Purely Academic

So, I do this thing where I like to take ideas and explore them despite there being no value apart from the entertainment value of the thoughts. I'm bored and have nothing else to do but ramble to keep myself awake; this post has no real value, but if you like playing with ideas it is here.

I've spent a lot of this time talking about what I enjoyed about DH1 lately, but I never really touched on the problems--or at least, not how they could be fixed. The two biggest problems were, as I saw it, the combat and the economy. Each had enormous potential but ultimately fell a little short. This is, of course, likely a fruitless conversation now, but perhaps someone will find it useful.

I'll focus here on combat. Perhaps the economy will happen later. Let me first clarify: I am talking on the large scale. The problems with combat happened when entire planets could be taken on a whim, or when massive fleet buildups led to impregnable fortress worlds, and on planets being money farms. Petty details of combat aren't that interesting to me on this level.

One of the elements that many people were fond of was that the game resembled Risk. I have personally explored the political game's similarity to a board game in the past, but only touched on the combat element, in part because I wasn't thinking of the mechanics. I think there is more to that idea than I had previously thought, however.

When I was Tarkin, one of the bigger frustrations, OOC, was that I had to defend a pretty decent chunk of planets, most of which didn't make any attempts to help defend themselves. The Blacks, in contrast, had three or four planets, and could strike at any of them with the same amount of notice: none at all. They could always hit where the Republic was weak. No matter how clever our ship deployments, something was vulnerable, and not in a fun, calculated risk sort of way.

There is a trait common to board games which feature conquest: they are turn-based. Any materiel can only move so far each turn. It is perhaps most useful to look at a Total War game, here: if your entire army is massed up at your capital, then you're not going to be able to strike anywhere very far away from home. You may have a strong defensive force to defend your core cities, but your offensive capability is going to be lacking. Similarly, if you move your entire army away from your capital, if someone strikes you--say, from the coastline--you are going to be vulnerable.

In many ways we tried to implement rules like these, of course. There were travel times that only really mattered for combat, but this only gave the attacker an advantage: they never had to worry about how long it took for their fleet to arrive.

A simple solution presents itself, then: instead of implementing something like travel times in the literal sense, either as a feature or as a policy, implement an actual, coded restriction on distance traveled in a turn. Let's define a turn as a day. Let's say that some ships are more capable of rapid travel than others--so, for instance, a battleship fleet would make a poor picket fleet, but frigates have greater mobility--suitable for rapid raids and rapid defense.

Let's further add an exception, so that players are not limited in their travel by this: perhaps shuttles can go an unlimited distance, or, to prevent floating shuttle armadas, perhaps each player can designate something up to a freighter or so as his personal transport, which is unlimited by these move restrictions.

This completely changes the battlefield dynamic. First, one can compile daily reconnaissance reports on the enemy's positions, unless they are hidden somewhere. One can know or guess where the enemy can attack on short notice. One can then array one's fleets appropriately, so as to be able to cover that territory. Second, there is a lot more strategy to be had. Hidden fleets suddenly take on a new strategic value. There's a lot of room for misdirection. It is now viable to spread out one's forces without feeling too vulnerable to a massive strike.

This would help a number of the problems: the impregnable fortress-world, some of the OOC unhappiness at fighting a battle that you have no chance of winning is gone. But it doesn't solve some of the problems that existed earlier in DH, most notably that planets fall quickly and there is no incentive to not make a planet's army an impregnable fortress, and to some extent, the navy, as well. As the CEO of Sienar, what impetus do I have to help my neighbors?

This is not entirely a bad thing, of course: it is compelling politics, after all, to not help an ally and to instead look to one's own defense. But it is not a compelling battle. Here I suggest two things: one, once again, an enforced move limit on materiel locally as well as globally. That is to say, my TIE squadrons can only do so much movement daily. Perhaps they can reach the outskirts of the system and back once per day. This applies to armies as well: an army can only move through so many rooms in a given day. (This, by the way, is a lot more finicky and probably less useful than the broad-scheme of things.)

Second, there need to be reasons to be in and hold different rooms. That is to say, each room should provide some real advantage in some way.

Say that holding the outskirts provides some benefit to incoming reinforcements--perhaps they can actually attack when they arrive, instead of either in a few turns or a few days. (Ditto the attacker. I feel the attacker should hold this by default, so that there is some advantage to surprise, but it shouldn't be crippling.)

Say that holding the communication satellite provides a bonus to movement to all allied forces in the system, or the command center allows a general to project his tactical bonus. Perhaps both. Does a planet have orbital shipyards? This can be a primary target for space: control the shipyards. You can perhaps steal designs, or, if you don't have the ability to hold the ground, you can simply occupy the shipyards and perhaps bombard the planet.

