Children of a Dead Earth: realistic space warfare game

[FennexFox]

8 hours ago, adsii1970 said:

followed by...

I've never played this game because of the "combat ratings". Yeah, there are enough of those games out there for those who like them. But to be honest, I prefer to build and explore rather than destroy, which is the main reason I haven't bought this game. Can you play it without going to war with AI opponents?

 

I'm 85% sure they(actually the one guy) put the battle in this game only to fit it into a well known category, because it is hard to say "My software is a realistic-ish engineering sandbox which mainly focused on space maneuver, projectiles, armor composition". Battle itself is very...painful and not even yet complete in my opinion. This "realistic combat simulator" never let you to command individual ship to act like this or that, never let you to set a detailed priority to hit, very vague and unfriendly control in tactics.

So yes, you're gonna do almost nothing but engineering anyway :p

+ Here's a trap tho: You have to beat a few campaign to unlock the ship design, and much more to module design.

Edited August 16, 2018 by FennexFox

[0111narwhalz]

5 hours ago, FennexFox said:

+ Here's a trap tho: You have to beat a few campaign to unlock the ship design, and much more to module design.

There's an option in the settings to unlock those without fulfilling the gameplay requirements.

[Mad Rocket Scientist]

5 hours ago, FennexFox said:

I'm 85% sure they(actually the one guy) put the battle in this game only to fit it into a well known category, because it is hard to say "My software is a realistic-ish engineering sandbox which mainly focused on space maneuver, projectiles, armor composition". Battle itself is very...painful and not even yet complete in my opinion. This "realistic combat simulator" never let you to command individual ship to act like this or that, never let you to set a detailed priority to hit, very vague and unfriendly control in tactics.

So yes, you're gonna do almost nothing but engineering anyway :p

+ Here's a trap tho: You have to beat a few campaign to unlock the ship design, and much more to module design.

IIRC, there's an ingame button to unlock them early.

Module design is probably the best part of the game (there's no staging, launches to orbit, docking, landings, freeplay, or even quicksaves) but if KSP tosses you into the deep end with only a pool noodle, COADE teleports you into the Mariana Trench with a link to wikipedia and a note saying that submarine design can be trivially derived from basic physical equations.

[Lisias]

And to think that everything started with this:

Spoiler

 

 

 

Edited August 19, 2018 by Lisias
moving video to a spoiler.

[Vanamonde]

Funny story. This thread got derailed about 10 months ago. All that stuff got moved here. Please talk about Children of Something Something in this thread. 

[Hypercosmic]

On 8/16/2018 at 9:25 PM, adsii1970 said:

followed by...

I've never played this game because of the "combat ratings". Yeah, there are enough of those games out there for those who like them. But to be honest, I prefer to build and explore rather than destroy, which is the main reason I haven't bought this game. Can you play it without going to war with AI opponents?

 

You can create your own levels and campaigns using the new Level Editor now, so you can make your own transport/rescue missions. Since you can also create new celestial bodies, you can even easily make a challenging mission with just trying to move around places.

If you want a bit more action but not fighting, a great idea by a member in CDE forums is being a civilian ship trying to escape/rescue a stranded ship while the enemy is attacking. The goal is to survive, not to win. I'm also using this concept in a level in my own new campaign project.

Edited August 25, 2018 by Hypercosmic

[Diche Bach]

Sounds good. What about logistics, and economy? Without those, the game will never achieve its full potential.

[weissel]

On 8/28/2018 at 9:15 PM, Diche Bach said:

What about logistics, and economy? Without those, the game will never achieve its full potential.

You are asking for a lot, are you not?

If CoaDE was a Formula One racing game/simulator, people would want to have a realistic driving physics, competent AI drivers, accurate racing courses, tuning of all the important parts, being able to select colours, patterns, teams, ... and possibly VR.

You would ask that the game add a whole (realistic) research and development company, with all the management, hiring staff, running tests, having a budget, build times.  With a complete logistics and economics system in the background, so the XXX-team might have less budget if the XXX owner gets into financial troubles.  And if there's a flu outbreak, the special part YYY you get from ZZZ can be very much delayed if ZZZ or the way to you has that flu in the way.  Then there is volcanoes throwing ash into the air, terrorist attacks, blackmail, industrial espionage and sabotage, ...

