Taxman66 wrote: Tue Aug 30, 2022 1:59 pm
*sigh*
I so wish that SC had a light version of the WiF naval system instead.
Naval quasi-tactical combat in grand strategic games has always been a game design puzzle. Such games have taken one of 4 different tacks, 1st 3 classic TBS IGOUGO:
1. The SC one we have here, where individual ship counters can sail wherever their little hearts desire, with movement points and a given amount of attacks allowed per turn. Provides more direct control of combat targets and results.
Advantages: What you see is what you get, making combat straightforward and easy to grasp. Likely works better when the hex/unit ratio is high.
Disdvantages: Has issues with how spotting/stealth, attacks allowed, and movement points are shoehorned into the calendar turn length in a very awkward way, leading to unrealistic and unsatisfying results. The non-moving player has little to no control of combat, which can prove to be frustrating when a unit which "could" have intercepted the enemy just sits there.
2. Sea Zones, what WiF has.
Advantages: Leads to more realistic combat results
Disdvantages: Little tactical control given to fleet commanders, which combined with the large luck factor leads to dry abstract typically random combat outcomes that fail to engage the players. Arbitrary definitions of seazones and the convoluted rules governing them can likewise frustrate.
3. Tactical boards, seen most notably with SPI's old wargame WitP.
Advantages: NOW you get tons of satisfying, detailed, and immersive combat without the issues the other two systems labor under.
Disdvantages: Can drag the turn lengths out to absurd lengths-typically there is a non-tactical shortcut option which may look like #2, but most players prefer having the greater control that tactical gives them (or rather they fear what the often suboptimal autocombat routines [=braindead AI] will do to their fleets in a crucial clash).
4. WEGO combat, as in the Grigsby WitP titles.
Advantages: No longer favors the moving side, can allow for the kind of tactical control seen in 1 & 3 (maybe).
Disdvantages: Still involves some abstractions and a core AI module to arbitrate combat results, often leaving the human players out of the loop and frustrated when the AI does something idiotic.
Me in general I'd prefer #3, having used it in many fantasy TBS games over the years, but am well aware of how clunky it may work out in practice when there are oodles of battles per turn, and how it is not suitable to SC in any event. I loathe seazones, aka in Dice In Flames. SC isn't WEGO but following AARs in the Grigsby subforums I've often felt rather nonplussed at the weird "decisions" the tactical commanders often make, combined with gamey crap like cap traps and scouting with small cheap merchant ships. So for SC I still prefer #1.
