Velifax wrote:I voted to wait on tactical dogfighting.
The "I'm here for Freelancer 2.0" contingent may want to have a few words with you. Out back, in a dark alley.
Which reminds me: where's Victor? I've been waiting for him to weigh in on Josh's return, but I don't think I've seen much. Hope he's OK.
Velifax wrote:Id be happy with LT combat being #Ships × Ship_Types = Strength.
Not to disagree, exactly, but this would be equivalent to "whoever has the biggest stick wins," wouldn't it? Winning any engagement would just mean showing up with the most & biggest ships. What about all the nifty NPC AI Josh might be implementing?
I suspect that (number * power) alone would wind up shifting what NPC AI learns wins battles from fleet tactics to winning an economic race by building the most ships faster than one's opponent.
If this is a problem, then the solution might be to introduce into your equation a "tactical competence factor" for each fleet. For a lightly-simulated region of space, this might be calculated based on a combination of skill level and experience at:
- perceiving relevant local physical features (asteroids, rad zones, etc.)
- identifying which features deliver offensive and defensive value
- exploiting benefits and/or denying those benefits to the enemy
- efficiently performing exploitation/denial actions as a group
- doing all the above things faster than the opposing force can
Converting all these abilities into a Fleet_Tactics value would make the summary calculation:
Ships × Ship_Types × Fleet_Tactics = Strength
Fleet_Tactics -- the capability of that particular group of ships and their commanders to improvise, work together, and advantageously exploit local features -- is multiplied to the number of ships and their types because tactical prowess is, literally, a "force multiplier."
I don't care much for RTS play
myself (when it's confused with strategic play, that is), but making tactics meaningful in fleet actions sounds like more fun to me than an arms production race.
Personal taste, probably.