They run straight towards the enemy at close range.What is point of thrusters if all ships just head towards point blank range,
It's not logical Jim.
Hmm, I'm not sure where you get this from.
A rail gun is going to fire a high velocity slug at a speed that will exceed the speed of a missile. There is also the issue of counter measures. A missile is going to be a large object giving numerous methods to counter it, from direct firing point defense systems, to anti-missile missiles.
The missile will have a higher degree of flexibility in terms of accuracy, but this accuracy is going to be offset by intercept chances.
My understanding of a beam weapon, at a theoretical level (I could be completely talking out my ass here btw) is that they are going to be a shorter range weapon since the beam is going to lose its focus over distance.
The kinetic energy of a magnetically accelerated chunk of metal for the purposes of a fleet engagement isn't going to lose that kinetic energy. A missile won't lose it's kinetic energy either, but it almost certainly will not be moving at the same speeds that a rail gun is going to fire at. Remember that the speed of the missile is going to be restricted by the fuel it can carry. The more fuel, the slower it goes, the slower it goes the easier it is to shoot down and intercept. Maximum speeds of rocket based weapons in space isn't going to be much different than here on earth. The difference of course being with no friction to slow it down it's going to just keep going.
In terms of gameplay mechanics, I see it something like this.
Missiles and Railguns = in range
Missiles > Railguns in accuracy AT range.
Beams > everything in accuracy inside their effective range.
I'm not sure if accuracy falloff can be modeled in this tactical simulation. So then it makes sense for Missiles to have a greater "effective" range.
Your point about the mag accelerated missile is a good one and obviously an option, however for purposes of game balance are you going to use the hard stats of the rail gun launcher, or the missile?
Not going to be feasible to put missiles on anything small then, since the launcher required to fling a big ole missile is going to be pretty large itself. That would be purely a capital ship system and then, is it a missile or a rail gun? Or is it a rail gun shooting guided ammunition
Things which limit a weapon's maximum effective range:
Your assertion that 'beam weapons,' by which you presumably mean lasers and other similar devices, will have lower effective ranges than mass drivers and missiles considers only point 8 - how far can the projectile or emission propagate before it can no longer deliver enough energy to a small enough area in a short enough time to be effective against the target. Points 1-3, 4, and 9 each offer limits on effective range which can constrain the effective weapon range more than point 8 can. Points 5-7 allow certain types of guided weapon (namely, seeking and remotely-guided missiles) to relax the constraints imposed by points 1-3, 4 and 9.
Points 1-3 together form a constraint upon maximum effective range, as how far into the future I can accurately predict the target's position governs how much time I have to aim and fire my weapon and then how much time my projectile can spend reaching the target. If I can accurately predict a target's location no more than 3 seconds into the future and my weapons can turn to face in any arbitrary direction instantaneously, the maximum range at which I can effectively engage the target cannot exceed the distance my weapon's projectile or emission can cover in 3 seconds, unless the projectile can home in on or be guided into the target (this is where points 5-7 come into play; the answers to points 5-7 govern how much the effective range is extended). As 'beam weapons' presumably propagate at the speed of light and mass drivers presumably propagate at some fraction x of the speed of light such that x < 1, points 1-3 create a range constraint which gives the 'beam weapons' the greater effective range, unless for some reason I cannot bring my 'beam weapons' to bear as rapidly as I can bring my mass drivers to bear.
Point 4 governs how far away I can be before I can no longer hit the target reliably whether or not I have perfect knowledge of the target's location. High precision can compensate to some degree for poor accuracy, as precision is a matter of consistency and if I'm consistently missing the target in the same way I may be able to correct the aim. Accuracy determines how likely I am to actually hit the target. I can point my weapons at some angle plus or minus some error; if I know something about that error (e.g. my shots are distributed in a Gaussian manner, with the 3-sigma point being at +/-0.05 degrees along the horizon and azimuth), I can tell you how likely it is that I'll hit a target of a given size at a given range assuming I have perfect knowledge of where the target is. For the parenthetical example given, I have a ~99.7% or better chance of hitting a 1-km target as long as it's within 573km from my ship, assuming I aim for the center of the target and the projectiles launched by my weapon cannot correct their aiming point after being launched (I miss if my shot is more than 0.5km off the center of the target; 0.5km / tan(0.05 degrees) is ~573km and I am assumed to have a ~99.7% chance of being within +/-0.05 degrees of my aiming point). Seeking and remotely-guided weapons can adjust their aiming points after being launched, allowing those types of weapon to relax this constraint to some degree (how much depends on how well they can adjust the aiming point, how often they can do so, and how many times or for how long they can do so). Assuming that I can aim my beam weapons as well as I can aim my mass drivers, aiming accuracy and precision constrains the effective range of both lasers and physical projectiles equally (with an exception for seeking and remotely-guided weapons).
