RE: my custom ships wipe the AI's plate clean - everytime

RE: my custom ships wipe the AI's plate clean - everytime (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Distant Worlds 1 Series

Message

Munchies -> RE: my custom ships wipe the AI's plate clean - everytime (5/2/2010 5:24:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Shark7 Imagine this... You have 20 species, each that developed in isolation and on its own. Each developed along its own line, specializing in one tech or another along the way.... Does it not make sense that their ship design philosophy would also be unique? The Boskara...aggressive insectiod species. Does it not make sense that they would prefer up close, personal and vicious fighting? What if Boskaran ships specialized in short range fighting, with heavy laser batters and heavy shields and armor. This is their design philiosphy. Humans on the other hand prefer standoff combat using maneuver and employing feints and ruses. Their ships would utilize heavy torpedo batteries as well as ECM, and additional targeting modules with a few lasers for times when you just can't stay at range. See where this is going. You can set the templates through a design philosophy that stays with the species through its designs. And get templates that allow the AI to fully utilize its building capacity. These might have to be defined by the developer, so that each ship utilizes its space to maximum effect. Another Way to Handle It... Hardpoints: I know not every one likes them (heck I don't like them) but it does make it possible to allow the AI to fully utilize its design capacity, prevent the player from building invincible ships, and allow the AI and players to stick to the species design philosophy. Taking the examples above: Base Deign for an escort... 4 Beam HPs 2 Torpedo HPs 4 Armor HPs 2 Shield HPs 1 ECM HP 1 Command Module HP 1 Computer HP Hab, Eninges, and Reactor are unlimited. For the Boskaran they get the following bonuses: 6 Additional Beam HPs (total of 10) 6 Additional Armor HPs (total of 10) 2 Additional Shield HPs (total of 4) Humans get the following Bonuses: 4 Torpedo HPs (total of 6) 1 ECM HP (total of 2) 1 Computer HP (total of 2) By using a HP system, you can balance the designs while not making them exactly the same. You can also define a number of HPs per type (IE Escort, Frigate, etc) making the types different from each other. As I said, I usually don't support hardpoints, but it could be the best solution, especially in a single player game like DW where you don't have another players designs to have to compete with. Unfortunately with the AI being limited (as all AIs are), then you have to level the playing field by maknig the player use the same rules. I am not in favor of hardpoints either, but this is one solution that might work. and is worth looking at. As far as physics is physics goes. He is not talking about 2 different cultures of the same species (humans on earth). How about a crustacean that lives on ocean worlds, under water, with tremendous pressure and an insect that lives on volcanic worlds with little pressure and atmosphere? Yes, chances are their ships would be different. But who knows lol.

taltamir -> RE: my custom ships wipe the AI's plate clean - everytime (5/2/2010 5:40:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Shark7 quote: ORIGINAL: taltamir quote: Imagine this... You have 20 species, each that developed in isolation and on its own. Each developed along its own line, specializing in one tech or another along the way.... Does it not make sense that their ship design philosophy would also be unique? Physics is physics... so no it does not make sense that their ship designs would be unique. Disparate societies on earth managed to reach the same conclusions in construction, weaponry, etc... How? because the basics physical properties of reality favor certain things. Physics are a constant, sentient species are not. You can take two similar groups of humans, present them with a problem, and get two different solutions....now imagine that on a galactic scale with two groups that are not similar. The physics on 2 planets are identical, but how 2 different species tackle the problems are more likely to be different than not. In other words, 2 separate, unique paths to the same answer. This is why I say hardpoints...you'll get essentially the same answer, with quite a bit of variation on how they got there and the over-all design of the final product. A society is made up of more then 2 people. Ask 2 different humans a question that was never asked before and you will mostly likely get two different answers... and then one of them builds a bridge that collapses and the other builds a bridge that lasts... Or one of them builds a bridge for half the cost and materials that is just as strong... And we are not talking peacetime stuff here, but weapons... on earth you had plenty of "crossbows are dishonorable, real warrior use swords" (which later became guns are dishonorable)... or "guns are awesome, sword are awesome, lets combine the two to make gunblade" (attempted a variety of times in various isolated cultures... was a colossal failure every time) as well as other various notions and theories. The thing is, the laws of reality are the ultimate impartial judge of who is right... As long as they are really sentient and not just caricatures, then they would have come up with a whole variety of approaches and solutions... and when they test them on the field of battle some result in death and others in victory. quote: ORIGINAL: Munchies As far as physics is physics goes. He is not talking about 2 different cultures of the same species (humans on earth). How about a crustacean that lives on ocean worlds, under water, with tremendous pressure and an insect that lives on volcanic worlds with little pressure and atmosphere? Yes, chances are their ships would be different. But who knows lol. Last I checked, humans live in a temperate continental planet, on the surface of the continents. Not in the hard vacuum of space. Humans are wholly unsuited for space, 0-G, etc... but we use our brains to figure out what does work out there... and when we make mistakes out space vehicles explode in fiery death. That crustacian species might have very different notions of what works on their native environment and might have some special weapons and combat techniques for fighting at the bottom of the ocean. But as soon as they go out into the cold depths of space they must work in the same environment as anyone else. The thing is, with physics there is none of this Saturday morning special "we are all right in the end in our own unique way"... someone is right, and someone is wrong. And I am not keen on the AI using "wrong" assumptions about space combat resulting in its horrid demise. (aka, some race's hardpoint setups would create clearly superior designs) Nor am I keen on the idea of have special physics where somehow it is all equally effective in the end. (constant fiddling with the hardpoint setups to make them all somehow artificially balanced) I assure you modern human armies do not go about saying "mmm, our experience as hairless apes is that being big and strong like a gorilla is better... so we are going to build the biggest weapons we can without regards to efficiency or actual performance"... Our "you fail physics forever" movie makers and cartoonist often come up with ridiculously over-sized tanks or shudder giant mecha; but armies do not use those because, quite frankly, they suck. Although there have been ATTEMPTS by armies to use things like that, they always resulted in utter failure.

