids pitched battles. This strategy seeks to increase our industrial strenghts relative to our enemy while also reducing his naval forces if possible. Spies & pirates & efforts to involve other empires may prove prudent. (Think about German submarines seeking to starve Great Britain @ WW1 & 2)

- Space Fortresses: A pitched battle on unfavorable terrain is undesirable but we can exhaust the enemy by building up our defenses and withstanding his onslaught untill the scales are tipped in our favor. We should seek to heavily fortify our worlds and face the enemy there so that the odds are in our favor; backed by a strong space station. This strategy seeks pitched battles in favorable defensive terrain and seeks to avoid them otherwise. Hit and run attacks are possible though; if the enemy lets down his guard we take a jab! This strategy seeks to undermine an enemies industrial superiority & naval numbers.

- Trade Lane War: Pitched battles are unpredictable and a defensive war is costly and unnessicary, instead we shall target the enemy's trade ships and prevent him from supplying his ships & colonies. This strategy seeks to incapacitate an adversaries economy by destroying his private sector. Pitched battles are avoided in favor of raids on commerce & unguarded installations. Freighters & traders are the main targets here. This strategy seeks to undermine an enemes industrial superiority. Spies as well as diplomacy and pirates can be used to disrupt trade routes as well. (Think about german submarines trying to cripple allied supplies to Great Britain! @ WW2)

- Industrial Strength: Our Empire has a strong industrial basis and can replace any naval vessels we lose rapidly. We should there for strive to inflict heavy losses to the enemy taking moderate risks with our forces. Pitched battles are acceptable. Our industry needs to be protected however. Freighters / Traders are an important part of our private sector and must be escorted / convoyed. Outlying resource stations & colonies will need proper defenses as well as a presence from our fleet. This strategy seeks to use and protect industrial superiority. Spies could also be used to weaken an enemies industry & steal inventions. (Industrial Superiorty such as the UK & US in WW2)

UPDATE: ADDITIONAL DOCTRINES & added spy & pirates options to strategy.

- Force Projection: Our ability to project force as opposed to our static and local defenses will determine the course of the war. Our outlying worlds are not an immediate priority nor is our private sector particularly vulnerable. Our strategy to deal with enemies shall therefore focus on highly mobile ranged naval task forces that allow our empire to project force in distant parts of the galaxy. Our fleets with thus primarily use stealth & speed as well as long range warfare in an effort to infiltrate an enemy empire and wreak havoc across their home territories & trade lanes. Reconaissance is important in order to determine when & where to engange in battle meaning that our intelligence service as well as pirates could prove invaluable for information gathering purposes. (Carriers & missiles prefered!)

- Deception & Sabotage: Our ability to deal with an adversary directly is questionable but using our stealth & guile we can tip the odds of any engagement in our favor by luring enemies away and striking where they are weak. Our strategy will primarily be the use of stealth & surprise attacks coupled with quick retreats to prevent a costly pitched battle. Spies will actively be used in an effort to destabilize the enemy's war effort. (Cloaking & Sabotage & Hit and Run)

Strategic Visibility:

Having these tactics is one thing but they also need to visible and mallable in the game in order to provide a sense of immersion as well as strategic gameplay.

Spies for example might be able to ascertain the enemies strategic plans which would allow you / Empire AI to formulate a counter strategy accordingly.

If the Idea of PAC's is implemented one day it would also be possible for the Admiralty to suggest targets based on the empire's global strategy.

Political Action Comittee: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2464725

In Conclusion:

I think it would be neat to implement visible strategic warfare!

Let the player and AI formulate / choose a global strategy and plan attacks / defenses accordingly.

Does the AI already do this?

What is your opinion? Any ideas for more strategies?

Convoy's would be awesome!!