Point 9 is, under normal physics, only a problem for weapons whose projectiles propagate at a speed less than that of light, as a laser cannot be detected by any standard method prior to its arrival at the target, and even if you can detect, say, the energy build-up in the emitter array prior to the weapon being fired, you have a range-invariant amount of time to react as the laser will propagate at the same speed as the emissions which allow you to detect the energy build-up prior to the weapon firing. (Yes, I know that photons can arrive 'early;' however, this will not give the target sufficient time to react, as they don't arrive that early, as they were simply emitted prior to the damaging portion of the shot.) If you allow for some form of superluminal sensor which can detect EM waves prior to their arrival at their destination or which can detect the energy build-up in the weapons prior to firing, this can become an issue for lasers, but it will regardless be more of an issue for weapons which travel at less than the speed of light. This therefore creates a range constraint only for projectile weapons under real physics, with any guidance system which can be programmed to follow a course intended to conceal the target or which can home in on or be guided into the target being capable of relaxing this constraint. If we throw real-world physics out the window and allow superluminal detectors or sensors which can detect EMR prior to its arrival, this most likely creates a constraint which more severely restricts the effective range of mass drivers than of beam weapons.
Once again, this is debatable. Assuming you can aim your lasers with the same accuracy as you can aim your mass drivers, whatever form each takes, then yes, the lasers are more likely to hit targets within the effective range of both weapons than the mass drivers are as they will take less time to reach the target. However, 'effective range' and 'the range from which I cannot possibly miss' are two different things for unguided weapons, whereas under sufficiently ideal conditions they can be made identical for a seeking weapon or a weapon which receives course corrections from the launch vehicle. Even if you don't have sufficiently ideal conditions for the seeking weapon or the weapon which receives course corrections from the launch vehicle, there are still conditions under which these weapons will have a hit rate superior to that of lasers. Jamming, point defenses, and other countermeasures may intervene and prevent the seeking or remotely-guided weapons from achieving anything approximating a 100% hit rate, but jamming and certain other countermeasures can also come into play against unguided weapons.
Under the right set of conditions, you could have 'beam' weapons which greatly out-range and out-hit everything else on the playing field. Under a different set of conditions, self-propelled projectiles could be essentially useless due to their increased size and probably lower speed. And under a third set of conditions, you could have all of these things balanced in such a way that all weapons are equally useful.
Yep, this is it.
Yeah... the basics are...
Missiles have more or less infinate range in space so it comes down to who detect whom first and if one side can overwhelm the other with a strike first.
If point-defenses or counter measure are too strong then that strategy has failed.
Most science that I have read about actual conflict in space using today's knowledge have rail-gun technology being quite useless, can't even be used as orbital bombardment since we have no material that would survive the impact of the Earths atmosphere with those velocities. In space they would also have too short range to be very effective if ships had our entire solar system as their field of operation. Beam weapons are much more likely since they can be used both offensively and defensively. While missiles can be charged with nukes and launched from a great distance.
Missiles would be quite hard to detect once they travel at their target, course correction can be done very slowly over the entire distance which might be quite great and in effect very hard to detect, their speed could also be quite fast, especially if they can be launched using similar techniques that you have in rail guns, thus they need to use less fuel for the initial launch.
As I understand the most likely scenario would be a combination of laser and missile technology for real military conflict in space.
