It is most definately not a simple prospect, if it was there would be all kinds of game about space ships fighting each other that worked. There are no games where ships fight each other in any real or even acceptable way. Open space combat is "the science of 2D ACM without gravity" and there is only one group of people who know that science. "Boarding Soldiers" has nothing to do with this, "land combat" is easy. There is no existing computer game where ships actually fight each other using coherent maneuvering. In fact, most computer space games consist of stationary ships because it is an extremely complex combat environment (2 ships in open space... you have nothing to work with here. No terrain, etc, you are all on your own) that nobody in your industry knows anything about. If you did, your space combat games would work VERY differently.

And it is not all in my mind. What the player is experiencing on the "holodeck bridge" is not happening, that is the only way it can be made to happen. Because even I cannot make an AI that will make an AI controlled ship fight you in a way you are expecting to see for it to "feel as real as Star Trek" too you. But I can come close. And once I get it close... Rube, effectively acting from the future, re-choreographs what would happen based on the combination of the player's actions and the AI ships actions into what the player expects to see... and not the broken mess that is actually taking place. Rube knows the future before it happens (through a trick similar to a radio station's delay), so this can be made to happen.

Even I can't do this "straight", this is my "magic and illusion" that is the way I make games that work. I am taking what can be done through the AI, which is still not quite enough to work right, and "choreographing" what it should be "from the near future". That is currently the only way that this can be made to work, AI is far too primitive and stupid to do this by itself.

Explain the mechanism about how it knows something that will happen in the future to something that doesn't exist. You do have a point that there's not TOO many space games with boarding combat, though. But that's not because of technical issues, it's because space games are pretty much niche now, and boarding is usually a small aspect/passed over.

Its not that space games are niche, it's that the limitations have prevented anyone from making space ship games that would be popular. The AI is one limitation, the knowledge of how that type of combat functions is another. Boarding is very cool, and I actually have that in my starship simulators. It is necessary, really, to be complete. Especially in my games that are half starship simulator and half adventure game. Both boarding and landing parties are kind of necessary to make it seem real. But that has nothing to do with the maneuvering between the ships.

I don't want to explain too much detail and then watch the disaster of my style of game design emerge and I am still not making games. But in this case, such a high level of SFB knowledge is required to make this work that I feel pretty safe telling the modern gaming world the specific thing that is making it possible for the AI of this game to "think from the future". I am pretty sure I am the only SFB player alive with this level of SFB knowledge who has ever so much as thought of a computer game, let alone played one, haha!!! So this should be pretty safe...

You would control this game through voice commands. You could use a mouse... but most people have a mic these days or would be willing to buy one for $10-$15 for a game like this. So I always think in terms of voice commands. The delay I am talking about actually occurs naturally in this situation, which is what inspired the idea in the first place. You can only issue new voice commands so quickly. As I had said, this form of combat is essentially a "science of 2D ACM without gravity". I know it inside-out. In the end this is all based on that, which I cannot describe here. There is an optional rule in SFB called "Plotted Movement". In my game, whenever you issue an order by voice command (or mouse) it creates a valid movement plot for BOTH ships. This plot is (usually) to one of the "Option Points" I mentioned earlier. This will not change, unless you issue a new order, in which case a new plot will be created and the AI will still know the future. The enemy ship in reality is not fighting you, not making decisions based on the goal of trying to destroy you. It is actually cooperating with you to show you what you expect to see. "Magic and Illusion. Trickery." This actually also partly relies on the lack of situational awareness that you have in any 3D game, more of that "illusion". The AI knows the future because you told it the future. The AI is acting on your commands, and it's fire decisions are now based on it's knowledge of the future of movement.

I can't give too many things like this away, for obvious reasons, but this was a good one because you can't do really do a lot with this. At least not in making ships fight realistically, although I am guessing someone out there will be re-writing some code based on an idea this gives them for what they are doing:-)

If you watch the video you will see that no combat is taking place, because they cannot possibly do that. They destroy a moving ship with a long range missile. Anyone can do that, there is nothing difficult about that. Then the "close combat" is motionless, because they cannot have it moving, because that is far beyond their abilities to do. This is a "faking" of a starship simulator where no actual combat ever occurs because they cannot make that work.

Your definition of "combat" clearly differs from ours, then. What is "combat" if not destroying other ships? That it happens at close range is only because that's how Star Trek (appeared) to do it, and Artemis is explicitly a Star Trek fantasy without the Star Trek branding.

There is a reason the "game" in this video was never released as a game, and if they do release it as a game...

