(query) Ship design : tactics

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

(query) Ship design : tactics

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 >> The War Room >> (query) Ship design : tactics

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

(query) Ship design : tactics - 12/8/2014 5:36:35 PM

Yank31

Posts: 18
Joined: 11/25/2014
Status: offline

My apologies if there is a thread answering the question I'm about to ask, I've looked around and couldn't find it.

Do we have a clear understanding about what the ship tactics (point blank, all weapons, evade)actually do ?

First off, this is what I would intuitevely think they do :

- point blank : move to point blank range (which technically should be where the actual guns - not their projectiles - are almost touching the target) and fire everything ;

- stand off : stay at longest fire range of your longest range weapon (ie if a ship has both 150 and 520 range weapons equipped, stay at 520 range)and fire that particular long range weapon only ;

- evade : do not fire anything and get away from the target.

Again, this is most probably NOT what these tactics do, this is only what I would think they do.

But I've read, and heard, different things on the matter :

For instance, Larry "Starlab" Monte let's play on extreme difficulty (which kinda convinced me into buying this game), where his viewers suggested and he agreed to use the "all weapons" settings on the mining bases, instead of the default "point blank". Why is that? Does it even make a difference ?

Second exemple, Limulus post on the "Ship design tip and tricks" topic, found via the "Guide to Guides Mk II" topic, where Limulus explains going for a "point blank" tactic on his escorts.

Is there a guide/post I missed ?
If yes, please let me know.

If not,
What do you guys use and why ?
Is there a difference bewteen base tactics and ships tactics ? - I have to say though, "point blank" on armed base really does not make any sense in my mind.

Any insight would be appreciated.

< Message edited by Yank31 -- 12/8/2014 6:54:35 PM >

Post #: 1

RE: (query) Ship design : tactics - 12/8/2014 7:55:46 PM

Bingeling

Posts: 5186
Joined: 8/12/2010
Status: offline

I have not tested it closely, but I think you understand things correctly.

All weapons: Yes, the shortest range weapons should fire too.
Standoff: Keep distance, but do at least fire one weapon.
Point blank: Close and personal.
Evade: Keep away.

They should not matter on bases, bases don't move.

My main experience is in moving AI designed ships to "all weapons" once I see the cowards hanging back :)

What could matter for bases is the overmatch setting in empire settings (inside the "old" options screen). I believe a powerful base could split its fire on multiple enemies, but I have never paid too much attention.

(in reply to Yank31)

Post #: 2

RE: (query) Ship design : tactics - 12/9/2014 1:16:13 AM

Icemania

Posts: 1847
Joined: 6/5/2013
From: Australia
Status: offline

I tend to use Torpedoes and All Weapons with good engines so I can kite enemies at long range.

In the AI Improvement Mod I've applied that tactics that makes the most sense for the weapon type they use, since the developer added that to the template files in a recent patch. For example, I played a game using the Boskara and it was great fun ... they use Shaktur Firestorm (a powerful short range weapon) and Point Blank which is a lethal combination.

What would be cool in Distant Worlds 2 is the AI to select the tactic including consideration of the enemy faced. For example, when the AI has Torpedoes and as a human player I have Missiles, the AI should try to close to Point Blank. But when the AI has Torpedoes and as a human player I have Beam, they should try to stay at range.

< Message edited by Icemania -- 12/9/2014 2:16:55 AM >

(in reply to Bingeling)

Post #: 3