Why IFP?

[Stormhound]

Just to prove that I've got an ego just like anyone else, I'm going to drag over a few thoughtful words of my own from the Delphi side. Food for thought...
=======================

If you don't mind, I'd like to use what you said and make a point to some of the newer folks on the forum, just for education purposes.

Okay, think about what you just said, and let me turn it at an angle and show it to you a different way.

"Micromanaging is fun. Especially early in the game."

Would it perhaps be more accurate to say it this way:

"I like playing a game that requires me to keep track of a certain amount of detail, and gives me as many decisions to make as I can comfortably handle. Early in the game, when there are fewer options, this means I can micromanage everything. Later in the game, when there would be too much information to micromanage, I prefer to loosen up so I can concentrate on just the parts I really like."

Think about that in light of IFP and the tools we give you to macromanage, and ask yourself if we're *really* taking away anything that the average player doesn't voluntarily give up anyhow? Or if we're instead making the game so that the best micromanager doesn't automatically win?

Just food for thought. I agree that we'll have to carefully balance IFP count, but we've been saying that all along.

[Master Marcus]

Of course that have been said a THOUSAND TIMES, but again: the game's success depends on the IFP system , on how meticulously coded it will be, and all that is merely dependant of the AI programming . The AI must be sneak, concise, and versatile - I know that the player will be forced to deal with his own various planetary leaders , each having specific abilities determining how smart the AI will be at running them for you. If the AI opponents are not overly cheating, I think the macromanaging after mid-game will be enjoyable. After all, like you said, you can micromanage almost everything at the beginning since for now the # of IFPs per turn are 8-9, for each turn til the end.

My only gripe at this time is that I wished we should accumulate more IFPs over the next turns, not a lot, but more than a single one for only the next turn.

Also don't forget an important interface compound: the group options where you tell your leaders what kind of things to do, and not to do . This must be worked out, and if possible much more detailed than Civ III - this is where the team can convince micromanagers at heart to become macro addicted like I intend to ( well, a comeback anticipated since the original MoO ).

Now i'm back to my first Civ III game: the AI is much improved, far from human like of course, but stronger since SMAC et all...... I guess we should expect the same improvement ( at least, maybe more ) for MoO 3....

[ravagon]

Hear hear.
The one major failing I can forsee is in the combat AI. I can see myself building highly specialized designs only to have an AI combat director misuse them and wipe out my fleets completely. Similar thing I guess for planetary defenses. I think however that if they can get this right then the game will most probably "Not Suck", in the rather negative words of that poll thread.
I plan on watching pretty much every single combat (this still doesn't take IFP's?) for quite some time before trusting to the AI.

[OctaviusIII]

Wow, the developers even cruise around the Apolyton forums... where the heck do you get the time?

And yes, it all depends on the AI, which sounds pretty exciting. Good luck to the AI programers!

And I, too, will be watching all the battles for quite some time, although probably zoomed in as far as I can so I can see the ships in the task forces goin at it instead of just clumps of dots emmitting light. Or however it'll look (I trust rantz).

[Sencho]

Originally posted by ravagon
Hear hear.
The one major failing I can forsee is in the combat AI. I can see myself building highly specialized designs only to have an AI combat director misuse them and wipe out my fleets completely. Similar thing I guess for planetary defenses. I think however that if they can get this right then the game will most probably "Not Suck", in the rather negative words of that poll thread.
I plan on watching pretty much every single combat (this still doesn't take IFP's?) for quite some time before trusting to the AI.

One trick here is that you don't just have one AI. Each ship has a unique captain who knows the strengths, weaknesses, and duties of his ship. Then each TF has a Commodore who assesses the same stuff but at the TF level. And then you have an overall AI running the battle. So there isn't just a single 'combat AI' to assess combat, it's a series of layered AIs.

Kinda like an onion...or a parfait.

[ravagon]

Originally posted by Sencho

Each ship has a unique captain who knows the strengths, weaknesses, and duties of his ship

Thats the bit I'm worried about. (but I'm still hopeful)
You should be able to fight a battle in a basic set way, regardless of the skill level of the combat AI's.
One thing I just can't live with is having a fleet annihilated because even basic instructions weren't followed, regardless of the point at which command "failed". There's a certain level of stupidity below which the AI should not stoop (The mentally retarded Psilon Admiral explanation just won't cut it). - Afterall that sort of thing doesn't happen in real life. Er, does it?

