Return to “Dev Logs”

Post

Re: [Josh] Friday, October 13, 2017

#33
FormalMoss wrote:
Mon Oct 16, 2017 5:48 pm
JoshParnell wrote:
Sat Oct 14, 2017 12:59 pm
Wot else am I missing out on??? :ghost:
How about CSG?
:ghost:

Considering noone replied to the topic, I can only presume either noone found it interesting enough to comment, or ya missed it! :lol:
I think Josh got a CSG engine sorted a few posts back.
Remember that wireframe cuboid mesh?
°˖◝(ಠ‸ಠ)◜˖°
Toba - A Development Dump
Post

Re: [Josh] Friday, October 13, 2017

#34
Hyperion wrote:
Mon Oct 16, 2017 2:18 am
I would definitely agree that perfectly geometric formations have a limited place, more reserved for auto-pilot, robotic civs, and hiveminds. They should, like other cultural variants be an occasional-and-to-degrees encounter, sometimes being ubiquitous, sometimes nearly non-existent. One of the things about them though is that they can suggest a clearly visible cultural/factional signature, with different cultures/factions adopting different formations.

I endorse this 100%.
Post

Re: [Josh] Friday, October 13, 2017

#35
Hyperion wrote:
Mon Oct 16, 2017 2:18 am
I would definitely agree that perfectly geometric formations have a limited place, more reserved for auto-pilot, robotic civs, and hiveminds. They should, like other cultural variants be an occasional-and-to-degrees encounter, sometimes being ubiquitous, sometimes nearly non-existent. One of the things about them though is that they can suggest a clearly visible cultural/factional signature, with different cultures/factions adopting different formations.
yep. regular formations are sooo hard to hold without hiveminds
Spoiler:      SHOW
Image
and why should those civs use any of your mostly useless formations?

robotic and hiveminds would more likely use dynamic, more random looking formations because they can create the needed patterns and coordinate themselves much easier.
shifting patterns with capital firing line movements and enemy formation changes.
Post

Re: [Josh] Friday, October 13, 2017

#38
Cornflakes_91 wrote:
Tue Oct 17, 2017 4:35 am
and why should those civs use any of your mostly useless formations?

robotic and hiveminds would more likely use dynamic, more random looking formations because they can create the needed patterns and coordinate themselves much easier.
shifting patterns with capital firing line movements and enemy formation changes.
Why not just have a formation editor in addition to the ship editor? Being able to form arbitrary sized and shaped formations sounds like a good addition to the Supreme Commander/Total War battlefield aspects of game play. 3D geometric placement could be simply a tool. The strategic advantages of such a placement might vary depending on the ships and formation, but just for rule of cool alone I think it's a worthy addition.
If you think the concept is strategically useless, don't employ it, maybe you're right, but maybe 3D Formations in 3D space beyond spherical swarms of ships have advantages and offer tactical/strategic opportunities that aren't immediately obvious, but are fun to discover.

As to the swarms from enders game, having that level of tactical flexibility, where ships can behave so wildly different with wildly different fighting styles depending on the culture/species of origin? That is IMO a dream worth trying to achieve.

Or maybe I'm just smoking some powerful stuff and these fancy formations and organic/crystalline ships that I've been suggesting merely turns LT into a PCG drug trip aid :roll:
Image
When you're trying to fill an infinite multiverse, if you're not willing to consider the entire creative output of humanity as a starting point, you're wasting your time.
User: JoshParnell is accountable for this user's actions.
Post

Re: [Josh] Friday, October 13, 2017

#39
Formations are useful in the realm of tactics, not strategy, but otherwise I'll have some of whatever you're smoking.

I also would like tactics (of which formations would be one form) to be driven in part by culture.

Ditto for operations. Is the culture careful about protecting and optimizing resources? Or does it have reasons for preferring to just throw everything it has at every problem?

Ditto for strategy. Does the culture respect those capable of competent large-scale, long-duration planning, or is it more Zerg-like? Does it privilege or look down on diplomacy, or research?

I have no idea whether anything like a visibly distinctive "culture" will emerge in large factions in LT, or, if so, whether gameplay systems will be affected by culture as deeply as suggested here.

I just think it would be neat.
Post

Re: [Josh] Friday, October 13, 2017

#42
Cornflakes_91 wrote:
Wed Oct 18, 2017 1:39 am
what does a swirly helix give me as a formation?
Spoiler:      SHOW
Image
Like any formation that's pretty context dependent. What ships make up that formation? Is it defensive, offensive, or commercial? How flat or how deep is the formation in the 3rd dimension? Are there other formations of different ships that accompany the swirly helix formation, or is it stand alone?

Perhaps each dot in the swirly helix is a carrier and not shown are the support ships around them. Perhaps each dot its a piece of long distance artillery nesting among a larger fleet and you want to concentrate firepower in the center without leaving your flanks exposed so youre tapering off the firepower density. Perhaps the swirly helix is a very deep formation surrounding a warprail, and each dot represents an automated turret, and the helix formation is a way to encase and defend the rail from all directions.

Is the swirly helix the only way to defend a warprail or concentrate firepower? no. But it's not necessarily better or worse than another formation until proven. Perhaps it's entirely aesthetic and some cultures prefer their fleets to be shaped like helixes and others like their fleets to be cubes of ships others like spheres, others like cones, others like swarms with no real macroscopic organization.

Humans have spent thousands of years developing formations on the relatively 2 dimensional planes of land and sea and found that certain ones give them advantages in some situations.
Spoiler:      SHOW
Image
Image
Image
Image
We don't have as much experience making formations in 3 dimensions where the enemy can attack from any direction, and as at least one space empire can tell you, giant sphere's aren't always the best.
Spoiler:      SHOW
Image
Yes, i know it's not a formation, just a cheap shot at SW :shifty:
Image
When you're trying to fill an infinite multiverse, if you're not willing to consider the entire creative output of humanity as a starting point, you're wasting your time.
User: JoshParnell is accountable for this user's actions.
Post

Re: [Josh] Friday, October 13, 2017

#43
Hyperion wrote:
Wed Oct 18, 2017 5:11 am
Perhaps each dot in the swirly helix is a carrier and not shown are the support ships around them. Perhaps each dot its a piece of long distance artillery nesting among a larger fleet and you want to concentrate firepower in the center without leaving your flanks exposed so youre tapering off the firepower density. Perhaps the swirly helix is a very deep formation surrounding a warprail, and each dot represents an automated turret, and the helix formation is a way to encase and defend the rail from all directions.
because cylinders and cones dont exist :V

all variations that would become vaguely helical are interpolations on those that maximally space formation members inside the formation's borders

geometric primitives and density functions create formations that do the same for less thinking and higher flexibility
when theres less or more ships available the rest just adjusts to incorporate them. (either by changing size or by changing their density inside the formation)
Post

Re: [Josh] Friday, October 13, 2017

#44
Next to the actual positioning at the start of a battle, formation tactics are also concerned about who takes what role, and how they should act and respond (path to traverse, direction to attack, timing, fallback conditions)

All that heavily depends on the abilities and limits of the units and topology.

When the rules of battle and unit stats are known: one could write a simulator that (brute force) tries out different positioning and attack orders against a given enemy.
This (taking best performing) should result in a rather working formation and set of orders for the units.

The best "real world" data might actually come from analyzing formations (or the lack of) of experienced corporations in EvE.

In the end: that might be all overkill for LT.
It would be easier to simply have a set of pretty looking formations (slots to assign units to), to represent different personalities.
-traders in one long "caravan" with support on the flanks
-military in some arrow shape formation
-pirates in a random blob

Online Now

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

cron