Looks like the wait was more interesting than the reply. Sorry I haven't been able to reply as things have been insane for me for a while.
Anyhow I was reading in one of my nations game computer magazines where the editior complained that games innovation was non existant that basically games had degenerated into nothing more than a show case for the latest graphic cards (ie. Unreal 2).
This reminded me about the B5 game in that I wanted to be in command of a small capital ship not a little fighter. Basically I'm tired of feeling like a fly on a horses butt unable to truly affect the outcome of a battle or take down a big capital ship without fly a ship that has inertia of a lead ballon. I really once like to say torpedes away and have more than two puny missiles slowly dribble they way to the target.
But getting back to the editors comment space combat sims seem to have disappeared up there own tail pipe all we seem to get is Wing commander copy cats for gods sake people chris roberts himself ripped the concept from some well known sci. fiction shows so it really is a copy of a copy.
By shifting away from the fighter base I'm hoping this suggestion will break this vicious cycle and introduce some originality in the gene by make people deal with the situations involved with small capital ships. I know what your thinking what about ST 'Bridge commander' well it was okay for a first go (I've only tried the demo) but I felt so detached from the action I could have commanded the ship from a star base. I'm hoping by reducing the size of the ships being commanded it will make for a more intense and exciting experience.
I think B5 will make a good show case for this new format due to the newtons physics. If nothing else I really am a fan of the Vorchan crusier and would love to command one. Also by the logins at this forum when the game was being developed the was quite a number of requests to fly the whitestar well why not.
If the team ever gets together to make the B5 game then I'm hoping they will take these comments onboard.
If nothing else I want to get away from the big is better philosophy that americans seem to love which I find slightly distastful.
I noticed that the show basically abonded the small class ship which the fans like us could fill if a game is ever created. Remember people not everyone can afford to bulid the biggest assed ship in existance all the time. Besides they is a heap of art work of new ships created by fans why not put them to good use and inspire some more work.
PS good point A2597 (by the way what does that number stand for anyway)
Interesting comments. I do remember that in ITF you could command a capital ship as you moved farther and farther up in rank. I don't really remember the exact specifications though. Someone else will, Im sure.
From a user interface point of view, the minbari command areas (full surround 3D holographic projector tech thingies) offer some interesting possibilities for a 'god' style 3D space combat game.
On the 'I command THIS capital ship' game style, I've heard a great deal of fan noise about it in the StarWars universe.
As I recall, some of the concepts were:
Views and Cameras:
Control screens for your ship and limited options for other ships under your command (eg your escorts).
Viewpoints from your ship, any other ship, or probes you may position showing 3D combat.
Controls:
You have access via menus/shortcuts to all sensor and system screens for your ship. You may adjust any system directly, or give an order for the AI crew to do it for you to the best of their (increasing with experience) ability.
You may give orders to your weapons by system and sector (eg forward ion batteries), and in groups of sectors - for target, fire mode, etc etc.
You may give orders and simple flight paths (eg vector this to A then vector that to B) via the graphic interface or by co-ordinates to your fighters by wing or squadron (depending on the number you command).
You can give general orders for communications, navigation, and other things necessary for the ship to function.
Scalability (examples)
NB, your ship controls are similar for all ships.
A small freighter with 4 fighter escorts and 3 gun turrets:
Each fighter and gun turret may be given orders individually.
A Carrack Cruiser with 1 squad of fighters:
Ion and Turbolaser systems for each quadrant (front, rear, port, starboard, up, down) may be given orders (about 4 guns per sector). Fighters may be given orders as a squadron or 3 flights of 4 each.
A star destroyer:
Similar to above, but with more sectors for each part of the ship (and more guns in each), fighter orders by squadron only.
Also command of any corvette escorts.
Super star destroyer:
Guns by larger sectors, fighters by wing or squadron, any star destroyers acting in the fleet (their corvette escorts act in unison with the star destroyers - no direct command of smaller ships).
