This sounds somewhat similar to what I was mulling over the other day when considering how to mix the two, so I like it! However I don’t like the idea of having enforced multi-ship building. Would it be possible when making build orders to have a second quantity which indicates in what number a formation comes out in. Perhaps left mouse clicks on a unit type in the build menu would add one squadron of ships and right click would change how many ships are in a squadron (for that ship type).
You would probably only need to offer up say 1-7 as the numbers of ships in the default squadron sizes. If you are able to disband and regroup squadrons into larger formations once built then players can do that as needed.
Next week sometime? If this is going someplace and working, we’ll hopefully have results at some level to show off. If a ‘behind the scenes’ look at the work would be interesting, I’m all for sharing when appropriate.
I was just about to suggest near the exact same thing. Left click single ship, right click default squadron size. I was actually holding back on asking back for the right click decrease number in case this ended up being the answer to the issue. Right clicked groups of 5 could come out preformed as they currently do.
Very excited by this, and encouraged to see this level of post-launch development going! The lack of mixed-type squadrons is a bit of a painful loss, but this still looks like a big step forward from where I’m sitting.
I’m not sure if I saw any direct adressing either way, so I’ll just say that that this system shouldn’t be restricted to strike craft. Frigate walls are grand!
No? In that, in theory since we’re re-purposing the existing ‘form Strike-group’ and ‘leave Strike-group’ logic, it’ll all already be there. That said, once we get underway we may find we have to make new interfaces - and yes, that would result in mirrors of those changes for LUA interfacing.
Will there be any downside/odd outcomes with the Scuttle and Retire commands by building in groups and then being able to break groups at will ? so for Retire does each ship have an individual R.U refund value or is that held by the originaly built group ?
Individual - the values will all scale - a 5 unit Squadron at 500 is worth 100 each. The math should hold up pretty well aside from bugs these edits introduce.
Does that mean the buildCost and buildTime parameters in the ship tuning will be per ship or per build-squadron? That is to say if I specify a new ship that comes in a squadron of 4 to have a build cost of 480 would I be specifying the cost for each ship or the cost of the total squadron?
Frankly, having not done this part yet, I’m not sure. It’ll probably be per-squad (as I have that # and can just divide it) - I’ll know when I get there And you’ll all know when I get there, get it working, take vids, share them, take feedback, make changes, and then release a patch
Is there any way to make strike craft/vettes/gunships build in even numbers, and remove the center craft from all formations that make direct firing passes?
Two scouts, four fighters, four bombers, two vettes/gunships.
Everyone starts with a wingman, everyone gets to come out of the launch bay a little bit sooner.
Removing the center ship eliminates the drunken weave/bouncing bomber we all find so endearing.
Wow. I am absolutely thrilled to hear this! I had always thought of the idea of forming squadrons for formations (upon realizing that they handle formations well) but had never suggested it as I just assumed that forming squadrons on the spot wasn’t something the engine would allow. This is great news! Really looking forward to seeing how you guys handle this. Some general subjective suggestions:
Stick to individual build for HW1 races (someone mentioned the AI using multi-build, that would be good) I don’t see any need to make this change if squadrons can be formed after individual construction.
SEPARATE the HW1 and HW2 races’ formations in terms of functions. The HW2 strike groups should keep squadrons intact and function just as they do now, while the HW1 formations should break up squadrons into individual ships and then make a new formation squadron.
3)Could ships with similar combat AI work in mixed squadrons? I.e. all HW1 combat corvettes could fly together, and each ship would inherit the speed and maneuverability of the slowest ship. In this sense, a squadron of 1 Heavy corvette, 1 light corvette and 1 multi-gun would be treated in terms of flight patterns as 3 heavy corvettes, but still fire their weapons the same as individual. The same goes for frigates/capitals, and fighters. Mixing 21 interceptors with 11 bombers would look, to the squadron flight AI, like 32 bombers flying together.
Those are extremely good news, thanks for opening the communication line with us so early about the formations fixes.
The only thing which I’m not sure I understood was the multi-type strike-group behaviour. Since I’m really fuzzy about it, if you had frigates, corvettes and fighters in a claw formation and ordered them to attack, what would the difference in behaviour be compared to HW1?
