Sorry for the delay in response, I wanted to move my low tech fleet through the story line and contacts further for some more screenshots but haven't had the time.
I have seen the images and I want so say that it is not impossible to make your ships fight side by side. I have even employed your method on my own several time. My gripe is that this method : - It is quite convoluted
- It can be unreliable and it will fail against certain enemies
I'm personally not seeing why what I did was convoluted? I laid out waypoints in a line, with which ships I wanted where, and they went there. I waited for the enemy to approach, then removed waypoints once ships were engaged so as to allow them to flank as needed. I could have also removed waypoints after getting into position, and then placed new ones vertically above the old waypoints on the map if I wanted to advance in a line - however, tactically that is disadvantageous. Being closer to my reinforcement point and having the enemy be farther from theirs helps achieve local superiority.
I admit I may be too used to the system. On the other hand, the waypoint orders is how the majority of RTS games I played while growing up worked in terms of getting units where I wanted them. I send them to a spot, then I send them on to the next spot. Starsector even has the same control group assignments as those old games (i.e. select ships, ctrl + number, press number to reselect).
After battle is joined, the ships I really want to stay together no matter what, I already have given escort orders to at the beginning. The rest I generally want to react to what the enemy is doing while staying alive, so I leave those with no orders, freeing them for maximum movement for their own survival.
Although you seem to be asking for a line of combat 100% of the time after engaging the enemy, which I admit is harder to maintain after initial contact, and in some cases just not possible for the entire fleet. If a Radiant is pushing into a flank, that flank either gets destroyed (i.e. lashers don't last long against 2x Locust + 3x tachyon lances) or it gives ground to preserve fighting strength while the capitals try to use local superiority to destroy enemy ships where they are, or get into position against the Radiant if not engaged. If you are locally out numbered and slower, then yes, your ships are naturally going to turn left and right and not be in a line as they get flanked.
As a counter point, I do find the escort command to be solid in keeping 2-3 ships close and working together. Although I tend not pile one too many escorts on a single ship - too many ships in a really small area tends to do more harm than good as the AI has to avoid ally collisions, enemy projectiles, all the while trying to get to their desired position. I like ships that can fire over allies (i.e. guided missile ships/carriers) as escorts, or cheap (lasher/frigates). I consider that bowing to the realities of the combat engine, less than the realities of the AI. The AI on offense is always trying to circle away from enemy backup, trying to get them to trip over each other. If I've got 2 Onslaughts in a line, and there's a fast frigate, it's naturally going to move to a point opposite the 2nd Onslaught with the 1st in between. So it is possible that the enemy AI, by having local superiority, is working too well if you can't get your ships to fight in a line.
Again, the more specific situations you can present and explain what the optimal behavior is in that case, the more likely Alex can make a change to help that particular situation, or find a bug to fix.
I'll note for that particular low tech fleet, one of the disadvantages of low tech, it's slow speed, actually makes it easier to keep the capitals together than say, a high tech frigate fleet. It literally takes over 50 seconds for an Onslaught moving at 30 su to cover 1600 range. It certainly makes low tech feel like the "hold the line" doctrine and is actually much better at fighting in a line than my high tech fleets (then again, I generally don't want my high tech fleets fighting in a line in the first place, I want them flanking).
For comparison, what kind of user interface or player action flow would you want to see in an ideal game that you would consider not convoluted? It is possible I'm simply too used to Starsector's UI at this point so it doesn't strike me as that strange or convoluted. Although I do tend to play a variety of games, usually for a month or two and then move on, so I do have some experience with other UI.
Do you consider this way of doing things a good aspect of the game?
Yes.
More specifically, I feel Starsector combat is player centric, and a skirmish rather than large two armies fighting, so I find the system fairly enjoyable from that perspective. That doesn't mean it's the best system ever, that everyone enjoys it, or that there isn't room for improvement, but I can sketch out an initial plan for contact with the enemy, setup small combat groups that work well together, and then I can just let them go while I focus on blowing ships up in my flagship and don't need to look up from piloting all that often. Maybe issue some retreat orders occassionally. Fundamentally, I don't want to have to transition between two game modes non-stop for most of the game. Perhaps the 3 hardest fights the game currently has have a need for really active strategic orders non-stop using end game fleets, which to be honest, is a tiny fraction of the play time, maybe 3%? Less? At the moment, I can get away with that even with a low tech fleet, so, it is good enough to have fun.