---------------
Anyone in the slightest bit familiar with AI or situation-response programming will immediately recognise the enormity of the task at hand.
I'm not saying it would be easy. I'm not saying it would be possible, but it sure as hell would be groundbreaking - and if it were done in the B5 universe, everyone here would certainly buy it.
Finally a reply worthy of a response.
I'm actually quite surprised that such a sophiscated debate is occuring inside the SW community given the fact most of the space cobat is fighter based. Also I been given the impression over the years that the dedication of SW fans is only exceeded by the LOFTR fans.
Personally I think eamonmca you've hit the nail on the head for a control system though your gonna have to explain some of the intricates of the SW universe before I get the full picture.
By the way the 3D view your talking about was it in the Ranger movie which I haven't seen so because I can't picture it.
The sophisticated debate wasnt in the star wars community. There was a small amount of debate about what SW-Rebellion (space combat/empire building game) should have. I followed that because I have a small (well huge) interest in SW, and the ideas are transferrable to B5.
What I have noted are the best ideas of that debate, with my own added and put together in a single scalable system (thats a joke, it isnt single system, but has enough ideas for 2 or more. Depending on the situation you can pick the better options.). Its all theoretical of course, but designing from an end user point of view rather than a development end always seems to make better games.
(Compare HL to Q3; HL is a GAME, Q3 is a gfx engine test).
VIEWPOINTS/CAMERAS:
The views Im referring to are seen in such episodes as S3.1 (Matters of Honour) on the whitestar, S3.21 (Shadow Dancing) on the Minbari war cruiser in the command centre. Basically its a minbari 'tech' that lets the captain see 360 degrees as if there were no hull. Its computer generated from a combination of visual and sensor readings and projected holographically. Ships can be selected, and can have some data/readouts annotated on this screen.
--In the game this could be the main screen, viewpoints from your ship and possibly allied ships.
Also of note is the wireframe system, again on the whitestar, in War Without End Part 1, where sheridan views a small overview of sector 14. This is a holographic representation of the local area without a fixed point of reference.
It comes with zoom, pan, and rotate functions, and is somewhat akin to a god-game (eg Age of Empires) overview, or could be implemented as a Homeworld style external camera. I have specific ideas on this and am willing to explain further if you like.
--In game this is a strategic map, which loses the focus of which ship YOU command, but gives a better overview of the battle.
Finally the Galactic map, as seen in the war room on B5. As in red alert/C&C, this may be limited to selecting your next mission, or could be given an empirewide control aspect. If not controllable (a mere captain cant order other fleets about), it serves as a means to understand the wider campaign in which you fight.
Now, the intricacies of the star wars space combat system. (This is Fun).
There are 3 types of ships in star wars:
Capital Ships
Freighter/corvette classes
Fighters
Fighters are the obvious ones. They shoot each other, X wings, tie fighters etc. If one side in a battle gains fighter superiority the fighters can attack enemy capital ships in a harrassment fashion - forcing shield honesty*, and in the case of bombers blow them up. The rebels have better fighters in this respect, as most carry torpedoes.
Freighters and Corvettes are small ships in terms of combat ability, whatever their size. They serve as escorts, utility ships, and transports, and have some turrets for basic defense.
Capital ships (eg imperial star destroyers) are huge. They bristle with weapons, including missile launchers (few), ion cannons (EMP disable not destroy), small and large Lasers. These are ineffective against fighters for the most part, but a hit is a kill with a large laser. They usually have a fighter complement.
There are others as any SW fan will tell you, from assault shuttles (combat zone troop transport), to escort carriers (unarmed carrier). But the 3 catergories will suffice for now.
SHIP SYSTEMS:
Engines:
Hyperdrive (Jump engines).
Normal engines.
Fairly self explanitory, big ships and some fighters can jump between stars. You need a hyperdrive for this, and a navigational computer.
