Capital ship combat

[J1M]

Aside from some older story-focused Star Trek games like Bridge Commander, I can't think of many games that put the player in the captain's seat of a capital ship.

Most games that could potentially fall into this category suffer from these common pitfalls:

• The games are actually about fleet combat instead of capital ship combat. Controlling a dozen ships does not have the same feel and doesn't allow for details like power or officer allocation.
• There's an impedance mismatch between the theme and the combat. Commonly seen in the board game space as well, sadly sci-fi capital ship combat is presented as basically windless Age of Sail combat with broadside laser cannons.
  • (Essentially, combat boils down to trying to line up a shot while keeping your ship turned such that the side with the strongest shields faces the enemy.)

Why aren't there more games that provide this fantasy? Or am I just unaware of them?

 

[Joggerino]

I only played capital ship combat in x4 recently, it was also all about pointing your strongest weapons towards the enemy. You could also count carrier combat as capital ship combat, there's also the logistics aspect like resupply of missiles.

 

[Norfleet]

[*](Essentially, combat boils down to trying to line up a shot while keeping your ship turned such that the side with the strongest shields faces the enemy.)

Now I'm curious: What were you hoping for if not this sort of model?

 

[rusty_shackleford]

Star Trek Online.

Spoiler

mostly just to annoy norfleet, but it's still good .

 

[rusty_shackleford]

(Essentially, combat boils down to trying to line up a shot while keeping your ship turned such that the side with the strongest shields faces the enemy.)

"Realistic" combat would just be AI doing everything with no human input whatsoever.

 

[Norfleet]

Star Trek Online.

Spoiler

mostly just to annoy norfleet, but it's still good .

STO is just a reductive version of this model, since it was SUPPOSED to be this model but has degenerated into simply shooting everything until it dies.

 

[J1M]

[*](Essentially, combat boils down to trying to line up a shot while keeping your ship turned such that the side with the strongest shields faces the enemy.)

Now I'm curious: What were you hoping for if not this sort of model?

If you draw upon other media as sources, the better depictions often boil down to gamesmanship and a test of wills.

From a game design perspective, the question to answer is how to make tactical combat fun when you only control one unit and the enemy also often controls only one unit.

Preliminary thoughts:

• Using phase-based combat or another twist on turn structure could create uncharted design space that is better suited to a single unit.
• Alternate win conditions could provide elements of surprise and complexity (holding a certain position, seizing control of the other ship, something map specific, destroying specific enemy systems).
• Model momentum and gravity at an interesting scale, creating an element of 'skill' with regards to movement.
• Risk vs. reward mechanics with analog outcomes:
  • An ability that restores shields to 100% that can only be used once.
  • Weapons that are more powerful but require anticipating the enemy's future location.
  • EMP attack that can be countered by powering down shields and other systems prior to impact.
• Asymmetrical ship capabilities.

 

[Arrowgrab]

The games are actually about fleet combat instead of capital ship combat. Controlling a dozen ships does not have the same feel and doesn't allow for details like power or officer allocation.

From a game design perspective, the question to answer is how to make tactical combat fun when you only control one unit and the enemy also often controls only one unit.

The thing is that as long as we use the phrase "capital ship" in any sense that's reasonably related to real-life historical usage, capital ships have no business fighting alone, generally speaking.

Whether we're talking Age of Sail, dreadnoughts, WWI, interbellum, WWII or modern naval warfare, capital ships are supposed to operate as part of a group. If a side only has a single capital ship and nothing else in an engagement, that side has already fucked up majorly. If both sides only have a single capital ship each, they've both already fucked up majorly. So (again, with any halfway real life-based definition of "capital ship"), asking for a game where you control a capital ship AND fight alone rather than in a fleet inherently flies in the face of the concept. OR, you can just redefine "capital ship" and the entire technological and doctrinal paradigm in your sci-fi game to whatever the hell you want with absolutely no resemblance to anything humanity has ever seen, but then commanding a "capital ship" in that game will NOT feel anything like "WWII cap ship but in space."

