Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[PCCL]

So, as is the AI knows what you're deploying and will aim for an advantage against you at all times.

I think it would be better if the AI can deploy a bit more dependent on the situation, putting down ships to match yours after they see what you have and, if you bring all your big guns out at once, go full retreat and laugh at your wasted CR before coming back in full force next round against your exhausted fleet.

What this would entail is basically AI changes that say

A) only deploy a few small ships in the first wave
B) retreat if too many enemies are on field (in relative to deployed ships) instead of trying to match them in brute strength

This would encourage more careful deployment and a more tense and "realistic" (I know it's a subjective term here) battle progression, where you send scouts to scope out the situation before sending in the heavier backup while the enemy does the same, both taking care to not over commit lest they give the enemy the advantage, and not to deploy too little since that would just get your ships outnumbered and taken out quickly

this also mean that battles would be more likely to last a few rounds instead of one and retreat (which can be good for some and bad for others, so I'm not sure)

Hopefully this isn't too hard to implement

thoughts?

thanks

gunny

[ciago92]

love the idea but I have a hunch this would be really really hard to code :-(

[PCCL]

idk about that, the AI already knows how much we have in the field, how much they have in the field, and how much we each have in reserve

It then comes down to a check (perhaps every 10 seconds? Maybe less?) of our strength on the field vs theirs, then either A) fight on, B) Deploy stuff, or C) Retreat

In this case, A means the advantage is satisfactory, B means it's worth the extra CR loss to finish the fight now/continue fighting, and C means retreating is optimal, either into an escape to minimize losses, or come back for a second around against your fleet after you wasted CR

Then everything proceed as normal, if they retreated and gained a CR advantage, the existing AI should conclude fighting as a better choice, and if we decide to retreat they'll pursue/harry as necessary. If they retreated out of that with barely their hides, then the current AI will make them run.

[Alex]

Well, that's basically how it works already, except for the part about the AI trying to game the system by punishing the player for not going about engaging in a larger fight in a very specific way. I don't think devolving deployment into a game of "haha, you deployed one ship too many, now I retreat and eventually win on CR!" is a good idea, especially if gradual deployment would achieve the larger fight the player wants in the first place.

The way I see it, the AI's job here is to 1) provide the player with a challenge and 2) avoid being gamed. #2 is really a subset of 1. It's certainly not to annoy the player purposefully. If the player says "I want a bigger fight", the AI shouldn't say "gotcha", it should say "ok, let's do this".

To that end, it waits for the player to take the initiative in deploying, and then tries to match whatever they have out, with enough of an advantage (if it has the ships, of course). It keeps upping the numerical advantage it has every time it takes losses (again, if it has the ships to do so).

[PCCL]

well... The thing is by the time we're deploying backup, the ships in the field would already be in melee and thus retreating is an inherently risky move, right?

Then the problem becomes whether if it's worth it to collapse your entire front line to cash in on that advantage, whereas if retreating is too difficult you might end up with a tactical disadvantage after losing too many ships or getting them damaged.

Bottom line, I guess it depends on what you see as a "challenge". I think being forced to make choices about what to deploy (since as is if you absolutely have to win, deploy all is always the best option) is more challenge in and of itself, whereas someone else may think it's just an annoyance (then again, there are people who thinks CR is an annoyance, while others who love it)

Personally though, I'm always for a smarter AI, and if the player says "I want a bigger fight", it should say "errr.... ok... we're actually serious huh.... [looks around nervously] Now what can I do to survive this....."

just my $0.02, it's still your game I say

[Alex]

In general, I get what you're saying. In practice, in this particular case, I don't think the AI should react all that differently to you deploying 10 ships at once or one at a time in short intervals. Making the player do the latter is just being annoying for no reason. I say "no reason" because once the player realizes that's how to achieve what they want, they'd always do it that way and the case where the AI is being "smart" about fleeing would never come up anyway.

[PCCL]

ah, but what's really smart? the AI isn't gonna always be right, maybe sometimes you think we have enough of them in your little "net" that you can deploy all and crush them and end up with an overwhelming advantage for 2nd round anyways

guess I just think there should be more to a battle than head to head slug fest. Not that that's not fun, it's fun as hell, but a bit of skirmishing and such once in a while never hurt anyone

[Alex]

Fair enough. I just don't see the scenario where the AI going "well I don't think I want to fight this one out even though I have the ships to do so" is enjoyable

[ciago92]

maybe first round engagement (when total FP > say 150) have half the FP available to deploy (60 instead of 120) or make it destroyers and below only or something? If one side doesn't have anything below destroyers then the other gets a position advantage in the next round (winner gets said position advantage otherwise)?

[PCCL]

total FP won't work since that's a setting

destroyers or below... maybe. I think some sort of max burn cutoff would be better though... still either way

then said position advantage could come in the form of being able to deploy smaller ships on the flanks like the escape scenarios. Hmm... that sounds fun

Maybe if it's not forced to be the first battle, but an optional encounter that can be initiated by either players, and the AI will initiate it if it has advantage in its light fleet

it basically would go something like this:

Enemy initiates:

Spoiler

The enemy moves light units forward to flank

• skirmish the enemies for positioning  (skirmish ensues)
• engage the enemy fleet despite their advantage (engagement ensues with the enemies on your flank)
• attempt to disengage

[close]

Friendly Engages:

Spoiler

The [target fleet] [maintains neutral position/maneuvers to engage]

• advance light units to flank
• engage the enemy
• attempt to disengage

The [target fleet] deploys skirmishers in response (skirmish ensues)
or
The [target fleet] engages despite your positioning (engagement ensues with you on their flank)

[close]

[ciago92]

I meant entire fleet's FP

max burn is also an excellent way of arranging it (do tugs count? hull mods? navigation?)

love your ideas for skirmishing/engagement

[Megas]

For smaller ship swarms, I like to minimize casualties by deploying all but one or two combat ships at the start and focus fire at targets as they come.  No point in escalation because the higher risk of casualties due to conserving strength is unacceptable.  Pursuit is easier enough that one or two optimized frigates, plus possible support from Thunders, is enough to steamroll fleeing ships.

[PCCL]

Ya i guess its a bad idea...

I do like ciago's skirmishing though... maybe a new thread for that

[Alfalfa]

total FP won't work since that's a setting

destroyers or below... maybe. I think some sort of max burn cutoff would be better though... still either way

then said position advantage could come in the form of being able to deploy smaller ships on the flanks like the escape scenarios. Hmm... that sounds fun

Maybe if it's not forced to be the first battle, but an optional encounter that can be initiated by either players, and the AI will initiate it if it has advantage in its light fleet

it basically would go something like this:

Enemy initiates:

Spoiler

The enemy moves light units forward to flank

• skirmish the enemies for positioning  (skirmish ensues)
• engage the enemy fleet despite their advantage (engagement ensues with the enemies on your flank)
• attempt to disengage

[close]

Friendly Engages:

Spoiler

The [target fleet] [maintains neutral position/maneuvers to engage]

• advance light units to flank
• engage the enemy
• attempt to disengage

The [target fleet] deploys skirmishers in response (skirmish ensues)
or
The [target fleet] engages despite your positioning (engagement ensues with you on their flank)

[close]

Expanding on the engagement options like that is a really cool idea.

[Reshy]

I'd much rather fleets not dump every single ship into every single engagement.  They need to respect the CR rules and they currently don't.