Home » Stars! Clones, Extensions, Modding » FreeStars » Split Fleet Proposal
Split Fleet Proposal |
Fri, 20 June 2008 00:36 |
|
ck_drknes | | Crewman 2nd Class | Messages: 17
Registered: May 2007 Location: Why do you want to know? | |
|
Recently I've been working on yet another Stars! clone that I hope will have a better chance of completion than those before it. I've posted most of the code on http://hxnova.googlecode.com (around 11,000 lines so far). Its written in haXe, which compiles to flash, php, java script, and neko (runs on apache) so the plan is to create a flash font end that can run on the web browser or on the desktop using SWHX. Then the server could run in PHP or neko. The nice thing is that code doesn't need to be written twice as the client has access to the same code as the server (for example, the fuel usage function doesn't need to be written twice).
Anyways, I've come across one of the dreaded issues in Stars!, the split fleet dodge. Looking at the suggestions of other people, it seems like this is an overly complicated problem that is mainly created from the fact that a turn is really just a snapshot (as Ptolemy puts it). So to correct this, instead of allowing players to split their fleets in the middle of space as a sort of waypoint0 task, they should only be allowed to split their fleets when orbiting a planet, or else only as a waypoint 1+ task.
Looking at each case individually:
1) Split fleet at a star: This is absolutely needed as when ships are produced, they're put into fleets that the player might want to change the arrangement of. If a fleet is targeting another fleet that is currently at a star, it should simply go to that star and can chase down those fleets next turn.
This really is at no disadvantage to the chaser as their fleet will still be the same number of years behind as it was before. Say that a fleet is being chased by another that is one year behind. If it splits at a star, then the chasing fleet can target each separate fleet the next year and still be one year behind.
2) Split fleet as a waypoint 1+ order: This works so that when a chased fleet splits, the new fleets can be seen by the chasing fleet, which can target them the next turn.
However, there are two flaws here:
a) If a fleet splits and then merges again as a waypoint0, then the chasing fleet (which has probably split into parts to take out other parts of of the fleet being chased) has lost a lot of stacking. The fix to this is to not allow a fleet that has just split at a location to merge again the next year as a waypoint0 order.
b) The chasing fleet itself cannot split as a waypoint0 and target the separated ships, but it can still target the ships it wants to and split as a waypoint order.
While this seems kinda contrived, I think its the simplest solution to the problem. Overall, I hope it reduces the incentive to use the split fleet option to dodge another fleet and therefore not have to deal with the above exceptions nearly as much.
I'm open to any suggestions/criticisms on the idea.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: Split Fleet Proposal |
Fri, 20 June 2008 13:31 |
|
|
How about two fields in the fleet structure?
Previous #, and Present #...
Then orders are processed based on previous number (in the turn processor)
When a new move is performed Previous Fleet number is updated to the Present Fleet# as part of the m-file (automatically, not under control of the player)
I can conceive of many situations when one might wish to split the fleet away from a star. (even when not trying to take advantage of the bug)
regards,
dj
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: Split Fleet Proposal |
Fri, 20 June 2008 20:02 |
|
m.a@stars | | Commander | Messages: 2765
Registered: October 2004 Location: Third star to the left | |
|
IMHO the problem with splitting fleets is the ease that the splitter has in deciding which fleets are non-targetable, and hence survive. Conversely, the pursuer has nearly no control on which fleets will be targeted.
So I wonder, wouldn't it be better to give more control to the pursuer, instead of taking it away from the splitter? As Donjon said, there's plenty of valid reasons to split a fleet.
The pursuer should have the possibility of deciding which ships get pursued, or not pursued at all, should a split happen. By class, mass, attractiveness, battle orders or whatever. The splitter would lose the guarantee of success, and hopefully the worst abuses would be impossible.
So many Stars, so few Missiles!