Munchies -> RE: my custom ships wipe the AI's plate clean - everytime (5/2/2010 6:28:01 PM)
uhh.. ok. whatever you say. [&o] Devs, I make a request to make all the different species' ships to look and act exactly like all others. After all, our past has shown that there is only one way to make a spaceship. [:D]

taltamir -> RE: my custom ships wipe the AI's plate clean - everytime (5/2/2010 7:08:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Munchies uhh.. ok. whatever you say. [&o] Devs, I make a request to make all the different species' ships to look and act exactly like all others. After all, our past has shown that there is only one way to make a spaceship. [:D] They already are all the same, AI ship design makes ships with the same component... a different graphic though.. and that is perfectly fine. Anyways, you can build a non ideal bridge and it will not necessarily fall down. but the game mechanic result of small differentiation is that some races will design superior ships. And the result of large differentiation is that some ships will be completely useless unless there is a long and drawn out juggling act of balancing that will never quite get it right but aim to make them all the same.

Shark7 -> RE: my custom ships wipe the AI's plate clean - everytime (5/2/2010 7:09:43 PM)
With hard points, you will get some balance, but mostly you will get unique, and you will get the AI able to compete with the player designs, thus adding challenge. Honestly there is no such thing as 'balance' in any game. The player will always out think the AI, and even with all things being completely identical, one player can out think another player. In DW, hard points would add in some design caps that would help keep the AI more on par with the player. Some weaker, some stronger, but at least there wouldn't be one completely dominant design due to the player being able to build without limits. Like I said, personally I hate hard points, but I can see a reason to use them.