Weapons:
Weapons are divided in 2 ways for control purposes. Type and Fire arc. (eg Forward Ion Cannons). Weapons groups can be given either specific targets of ships or ship components, or orders such as free-fire (any enemy by threat index), anti-fighter (enemy fighters), and anti-missile (incoming missile interdiction).
Shields;
Not in B5, shields are a very interesting tactical element. The asterisked bit about shield honesty refers to the idea of a ship putting all its shield power in one area. To prevent the enemy doing this, flanking is used. Shooting at them from both sides forces the enemy to split their shields, reducing the power of each.
This is not relevant to a B5 game, but control is given over shield distribution in the hypothetical SW game.
Definitions:
Flagship, the ship the fleet commander is on. Usually the biggest capital ship.
Capital Ships, other ships under its command.
Escorts, any small capital or corvette size ship assigned as subordinate escort to a capital ship or flagship.
Fighter Wing, 3 squadrons of fighters =36.
Fighter Squadron, 3 flights of fighters =12.
Fighter Wing, 2 Pairs of fighters = 4.
Flight Element, Fighter and Wingman =2.
Note indentation means under command of.
Large fleet situation:
Flagship
.....Fighters of Flagship
..........Flagships Escort1
...............Flagships Escort 1 Fighters
..........Flagships Escort2
...............Flagships Escort 2 Fighters
.....Capital Ship A
..........Cap Ship As Fighters
..........Cap Ship As Escort1
...............Cap Ship A Escort 1 Fighters
..........Cap Ship As Escort2
...............Cap Ship A Escort 2 Fighters
Repeat for other capital ships (say 2 more).
Note That any extra fighters assigned to the mission, carried by an escort carrier or arriving separately are under command of whichever ship they are assigned. In the case of say, an extra wing of Y-wing bombers to blow up the mission objective, these would come under direct command of the flagship. Whereas a few extra fighters into the mix to give space superiority would be distributed among the other ships.
The scaling applies such that in the large fleet above, the flagship commander may only have command of:
Their own ship
Its Fighters by wing or squadron.
Its Escorts.
Other capital ships.
At this point you realise this is the AI programming job from hell. You need to program an AI ship captain to obey direct orders, and issue orders to subordinates to further both that order and mission objectives, on a priority basis. And not just one captain, several, especially for fighter combat, from wing leader, through squadron leader, flight leader, to lead fighter in a wing pair.
In the same battle, the human could take on the role of the captain of capital ship A. Then they have command of:
That ship.
Its fighters by Squadron (or flight in the case of having very few).
Its Escorts
and gets orders from the flagship AI.
Or as the captain of capital ship As escort1, with command of:
Itself
Its fighters by Squadron or Flight (or wing pair in the case of very few).
and getting orders only from cap ship A, including relayed orders from the Flagship as determined by the AI captain of Capship A.
It would be possible to have the player in a fighter, but not in such a large engagement. The point of having the player in the game is to MAKE A DIFFERENCE to the outcome. Wing commander had to break the realism of the game to have the single good pilot defeat the entire enemy force singlehandedly. The idea is that the player changes roles to where they can make a difference, usually near or at the top of the chain of command.
*edit, in the last example of an escort ship captain, this may be of use in a battle when your fleet is DESIGNED to get pasted, wiped out. Imagine the mission of a strike on an enemy target, but its an ambush, your fleet gets wiped out, but not before an abort and scatter order is given, and ships flee as they can. Most are lost, and you find yourself alone on a small ship with 6 fighter escort in unfriendly territory. Following missions would include fleeing, emergency repair stops, and finally getting back to friendly forces. After this you may have earned a promotion....
In conclusion the control system is based around direct and complete control of a single ship plus the ability to give orders to immediately subordinate ships.
