Matrix Games Forums

I have found a space ship in the game and claimed it as mine. It is a capital ship. This is the first time I had something so big, and now I really see how lacking space combat in DW is.

I sent our this capital ship to see what this mysterious place I was told about. First time I sent an explorer ship out and was destroyed by pirates. So this time I thought ok, the capital ship will go and deal if it's hidden pirates. To my shock and horror, and I loved it, there must have been like 50 Kaltros, (sorry if I spelt it wrong) and I loved how I could attack it. It would fire at long disntance, and then I was dismayed that it closed it on the brood, and then get attacked by the whold bunch.

Why can't we issue orders to attack from far away and not up close? Why can't we design a ship that would have longer range fire power but shoot at a distance? I would love to have ships with tractor beams to slow down ships as well when they try to 'warp' out.

Another thing I don't like, is what is the purpose of damage control? To take less than 20% damage? WTF? That is what shields and armour is for. Damage control should be able to fix the ship after combat espically when in enemy territory. What about the Star Ship Voyager? If it was in DW it would never be able to fix herself.

So things I would like to see, are:

1 Tactics. We need to be able to tell our ships or fleets how to behave. Just shoot at one target and then they stop and do nothing while the other enemies are getting away is no fun. Yes this game is done in Real Time, but it's not a RTS game. We should be able to say shoot at long range only. Or once an enemy is destroyed it should target another enemy that is close by.

2 Maybe something about having an option, of using less fire power, but increase defence from evasding or have ships going faster in speed. Or maybe increas firepower but defence and speed will be decreased. More fire power, but easier to hit in return for example. Like when we see in movies and shows and books, where they divert the power to shields or the engines to get more power. That would mean power is taken away from the weapons or need more power to the weapons, it takes power away from the engines making the ship less manoverable so easier to hit, but the shots have more wallop to them.

3 Have damage contol be useful after combat is done. If you have 20% damage control, it shouldn't be 20% reduced damage, but fix the ship after combat. Maybe you can't fix the ship in tip top condtion, but get it going. So if shields are damaged you get 20% shields or speed or what ever. I just don't like how damage contol is being used right now.

4. Have combat mean something. Why bother attacking ships that can't move. All that does is cause me to waste more fuel. Maybe having an experiance level, if not for ships, but maybe for leaders then. We should have Captians, and Admirals. What about helms men to make the ships more faster or more manoverable so they it's harder to hit in combat. Have leaders or helmsmen that have a bonus to hit in combat, or engineers who can make the shields last long or repair the ship faster after combat or even during combat.

I just feel that the combat system is making this game a classic of what it can be. I am loving this game so much now, but feel it's just missing that little somethting.

I am just wundering what others think of the combat system. Maybe there is something that I am missing and maybe I can learn from it. If this is all there is too combat, hopefully something can be added in an update, or an expansion. Yes I know the game just came out, but I am looking forward to the day there is more I can do with DW. This is becoming one of my most favorite games and I want to see it improve.

??? Everything you said in this post is what some of us have been saying for the last several weeks since the game was released. You are just now getting around to your first capital ship? Unbelievable. You've been one of the biggest enthusiasts on the forum for weeks, yet didn't even bother to get a capital ship before now... and you have been trying to answer our constructive criticism with that fanboy spin ???

Not that I disagree with your points regarding combat. The game is nothing more than lightly entertaining during the early stages of development. Once you have a mid- to large-sized empire and have decent sized ships that simply seem like bigger versions of the smaller ships it becomes boring, dull, uninspired and a mess.

Give time please [:D] there is so much that can be done to DW's combat, just let time waltz if you must give it a break so be it but simply wait. she shall come

I have been researching really slowly and keep restarting too much since I love the colonization phase of the game. Also, I loved my destroyers, I had no need to go bigger, so I got so use to useing them all the time. I was so imersed in the game, I forgot to make anything bigger than a destroyer even when I had the capability of building bigger ships.

What's really lacking is some kind of rock-paper-scissors effects with different weapon/armor types, as it was in MoO, SE, etc... Shield-breaking weapons, weapons ignoring shields, targetting engines, power sources, psychic weapons, long range weapons, area weapons, missile defenses etc ... Currently we have guns that do 4 damage, then 6,8,12,16.. same for missiles, that's quite poor.