taltamir -> RE: my custom ships wipe the AI's plate clean - everytime (5/2/2010 8:19:07 PM)
But why in the world do you need unique set of hardpoints for every alien race is my question. A cruiser can be said to be 4 torpedoes and 10 lasers for all races... making cruisers such that: Race A: 10 torpedoes and 0 lasers Race B: 5 torpedoes and 5 lasers Race C: 0 torpedoes and 10 lasers you will get a situation where race A produces the best ships, followed by race B, followed by race C. Or giving race A 10 weapon hard points and 5 shield hard points, and race B 5 weapon hard points and 10 shields hard points. again, will result in one or the other having superior ships... (I haven't done the math to know which it is in that example actually :P) and if you are playing the race with the clearly inferior design you are going to wonder why your race is so dumb that it cannot even copy the basic ratio principles from the race that is kicking its ass. If you must implement hard points, then make them by ship class and the same for all races... just say that it is the mathematically proven best way to build a ship with a ratio of 2:1:4 of weapons:shields:engines. (or better yet, actually do the math and run simulations :P). I am not as opposed to the idea of hard points as I am to the idea of "different races have different approaches to ship design" which forces certain races to use clearly sub part ship designs (more lasers, less torpedoes) because of some fridge logic. Frankly I think that ships should come in predetermined sizes... there are 8 construction techs... with tech 1 limiting you to size 200, tech 2 to size 330, and so on... So have ships come in 8 sizes... size 1 is 0-200 space, size 2 is 200-330 space, and so on. And component should be % of total size based... that is, you decide if you want between 20 and 40% of the space to be dedicated to engines for example (and you are capped at specific sizes)... between 0 and 50% for shields, etc... naturally you cannot increase one without decreasing the other. This gives the impression that you are actually designing a ship as an engineering project rather then assembling one from legos. Or maybe have weapons as components but engines and shields as a single unit that is a size Dependant on your ship. life support should be automatically calculated to be an exact amount needed for your ship's size (and higher tech level decrease that size giving you more size for other stuff) so you don't actually have to bother with those components. the end result is identical to component system for a player (a component system where there are 8 ship size categories which you do not select, but are automatically assigned based on the final size of your ship). But it makes it really simple to make the AI design stuff (just preset a ratio of various equipment). Essentially you are using a component system, where each component is of very small size... But even with a component system that is as right now you can approximate it with the AI... designing a new ship? set a target size of 330, ~30% of it should be engines... that is 99 space... add engines until you pass 99, see which was closer and keep that (aka, if the engine component is size 7, 14 units of it are size 98, 15 units are size 105. 98 is closer to 99 then 105 is, use 14 engine components. Continue that way down the path of components... finally reach weapons... Add weapons until there is no more room (aka, as close to 330 while still under it), congrats on your newly AI designed ship... The reason the AI has problems right now is: 1. Sizes are not properly categorized... Each construction tech should unlock a new ship size category, which should be specified and used up (ex: tech 2 construction yard unlocks size 330 ships)... currently an AI designed capital ship is about size 700... they should always match the maximum current size of a certain tech level 2. Components are not correctly prioritized. the last reactor tech is inferior to the one before it, the shaktur firestorm torpedoes are inferior to other torpedoes, super weapons are inferior to all other weapons, lasers are inferior to torpedoes unless you have very high end lasers compared to very low end torpedoes, the ultimate shields megatron Z4 plain suck... etc. this is the #1 reason why the AI is having trouble right now, it is the major goal for 1.05, and it is fixable without switching over to hardpoint system... the current component system will work fine if the components are correctly prioritized. 3. The least important, but still an important factor... the AI puts too few shields and weapons on a ship... a size 700-900 ship needs a good 200 or so space dedicated to shields (aka, 30 shields on a capital ship). this is only about 20-30%. it currently puts a little under 10% of the ship's size into shields.

Fishman -> RE: my custom ships wipe the AI's plate clean - everytime (5/3/2010 2:30:54 AM)
You keep saying "The AI puts too few weapons, shields, armor, and engines on its ships"...but this cannot be true, because weapons, shields, armor, and engines (and reactors, which we KNOW he doesn't put enough of) are the primary components on a ship! Unless you're suggesting the AI is stuffing his warships with redundant noncombat systems, so that the ship has 12 hyperdrives taking up all his space, this cannot be true, as the size of a ship is a direct function of what is in it. I think it's more that the AI builds small ships filled with primitive junk, which makes his ships appear woefully underpowered. It also means he can turn them out like popcorn, however: The AI never seems to run out of them no matter how many I shoot down.

taltamir -> RE: my custom ships wipe the AI's plate clean - everytime (5/3/2010 7:02:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Fishman You keep saying "The AI puts too few weapons, shields, armor, and engines on its ships"...but this cannot be true, because weapons, shields, armor, and engines (and reactors, which we KNOW he doesn't put enough of) are the primary components on a ship! Unless you're suggesting the AI is stuffing his warships with redundant noncombat systems, so that the ship has 12 hyperdrives taking up all his space, this cannot be true, as the size of a ship is a direct function of what is in it. I think it's more that the AI builds small ships filled with primitive junk, which makes his ships appear woefully underpowered. It also means he can turn them out like popcorn, however: The AI never seems to run out of them no matter how many I shoot down. Quote myself quote: 1. Sizes are not properly categorized... Each construction tech should unlock a new ship size category, which should be specified and used up (ex: tech 2 construction yard unlocks size 330 ships)... currently an AI designed capital ship is about size 700... they should always match the maximum current size of a certain tech level 2. Components are not correctly prioritized. the last reactor tech is inferior to the one before it, the shaktur firestorm torpedoes are inferior to other torpedoes, super weapons are inferior to all other weapons, lasers are inferior to torpedoes unless you have very high end lasers compared to very low end torpedoes, the ultimate shields megatron Z4 plain suck... etc. this is the #1 reason why the AI is having trouble right now, it is the major goal for 1.05, and it is fixable without switching over to hardpoint system... the current component system will work fine if the components are correctly prioritized. 3. The least important, but still an important factor... the AI puts too few shields and weapons on a ship... a size 700-900 ship needs a good 200 or so space dedicated to shields (aka, 30 shields on a capital ship). this is only about 20-30%. it currently puts a little under 10% of the ship's size into shields. Max ship size by construction tech: 1: 200 2: 330 3: 500 4: 650 5: 850 6: 1100 7: 1500 Using all tech except Shaktur Firestorm, Megatron Z4, and Novacore NX-700. Enable AI ship autodesign: result... capital ship, size 690 (requiring tech 5 building but not going up to the 850 size max). Shields: 10 units, total space 80... 11.6% of the current ship size, 9.4% of the size it should aim for with a capital ship (since capital ship is size 5 ship, it should be 850 size. Armor: 20 units, total space 20, 2.9% of design size, 2.4% of what it should aim for. Weapons: 8 Plasma Thunderbolt MX, size 40. I would use more of these... 16 titan beam SR, size 96... 2 nuclear exterminators, size 14... 1 death ray, size 140... the death ray gives a big boost to its size, the size of the last capital ship it designed for me, before I had death rays, was 519 total... Anyways, total weapon sizes, 290 total, which 42% of current size and 34% of target size, it is actually a good percentage of the total space. but only because of the death ray. Even so, the weapon choices are terrible and the total ship size is too small. Engines (not hyperdrive or vectoring thrusters): sprint speed, 35... engines used 13. total engine size is 104. 15.1% of ship size (690), 12.2% of target size (850). If he used 20 engines his sprint speed would be 50 instead of 35. total size would be 160... which is 18.8% of target size... since we are being highly structured here, a target of 20% would be 170... which means 21 engines is closest, giving a sprint of 52. Anyways... this was actually a good-ish example because he had the super weapons to work with, and is programmed to use one. Current sizes of ships are: Escort < Frigate < Destroyer < Cruiser < Capital Ship My suggestion is to take the max sizes via tech and use those: 1: 200 = Escort 2: 330 = Frigate 3: 500 = Destroyer 4: 650 = Cruiser 5: 850 = BattleCruiser 6: 1100 = BattleShip 7: 1500 = Dreadnaught Capital ship is a general term for the three biggest sizes. The AI should design to maximize the size of the current tech. When doing so it should aim for percentages... example design: Hyperdrive: always 1 unit, starts at size 12 and goes down to 8... size should depend on the size of the ship. the most primitive hyperdrive is 6% of the smallest of ships (escort, size 200) and the best is 4% of the size of that ship. Since the current size fits all, lets put it in the middle of current ship designs... thats destroyer, size 500... so it goes from 2.4% to 1.6% the size of a destroyer. So hyperdrive for an escort hyperdrive at the starting tech of 2.4% is size 4.8. And a Dreadnaught's is 36. Shields: Add them component by component until you get closest to 20% of the ship size. For size 8 shields that is 21 shields on a battle cruiser, 37 or 38 on a dreadnaught. Armor: I think a 1 to 1 ratio with shields is good, since this is 1/8 the size you get 2.5% of total ship size. Since armor allows individual addition (one unit size each), add them until armor and shields are exactly 22.5% (that is, if you got that 20% size shields being 37.5 shields, that means you can put 37 shields and an extra 5 amror pieces to accomodate that extra 5 space) Engines: 20% Vectoring: 5% the total of the above is 49.9% btw. a bit lower in higher tech level hyperdrive... the other 50%? you put in the minimum amount of reactors, life support, sensors, computers, etc and fill every last remaining spot with weapons.

Fishman -> RE: my custom ships wipe the AI's plate clean - everytime (5/3/2010 8:36:11 AM)
From my own field experiments, a 700-ish size capship is a pretty decent size. While I have built 1500-size Super-Dreads before, they were never done as serious attempts to fight anything, but purely as masturbatory exercises in pompousness and grandiosity. Anything larger becomes increasingly impractical, as it costs a lot, can only be in one place at a time, and can only incinerate a single victim at a time. Except for amusement, there's really not much point in designing a ship so huge that it singlehandedly outguns the entire enemy fleet. But it's nice that DW will let you do it...because it's AWESOME!

taltamir -> RE: my custom ships wipe the AI's plate clean - everytime (5/3/2010 8:47:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Fishman From my own field experiments, a 700-ish size capship is a pretty decent size. While I have built 1500-size Super-Dreads before, they were never done as serious attempts to fight anything, but purely as masturbatory exercises in pompousness and grandiosity. Anything larger becomes increasingly impractical, as it costs a lot, can only be in one place at a time, and can only incinerate a single victim at a time. Except for amusement, there's really not much point in designing a ship so huge that it singlehandedly outguns the entire enemy fleet. But it's nice that DW will let you do it...because it's AWESOME! the problem with size 700 is that you need the tech for size 850 to build it. And its only size 700 because of the death ray... my pre deathray capital ship was size 519 I agree that those huge sizes are not the most practical... and you should build a limited amount of those. but design should match their tech level. In my last game I went with: Capital: 30 shields + 30 armor + 30 torpedoes + 3 troop pods + 3 repair bots. enough engines for speed 50, turn rate 20 Cruiser: 20 shields + 20 armor + 20 torpedoes + 2 troop pods + 2 repair bots. enough engines for speed 60, turn rate 25 Capital: 10 shields + 10 armor + 10 torpedoes + 1 troop pods + 1 repair bots. enough engines for speed 70, turn rate 30 sizes are: 839, 658, 418 respectively. however, that was before I did such an in depth analysis of ship designs and sizes. I think it would be perfectly fine to alter the max sizes as described above... The tech levels could give smaller sizes. AI ship builds COULD be set to never build anything larger then a cruiser even though the size categories are there IF the design is desired.