This game system is suited to any Sci Fi space combat game involving different ship classes and fleets (even small ones). While the example given here is large scale, it is equally applicable to being captain of a corvette courier ship with a fighter escort fending off some pirates. The debate is spawned out of the desire to create a massive mould-braking simulation, so the idea is to 'think big'.
This relies heavily on AI code for everything except the players actions, and may need a small revolution in AI programming before it becomes possible. Equally however, in a multiplayer environment, each player can assume one role, and even with the normal game limit of 32 players (16 a side), this fills all the command roles required down to some squadron leaders.
The problem of having a single commander for a capital ship, is as follows:
In B5, star trek, or star wars, the captain says: Shields up, fire on that ship. Start evasive manoevers.
Thats pretty much it. The individual crew and command staff 'make it so'. But the interface will not allow such direct control. There will be buttons and menus and separate order screens, with multiple options and multiple ships. A human cant do it all fast enough.
There are 3 solutions I have come up with:
ONE.
Reduce the speed of combat, by that I mean how long it takes things to happen. In a slugging match between two fairly evenly matched ships there should be several minutes in which the player can give new orders, make and implement plans of action etc etc. This can be done by a global reduction in game speed. This causes both aesthetic and scale problems. This is fine for a captain, but a fighter pilot player has to play a slowed down and uninteresting game.
TWO:
Scripting. This limits the higher levels of the game to hardcore gamers. People prepared to write scripts and plans of action, or use premade ones
Eg: Roll to bring starboard weapons to bear (currently port is facing them) is an order made up of:
- Movement orders to roll.
- Shield orders to swap shield settings between the sides.
- Weapon orders to swap weapon orders between the sides.
or implemented by the script 'Roll180'.
This lets a player, before the game, customise the actions they want to take, then just select that in game. As they play the game they can invent or refine what scripts or macros they need.
THREE:
Back to the AI. Have an ai command staff try their best to run the ship. Eg, modifying shield settings on a continuous basis to minimise damage taken, similarly for the auto-fire system mentioned earlier. Each enemy has a threat value. Each weapon system, based on its ability to damage or disable it picks a target based on highest threat value.
Its too big and groundbreaking a task for a new or small software company, and too "risky" for big studio executives to fund. They are too happy releasing Quake 16 and a half, GTA 4, and FIFA 2003 June Edition (Gold), and making money at it to care about innovation.
It would be a really efficient idea to develop the ai structure, game design and so on in a context neutral environment. Then have it 'ported' by individual dev teams to B5, ST, and SW.
This provides 3 sci fi universe games for the dev of one engine, increasing the target market no end, and solving the issue of deciding which universe to make it in.
But theres no money in the development of the core, and with licencing as difficult as it is, little chance of the 3 being developed in parallel.
So this game, and all games of this type, exist only in the minds of the fans and gamers who care enough to keep the memory and the hope of what could be, and what should be, alive.
I think thats what firstones was created to do. I like to think that it continues in that task.
Bump.
I'm not letting this tread go into obscurity just yet. Not after the amount of time I spent writing that reply (which I have to admit, makes less sense then I thought the first time round, but still...).
I admit Starshatter is not absolutely identical to the game you described, but it is probably as close as you are likely to get without building your own from scratch.
There was only one decent series of single ship level space combat games that I am aware of, and that was Omnitrends Rules of Engagement series. I highly recomend you download the game from The Underdogs and give it a try.
The closest thing to the RoE series reccently is Star Trek Bridge Commander (Which I actuly like damnit)
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by milod [/i]
[B]Oh, how soon they forget. ;)
I admit Starshatter is not absolutely identical to the game you described, but it is probably as close as you are likely to get without building your own from scratch. [/B][/QUOTE]
I doubt were going to get anything closer to it anytime soon, I would love somebody to release an upate of Rules of Engagment..
oh well, Starshatter will kick ass though, we thank you profusly oh great one for giving us something to work with ;)
Biggles<font color=#AAFFAA>The Man Without a Face</font>
Starshatter rocks, plain and simple. When's the next demo release due?
