Mechanics Brainstorming: 1-D Combat Maps

[Reformations]

Awhile ago I was trying to think of how I would program combat ai for moo1. Thr "chasing in circles" bothered me as very immersion breaking. Certainly a possible answer is to put in some simple math and let ai know when it can't catch a target played optimally. However I started thinking more about why do we really need the second dimension anyways? Can 1 dimension combat still highlight design-screen decisions as much as 2--I think so. I also think it would make ai programming easier.

Basically the battle screen is a row of 10 tiles. Ships can move forward and back, that's it. However, each tile can contain 3 stacks of ships. This can be 3 from same team or split 1-2. (An asteroid field in the tile counts as a stack, bringing total ship stacks to 2).

A weapon of range 1 can hit any of 3 stacks on tile in front or behind as well as 2 stacks on same tile. This is identical to current system. if an asteroid belt is on the tile the defenders gain 3 defense (similar to moo1 but also has choke point feel).

Visually, if there is one stack on a tile the stack is vertically aligned in the middle of the screen. If there are 2 stacks on same tile they are staggered one above the other, but height makes no difference. Similar with 3 stacks on a tile. They form a column but height order doesn't matter. This may give the impression that the battlefield is 10x3 which is a reasonable approximation as long as reminded that vertical distance doesn't matter for movement or attack ranges.

The planet itself counts as one of the 3 possible stacks in the tile. This makes 8 possible "stacks" to be in bombing range. Same as 2d combat.

My overall thoughts is that this version would be a nerf to fast ships with weapons greater than range 1. These ships will inevitably end up in a "corner" and at least have to take opportunity fire now and again (no matter the speed difference).

I'm not claiming this is an amazing system. I was more just surprised how "easily" something like 2d combat could be reduced further.

[RefSteel]

This is pretty cool. Note the old Traveler tabletop RPGs used a 1D combat "map" as well: It's all about (abstracted vector-based) "distance" to target.

For MoO, I would allow any number of ships on any of the ten "tiles," and just let asteroid fields adversely affect beams and missiles fired from, to, or through the "tiles" they occupy. (I think the idea of choke points in space, including those created by asteroids in MoO, is silly.) I might limit non-Heavy weapons to firing at ships on the same "tile" (while allowing heavies to fire up to two "tiles" away) as a buff to heavy weapons and high maneuverability, which might be needed to rebalance for 1-D.

You'd definitely need to do something about Repulsor Beams. I'd say they should only be able to target one stack at a time. On your turn, you can "fire" them at any enemy stack on the screen as though they were a fifth bank of weapons (i.e. they are fired after the regular weapons banks have all fired) and then are "locked on" to that ship until your ship's next turn. The targeted stack can't move within one space of the repulsor ship, and if already within one space when the beam is "fired" the stack is pushed one space further away. If the stack is on the same tile as the repulsor ship, the targeted stack is pushed two tiles back toward the side of the screen from which it started the battle. An "unfired" repulsor beam would automatically "fire" on the first stack to come within one space of it, like a reaction shot from a normal weapon.

[EDIT: Also, I think a good art director given sufficient creative freedom could make the "1-D" battle screen look really cool. At the same time, I don't think this type of combat system is the right choice for DG unless they're ultimately forced to give up on the idea of making each battle a separate and interesting dynamic tactical puzzle. And much as I want a 4-X space game to be all about strategic decisions, games with complex and impactful tactical battles strongly affected but not overwhelmed by their strategic context - sort of in the tradition of X-COM - can be really neat if done well!]

[Reformations]

I toyed with different stacks per tile numbers and came up with 3 due to similarities with range 1 weapons. Allowing all ships in the same tile abstracts it even further and might work. Particularly if range 1 is same-tile-only.

Would 1-way repulsors work? Attackers are always pushed away from planet and defenders always pushed toward?

This style would be a buff to opportunity fire? If you move your fleet on the same tile every turn, an enemy entering that tile would be hit by every ship. Perhaps this makes scenarios where you must have a defense focused ship to move in first and absorb the larger amount of incoming reaction fire. I'm not sure I like the extra math keeping track of initiative of the entire enemy fleet. Maybe this can be handled through clever displays.

Would we allow a ship to "move" within the same tile to trigger enemy opportunity fire again? This is possible in 2d because you can move to multiple tiles and still trigger return fire. Maybe we would require moving out of tile and moving back in?

