WC: Sins of Solar Empire Conversion

I agree the balanceing will be complicated. Espacial if you don't know how the gameplay will be effected by your changes.
The AI is another problem. I doubt that it would take much notice of haveing 4-5 different fighter/bombers instead of just one of each type. It would be interesting to know the goals of the AI on how it decides to build units.

During the demo games I have very rarely encountered enemy fighters or bombers except I build masses of them and kicked his ass because he hadn't any defance. Only then I saw more fighters and naturaly flak-frigates.
So the AI seams to focus more on capships...at least in the demo.

Question is the AI simply follows the "bigger is better" strategie or if its building up its forces based on the given resources. Like when its not likely to have enough research stations to develop dreadnoughts it would go with the cheaper ships but upgrade weapons.

In any way I would guess unless the AI has a given techtree it is following and only changes from that when its needed you would have to think up ways to get the AI to research other ships or it will stay with the basic set, in this case WC1 ships and just research tech because they are equaliy strong.

Anyway you could also say "only other humans/kilrathi give me a real challenge" and forget about caring for the AI.
On the other hand the AI is an importend part of the game since it manages fleets on its own so you don't have to take a look at your fleets all the time.

Back to the techtree. I think weapons should be, makeing it more managable, put into simple categories.
  • Energie based weapons fighters/bombers
  • Energie based weapons capships
  • Missiles for fighters (also effectiong the fighter missiles fired by caps like the FF missiles on Ventures)
  • Torpeds/Capship missiles
I think that would make it a lot easier then adding every single weapon you have in WC.
 
The techtree You mentioned is easily done, but it still bothers me. Don't You think that everyone will still stick to WC1/2 because it takes less resources to get there then to comparable WC3/4/5. I'm mainly talking about multiplayer here, as I bet that we will have the access to the AI in the next year, or christmas, or never at all. And that is a good point there, because the AI is actually using the "Bigger is better" strat. It's because the SoaSE is mainly based on Capship combat in the later phases of the game, when You have lots of resources. However You will see that when the resources are thinner, he will focus on frigates and cruiser, which are the main force in the game. Also AI doesn't manage Your fleets. Or are You talking about pathfinding AI?
Also there is this problem that if I will have a variable, that will add to the missile damage of both fighters and smaller capships, I would have to make another missile entity weapon [ duplicating will work, I guess ], that will be something like "Capship Missiles" - bigger, better?
 
You could make the change for free. So you won't invest any time into researching other hulls or spend resources to develop the other hulls. So only thing that would matter are the balance of the base values to the upgrades and that the ships keep some kind of their original characteristica.

In that way no one would have an advantage or disadvantage when changeing the hull.
But that kinda reduces the techtree to a selection screen. A different kind of ship should also give me some kind of differance in gameplay, else its just a wast of resources...game and real ones.

I got the feeling that the solution is quite easy but I don't see it. Maybe I should get to the drawingboard to see the solution.
 
Now making the change for free wouldn't work.. since you have to research the new design, unlike selecting it in the real world [ we have to make some sense with the real world right ? ].

The solution is out there. I'm gonna commit more to engine mechanics thanks to You guys, however for now I will have to keep on integrating basic elements like models/effects/sound effects/music etc. and then make it all shine.
 
Speaking of models. What ships are you planing on implementing. It would make it easier to think about a techtree if one knows what ships and tech you want to have in it.

Doing so one should also think about what is realy necessary and what is just a nice have.
Does it make sense to have more then one destroyer for each side if they are basicly the same.
Like WC1+2 has the Exeter and Gilgamesh and WC3+4+5 has Southampton, Durango and Murphy.

Beside that I think I would leave out the WC5 stuff. The Kilrathi, if you later add them don't have anything in that department so they would have a shorter techtree resulting in less time and resource investment.
 
I was planning on implementing most of the elements from every game [ except armada ]. For WC5 Kilrathi I would put some custom designs. Our designs will come from skilled, but rather not aware of the franchise - they are studying the designs now, and they will provide something fresh, yet fitting the universe. I'm certain.

Having more then 1 destroyer for each side makes sense, if it's abilities are different.
My My... that's almost like Warcraft 3 now!
 
NinjaLA said:
Arena provides you with at least two new designs from the Prophecy Era (or shortly after the start) namely the battlecruiser and the Dralthi IX

as an aside, you are aware that quite a few designs from wing commander 3 are actually older than the designs from wing commander 2, right?
http://crius.net/zone/showthread.php?t=21916&highlight=fighter+introduction+chart
there's a good starting point for figuring out what was available during what eras.
Click to expand...

I did'nt know that, thank You for bringing it up! That's some important stuff.
 