ORIGINAL: PDiFolco

What's really lacking is some kind of rock-paper-scissors effects with different weapon/armor types, as it was in MoO, SE, etc... Shield-breaking weapons, weapons ignoring shields, targetting engines, power sources, psychic weapons, long range weapons, area weapons, missile defenses etc ... Currently we have guns that do 4 damage, then 6,8,12,16.. same for missiles, that's quite poor.

Bravo - absolutely the case.

Beams always hit but are stopped by shields
Missles can be ECMed but do more damage, have worse innate targeting but instantly impact the hull
etc

There is so much that could be added to the mix here - but this would require a better 'ship type' way of managing designs.

just make combat mechanics and effects  (battle damage turret points, explosions etc etc) akin to gratuitous space battles and all worries in this reguard would be nulled
 
My Opinion

ORIGINAL: Davor
Why can't we issue orders to attack from far away and not up close? Why can't we design a ship that would have longer range fire power but shoot at a distance? I would love to have ships with tractor beams to slow down ships as well when they try to 'warp' out.

You can actually, it's set on the design screen.

Another thing I don't like, is what is the purpose of damage control? To take less than 20% damage? WTF? That is what shields and armour is for. Damage control should be able to fix the ship after combat espically when in enemy territory. What about the Star Ship Voyager? If it was in DW it would never be able to fix herself.

I'm not entirely understanding you - only the most basic damage control tech has no self-repair capability. Damage Control historically was also more about keeping damage from becoming catastrophic and then doing basic repairs after battle.

1 Tactics. We need to be able to tell our ships or fleets how to behave. Just shoot at one target and then they stop and do nothing while the other enemies are getting away is no fun. Yes this game is done in Real Time, but it's not a RTS game. We should be able to say shoot at long range only. Or once an enemy is destroyed it should target another enemy that is close by.

There are two different points here. You can set tactics on the design screen. As far as ship behavior in combat, automated ships behave differently from manual control ships and we're already looking to add in some more tactical intelligence to manual control ships as it's clear that people would prefer that to having them "completely manual".

2 Maybe something about having an option, of using less fire power, but increase defence from evasding or have ships going faster in speed. Or maybe increas firepower but defence and speed will be decreased. More fire power, but easier to hit in return for example. Like when we see in movies and shows and books, where they divert the power to shields or the engines to get more power. That would mean power is taken away from the weapons or need more power to the weapons, it takes power away from the engines making the ship less manoverable so easier to hit, but the shots have more wallop to them.

A lot of this depends on how you design your ship, whether it's got plenty of extra power or just enough. Making this a tactical micro-management decision seems to me like it's not right for the scale of this game though.

3 Have damage contol be useful after combat is done. If you have 20% damage control, it shouldn't be 20% reduced damage, but fix the ship after combat. Maybe you can't fix the ship in tip top condtion, but get it going. So if shields are damaged you get 20% shields or speed or what ever. I just don't like how damage contol is being used right now.

As noted above, the more advanced damage control techs can repair components.

4. Have combat mean something. Why bother attacking ships that can't move. All that does is cause me to waste more fuel. Maybe having an experiance level, if not for ships, but maybe for leaders then. We should have Captians, and Admirals. What about helms men to make the ships more faster or more manoverable so they it's harder to hit in combat. Have leaders or helmsmen that have a bonus to hit in combat, or engineers who can make the shields last long or repair the ship faster after combat or even during combat.

Helmsmen? Crewing each ship in detail again seems like we're getting game scales mixed up. Admirals with game effects I could see, some experience could also make sense.

I just feel that the combat system is making this game a classic of what it can be. I am loving this game so much now, but feel it's just missing that little somethting.

I think that as you get into more detail, you run the risk of losing the focus of the game. It certainly does not have everything that Star Fleet Battles or Full Thrust or something like that, but tell me how those games did at creating and managing an entire empire? [;)] Nothing against adding more to ship battles, but there are a lot of areas in the game that have the potential for expansion and improvement, this is a first release that's only a couple of weeks out from the gates.

Regards,

- Erik

ORIGINAL: PDiFolco
What's really lacking is some kind of rock-paper-scissors effects with different weapon/armor types, as it was in MoO, SE, etc... Shield-breaking weapons, weapons ignoring shields, targetting engines, power sources, psychic weapons, long range weapons, area weapons, missile defenses etc ... Currently we have guns that do 4 damage, then 6,8,12,16.. same for missiles, that's quite poor.

