Okay, point taken.  I'll stay out of math.  There's nothing really to discuss there, anyway.

So I'm thinking... I love the idea of at least three species, if not more.  Terrans, somethign reptilian maybe, something insectoid (hivemind, anyone?).

But for now, it probably makes sense to develop a working game/proof of concept with terrans only.  Get the game working, make sure the database is set up for species flags, then add additional species later for flavor, with game balance much easier to manage then.

So, let's talk ships for now.  Here's what I'm looking at.

Scout ships - very fast, little to no weaponry/armor/shields.  Longer sensor range than other ships.
Frigate class - fast, good weaponry, light armor/shields. 
Destroyer - slower, tougher, good weaponry
Cruiser - larger ships, tough, potentially a range of roles?
Capital ships - largest.  Slow, extremely tough, well armed.  Battleships, carriers (if we decide that fighters are a thing), etc.

Any thoughts here?

On movement and pathfinding...

I have run into pathfinding issues in a strategy game once more.  Space makes this a virtual nonissue.

Distance is super simple - the square root of the combination of the x difference (squarted), y difference (squared) and z difference (squared). 

Or

√ ( (x2 - x1)² + (y2 - y1)² + (z2 - z1)² )

I mean, I can't do that math off the top of my head, but it's easy to caluclate/script.

No reason to not use the straightest distance between two points, amirite?

Well... if we're gonna have wormholes, then the pathfinding script has to take them into consideration.  I'm thinking that, for the purposes of our calculations, I'm figuring wormholes to have a travel cost of 1 unit (representing flying into the wormhole sector and out of the end point sector).  If we're assuming that they are instantaneous travel, it doesn't make sense to charge more (though you could maybe argue that you "fly" through that subspace, maybe there should be a small cost with them). 

So the pathfinding script needs to first calculate the direct route.  It then needs to look at any known wormholes, see if flying to it and from the end point of it to the destination (plus adding 1) is shorter.  If it is, that would be the optimal route.

That said, I think that the player should always have the choice to pick which route to take.  Or even to lay out waypoints, if desired for strategic reasons. 

If we look at the test map, let's say we want to get from the friendly system at 28,14,4 to the one at  26,-4,1. 

A direct route is 18.36 sectors. 

We could use the wormhole at 38,6,3, which empties out at 14,2,0.

The first segment (28,14,4 to 38,6,3) is 12.85 sectors. 

The second segment (14,2,0 to 26,-4,1) is 10.05 sectors.  Add in one for the wormhole, you're now looking at 23.9... definitely not an advantage at this time, even though it allows you to cover 24.52 sectors for the price of one movement point.  Could be hugely useful in other situations, though. 

Okay, who's bored?

Bump.

I have a post in the works.

I have been pondering tech levels. 

I don't know that I want to go with true tech trees (research tech X to gain item Y), but I'm considering it.

I do think that, at the very least, you should have to build improvements to your systems.  I.e. you need a level 2 shipyard to produce cruisers there. 

That said... tech trees make sense.   It's worth serious consideration.

I like the ideas of long vs short range scans.  I'm thinking that you have to have a probe/scout ship go within X distance of a system to get data of any sort - which would be star/sytem type (habitable or not, for instance), traffic or not (i.e. is it colonized, are ships detected).  But any sort of real intel would require that your probe/scout actually penetrate the system.  This would give you population, number/size/composition of fleet, defenses, etc.  Perhaps even a couple of levels of detail, depending on how much scanning you do.

I have made the systems clickable.  Right now, all you get is a popup telling you the coordinates of the clicked point, but it's a proof of concept that the map can be interactive. 

People, I think that we have the toold needed to do this game.

So join me at this totally blank slate.  What makes sense for a clickable map?

You click a map and it opens up an info/control panel.  What do we see here?

Maybe the quick specs on the system (who controls it, the population, avilable intel on defenses, etc)?  Perhaps links to manage any fleets that may be present there?  Perhaps a distance/time readout to tell you how long it would take your fleet(s) to arrive? 

Perhaps context sensitive commands - i.e. if it's your system, you can control the production queue here, manage defenses, etc.  If it's not your system, you can order scouting/attack/diplomacy from here?

Or should other things go here? 

Would love to hear ideas...

Check out the map test now.  I have added wormholes, changed how the mouseover text works.  Currently disabled for neutral and hostile systems, but it's working for friendly and for wormholes.  This is getting closer and closer to something we could use in a game.