Fishman -> RE: my custom ships wipe the AI's plate clean - everytime (5/3/2010 8:53:30 AM)
Well, one catch is that you should never, ever, design any escorts, frigates, or destroyers, and probably should avoid cruisers. Remember, the pirate thing. Although I can't think of a good USE for the 200-point escorts that you're proposing. One of the kickers is that ships benefit strongly from economies of scale at the lower sizes. A ship can only use ONE of any of the essential add-on systems, but the smaller the ship, the greater the proportion of space is consumed by it. As such, building anything other than an extremely specialized craft specifically cut down to fit within those limits is all but impossible, and such a thing will never be a general-purpose ship of any worth. It's when you start getting into the 400-point range that you have room to design something that isn't crap. I had a 400-point escort that was probably the best damn ship in the game, in terms of cost, and the fact that it was impossible to kill.

taltamir -> RE: my custom ships wipe the AI's plate clean - everytime (5/3/2010 8:55:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Fishman Well, one catch is that you should never, ever, design any escorts, frigates, or destroyers, and probably should avoid cruisers. Remember, the pirate thing. Although I can't think of a good USE for the 200-point escorts that you're proposing. One of the kickers is that ships benefit strongly from economies of scale at the lower sizes. A ship can only use ONE of any of the essential add-on systems, but the smaller the ship, the greater the proportion of space is consumed by it. As such, building anything other than an extremely specialized craft specifically cut down to fit within those limits is all but impossible, and such a thing will never be a general-purpose ship of any worth. It's when you start getting into the 400-point range that you have room to design something that isn't crap. I had a 400-point escort that was probably the best damn ship in the game, in terms of cost, and the fact that it was impossible to kill. This is why I suggest that certain systems should take a percentage of the ship... hyperdrive, bridge, lifesupport, and hub should all be a percentage of the chassis size, with higher levels of those tech shrinking that percentage figure down. Also, I see no harm in adjusting the tech values... if the AI insists on building size 500 capital ships... well, make tech 5 construction give size 500.

Fishman -> RE: my custom ships wipe the AI's plate clean - everytime (5/3/2010 9:25:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: taltamir This is why I suggest that certain systems should take a percentage of the ship... hyperdrive, bridge, lifesupport, and hub should all be a percentage of the chassis size, with higher levels of those tech shrinking that percentage figure down. Life support and habitation already ARE a percentage of hull size. The bigger your hull, the more components of those you need, so you're not getting away with anything there. However, hyperdrive size is a very significant factor. For a small 200-point ship, the hyperdrive is 10% of your ship. The other important factor in ships that creates a minimum size is "minimum effectiveness". A system needs to be a minimum size in order to be worth even having. Weapons is particularly sensitive to this. A ship, on average, needs to be able to do at least 50-60% damage to its target within about 5 seconds. Otherwise you never kill anything, because that's how long it takes your target to run away from you. At the same time, it needs enough shielding to be able to SURVIVE this against a much bigger target. Finally, it needs enough engines to be faster than that thing! With all these requirements, it becomes clear that dinky quickly becomes inadequate for creating a mission-capable ship that the AI can actually use without you babysitting: I can create a 150-point dogfighter, but then I have to babysit it and pilot manually so it doesn't get fragged.

taltamir -> RE: my custom ships wipe the AI's plate clean - everytime (5/3/2010 9:33:34 AM)
well... this goes to who you are fighting... an escort fighting an escort will do fine. But sure, minimum size is a requirement for certain systems... don't have them on ships below a certain size class. escorts for example should not be carting around troop pods

Fishman -> RE: my custom ships wipe the AI's plate clean - everytime (5/3/2010 9:36:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: taltamir well... this goes to who you are fighting... an escort fighting an escort will do fine. You're the defender. You don't get to choose who you're fighting. You have to win anyway, no matter what it is. Haven't you seen how much easier it is to attack? Because you CHOOSE what to fight when you attack. Escorts don't have that luxury. They have to defend, and they have to win, because defending without winning is purposeless. Just the same, you shouldn't build escorts anymore anyway, because, you know, the pirate thing.

