| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Cailais
Amarr
Domus Fatalis
X-PACT
   |
Posted - 2007.02.16 17:08:00 -
[1]
Implementation of Tactical warfare in EVE.
Currently the majority of 'warfare' conducted in EVE follows the attritional method. One side lines up against the other and the firing
commences until one of the protaganists is either destroyed or is defeated and withdraws.
At least thats the theory. The reality is that while these slugging matches working reasonabley well with very small fleets large concentrations
of ships in a given system are beyond current technology and either unplayable lag ensues or the whole node just collapses under the strain.
The nature of large scale fleet battles is also somewhat unappealing as 'focused fire' reduces individual ships to atoms in seconds - a not very
rewarding experience for the victim who is reduced to a level of helplessness. I would imagine that most pilots would be happy to 'go down fighting'
and maybe even take a few of their enemy with them - but this rarely occurs. Such disempowerment is a real turn off for many.
The culprit? As already identified; the 'blob'. The solution? Tactical Warfare; but as we have already noted the singular tactic in EVE is attritional
warfare. What other forms of warfare are available; well most military analyists will tell you the predominant counter to attritional warfare is
'manouveur'warfare. But manouver warfare requires that you strike an enemy at a variety of points of weakness for example hitting his
logistic supply chain, communications, or attacking multiple target from unexpected directions. In this manner numericaly smaller forces
can have a disproportionate effect.
EVE has two disbarments to implementing such a strategy. Firstly at the low level (i.e. in system) all ships have a 360 degree field of fire
and view so it is nigh on impossible to attack from an unexpected direction. Secondly at the next higher level the design of EVE space equally
precludes manouvering smaller forces - at maximum a system has 4 gates and travel within system is effectively instantaneous; no real
advantage is gained from attacking through one gate - or another.
But it at the highest level that the concept really falls apart. The defender must wish to protect something, but this can all be done by one fleet
in one system, probably on one gate - the bottle kneck. In order to strike at the opponents logistics (be that POS / outpost or whatever)
the attacker must pass through that bottlekneck.
In order to prevent the defender from 'blobing' he must have multiple locations/resources to defend, and multiple routes
to those locations/resources to defend. In order to do this he must split his available manpower - thus reducing his own ability to 'blob' or
concentrate his forces. Equally the defender must have the equivalent of 'over the horizon' intelligence, so that as he percieves various threats
approaching a variety of locations/resources he redeploys his defences appropriately.
So how is this achieved? I would argue that EVE doesn't need 'area of effect weapons' and so forth what it needs is the following.
Smaller resources that can be 'afk' produces - such as remote mining 'mini-stations' that just sit in belts in further flung systems. Mini-ship
hangars,labs, production facilities and so forth. Now the return (i isk or materials) for these individually would be limited - but they would be
new targets for the 'smaller'fleet to enagage. Each such 'mini locales' would require particular enviromental conditions in which to work
(so you wouldnt or couldnt place all of these in just one or two systems)
. These environmental conditions would come from defining systems with new environments.
Communication relays/ sensor Beacons (the name is not so important) that warns a fleet commander that hostiles have entered system X or Y. This
allows a fleet to repsond to protect that warning system, and the resources beyond.
More routes - simply more warp routes, meaning more potential approaches must be covered, splitting the blob yet further.
Ah, but wait a moment - Im sure you're thinking why doesn't the aggressor simply blob up and steam roll through all of these mini locales and
any tiny guard force their to protect them? Because the attacker also has routes and locales to defend and while his uber fleet of much death
is rolling through the outer systems he is alerted by his own beacons that his adversary is outflanking him, with several smaller fleets.
In summary until commanders can plan and execute those plans at 'universe map level' the RTS concept cannot work and we will have to endure
massive fleets literally 'bumping' into each other in the darkness.
www.sefrim.com - sig design - eve mail for details
|
Claude Leon
Gallente
Ixion Defence Systems
The Cyrene Initiative
|
Posted - 2007.02.16 17:13:00 -
[2]
Excellent post. We learned this the hard way after fighiting Star Fraction.
|
Jaggeh
Gallente
Furious Angels
|
Posted - 2007.02.16 17:27:00 -
[3]
i think the biggest problem is the 2d playing field.
yeah sure we have a 3d environment but long range travel is rarely on a 3d plane. we move from point a to point b.
if we can click on the system map at any point and select 'warp to'(a-la homeworld) then theis would add a massive tactical edge as you could position fleets for warp-in's at different staging areas before an attack.
while eve ships have a 360 degree fire arc and a 360 degree armor value the differing speeds means that fleets can break up as they approach their targets. this is exploitable as the slower ships fall to the back.
---------------------------------------
Furious Angels are recruiting
Carpe Pugya Pyga - Seize the Buttocks
|
Patamon
|
Posted - 2007.02.16 17:35:00 -
[4]
While I am sure we will not see this implemented I would like to see a more complex combat model. One that takes into account gun facing and fields of fire. One that has shields with facings as well as armor in locations. This would make manuvering a much more important aspect of the game. Add the ability to beef up shields on one facing to make it last longer and you get some serious tactical situations.