< Message edited by Bartje -- 5/21/2010 3:07:18 PM >

Post #: 1

RE: proposition: Galactic Strategic Warfare Awareness - 5/19/2010 12:18:26 PM

Fishman

Posts: 795
Joined: 4/1/2010
Status: offline

I think the problem with the AI is that it simply starts wars arbitrarily with no clear sense of how it intends to win or what it hopes to accomplish by doing so. You can see this behavior if you simply turn on the AI suggestions: It will, for no apparent reason, suggest that you first slap trade sanctions (Why?) and then declare war on someone (why?). This is because the AI considers "We don't like you" sufficient grounds to declare war, even though declaring war imposes an immediate cost in lost morale from "War Weariness", which translates into an income loss. So now the AI is in an objectiveless war merely because it doesn't like someone. However "I don't like you!" is simply not a sufficient grounds for war. A human player would never declare war simply because it "doesn't like" someone, a human player would declare war because "I want this thing that you have". "I don't like you" is simply a factor which exacerbates an existing casus belli, not something on its own. The AI, however, seems to consider this sufficient: He declares war on me on sight, even when "sight" consists of "two scouts that encountered each other in an unclaimed system in deep space". He has no idea where I am, what I have, or whether I have anything worth taking, but he hates me, so he declares war. After declaring this war, he then makes no attempt to actually attack anything, because he has no idea what there is to attack. This state of affairs persists for the next 10-15 years. This is stupid!

< Message edited by Fishman -- 5/19/2010 12:19:11 PM >

(in reply to Bartje)

Post #: 2

RE: proposition: Galactic Strategic Warfare Awareness - 5/19/2010 12:24:59 PM

Bartje

Posts: 308
Joined: 4/27/2010
From: Netherlands
Status: offline

I agree that the AI seems to be far to quick to suggest war or sanctions but I don't really know what's going on under the hood when it does so.

It would be helpfull if it gave me some feedback on WHY it wants sanctions and WHY we should declare war. That would make far more sense.

I agree that the game could use a boost in this department. Especially if you play on lower agression settings.

I suppose aggression would translate into higher relations drops & lower requirements for war / casus belli barring some minimal requirements that must be met before considering war.

Right now the minimum requirment do need some tweaking.

(in reply to Fishman)

Post #: 3

RE: proposition: Galactic Strategic Warfare Awareness - 5/19/2010 12:45:04 PM

Fishman

Posts: 795
Joined: 4/1/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bartje

I agree that the AI seems to be far to quick to suggest war or sanctions but I don't really know what's going on under the hood when it does so.

It's doing so simply because it doesn't like them. It has no actual PLAN OF ACTION, though. For instance, Trade Sanctions are almost entirely purposeless. They serve no useful function at all, and there is no REAL reason why you would ever impose them except for purely administrative, corner-case behaviors that have nothing to do with diplomacy, like stopping freighters from traipsing off into the boonies. They are not a diplomatic consequence at all, and are only in the game because of their existence in the real world. The thing is, trade sanctions only make sense when you have something that they DON'T. This is not a likely case in the game. In fact, it is really not entirely clear why inter-empire trade exists at all! All empires use the same galactic prices, so there is absolutely no buying-low-selling-high going on. Goods are just transported to planets seemingly at random. There is basically no benefit to inter-empire trade as they will always be far away and unimportant, and your colonies will be close and need stuff.

As for wars, wars are fought for the goal of taking your enemy's colonies and mining sites. If you do not wish to, or have the means to, invade or rebuild the mining base, there is NO point in going to war. War for any other reason is simply violent asshattery, a behavior that AIs are profoundly bad at since asshattery is an irrational behavior. Even then, a human player at least considers his odds of NOT LOSING before deciding to be an asshat.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bartje

I agree that the game could use a boost in this department. Especially if you play on lower agression settings.

Lower aggression settings are actually smarter and tougher, because the AI will then be more inclined to force YOU to declare the war and eat the rep hit, rather than declaring war on you, giving you carte blanche to take as many colonies of his as you want. The AI simply does not need to be MORE willing to go to war because he is so bad at waging them. War on a strategic scale is a major undertaking involving a big picture, and, frankly, AIs suck at this.

(in reply to Bartje)

Post #: 4

RE: proposition: Galactic Strategic Warfare Awareness - 5/19/2010 1:17:18 PM

Bartje

Posts: 308
Joined: 4/27/2010
From: Netherlands
Status: offline

quote:

Lower aggression settings are actually smarter and tougher, because the AI will then be more inclined to force YOU to declare the war and eat the rep hit, rather than declaring war on you, giving you carte blanche to take as many colonies of his as you want. The AI simply does not need to be MORE willing to go to war because he is so bad at waging them. War on a strategic scale is a major undertaking involving a big picture, and, frankly, AIs suck at this.

