Forums » Suggestions
Gavan is right.
Tactically, a unit is rendered combat ineffective at 28% casualties (wounded or killed). At 55% casualties the unit is considered routed. At 60% casualties the unit is considered destroyed. Remembering that wounding one person in infantry renders 2-5 others ineffective (as they provide medical care and transport the wounded to more extensive medical facilities) it's easy to see how these numbers function. Of course this is not the infantry, but read on.
There is only one reason a unit will ever willingly be rendered routed or destroyed by a battlefield commander: strategic withdrawal. If the demise of one unit can save multiple others, then a unit might be order into rear guard action to delay enemy advances. (For the most noble of these, read about the 933 invasion of the Japanese province of Iga by the samurai of northern Japan. Four Iganese tried to hold a mountain pass against more than three thousand samurai. Three were killed in the first day, and the remaining man held the pass alone for one full week.)
Now, the tactics of space combat are vastly different than blade and shield combat in a mountain pass, but the basic theory is still the same: no unit is willingly going to stand in place and get obliterated, or even accept decimation, and no battlefield commander is going to order it. Having a mobile repair station to keep ships in combat fits with a more realistic modality of practical combat.
In order to be realistic for a border skirmish, for example, there should probably be a time limit on how soon you can relaunch your fighter. If, for example, there were a three minute wait while your ship was being rearmed and repaired, it would provide just enough incentive to keep people in the fray. Plus, the capships would then be an even more important strategic target: once you take them out, the fighters have to return to base for repairs.
Plus it'd be cool as hell.
~D.
"Nigel"
Tactically, a unit is rendered combat ineffective at 28% casualties (wounded or killed). At 55% casualties the unit is considered routed. At 60% casualties the unit is considered destroyed. Remembering that wounding one person in infantry renders 2-5 others ineffective (as they provide medical care and transport the wounded to more extensive medical facilities) it's easy to see how these numbers function. Of course this is not the infantry, but read on.
There is only one reason a unit will ever willingly be rendered routed or destroyed by a battlefield commander: strategic withdrawal. If the demise of one unit can save multiple others, then a unit might be order into rear guard action to delay enemy advances. (For the most noble of these, read about the 933 invasion of the Japanese province of Iga by the samurai of northern Japan. Four Iganese tried to hold a mountain pass against more than three thousand samurai. Three were killed in the first day, and the remaining man held the pass alone for one full week.)
Now, the tactics of space combat are vastly different than blade and shield combat in a mountain pass, but the basic theory is still the same: no unit is willingly going to stand in place and get obliterated, or even accept decimation, and no battlefield commander is going to order it. Having a mobile repair station to keep ships in combat fits with a more realistic modality of practical combat.
In order to be realistic for a border skirmish, for example, there should probably be a time limit on how soon you can relaunch your fighter. If, for example, there were a three minute wait while your ship was being rearmed and repaired, it would provide just enough incentive to keep people in the fray. Plus, the capships would then be an even more important strategic target: once you take them out, the fighters have to return to base for repairs.
Plus it'd be cool as hell.
~D.
"Nigel"
Well, then the question becomes, "Why are we respawning?". If the answer is that people are not actually in the ships anymore (or at least not their permanent life) then battlefield tactics would change quite drastically. It is quite clear from the backstory that guises and such were treated as ENTIRELY expendable, which made them all the more horrific weapons in war because they WOULD fight to the bitter end, EVERY TIME. Of course more losses occur from such reckless use of material, but it also forcecs the enemy to meticulously exterminate all opposing forces because any ignored pockets will attempt to resume fighting at the earliest or most devestating opportunity.
As such, a more "realistic" border skirmish is one that is conducted well both tactically and strategically WITHIN the context of the game. For example, why don't capital ship turrets EVER focus on targeting other capital ships' turrets? Why don't spawned fighters WAIT for capital ship support when the other side already has it? Why does a capship count the same as a fighter for the losses count? Why aren't there NPC bombers of any description? Why don't NPC fighters target turrets? Why don't they leave the blast radius when a capital ship is about to blow?
Also, I would prefer that capital ships be underpriced at first, and then let the economy balance itself out as far as capship pricing is concerned. That way, they can enter the game, we can have our stupid fun with them, and then people can be as careful with them as necessary.
Finally, if lives ARE on capital ships and in fighter craft, then WHY don't the nations maintain and utilize large robotic war fleets (which they are clearly capable of constructing; e.g. the Hive)?
As such, a more "realistic" border skirmish is one that is conducted well both tactically and strategically WITHIN the context of the game. For example, why don't capital ship turrets EVER focus on targeting other capital ships' turrets? Why don't spawned fighters WAIT for capital ship support when the other side already has it? Why does a capship count the same as a fighter for the losses count? Why aren't there NPC bombers of any description? Why don't NPC fighters target turrets? Why don't they leave the blast radius when a capital ship is about to blow?
Also, I would prefer that capital ships be underpriced at first, and then let the economy balance itself out as far as capship pricing is concerned. That way, they can enter the game, we can have our stupid fun with them, and then people can be as careful with them as necessary.