In addition to this it would be nice to see a gradual damage model. For example early damage might take out a gun or a launcher or cause an afterburner to fail. More damage could result in a lower of speed, the destruction of cargo and so on.
|
Backalley Anna
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2007.02.16 18:55:00 -
[5]
Some interesting ideas however I think a lot of them are already implemented in ways you haven't addressed. POS' essentially function as your outposts, the smaller resources requiring defense. As for manouver warfare, many Corps operate on such a principle now. Inty gangs striking against mining ops and haulers is a prime example, I don't think individual ship mobility is a problem. The choke-points created by the essentially 2d nature of space travel is the real limiting factor on movement, but then again I'm just a free-spacer. 
I'm not sure how the micro-management of directional shields (as in early Star Wars flight sims) would play out in Eve. We already have module/cap management, drone management, and speed/range management. I tend to actually "fly" my ships quite a bit in combat, admitidly less so with BS' in fleet ops. I really like the notion of a loss of ship capability as damage increases. I find the idea that your ship is 100% functional throughout the entire vessel until that last 1% structure to be a little hard to accept conceptually. It would make alpha-strike the be all end all in PVP, which isn't always the case in smaller engagements. Good post overall, it got the gears turning.
"Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done." R.A. Heinlein |
Backalley Anna
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2007.02.16 18:55:00 -
[6]
Some interesting ideas however I think a lot of them are already implemented in ways you haven't addressed. POS' essentially function as your outposts, the smaller resources requiring defense. As for manouver warfare, many Corps operate on such a principle now. Inty gangs striking against mining ops and haulers is a prime example, I don't think individual ship mobility is a problem. The choke-points created by the essentially 2d nature of space travel is the real limiting factor on movement, but then again I'm just a free-spacer.
I'm not sure how the micro-management of directional shields (as in early Star Wars flight sims) would play out in Eve. We already have module/cap management, drone management, and speed/range management. I tend to actually "fly" my ships quite a bit in combat, admitidly less so with BS' in fleet ops. I really like the notion of a loss of ship capability as damage increases. I find the idea that your ship is 100% functional throughout the entire vessel until that last 1% structure to be a little hard to accept conceptually. It would make alpha-strike the be all end all in PVP, which isn't always the case in smaller engagements. Good post overall, it got the gears turning.
"Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done." R.A. Heinlein |
Haas Noir
|
Posted - 2007.02.16 19:24:00 -
[7]
I think your AFK resource idea is excellent. Glad you posted this.
If you combine it with the idea of eliminated titans and motherships, we might get a stable universe back.
|
Dictator Dan
Caldari
Emerald Empire
|
Posted - 2007.02.16 19:26:00 -
[8]
while i like your ideas, i disagree about your thoughts on no menuaver warfare in eve, if one side has their battle like of close range ships and missile ships behind it, a fast frigate strike can elimanite the missile ships.
Spelling skillz lvl 1 ftl =(
other than that, great post 
~~~~~
My Ibis is in your air ducts, about to puncture your pod! OH NOES!
Think you can stand the corruption? |
Max Hardcase
Art of War
Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.02.16 19:41:00 -
[9]
Edited by: Max Hardcase on 16/02/2007 19:38:15
From how I understood the last dev blog about Factional warfare, they will be doing stuff like this. Small , but usefull goals that small gangs can accomplish.
Small targets that say limit use of sayfactories or repair plants in stations where mentioned somewhere iirc.
|
pigofparadise
Minmatar
S-44
Tre Kroner
|
Posted - 2007.02.16 21:39:00 -
[10]
On tactical warfare:
A possible use of T2 BSes could be directional forcefields, nigh impenetrable forcefields that are projected in front of the ship. While the shield is active the projeting BS will be almost unable to turn, however it will be able to move forward to follow movement of the fleet towards the other (gimme fleet blastermegas anyday). Either they wold have to be smallish with many of them covering the front of the fleet, or having two up close to each other will cause them to interfere causing the front shield to weaken a bit letting shots thruogh.
Thus you have ambushes possible, with fleets warping in behind the invading fleet ripping them to shreds.
A possible way to extend this would be to allow the shields of the fleets ships to be channeled through said t2 BS into a forcefield making the fleet extremely well protected from the front, with a hevy weakness to ambushes.
</rant>
|
Laboratus
Gallente
BGG
|
Posted - 2007.02.17 17:01:00 -
[11]
Very nice op post.
I however disagree with a lot of what you wrote, since quite a few of the percieved problems can be solved through innovative use of excisting methods.
I've rarely seen "fair" slugging maches. 90% of the time neither side engages if they don't have a percieved "decisive advantage" be that an advantage in numbers, experience, class, firepower, numbers, ew, mobility or logistics. The more important thing is knowing what the enemy thinks is their advantage and use that against them.
However, I'm largely suprised how many FCs bring their forces into fights quite unprepared and unready. For example the number of EW ships has decreased a lot recently. Propably because of the ECM nerf. Rather sad really.
Anyways. Back to the subject. Instapops. Are rather countered by the proper use of EW, proper aligning and moving the fleet into an advantegous position, where the fleet can shoot at the targt, but is outside weapons range from the bulk of the enemy fleet. This way, even though ships can shoot to any direction, can be caught "off guard" by using the positioning of the enemy fleet as an advantage.
Theses are just a few specific examples. For more information:
Sun Tzu - "Art of War"
"Know your self, know your enemy, and there can be no defeat"
There are a lot of tactical and strategical approaches to warfare in eve, most of them are just very rarely used.
I like your ideas about tactical enviroments. And adding more objectives to warfare. However, I also see that you are not completly aware of all features in eve.
I wish you gl in your future battles:)
___
P.S.
Post with your main.
Mind control and tin hats |
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |