Supporting continuing development for Empyrean Challenge / Cluster Wars
You are not logged in.
Pages: 1
Ok, it is on this note I shall bow out of contributing here. I am just not interested in this game being created. It's not EC.
I wish you all well and hope you can come up with something that all here will enjoy. Good luck!
The It started that way and then it was greatly improved, a lot better than the original. It's the best designed bame I've ever played. Beautiful on iPad and phone. A lot better balance and options with systems. There are a lot of players, tournaments, etc. I finished first in the second tier bracket the one time I entered, and, we finished second in a team competition. The developers have been very responsive, huge playtest for new rules and balance, etc.
This part makes no sense:
"It seemed reasonable since ESH are 100% effective against EWP then STUN could be 100% effective against MSS"
ESH are a weapon defense system, STUN is structure. I don't see how you can relate the 2. STUN is equally effective against EWP and MSS, one mass unit damage from either. ANM is the defense system against MSS.
It would seem like a good idea to give some incentive to research STUN. I would think armor should apply to both types of attack systems myself. 1 damage = 1 damage.
Overall, I like giving some sort of incentive for STUN research.
I've played a couple of those real time online games, did so for a month or so and then decided I liked turn based much better. I mostly like games like Starbase Orion, a wonderful turn based game, one of the best I have ever played.
Oh, I agree that testing some pieces would not necessarily require setting up a game. However, testing is different than actual use as well for certain things. Introducing new elements into the game can cause radical changes that may not go as anticipated. You wouldn't really know the effect of formula changes, new unit types, etc. until games are played. You could only test that they function as intended.
There are several potential paths here. I'd like to understand where the project is going before committing time to this. I presume we know that the code will be in a much more modern language. Also, I presume we will modernize the interface instead of clunky old VB style screens that take immense time to write orders in. So, beyond that, a few choices:
1. The goal is to replicate the game rules as they existed before the code was lost, same rules where possible, we'll all figure out the rest as best as we can. This takes advantage of a lot of invested time in playtesting.
2. The goal is to make an entirely new game based somewhat loosely on the old game.
3. The goal would be to take as much as we can from the old game, and perhaps add a few things to it to possibly make it more interesting. Rules may be modified, which may have the effect of making the game better, or worse.
For me, where I am in life, I would be interested in #1, not at all in #2, and, probably not but maybe in #3 depending on the scope. #3 is just going to likely be way too much time and effort for design and playtesting for balance, etc.
I am not saying #2 or #3 is wrong. It's just what my interests would be. It could well be #2 or #3 would make for a popular game.
I am not checking the missile calculator as it depends on if you intend to change the games formulas or not. As you know, I suggested not for a variety of reasons. Did not go into tremendous detail admittedly.
But good job on the energy combat!
I would expect a modern computer to be able to easily handle the deep checking. Only those orders affecting an S/C have to be considered, not all orders. But it's just an opinion of course. Only way to know is prototyping. I agree internally, orders might be in some fixed format.
My recollection of targeting was that you did indeed do less damage overall, however, you were far more likely to hit the target and not other things. This would have to be considered in the damage allocation vs not targeting. Ships of course could not be targeted as it's so much harder, they move, sometimes real fast. On colonies, factories don't really move very quickly so easier to target.
Some people were using STUN as armor in essence. Just fill all available extra space with STUN, and, most damage would go there. FOOD was used in this way too since FOOD was produced without any raw materials. So, it sort of works that way already. I do suspect damage was applied based on mass, so, things that had more mass took more of the damage.
Regarding light structures, also keep in mind that today some lighter materials are actually stronger than heavier materials.
No, actually, you are missing the point. You do not want to square it. Re-read what I wrote. I'll build a ship with 10,000 MSL-10 and 10,000 MSS-10 and 10,000 ANM-10. You build a ship with 10,000 MSL-10 and 10,000 MSS-10 and 100,000 ANM-1. Guess who will win? You cannot fire more than 10,000 ANM since that's all the MSL you have.
It's that way as the mass is already factored in by the requirement to use 1 MSL per ANM. I understand the mass for ANM and MSS increases the way you describe, but it's already accounted for. It's different as it's the only weapon dependent on another weapon to fire it. So, you can't compare to EWP or ESH as those are standalone. You do not want to lose your ship, therefore, you will exp for ANM-10.
Hope you see what I am saying. It works quite well the way it was.
I would like to suggest a different way of doing orders that then requires no validator (per se) at all. So, S/Cs would do their orders "immediately" from the point of view of the turn being written. There would be no cryptic orders. So, for example, say I have OPC1. That OPC might click on combat, and, the game would show all potential targets where they are at the beginning of the turn. I might pick pre maneuver phase, allocate some percentage, etc. So, there is no PMM or PME order per se.
Or, I might pick a ship, and, click tactical maneuver and dock to an OBC (but the game would check I have sufficient speed, enough fuel, etc.). Now at the OBC, it assumes the ship will be docked docked, I can write pickup orders, etc. Of course, the reality is the ship may not get there, could be destroyed in combat. But the game would always be checking real time orders, and, allowing orders based on those orders. But we the user might never see actual written orders like TMV, whatever. In that way, the game mechanics become much simpler, order writing quicker with less errors, etc. Now, one might change the ship dock move order, and, if you do, you would flag those S/Cs who's orders were dependent on the original move, and, you'd have to redo those accordingly.
Just a quick thought.
A few comments. Also relevant to combat is fuel usage, those should show on your combat calculator ideally.
I checked the EWP calculator, and thus far, it checks out based on my old calculators for different examples.
Another variable is the ability to target when shooting at OPCs and other fixed objects. While you can't do that in the calculator, it's relevant when trying to implement the game combat system.
This would be great, along with things such as "filters" where you could see all orders for a given S/C, etc.
So, the reason it is not squared I believe is this. While it is true that you would get the same result with 100,000 ANM-1 as 10,000 ANM-10, the problem is you would need 100,000 MSL to launch the ANM. That is where the mass comes into play, it's built into the launchers.
So, while it may appear at first there is no incentive to upgrade, there is. Say you had 10,000 MSL-10. Well, with ANM-1, you could only destroy 900 MSS-10 launched at you. Not very many. If you had ANM-10, you could destroy 9,000 MSS-10 launched at you. So, you would indeed be wise to upgrade to MSS-10 as otherwise an equal ship would destroy you.
I believe there is no issue with missile combat.
Pages: 1