Not that I think you're going to do this, but just as a caveat, I think there's a design flaw in a lot of turn-based tactics games with pixel-scale positioning. It's not just because of the (pseudo)continuous positioning, but because they so often combine continuous positioning and discrete weapon ranges. This means that during movement the player has to judge continuous angular distances between invisible hitboxes, and sometimes from a perspective POV, in order to know whether or not they can attack, whether they can fit into a gap in the battle, etc. So it's hard to even gauge the current possibilities of the battle, let alone possibilities a turn or two in the future.
That's a perfectly valid concern. Thanks a bunch from bringing that up. Most designs could get away by using a color code of the movement arc possibilities, but given the complexity of my weapon system (different areas on the ship have different weapons with different firing arcs and ranges) that could be a very tricky problem to solve.
Back to the drawing board :)
So my maxim for things like this is "Continuous positioning requires continuous weapon efficacy", where a ship being 103 pixels away rather than 100 pixels away doesn't mean it can't be targeted. It might be a bit less accurate, or a bit less powerful, but there shouldn't be any actions that are 100% effective at distance 100 and 0% effective at distance 103.
I lean towards that approach as well. Especially with regards to accuracy and damage.
For example, the Scatter Cannon I use in the game currently has relatively poor stats, but the closer you get to your target, the more armor piercing damage it causes, making it a particularly vicious close-quarters weapon.
Longer-range weapons such as missiles would only have very poor accuracy at longer range (not as a random% but rather, a deviation arc at launch which simply gets worse as you move away by means of sheer geometry).
(Apologies if that's obvious to you. I just mention it because it certainly wasn't obvious in the past.)
It's never obvious, and better say it one too many times than not. Thanks again for pointing out this problem as I'll undoubtedly need to find clever means of messaging that to the player effectively.
No. I didn't allow cloaking in my game.
What was the company behind the game (now defunct)?