I am quite interested in the new designs...could you post some pictures....please ^_^

Having more then 1 destroyer for each side makes sense, if it's abilities are different.
Click to expand...
That was my thought behind the question.

So you didn't know that the Yorktown from WC3 was allready in service during WC1?
I allways assumed you know because of the strict seperation by gamedesign instead of the timeline.#


Oh about the techtree. The Interface can hold about 27 ships if I remember it correctly. Will the game+techtree also suppert that number of ships?
If so it could make the techtree a bit easier.
Also would you now like to change the techtree to a more classic way? Means older designs get older but might still have a use with certain refits? Like you could add a fighterbay to the Durango since it didn't come with one from the beginning. IIRC.
So by changeing the role of ships they could still be of use even if their stats can't compete with newer designs.
 
gevatter Lars said:
I am quite interested in the new designs...could you post some pictures....please ^_^


That was my thought behind the question.

So you didn't know that the Yorktown from WC3 was allready in service during WC1?
I allways assumed you know because of the strict seperation by gamedesign instead of the timeline.
Click to expand...

We are still at the drawingboard stage with the designs, the same with concept art - there will be something to show in that matter somewhere like 1st of June.

No I did not know that Lars, as I've deducted that the technology advances in eras 1->2->3->4->5 . I may have been wrong, that's why I post here on the community forums and we are constructively debating. : )

The techtree should be able to withhold more types of ships if using the upgrade feature, and the game engine will have lifted amounts of ships to be integrated with the upcoming 1.1 version of the game.

The way of changing the techtree would make it look realistic. It means new designs have better base stats while whatever you research [ weapons or armor ] adds to them. It doable, but will it satisfy the most? I say it was my basic idea, but then the idea of having WC1/2 ships be balanced with 3/4/5 got it mixed up.
 
raxiv said:
The techtree You mentioned is easily done, but it still bothers me. Don't You think that everyone will still stick to WC1/2 because it takes less resources to get there then to comparable WC3/4/5.
Click to expand...

I haven't played Sins before, so I don't know quite how the tech tree for that game works. It sounds as techs in the "military tree" can open up upgrades in the "upgrade tree". Based on that info, my suggestion would be to make a "phase shielding" sub-branch to the military tree, that would offer three substantial techs:

"Phase shielding technology" - Advances shielding technology to WC2 levels.
"Phase shield piercing technology" - "Degrades" shielding technology to WC3 levels.
"Advanced phase shield technology" - Advances shielding tech to WC4/P (it seemed as if some of the capships in WC4 were impervious to non-torpedoes)

The techs would be fairly expensive (probably on par with the superweapons), but would open up the upgrade tree for the various capships to a phase shield upgrade. For the advanced phase shield tech, however, it would cost substantially more - either research-wise, financially, or both - to upgrade the WC1/2 designs than it would the WC3/4/P designs (one excuse could be that the hull was just not designed to handle adv. shielding tech, and would require massive modifications).

Therefore, players who advanced to the best WC2 designs would research phase shield piercing and advanced phase shields, only to find that it would take less time and money to build WC3/4 ships with advanced shielding then to wait to upgrade their Gilgamesh and Confederation-class ships.

As for the piercing tech...that would take a lot more thought, and again, I haven't played Sins. It's not as simple as upping the damage on a fighter's beam weapon, as the fighter would then be able to shoot down enemy fighters with ease. And in extreme cases (assuming phase shielding would be simulated with just a massive armor upgrade), you'd have a piercing-tech equipped Dralthi shooting down non-phase shielding equipped Bengals with one or two shots. That would be amusing, but it wouldn't make for good gameplay.

If Sins distinguishes the amount of damage a given weapon causes between capships and fighters, then it could make your job easier. Piercing tech could up the "capship-level" of damage from the fighter beam weapons, and adv. phase shielding would just up the capship shielding again.

Either way, I'm interested to see how this project shapes up.
 
Cardinal said:
I haven't played Sins before, so I don't know quite how the tech tree for that game works. It sounds as techs in the "military tree" can open up upgrades in the "upgrade tree". Based on that info, my suggestion would be to make a "phase shielding" sub-branch to the military tree, that would offer three substantial techs:

"Phase shielding technology" - Advances shielding technology to WC2 levels.
"Phase shield piercing technology" - "Degrades" shielding technology to WC3 levels.
"Advanced phase shield technology" - Advances shielding tech to WC4/P (it seemed as if some of the capships in WC4 were impervious to non-torpedoes)

The techs would be fairly expensive (probably on par with the superweapons), but would open up the upgrade tree for the various capships to a phase shield upgrade. For the advanced phase shield tech, however, it would cost substantially more - either research-wise, financially, or both - to upgrade the WC1/2 designs than it would the WC3/4/P designs (one excuse could be that the hull was just not designed to handle adv. shielding tech, and would require massive modifications).