I think that I need to see if the framework will allow them to be clickable and bring up the menu like I am suggesting.  If I can do that, then I can proceed with this.  If not, I need to scrap the 3D idea.

Would love feedback on some of the other questions I've tossed around in the thread!

I can see that in terms of playability.  Will likely need to be able to make these plets and such clickable, pull up a context menu, etc for it to be workable.

Check it out - a small test map.

Friendly systems in blue, hostile in red, unexplored in gray. 

Hold left click on your mouse to rotate.  Hold right click to pan.  Use the wheel to zoom in and out.

It's still very simple.  I need to add the ability to hover over them and provide more than just the X/Y/Z coordinates - but I'd call this a super useful proof of concept. 

Back to the idea that you have to be a rocket scientist to handle strategy in 3D.  If we had something like this, would it not make the game approachable, even without math skills?

I'd love feedback before I do more.  If it's still a bad idea, I'll go to a 2d (flat) map. 

I have the beginnings of a working proof of concept for a map framework. 

Here is what I am looking at.

Sort of a "box" model - i.e. a slide of space.  I'm playing with the idea of an area roughly 100 units x 50 units x 30 units.  That's completely up for change, it's just an early rough concept.  I think that a cube is a little unweildy when you start to visualize it.

The framework I am using is pretty great - you can zoom in and out, rotate at will. 

So I'm thinking... Your own star systems are represented with one color dot (say, blue).  Enemies in red, unclaimed in gray.  Perhaps allies in green?

From what I can tell, I can also add lines to the chart.  So any known wormholes could have their openings visually represented on the map, too. 

I figure that everyone starts with one sytem and some very limited intel on the immediate surrounding sectors.  Other systems and wormholes only show up after exploration - scouts, perhaps probes will be very important. 

I may have a very small mockup up a map by tomorrow.

I found a really cool javascript library for doing charts and whatnot.  Let me create a dummy starmap off of this, and you folks tell me a 3D map is a great or terrible idea.

I love wider perspectives.  Not sure of which items I'd want to use, yet.

I am thinking for players, just the "top lvel" empire owners.  Maybe 4-8 players in a given game?  More?

Good observation, Grugg. 

I want it to be approachable.  It seems that if I was able to provide the map in an accessible format, that would fit the issue.

Or would it?

Cool.  I'd love to hear your input. 

Fighter?  Yes or no?  If so, carriers are a thing (and are important, as are counters).  If not, then nope.

Can you just bombard a planet into submission, or do you need to land troops?  Masybe the latter is more costly/difficult, but the former damages production infrastucture and such?

Trying again to get this rolling, comrades!

I missed some silliness, huh.

Catching up, prepping a post.  Sorry for sucking.

Sometimes, I like to think about theoretical games I'd like to design.  I've done a couple of nigh-complete game systems before, though let's be real.  This is me.  It's probably more theory than any shot of even being a real game.

That's said, I'd like to brainstorm a bit about what would be a cool space-based strategy type game, ideally that could be played in a web browser.

My thoughts - you have multiple players doing a turn based game.  Everyone starts with a home world, a scout vessel or two, and that's that.

In my mind, you send you the scouts, find worlds to colonize and/or conquer.  You build fleets (hmm... should probably have at least a small fleet to start the game) for this purpose.  Other people do the same.  Eventually, you meet others.  Force alliances, start wars, etc.

One big challenge right off the bat would be the map.  If you're going to have a real space map, shouldn't it be three dimensional?  Or is that making things too complicated?

I'm thinking fleets of various tyes of ships.  You'd need to collect resources to build these.  What sort of resources make sense?

Should everyone be the same?  Or should you pick a race/species to gain access to different technology/bonuses/penalites?

What about things like wormholes to familitate paid travel around the map?  I'd think these should be unique per map to encourage exploration... and wouldn't these be really imporant, then, to control?

What about trade among empires? 

Okay, that should get the ball rolling.  Brainstorm with me!

I went throguh my crap, came back to the site, started my games back... and fell off the earth again. 

I'm sorry.  Life has sucked.  Family, health, hospitals, work, etc, etc. etc. 

Gonna try revitalizing my games (again) this week.  I'm sorry, y'all.

Heya, man!  Great to see you!

...no matter how long I grow it, it's still just the one beard.

Silly English.

Should have a post up tomorow.

...I'm not. 

I will chortle as you die.

The new Slipp is our pal, Chessicfayth!

Welcome!  And... I'm sorry.