Gertjan -> RE: my custom ships wipe the AI's plate clean - everytime (5/3/2010 10:15:18 AM)
What was wrong with the rock/paper/scissors style of Galciv2?

taltamir -> RE: my custom ships wipe the AI's plate clean - everytime (5/3/2010 10:22:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Gertjan What was wrong with the rock/paper/scissors style of Galciv2? eh, its kinda obnoxious i think... Also, galciv did NOT have a rock paper scissors setup... missiles did not lose to lasers and defeat mass drivers... rather, missiles were blocked by countermeasure A, lasers by countermeasure B, and so on. thats not rock paper scissors. finally, what does rock paper scissors have to do with the AI designing ships without proper regards to their size?

Ellestar -> RE: my custom ships wipe the AI's plate clean - everytime (5/3/2010 11:11:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lordxorn GalCiv 2 AI designed the latest ships. GalCiv ship design is so stupid it may as well not exist. So of course AI has no problems with it.

Bartje -> RE: my custom ships wipe the AI's plate clean - everytime (5/3/2010 11:38:04 AM)
I think that the most realistic "physics" / "natural" setup is the way it is now. What does need to be better: Effective and Efficient are words that imply a relationship to a certain goal that is to be achieved. In order for a design to be effective & efficient it needs to fufill whatever it is supposed to do in the best way possible (as available at shipdesign time) This implies that there are no "global combat rules" because combat design actually depends on global strategy. Is a race's strategy to use speed and guile to outmaneuver their opponent and hit them where it hurts while no one's guarding the cookie jar? Then speed is essential. Is your purpose to destroy your opponent in a stand up straight sluggfest? Then you need superior firepower and preferably staying power. Is your purpose to hold the line? Then you need very superior staying power over the enemies offensive capacities. Ergo: what would be "natural" to the Distant Worlds Universe is the concept of design philosophies. How do Empires hope to defeat their opponents? - Through (direct) grand decisive battles? (big battleships!) - Through a (indirect) battle of attrition? (more carrier like? / submarine like? or through staying power) - Through destroying his economy (raiding, pillaging, looting and being gone by the time he shows up; again submarine warfare like) - Is the emphasis on Artillery (superior and concentrated firepower) or is the army like a liquid killing machine and requires punch as well as speed? Meaning: Currently torpedoes rule, they have no real downside. This needs to altered, perhaps torpedoes should be easier to miss on mobile objects such as ships????? Concentrate enough of them (think a fleet of torpedo ships) and you'll be a killer but for those limited (strikegroup, not fleet) fast & furious strikes you'll probably want lasers then. What it comes down to: There needs to be a design philosophy for the AI based on what it wants to achieve (strategy) and how it sees warfare (perspective). Communist Bugs don't care about life, for example. An endless war of attrition is fine to them; they don't care. Historically: What's the difference between the Japanese navy and the American navy in WW2??? What's the difference between the German Army & the Allied as well as Communist army?? They all had different philosophies and designs to achieve different goals for the overarching goal of defeating the enemy. A Design Philosophy thus: Incorporates the strengths and weaknesses of given nation, its experience in previous wars as well as perceived weaknesses in the enemy Contemporary: A prime example is the difference in NATO members on the development of Aircraft. The USA focusses on stealth tech The EU focusses on stealth detection (quite advanced and effective too, by the way!!) The question then becomes: Now that we know this, what can we do with it?????