Therefore, players who advanced to the best WC2 designs would research phase shield piercing and advanced phase shields, only to find that it would take less time and money to build WC3/4 ships with advanced shielding then to wait to upgrade their Gilgamesh and Confederation-class ships.

As for the piercing tech...that would take a lot more thought, and again, I haven't played Sins. It's not as simple as upping the damage on a fighter's beam weapon, as the fighter would then be able to shoot down enemy fighters with ease. And in extreme cases (assuming phase shielding would be simulated with just a massive armor upgrade), you'd have a piercing-tech equipped Dralthi shooting down non-phase shielding equipped Bengals with one or two shots. That would be amusing, but it wouldn't make for good gameplay.

If Sins distinguishes the amount of damage a given weapon causes between capships and fighters, then it could make your job easier. Piercing tech could up the "capship-level" of damage from the fighter beam weapons, and adv. phase shielding would just up the capship shielding again.

Either way, I'm interested to see how this project shapes up.
Click to expand...

Ok, so. Piercing means going through the shields, either with a penalty or straight through. Making the weapons to go straight through - shouldn't be a problem. You have to know that the game has shields implemented, which is a good feature, no need to emulate anything. Sins distinguish damage by object variables. Each object can have different stats, that means damage for You. Making one tech open up another is absolutely do-able.

Also, I've decided to spoil You a bit now. Here is the main theme of the game.
http://wcinitium.net/dev/music/ost/01initium.mp3
 
No I did not know that Lars, as I've deducted that the technology advances in eras 1->2->3->4->5
Click to expand...

That is true when you just look at the weapons, armor and shieldstats. The ships themself sometimes aren't from the era the game took place.

You allready got the fighterlist. I haven't seen a capshiplist yet and my knowledge is a bit limited. Here is what I know or heard:

Yorktown (wc3 carrier) dates back to WC1 timeline. Maybe even before that.

Durango exists in two versions and should also be an older design. The original was a destroyer. Later in WC4 we see a the modified version that holds fighters. Most likely they secrificed firepower, armor or something else for that.

PS: It would be cool when the CIC ship database gets an update. Most of the WC3+4 stuff has the "never existed" tag.

The way of changing the techtree would make it look realistic. It means new designs have better base stats while whatever you research [ weapons or armor ] adds to them. It doable, but will it satisfy the most? I say it was my basic idea, but then the idea of having WC1/2 ships be balanced with 3/4/5 got it mixed up.
Click to expand...
I don't know what the big idea of seperating things is anyway. Except by the game development we have a big universe that evolved over time. So why not reflect that by the techtree?
I am still thinking about a way to keep ships in the game as long as possible.
If we give each class of ship its "own" techtree it might work but it depends if we could add so many single points to the techtree.
In that tree older ships wouldn't be dropped but get special ablitys that makes them still usefull to the player.

I have to think about this a little bit more. I think there would be about 5-6 seperate startingpoints for shipdesigns.....I have to think bout it......


Phaseshielding works in a way that it hold of any fighterweapon except torpedos and later the Devestators plasma gun.
There was allways a change in tech. First fighters could damage a capship shields (wc1), then not (WC2), then again (wc3), again (wc4), not (wc5).
Phaseshields could also be broken when enough firepower was massed together but only capships would have the firepower to do so.

[Edit]
I am also kinda back to the selection screen thing. If you would just place a single button for each ship type and then let people research the MK1, MK2, MK3 and so on.
These MK Version would be comparable to every other shipdesign of the same level.

For example a MK3 Exeter would basicly be at the same level as a MK3 Durango. People would have to spend basicly the same amount of time and resources to research these MK levels. That way no one would have an advantage when researching only a specific class.
For the fun of it you could make seperate refits avaible like hangarbay for Durango and Exeter destroyers. Extra Flak for the Gilgamesh, AM turrets for the Southampton and the Plasmagun für the Murphy.

Drawback would be this concept would drop the entire seperate upgrade of shield, weapons and armor.
Good thing would be that its pretty easy to balance, I think. You can also connect this to the number of researchbasis you need to do a certain MK level advancement so that not only money plays a role but also the management of your bases.
 
gevatter Lars said:
That is true when you just look at the weapons, armor and shieldstats. The ships themself sometimes aren't from the era the game took place.

You allready got the fighterlist. I haven't seen a capshiplist yet and my knowledge is a bit limited. Here is what I know or heard:

Yorktown (wc3 carrier) dates back to WC1 timeline. Maybe even before that.

