Fleet Battles...

Lets just wait and see what happens shall we

Prophecy has a pretty good capship battle in which Dallas bites the dust.
I remember that quest and I am a bit vague of how the battle ended was there an actual scene or in game show?
 
Dragon1 said:
I don't know if maneuvering at a snail's pace and operating a bunch of turrets would rate as a fun video game.

Starfleet Command is pretty fun.
 
I got Starfleet Command, although I never got the chance to finish it as I had trouble playing it right. I think that I have to play it again...
 
Well I guess I agree, but come on, are you guys going to tell me that when you played the last mission of X-wing alliance, or one of the other games that features the Battle of Endor, or the last few in Airforce Delta strike, or some other game like that, you werent on the edge of you seat? Come on! Large fleet battles give you so much to do, cap ship defense, coordinated air strikes. And to whoever said that the big gunned capships were kinda pointless... I disagree, dont you remember that CGI in the Secret opps when the two cruisers went at it? The Plunkett class one bashed away at the enemy ship, not the engines or the bridge, just bashed away at it, and it eventually exploded!
 
Secret Ops' cutscenes were scripted, of course... although Delance's complaint does make absolutely no sense. I'm at a loss for understanding why he believes that capital ships would have some problem using their guns to shoot each others engines and bridges.
 
Bandit LOAF said:
I'm at a loss for understanding why he believes that capital ships would have some problem using their guns to shoot each others engines and bridges.

Obvously, the prophecy ships big guns are made for gunning down fighters, so when their up against other capships, theyll aim for the middle of the capship instead of its subsystems... I think... Quarto can probably explain it.
 
WCP SO had some large cap ship battles...it's been a very long time since I played it but I remember one where the Cerberus hooked up with two other big ships in a big battle. I remember it because their stupid giant turrets kept hitting me and killing me instantly. that's an important thing to consider as well in a fleet battle...if you got big ships firing big guns...there's a very good chance the player is going to get hit accidentally by them. Instant friendly kill isn't much fun gameplay wise.
 
Bandit LOAF said:
Secret Ops' cutscenes were scripted, of course... although Delance's complaint does make absolutely no sense. I'm at a loss for understanding why he believes that capital ships would have some problem using their guns to shoot each others engines and bridges.
Delance is absolutely correct, though - from the perspective of the game engine, capships cannot kill other capships. The turret AI in WCP/SO is not capable of shooting specifically at a component - they can hit such a component by accident, but they don't actually aim at anything more specific than the capship as a whole.

What's more, the only guns simulated in WCP/SO are anti-fighter guns - IIRC, even those big plasma guns on the Cerberus and the Plunketts are incapable of hurting capships. It's one of the curiosities of the engine - you can have a gun that does enough damage to theoretically destroy any capship component... but unless the EXE specifies that this particular gun can damage capship components, it's not gonna happen.

(once, I even tried to go around this by giving capships missile turrets loaded with torpedoes... didn't work, because the missile turrets only lock on fighters, never on capships)
 
Quarto said:
Delance is absolutely correct, though - from the perspective of the game engine, capships cannot kill other capships. The turret AI in WCP/SO is not capable of shooting specifically at a component - they can hit such a component by accident, but they don't actually aim at anything more specific than the capship as a whole.

What's more, the only guns simulated in WCP/SO are anti-fighter guns - IIRC, even those big plasma guns on the Cerberus and the Plunketts are incapable of hurting capships. It's one of the curiosities of the engine - you can have a gun that does enough damage to theoretically destroy any capship component... but unless the EXE specifies that this particular gun can damage capship components, it's not gonna happen.

(once, I even tried to go around this by giving capships missile turrets loaded with torpedoes... didn't work, because the missile turrets only lock on fighters, never on capships)

I was right, then... But they do fire at other capships... the problem is that they never fire at it's subsystems.:(
 
Capital Ships shooting each other down would probably start making the game a whole less fun considering the thrill of taking one down yourself.
 
LeHah,

I think you've hit on the major point of game balancing. You want to have the player have that thrill of taking out some cap ships, but still be a part of a realistic team where other members are competent, as well (this is what I didn't like about Battle Cruiser Millenium: I felt like the only competent person on a ship of idiots, having to run to each station and do the job myself). Certainly, the challenge is making the battle realistic, but still making the contributions of the player be pivotal.

So, I think the trick is to create a larger battle that you cannot possibly fight all by yourself, but put the player in a position where they are pivotal in their specific portion of the fight.