The way I understand it, each ship type in the strike-group would act together like the old formations, but as a whole they would follow HW2 behaviour. Or did you mean something entirely?
Although I know you already addressed this, it’s hard not to mention tactics since they are tied very closely with formations given how much they dictate regarding movement and firing positioning. But anyway, this is very good news and already a hell of a lot of work for a single developer. So good luck and thank you again :).
Edit : I forgot to mention this but if you are going to modify HW2 behaviour in any way, for preservation intents could you provide an option for the single player campaign regarding which type of gameplay the player wishes to choose? I’m pretty sure you thought of this already and I feel stupid for mentioning it, but better be safe than sorry and run into the HW1 situation all over again.
So it’s disappointing that we cannot get the same mechanic back, but I understand and am really happy about the effort you and others are putting into this to find a solution. Thank you very much. Every day I’m feeling better about keeping my P.C.
So here are some questions and thoughts
Is this change for both HW1 and HW2? I assume both because of the X dock = X return, but can’t deduce for sure.
I’m having trouble imagining how this will effect HW2 corvettes. Will they take on different flight patterns based on their formation? I imagine a wall of missile vets or gunships will work well enough, but pulsars and lasers losing their circular flight paths might reduce their effectiveness.
I am really surprised there is not more outcry about losing the replenish capabilities from the HW2 folks. This is kind of a staple of their fighter management. Would it be impossible to separate the mechanics if this outcry takes place? Or is it all or nothing?
Will we be able to apply formations to frigates?
If I single click on a formation of fighters, will the entire formation be selected or just the fighter I clicked (I’d prefer the formation).
Here are some things to consider for single-ship vs squadron construction design-wise, if both were possible if this was implemented:
On one hand, single-ship building vs squadron building adds distinction between the HW1 and HW2 races. On the larger “asymmetric” scale of things, it could be a difference of drawbacks and benefits for HW1 vs HW2 races, making the races more distinct and possibly more interesting.
On the other hand, having both as an option could open up a lot for the decision-making of all races. You could have a benefit and drawback (or multiple ones) for each – say, you can spend your RUs more precisely and get single ships out faster with single-building, but you get a squadron’s worth of ships out faster with squadron-building. The races would lose some distinction, which is bad, but all races would gain some more strategic options, which is good – whether that good outweighs the bad, I’m not sure.
On the first foot, because I don’t have a third hand, if you had the option for single-build or squadron-build for only the HW1 races, and only squadron build for the HW2 races, you could achieve race distinction while giving the HW1 races that strategic choice, but such strategic options for only the HW1 races might (in other words, not 100% sure if this would actually be an issue) be considered as unfair to the HW2 races unless something else was given to the HW2 races for their own strategic options. Such could be worth it, but would take more effort – first, in figuring out what exactly to give to or improve for the HW2 races, second, achieving balance with the new distinctions.
All three options have benefits and drawbacks themselves, figuring out what would be best for interesting and fun gameplay requires weighing those benefits and drawbacks against each other. I know we all love the game, though, I’m sure it can be worked out in the end for a great gameplay experience.
And hey, maybe there are other good options out there. Maybe single-ship or squadron choice for HW2 races and just single-ship but dual-production for HW1 races would be the best option, I don’t know, I am only one person, one opinion. Lots of room for ideas here I’m sure
[quote]The problem of course being different ships in the same class have different flight profiles, vastly so in some cases. I can only see it working if all ships take on the characteristics of the slowest and least maneuverable of all the ships you have selected, if that is even possible.
[/quote]
Its very desirable for a group to adopt the speed of the slowest – you would like your support frigates to stay with your big group of defenders, or your destroyers to stay with a cloak (if the cloak worked). This was the case with HW1C formations of mixed units.
