Ok yes. It looks like you got it. Sorry for the marathon of confusion. So it sounds like you prefer the tactic behavior layout over the stance? Anything from the stance layout you like over tactics?
Actually it seems like HW2 āNeutralā(actually called āDefensiveā) is largely better than HW1s.
In HW2 they attack as a group to kind of defend when an ally is attacked. And when you have a furball, this keeps making back and forth retaliation from each side that makes it basically the same as āAggressiveā (But youāre still at a disadvantage with the opening volley if you leave things on Neutral and get attacked).
The problem is Passive needs changes. It should basically be aggressive except where ships will not move unless being told to.
This would give wall behavior how it was if you set them to that, obviously changing its name, in all formations not just wall.
This would basically work like a better version of HW1s Neutral, where instead of staying still unless something shoots that one ship, theyād stay still but also attack.
Yeah I didnāt remember HW1s Neutral being like that. It sounds just as bad as āpassiveā is in HW2. I must have always changed tactic on them to Aggressive or Neutral by reflex, and put things in wall when I wanted them to stay still.
1 Like
I donāt understand the reference you keep making to wall. Youāre saying that a formation caused s rules of engagement behavior change?
It simplifies things massively if we just state how the behaviours worked in both games. Solely in terms of engagement behaviour (nothing else).
HW1 Evasive: Iām uncertain as to this one. Can someone clarify?
HW1 Neutral: When an enemy is within range, unit will maintain its current position and fire at enemy. If directly fired upon by enemy, unit will engage.
HW2 Passive: Will not respond to enemy whatsoever unless given explicit orders.
HW2 Defensive: When an enemy unit is within range and is attacking any friendly, unit will break position and properly engage.
Remember, weāre talking solely in terms of engagement behaviour here. HW2ās āpassive,ā is a useless setting - solely in terms of engagement behaviour, at least. I canāt really think of any circumstances where it would be useful, except perhaps if youāre capturing a unit. But thatās a pretty exceptional circumstance and you can just use a āstopā order there.
The argument here is that, as a default behaviour, HW2ās ādefensiveā is less desirable than HW1ās āneutral,ā and that in terms of engagement behaviour, the rules for āneutralā should replace ādefensiveā. I agree with this. Your units constantly running off all the time is extremely annoying, and having a default behaviour where they donāt follow orders just seems silly to me.
The trouble is, if we were to do this, we would now have nowhere where that ādefensiveā rule can live. One where your units do think for themselves and run off to engage, but arenāt super aggressive like the āaggressiveā setting. Thereās no where good to put it.
I would argue the solution would be to add HW1ās āneutralā to the tactics, and then have that be the default option, while still having ādefensiveā as another tactic setting. So we have 4 instead of 3. Thereās no rule set in stone that we have to have 3 tactics. Another way to make that system even more elegant would be to somehow allow the player to set what their shipās default tactics will be. Perhaps an option in the right click menu. That would be way more elegant than having to set your desired tactics on every unit you build.
3 Likes
Wall and Sphere had different behavior changes, did they not?
Sphere guard and attack units would not chase after things. And changing from evasive to aggressive changed the distance they surrounded the target.
Didnāt wall stay as a wall even when they were attacked and such, instead of a neutral wall unit breaking off alone when itās attacked to chase? I could be wrong.
Did single sphere units also beak off to attack if they werenāt given a guard or attack order that kept them in place around the target?
Yes, this is what Iām saying. Itād be nice for everyone, including GBX Iām sure, if there was a detailed list of how the behavior worked in both games to know where we were and where we should go to.
Something in bullet points, like a design document, not a lot of anecdotes.
Like I think Passive should be replaced with a Defensive thing that would basically make any formation act sort of like sphere, without the gimmicky exploitive things sphere could do. Itās not from either game, but it could be better than them both.
No. So any unit in any regardless of formation or not while on F3 would only chase attack and enemy unit if the unit they were guarding was attacked. They would fire but not move. This is what made battle balls work. You countered or broke a battle ball by attacking the unit they were guarding. This is why cloaked fighters made the most effective bbal centers.
1 Like
I mean the unit itself. Neutral units in HW1 engage, chase, and attack back when THEY are shot, right?
So a F3 unit in a sphere will leave the sphere to attack what is shooting it, or no?
No if a group is in a formation and a single unit is attacked in F3, the entire formation will attack back. Unless the formation is ordered to guard a unit. Then it only attacks if the unit itās guarding attacks.
So f3 units in a wall will all attack back at what shoots one of them. That must have been what I was confused with.
Yep, you got it.
Anyone else care to weigh in on this? Iām actually fine with learning the new system. It takes some practice to get used to. Definitely adds to the tactical micro management game.
If nothing else, whenever you see HW1 guys complaining about ships not following orders, point then to this thread because it is a major behavior difference that caught me off guard until I realized what was going on.
1 Like
HWR needs a āHold Positionā in addition to passive, defensive, and aggressive. This would ensure ships do not move, but fire at targets in range. This was how F3/nuetral worked in hw1.
Im sure the hw1 guys would love this, as would I. A lot of the hw1 guys feel this is a Major issue, right up there with hw1ās beam repair.
Give this a +1 if you agree.
3 Likes
Oh donāt get me wrong I would prefer to get The nutural tactic back the way it was!
Why?.. why not just make Passive āhold positionā like I said instead of adding a 4th stance?
Still, no has answered what the benefit is of making ships not attack. Itās useless, as far as Iām aware. They should stay in position but fire on things in range. So why keep this and add a 4th?
Because passive is needed to prevent your ships from blowing up enemy ships your trying to capture. -_-
Oh right, because f3 has that group retaliation thing.
Adding a 4th stance still seems like a bad way to go, though. It would be best to get most of these things working with 3 stances/tactics still.
Passive is needed to cloak as well.
And possibly on fighters when heavier ships are fighting and donāt want them rush into frigates and dd but risky if youāre not careful for incoming fighters.
Ships do not attack ships with marines attached but HW1 races do attack ships being salvaged as far as I saw.
1 Like
90% of the time when I ask something, people seem to think Iām asking it to instigate them or something.
Iām asking to figure out how things can be made to work the best they could without shortsightedness creating new issues.
Alright well, there could be a simple clause that āhold positionā ships wonāt fire automatically when cloaked then. That fixes that, without needing a 4th tactic.
Thatās good to hear. So, after fixing ships getting salvaged being automatically targeted by attacks, it would seem this is the solution, no?
Unless thereās any other reason you would need a separate stance for staying still, and staying still but attacking when not cloaked and not on things being captured?
Frankly current cloaking is rather unfriendly that once cap ship is firing, unless you specifically stop it with S first and then set it passive, cloak does not initiate and it takes at least some good 5 seconds to do so. So even if you script it like that, you may not be able to cloak right away, which can be a big difference.
Could possibly cancel attacks but not other orders to stop when you use cloak. That would seem to be intended behavior. Not sure if the engine makes a distinction between āordered to attackā and actually attacking, because you could create and issue where you attack order things far away, then cloak. Youād expect them to uncloak when in attack range.
But thatās presumably fixable. Even if itās not, pressing āsā after f2, or f3, or whatever thisāll be on sounds perfectly reasonable.
Is there anything else that could be a problem, though? Reasons why you would want an order that stays in place and doesnāt attack, over one that stays in place and only rotates to attack but doesnāt change?
You still need F2, to prevent your ships from firing back against a ship your about to/intend to capture.