There are so many things that could still be done in terms of adding techs and interactions between techs and new design options. I agree, and there's a long road ahead. [8D]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

ORIGINAL: Davor
Why can't we issue orders to attack from far away and not up close? Why can't we design a ship that would have longer range fire power but shoot at a distance? I would love to have ships with tractor beams to slow down ships as well when they try to 'warp' out.

You can actually, it's set on the design screen.

Ah so there is something that I forgot. I am glad I made this post, I will go back and double check and see what was made. What would you suggest for the sips to shoot from afar?

Another thing I don't like, is what is the purpose of damage control? To take less than 20% damage? WTF? That is what shields and armour is for. Damage control should be able to fix the ship after combat espically when in enemy territory. What about the Star Ship Voyager? If it was in DW it would never be able to fix herself.

I'm not entirely understanding you - only the most basic damage control tech has no self-repair capability. Damage Control historically was also more about keeping damage from becoming catastrophic and then doing basic repairs after battle.

Ah ok, I see where you are coming from. So what you are saying is that the reduction of damage of say 20% is that damage was done, but repaired then?

1 Tactics. We need to be able to tell our ships or fleets how to behave. Just shoot at one target and then they stop and do nothing while the other enemies are getting away is no fun. Yes this game is done in Real Time, but it's not a RTS game. We should be able to say shoot at long range only. Or once an enemy is destroyed it should target another enemy that is close by.

There are two different points here. You can set tactics on the design screen. As far as ship behavior in combat, automated ships behave differently from manual control ships and we're already looking to add in some more tactical intelligence to manual control ships as it's clear that people would prefer that to having them "completely manual".

Looking forward to it.

2 Maybe something about having an option, of using less fire power, but increase defence from evasding or have ships going faster in speed. Or maybe increas firepower but defence and speed will be decreased. More fire power, but easier to hit in return for example. Like when we see in movies and shows and books, where they divert the power to shields or the engines to get more power. That would mean power is taken away from the weapons or need more power to the weapons, it takes power away from the engines making the ship less manoverable so easier to hit, but the shots have more wallop to them.

A lot of this depends on how you design your ship, whether it's got plenty of extra power or just enough. Making this a tactical micro-management decision seems to me like it's not right for the scale of this game though.

Fair enough, I guess since I have restartitis, I don't have a huge fleet to take care off, so I never realized how huge the game can be. I guess it is opening my mouth before finishing the game. [:'(]

4. Have combat mean something. Why bother attacking ships that can't move. All that does is cause me to waste more fuel. Maybe having an experiance level, if not for ships, but maybe for leaders then. We should have Captians, and Admirals. What about helms men to make the ships more faster or more manoverable so they it's harder to hit in combat. Have leaders or helmsmen that have a bonus to hit in combat, or engineers who can make the shields last long or repair the ship faster after combat or even during combat.

Helmsmen? Crewing each ship in detail again seems like we're getting game scales mixed up. Admirals with game effects I could see, some experience could also make sense.

True enough. I was sort of playing like you said in an old post of mine, controlling one ship and being the captian of it while the rest of the galaxy is playing. Just would have loved more options when playing it that way. [:D]

I just feel that the combat system is making this game a classic of what it can be. I am loving this game so much now, but feel it's just missing that little somethting.

I think that as you get into more detail, you run the risk of losing the focus of the game. It certainly does not have everything that Star Fleet Battles or Full Thrust or something like that, but tell me how those games did at creating and managing an entire empire? [;)] Nothing against adding more to ship battles, but there are a lot of areas in the game that have the potential for expansion and improvement, this is a first release that's only a couple of weeks out from the gates.

Regards,

- Erik

Fair enough. Maybe once I finally hit 20 years I will see the whole scope of the game. Man I just love playing this game. Never had as much fun playing a 4X space game like this in years.

Davor, top left of the design screen, use the drop down menu's and choose "Standoff". I've not used an exclusive torp/missile boat as yet but I'm just going to assume that would be the default strategy for it.

ORIGINAL: Astorax

Davor, top left of the design screen, use the drop down menu's and choose "Standoff". I've not used an exclusive torp/missile boat as yet but I'm just going to assume that would be the default strategy for it.

In theory I suppose. In reality, ships with "standoff" fire their missles and then continue to close to close range just like the rest of the fleet. Of course, missles only out-distance energy weapons by a fractional distance anyway so it doesn't make much difference in either event. Ship and weapons scale needs to be adjusted in a big way for combat to turn into anything but one big cluster.