First, if this is done properly, it really won’t feel all that different from HW1 behavior, I don’t think. It really will be a matter of the UI. The thing that strikes me as being a problem first and foremost is that HW2 gives no real tool for monitoring the health of individual units within a squadron, where in HW1 it can be easier to pick out individual wounded units and send them home. A single fighter is a very vulnerable target in HW2 and dies very, very easily; a squadron is heartier and can survive most engagements if you look after it. It is impossible to get every single fighter home; it is very possible to get every single squadron home. Without HW2’s squadron replenishment, this has the potential to become a serious source of frustration, especially in HW2 (where we expect to get our ships back) and HW1 (where we don’t expect 20% of our interceptors to die in any given engagement no matter how well we set the stage for it).
This both means a RU bleed and for those of us who like to try to get every pilot and spacer home from any given engagement (after HW1R frustrated me to the point of giving up on the game entirely, I went and played a HW1C campaign and lost, from start to finish, 13 scouts, 8 defenders and a captured Missile Corvette, and every one of those pilots would’ve gotten a frigate named after them) a lot of frustration when it comes to looking after our people.
So: the UI needs to be able to give us tactical information about individual units within a squadron with relative ease, and we need to be able to target a unit within a squadron and tell him to go do something else (normally: dock right this minute before you get killed!) with equal ease. Of course, if there’s a shift to a projectile system (which already enhances strike craft survivability a lot) that may actually balance out the negative consequences of this for HW2 units which are balanced around the expectation that squadrons come home half to three-quarters dead after most engagements.
Second: if this is done, something that is needed is a return of tactics. Aggressive: the units of the squadron stick to the formation and deal all the damage they can as quickly as they can. Evasive is a way to tell all those fighters in a given formation they need to split up and abandon the formation (while still being a squadron) but act independently.
So, I have a squadron of, say, 7 interceptors. I send them into combat with 7 interceptors, and because my Kushan pilots are just better than the Taiidan imperials, I take out all of the Taiidan and lose only two of my own. But I see another twenty defenders coming to engage me… so I hit “evasive” and the units in the squadron abandon their neat delta and take lots of evasive action while engaging the enemy, trying to preserve their own lives. This probably has to come with a pretty big boost in their % to evade fire since (sigh) the projectile system being gone means that this doesn’t have the positive consequences on unit survivability that it should have without altering the dice roller.
Third: ideally, this would get rid of the current “aggressive, defensive, passive” from HW2’s so-called “tactics” for the new tactics system as I outline it above, and replace that with the ability to choose different formations for a given group of ships. So, instead of choosing “aggressive” to tell a squadron to go into claw formation, we’d actually be able to choose “claw”. Again, this is probably mostly a UI thing.
Fourth: I’m not convinced I like the idea that grouping any number of interceptors together into a strike group automatically makes a squadron. I’d like to be able to continue to create a “strike group” of multiple “squadrons” of interceptors. In HW1:C, I don’t usually create a claw of 70 interceptors. I instead would rather create 10 claws of 7 interceptors each. One gigantic claw is way too unwieldy to really be combat effective. Now, I might like the ability to create a mega-squadron of 70 bombers - if this means I can put them in sphere formation and just shoot at a heavy cruiser which can only shoot so many of them at a time. This, again, seems to be mostly a UI thing - it needs to be pretty easy and fluid to tell groups of ships to become squadrons, to break up squadrons, to combine squadrons into larger strike groups, to peel off a single squadron from a strike group to go do something else. This isn’t going to be easy, and I suspect I’m going to be playing HW1C for a very long time, so I hope you guys have the budget and the rope to spend the time to get all this right.
Unrelated comment: please release HW:Cataclysm (the original, like HW1C) for download! I’d happily buy it and play it again.
Fifth comment: given that it’s now going to be the fact that fighters just take a ton of attrition, units like the elite bombers and gunships (which I’ve successfully held onto for whole runs through the HW2R campaign) are going to be whittled down to nothing in relatively short order. Plus, since they’re listed as different units from other gunships, I won’t be able to create a single squadron with “elite” and “non-elite” gunships in a system like the one we’re contemplating here. To compensate for this, do you guys think it might be possible to add something like Cataclysm’s experience function, allowing ships to become more effective as they gain combat experience? Just an idea. I always liked that from Cataclysm, as one who is a bit obsessive about keeping his pilots alive.