Finally, if lives ARE on capital ships and in fighter craft, then WHY don't the nations maintain and utilize large robotic war fleets (which they are clearly capable of constructing; e.g. the Hive)?
On the note of huge robotic fleets- *if* indeed there are lives on ships, I'd imagine it's because of the stigma produced *by* the Hive. The Hive, originally being a robotic fleet for mining purposes, eventually went rogue due to a software bug. Earlier in history, Serco and Itani relations were seriously degraded by a drug that exploited a loophole in implant software. Honestly, I don't think the general populace(Read: Station and land-bound civilians) have much faith in software and would probably be relunctant to allow massive war fleets to be commanded by it.
However, this doesn't include the Serco.
[Back on topic here]
It would be wonderful if Border Skirmish was conducted with a hint of strategics in mind, but I'm not quite sure if Deliverator is there yet.
However, this doesn't include the Serco.
[Back on topic here]
It would be wonderful if Border Skirmish was conducted with a hint of strategics in mind, but I'm not quite sure if Deliverator is there yet.
LC;
No, those are good points. The backstory might need a little more fleshing out to answer all of the questions.
To answer what I can from my point of view, the guises were only used by the Serco. WE aren't guises. WE are active individuals within the galaxy. I think Steve is probably correct that the Hive going rogue would discourage the creation of a second robot fleet. For example, if you've ever read Simon Green's "Deathstalker" series, the rogue AI's of Shub are not nice folk. They create robots called furies that are essentially a killer bot wrapped in the dead skin of someone you knew. Terrifying on the battlefield as well as damn hard to kill. (Great series of books, BTW)
Even if the Serco were still using guises, as described in the backstory, the guises were land troops, not fighter pilots, probably because of the difficulty of local tactical control. Additionally, only the Serco used them.
As for the respawning, the practical reason is that getting permanently killed and having to create a new character would blow major goat cock.
For the rest of your questions, I'd flip that on its ear and offer them as suggestions once Momerath tweaks deliverator to get things peachykeen.
I think we're a long way from having a robot pilot that is able to exercise better tactical judgment than a human being, but there is still probablt room for improvement in the AI.
~D.
"Nigel"
No, those are good points. The backstory might need a little more fleshing out to answer all of the questions.
To answer what I can from my point of view, the guises were only used by the Serco. WE aren't guises. WE are active individuals within the galaxy. I think Steve is probably correct that the Hive going rogue would discourage the creation of a second robot fleet. For example, if you've ever read Simon Green's "Deathstalker" series, the rogue AI's of Shub are not nice folk. They create robots called furies that are essentially a killer bot wrapped in the dead skin of someone you knew. Terrifying on the battlefield as well as damn hard to kill. (Great series of books, BTW)
Even if the Serco were still using guises, as described in the backstory, the guises were land troops, not fighter pilots, probably because of the difficulty of local tactical control. Additionally, only the Serco used them.
As for the respawning, the practical reason is that getting permanently killed and having to create a new character would blow major goat cock.
For the rest of your questions, I'd flip that on its ear and offer them as suggestions once Momerath tweaks deliverator to get things peachykeen.
I think we're a long way from having a robot pilot that is able to exercise better tactical judgment than a human being, but there is still probablt room for improvement in the AI.
~D.
"Nigel"
The thing is that I was told that one does not run from the battle field in VO, both by allies and by enemies, that once you are engaged in combat you are expected to finish it. I have complied with that rule even if often it means suicide (no really no way I can hold for even 1 minute agains a Prom and a Vult). So I though that the same would be expected of frigates...
I hope we get HACs and such when they have a universe exspanion... it'd be a big race for guilds to claim systems... sweet. And the best part, say 60 are added...the further out ya go, the less of anything, no stations, no hive.
I do think though that all dockable ships should have a cargo/ship storage variant. It'd be a lot easier than guild stations (though not saying I wouldnt mind them). Btw, if caps are 7 mil, I think SCAR could arrange to buy a few.
-Nautargos
I do think though that all dockable ships should have a cargo/ship storage variant. It'd be a lot easier than guild stations (though not saying I wouldnt mind them). Btw, if caps are 7 mil, I think SCAR could arrange to buy a few.
-Nautargos
60 new system? Are you crazy? we barely see each other as it is man! And not only scar could buy a few, so could Itan, and so could I personally (well 1 in my case). But if there is a huge scar/itan battle how many do you think we could loose each? :D
My point is that with 60, it adds the opportunity of massive exploration, but also allows guilds to set up bases truly at the edge of the universe... You'd never have any real need to go this far out unless you were scoutmining or exploring (wh's should be hidden). And of course it'd make it less likely to see each other, but that will change eventually...
I'd imagine a fight to the death... so you wouldnt go sending all you caps. Maybe 3 lost on each side unless you win the battle? We will be waiting ;)
-Nautargos
I'd imagine a fight to the death... so you wouldnt go sending all you caps. Maybe 3 lost on each side unless you win the battle? We will be waiting ;)
-Nautargos