[Question # 1 - Should there be more AI types?]

Greetings fellow developers!
I'm currently in the process of building a 4X game, and I'd be in need of input in regards to the Combat Playback module.
 
Context
This module is named Combat Playback, because there is no user input during combat sequences. They are generated when a turn is processed on the backend-side, and returned to the player. The Combat Playback simply displays the outcome.
When I refer to Combat Playback in this post, I am referring to both the 'frontend display' and the 'backend logic' of the outcome.
 
Reference
Here's a

that I've posted on youtube. It shows the progress that's been made towards building the Combat Playback prototype. Most of the rest of the game is already well underway, but the Combat Playback is, but an embryo at this stage.
 
Design Questions
There's a number of questions that I'd like to raise here, and please don't feel limited by them to provide feedback (so long as you understand that this is early work, without any form of polish, and with a lot of missing assets).
 
As you can see in the fight, ships will automatically acquire a target. For the moment being, this target is always the 'nearest enemy ship'. This was made both because it's my first stab at this, but also because I don't want the AI to be something players rage about. If the 'wrong AI' kicks in, I feel players will get mad.
 
Question # 1 - Should there be more AI types?
Specifically, should I have ships target the 'weakest', or retain their target until it is dead?
Question # 2 - How should I choose which AI to bind to which ship?
Assuming there should be more than one AI type, how should I dictate which AI does what?
Here's a few options I've got right now:
 
A - Contextual: the ship tries to evaluate what should be done, and assigns
itself a 'role' in this battle.
Pros: This could lead to 'intelligent' decision-making
Cons: This could easily lead to verrrrryy dumb decision-making, and would require a lot more effort
 
B - Ship-centric: When choosing what ship to build in the game, it also states its 'AI pattern' (aka how the ship behaves)
Pros: Clean, easy, and recognizable by the player.
Cons: Very limitating, and some player choices could be considered 'bad' (not seeing that a ship attacks only the nearest ship and equipping long-range weaponry could lead to sad cornercases).

Question # 3 - How should the AI respond to 'being in firing range'
The prototype also assumes specific AIs for movement and attack. The basic AI right now is to move until one weapon is in range of the closest enemy, and fire (idle).
Each ship will be equipped with possibly more than one weapon, each with varying ranges.
I'm wondering how each ship should behave assuming that.
A few 'sketches' of what I thought could work well:

• As long as a ship is not within range / is not the current target of any other ship, it will stop moving as soon as at least 1 weapon is in firing range. The idea here is that it allows 'artillery-type' ships to take full advantage of their attack range without moving closer and endanger themselves.

• As soon as a ship is the target of another ship and in being fired at, it seeks to move as close as its 'shortest ranged' weapon. The idea is to have it perform its optimal amount of damage.
• Once all of its weapons are in firing range, it assumes a 'circular orbit' around the target. The idea is to avoid fire from 'other' enemies that might want to acquire it as well and minimize the chances of 2v1s. It's also a good way to avoid what can be seen in the video: ships stopping to move for no apparent reason, which doesn't look very exciting.

That's it for now. I'll add more if anything pops-up
 
Thanks!

touche...
There!

although, in that regard, an imagw speaks louder than words

[Devlog Entry # 7]

Devlog Entry # 7

Our 'dev spree' is slowly coming to an end, so I really wanted to do something special before things slow down a bit.

I've started to lay the foundations for the 'combat replay'.




It's really not a combat system, as there won't be any player input. Our intent has always been to put emphasis on strategy, not player keyboard/mouse handling skills, and this system is no exception.

Essentially, ships will spawn in an enclosed area and 'fight it out' but there will be more subtleties to it, such as how reinforcements are handled, weapon range, etc.
The 'combat replay' is meant as a strong tool for players to learn more about the inherent logic of combat rules. Our intent is to let them SEE and EXPERIENCE the result of their choices, so that they can learn from this.
Being a 'spectator' isn't necessarily fun per se, but it does insure we will have the full player's awareness.

Ship's AI is well underway:

• They are able to acquire a target (and reacquire) as needed.
• Ships will move towards their target until they are within firing range.
• Ships will rotate the pitch of their helm to keep track of their target.

