Hi folks,

So I'm tinkering with tactical movement in a space tactics game and I ended up visiting a few different solutions.

[attachment=25871:Origin.png]

Let's imagine this is a spaceship. The blue arc represents the ship's fore. I know, it's just a ball, but fare with me...

The first solution I've thought about was to implement a system that would come from a tilemap (move forward, turn, etc.) with a points system, but I realized this was adding unnecessary complexity given that the game could handle these computations and that I needed to focus on the actual input.

The first input scheme I've thought about was the one from X-Wing Miniatures, where each unit has a preset list of maneuvers they can employ. These maneuvers have preset start and end positions which correspond to a specific movement in space (for example, a 2 sharp turn gives you exactly 90 degrees and a very specific distance to travel):

[attachment=25874:X-Wing.png]

This approach felt a bit fixed, so I've started researching other games.

I've stumbled across Battle Fleet 2, which proposes a system in which you can determine the final heading your ship should have, and the throttle (total distance) of the movement. The thing, however, is that the game does NOT tell you where your ship will end (how wide the arc will be, etc.) so it gives a bit of a guessing game which can be fun (am I going to end close enough? will I collide with the enemy? etc.).

[attachment=25870:Battle Fleet 2.png]

I've also played a small Pirate game which I can't remember the name of, but which sported an interested system. It basically projected an arc in front of the ship that listed all possible outcomes, and the player would drag a control in that area to determine final position. Then, the control would allow to be "turned" to give final heading, and that heading would also be limited by all possible movement patterns to reach this area.

[attachment=25872:Pirate (1).png]And once move is carried out:[attachment=25873:Pirate (2).png]

At this point, I'm leaning towards the pirate approach, which gives me a lot of flexibility, and simpler controls, but I'm not sure this is the best approach.

In an environment when movement and heading matters (mostly because ships have various weapons with greatly varying firing arcs, and ships have shapes that make it harder or easier to hit from an angle), do you feel that this is the best approach to movement / movement input?

Thanks!

I like the last one, the pirate type. Fun system and it's easy to control.

I like the last one, the pirate type. Fun system and it's easy to control.

I guess it works, but it might make movement a bit predictable. Also, I'm wondering if there are better approaches out there I haven't looked into.

I'd really like to have something original but I feel like I have to see a few more approaches before wrapping my head around this critical design question.

Thoughts?

I guess it works, but it might make movement a bit predictable. Also, I'm wondering if there are better approaches out there I haven't looked into.

I'd go for the third one, too, but unpredictable movement in tactics games is definitely interesting.

Subjectively, unpredictable movement leads me to micromanage a little less. For example, in games with discreet movement where movement isn't final (like you can cancel, or are free to run around like in Arc the Lad: Twilight of the Spirits or even Dragon Age), I get really fiddly trying to set up optimal positions and angles. But meanwhile if movement is final, I get a bit frustrated (for the reasons I detailed last time, that I might be a bit out of range for what I wanted to do, and couldn't have known).

But then if you take something like Squids, where movement is unpredictable, I can accept imperfect results, the same as I can accept a bad swing in a golf game. Frustrating, yes, but the kind I can blame myself for (which is okay) rather than blame the game for.

The first solution I've thought about was to implement a system that would come from a tilemap (move forward, turn, etc.) with a points system, but I realized this was adding unnecessary complexity given that the game could handle these computations and that I needed to focus on the actual input.

When reading tactical, I'm a great fan of turnbased/grid (in a space combat game a hex-grid). The reason is simply, that the grid is an abstract layer which helps a lot to oversee the situation and tactical options with ease. Thought this works only if you don't have too many units to control.

If you want a more interactive approach, thought it is harder to plan, then I would choose your pirat approach too.

An other approach would be to make the movement autonomous, like homeworld, where you only specify a target position/area/order.

My personal favorite would be a turnbased, grid based game. Btw. they didn't need to look ugly, take a look at space hulk ascension which pretty much hide the grid nature.

I'm actually working on a little prototype that uses something similar to the last movement type, so it's a little disappointing to hear that I wasn't as original as I thought, but absolutely fantastic to hear that the scheme works and was fun. I came up with it while trying to make a slightly less restrictive movement control than the scheme presented in SteamBirds, so that's another game you might look at for an example.