 

[J1M]

The games are actually about fleet combat instead of capital ship combat. Controlling a dozen ships does not have the same feel and doesn't allow for details like power or officer allocation.

From a game design perspective, the question to answer is how to make tactical combat fun when you only control one unit and the enemy also often controls only one unit.

The thing is that as long as we use the phrase "capital ship" in any sense that's reasonably related to real-life historical usage, capital ships have no business fighting alone, generally speaking.

Whether we're talking Age of Sail, dreadnoughts, WWI, interbellum, WWII or modern naval warfare, capital ships are supposed to operate as part of a group. If a side only has a single capital ship and nothing else in an engagement, that side has already fucked up majorly. If both sides only have a single capital ship each, they've both already fucked up majorly. So (again, with any halfway real life-based definition of "capital ship"), asking for a game where you control a capital ship AND fight alone rather than in a fleet inherently flies in the face of the concept. OR, you can just redefine "capital ship" and the entire technological and doctrinal paradigm in your sci-fi game to whatever the hell you want with absolutely no resemblance to anything humanity has ever seen, but then commanding a "capital ship" in that game will NOT feel anything like "WWII cap ship but in space."

What is the correct terminology for this type of ship commonly seen in sci-fi?

 

[Morpheus Kitami]

The Star Trek: Starfleet Command series does what you're thinking of, but you probably already counted that, even though it isn't a story-based game.
Modern-wise the closest I've seen is Starsector, which does involve multiple ships, but it has one of the most satisfying combat systems I've encountered in these kinds of games.
Of course, that said, both games suffer from the exact pitfalls you mention. Really just 2D space. While you control a single ship you are commanding a fleet of them.

This is actually something I've been thinking a lot of lately. Wanted to try my own hand at making one since I've always found scifi RPGs to be disappointing in someway. Making the whole thing 3D space seems irrelevant unless you're using a ton of ships at once. And handling everything even semi-realistically basically just turns everything into a jousting match or two ships trying to circle one another. Its no wonder why so many games have failed at making it fun,

 

[Norfleet]

Preliminary thoughts:

• Using phase-based combat or another twist on turn structure could create uncharted design space that is better suited to a single unit.
• Alternate win conditions could provide elements of surprise and complexity (holding a certain position, seizing control of the other ship, something map specific, destroying specific enemy systems).
• Model momentum and gravity at an interesting scale, creating an element of 'skill' with regards to movement.
• Risk vs. reward mechanics with analog outcomes:
  • An ability that restores shields to 100% that can only be used once.
  • Weapons that are more powerful but require anticipating the enemy's future location.
  • EMP attack that can be countered by powering down shields and other systems prior to impact.
• Asymmetrical ship capabilities.

So I notice this list of proposals does not actually change the paradigm of combat, which remains essentially spaceboats, you just seem to be asking for more features than just simplistic hitpoint-based slugging matches.

What is the correct terminology for this type of ship commonly seen in sci-fi?

"Imbecility" or maybe "Space Debris". If you're thinking of the notion of Star Trek combat where two giant spaceships face off against each other in single combat, this notion pretty much never holds up even in games of that franchise. Once you have the ability to order multiple units around, you will almost NEVER send a single, expensive unit off unescorted in hopes that your opponent will do likewise. The incentive to "cheat" by attaching escorts is simply too high. This idea thus immediately crumbles in the face of action.

The best you could realistically expect is something like Krellan Commander, where the focus is still on your main capital ship, but you DO still have smaller escort craft as part of your control. It's just that these ships are smaller and have fewer buttons.

 

[J1M]

Preliminary thoughts:

• Using phase-based combat or another twist on turn structure could create uncharted design space that is better suited to a single unit.
• Alternate win conditions could provide elements of surprise and complexity (holding a certain position, seizing control of the other ship, something map specific, destroying specific enemy systems).
• Model momentum and gravity at an interesting scale, creating an element of 'skill' with regards to movement.
• Risk vs. reward mechanics with analog outcomes:
  • An ability that restores shields to 100% that can only be used once.
  • Weapons that are more powerful but require anticipating the enemy's future location.
  • EMP attack that can be countered by powering down shields and other systems prior to impact.
• Asymmetrical ship capabilities.