Todos:

• Currently, the check on 'attack range' is made against a single variable, instead of all of the weapon components aboard the ship. (I'll need to define a behavior for that too).
• Actual ship movement needs a bit of polish so that I can adjust ship's relative speed and avoid what could be described as lag.
• The 'bullet' class doesn't exist, which means I'm only faking projectiles this far.
• This is standalone code. At some point, we'll need to include that as part of the main game, and connect to the entities that are already there (rather than fake them through hard coded JSONs).
• The pixel-art ship is a WIP.

Thoughts?

@SterlingDee:
Hey there!
Just so you're not disappointed by what we're trying to achieve, I'll post my comments on the games you've mentioned. Hopefully that will help you determine whether it's still something you could be interested in:

• MOOII is a great game, but it is on the 'abstract' side of the spectrum of 4X games. You could say we're on the OTHER end. Everything is meant to be drastically 'real' in our game: resources are stockpiled on planets, moved about by freighters which are just like any other ship you control.
• Galciv I and II were also fairly abstract. Winning through influence had its appeal, but we conceive influence as something much more 'concrete' than a number. We want emergent strategies in the game, and would rather let player relationships operate (you can blackmail, mislead, etc).
• Endless Space, as per most 4X games, is an example of what we're trying to avoid as far as combats are concerned. We want 'fewer' ships on screen, and insure the player has a clear understanding of what's going on. Ideally, we should be able to track each projectile, see how much damage it deals (if we want) so that its a learning process, as opposed to a 'cinematic' of your supremacy. I DID like their art style however, it was refreshing for such a modern 3D game to try to do things a bit differently.
• I only vaguely remember Imperium Galactica (please don't throw stones at me!).
• Sins of a Solar Empire... I'm glad you're not a fan. Sword of the Stars is another title that comes to mind. A lot of these games are so alike that I tend to confuse them, so I won't go into details, but for the most part, I think we've distanciated ourselves from these games through our methodology. We've taken parts we didn't like about modern 4X games, and removed them. The 'void' was naturally filled with other features instead. It may not be 'better' (I'd like to think we've made better decisions, but you never know). At least, it won't feel like a rehash from modern games.

There.
Hopefully that gives you hope on what's to come next!

Hey there. Been a while. (subscribes to this thread).
Love the style btw!

i think the numbers give a good indicator of the breadth of this project.
1000 areas is no small feat and I'm assuming its not a linear progression either so it really speaks for itself.
Id keep at least that number.

First screenshot of our project!



Here is a link to our devblog: http://automaticity-game.tumblr.com/

I really love the look of the game. Keep up the good work.

feels like what the lounge lizards shouldve looked like in larry suite leisure!

@Hypnotron
In regards to your listed refs, we're currently looking into the "Earth and Beyond" soundtrack and see if we can cook up something in that vein. It's another good example (with a much lesser scope) of tracks tailored to a species that isn't an obvious orchestral ripoff!

Fixed!!
 

From upclose:

[DevLog Entry # 6]

DevLog Entry # 6

Amazing work this weekend.
Yannick imported my GalaxyGenerator script (which was done in Dart) to the PHP backend effortlessly and the result is this:



We have generated galaxies!
All Planets now have their own 'personalities' (climate, resources, etc.)

To achieve the above result, Yannick modified the code so that we can zoom in/out, which was a feature we had shelved for later, but became mandatory given the size of the galaxies. There are still a few instabilities with that, but overall, it works allright.

We spent the rest of the weekend arguing over the Combat Replay System (which will soon be our next big system to implement) and have yet to come to a conclusion on that.
Planet management is also WIP.

And with that said, I figure it's about time to announce....
*Drumroll*

That we're moving to the 20% marker completion of the overall project! (and are well past the 50% marker for the prototype).

Like I said, amazing work this weekend!

What are your current experiences, and are they in the indie world?
As 'stupid' as it may sound, I like to work for hire because it lets me learn stuff without taking all of the risk.
I wouldn't start in production on my own thing, nor would I do so as a producer.

If you want to make your own game:
- be the programmer

If you want to be a producer:
- work at a small company that's hiring junior producers

Thanks for voicing your concerns. I'm pretty sure they are that of many 'silent' users out there, and hopefully I'll do a decent job at addressing them:

I realize that an NDA might turn off a lot of people, but it avoids 'sad stories' and it keeps the frauds at bay. Its true that the number of applicants so far is relatively low (4) but I'd rather have that than 300 PM of wannabe developers to sort through.

By the way, I currently contract freelancers for most of the art, which do mean I'm being an employer (I operate under a legal business name, and I pay for services). The applicant can expect the same kind of legal respect in regards to the equity he'll be due.