In space no one can hear you scheme! Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: Split Fleet Proposal |
Fri, 20 June 2008 20:44 |
|
|
One of the features removed from Stars! with V2.5 was battle orders for each ship type within a fleet, instead we have fleet battle plans.
One thing I'd like to see in a clone, is the re-insertion of the sub-fleet battle plan idea. Perhaps having fleet Groups which are controlled exactly like fleets in terms of movement,fuel sharing etc, but with each fleet having its own battle plan. This would allow for a Group plan that could cover things like splitting(eg a drop-drop with (eg)options:
split fleets: here, the group would be split and each fleet would follow the target fleet that best matches its battle orders
follow fleet X orders: the group doesn't split, and follows the target fleet that best matches the battle orders of fleet X
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: Split Fleet Proposal |
Sat, 21 June 2008 04:54 |
|
|
I think I like Gible's original suggestion best, myself.
Secondly, separate battle orders for each ship class could be really useful.
[Updated on: Sat, 21 June 2008 04:55] Report message to a moderator
|
|
| |
Re: Split Fleet Proposal |
Sat, 21 June 2008 07:09 |
|
|
Adacore wrote on Sat, 21 June 2008 21:28 | I worry that you could end up introducing too much micromanagement here. Better fleet orders would certainly important, but any significantly increased complexity could add 50% to the length of already long turns.
|
I agree an increase in complexity is an issue, but atm many players are having to create psuedo groups anyway to get the advantage of multiple battle orders, this would simplify things. besides, you could always stick with one fleet in your group = what we have now(expect that split fleet targetting isn't based on battle orders)
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: Split Fleet Proposal |
Sat, 21 June 2008 11:15 |
|
ck_drknes | | Crewman 2nd Class | Messages: 17
Registered: May 2007 Location: Why do you want to know? | |
|
Ok, I think I'm going to have to go with Gible's suggestion, kinda.
There are a few issues though around this. I'm not sure exactly what you mean by groups of ships, but I'll allow battle orders to be set by design inside each fleet.
So when a fleet splits, the fleet following it will split based on its battle orders, and the percent of its target that's in each new "split" fleet (is there a noun for that, like a child fleet?? ). For example, if you have a particular ship design that you want to have take out their bombers, and their fleet splits into two groups where one has 20% of their bombers (by mass) and the other 60%, then you can expect whatever ship designs in you fleet targeting bombers to also split into groups of around 20% and 60%.
I think the split needs to occur by mass otherwise you could have an opponent, for example, who splits off a larger number of small freighters but keeps the far more important large freighters in a separate, well defended group. Then, most of your fleet would target the small freighters, leaving the large freighters (probably) unharmed.
[Updated on: Sat, 21 June 2008 15:08] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: Split Fleet Proposal |
Sat, 21 June 2008 15:39 |
|
|
Why make things more complicated than they need to be? A simple "no splitting and merging fleets in deep space" is easy to understand and doesn't require any convoluted coding that tries to guess what you want.
Perhaps fleets in deep space could only be allowed to merge or split if they're stopped. This removes practically nothing in the way of options but still makes things a lot easier. Just a simple check regardless of circumstances - if the fleet's moving, you can't change its composition. If you're changing its composition, it can't move.
[Updated on: Sat, 21 June 2008 15:44] Report message to a moderator
|
|
| |
Re: Split Fleet Proposal |
Mon, 23 June 2008 14:23 |
|
m.a@stars | | Commander | Messages: 2765
Registered: October 2004 Location: Third star to the left | |
|
Well, I've come to regard this as a pretty workable solution, once you solve the outstanding nitty-gritty details:
Transfer of fuel between fleets at the same location should still be allowed, at least to a certain extent.
Transfer of personnel and cargo would be highly desirable too, but perhaps is not essential.
Transfers of ships themselves between fleets should be discouraged, but I'm not 100% sure the necessary functionality can be maintained if all are forbidden.