Artemis has been released for several years now. It's on Steam.

There is no existing computer game where ships actually fight each other using coherent maneuvering. In fact, most computer space games consist of stationary ships because it is an extremely complex combat environment (2 ships in open space... you have nothing to work with here. No terrain, etc, you are all on your own) that nobody in your industry knows anything about. If you did, your space combat games would work VERY differently.

Or possibly it's been tried, and found wanting for fun. You don't know what may or may not have been tried behind closed doors. That being said, I can think of at least two space sims that are aiming for realistic (or "gameplay realistic") space combat. I've also had a realistic space combat game idea (that would involve open-space maneuvering) on the backburner for years, so not much of what you're saying is new to me. I even went as far as to produce a prototype in Unity. You aren't the only one who has had these ideas. :)

"feel as real as Star Trek"

I'll just leave this here. :P

You would control this game through voice commands. You could use a mouse... but most people have a mic these days or would be willing to buy one for $10-$15 for a game like this. So I always think in terms of voice commands.

Plausible. Sub Command had that and Dangerous Waters probably does, too.

There is an optional rule in SFB called "Plotted Movement". In my game, whenever you issue an order by voice command (or mouse) it creates a valid movement plot for BOTH ships. This plot is (usually) to one of the "Option Points" I mentioned earlier. This will not change, unless you issue a new order, in which case a new plot will be created and the AI will still know the future.

Ah, so like Lethal Tactics, but in space?

This will not change, unless you issue a new order, in which case a new plot will be created and the AI will still know the future.
...
At least not in making ships fight realistically, although I am guessing someone out there will be re-writing some code based on an idea this gives them for what they are doing.

I was working on a prototype for a space game that did this about 5 years ago. Then I was distracted by other projects (and work) before I finished it. If anything, what you're saying is vindication that my own designs can be arrived at by parallel evolution. Frankly, I'm really not seeing anything in what you've said so far that's entirely impossible to do, or that hasn't already been attempted in some form or another. That's not actually a bad thing - it means your ideas should actually feasible - given sufficient resources. But that's always the problem...

Ye, my definition of combat does differ from yours. Mine includes coherent maneuvering, which none of the games you've mentioned have. I know these things have not been tried because nobody outside of the SFB Staff has the knowledge to make it happen. And I've been playing the space games your industry has been making all my life, and seen the "confused wiggle" that is the best you've been able to do. Yes, you have tried them, and they have been "wanting for fun"... because they lack coherent maneuvering, and the ship designs are like 5-year-olds came up with them. You see it, but aren't identifying the problem.

You MOST DEFINITELY have not worked on a game that was planning the future and having the AI base it's decisions on the future. Certainly, you had no rational option points which are the key to making this work, and were not choreographing a valid maneuvering environment. You are not understanding what I am saying. The video of the "VR Star Trek" game you posted clearly shows this. Where was the combat in that with coherent maneuvering? All I saw was ships lumbering like garbage scows in the distance. Not once did any of these ships so much as attempt to fight back, they are all just lumbering essentially motionless in the distance to be shot at. This video you posted demonstrates that you don't understand what I am saying.

I know you think that you understand space combat as well as a member of the SFB Staff, but you don't. It really is that simple. You simply don't have the required knowledge base to even understand that what you are seeing in that VR Star Trek game video is not combat. It's target drone practice. No combat is taking place there, just shooting at near stationary target drones off in the distance. Show me a twisting, turning dogfight. You can't. Because you can't do that. If you could, we'd all be playing space ship games where the ships actually fight back.

Where, exactly, is it that you learned how space ship combat works? You went to Star Fleet Academy, maybe? What, exactly, is the source of your knowledge of this? Do you believe you were born with it? Your piloted a real space ship? Where does your knowledge of the subject come from? What is it that makes you think you are an expert in this subject? Where did you learn it, and what did you learn? I can tell you don't understand space combat, it's obvious from this post and the video you posted. Where is it that your knowledge of the subject comes from... or are you just making wild guesses and assuming they must be right? Because that is what it sounds like too me, someone who it is known is an expert in this subject.

This is really straying away from what I was hoping to find out. I really would like to know if anyone out there can think of any way I could actually wind up getting to make my games without having to find a way to raise millions of dollars to do it. Because I know I can't do that.

And I've been playing the space games your industry has been making all my life

WHICH games? Be specific.

Yes, you have tried them

To clarify, I wasn't talking about me, or anyone here specifically. I was talking about devs who won't talk about what they've worked on because they aren't allowed to by way of non-disclosure agreements.