Yes that is exactly what I ment! The AI needs A strategic boost is what I ment to say; not a boost in war willingness.

I know that AI's generally suck at strategy and that's why I made this post

I was hoping to give Erik or Elliot some ideas for improving the AI.

Coding in a selection of dynamic strategies seems like a smart move here. Especially considering their versatility! (Or do you detect obvious gaps or exploits in these strategies?)

Having such a strategy could also allow the AI to asses what kind of chance at succes it has when considering war�by checking the different strategies and their implications. (for the AI & potential enemy)

The fact that many of these strategies�are�based on real life doctrine (though I do not really know contemporary doctrine, does anyone else do????�) only adds to the immersion and plausibility.

I think getting this kind of feedback from the AI and knowing / seeing it behave(s) this way�would really enhance immersion.

As for Sanctions, I agree that they seem somwhat lackustre and lack an obvious purpose.

The game sort of lacks a stage of�obvious diplomatic tension in which such�measures would be logical.

Sanctions / Embargo make sense in a�strategical context, famous one's include the US's oil embargo on the Empire of Japan in WW2 but it is currently not possible to replicate such scenario's in DW.

In order to function Sanctions need a stage between war and�bad relations called diplomatic tension.

The US sanctions on Japan were�imposed to impress the severity of their actions on the Japanese and encourage them to stop their expansionism.

They had the opposite effect in hindsight;�driving them to make�war for oil and conquer many�countries &�colonies.

Seeing this kind of strategic behavior�in the game would add a whole new level of plausibility, immersion and most important.....strategy!�

It would require making the player & AI's aware of this tension however.

If an Empire does not like something happening they should say so and lower relations accordingly.

If they are just silent about it nothing changes. (It explains why they like war though, all that built up rage waiting to be unleashed!)

Anything I missed, misplaced or forgot?

< Message edited by Bartje -- 5/19/2010 1:23:21 PM >

(in reply to Fishman)

Post #: 5

RE: proposition: Galactic Strategic Warfare Awareness - 5/19/2010 4:26:22 PM

Gargoil

Posts: 389
Joined: 1/6/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fishman
Trade Sanctions are almost entirely purposeless. They serve no useful function at all, and there is no REAL reason why you would ever impose them except for purely administrative, corner-case behaviors that have nothing to do with diplomacy, like stopping freighters from traipsing off into the boonies. They are not a diplomatic consequence at all, and are only in the game because of their existence in the real world. The thing is, trade sanctions only make sense when you have something that they DON'T.

I would have agreed with you in the past as I have not until now worked well into mid-game with a thriving empire. In this current game, I have that "K" spice, one of the real rare luxury resources. There is a checkmark under every AI empire if I would trade it to them. I have traded it with all but one empire. This one empire was angry with me. I imposed trade sanctions and blockaded him. And sent in well trained spy (159) to do a little sabotage. His cashflow dwindled, his planets morale fell. He declared war on my (of course

). I pick off every ship and station he had. I gathered an invasion fleet which would target his capitol, but before it got there, he surrendered and now is subjecated to my empire.

So, I disagree that there is no REAL reasons other than administrative, as you put it.

< Message edited by Gargoil -- 5/19/2010 4:27:42 PM >

(in reply to Fishman)

Post #: 6

RE: proposition: Galactic Strategic Warfare Awareness - 5/19/2010 5:09:03 PM

Spacecadet

Posts: 1780
Joined: 4/18/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fishman
Trade Sanctions are almost entirely purposeless. They serve no useful function at all, and there is no REAL reason why you would ever impose them except for purely administrative, corner-case behaviors that have nothing to do with diplomacy, like stopping freighters from traipsing off into the boonies. They are not a diplomatic consequence at all, and are only in the game because of their existence in the real world. The thing is, trade sanctions only make sense when you have something that they DON'T.

Other than generating trade/colony revenue there is also another aspect here - resources (luxuries in particular).

In my last game, I started to get short on some of my resources for one reason or another.
The option to impose a Trade Embargo would stop my export of valuable resources that I needed.

Take a gander through your Spaceports and look at "Reserved" items that are associated with other Empires, it might just surprise you.