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by milod [/i]
[B]I admit Starshatter is not absolutely identical [/B][/QUOTE]
It's a damned good game, but (at least up to 2.5) there werent any more than 12 ships in combat at once.
Its a little heavier on the personal ship control than command than I envisaged, but I guess thats necessary.
Comments
[B]We also like being facist. ;) [/B][/QUOTE]
but but....
You don't HAVE a face!!!!
:D ;) :D
Anyhow I was reading in one of my nations game computer magazines where the editior complained that games innovation was non existant that basically games had degenerated into nothing more than a show case for the latest graphic cards (ie. Unreal 2).
This reminded me about the B5 game in that I wanted to be in command of a small capital ship not a little fighter. Basically I'm tired of feeling like a fly on a horses butt unable to truly affect the outcome of a battle or take down a big capital ship without fly a ship that has inertia of a lead ballon. I really once like to say torpedes away and have more than two puny missiles slowly dribble they way to the target.
But getting back to the editors comment space combat sims seem to have disappeared up there own tail pipe all we seem to get is Wing commander copy cats for gods sake people chris roberts himself ripped the concept from some well known sci. fiction shows so it really is a copy of a copy.
By shifting away from the fighter base I'm hoping this suggestion will break this vicious cycle and introduce some originality in the gene by make people deal with the situations involved with small capital ships. I know what your thinking what about ST 'Bridge commander' well it was okay for a first go (I've only tried the demo) but I felt so detached from the action I could have commanded the ship from a star base. I'm hoping by reducing the size of the ships being commanded it will make for a more intense and exciting experience.
I think B5 will make a good show case for this new format due to the newtons physics. If nothing else I really am a fan of the Vorchan crusier and would love to command one. Also by the logins at this forum when the game was being developed the was quite a number of requests to fly the whitestar well why not.
If the team ever gets together to make the B5 game then I'm hoping they will take these comments onboard.
If nothing else I want to get away from the big is better philosophy that americans seem to love which I find slightly distastful.
I noticed that the show basically abonded the small class ship which the fans like us could fill if a game is ever created. Remember people not everyone can afford to bulid the biggest assed ship in existance all the time. Besides they is a heap of art work of new ships created by fans why not put them to good use and inspire some more work.
PS good point A2597 (by the way what does that number stand for anyway)
Fighter pilot
Wingleader
Ship Captain
Fleet Captain
and one i forget
On the 'I command THIS capital ship' game style, I've heard a great deal of fan noise about it in the StarWars universe.
As I recall, some of the concepts were:
Views and Cameras:
Control screens for your ship and limited options for other ships under your command (eg your escorts).
Viewpoints from your ship, any other ship, or probes you may position showing 3D combat.
Controls:
You have access via menus/shortcuts to all sensor and system screens for your ship. You may adjust any system directly, or give an order for the AI crew to do it for you to the best of their (increasing with experience) ability.
You may give orders to your weapons by system and sector (eg forward ion batteries), and in groups of sectors - for target, fire mode, etc etc.
You may give orders and simple flight paths (eg vector this to A then vector that to B) via the graphic interface or by co-ordinates to your fighters by wing or squadron (depending on the number you command).
You can give general orders for communications, navigation, and other things necessary for the ship to function.
Scalability (examples)
NB, your ship controls are similar for all ships.
A small freighter with 4 fighter escorts and 3 gun turrets:
Each fighter and gun turret may be given orders individually.
A Carrack Cruiser with 1 squad of fighters:
Ion and Turbolaser systems for each quadrant (front, rear, port, starboard, up, down) may be given orders (about 4 guns per sector). Fighters may be given orders as a squadron or 3 flights of 4 each.
A star destroyer:
Similar to above, but with more sectors for each part of the ship (and more guns in each), fighter orders by squadron only.
Also command of any corvette escorts.