Battles should not be slow to the point of annoyance, but it should not allow the attackers to simply arrive and take the system in one day. Fighters should be more mobile, frigates should take some time to land entirely.

A similar principle should exist on the ground. Holding certain points should provide a bonus that both sides will want, these points should be in disparate locations, and it should not be feasible to conquer all of them in one day. Some of the nodes could be primary objectives, or something which provides a bonus outside of simply the battle.

I do see a few problems arising with this idea, of course, though none of them are truly new: most are simply smaller versions of the old problems. Problems of scale do arise, and it would probably lend towards a more top-heavy game, ie, more people were commanders and fewer were pilots &c.

I really like the idea of 'turn based' stuff for fleet and army combats. That would really bring it closer to the idea of a Risk-like feel. And I think that's what we really need. Not some frantic piling of every ship you control into one place for a combat, knowing your enemies aren't going to be able to muster a capable defense.

Perhaps as well, the combats could be automated to some degree. If each day is one turn, then at the end of the day engaging fleets could autoresolve without players having to sit through some dull space combat for six hours.

Set up your fleets, pick targets, maybe do a bit of initial posing to and fro if your opponent(s) are online. After that, let the system run at the end of the day to allocate hits and damage. You'll still have to check on your fleet daily and maybe manage retreats or maneuvers for that turn.

But we don't have a coder. D:

Somewhere buried on these forums there was a suggestion made at one point for a 2-d, turn based combat scenario that emphasized strategy and your +sheet skills over quickly entering commands. Where the role of command held value but the inventive could still overcome. On original DH1 it was suggested that vessels could be toggled 'transport' or some such, be free from travel limitations but also be unable to enter combat or be used to trade for 24 hours to prevent abuse of the system. It was an easy solution that was designed to allow free RP but also to prevent those abuses. The same limitations applied to players on a 'transport' ship where they could not enter combat as a PC for something like 2-4 hours or some such.

Combat:
- 2-d turn based for space with coded traveltimes. If you want to bring your 1337 fleet with you to flaunt it, you have to pay a logistical cost in time. If you just want to get to the party scene to RP, leave your personal army at home and take an instantaneous, nearly free shuttle.
- More room size awareness for ground. On DH1, you could still have 20 250-man armies in a room where only 250 people could engage. If the room holds 250, then each faction should only be able to bring 250.

Economy:
Toss out +investments completely. They got way out of control.
- Let players earn interest on money kept in the bank, buy stock in businesses, and earn money for their own businesses based on some sort of business skill for NPC income and PC transactions.
-Let planets earn income by getting paid for drawing players to them for RP and "income taxes" from citizens.

Yeah. Turn based is pretty good. You wouldn't necessarily have to code in all the fuel or distance limits, either. You could just have a running log of location so a staffer could investigate problems.

Rather than assume everyone is a criminal, you'd only check if people complained or you were suspicious. Check and see that "hmm, they went from Coruscant to Tatooine and then to Ryloth. Bad Admiral. Penalty."

Anyway, yeah. Turn based is clever and good.

I loved the epic scale of warfare, but sometimes, yes, it did get silly. Big battles quickly became clusterfrags because anyone could just bring the entirety of of their fleet into any system and the initial feel of Risk was quickly lost to petty OOC arguments and a need to win.

If retaining the DH1 space system, it is only a matter of saying - codedly or policy-wise - that capital ships can only move one system per day or something. Shuttles and fighters have more flexibility and can go anywhere. Frigates have the potential to go, say, 2 systems per day, making them good for small engagements.

I would also be for removing a large number of planets/systems, so that it doesn't take forever and a day to see some action.


Taking planets slowly is a cooperative element from both sides, and a little bit of mediation. Maybe having armies move one room per day or something. Then again, Hoth fell pretty quickly.

Let me clarify re: space combat. If the entire galaxy is on a macro 2-d grid, then it is trivial to say that for a hyperspace jump from Sullust to Endor (a la Ep. 6), your fleet will spend X amount of time in a coded "hyperspace" location off the main grid. Then once you get to your destination, the planet and any combat also takes place on a micro local 2-d grid.

Economy:
Toss out +investments completely. They got way out of control.
- Let players earn interest on money kept in the bank, buy stock in businesses, and earn money for their own businesses based on some sort of business skill for NPC income and PC transactions.
-Let planets earn income by getting paid for drawing players to them for RP and "income taxes" from citizens.