(in reply to Fishman)

Post #: 7

RE: proposition: Galactic Strategic Warfare Awareness - 5/19/2010 5:20:56 PM

Spacecadet

Posts: 1780
Joined: 4/18/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bartje

quote:

Lower aggression settings are actually smarter and tougher, because the AI will then be more inclined to force YOU to declare the war and eat the rep hit, rather than declaring war on you, giving you carte blanche to take as many colonies of his as you want. The AI simply does not need to be MORE willing to go to war because he is so bad at waging them. War on a strategic scale is a major undertaking involving a big picture, and, frankly, AIs suck at this.

Yes that is exactly what I ment! The AI needs A strategic boost is what I ment to say; not a boost in war willingness.

I know that AI's generally suck at strategy and that's why I made this post

I was hoping to give Erik or Elliot some ideas for improving the AI.

Coding in a selection of dynamic strategies seems like a smart move here. Especially considering their versatility! (Or do you detect obvious gaps or exploits in these strategies?)

Having such a strategy could also allow the AI to asses what kind of chance at succes it has when considering war�by checking the different strategies and their implications. (for the AI & potential enemy)

The fact that many of these strategies�are�based on real life doctrine (though I do not really know contemporary doctrine, does anyone else do????�) only adds to the immersion and plausibility.

I think getting this kind of feedback from the AI and knowing / seeing it behave(s) this way�would really enhance immersion.

Having Strategies is a good idea.

Having different Strategies due to Race / Government might be even a better idea.

The issue I see here though is you're implying that the AI knows how the battles will play out - in short, the AI has "perfect intelligence", or in essence a "Cheat".

Overall Strategies need to be based on available intelligence, not cheats, so that's going to change how this works out.

(in reply to Bartje)

Post #: 8

RE: proposition: Galactic Strategic Warfare Awareness - 5/19/2010 5:46:40 PM

Bartje

Posts: 308
Joined: 4/27/2010
From: Netherlands
Status: offline

No that's not what I ment to imply.

What I ment to imply is that the AI estimates (based on reasonably available knowledge) how it would fare in war. What its own strengths and weaknesses (perfect knowledge) are as well as those of its potential adversary. (needs intel & surveilance etc.... imperfect due to fog of war)

Based on this information it can then proceed to select the strategy that would be most likely to win the war.

If the course of the war�or the�situation at home or abroad changes it may be forced to re-evaluate.

For example it may estimate that it can win a war while it doesn't know that 50%�of your fleet has been deployed elsewhere. (has no intel or suspicion -- Or it does know that you have 50% more forces but estimates that you need them to fight another war.)

The AI proceeds to declare war only to realise that you are stronger then you appear to be. (You bring your fleet over -- Or you make peace with your other enemy and thus have more forces available to fight than it estimated earlier)

This in turn means that that the available dataset is altered to your advantage putting the AI at a (big) disadvantage and forcing it to change its strategy.

It may now choose to target your convoys instead of seeking a pitched battle or it may attempt to fortify and draw your fleet into a battle at his own defensive terms. (assuming it went with a more direct, "pitched battle" type strategy earlier on)

This situation is what I was hoping to describe in mechanical terms for Erik & Elliot.�

Does anyone have anymore ideas for strategies????????

< Message edited by Bartje -- 5/19/2010 5:54:59 PM >

(in reply to Spacecadet)

Post #: 9

RE: proposition: Galactic Strategic Warfare Awareness - 5/19/2010 6:04:55 PM

2guncohen

Posts: 401
Joined: 4/9/2010
From: Belguim
Status: offline

Bartje, are you not confusing Military strategy's with a Military doctrine?

"Doctrine links theory, history, experimentation, and practice. Its objective is to foster initiative and creative thinking. Doctrine provides the military an authoritative body of statements on how military forces conduct operations and provides a common lexicon for use by military planners and leaders."
&
"doctrine seeks to provide a common conceptual framework for a military service"

I think, this can be translated in the game how the AI reacts in a global way.

I fear the ai is not smart enough...

Now A military Strategy would be how it atacks ? ( Thats what i understood of my reflection )

Example

Sending hundereds of cheap annoying pesky ships with the goal of lowering your attention.
So that you never saw that "one world destroyer" flying to you homeworld ...