So I notice this list of proposals does not actually change the paradigm of combat, which remains essentially spaceboats, you just seem to be asking for more features than just simplistic hitpoint-based slugging matches.

What is the correct terminology for this type of ship commonly seen in sci-fi?

"Imbecility" or maybe "Space Debris". If you're thinking of the notion of Star Trek combat where two giant spaceships face off against each other in single combat, this notion pretty much never holds up even in games of that franchise. Once you have the ability to order multiple units around, you will almost NEVER send a single, expensive unit off unescorted in hopes that your opponent will do likewise. The incentive to "cheat" by attaching escorts is simply too high. This idea thus immediately crumbles in the face of action.

The best you could realistically expect is something like Krellan Commander, where the focus is still on your main capital ship, but you DO still have smaller escort craft as part of your control. It's just that these ships are smaller and have fewer buttons.

I thought I was fairly explicit about not wanting "real ships in space" in the OP, so I'm surprised by people here throwing around "realism" as a reason for why this wouldn't be a fun subgenre of game. Especially because nobody has any real examples of space ship combat to draw from. You can always imagine some head cannon for why larger power cores completely outstrip small ones and make entire classes of ship obsolete.

I'm genuinely interested if you have any thoughts on what you think would change the combat paradigm.

 

[asfasdf]

Maybe Starsector type of fight fills a bit what you want? It allows for varied strategy, like having ships which can do fast hits and run, or more balanced large ships which can sustain longer attrition fights. Missiles and torpedoes can severely imbalance a fight if applied opportunely. I suppose in the end the larger ships do have to consider where their shields are, though, and a lot of the process of taking them down is about outmaneuvering them. But at least you have some variation on the how. Some ships are virtually moving fortresses also, and can take down whole fleets.

 

[Norfleet]

I thought I was fairly explicit about not wanting "real ships in space" in the OP, so I'm surprised by people here throwing around "realism" as a reason for why this wouldn't be a fun subgenre of game.

Keep in mind, I didn't say "realism", as in "realism in the game". I said "realistically expect", as in, what you can expect to actually find as a game for real, not what imaginary game you idealize in your head.

Especially because nobody has any real examples of space ship combat to draw from.

Well, if you want the most REAL example of space ship combat to draw from, you go play COADE.

You can always imagine some head cannon for why larger power cores completely outstrip small ones and make entire classes of ship obsolete.

Well, even in such a scenario, someone will cheat your one-on-one rule by deciding they will send TWO ships together. Because two-on-one is clearly much better than one-on-one. The only way you could avoid this is to make such ships incredibly valuable, such as making them derived from lost or exotic tech, to the point where an organization only HAS like one of them. But then you have a very short story that ends in a single fight. It's very hard to contrive a scenario in which many such creatures can exist for you to fight, yet you will only ever encounter one at a time, and they're so beyond anytihng else that nobody will attach escorts to them.

I'm genuinely interested if you have any thoughts on what you think would change the combat paradigm.

Well, from what I can tell, detailed "large" (dogfighting and dodging is not really a thing) spaceship combat games tend to break down along two basic lines: Do "shields" exist or not? If there is some kind of significant regenerative protection in play, then combat revolves around trying to maximize your use of these while penetrating your enemy's. Skillful play will enable you to win "clean" victories in which you lose little or nothing while your opponent wipes. The other possible model is one based largely around attrition and damage control and everyone tends to end up mauled in the process. This variant seems somewhat less popular with detailed combat models since it tends to involve way too much micromanagement.

But really, the question is what YOU want. Because on one hand, you state you want to get away from the more traditional spaceboat combat model, but at the same time, the examples you cite seem to be more spaceboat talk. So what is it you want? An experience totally unlike commanding any kind of boat, or just a boat with more buttons and greater complexity than a few hitpoint bars?