Like I said, Saga will have several of these sorts of battles in the main campain, and we might just tease you guys with a fleet action simulator mission in the prologue to give you a smaller-scale taste of the sort of balance we are trying to create.
 
I disagree, dont you remember that CGI in the Secret opps when the two cruisers went at it? The Plunkett class one bashed away at the enemy ship, not the engines or the bridge, just bashed away at it, and it eventually exploded!

Out of necessity, a large capital ship has enough fire power to waste another. This goes pretty much without saying.

When a bomber that costs 1/1000th of the price, took days instead of months to construct, and only puts 1-4 crewman at risk as opposed to hundreds, why would you optimize your fleet for Jutland style battles?

Wing Commander was a smart enough game and universe to know this rule.

Now if a capship is caught off-guard by another, or you have a von Clausewitz 'concentration of force' scenario on a particular objective (like Earth, Sirius, McAuliffe, Kilrah etc...). Then I could see more direct capship confrontation.

Also, our perspective is that of a carrier pilot. Throughout the war, Confed only had 50-60 carriers (at the absolute most) at any one time. We may also assume that the state-of-the-art Heavy Fighters and Torpedo Bombers would be assigned primary to these ships. Most of the Cruisers and Destroyers would probably be assigned point-defense ships and other lighter fighters. There were several thousand cruisers and destroyers on both sides. So, from our perspective, our escort ships don't need to engage other Capships, we can do so in our Sabers, Longbows, Raptors, etc...

Now if WC simulated the main character as a pilot on board a DD or CC (or even a base), I am sure we would see more direct capship vs. capship fighting.
 
LeHah said:
Capital Ships shooting each other down would probably start making the game a whole less fun considering the thrill of taking one down yourself.
Well, the trick has always been to make it seem like the player is still in charge. For example, both in UE and in the one fleet battle you've seen so far in Standoff, the ultimate outcome depends on the player. In other words, we make sure that it's not just something he watches - he has to participate.

This has generally been the case in similar battles in official WC games, too, although they also had some sit-by-and-watch battles (including almost every single capship battle in WC2 - the Concordia was invincible, so no Fralthra could hurt her :p ).
 
Sphynx said:
So, I think the trick is to create a larger battle that you cannot possibly fight all by yourself, but put the player in a position where they are pivotal in their specific portion of the fight.

I think the problem with such a statement is that game AI has yet to get to that point where you can expect your wingman to act appropriately in a giving circumstance. Sure, you can give them orders and what not but at the end of the day they're just another 'bot'.

The only other real option would be to play a MMPORPG type setting, which I doubt could handle something like the Battle Of Endor / Battle Of Terra enviroment I think you're suggesting.

The sad fact of games these days is that they're just more complicated, more advanced versions of earlier, more "basic" (and usually more fun) games. (HalfLife/Doom, etc)
 
Good point. That is why in most cases, a certain amount of scripting (not total scripting, but enough to make sure that certain outcomes will occur if the player does not intervene... or even if the player does, if that is the desired senario) of various parts of the battle needs to take place. That way, wingmen and cap ships will choose appropriate targets, and certain wingmen can be guaranteed survival for however long the mission programmer decides.

However, the things that the player can impact must undergo extensive balancing to acheive the right mixture of difficulty for the task. Then, you throw in a portion of action that is entirely random to create the feel of a hectic and unpreditable battle, and presto, you have yourself a fleet battle.

With this technique, you can even make is so some of the somewhat scripted events can be affected by the player as secondary objectives (ex. if the player takes out x amount of turrets on an enemy cruiser, a friendly destroyer that would otherwise have been doomed will now survive the fight).

So, your limitations in such things depends mostly on your game engine. In time, we'll be able to show you what I mean.
 
Sphynx said:
So, your limitations in such things depends mostly on your game engine. In time, we'll be able to show you what I mean.

I think the thing is that games use up the majority of a computer's processing on graphics and less on AI. That isnt to say that if you put more RAM in your machine, the game will be more difficult - but that companies could allocate more system processing speed to make a more complex AI system (though that may hinder the game's graphics rendering somewhat. Im not really all that familiar with programming myself)
 
The problem with AI isn't so much the processing power, but that it's hard to program. I mean, there have been games with good AI on the 80's and 90's.
 
Delance said:
I mean, there have been games with good AI on the 80's and 90's.

Too true. I find a lot of older games like Doom or NARC to be harder (and far more enjoyable) than Half-Life or its ilk.
 
Back
Top