Super star destroyer:
Guns by larger sectors, fighters by wing or squadron, any star destroyers acting in the fleet (their corvette escorts act in unison with the star destroyers - no direct command of smaller ships).
---------------
Anyone in the slightest bit familiar with AI or situation-response programming will immediately recognise the enormity of the task at hand.
I'm not saying it would be easy. I'm not saying it would be possible, but it sure as hell would be groundbreaking - and if it were done in the B5 universe, everyone here would certainly buy it.
----------------
I'll go back to lurking now....
I'm actually quite surprised that such a sophiscated debate is occuring inside the SW community given the fact most of the space cobat is fighter based. Also I been given the impression over the years that the dedication of SW fans is only exceeded by the LOFTR fans.
Personally I think eamonmca you've hit the nail on the head for a control system though your gonna have to explain some of the intricates of the SW universe before I get the full picture.
By the way the 3D view your talking about was it in the Ranger movie which I haven't seen so because I can't picture it.
What I have noted are the best ideas of that debate, with my own added and put together in a single scalable system (thats a joke, it isnt single system, but has enough ideas for 2 or more. Depending on the situation you can pick the better options.). Its all theoretical of course, but designing from an end user point of view rather than a development end always seems to make better games.
(Compare HL to Q3; HL is a GAME, Q3 is a gfx engine test).
VIEWPOINTS/CAMERAS:
The views Im referring to are seen in such episodes as S3.1 (Matters of Honour) on the whitestar, S3.21 (Shadow Dancing) on the Minbari war cruiser in the command centre. Basically its a minbari 'tech' that lets the captain see 360 degrees as if there were no hull. Its computer generated from a combination of visual and sensor readings and projected holographically. Ships can be selected, and can have some data/readouts annotated on this screen.
--In the game this could be the main screen, viewpoints from your ship and possibly allied ships.
Also of note is the wireframe system, again on the whitestar, in War Without End Part 1, where sheridan views a small overview of sector 14. This is a holographic representation of the local area without a fixed point of reference.
It comes with zoom, pan, and rotate functions, and is somewhat akin to a god-game (eg Age of Empires) overview, or could be implemented as a Homeworld style external camera. I have specific ideas on this and am willing to explain further if you like.
--In game this is a strategic map, which loses the focus of which ship YOU command, but gives a better overview of the battle.
Finally the Galactic map, as seen in the war room on B5. As in red alert/C&C, this may be limited to selecting your next mission, or could be given an empirewide control aspect. If not controllable (a mere captain cant order other fleets about), it serves as a means to understand the wider campaign in which you fight.
continues...
There are 3 types of ships in star wars:
Capital Ships
Freighter/corvette classes
Fighters
Fighters are the obvious ones. They shoot each other, X wings, tie fighters etc. If one side in a battle gains fighter superiority the fighters can attack enemy capital ships in a harrassment fashion - forcing shield honesty*, and in the case of bombers blow them up. The rebels have better fighters in this respect, as most carry torpedoes.
Freighters and Corvettes are small ships in terms of combat ability, whatever their size. They serve as escorts, utility ships, and transports, and have some turrets for basic defense.
Capital ships (eg imperial star destroyers) are huge. They bristle with weapons, including missile launchers (few), ion cannons (EMP disable not destroy), small and large Lasers. These are ineffective against fighters for the most part, but a hit is a kill with a large laser. They usually have a fighter complement.
There are others as any SW fan will tell you, from assault shuttles (combat zone troop transport), to escort carriers (unarmed carrier). But the 3 catergories will suffice for now.
SHIP SYSTEMS:
Engines:
Hyperdrive (Jump engines).
Normal engines.
Fairly self explanitory, big ships and some fighters can jump between stars. You need a hyperdrive for this, and a navigational computer.