[Bleyn]

Originally posted by ravagon


Thats the bit I'm worried about. (but I'm still hopeful)
You should be able to fight a battle in a basic set way, regardless of the skill level of the combat AI's.
One thing I just can't live with is having a fleet annihilated because even basic instructions weren't followed, regardless of the point at which command "failed". There's a certain level of stupidity below which the AI should not stoop (The mentally retarded Psilon Admiral explanation just won't cut it). - Afterall that sort of thing doesn't happen in real life. Er, does it?

Uhmmmm..... Errrr.... Yes. It does. A lot. Stupid stuff happens all the time.

And yes military commanders do occasionally violate their basic instructions. Thats part of their job, to take initiative in an ever changing situation, and sometimes it means doing something you weren't supposed to. And most of them know the consequences of both success and failure.

One example of "violating" basic instructions from WW2 involves US subs in the Pacific. Pre-war doctrine and the standing orders from the PacFleet high command at the start of the war required subs to make every effort to avoid detection even in the midst of an attack. Sub captains were being instructed to never run on the surface during the day, and to pursue attacks by sound even at night.

Some of the captains came to learn that it was actually quite safe to run on the surface during the day most of the time. And most very quickly realized that being ordered to make attacks using very crude and primative sound detection was absurd when periscope attacks by day and surface attacks at night were as safe or safer and always more effective. All of this was because of rather unrealistic pre-war training that completely and utterly failed to show how truely effective the submarine could be in pursuing an attack.

Of course, the fact that US torpedos at the start of the war were **** didn't help and the only people who wouldn't believe it were the Bureau of Ordinance guys who made them and never bothered to really test them. That was a real stupidity. They never properly tested the torpedos, and at one point when they did actually run a test on the magnetic exploder, they fired a whole two torpedos. One of which failed to explode. The test was deemed a success, and was later held up by BuOrd as proof that there couldn't be anything wrong with the magnetic exploder.


Hmmm.... now there is something for a 4x TBS game to model in the combat system. Equipment maturation. Early combats with new technologies having negative modifiers for immaturity and system bugs. Do you risk using the latest and greatest hardware and hope that the designers didn't reverse a sign or fail to do a unit conversion, or do you stick with older, less potent but tried-and-true hardware that you can trust?


But I know what you are meaning. If your orders are to take out the heaviest and best armed enemy ships first, you don't want to be defeated because half your fleet went off after a bunch of obselete hulks that happened to be sitting in the system and had yet to be scrapped. Or to use an example from the MoO3 boards, to blow up a ship of a new and unknown alien empire on first contact instead of trying to communicate with it first.

[Sencho]

Unless I'm mistaken (Stormhound, help me on this), you set general fighting instructions and first combat protocol. Your captains aren't in the dark, they look back to see what their empire, Sector Admiral, and Commodore want done.

You set the goals, the overall orders. Then your subordinates go about fulfilling them. So first contact may not be a shoot'em up firefight, but if you've an overly aggressive officer and/or ambiguous doctrine...well, no promises.

Same thing in general combat. You control the strategic objectives. The miniscule details are 'below the radar,' without your intervention.

[[LordLMP]]

I wonder if it is possible to customize a leader and then have that leader show up and available sometime during the game...

hmm, can we also bribe and extort governors, admirals, etc?

-LMP

[Stormhound]

Yes, Sencho. Whatever the standing orders are will doubtless have an important effect on how a first contact plays out, and any subsequent diplomacy.

LordLMP, no, you can't customize a leader. This isn't like MOO2 where you had a distinct list of leaders; leaders in MOO3 are generated ad hoc according to specific parameters, based upon various conditions of your empire, and then serve out their careers.

As to bribes and extortion, the best thing for you to do is check out the espionage data dump on our website, which will answer that question and many more.

[ravagon]

Originally posted by Bleyn

Uhmmmm..... Errrr.... Yes. It does. A lot. Stupid stuff happens all the time.

Hence the I can deal with a "liberal" interpretation of global orders but not a complete disregard of my battle plan. I know plans never survive contact with the enemy but neither are they totally thrown out the window/airlock...