taltamir -> RE: my custom ships wipe the AI's plate clean - everytime (5/3/2010 12:02:03 PM)
quote: This implies that there are no "global combat rules" because combat design actually depends on global strategy. no it does not. you are mincing words. Effective means "kill the other guy and don't die". Efficient means "more performance per unit of limited resources"... which can be more performance per size, energy usage, or monetary cost. It has nothing to do with "global strategy"... it has to do with "in a fight between two ships, who will die and who will live". quote: Is a race's strategy to use speed and guile to outmaneuver their opponent and hit them where it hurts while no one's guarding the cookie jar? Then speed is essential. Is your purpose to destroy your opponent in a stand up straight sluggfest? Then you need superior firepower and preferably staying power. Is your purpose to hold the line? Then you need very superior staying power over the enemies offensive capacities. Those are fundamental truth's of reality not "racial preferences". All of which, btw, have been conceived by humans and should be possible for every sentient being to conceive since they are so simple. It is virtually impossible (mind bogglingly low probability) for them all to be equally effective. Rather, some tactics are clearly better then others. now, you COULD spend an inordinate amount of time trying to force those to be balanced. Then assign racial preferences... but unless and until you actually do so assigning them as racial preferences will result in some races having sucky AI and some having good AI... There are only three possibilities: 1. You make an optimal design, have all AI use it. 2. You give AI "preferences", as a result some will clearly be better than others because some preferences suck and some don't (example, lasers vs torpedoes currently) 3. You give AI "preferences" AND you spend lots of time and effort "balancing" the various strategies to be equal... you will never be perfectly balanced but you might get close... however that is lots of work for the developers, and frankly the idea strikes me stupid. IRL guns are not "balanced" with tanks or swords, and they shouldn't be... certain things are just better and that is fine. quote: Historically: What's the difference between the Japanese navy and the American navy in WW2??? What's the difference between the German Army & the Allied as well as Communist army?? They all had different philosophies and designs to achieve different goals for the overarching goal of defeating the enemy. The fact that different factions have had different design philosophy doesn't somehow make them all balanced or equal. As I have previously said, it is natural to use different design philosophy (especially in a particular time period), but ineffective philosophies resulted in failure and death, and were then abandoned... You COULD make the AI alternate its design philosophies... it has been suggested that the AI try certain things, if they result in much failure it will make a new set of designs with a different philosophy, rinse and repeat... 1. this doesn't work as well in a game which has lots of abstraction and fairly simple combat. 2. this is tons and tons of work to implement. quote: A Design Philosophy thus: Incorporates the strengths and weaknesses of given nation, its experience in previous wars as well as perceived weaknesses in the enemy The AI is dumb enough without intentionally dumbing down certain aspects of certain factions as a "racial philosophy"... if the AI Was routinely kicking ass then a way to nerf it would be to implement such a scheme. But we are not there and I doubt we ever will be.

Fishman -> RE: my custom ships wipe the AI's plate clean - everytime (5/3/2010 1:26:35 PM)
quote: Historically: What's the difference between the Japanese navy and the American navy in WW2??? What's the difference between the German Army & the Allied as well as Communist army?? They LOST. Whatever they did, it was wrong. The key here is that whatever they decide to do, these are people's guesses of how they should accomplish the objective of WINNING. Many of these ideas will turn out to be wrong.

taltamir -> RE: my custom ships wipe the AI's plate clean - everytime (5/3/2010 1:43:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Fishman quote: Historically: What's the difference between the Japanese navy and the American navy in WW2??? What's the difference between the German Army & the Allied as well as Communist army?? They LOST. Whatever they did, it was wrong. The key here is that whatever they decide to do, these are people's guesses of how they should accomplish the objective of WINNING. Many of these ideas will turn out to be wrong. exactly... speaking of, I have actually played in (very rare) games in which the AI was so good that in lower difficulty settings it was programmed to intentionally make bad decisions, and the exact nature of those decisions depended on which race / faction / etc it played. hopefully this will one day be the case here in which case such "racial preferences" will be a great solution to nerfing it.... maybe include it already as a "very easy" option once the difficulty slider is implemented.

Bartje -> RE: my custom ships wipe the AI's plate clean - everytime (5/3/2010 2:14:49 PM)
� That does not diminish the fact that strategy should be the foundation of its design philosophy. This game deserves more than the - build a battleship as powerful as possible and�win model. It should for example be conceivable to use a faster fleet to destroy an enemy's forces locally, achieving (temporary) local superiority�even though ship by ship they aren't superior. (sort of Guerillia warfare; weak, fast & many vs superior but overwhelmed) Another example would be the use of�certain�ships with tremendous�staying power (shielding) to serve as decoys and target while the DPS ships stay back. (artillery & shield) And then there is the "Ship of the Line", just head right into battle like a tank sort of ship. (Tank / Ship of the Line) Finally there is also a carrier type of ship that doesn't engage itself but lends smaller yet effective forces to the fight that don't hyperspace themselves. (harassment & attrition)� Which strategy is better? With the current AI / equipment setup, tanking, by far. As almost every ship is serving as lone tank. Slap the best weapon on and your set. A requirement for these (relatively simple) strategies to work is a somewhat more intelligent planning AI as well as ships that�work together in formations. (know your combat role!)� If the AI starts using effective strategies, the player will need to cope. It won't be better ship = win, it will be better situational strategies = win. I desire the latter, not the former. But in the end, the strategy that should be followed depends on the situation, the enemy and more importantly your own empire. Empire's shoudnt arbitrarily be forced in any direction, but it makes sense to use advantages and disadvantages. Especially if they are of your own making. (empire history) This is a fundamental truth. [:D] (Do what works best; lets try to make that situational and diverse in DW, not simply a matter of biggest gun, best armor, best ship) If a race is predisposed to certain tech, there's a good chance it will be able to use them effectively in a strategy --> Unique navies & strategies. Just like real life. Or is it, [;)]

Shark7 -> RE: my custom ships wipe the AI's plate clean - everytime (5/3/2010 3:09:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: taltamir But why in the world do you need unique set of hardpoints for every alien race is my question. Let me just keep it simple then and answer this question, as it is the only one I feel needs to be answered. Because I prefer not to have 20 cookie cutter races, and 20 cookie cutter navies made up of identical ships. I want diversity and uniqueness. Just like I want each race to be different, I want each race's ships to be different. I also want each ship roles/chassis to be different from each other.