How do you know someone hasn't secretly already pitched what you're suggesting and tried it out, only to find that it didn't work? When a project is cancelled, most companies with the resources to attempt what you want to do will deny all knowledge of the project's existence. This is especially true if the project was never announced in the first place. How do you know a project like yours hasn't been pitched, and was cancelled before it was ever announced? There's no way you can conclusively prove that this hasn't happened.

Those of us who have been in the industry for even a few years have probably worked on at least one title that got cancelled before it was announced.

You MOST DEFINITELY have not worked on a game that was planning the future and having the AI base it's decisions on the future.

Not explicitly, but that's probably what I would have ended up with when I got around to the AI. Though, my original intent was to have the game be player vs. player. Introducing light-speed delays into the sensor simulation kind of made that difficult, though. What I was more referring to was the notion of having movement prediction be a central game mechanic. In the system I was playing with, players would set "burn points" along their trajectory where their engines would fire, and allow players to see potential trajectory changes by manipulating the burn points ahead of time. Weapon launches and other maneuvers would work similarly - a lot of maneuvering would consist of planning on strings of specific maneuvers, then executing them. As with real-life spacecraft, most of the time spaceships would coast without their engines firing.

It's not a big leap of inspiration to jump to having the AI look at the player's burn plan, though I wouldn't have gone with it myself because I wanted my AIs to actually fight me, not simulate fighting me. :)

I know you think that you understand space combat as well as a member of the SFB Staff, but you don't. It really is that simple.

The dripping condescension is really not necessary. This is a discussion forum where when we think someone doesn't understand something, we explain that something to them instead of dismissing their ideas and rambling about how they don't just understand us. :)

You also asked industry insiders for opinions and perspectives. I am giving them.

You simply don't have the required knowledge base to even understand that what you are seeing in that VR Star Trek game video is not combat.

My point was more that the Star Trek VR addresses your "feels as real as Star Trek." Are you forgetting that Star Trek's spaceships DO move like "garbage scows", and in general Star Trek's space battles are nothing like what real world space combat would be? No spacecraft would ever get close enough to be within visual range, as they do in Star Trek, without getting blown away. Space is not an ocean. There wouldn't be dogfights in space, either. Spacecraft don't move like airplanes.

Show me a twisting, turning dogfight. You can't. Because you can't do that. If you could, we'd all be playing space ship games where the ships actually fight back.

What about this one? Or this one? I don't know about you, but the last time I played Elite: Dangerous, I got blown out of the sky by an AI bot that was very definitely fighting back. Sure, this isn't "realistic" space combat... but then, "realistic" space combat wouldn't have "dogfights" in the first place, because that's not how real spacecraft move in space.

Where, exactly, is it that you learned how space ship combat works? You went to Star Fleet Academy, maybe? What, exactly, is the source of your knowledge of this? Do you believe you were born with it? Your piloted a real space ship? Where does your knowledge of the subject come from? What is it that makes you think you are an expert in this subject? Where did you learn it, and what did you learn? I can tell you don't understand space combat, it's obvious from this post and the video you posted. Where is it that your knowledge of the subject comes from... or are you just making wild guesses and assuming they must be right? Because that is what it sounds like too me, someone who it is known is an expert in this subject.

Among other things, I have read science-fiction novels, studied a little astrophysics, and have been a space nut since a young age. I used to play Orbiter Spaceflight Simulator, which is how I know how real spacecraft maneuver. Atomic Rockets has proven helpful, as well. You're again being a bit condescending, here. Your group is not the only one to have studied these questions.

This is really straying away from what I was hoping to find out. I really would like to know if anyone out there can think of any way I could actually wind up getting to make my games without having to find a way to raise millions of dollars to do it. Because I know I can't do that.

At the scope you're claiming to be able to build? Probably not. You could certainly build prototypes and try to raise funds based on those. Or build a smaller fragment of the overall picture and sell that, then continuously develop it over the multiple years it would take.

You wouldn't have wound up creating Rube in a few months of work, just trust me on that one:-) Like many things, it seems obvious once you hear it... but it isn't. It took over 70 years and hundreds of designers to ultimately arrive at Rube. And there is a lot more too it than what you are describing, this is actually just one tiny little "enhancement" through a little, tiny trick.