Durango exists in two versions and should also be an older design. The original was a destroyer. Later in WC4 we see a the modified version that holds fighters. Most likely they secrificed firepower, armor or something else for that.

PS: It would be cool when the CIC ship database gets an update. Most of the WC3+4 stuff has the "never existed" tag.


I don't know what the big idea of seperating things is anyway. Except by the game development we have a big universe that evolved over time. So why not reflect that by the techtree?
I am still thinking about a way to keep ships in the game as long as possible.
If we give each class of ship its "own" techtree it might work but it depends if we could add so many single points to the techtree.
In that tree older ships wouldn't be dropped but get special ablitys that makes them still usefull to the player.

I have to think about this a little bit more. I think there would be about 5-6 seperate startingpoints for shipdesigns.....I have to think bout it......


Phaseshielding works in a way that it hold of any fighterweapon except torpedos and later the Devestators plasma gun.
There was allways a change in tech. First fighters could damage a capship shields (wc1), then not (WC2), then again (wc3), again (wc4), not (wc5).
Phaseshields could also be broken when enough firepower was massed together but only capships would have the firepower to do so.
Click to expand...

Currently even the bombers "in-game" are using plasma tech to dmg cap ships , so that's a win for us, but we try to implement the shield "tech-race" in the game. Though it can spoil the game a bit, the thing would have to be put into a betatest to see how it works out.
 
I doubt that is the same because from what I have seen they still need to get through the shields first and then damage the hull. On the other hand I haven't looks to much into it. Maybe its possible for them do bypass shields.
If they allready bypass the shields its a good thing since its quite similar to WC-torpedos. Now you only have to add some non piercing weapons to them.

About the spoiler...I can't download it. I allways get a file with a size of 0 kb?
Oh and did you read my [Edit] note? What do you think about that aproach?
 
Try a download manager, it works here fine! Or try now, perhaps I was just uploading it when You tried?

Of course the bombers need to go through shields first in the game [ though they use plasma tech ], however there is a variable that enables you to do dmg directly to the hull of the ship. It shouldn't be a problem.

I don't like the selection screen idea. You can't go back, and it will expect from the user to have extensive knowledge about WC or large amount of experience with the mod to have rather good results. It's also wrong when You think that older designs will be on the same level with the new ones, it just doesn't work ! At least for me, though the WC1/2 extremists would give us high-five.
 
raxiv said:
It's also wrong when You think that older designs will be on the same level with the new ones, it just doesn't work ! At least for me, though the WC1/2 extremists would give us high-five.
Click to expand...

Actually, some of the WC1/2 designs are newer than some of the WC3/4 designs.
 
I don't like the selection screen idea. You can't go back, and it will expect from the user to have extensive knowledge about WC or large amount of experience with the mod to have rather good results. It's also wrong when You think that older designs will be on the same level with the new ones, it just doesn't work ! At least for me, though the WC1/2 extremists would give us high-five.
Click to expand...

I am not quite sure what you mean with "You can't go back". The idea was to have all ships avaible and the player decides what designs he wants to pic.
I agree with you that this would require either a knowledge of the WC universe or a timeinvestment from the player that is new to this.
Anyway I also don't like the idea but it would be a working idea.

Actually, some of the WC1/2 designs are newer than some of the WC3/4 designs.
Click to expand...
The problem is except for the Yorktown, being the oldest ship class, I don't know for sure of any of the other capships when they went into production. I think the Durango is also pretty old and the WC3 Frigate. The Tallahassee seams to be a newer design. Not sure about the Southampton.

If anyone could provide a list of commision dates it would help a lot.
When we only got the Yorktown that we know for sure to be an older design and the rest is just the "could be" part I think lets keep them order by game idea.

You could keep older designs by saying that they aren't replaced with another newer design.
They would be still in service but would sooner or later fall behind the other even with upgrades. Maybe a reason for keeping them could be a lower production cost compared to newer designs.

Sin is easier in this way as they don't have that many ships and each serves a special purpose and is even usefull later in the game.
 
The problem is except for the Yorktown, being the oldest ship class, I don't know for sure of any of the other capships when they went into production. I think the Durango is also pretty old and the WC3 Frigate. The Tallahassee seams to be a newer design. Not sure about the Southampton.
Click to expand...

The Tallahassee and the Southampton are both pre-war designs, with no specific service entry date (and we know that there are multiple versions of Southamptons - the Coventry was an updated design with a small fighter complement.) We don't know about the Durango, save that it was *retired* by the Confederation in 2663 (two years before WC2 started) - which suggests that it may have been very old indeed (or simply unpopular/unreliable/etc.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top