I guess it works, but it might make movement a bit predictable.

That's not necessarily a bad thing unless you really want difficult-to-predict movement as a feature. Players still have the difficulty of ensuring their target position and heading is possible within the movement arc, which can be increasingly difficult when trying to plan multiple moves ahead and deal with the unpredictable movement of another player.

I think a lot of tactics players will appreciate having predictable control over their movement with the challenge coming from responding correctly to the environment and opponent, where they might feel a bit ripped off if they have a tactically sound plan but lose the battle due to uncertainty in the movement controls.

I guess it works, but it might make movement a bit predictable

Predictable movement doesn't mean it's not fun and/or challenging. All the moves in chess are predictable and yet it's the ultimate strategy game.

Predictable movement doesn't mean it's not fun and/or challenging. All the moves in chess are predictable and yet it's the ultimate strategy game.

The fun about chess is actually predicting your opponent's moves from a preset list of moves. It is a viable and fun gameplay mechanic.

However, I found that (through playing Battle Fleet 2) I also enjoyed attempting to predict movement patterns of my own ships based on general guideline.This is also present in games like X-Wing Miniatures where you are not allowed to measure the outcome until resolution.

This approach reinforces the player's ability to estimate outcomes based on previous experiences and in turn insures that the winners, on average, are the most skilled players.

For example, X-Wing is often taxed to be a random dice game, but 3 years in a row, the same guy won the world finals. That goes to say how much positioning and gauging possible outcomes is relevant. In his 2014 match, the winner actually was one millimeter away from crashing into an asteroid. His opponent dismissed this possibility because he did not gauge the movement appropriately and discarded that outcome, but the winner went on to take a dominating position and striking a decisive blow against his opponent.

I feel that guiding the player too much makes it easier to play, but less about player skill (to a degree). It is perfectly valid, but it doesn't mean it can't be made any better.

Chess is also the ultimate strategy game because it has endured, but its finite nature means that since 2005-2006, it is assumed that a sufficiently sophisticated AI can consistently defeat grandmasters. As much as I love chess, there is indeed a design limitation that makes it finite in nature.

The alternative is also finite, but multiplies the complexity by quite a margin, especially since, in my design, all units move "at once" (simultaneously executed).

This means that unlike having each side alternately move one unit (and possibly moving the same unit over and over), all units get to move, introducing a lot of unknowns.

It is possible that increasing the risk by making the movement of your own units less predictable would be too much, but the notion carries a lot of weight regardless.

As you point out however, it does not guarantee more fun, but it certainly makes it more challenging.

I'm actually working on a little prototype that uses something similar to the last movement type, so it's a little disappointing to hear that I wasn't as original as I thought, but absolutely fantastic to hear that the scheme works and was fun. I came up with it while trying to make a slightly less restrictive movement control than the scheme presented in SteamBirds, so that's another game you might look at for an example.

Great minds think alike :)

Definitely going to have a look at SteamBirds now (Did not turn up during my searches).

That's not necessarily a bad thing unless you really want difficult-to-predict movement as a feature. Players still have the difficulty of ensuring their target position and heading is possible within the movement arc, which can be increasingly difficult when trying to plan multiple moves ahead and deal with the unpredictable movement of another player.

I think a lot of tactics players will appreciate having predictable control over their movement with the challenge coming from responding correctly to the environment and opponent, where they might feel a bit ripped off if they have a tactically sound plan but lose the battle due to uncertainty in the movement controls.

Actually, I was thinking of adding uncertainty to movement simply because I feel battles will be a bit plain. I don't have much in lieu of environmental features. Unlike a ground-based tactical game, I feel it is a bit bland.

Sid Meiers' Ace Patrol suffered the same fate I believe, as would tactical aerial combat games in general. They ended up using height as a resource for maneuverability, which filled the void of having no real environmental features (though they did include clouds, which removed line of sight, but played a bit poorly).