Your assertion that 'beam weapons,' by which you presumably mean lasers and other similar devices, will have lower effective ranges than mass drivers and missiles considers only point 8 - how far can the projectile or emission propagate before it can no longer deliver enough energy to a small enough area in a short enough time to be effective against the target. Points 1-3, 4, and 9 each offer limits on effective range which can constrain the effective weapon range more than point 8 can. Points 5-7 allow certain types of guided weapon (namely, seeking and remotely-guided missiles) to relax the constraints imposed by points 1-3, 4 and 9.Points 1-3 together form a constraint upon maximum effective range, as how far into the future I can accurately predict the target's position governs how much time I have to aim and fire my weapon and then how much time my projectile can spend reaching the target. If I can accurately predict a target's location no more than 3 seconds into the future and my weapons can turn to face in any arbitrary direction instantaneously, the maximum range at which I can effectively engage the target cannot exceed the distance my weapon's projectile or emission can cover in 3 seconds, unless the projectile can home in on or be guided into the target (this is where points 5-7 come into play; the answers to points 5-7 govern how much the effective range is extended). As 'beam weapons' presumably propagate at the speed of light and mass drivers presumably propagate at some fraction x of the speed of light such that x < 1, points 1-3 create a range constraint which gives the 'beam weapons' the greater effective range, unless for some reason I cannot bring my 'beam weapons' to bear as rapidly as I can bring my mass drivers to bear.Point 4 governs how far away I can be before I can no longer hit the target reliably whether or not I have perfect knowledge of the target's location. High precision can compensate to some degree for poor accuracy, as precision is a matter of consistency and if I'm consistently missing the target in the same way I may be able to correct the aim. Accuracy determines how likely I am to actually hit the target. I can point my weapons at some angle plus or minus some error; if I know something about that error (e.g. my shots are distributed in a Gaussian manner, with the 3-sigma point being at +/-0.05 degrees along the horizon and azimuth), I can tell you how likely it is that I'll hit a target of a given size at a given range assuming I have perfect knowledge of where the target is. For the parenthetical example given, I have a ~99.7% or better chance of hitting a 1-km target as long as it's within 573km from my ship, assuming I aim for the center of the target and the projectiles launched by my weapon cannot correct their aiming point after being launched (I miss if my shot is more than 0.5km off the center of the target; 0.5km / tan(0.05 degrees) is ~573km and I am assumed to have a ~99.7% chance of being within +/-0.05 degrees of my aiming point). Seeking and remotely-guided weapons can adjust their aiming points after being launched, allowing those types of weapon to relax this constraint to some degree (how much depends on how well they can adjust the aiming point, how often they can do so, and how many times or for how long they can do so). Assuming that I can aim my beam weapons as well as I can aim my mass drivers, aiming accuracy and precision constrains the effective range of both lasers and physical projectiles equally (with an exception for seeking and remotely-guided weapons).Point 9 is, under normal physics, only a problem for weapons whose projectiles propagate at a speed less than that of light, as a laser cannot be detected by any standard method prior to its arrival at the target, and even if you can detect, say, the energy build-up in the emitter array prior to the weapon being fired, you have a range-invariant amount of time to react as the laser will propagate at the same speed as the emissions which allow you to detect the energy build-up prior to the weapon firing. (Yes, I know that photons can arrive 'early;' however, this will not give the target sufficient time to react, as they don't arrive that early, as they were simply emitted prior to the damaging portion of the shot.) If you allow for some form of superluminal sensor which can detect EM waves prior to their arrival at their destination or which can detect the energy build-up in the weapons prior to firing, this can become an issue for lasers, but it will regardless be more of an issue for weapons which travel at less than the speed of light. This therefore creates a range constraint only for projectile weapons under real physics, with any guidance system which can be programmed to follow a course intended to conceal the target or which can home in on or be guided into the target being capable of relaxing this constraint. If we throw real-world physics out the window and allow superluminal detectors or sensors which can detect EMR prior to its arrival, this most likely creates a constraint which more severely restricts the effective range of mass drivers than of beam weapons.
Once again, this is debatable. Assuming you can aim your lasers with the same accuracy as you can aim your mass drivers, whatever form each takes, then yes, the lasers are more likely to hit targets within the effective range of both weapons than the mass drivers are as they will take less time to reach the target. However, 'effective range' and 'the range from which I cannot possibly miss' are two different things for unguided weapons, whereas under sufficiently ideal conditions they can be made identical for a seeking weapon or a weapon which receives course corrections from the launch vehicle. Even if you don't have sufficiently ideal conditions for the seeking weapon or the weapon which receives course corrections from the launch vehicle, there are still conditions under which these weapons will have a hit rate superior to that of lasers. Jamming, point defenses, and other countermeasures may intervene and prevent the seeking or remotely-guided weapons from achieving anything approximating a 100% hit rate, but jamming and certain other countermeasures can also come into play against unguided weapons. Under the right set of conditions, you could have 'beam' weapons which greatly out-range and out-hit everything else on the playing field. Under a different set of conditions, self-propelled projectiles could be essentially useless due to their increased size and probably lower speed. And under a third set of conditions, you could have all of these things balanced in such a way that all weapons are equally useful.