Just my 2 cents

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_doctrine

(in reply to Bartje)

Post #: 10

RE: proposition: Galactic Strategic Warfare Awareness - 5/19/2010 6:07:46 PM

Bartje

Posts: 308
Joined: 4/27/2010
From: Netherlands
Status: offline

Isn't that the distinction between strategy & tactics??

Tactics are local while strategy is more encompassing??

I do mean strategy in the sense of military doctrine.

But isn't military doctrine a form of strategy?

I am confused now!

It would be awesome to see the AI use diversions and other tactics!

< Message edited by Bartje -- 5/19/2010 6:08:19 PM >

(in reply to 2guncohen)

Post #: 11

RE: proposition: Galactic Strategic Warfare Awareness - 5/19/2010 6:25:59 PM

Dadekster

Posts: 141
Joined: 4/18/2010
Status: offline

I'd like to know the casus belli the AI has for going to war with each other. I can see they are busy kicking each others alien butts all over the place, but I never know why and what they are going after. Same thing when they come after me. Maybe I could get my spies to tell me what their strategic goal is other than blow homeworld to pieces. Be nice if I could invest some spies into that and they have a chance of telling me they are attempting to take over sector B2 of our empire or they are short on tendrian down (however it is spelled). Now I have something to work with. As it is now, war seems a bit of a muddled mess. When I go to war it is for something specific. I rarely go to war to wipe out species X unless species X has one planet and there is something on it I need that they won't trade for. I don't see this scenario much since those super rare resources usually belong to an empire with more than one planet. But at least I can understand what the wars are about.

(in reply to Bartje)

Post #: 12

RE: proposition: Galactic Strategic Warfare Awareness - 5/19/2010 6:37:44 PM

Gargoil

Posts: 389
Joined: 1/6/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bartje

Isn't that the distinction between strategy & tactics??

Tactics are local while strategy is more encompassing??

I do mean strategy in the sense of military doctrine.

But isn't military doctrine a form of strategy?

I am confused now!

It would be awesome to see the AI use diversions and other tactics!

How I have always understood it is:

Military Doctrine: Accounting of all available resources and knowledge of there employment resulting in a method used in a general way of waging war. For example - Soviet Union used a "Human Wave" doctrine in WW2, Germans used "Blitzkrieg".

Military Strategy: Strategy is doctrine put into specific steps to advantage your side and disadvantage your enemy in a long term way. Soviet in this case where attritioning and delaying the Germans, while the Germans where attempting to encircle large groups of Soviets and reach Moscow and the Caucus (spelling) Mountain Oil reservers quickly.

Tactics: These are the details of where, when, what, and how much. This hill must be secured, but that would put this division on our flank, so we must pin/supress it before our assault. We will need air support, but not Anti-Tank, as the enemy has no tanks. We will begin the attack on the hill 4 hours after the strikes against the enemy division. Our flank will be secure, so we will make good time securing the hill. Once secure, our vantage point from that hill will make defeating the enemy division much easier.

< Message edited by Gargoil -- 5/19/2010 6:39:24 PM >

(in reply to Bartje)

Post #: 13

RE: proposition: Galactic Strategic Warfare Awareness - 5/19/2010 6:43:59 PM

2guncohen

Posts: 401
Joined: 4/9/2010
From: Belguim
Status: offline

I think a doctrine is how everyone acts/thinks in the military-tree.
A tactic is how to do/engage "the act of war", when you encounter the enemy.
And a strategy how you act in the greater scale of contact warfare.

phew my brain hurts now ..

Ow and yeah it would be nice to see the AI doing some diabolisch tricks.

edit: @Gargoil nice post

< Message edited by 2guncohen -- 5/19/2010 6:46:05 PM >

(in reply to Bartje)

Post #: 14

RE: proposition: Galactic Strategic Warfare Awareness - 5/20/2010 3:02:29 AM

Keston

Posts: 300
Joined: 5/7/2010
Status: offline

Doctrine is very relevant to how an AI should operate.

Doctrine can be described as a common set of methods for the parts of an army or navy to cooperate effectively to achieve its goals - real war is stressful and confusing, so it is important to know that you can expect your mates to do what they trained to do. Doctrine can require, allow, or prohibit particular tactics or strategies, and can prove wise or mistaken - in WW2, the doctrine of massing tanks proved more successful than that of distributing them to infantry as supports. In DW, engage distance and retreat triggers are important areas where doctrine will decide.

