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!

The 3D map is likely to complicated for easy play.  People are not used to giving 3 axis directions.

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.

Nice!

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...

How in depth do you really want to get, I guess is the question I have...

I like the ideas you've proposed for systems you "own" (production queues, managing defenses, etc) but, where enemy/unclaimed systems go, are there going to be differences between, say, long range vs short range scans/scout missions? Some thoughts in that regard:

• A long range scan/scout might produce info such as atmosphere, potential resources, system size/composition and the like.
• A short range scan, on the other hand, might glean more detailed info such as existing civilizations, technology levels, more detailed resource analysis, etc.

I've got thoughts and ideas, of course, just haven't had a great deal of time to get into the "meat of them" just yet. 

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.

Variations in tech levels? It's not incomprehensible that some systems would be "advanced" (FTL travel without needing wormholes, for example) whereas others might not even be capable of intra-system travel, right? Are you looking at including something along those lines or is that too far out in the weeds?

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.

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?

I think my head esploded.

*twitch*

Math bad! Tree pretty!

Thank heavens for nav-computers.

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?

What about transports? Assuming there is a "resource management/dispersal" aspect in play, here, I could imagine a need for haulers of some sort. Lightly armed (if at all... could possibly rely on escorts for defense) but well armored with cargo space above and beyond that of other ships their size.

Again, not sure how in depth you're really wanting to get with this, so, it's possible that the transport role could be filled by other ship classes you've already mentioned.

Edit: Now that I re-read, I see that transports would likely fall under the cruisers category... Disreagrd the sleep deprived elf.

Transports... that's a great point.

I think that, to actually capture an enemy planet, you will need to land troops.  Maybe you can reduce the number of troops needed if you bombard from orbit, but to take it, you have to put people there. 

So it makes a TON of sense to have transports as an option.  And having them brings in a huge tactical component - I would see transports as large, slow, lightly armed and armored - and costly/slow to build (gotta recruit those soldiers to fill em).  They'd absolutely need escorts, as you could just CRIPPLE an enemey's ability to capture territory by destrotying their transports. 

Side thought - transports need "recharge" time after a battle; this represents the loss of troops in combat.  A successful fight means that maybe you keep them at that system and they rebuild slowly (takes longer to impress the locals into service).  A failure means you have to retreat to a friendy system if you want them at full strength. 

Also makes me think of another wrinkle... it seems like it should be possible to have neutral systems, not just unclaimed/unexplored.  Sure, maybe you do find an M class star with a planet ready to drop colonists on... more likely that really primo planets already have people on them that just aren't part of an empire.  So you'd still need to pacify these to absorb them.

Thoughts on any of the above?


Speaking of fleets... what about trade?  I'm thinking that it's best to just build, say, trade ports or whatever, and assume that the civilians handle trade ships, you just collect tax revenue.  I don't think anybody wants to micromanage trade fleets.   But should I look more into that?