Completely agree on art style. I'm certainly not an artist but this abstraction allows for a lot of creativity (more so than 2d).

[RefSteel]

Would 1-way repulsors work? Attackers are always pushed away from planet and defenders always pushed toward?

Well, when the attacker is at least as far from the planet than the repulsor, certainly - but when the attacker "gets past" the repulsor ship and the repulsor ship can't or doesn't get back "in front of" (or at least to) it again, there are three ways it could be handled:

1) Push ships further away from the repulsor ship in their current direction, even if it's "the wrong way." I favor this one because I think a ship shouldn't have to fall back for its repulsor to keep ships away from it, but should have to do so to force ships that have bypassed it back away from the planet.

2) Repulsors don't affect ships that get "past" them until the ship at least reaches its target's space. (This ensures that e.g. repulsors never e.g. help enemy bombers toward the planet even if the player/AI makes a tactical mistake, but leaves the ship itself at risk.)

3) Repulsors push their target "back" toward their starting side even if the target has gotten past them. This (like the other two) would still only be relevant if the target were exactly one space "past" the repulsor ship, but in that case could move the target by three full spaces. (This seems too strong to me.)

This style would be a buff to opportunity fire? If you move your fleet on the same tile every turn, an enemy entering that tile would be hit by every ship.

If all your ships have the intitative advantage, true. I think I'm okay with this though. It definitely benefits heavy beams, especially if normal beams (and bombs and spores) can only hit targets on the same "tile." One possibility to buff combat speed (which this system, especially including reaction fire, would nerf pretty significantly) would then be that reaction fire can't occur while a target is in motion. In other words, if my ship starts on a different tile from an enemy ship with normal beams, and flies right past it in one move (rather than into its tile) - or starts three spaces from an enemy ship with heavy beams, and manages to fly right through its space and out three more tiles beyond it in a single move - I won't take reaction fire regardless of the enemy ships' initiative.

I'm not sure I like the extra math keeping track of initiative of the entire enemy fleet. Maybe this can be handled through clever displays.

Doesn't the game do this anyway? (The base game, with its 2-D map?) There are only two initiative states that matter for reaction fire anyway though: "Has already passed this turn without firing its weapons" - i.e. capable of reaction fire - and "not."

Would we allow a ship to "move" within the same tile to trigger enemy opportunity fire again? This is possible in 2d because you can move to multiple tiles and still trigger return fire. Maybe we would require moving out of tile and moving back in?

The latter, I think. It would rarely come up though; if you're in the same space as a ship that could react to you and it didn't fire on you during its turn, it obviously doesn't care about you, and you can respond to that by firing on it with impunity. I'd actually be inclined to let ships choose a target even though it's out of range (kind of like I said with repulsor beams above) if they're willing to let other ships engage them but don't want one particular stack to pass unmolested.

Completely agree on art style. I'm certainly not an artist but this abstraction allows for a lot of creativity (more so than 2d).

Absolutely; and the art can also help convey a narrative reasoning behind design elements - e.g. for one of my suggestions above, a fast ship maneuvering swiftly around ships in a "tile" through which it's passing, managing to avoid them all en route to its destination as they give futile chase within their tile.

[Reformations]

Not the end of the world but the 'flying past reaction fire' mechanic again opens up for a faster 2 range ship to never get trapped by a slower one.

I have noticed that mobility of beam ships takes a hit on this setup. Perhaps the initiative is important enough for mobility to contribute to initiative rather than (potentially) abusive tactics against a slower AI?

This is likely overcomplicating things but I wonder if 'unused' mobility points at the time of receiving opportunity fire can be added to defense against the reaction attack. A speed 5 ship takes his first move onto a tile with enemy reaction fire. He then gains +4 defense against that opportunity fire. However, if that same ship traveled 4 spaces before crossing opportunity fire, he would gain +1 defense bonus against it. However, really fast ships are moving first anyways so there's unlikely to be a large battery of beam weapons waiting for them.

[RefSteel]

Not the end of the world but the 'flying past reaction fire' mechanic again opens up for a faster 2 range ship to never get trapped by a slower one.

Good point, and in fact this is possible even without the "fly-by" rule if the faster ship also has better initiative. Between that, missiles, and the 2-range vs. 0-range heavy beam advantage, it's probably best not to introduce the "fly-by" rule at all, as combat speed will still be strong without it, and it's another complication.