Investments were meant to reflect the stock market/investment/regular pay for players. The problem was there was no cap, it kept swelling. It wasn't just that. Every day individuals spend money on every day things. Food, rent, etc. If you don't have those things, you are able to just 'save'. Most players ended up just 'saving' until they had so much money they would blow it on oh, MC-80 crusiers or 3000 unit armies.

Economics - The allocation of limited resources to meet unlimited wants.

MUSHes forget this concept. There's always unlimited wants. What ends up not happening is limited resources. Towards the back end DH1 had a cap on ships that could be produced but it was too late. But beyond that, while there are unlimited wants, there are not unlimited wants for players. A player /can/ attain everything they want and then end up with a big stack o' cash that just sits around until something new is wanted and they can buy it.

Stocks have a down side. Businesses have a down side. Planets may make money but most people who lead don't do it for money, they do it for power. A more reasonable situation is one that provides all players a minimum to survive, and provides industrious players an avenue to make money. If a player wants to spend their xp levelling in industry options, they need to do it and use money for their power.

It all comes to prespective of power. Government find power in politics. Merchants find power in money. Military find power in strength/weapons. All are viable. Most times we try to let everyone have a slice of power, this ends up with some individuals holding /ALL/ the power.

DH1 saw this happen. The RICHEST players were in charge of the GOVERNMENT AND the MILITARY. All in one or two individuals. That's a problem. It should have been one person having government power, one with monetary power, and one with military power forcing them to either cooperate or attack one another through their means. Each balanced in their own way. A government needs money to run and it needs a military to enforce it's laws. A military needs money to run and it needs a government to give it structure/purpose. A merchant needs a military to protect it and a government to provide consumers. (Anarchy does not make for good trade).

All three, working together or against each other. Independent but intertwined. When one individual controlled all three facets, the rest of the game wasn't needed. When one individual got upset they could do whatever they wanted to crush whomever or whatever.

That was the problem with economics in DH1.

While the three individual spheres of planetary leadership is a good idea, it just did not work towards the end of DH1 - there were too many planets. At the start, however, there were separations between military leadership, political leadership, and, in some regard, mercantilism.

It was a lovely time when planets had people in their planetary police forces.

Re: Investments: There was a cap, it was just ridiculously high and could be gone past by taking a class with Wealth. I would rather keep +invest to people with the skill, maybe even making the financial gain of it based on the skill.

Re: number of planets

In another thread, people frequently mentioned that they liked the freedom of DH1. You need a sufficient number of planets so that a sufficient number of people who want one can try to have one.

I'd decide the number of planets thematically. Include obvious planets mentioned in the films, the homeworlds of playable races, and major economic worlds. Then stop.

There were too many pointless colonies on DH1 that satisfied none of the above criteria.

RecentlySaidNi wrote:

Re: number of planets

In another thread, people frequently mentioned that they liked the freedom of DH1. You need a sufficient number of planets so that a sufficient number of people who want one can try to have one.

There's two ways to handle the planet number thing. One is to make it so that basically everyone can have a planet; the other is to make it so that there is something besides a planet for everyone to have. I kind of like the latter, but planets are kind of obvious, so maybe that's unavoidable.

Incidentally, one of the possible solutions to the economy was the one that Gulp had planned to implement for DH2. I liked the idea a great deal. But that one is probably out of reach at this point.

Umbral Reaver wrote:

I really like the idea of 'turn based' stuff for fleet and army combats. That would really bring it closer to the idea of a Risk-like feel. And I think that's what we really need. Not some frantic piling of every ship you control into one place for a combat, knowing your enemies aren't going to be able to muster a capable defense.

Perhaps as well, the combats could be automated to some degree. If each day is one turn, then at the end of the day engaging fleets could autoresolve without players having to sit through some dull space combat for six hours.

Set up your fleets, pick targets, maybe do a bit of initial posing to and fro if your opponent(s) are online. After that, let the system run at the end of the day to allocate hits and damage. You'll still have to check on your fleet daily and maybe manage retreats or maneuvers for that turn.

So, here's a thing I usually never said out of deference for those who liked this kind of stuff:

I almost universally disliked combat RP. Not hated, mind you, though that happened from time to time. Sometimes it was just a minor nuisance. But most of the time I felt like the poses were only there because it was expected of us; mine, included. It certainly didn't enhance anything to pose 'Ship maneuvers somewhat and shoots at other ship.' Indeed, some of the best combat RP I had took place when other people were hanging out on the bridge with me and I had something to do while I waited to find out if anyone else shot at me. (This, incidentally, is true on most MUSHes I've been on.)