People often don't think clearly in action, so they are trained so they will fall back on their training when pressured.

AI doesn't think either - it needs to be set up to act in certain channels and take steps that are mutually consistent.

Having different doctrines contesting each other in economic development and war makes the game more interesting.

(in reply to 2guncohen)

Post #: 15

RE: proposition: Galactic Strategic Warfare Awareness - 5/21/2010 2:51:08 PM

Bartje

Posts: 308
Joined: 4/27/2010
From: Netherlands
Status: offline

I completely agree that some sort of overarching strategem that adds a extra "weight" to certain options would make a lot of sense.

Does anyone know how easy this would be to implement in DW? Does Distant Worlds use LUA AI scripting for example ??

This would also provide a deeper sense of strategy for the player in the sense that he or she might be able to define what kind of military strategy the state should focus on.

It would be wonderful to be able to ask my Empire's AI what it thinks our military doctrine should be & then setting it or deciding otherwise.

This would give a big directive for the other AI's in terms of what to build & design.

AI behavior would be much more "focussed" & strategic. Assuming it's properly identifying its strenghts and options.

Update: Besides this military doctrine the AI could also define a long term state strategy consisting of its eventual goal with a number of ways to achieve it.

Sort of an overarching overarching strategy.

For example: global_strategy = Colonial Expansion, militairy_strategy = Force Projection

This would put an empasis(spelling?) its plans for growth (peacefull & not warlike) with a military doctrine that focusses on mobility & projection (carrier & fighters) as opposed to battleships.

Does DW have this sort of thing already? I really don't know how the game works under the hood.

UPDATE: ADDITIONAL DOCTRINES

- Force Projection: Our ability to project force as opposed to our static and local defenses will determine the course of the war. Our outlying worlds are not an immediate priority nor is our private sector particularly vulnerable. Our strategy to deal with enemies shall therefore focus on highly mobile ranged naval task forces that allow our empire to project force in distant parts of the galaxy. Our fleets with thus primarily use stealth & speed as well as long range warfare in an effort to infiltrate an enemy empire and wreak havoc across their home territories & trade lanes. Reconaissance is important in order to determine when & where to engange in battle meaning that our intelligence service as well as pirates could prove invaluable for information gathering purposes. (Carriers & missiles prefered!)

- Deception & Sabotage: Our ability to deal with an adversary directly is questionable but using our stealth & guile we can tip the odds of any engagement in our favor by luring enemies away and striking where they are weak. Our strategy will primarily be the use of stealth & surprise attacks coupled with quick retreats to prevent a costly pitched battle. Spies will actively be used in an effort to destabilize the enemy's war effort. (Cloaking & Sabotage & Hit and Run)

< Message edited by Bartje -- 5/21/2010 3:24:17 PM >

(in reply to Keston)

Post #: 16

RE: proposition: Galactic Strategic Warfare Awareness - 5/21/2010 4:24:52 PM

Astax

Posts: 126
Joined: 5/17/2010
Status: offline

I would not mind a system that creates goals of a war for the AI. Then learning those goals byt he player (By talking diplomatically or via spying) can lead to an easier way to end the war. Like if the AI only wants certain colonies, thats why it went to war, then giving him said colonies can make him wish to peace.

(in reply to Bartje)

Post #: 17

RE: proposition: Galactic Strategic Warfare Awareness - 5/22/2010 1:05:02 AM

Fishman

Posts: 795
Joined: 4/1/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Spacecadet

The issue I see here though is you're implying that the AI knows how the battles will play out - in short, the AI has "perfect intelligence", or in essence a "Cheat".

But everyone knows how battles play out. DW battles are simple, and random elements play little or no significant role: Ships exchange fire at the range decided by the fastest ship until someone gives up or dies. Therefore, the outcome is very much predictable. If a ship A with 10 DPS, 50 speed, and 500 range engages a ship B with 100 DPS, 40 speed, and 300 range, then the engagement will be fought at 500 range because A has the highest speed and therefore decides the engagement range. At this range, B's firepower is zero, so B loses unless its shield regeneration exceeds A's DPS. Every battle outcome can be predicted trivially this way.

(in reply to Spacecadet)

Post #: 18