[Reformations]

Anyone thought about changing reaction fire mechanics so that it is available when the ship did not fire on the previous turn? Probably too strong? It would make for heavier losses on both sides and more baiting of reaction fire by first sending in ships that can take it. Large buff to cloaking devices as well.

Another approach (but perhaps not as clean) is increasing the initiative of a ship by 3 whenever it finishes a turn without actively firing. Upon actively firing, the bonus is lost and initiative reset to base value. This helps those slow moving ships as they waddle towards a planet. A few turns of moving without firing will bring him up higher on the list. I'm not sure if the bonus should be lost when using a reactive fire or not.

Both of these sound like potential ship specials perhaps. I'm liking the opportunity fire mechanics of a 'tile of stacks' approach.

[RefSteel]

Anyone thought about changing reaction fire mechanics so that it is available when the ship did not fire on the previous turn?

This (and the other option suggested) eliminates the value of high initiative almost entirely for most of the game (except in the presence of missile bases). It also would make a problem I've been thinking about much more common: The Mexican Standoff. Take just the simplest case: Two stacks that both have one-space beams. They can close until they're just out of range of one another, no problem - but then they stop. Whoever moves first will take a reaction shot, and start the fight at a disadvantage, perhaps having already lost ships (or in the extreme case with excellent targeting computers, strong weapons, and poor defenses, the entire stack) before firing a shot. Cue 50-turn wait.

If not for the over-aggressive AI, this would exist in MoO when e.g. a ship with exactly two moves and one-space beams faces a ship with lower initiative, one move, and heavy weapons: The faster ships can't close to 3-tile range or the slower ship will close to 2 and fire on them. They can't close to 2-tile range range without being fired upon either. So they want to hang out at 4-tile range and wait for the big, slow ship to close on them. But if the slow ship closes to 3-tile range, it will take fire first, so both fleets want to stay 4 tiles apart and wait.

Not sure of the best solution right now, apart from minimizing the number of cases where it happens, but I think there are some options....

[RefSteel]

For instance: Any stack that didn't fire on its most-recent turn can use reaction fire, but it doesn't trigger as soon as a target moves into range. Instead, it triggers when a target begins to move again or fire its weapons once it is already in range.

- If the target is moving, the reaction fire occurs first, before it moves out of range (or before it moves closer in the case of heavy beams or HEF).

- If the target is firing a weapon, no matter at what, the reaction fire occurs before the target can fire if the reacting ship has higher initiative. Otherwise, it occurs after the target's fire, assuming a reacting ship survived.

[Reformations]

Heh, I feel like we are hijacking the thread a bit. Although I definitely enjoy any discussion that can help streamline MoO1 combat while still letting design choices shine.

Essentially we have taken the 10x8 grid and turned it into 10x12 (or 13 if you count the tile with planet). Beam weapons can hit any target in the same set of vertical tiles. Depending on the role of opportunity fire (see above) this could lead to boring stand offs or slugging matches ala Rocky.

Now, I know we just poked holes in a combat mechanic that had firing angles and flanking but what if there was a very simple 1-d version of flanking by giving assymetric weapon ranges. The most common would be targeting the same set of vertical tiles as the ship is on. In this new version we call that range 0. A slight improvement is range 0,1 that lets you also target set of vertical tiles in front of the ship. (In front/behind is defined according to defenders/attackers). A much more versatile range would be -1, 0, 1 that lets you target infront and behind the ship. Earlier in the thread this was referred to as a range 2 weapon. The new syntax allows for assymetric ranges.

Perhaps heavy beams have range 0,1,2,3 which means they cannot target ships behind them. They have 'blind spots'.

Now, I know "behind" conjures all sorts of things like firing arcs and rotating etc. But I don't think it is that scary in 1d. It just means in order to attack the ships "behind" you (and don't have a -1 range weapon equipped) is that your ship must use movement to back up a tile.

Essentially, ships with negative range beam weapons are harassers or escorts. They can harass by using speed to get in the blind spots of other ships or they can escort by hanging with their allied ships that have blind spots. Escorting can also be accomplished through positive range weapons but it means they have to hang way back. Harassing can only be effectively done by negative range weapons (or against ships with severe blind spots).

Shrugs. This could add some interesting 'back and forth' (pun intended) on a very simple 1d line.