I prefer "Fire and Forget" commands with a main character type game. If it is an easy fight, I don't even to do any prep and just let the AI do it's thing. If I want to focus on formations and the strategic situation, I'll tend to go play something from the Total War series, and if I want to do something with micro unit control I might play Starcraft II or if I'm feeling nostaligic, something from the Total Annihilation series or M.A.X.. People have different things they're looking to get of the game, and another RTS like game is not one of them for me. I have plenty of those, and which tend to be easier to balance due to much less customization of units, nor quite as many mods. Starsector scratches the "hero character" itch as opposed to the "hero general" itch for me.
In my current fleet, I generally escort an Onslaught with a Lasher and a bomber equipped Mora, and I've got several free floating Lashers and Enforcers, which tend to adequately deal with the smaller stuff. I find several Daggers will drop enough ordinance to finish off a frigate fairly regularly. Similarly the escort Lasher also seems to make the Onslaught not turn to face flanking frigates quite so much. If flanking frigates are engaging frigates and destroyers first, then the capitals won't get distracted by a kite with 2 reapers in it's rear arc.
Ok than how do you solve this issue when the enemies has more fast ships (frigates, destroyers, high tech cruisers) than you?
The same way? My escort orders with that combination works? The Onslaughts and Legions don't take rear fire if there's a friendly cruiser sitting there. The fastest enemy fleet in terms of speed I can think of is the triple Doom bounty hunter fleet. 3 Dooms (75*3=225 su), 4 harbingers (80*3=240), 5 shades (165*3=495 su), and 3 Afflictors (165*3=495 su). While the free roam Lasher's and Enforcers did suffer, because well, frigates vs mines, the capitals came out without any hull damage what so ever. Other than escort and initial capture/waypoints, I gave no further orders. Could I have done better retreating heavily damaged ships and done some active ordering of bomber runs? Yeah probably, but using the weakest doctrine aganist arguably the strongest or 2nd strongest (i.e phase ships with level 6 officers and 2-3 s-mod Dooms), with only initial orders worked out fine.
In general, against easier fast fleets, it will might cost me a d-mod on a Lasher or two or might not, but that's kind of a given since they're 4 DP and without an officer. If they match up against two officered Tempests, they start having issues once the sabots run out.
My counter argument is as follows: This game usually throws at you difficult battles, against your odds. You are supposed to win through optimized builds for your fleet, pilot your flagship excellently and be a superior commander. Against some of the harder challenges of the game the last point i made previously matters most!
Well, how much of the 3rd you need depends on the level of optimization and excellence of piloting. I agree all play some role in determining the outcome of a fight (except when I'm fighting solo), but I personally put more effort into the 1st two than the last. Just my playstyle with Starsector. Certainly improving the AI will make the 3rd more important, as player skill remains the same while AI combat improves.
Also, i will try and gather footage, screenshots and save files in the following weeks in order to prove my point if that seems to be a discussion point.
Sounds good. Keep in mind, if you want to see the game changed, you don't need to convince me. Nor any of the forum goers. You need to convince Alex. So presenting your strongest argument of what is wrong backed up by as much evidence as you can provide is your best bet, irregardless of where the discussion goes. Even better if you give a clear idea of what can be changed to fix it.
I also find the fact that the game doesn't act like an RTS a unique and positive aspect. The problem i see that willingly or not, the very game design puts a lot of emphasis on commanding your fleet and when this aspect fails it can be really frustrating.
I think most people that play this game and will ever play it will accept losing a ship or two(even more) from their own incompetence but NOT from the incompetence of the AI.
At the present moment the AI isn't acceptably good at either handling the battle on its own or at following orders (will often ignore orders except eliminate order which it follows to its death even in absurd situation).
Tolerance for the AI's mistakes is going to vary from person to person, and what they're looking to get out of it. I would love it if it could handle mines and missiles better in terms of omni-shield facing, for example. However, it is something both my AI and enemy AI have to deal with, and I happen to be a lot better at exploiting that logic flaw than the AI. It's also a tricky problem with many factors applying. Overall, the AI is acceptably good enough for me to enjoy the game. It clearly is not acceptably good enough for yourself as well as some other posters here.
[attachment deleted by admin]