Weapons:
Weapons are divided in 2 ways for control purposes. Type and Fire arc. (eg Forward Ion Cannons). Weapons groups can be given either specific targets of ships or ship components, or orders such as free-fire (any enemy by threat index), anti-fighter (enemy fighters), and anti-missile (incoming missile interdiction).
Shields;
Not in B5, shields are a very interesting tactical element. The asterisked bit about shield honesty refers to the idea of a ship putting all its shield power in one area. To prevent the enemy doing this, flanking is used. Shooting at them from both sides forces the enemy to split their shields, reducing the power of each.
This is not relevant to a B5 game, but control is given over shield distribution in the hypothetical SW game.
continues...
Definitions:
Flagship, the ship the fleet commander is on. Usually the biggest capital ship.
Capital Ships, other ships under its command.
Escorts, any small capital or corvette size ship assigned as subordinate escort to a capital ship or flagship.
Fighter Wing, 3 squadrons of fighters =36.
Fighter Squadron, 3 flights of fighters =12.
Fighter Wing, 2 Pairs of fighters = 4.
Flight Element, Fighter and Wingman =2.
Note indentation means under command of.
Large fleet situation:
Flagship
.....Fighters of Flagship
..........Flagships Escort1
...............Flagships Escort 1 Fighters
..........Flagships Escort2
...............Flagships Escort 2 Fighters
.....Capital Ship A
..........Cap Ship As Fighters
..........Cap Ship As Escort1
...............Cap Ship A Escort 1 Fighters
..........Cap Ship As Escort2
...............Cap Ship A Escort 2 Fighters
Repeat for other capital ships (say 2 more).
Note That any extra fighters assigned to the mission, carried by an escort carrier or arriving separately are under command of whichever ship they are assigned. In the case of say, an extra wing of Y-wing bombers to blow up the mission objective, these would come under direct command of the flagship. Whereas a few extra fighters into the mix to give space superiority would be distributed among the other ships.
The scaling applies such that in the large fleet above, the flagship commander may only have command of:
Their own ship
Its Fighters by wing or squadron.
Its Escorts.
Other capital ships.
At this point you realise this is the AI programming job from hell. You need to program an AI ship captain to obey direct orders, and issue orders to subordinates to further both that order and mission objectives, on a priority basis. And not just one captain, several, especially for fighter combat, from wing leader, through squadron leader, flight leader, to lead fighter in a wing pair.
In the same battle, the human could take on the role of the captain of capital ship A. Then they have command of:
That ship.
Its fighters by Squadron (or flight in the case of having very few).
Its Escorts
and gets orders from the flagship AI.
Or as the captain of capital ship As escort1, with command of:
Itself
Its fighters by Squadron or Flight (or wing pair in the case of very few).
and getting orders only from cap ship A, including relayed orders from the Flagship as determined by the AI captain of Capship A.
It would be possible to have the player in a fighter, but not in such a large engagement. The point of having the player in the game is to MAKE A DIFFERENCE to the outcome. Wing commander had to break the realism of the game to have the single good pilot defeat the entire enemy force singlehandedly. The idea is that the player changes roles to where they can make a difference, usually near or at the top of the chain of command.
*edit, in the last example of an escort ship captain, this may be of use in a battle when your fleet is DESIGNED to get pasted, wiped out. Imagine the mission of a strike on an enemy target, but its an ambush, your fleet gets wiped out, but not before an abort and scatter order is given, and ships flee as they can. Most are lost, and you find yourself alone on a small ship with 6 fighter escort in unfriendly territory. Following missions would include fleeing, emergency repair stops, and finally getting back to friendly forces. After this you may have earned a promotion....
continues...
In conclusion the control system is based around direct and complete control of a single ship plus the ability to give orders to immediately subordinate ships.
This game system is suited to any Sci Fi space combat game involving different ship classes and fleets (even small ones). While the example given here is large scale, it is equally applicable to being captain of a corvette courier ship with a fighter escort fending off some pirates. The debate is spawned out of the desire to create a massive mould-braking simulation, so the idea is to 'think big'.