And let's not forget bribery and the politics of deciding what inventions and parameters are allowed and which are not ... and then let's branch out into world politics and so on.  Only then that Formula One game will have even a chance to archive it's full potential.

 

PS: Star Wars is Mohs Hardness 1.  If anyone believes Mohs Hardness 6 will necessarily have little if any story, they ought to go out into the world instead of staring at PowerPoint presentations.  Though boring meetings with unclear PowerPoint presentations are definitively a part you can find ...

[Diche Bach]

Touched a nerve?

I don't make the "rules" about how national level military and science undertakings work; I'm just here to state the obvious.

Engineering never occurs in ideal circumstances. Economy and logistics, as well as demand always play strong moderating (if not mediating) roles in technological development. The same is even more true for military operations.

Dude doesn't necessarily need to hire anyone. Code Force (effectively one guy) managed to portray a convincing and engrossing galactic ecology/economy and a system of logistics and resource management in Distant Worlds Universe.

[0111narwhalz]

There is a concept in software development known as "scope creep." Implementing a full economy and logistics system in a game like this would probably constitute scope creep.

[Bill Phil]

1 hour ago, 0111narwhalz said:

There is a concept in software development known as "scope creep." Implementing a full economy and logistics system in a game like this would probably constitute scope creep.

Requirements creep happens in engineering all the time.

[Diche Bach]

On 9/7/2018 at 12:50 AM, 0111narwhalz said:

There is a concept in software development known as "scope creep." Implementing a full economy and logistics system in a game like this would probably constitute scope creep.

There is another concept, that is particular apt for Indie developers: expansion and refinement.

As a pure engineering simulator, the application is shockingly good. As a game, its pretty bad. What would make it a better game? More and more significant choices for the player. What would those choices hinge on? Could be many things, including "whom to ally with versus prey upon," but even if the players allegiance and role within the game world is unchangeable, economic choices and logistics are an obvious area for introducing choice for the player. That is basically all a 4x game is, and while this one doesn't quite fit the bill of a 4x, it could easily adapt some of the design elements to, as I said, achieve the games full potential.

I'm not criticizing the game, I'm simply pointing out how it could achieve a helluva lot more by leveraging what it already has in spades. Given the dude is obviously scary smart, and industrious (he made that application!) then I don't see what the big deal would be to introduce better game play.

[weissel]

On 9/10/2018 at 9:24 AM, Diche Bach said:

I'm not criticizing the game, I'm simply pointing out how it could achieve a helluva lot more by leveraging what it already has in spades. Given the dude is obviously scary smart, and industrious (he made that application!) then I don't see what the big deal would be to introduce better game play.

You say the game play would be better if he did that ... but for whom and measured by what standard? And how much better, since we are at it?

And what stops you building a campaign generator (not necessarily a computer program!) that handles all the building and researching and political shifts and material needs and alliances and so on?  After all, you already have the module builder, the ship builder and the combat simulator ...

[Diche Bach]

On 11/3/2018 at 11:13 PM, weissel said:

You say the game play would be better if he did that ... but for whom and measured by what standard? And how much better, since we are at it?

And what stops you building a campaign generator (not necessarily a computer program!) that handles all the building and researching and political shifts and material needs and alliances and so on?  After all, you already have the module builder, the ship builder and the combat simulator ...

For whom? Well, for me and people with tastes like mine, so perhaps several tens of millions of would-be consumers I suppose. Consider how many copies games like Civilization sell; that seems like a fair index of "for whom."

How "much better?" Well, there is no accounting for tastes, but I think most developers would agree that selling 1 million copies > 100,000! And again: consider how many copies of games like Civilization sell. Rimworld is another point to consider; slightly different set of factors but also instructive.

What stops ME from building a campaign generator? Well for one thing, I've got other things I need to work on which promise more for me personally. But for another, I don't have access to his source code nor permission to gain access to it or use it. I suppose if I did have access to his source code, and assuming it is a language I'm not unfamiliar with (I think it is C++ so that would fly for me!) . . . well, I suppose it would kinda fun to take a stab at building him a campaign generator, or at least to write up a framework for how economics and logistics would. I wouldn't even really want any recompense other than the recognition of any successful outcome, and of course constrained by a proper NDA.