The reason why I feel beams are the obvious winner in terms of accuracy, and I will use an FPS term here, is hitscan. If you've played quake or a similar deathmatch type FPS, hitscan is what a railgun is in those games. You point, you click, you hit. A railgun isn't going to be hitscan at hundreds of kilometers, or even thousands. However beam/lazer IS hitscan up to a point. You aim, you fire, you hit. This is virtually a simultaneous action.
Prediction is the effective limit on a kinetic weapons range. However, this assumes that the enemy can predict where you are shooting. In a way this becomes part of the game of long range fleet engagements with kinetic weapons. You don't aim at the target, you aim where it can potentially be at the time you expect your rounds to hit. Not exactly game breaking concept. However, given dozens or more weapons, you don't HAVE to aim them all at the exact same spot. You can aim long to account for acceleration, you can aim short to account for deceleration, long and high, long and low, short and high, short and low. You you probably don't have the guns to account for every variable, but this is a way you can maximize your chances of getting hits at ranges where the projectile could take minutes to reach the target. Kinetic weapons are also your ultimate first strike, "Oh you didn't know we were here to fight, well now you do" weapon IMO.
I've heard people argue that lasers would have the longest range. I've also heard people say that there IS diffusal of protons even in space, and that a laser would actually be the shortest range weapon. As a point target the range would be limited quickly turning into a more diffuse beam. Think like a giant lazerying flamethrower. Or a giant cone of death. Like I said, I don't really know that much about what the potential of a laser actually is. Just going what what people I believe to be more educated on the subject have to say : )
Read up on the subject... I have not read anything about any particular division in opinion among expert in the field of physics on the potential of energy beams in space. It is true that diffusion of the beam is a problem, but that is just a matter of engineering. In theory this is not a huge problem, if we want to have them we can build them, There just is not any real need for them.
Kinetic cannons in space have many issues and are much less usable in so many ways that developing them are just not feasible. The only thing you will find is using rail-gun technology to launch guided ammunition, effectively missiles of some sort. Can be kinetic vehicles or nukes, take your pick.
But using rail-guns as you use cannons on a battle ship will never happen, that is if we humans ever have a military conflicts in space with some form of dedicated warships.
They said that battleships were obsolete and they would never be used again either. Then they wheeled out the Missouri and Wisconsin for Iraq 1.
The idea that kinetic weapons will never be used on a space faring "battleship" is nonsense. I'm sorry but it is. Even if doctrine and tactics render the purpose of a kinetic weapon to that of an ancillary role, they will still have a place and they will be used. Even then, missiles will practically never ever be used as a self propelled weapon system in fleet based combat. The only real way they can possibly be useful is if they are fired by a railgun. Is that a missile, or is that a rail gun? Self guided railgun munitions, but not self propelled will also be a thing. Is that not a rail gun? Why is that somehow less effective than a missile that is launched from a railgun tube? What is going to be easier to shoot down? Something maybe the size of a basketball with some guidance attached, or a full blown missile that might be launched from a railgun, and then fire its own propellent as it accelerates even further? The missile will still be easier to intercept.
Even modern cruisers still maintain a cannon or two. Why? You cannot account for all variables. Not every conflict will require a guided missile. The low tech solution of a metal object smashing into something will always have a role in military equipment.
ALWAYS.
The battleships used in the Persian Gulf War were not used as primary fleet capital ships, they were used as shore bombardment vessels, at best a secondary capital ship role. Additionally, no one has bothered making any battleships for the past ~70 years; at least for the moment, the battleship is dead as a primary capital ship, and most likely dead as a monitor. The investment is just too high for what you get.
It depends on the range of the engagement and the speed at which the participants move relative to one another. Sure, lasers are essentially guaranteed to hit, assuming that you're at a sufficiently short range and that your weapons are pointing in the right direction ... but have you fulfilled those requirements? You claim that lasers are the best at short range, but fail to define short range.
Given that in space there is no atmosphere and very little else which control surfaces or other guidance systems could work upon, I find this assertion highly questionable. Gyros are good for stabilizing and for rotating a body, but not for moving it in the absence of something else to act upon the body. You need to have thrusters of some form or another on the projectile if you want to do anything beyond stabilization, and once you put thrusters on the projectile, there is very little to distinguish it from a self-propelled weapon except quantity and quality of thrusters.
Have you ever looked at a plot of potential end positions given X time, Y maneuvering capability, and Z initial conditions? It gets messy fast, and small errors in initial conditions or the assumptions about maneuvering capability can lead to significant errors in the predicted location. Predicting the position of a target well enough to hit it at long range is not a simple problem.