There is however a reason why I'm not seeking to simply contract a freelancer for the development of this game: I don't want a 'monkey'. I'm genuinely looking for a partner that can challenge the concept, find creative ways to improve it, etc.
In my opinion, a partner needs to have stakes in the project. Sharing equity (and profits) is one means to achieve that I believe.

I realize however that this post might come across as 'another indie that won't pay anybody and a project that probably will never ship' and its very hard to break that image without a strong reputation.

As you've seen in my Devlog, you already know that I'm not just an ideas-man. I also happen to do some of the programming along with the UI design mockups (and I finance this game by paying for freelancers and any required services). I'm also the Producer. In other words, I'm dearly committed to the success of this title, and I hire only to supplement, not to command.

In real-life, I'm a seasoned video game producer. I've worked at multiple studios (such as Ubisoft). If the game ends up not making any profit, I still have the ability to issue valuable letters of recommendation in case anyone still needs a job in the industry.

I understand that my proposal may not be appealing to most, but I'm pretty sure that, with the right exposition, I'll find the perfect match.

Updated original post.

[quality]

Yes Ascendancy was a special game indeed.

There was something about Ascendancy that went beyond gameplay and the technical part of the graphics. I've always put gameplay above everything and I find the gameplay of Ascendancy to be only above average (again, my personal opinion) yet I cannot help but marvel at all the 'small' things which define its flavor. The music, the unique races, their themes, the way they are depicted in the games artwork. It's all very alluring.

This is a very accurate comment.
Rarely do games manage to pull-off this level of emotional attachment.
Unfortunately for me, gameplay made replayability low. Though the game experience was fun in its discovery stage, it didn't have the lasting appeal of other games.

I was particularly fond of StarCraft 1's Protoss campaign for very similar reasons, although in a completely different game.

Dune 2 also achieved a very narrow experience to utmost perfection in my honest opinion. It has thematic gameplay and lore in the right quantities.

Unfortunately, this isn't an exact science that can be taught. Its something you need to feel.
I strongly believe that achieving this level of 'balance' requires a very small dedicated team. The problem with indies however is that they're often overwhelmed by the positive feedbacks of their playerbase, and end up releasing a 'gimmick game' that feels like an overblown prototype.
I'd attribute this to the saying 'keep it simple'. Though keeping it simple is a great designer advice, its also a recipe for a game that lacks depth and mood.
Pursuing your own vision should always remain the focus, and a vision doesn't need to rely solely on gameplay mechanics.

Todd Howard, at Bethesda, explained during his dice keynote in 2011 that a The Elder Scroll game was built as a 'feeling', and after adding/removing stuff from the game, they'd play it and check if they still had the TES vibe. They didn't ask if it was good, that's not limiting enough, they asked if it was a TES game, which was their own standard for quality AND feel.

/Rant

A Music Track!

So we've been hard at work trying to define what the style would be for this game and music was still an unknown. I've stumbled on a track that was previously produced for another (now defunct) game I was working on, and it felt like a perfect match.
I reached out to the composer and inquired about whether I could use it for this game (and if he'd be interested to score more in this vein) and he answered positively.

Do you like it? Does it fit the 'feel'?

These are gorgeously awesome!

[Given the choice between these two art styles in a 4X game, which would you rather play with?]

Hey folks,

I'm currently making a sort of retro 4X game and I'm stuck with a hard decision to make.
I've investigated two avenues for the art style of my spaceships, and I'm having a rough time deciding which style fits best.

Can you lend a hand?

----


Given the choice between these two art styles in a 4X game, which would you rather play with?

A - Illustration



OR

B - Pixel-Art




Thanks for taking the time!

[The biggest factor was probably how it was one of the first 4X games I was exposed to as a kid]

What made your mind 'tick' for Stars! exactly?

The complexity and the strategy appealed to me in a unique way. The biggest factor was probably how it was one of the first 4X games I was exposed to as a kid. I enjoyed Galactic Civ II a hell of a lot, but it still lacked some of the allure for me.

We sadly can't do much to emulate the nostalgia feeling here... However, we've decided to keep most of the in-game art fairly retro to emulate that.
Galciv2, to me, was too abstract. We're trying to keep everything more 'real' so to speak.

Just plain gorgeous. Love the 'feel' of this game, and the theme is very 'you'.