That said: in the little bit of time I spent on their forums, I didn't get the impression the fellow felt comfortable bringing in more helper developers and I cannot blame him. Share your source code with someone and you just might be giving away your livelihood.

[weissel]

On 11/6/2018 at 12:55 PM, Diche Bach said:

For whom? Well, for me and people with tastes like mine, so perhaps several tens of millions of would-be consumers I suppose. Consider how many copies games like Civilization sell; that seems like a fair index of "for whom."

Is Civilization in any way comparable to CoaDE, with or without a mission generator?  Is a Civ player more likely to buy CoaDE than a non-Civ player?
If so, you better show that connection.  Otherwise you might as well compare CoaDE to chess, backgammon or go --- and see how many people play that and have played that for centuries!

I also ask you to consider that extra systems, say, trading or supply or alliances or campaign generator means that the time spent there cannot be spent elsewhere --- say on non-cylindrical ships or concave armour, fixing bugs, adding more materials, ...

On 11/6/2018 at 12:55 PM, Diche Bach said:

How "much better?" Well, there is no accounting for tastes, but I think most developers would agree that selling 1 million copies > 100,000! And again: consider how many copies of games like Civilization sell. Rimworld is another point to consider; slightly different set of factors but also instructive.

If you simply want to make money, yes, but then how about adding micro-transactions and loot boxes where you can find a bit of this or that material you won't get otherwise?  That is a real cash cow for certain AAA games' companies.

I understand one of the reasons CoaDE was made to try and understand space combat in a near-future would be --- with real physics instead of Hollywood, basically crowd sourcing the solution of finding good designs and tactics.  Which is on a totally different plane than selling more or less copies.

On 11/6/2018 at 12:55 PM, Diche Bach said:

What stops ME from building a campaign generator? Well for one thing, I've got other things I need to work on which promise more for me personally. But for another, I don't have access to his source code nor permission to gain access to it or use it. I suppose if I did have access to his source code, and assuming it is a language I'm not unfamiliar with (I think it is C++ so that would fly for me!) . . . well, I suppose it would kinda fun to take a stab at building him a campaign generator, or at least to write up a framework for how economics and logistics would. I wouldn't even really want any recompense other than the recognition of any successful outcome, and of course constrained by a proper NDA.

Things that promise more for you personally?  Like campaigning for the creator to include a campaign generator, maybe?

As to source code --- you do not need access to the source code to build a campaign generator!
All you really need is to create missions fitting to the current state of politics and war and get back the results of these missions.  As I said, you could conceivably do all that by hand, following a set of rules --- just like any old board game!  The non-boardgame part comes when you replace rolling the dice for combat with playing the mission in CoaDE.

Look up Pat Wilson's Campaign Generator ...

 

On 11/6/2018 at 12:55 PM, Diche Bach said:

That said: in the little bit of time I spent on their forums, I didn't get the impression the fellow felt comfortable bringing in more helper developers and I cannot blame him. Share your source code with someone and you just might be giving away your livelihood.

No, he's a lone wolf --- and that is fine.  As to sharing, there are NDAs and lawyers.

But luckily, as per above, you do not need to dig into the game's code to generate a mission.  So you are going to invade Vesta?  Fine, how much are you willing to spend?  Go, build a fleet with enough fuel to go there and get into orbit.  You only have that much building time and so and so much development time, so you better get ships that are already built ... but do plan for the future.  Check your staging, check your dV and TWR, then send off the fleet ... calculate time to arrival, have other factions do their thing (as they immediately see the invasion fleet going for Vesta, they might want to react, ...) and so on.

Finally, once your fleet arrives at Vesta and decides to brake into orbit, set up the mission: your fleet, any fleets and other defences the other sides have managed to move to Vesta, the orbits for all of them, their and your status (ammo, fuel, damages, ...).
Run the mission.

Take note of damages and losses and fuel/ammo expenditures, and put the info into the campaign.  Your fleet was shot up and retreated into a solar orbit, hoping for rescue by a fuel tanker?  The other side lost a number of vessels too and is nearly dry on ammo?  Fine. You got to figure out if and how to get a fuel tanker to your holey fleet --- another mission! --- and the opposition have to repair and get ammo and fuel in ... which may be a target: if so, set up the attempted intercept as another mission.

Not all that complicated, but you need to find some rules how to decide on the actions of everyone.