But I know what you are meaning. If your orders are to take out the heaviest and best armed enemy ships first, you don't want to be defeated because half your fleet went off after a bunch of obselete hulks that happened to be sitting in the system and had yet to be scrapped.

Heh. I think I posted almost that exact same thing in another thread a day or two ago. Agree completely.
If QS gets it wrong then it could be a total lemon but OTOH if they get it right I'm sure it'll be a resounding success.
I'm worried but hopeful

Incidentally are there any details available on combat specifics w.r.t command levels/orders yet?
If we want to set up fast attack squadrons for interference and hit & run flank attacks whilst support squadrons engage in long range sniping of enemy specialist units and the battle line sets up for a standard approach battle, will we be able to?
AFAIK there isn't much out yet on specifics?

[Xeovar]

Hi,

First some honey for the devs
I found out that MOO3 is in development in last few days, when I signed to these forums. As I am a big fan of MOO, and even still play MOO2 I was very happy.
I spent some time today reading MOO3 design information and data dumps (I went through half of it, rest is still waiting) and I couldn't believe my eyes
For a few years I've been thinking about a strategy that would implement a chain of command, independent leaders and this kind of strategic approach and I found something that very closely matches my ideas
Then I read more and each concept I found I really liked. Ethos, tradition and society rocks. As do races and space travel (I do not share concerns about lanes, as if I understood correctly deep space travel would be possible on any way to enemy's territory).
Concept of technology with it's split into theoretical science, applied science and applications also matches my ideas, I only don't like levels there, I'd prefer to have it all named (however I know that it's hard to come up with 200+ tech names )

At this point, I can only wish you luck and, for a MOO3 sake, I hope you won't **** it up Especially AI

And for the question I wanna ask:

Originally posted by Stormhound
LordLMP, no, you can't customize a leader. This isn't like MOO2 where you had a distinct list of leaders; leaders in MOO3 are generated ad hoc according to specific parameters, based upon various conditions of your empire, and then serve out their careers.

When I was thinking about space empire game concepts and leaders there, I came up with concept of having some academy/schools where your future leaders would be educated and so on. There you would select a candidate for a post that was free. Or you could choose a leader from other post. I assumed that leaders would have some stats (like loyality, ambition, bravery, tactical skill, etc) that would grow with experience and leaders that prove themselves could be promoted to higher ranks (or disregarded to lower in other case). I think that such solution should not be too hard to implement on technical side (well, that probably won't be more than few thousands leaders per empire at most). From gameplay point of view recuitment for lower ranks can be handled by higher rank leaders (AI)

And, finally, the question is: how is it in MOO3 according to current design ?

[Stormhound]

Leaders are generated in a way that reflects your society, and when higher-level leaders leave their job then lower-level ones can be promoted. You don't manage the hirings, firings and promotions, though you can influence them in various ways. Basically, the system is set up to be reasonable without adding an area of micromanagement. More detail I can't go into at this time, but I did a lot of the work in setting up all the tables and I think it's a pretty decent system.

[Xeovar]

Hi,

I finally read all the data dumps, and I have a few questions:

a) Diplomacy ? No word about it What interests me mainly is possibility to create 3+ sides agreements like alliances, trade organizations, common research projects and so on. How complex diplomacy you plan to implement ? Is there some place I can read about it ?

b) Emperor avatar
How closely you are tied to him ? How long will he live (in years and in turns) ? Do you plan to implement some "breeding" of emperors from noble houses or sth like that ? Is it important and possible to move this avatar (like board a Royal Cruiser and go with some task forces to the most important battle/war) ?
How related are your possibilities of action with place the avatar is ? Do you plan to include some diplomacy feature like ultra-high-level talks (between emperors of different empires, or some ministers) ?

c) Can I help you with building the game
That's not exactly a joke, as I'm project manager in IT with pretty decent programming skills (not games however), a long playing experience with strategy games (dating since ZX Spectrum).

I think I already am in love with this game, and I kindda regret I already now about it, and have to wait for at least a quarter.

[Xeovar]

I forgot one more thing:

Espionage:
I'm interested in a range of "black ops" you could run. For example is it possible to use stolen ship that belong to empire X, man it with black ops people and use to create some border incident, just to justify going to war with them ? Or at least to change public opinion about this empire ?

Could you also try to destabilize someone's economy by for example running a major counterfeit operation ?

Hope I don't bother you to much