I agree. The very general tactics selected in the design screen are great... but I can see that was created alone given the RTS perspective of the game. In many 4X games, you can set such general tactics in the design as well. They act as the default. However, when ships are added to fleets, etc. Those tactics can be modified for each ship or given to a fleet.  So while the ship design's default tactic is "weapons range", you can issue a "point blank" tactic to your fleet. That will override the design default.

Yep, Malevolence, thats exactly how its handled in Space Empires, too. Heh, now if only we had a dropdown tactics menu for fleets...

[:D]

ORIGINAL: Astorax

Yep, Malevolence, thats exactly how its handled in Space Empires, too. Heh, now if only we had a dropdown tactics menu for fleets...

[:D]

I know... I was big fan of Malfador back to SE2 and later. Stars! probably remains my favorite 4X. This game, however, has a different vision ...

I keep going back to this CodeForce statement to give me perspective on DW...

"Experience the full depth and detail of large turn-based strategy games, but with the simplicity and ease of real-time, and on the scale of a massively-multiplayer online game."

"with the simplicity and ease of real-time"

You can tell this is a core design goal. I know my personal "speed" wants greater complexity, dynamic choices, and more sandbox... not to say DW doesn't have it, but simplicity isn't in my vocabulary when it comes to 4X. In other words, we must temper our "wishes" with CodeForce's vision if our expectations are going to intersect.

"Experience the full depth and detail of large turn-based strategy games, but with the simplicity and ease of real-time, and on the scale of a massively-multiplayer online game."

Ah I don't remember this. I guess being so storked that there was a new 4X game that I missed this. So I guess this was their intent all the time, and can't be blamed.

But there is nothing wrong in asking for more is there?

I've been a fan of Space Empires IV forever. This game is looking like its going to replace that niche. With Elliot and the gang squashing bugs left and right promptly, it can only get better fast.

I like complexity, too, Malevolence, but there is a limit. MoO3, anyone? Though, to be fair, that was more of a UI problem, but still. This game hits me just right in a lot of the places I like and I'm loving it more the longer I play it.

[8D]

In comparison to space empires, I personally find DW too simple
I personally love complexity, but I realize that I'm part of a dying breed, and catering to dying breeds don't pay the bills

MoO3, was that the last one? If it was, I personally didn't like it. That was another game that the design in concept wanted you to run it in auto mode--but you were suppose to tweak settings to guide the AI. Nice concept, but I remember it being very poorly executed.

I think the second one, Battle for Antares was very good.

About DW, one of the great design choices I think they made was the open ship/hull design concept. I think, perhaps, the DW team might be wishing they had been a little less tour de force (I'm looking at you re-supply ship), but I applaud them for breaking new ground in that area. This is a single player game, and much of the constraints of other games are based on the need for multilayer fairness. It is absolutely impossible to cheat in DW. If you build a super-weapon re-supply ship who have you cheated? I disagree (respectfully) with the design mechanics in terms of one ship per role coupled to lingering naming problems with manual upgrading, but all around very refreshing. You didn't expect me to design three destroyer variants did you? [;)]

tl;dr --> If you think about DW as an RTS game in space that lets you customize your units (with very few restrictions) and that adds some deep strategic elements -- this is an excellent product.

Stand Off works, but the AI only pays attention to standing off from its target, and doesn't focus on avoiding anyone else. "Stronger" and "Weaker" are also somewhat unclear and subjective, especially when it comes to space monsters, who have shield-ignoring attacks. Although 1.03 is supposed to have made ships smarter about avoiding them, given that their attacks only function at melee range.

And if you build a super-weapon resupply ship, you've cheated your taxpayers, because you now have a ridiculously expensive beast of a ship that isn't actually any better at destroying opponents than a ship half its price, since it can still only be in one place at one time and can only effectively attack one opponent, generally vaporizing him instantly with weapons sufficient to put holes in small moons. I've built 1500-point Leviathan battleships, and honestly, they look a lot cooler than they actually are, and I could have gotten the same results out of the 900-point battlecruisers at far less expense, since the guns are sufficient to pretty much instantly slag any opponent I've encountered. Anything BIGGER than that is simply a grandiose extragravance and an expression of your empire's pomposity....which, honestly, is sufficient reason to do it, but it's not really any more USEFUL.