This is the kind of bickering, on my part as much as yours, that will get me thrown out of this place again. Elite: Dangerous is a great example. I'm glad you used it, I've even played it. Elite: Dangerous is monotonous and boring. And just a complete mess. They make the mistake of envisioning that "procedures" will be fun, and it is mostly a linking together of what very quickly becomes a repetitive chain of the same few procedures over and over again. Dock with station, leave station, enter warp... procedure after procedure over and over again. The combat in ED is... a perfect example! It's just an endless turning circle. That all they do... avoid the players guns by turning... and turning.... and turning.... because that's the only thing it knows how to do. 1 thing. Turning. Avoid the guns... by turning. And turning some more. And if that doesn't work... it can keep turning. This is "coherent maneuvering"?

EVE? You are kidding now, right?

That VR feels nothing like a fight in Star Trek. It is target drones lumbering in the distance, not even attempting to fight back. There IS NO FIGHT TAKING PLACE AT ALL, let alone one that feels like "Star Trek."

I don't need to know anything about you at all to know that you don't understand space combat anywhere in the same universe as a member of the SFB Staff does. Maybe you should read my blog, I doubt you are arrogant enough to make that claim if you understood the reality of the situation... http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/MarcMichalik/787769/

I am not being condescending, I actually do know this much about it. And understanding how real world rockets fly doesn't help at all with understanding the 2D ACM of this combat environment. We've got a former USAF Colonel from 1st US Space Command who would certainly agree with that, if a member of the Joint Chiefs word isn't good enough for you.

You wouldn't have wound up creating Rube in a few months of work, just trust me on that one

Of course, not, and I wasn't suggesting that, either. I never finished. :P

They make the mistake of envisioning that "procedures" will be fun

I guess you won't have anything good to say about Rogue System, then. :P

I for one actually enjoy these systems simulations.

This is "coherent maneuvering"?

Perhaps not. But your claim was that space games don't have AIs shooting back and don't have combat. I feel I have soundly addressed that claim.

EVE? You are kidding now, right? That VR feels nothing like a fight in Star Trek. It is target drones lumbering in the distance, not even attempting to fight back. There IS NO FIGHT TAKING PLACE AT ALL, let alone one that feels like "Star Trek."

Did you even WATCH the video? I specifically chose a video that showed the enemies shooting back - a dogfight. What is your definition of a "dogfight" if not several aircraft/spacecraft circling and firing weapons at one another? It seems like you're complaining one second that games don't have enough dogfighting, then when you are presented with spacecraft dogfighting in a game you complain that it isn't "Star Trek" enough - despite that Star Trek combat is largely the total opposite of dogfighting. Make up your mind.

Maybe you should read my blog

I have, actually. I saw some interesting articles on board games, but nothing on space games besides a passing mention. The tabletop naval combat article was interesting - I happen to be interested in naval sims - but I didn't see one article that had anything to do with space games.

We've got a former USAF Colonel from 1st US Space Command who would certainly agree with that, if a member of the Joint Chiefs word isn't good enough for you.

Sorry, I'm not interested in appeals to authority. I'm interested in coherent arguments supported by facts. I don't care who makes the arguments - their identity is not important to me. Most of us don't come here to open some authoritative faucet of knowledge and drink from it; we come to hear, critique, and present ideas.

And anyway, of what relevance is the experience of a Space Command member if you aren't even doing realistic space combat in the first place - versus, say, a retired US Navy admiral?

Let's play a game... Anyone is encouraged to answer if they think they know it (SFB players please don't answer:-)...

You all know the original Romulan ship from the TOS episode Balance of Terror, the "submarine movie" episode. And you remember it's very powerful weapon, that traveled relatively slowly and "loses power with range". This is a "6th grade level math"-type space combat ACM question...

Is this weapon balanced in a general sense, or is there a fatal flaw that must be corrected to avoid a serious game killing balance issue? What is the issue? And what is the solution to that issue?

This really is very basic and simple stuff that, if you have an understanding of the combat environment, is obvious. That's why I need to ask SFB players not to answer, any of them would know the answer. Even the novices.

EDIT TO OBERON: Shooting back is not "coherent maneuvering". I think most reading this get what I am saying, so I don't feel a need to continue this. Maybe you can tell me about the plasma? It is truly a very simple, basic, 6th-grade level question... And I don't see how you could have missed the space combat relevance of the SFU articles, you clearly need to read them again if you can't remember anything relevant to this discussion in them.

I also couldn't stop thinking about that one missile hitting that ship at long range in that "group game" ship simulator. One missile at long range? This is an excellent example of the "sandbox level" of space combat games made by people who don't understand the combat environment. That target ship has NO point defense at all? It is helpless against even a single missile? Really? And I am an idiot, and you guy's know what you are doing? Ok, then...