Wicky -> RE: my custom ships wipe the AI's plate clean - everytime (5/3/2010 4:36:35 PM)
Well what Taltamir wants to say is, because 480 capacity vs the 140 of the Megatron means +342,8% increase, while the Megatron 1.5 regen vs 1.3regen means a 15,3% better regeneration. And that's why he always wants us to use the Deucalios (?) Shield. Strange, I have already seen the name of this shield a hundred times, but I still haven't learned if it is spelled Deucalios or Deucalitos ! :) However, the AI tends to send all it's forces when under attack, and that means couple of enemy ships will be arriving at a basis of each minute to attack. It does make a difference when your shield is down from 14k to 8k when the next enemy wave arrives, and a simple math will prove that Megatron Z4 is better when you have to fight for 30 minutes.

Nibelung44 -> RE: my custom ships wipe the AI's plate clean - everytime (5/3/2010 4:40:21 PM)
DW is still some light years from the complexity and interest of the SE4 and SE5 ship designs possibilities... where modders are able to script that this race prefer to use these components or these ships roles, etc. (Kzinti like carriers, Borgs like big badass heavy warships, the Empire too, while the Rebs like fast ships, these organics horrors have bio weapons, the WH40K navy like to board the enemy, etc. & whatever .. this was possible to give each race a real inclination in SE) But with time, if Eliott works hard, he can achieve that too...

Shark7 -> RE: my custom ships wipe the AI's plate clean - everytime (5/3/2010 5:13:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nibelung44 DW is still some light years from the complexity and interest of the SE4 and SE5 ship designs possibilities... where modders are able to script that this race prefer to use these components or these ships roles, etc. (Kzinti like carriers, Borgs like big badass heavy warships, the Empire too, while the Rebs like fast ships, these organics horrors have bio weapons, the WH40K navy like to board the enemy, etc. & whatever .. this was possible to give each race a real inclination in SE) But with time, if Eliott works hard, he can achieve that too... Yeah, it's just a matter of coding and time (mostly time). All these additions are the 'Cadillac Option', stuff that can be added after all bugs have been exterminated. I'm just hoping Elliot is using a can of industrial strength RAID so we can get the Cadillac goodies sooner rather than later. [;)]

Fishman -> RE: my custom ships wipe the AI's plate clean - everytime (5/3/2010 6:40:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bartje This game deserves more than the - build a battleship as powerful as possible and win model. It should for example be conceivable to use a faster fleet to destroy an enemy's forces locally, achieving (temporary) local superiority even though ship by ship they aren't superior. (sort of Guerillia warfare; weak, fast & many vs superior but overwhelmed) The more complicated you make the model, the harder it is going to be for the AI to get a handle on it, the more compelled you are to micromanage it, and the more annoying it gets. DW has a ridiculous number of ships operating in real-time on the entire map at once. You DON'T want to create a system where it becomes absolutely necessary to micromanage every ship just so it doesn't get stupidly destroyed. quote: ORIGINAL: Bartje With the current AI / equipment setup, tanking, by far. As almost every ship is serving as lone tank. Slap the best weapon on and your set. There is no AI that is going to be able to do complex tactics. If you make it so even the basic design of ships promotes the need to run them using complex tactics, the game will turn frustrating very fast as your ships run off and get stupidly killed the moment you aren't looking. The game really NEEDS a lightweight mechanic to be playable, since this is not Sins and you cannot sit around babysitting your fleet. If the complexity of the designs you can create exceeds what the AI can handle, the game falls apart.

Bartje -> RE: my custom ships wipe the AI's plate clean - everytime (5/3/2010 6:52:32 PM)
I'm not saying it needs to be much more complex. Individual ships would need very little additions; it's mainly group / fleet behavior. The introduction of fleet formations as well as pitched battles / intercepts. The whole idea is that AI will manage on its own; your ships shoudn't be stupidly killed the minute you stop paying attention. The extra layer we're talking about would require AI additions, yes. I'm not convinced they would be radical, overly complex or CPU breaking in the least however.

Fishman -> RE: my custom ships wipe the AI's plate clean - everytime (5/3/2010 7:00:42 PM)
I suspect you've never actually tried to do anything like this. There is no game in existence that actually can do such a thing, because for an AI to get units to behave in a tactically sensible manner and not stupidly get themselves killed is something that remains an unrealized goal. No game has such a thing.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.625