Also, do you not understand what is meant by "how accurately I can predict the future location of the target?" You speak as though you're revealing something I overlooked; what you describe is an attempt to predict the location of the target, coupled with an attempt to counteract the inaccuracies by spreading out your fire a bit.
Furthermore, there is at least one situation under which target prediction is not necessarily the limiting constraint on my weapon ranges, and that situation is when I cannot aim my guns with sufficient accuracy to hit the target. Even a small aiming error can result in a miss of a considerable margin. Maybe in Perfectland you can have guns that align to the exact bearing you give them at the instant you give them the bearing, but real components take time to orient themselves and don't end up in exactly the correct spot. The farther off the thing you're trying to hit is, the better you need the actual orientation of the weapon to align with the real orientation. On top of that, you're not only dealing with the target's location. Your own ship is likely performing maneuvers of its own, and possibly suffering hits, which can and will throw off the aim of the weapons; your ship also has to absorb the recoil of the shots it fires, which will create vibrations and modify the ship's position from what had been expected. Gunlaying accuracy creates a range constraint which should not be neglected. Yes, 573 km (against a 1 km target) sounds like a fairly decent weapon range, but that was for a weapon that had a gunlaying error of no more than 5 hundredths of a degree. You think your guns are going to have this when the ship's in combat? Despite engaging in whatever maneuvers it needs to, despite the vibrations from the other guns being fired, despite the hits the hull has to absorb? Maybe it will, but I'd tend to suggest you're being a bit optimistic.
Also, how fast is the projectile? 573 km is basically nothing to something that travels at 0.5c or so; it'll cross that distance in a bit less than four thousandths of a second. If 573 km is where your gunlaying error starts to interfere with your ability to hit the target, how much do you think your ability to predict the target location matters, for a weapon which travels at 0.5c? With that +/- 0.05 degree aiming error given earlier, I have a 99.7% chance of sending the shot through a circle 1 km in diameter. What does that translate to for a target ~500m long, such as, I don't know, the T.A.S. Crusader? Let's assume a uniform distribution inside the 1km-diameter circle since it's easier to deal with (every point on the circle is equally likely to have a shot pass through it) and let's assume the T.A.S. Crusader has a circular profile of diameter 500m. Since it's a uniform distribution, the chance of hitting the target is equal to the ratio of the area taken up by the target to the area through which our shots can pass, or one fourth. So with a 0.5c railgun at 573km with an aiming error of 0.05 degrees, we have about a 25% chance of hitting a 500m long target, despite it only taking four thousandths of a second for our projectile to travel far enough to hit the target. This is less than ideal, but might be acceptable. If you double the range, you double the area that our shots might pass through, but the target's size is unaffected and distance into the future that we need to predict the target location is now a whole ~8 thousandths of a second, but we're already down to a 1 in 8 chance of hitting the target. Still convinced that your ability to predict the target's location is definitely going to be the limit on your ability to hit the target?
Sooo back to GalCiv III(not that speculation about future space warfare isn't interesting)...
...So I'll be blunt: is there any room for compromise on combat? Brad says no to individual unit controlled combat but it seems that a large number of us aren't really after that anyway. As many have said, we'd simply like a few more options given to us to influence and fine tune ship combat behavior. The ship role concept is a welcome addition to the franchise and I would personally like to see more general options within that same vein added to the game. It would also be nice to see some synergistic abilities added to different combat attributes (for example, extra speed equates to higher evasion, etc).
Also, I'm not privy to the long-term plans of the devs regarding combat...some additional options that address these concerns may already be planned for updates or expansions and we just don't know about them yet.
/deadhorsebeating
I'm just going to throw this one out there for the history buffs as we seem to be focusing more on what the battle resolution engine does and doesn't do. I'm not saying that this is what GC3 should do, but my favourite way of meaningfully representing a battle that you couldn't DIRECTLY control was in the venerable Stars! - a game I first played in around 1996 and dusted off to play every now and then up until a couple of years ago.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stars!
Through drop downs, the game allowed you (IIRC) to configure a number of fleet behaviours/target priorities along the lines of "close in as quick as you can and target highest value>nearest>weakest" or "maintain maximum range destroying unarmed ships then run away". You could then assign fleet behaviours to your fleets.