 

[Nathaniel3W]

You should check out Artemis SBS. As far as I know, there's nothing else like it.

You buy it once and you'll allowed to give free copies to everyone who makes up your bridge crew, and if they ever want to start up a new bridge without you then they need to buy their own copy. I think the Steam license is different. With that, every member of your crew has to own a (cheaper) copy of the game on Steam.

You should have a big TV for the main screen of the bridge. The captain keeps his eyes on that and gives orders to the rest of the crew. The rest of the crew members take positions at weapons, helm, science, communications, or the fighter wing. Then you fly around and do Star-Trek-like stuff.

 

[J_C]

Nexus: The Jupiter incident is something like that IIRC.

 

[Mostly_Harmless]

Have you tried Universal Combat? I played the original Battlecruiser 3000AD long time ago, so I don't remember much about it, but it's worth checking out. In addition to your ship you have a fighter wing and some ground vehicles, but there's a lot of capship on capship violence iirc, including boarding parties that can disable your ship systems or kill some important crewmembers. The dev makes basically the same game for close to 30 years now, so not sure if it's better than the original, stagnated or worse.

 

[Galdred]

You should check out Artemis SBS. As far as I know, there's nothing else like it.

You buy it once and you'll allowed to give free copies to everyone who makes up your bridge crew, and if they ever want to start up a new bridge without you then they need to buy their own copy. I think the Steam license is different. With that, every member of your crew has to own a (cheaper) copy of the game on Steam.

You should have a big TV for the main screen of the bridge. The captain keeps his eyes on that and gives orders to the rest of the crew. The rest of the crew members take positions at weapons, helm, science, communications, or the fighter wing. Then you fly around and do Star-Trek-like stuff.

Pulsar is kind of 3D Artemis (a bit clunkier, but 3D does add some stuff). It is also coop (but you can play with bots as crewmates).

I agree that the capital ship concept requires other ships to escort the capital ship
For that, you have Starshatter that has you flying ships going from fighters to cruisers, then to carriers (I don't recall there being battleships or larger, though). But carrier is mostly about giving order to your escort and fighters, so it might not be what the OP is looking for.

Void Destroyer 2 has you going from fighter to Cruiser too, then to carrier, and has some light X4 management elements, but the larger ships may not feel different enough from the smaller ones (in the way they work in the game).

Carrier Command 2 is not in space, but it seems to come the closest to the feel of operating a huge ship from the bridge.

I would like a game that feels a bit like the Sea Dogs series, but in space, in which you have a crew, and your ship feels big.
I think FTL came close, but the ships were pretty small, and there was no "outside" positioning at all.

 

[Arrowgrab]

What is the correct terminology for this type of ship commonly seen in sci-fi?

"Space Opera combat". I'm honestly not trying to be frustrating here, but I have to circle back to what I wrote earlier: either you set up a very specific and very much not Earthlike set of technological assumptions, or you just go "screw realism, we'll do it because it's cool." And the latter would fall mostly in the purview of the Space Opera genre. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that, just be aware that Space Opera logic has precious little to do with realism.

I'm genuinely interested if you have any thoughts on what you think would change the combat paradigm.

Well, how about this? Travel between star systems is achieved with a hyperdrive, which has to notable qualities. One, it's one-size-fits-all. A tiny liaison ship and a massive carrier need the same sort of hyperdrive. Two, hyperdrives are either obscenely expensive, making up 90% of a ship's cost, or there's a very limited number of them available and no more can be built. Additionally, we must also postulate that civilization is spread over numerous star system, many of which are well-developed (meaning they stuff worth invading/capturing, and that stuff is well-defended enough to make invading/capturing a major undertaking).

Under these specific stipulations, it would make sense to build large multi-purpose vessels not unlike Imperial Star Destroyers from Star Wars, simply because you don't have enough hyperdrives to build a larger number of more specialised ships.