This relies heavily on AI code for everything except the players actions, and may need a small revolution in AI programming before it becomes possible. Equally however, in a multiplayer environment, each player can assume one role, and even with the normal game limit of 32 players (16 a side), this fills all the command roles required down to some squadron leaders.
continues...
The problem of having a single commander for a capital ship, is as follows:
In B5, star trek, or star wars, the captain says: Shields up, fire on that ship. Start evasive manoevers.
Thats pretty much it. The individual crew and command staff 'make it so'. But the interface will not allow such direct control. There will be buttons and menus and separate order screens, with multiple options and multiple ships. A human cant do it all fast enough.
There are 3 solutions I have come up with:
ONE.
Reduce the speed of combat, by that I mean how long it takes things to happen. In a slugging match between two fairly evenly matched ships there should be several minutes in which the player can give new orders, make and implement plans of action etc etc. This can be done by a global reduction in game speed. This causes both aesthetic and scale problems. This is fine for a captain, but a fighter pilot player has to play a slowed down and uninteresting game.
TWO:
Scripting. This limits the higher levels of the game to hardcore gamers. People prepared to write scripts and plans of action, or use premade ones
Eg: Roll to bring starboard weapons to bear (currently port is facing them) is an order made up of:
- Movement orders to roll.
- Shield orders to swap shield settings between the sides.
- Weapon orders to swap weapon orders between the sides.
or implemented by the script 'Roll180'.
This lets a player, before the game, customise the actions they want to take, then just select that in game. As they play the game they can invent or refine what scripts or macros they need.
THREE:
Back to the AI. Have an ai command staff try their best to run the ship. Eg, modifying shield settings on a continuous basis to minimise damage taken, similarly for the auto-fire system mentioned earlier. Each enemy has a threat value. Each weapon system, based on its ability to damage or disable it picks a target based on highest threat value.
ok, one last post...
Its too big and groundbreaking a task for a new or small software company, and too "risky" for big studio executives to fund. They are too happy releasing Quake 16 and a half, GTA 4, and FIFA 2003 June Edition (Gold), and making money at it to care about innovation.
It would be a really efficient idea to develop the ai structure, game design and so on in a context neutral environment. Then have it 'ported' by individual dev teams to B5, ST, and SW.
This provides 3 sci fi universe games for the dev of one engine, increasing the target market no end, and solving the issue of deciding which universe to make it in.
But theres no money in the development of the core, and with licencing as difficult as it is, little chance of the 3 being developed in parallel.
So this game, and all games of this type, exist only in the minds of the fans and gamers who care enough to keep the memory and the hope of what could be, and what should be, alive.
I think thats what firstones was created to do. I like to think that it continues in that task.
To Be Continued... but not by me.
I'm not letting this tread go into obscurity just yet. Not after the amount of time I spent writing that reply (which I have to admit, makes less sense then I thought the first time round, but still...).
I admit Starshatter is not absolutely identical to the game you described, but it is probably as close as you are likely to get without building your own from scratch.
The closest thing to the RoE series reccently is Star Trek Bridge Commander (Which I actuly like damnit)
[B]Oh, how soon they forget. ;)
I admit Starshatter is not absolutely identical to the game you described, but it is probably as close as you are likely to get without building your own from scratch. [/B][/QUOTE]
I doubt were going to get anything closer to it anytime soon, I would love somebody to release an upate of Rules of Engagment..
oh well, Starshatter will kick ass though, we thank you profusly oh great one for giving us something to work with ;)
[B]I admit Starshatter is not absolutely identical [/B][/QUOTE]
It's a damned good game, but (at least up to 2.5) there werent any more than 12 ships in combat at once.
Its a little heavier on the personal ship control than command than I envisaged, but I guess thats necessary.
I really should play it more.
*scurries off to download the most recent version