You were told the results of combat in a report and could then choose to watch the replay. You didn't HAVE to watch the replay, but you could actually learn why the result happened and meaningfully change the behaviour of your ships as a direct result. A simple system, but a great one.
Also, back on the ORIGINAL topic, in Stas! missile/torpedo ships could TRY to skip around at maximum range but were hampered; they were inherently less nimble because of the weight of carrying the big old missiles and torps as combat speed was a function of engine power vs ship weight. The game didn't have firing arcs but I don't remember missing them. And they could probably have been implemented fairly readily.
Well, I'm not even sure we need complex control over ship combat behavior. But the basics aren't consistent with the system : we have weapon ranges, but the game doesn't really take advantage of it. If we have long-range weaponry options, a "stand-off" behavior seems to be a reasonable thing to have. The "kiting" problem can then be solved on its own*
Currently, the way things are, it's like a WWI/II game with artillery that would move on its own to the frontline instead of trying to stay at a decent range.
*Make long range weapon mass-hungry, so that they're hard to fit on small ships. Make small ships fast. Make carrier-based interceptors faster. Make sublight engine either 1-per-ship or much less efficient on large ships. Voila, problem solved, now you have the possibility of making long-range, kiting, sniper ships using large-ish hulls, and fast, small, short range ships to hunt them down.
They said that battleships were obsolete and they would never be used again either. Then they wheeled out the Missouri and Wisconsin for Iraq 1.The idea that kinetic weapons will never be used on a space faring "battleship" is nonsense. I'm sorry but it is. Even if doctrine and tactics render the purpose of a kinetic weapon to that of an ancillary role, they will still have a place and they will be used. Even then, missiles will practically never ever be used as a self propelled weapon system in fleet based combat. The only real way they can possibly be useful is if they are fired by a railgun. Is that a missile, or is that a rail gun? Self guided railgun munitions, but not self propelled will also be a thing. Is that not a rail gun? Why is that somehow less effective than a missile that is launched from a railgun tube? What is going to be easier to shoot down? Something maybe the size of a basketball with some guidance attached, or a full blown missile that might be launched from a railgun, and then fire its own propellent as it accelerates even further? The missile will still be easier to intercept.Even modern cruisers still maintain a cannon or two. Why? You cannot account for all variables. Not every conflict will require a guided missile. The low tech solution of a metal object smashing into something will always have a role in military equipment.ALWAYS.
It is a fine line but any form of guided ammunition that shoots out of a rail gun will be some kind of missile. Missiles in space will be nothing like missiles on earth... what we name them is quite irrelevant.
From what I have read the most realistic cap on engagement range on direct fire weapons in space is about one light second, so about 300.000km. Although a laser beam will most likely not be able to do much damage at that distance, maximum ranges that are realistic with the best theories today would probably be around 30000km, at that distance there are no direct firing kinetic weapons that would be very realistic with today's knowledge or technical know how. On the other hand if you fire guided ammunition (some kind of missile) you can engage at even greater ranges.
It will come down to the same problem as we have today... information and attack power versus defensive capability.
Guns on today ships are mainly for the littoral zone and mostly for ground targets and smaller targets where you do not need to waste expensive missiles. The artillery is a complimentary weapon that has a purpose and it is not a primary weapon. In the future when the Rail-Gun on military ships becomes a real thing they can potentially replace missiles to some extent. It still actually is possible to shoot down the shell even from a Rail-Gun... active defenses are the most rapidly developing systems on all military vehicles. It is both lighter and in many ways safer then armour.
Here is a cool site that done allot of though into this... http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/spacegunintro.php
I am sure that, like every other aspect of the game, combat will be expanded and improved.
See Brad's point (k) here: http://steamcommunity.com/app/226860/discussions/1/617336568065171463/#c617336568065257280
This thread is a great example of why we don't allow for tactical control of units.Because someone would have made a unit within infinite kiting ability and we'd be spending development resources endlessly dealing with that rather than focusing on making the overall game better.If you want tactical battles, find another game. We will NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER have tactical battles in GalCiv.It's all about what you bring with you and understanding how those forces work and making plans around that.
. The guy doesn't even answer on topic. Total HS. Did you even read the OP and subsequent answers? That's pretty unbelievable. I seriously hope next time you take the time to think and think again before saying the first thing that fly in your head or completely refrain to answer if you have nothing interesting to say. I hope too this is not an indication of how the players feedback on the game is understood by the team, because it is abysmal.P.s: hint, the subject has NOTHING to do with tactical battles, only with the failures of the actual system.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