 

[Nathaniel3W]

Arrowgrab my thinking took me along that same path. I was actually thinking about Battletech's jump ships and Dune's spacefolders. In both cases, the FTL ship is something special. In Battletech they are irreplaceable and in Dune they are controlled by the Spacing Guild and can only be guided by a spiced-up Guild navigator. But that's where my train of thought takes a different path: Because those ships are so special, they don't actually take part in combat. They move fleets or armies which disembark from the FTL transport and the fighting takes place elsewhere.

 

[Norfleet]

Under these specific stipulations, it would make sense to build large multi-purpose vessels not unlike Imperial Star Destroyers from Star Wars, simply because you don't have enough hyperdrives to build a larger number of more specialised ships.

Well, that moves you away from the fleets-at-sea approach, but quickly plunges you right into "carrier warfare" territory. Because ships are carrying all these non-combat systems, they now become terribly squishy, so start attacking each other from safe distances with carried non-warpable craft, and you're back into the "fleet action" game, now with Space Fighters.

But that's where my train of thought takes a different path: Because those ships are so special, they don't actually take part in combat. They move fleets or armies which disembark from the FTL transport and the fighting takes place elsewhere.

Yes, even if they DO take part in combat, they'll take part in combat at a DISTANCE, by launching smaller, more expendable units at each other. Because a ship that goes all-in and doesn't launch these expendable units is at risk for being wiped with impunity by a unit that DOES launch units from beyond the reach of that other unit, which means you're going to see an arms race of carriers trying to wipe out the opponent's fightergroup before it reaches them while bombing their opponent. This is how you get Wing Commander, not battleship duels.

 

[Morpheus Kitami]

I thought I was fairly explicit about not wanting "real ships in space" in the OP, so I'm surprised by people here throwing around "realism" as a reason for why this wouldn't be a fun subgenre of game. Especially because nobody has any real examples of space ship combat to draw from.

I was thinking more of realism in the movement sense. Spaceships in real life have one big engine for getting to point A to point B, and then a lot of small engines for what direction to go in. Space games don't really think about that. You can't take out a guy's left and right turn thrusters so he can't move around as well. And I think the problem with this idea, is that in a deep space combat with nothing around, which is where its highly likely one would occur, would basically just turn into two ships charging at one another, turning around and repeating until someone's shield breaks.

 

[MadMaxHellfire]

Nexus: The Jupiter incident is something like that IIRC.

it's about fleets and not a single ship.

Have you tried Universal Combat? I played the original Battlecruiser 3000AD long time ago, so I don't remember much about it, but it's worth checking out. In addition to your ship you have a fighter wing and some ground vehicles, but there's a lot of capship on capship violence iirc, including boarding parties that can disable your ship systems or kill some important crewmembers. The dev makes basically the same game for close to 30 years now, so not sure if it's better than the original, stagnated or worse.

quick guys! hide your coke vending machines!

Yes, even if they DO take part in combat, they'll take part in combat at a DISTANCE, by launching smaller, more expendable units at each other. Because a ship that goes all-in and doesn't launch these expendable units is at risk for being wiped with impunity by a unit that DOES launch units from beyond the reach of that other unit, which means you're going to see an arms race of carriers trying to wipe out the opponent's fightergroup before it reaches them while bombing their opponent. This is how you get Wing Commander, not battleship duels.

depends on the "rules" you're going to use. in freespace 2 a capital ship is perfectly capable of warping in, annihilating a same-weight one with a single volley, absolutely not give a fuck about small ships flying around and then warp away.

 

[Norfleet]

in freespace 2 a capital ship is perfectly capable of warping in, annihilating a same-weight one with a single volley, absolutely not give a fuck about small ships flying around and then warp away.

That only happens because the ones doing it are super-aliens, though. It's not considered to be within the capabilities of "normal peoples", and this event occurs precisely to demonstrate that the aliens are super-scary. Freespace pretty much illustrates my point in every other way.

 

[Wulfric Pinewood]

Battle of capital ships makes me think about two overweight women fighting in the chocolate.