Then everybody would be forced to just bunch their ships into independent fleets that just happened to travel together. These independent fleets would be independently targetable, and would also have independent battle plans.
One of the main reasons to group fleets into larger fleets is fuel, hence detail #1.
Other reasons to group ships into fleets exist, and these will need some support to reduce micromanagement and actually discourage the "one big fleet does all" mentality:
battle plans should be able to be shared.
easy ways to say "this fleet will follow this other fleet(s) until new orders" must exist.
the ability to still enter battle as a single token for ships of the same design should exist, even if it's not always used.
others that perhaps I'm overlooking...
So many Stars, so few Missiles!
In space no one can hear you scheme! Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: Split Fleet Proposal |
Mon, 23 June 2008 23:18 |
|
ck_drknes | | Crewman 2nd Class | Messages: 17
Registered: May 2007 Location: Why do you want to know? | |
|
[email | m.a@stars[/email] wrote on Mon, 23 June 2008 14:23]Well, I've come to regard this as a pretty workable solution, once you solve the outstanding nitty-gritty details...
|
I'm sorry, I don't understand what exactly what you're talking about. Maybe I'm missing something obvious here but what are you refering to by this? There's been a few different proposals in this thread...
[Updated on: Mon, 23 June 2008 23:32] Report message to a moderator
|
|
| |
Re: Split Fleet Proposal |
Tue, 24 June 2008 04:53 |
|
m.a@stars | | Commander | Messages: 2765
Registered: October 2004 Location: Third star to the left | |
|
Adacore wrote on Tue, 24 June 2008 07:54 | It still sounds like more micromanagement to me. Tactically useful, perhaps, but still time consuming - you'd have to look at the journey you expected the group to take and create fleets which allowed you to split in any of the ways you could imagine wanting to during that journey...
|
Yep. That's why I'm still not sure it can be done right. And if you cannot guarantee a minimum of almost-split-like flexibility, then nobody will want to fly under those restrictions.
The 1st exception that comes to mind is crash-sweeping of minefields with chaff. It can be construed as a special case where you detach a "suicidal sweep" fleet of (n) cheapest ships, to be actually split by the server, but even that could be too restricted and open undesirable loopholes.
Other tricky instances could be:
cloaked fleets detaching spyships, skirmishers, bombers et al while on the move
attackers splitting their bombers to hit several undefended targets at once (something hard to foresee)
So many Stars, so few Missiles!
In space no one can hear you scheme! Report message to a moderator
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Re: Split Fleet Proposal |
Mon, 25 August 2008 08:37 |
|
Downsider | | Crewman 1st Class | Messages: 35
Registered: June 2003 Location: Derbyshire, England | |
|
The persuer in a split fleet scenario has greater control in which fleet is persued than we might think.
Stars! uses the primary target in the fleets battle orders to decide which fleet to follow. In LEit's example, his suicide BBs had orders to kill bombers before any other ship, so they followed them instead of the heavier, more expensive BBs. I have test bedded this before and used it in game a couple of times; a very useful trick to know. An enemy can't take your planets if he has no bombers or freighters left
Additionally, it is fleets of greater mass that are targeted first, rather than their cost or ID (just tested this to be sure). I assume this is because you always know the mass of a fleet and you can never be 100% sure what the min and res requirements of an enemy design are even if you have seen it in battle (due to miniturisation). It just happens that the more expensive ships are usually the heaviest.
[note: - I haven't tested for when a fleet splits into two fleets of the same mass. This may be decided by ID but I would guess that it is random]
So, with being able to select the class of ship followed and knowing that the heaviest fleet will be followed, the persuer has an element of control. IMO, splitting your fleet to dodge an attack comes at a price as you will always loose ships and the remaining fleet will be easier to kill. Personally, I consider it a tactic to be used in only the most dire of situations.
"Violence is the last resort of the incompetent" - Salvor Hardin Report message to a moderator
|
|
| |
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Sat Jun 08 02:47:58 EDT 2024
|