The enjoyable combat, the ones that I wouldn't want to automate, were the small-scale ones. I can very easily see combat in a small scale--ambushes, raids, hit-and-run attacks--being something you might not want to automate. But for the most part? Yes, automating combat would be good.

I do have one caveat, as it were: I don't want the whole battle to be over at the end of the day. For two reasons. First, the idea is at least partly to slow down conquest and allow remote fleets to come to the rescue and so on.

Second, it allows you to make strategic decisions in automated combat. You can try to advance, you can try to withdraw. A day-long battle is a skirmish. You might lose something but it's unlikely. Etc. But each day you should be able to give your fleets some sort of standing orders, and look over the previous day's reports: hold ground, fight aggressively, fight defensively, etc.

I'm sure it could probably still be somewhat granular--a battle could consist of several smaller fleets over a planet, etc. Perhaps the fewer ships a commander is commanding, the greater his command bonus, just as with +fleet. But nevertheless part of the elegance of this system, as I see it, is that you could have battles going on in disparate parts of the galaxy. It would probably make more sense to simply have each person commanding a different fleet.

In this respect, players are pretty much like the generals in Total War. You usually don't end up with more than one, unless you've got multiple armies attacking the same place and it's just a huge battle.

Basically, the players take on the role, not of captains and commanders, but of generals and admirals and planetary leaders--people who are in command of fleets. The biggest weakness here is that fighter pilots may be left in the dust. What does one do about them?

There are two solutions that I can see here. The first is to basically assume that fighter pilots take on the role of attack leaders, and command all of the squadrons (maybe from the bridge of a carrier). This would give them a role but would probably take away the 'look at me, I am an awesome fighter pilot hero' that people want to go for.

The second is to create an expanded role for the sort of low-level hit-and-run strikes that aren't automated. Essentially, give fighters a surgical value. Maybe that bomber wing can fly down and disable one of the stations defending the planet, or blow up a frigate, etc. The squadron of interceptors can stop the enemy bomber wing from getting its shots off. Essentially, let PC-manned fighters (and maybe even PC-manned ships, though their lack of mobility will make this less useful) perform an interrupt action before combat auto-resolves once per day. This gives an individual player's initiative and heroism possibly change the outcome of the battle (a bombing run is thwarted) without just making combat into a popularity contest. (I'd further add that if you're doing this, it either weakens or removes your bonus to allied fighters/ships, just to keep it balanced.)

Basically it would look like this. Say Guildenstern is attacking Coruscant with his fleet, and Rosencrantz is a fighter pilot character. It is a few turns in. One of the enemy bomber squadrons is probably going to make some attack runs on G's flagship, which R is concerned might take it out of the fight. Rather than allow the attacks to resolve more or less simultaneously, he uses his interrupt to try to engage the bomber squadron (which I assume could be manned by an enemy PC or by a temp). The two then resolve combat between them manually. (I'd assume there's an Interrupt round where other interrupts can participate, so you can spend yours to intercept the interceptors and let your bombers do their thing.) I'd say it should be limited to so many rounds of combat, just so that it doesn't always go to annihilation or retreat.

Let's assume it's just R and the enemy bomber group, though. They resolve their combat, and in however many rounds (five or ten, whatever the limit is) R's interceptors tear up the bombers, but a few bombers survive. The interceptors only suffer a few casualties. These resources then go on to the auto-resolve phase. The interceptors are at mostly full strength, but R is no longer offering his bonus to the rest of his wing. The bombers are severely depleted, do little damage, and are probably destroyed this round if they don't flee. (Not sure how to handle fleeing, of course.)

Firehawk wrote:

Rather than assume everyone is a criminal, you'd only check if people complained or you were suspicious. Check and see that "hmm, they went from Coruscant to Tatooine and then to Ryloth. Bad Admiral. Penalty."

I prefer the coded limitations. Gulp once expressed to me his belief that the best way to prevent abuse is to simply make it impossible. I agree. If it relied on the honor system, it would be pretty easy to abuse it in a minor way, so that you are gaining a slight edge of mobility without anyone really picking up on it, and you might end up with people arguing "well I forgot to move it yesterday, so I just moved it twice today."

The other reason I prefer it to be coded is I'd rather not require staff involvement for things where it can be avoided. (Also, related: I feel that if you code in movement limitations, fuel becomes unnecessary. You can just as easily say the reason a battleship can only move so far is because of the logistics required in terms of fuel consumption and resupplying. Maybe you could even allow people to burn extra money to be able to jump one more system...)