When reading tactical, I'm a great fan of turnbased/grid (in a space combat game a hex-grid). The reason is simply, that the grid is an abstract layer which helps a lot to oversee the situation and tactical options with ease. Thought this works only if you don't have too many units to control.

I considered that, but I felt the rules would be overly complex to make movements fit the grid. I had a few points systems designed, but ultimately, it felt like it was asking a bit much from players (true, they don't necessarily need to understand the underlying system, and just need to be showed where they can go, but I felt this was much less interesting than a simple: that ship can turn 90 degrees and move up to 100 units per turn).

An other approach would be to make the movement autonomous, like homeworld, where you only specify a target position/area/order.

Very interesting. Casting a course to an objective would probably be easier as well.

My personal favorite would be a turnbased, grid based game. Btw. they didn't need to look ugly, take a look at space hulk ascension which pretty much hide the grid nature.

I played a Space Hulk game recently on Steam and was really digging it too. I'm not worried about grid-based movement, I think grids can be show just when you need them (when selecting movement for example) and possibly affect only areas that are relevant instead of showing up on the entire screen. That's all just usability :)

like Squids

Link please! :)

Frustrating, yes, but the kind I can blame myself for (which is okay) rather than blame the game for.

As a player, I also tend to favor games in which I can blame myself for missing instead of some arbitrary measure. As a result, I also tend to include more deterministic combat systems where hidden information is responsible for my hit or miss. I found Battle Fleet II's system to be particularly interesting that regard as the player effectively chooses an angle, and distance they want to fire, with limited knowledge (a curve is drawn at 1000 and/or 2000 distance as a scale reference, but that's it).

It also helps with some strategies: if you know you have a line at 2000, and are approximately 400 away from your target, you're likely to want to move approximately 400 closer to your target to see whether you're on the line or whether you fall short a bit, or yet again the target is a bit further. That movement gives you additional information and minimizes your risk of missing your attack (at the possible expanse of making a "bad move" which leaves you open to attacks).

But that would be a different subject regarding whether I want to use a deterministic attack targeting system or a more broad angle+power approach.

Thanks folks, very enlightening!

The "Battle Fleet 2" model might be suitable in real time, if errors are easily corrected and their effect is limited (reducing movement speed slightly, wasting or losing a small fraction of shots, requiring additional maneuvers in bad cases, etc.) but not if dexterity matters to the point of turning a strategy game into Angry Birds.

The "pirates" model is obviously good for turn-based movement, and well proven in tabletop miniature games like Warhammer and (closer to starship combat) Warhammer 40000.

To avoid frustration and players placing rulers and improvised templates on their screen, take care of assistance: for a tentative end position you can display (in real time) firing arcs and firing ranges, possible targets, movement ranges for the following turns, etc.

The "X-Wing Miniatures" model is also good, it merely has a different system of abstractions: discrete facings and combinations of facings instead of turning as much as needed to bring weapons to bear, and (usually; some games use a grid with Euclidean distance) an integer number of grid spaces instead of qualitatively different ranges. If the rules emphasize movement and agility and attacks are mostly at close range, a grid might be preferable (no pointless movement choices, easier medium-term planning); if spaceships have discrete weapons, each with their different and limited firing arc and range, freeform movement would probably be more natural (for example, you don't need to answer embarrassing questions like how large is a grid space or what happens if two ships are in the same space).

The 'pirates' model (Crimson Steam Pirates, by Bungie, who cribbed it from SteamBirds by SpryFox) is my favorite, because it's very quick and would work well on tablets. It's not quite as predictable as it first appears, because in the bungie version there is terrain and other ships that can be collided with. The SteamBirds model, there is no collision, so it's a bit more simple, though special abilities and whatnot can mix things up. (Similar to X-wing style maneuvers)

It's funny, I actually was mucking with a couple of prototypes of this kind of thing for a Votoms style turn based mecha game. I had two versions of hex prototypes, where either turning costs movement points, but I would show all possible paths to a hex, and another hex prototype where a unit had a minimum amount it had to move forward before it could make a turn, and would display all paths to a hex. And a third prototype that was a mix of Crimson Steam Pirates, but with pathfinding around obstacles. If you're interested I can dig up my website links, they are all Unity projects.