Im always anxiously awaiting your next iteration, since you have done such great work so far.
I checked out your gameplay proposal for interceptions and liked what I saw. It also reminded me of a game that did big map combat the way XCOM should have.
Recently I got some time to play the original XCOM games. It feels that interception, music aside, was somewhat of an afterthought. In Apoc, though, interception really matured as it meshed well with the game's continuity. This seems to be down the path you plan to follow and again Im glad you have those instincts.
I tried to think of a way to keep global-scale interceptions. So I hope you don't mind me reviving this thread to throw out the ideas vis-a-vis an admirable game I thought handled things on a large-scale semi-time/turn based quite realistically.
Back in the day, when EA teamed up with Jane's (THE watchdog for all things military), a developer, Sonalysts produced for them a game so realistic, the Naval Academy used it on their computers for midshipmen to play fleet simulations on. The game was "Fleet Command". Let me take some points about it.
Regional (if not global) in scale....Interception in UFO and TFTD was local, in fact so was Apoc. The distances were realistically about the range of a dogfight. Your original system was global, but crude. Fleet command accomplishes warfare at long distances by having the correct scale conserved on the main map (regional - zoomed geoscape) and a strategic mini-map (geoscape - with radar coverages and IFF dots), The key is conserve realistic scale at zoomable levels to allow for local, regional, and grand-scheme tactics. A third window for the selected platform was shown in 3D. You need not run a full 3D engine of planet-wide battle, as you have already shown in mock-up this could be satisfied by a paper doll model. Finally another window had the vital info you show in your mock-up.
Engage multiple bogeys.... You can engage bogeys, long range aircraft, ships, SAMs, subs, just about all naval platforms in FltCmd. The beauty of the system is that the interactions need not be graphics intensive, just strategically rich. The most innovative thing about the game was it was deceptively simple. FltCmd used the NATO symbology to represent the platforms. So your main map looked like something an air-traffic controller would see. A lot going on, but digestable because of easy to identify symbols. Basic symbols (^ = plane, v = sub, etc.) and a velocity leader showing heading and relative speed. it would something like this (plane heading east): ^--- TRACK 207
Timing was handled similar to what you have outlined..... pause, very slow, slow, fast (geoscape time - good for long dist travel).
Hidden units, robust radar fog..... Very nice fog of war, platforms aren't visible unless within radar coverage and detected. Platforms then aren't immediately identified until processed or visually ID'd. This was great, while most things of course are hostile, they were naturally hidden among civilian traffic. You may curse about rules of engagement, but this simulation showed you why. Of course something going mach 3 was probably not friendly whether VID'd or not. A similar theme in the UFO setting may be intriguing.
Strategically robust..... Imagine an interception game where it isn't just a range jousting match, but a detection one as well. You have no idea how vulnerable a carrier battle group is until you use wwii tactics in a modern battlefield, as I found out after poundings by swarms of missiles. Im not sure how FltCmd was programmed, but if you changed your tactics to evade radar and keep the AI guessing where your platforms were you performed better. The key design goal was that the AI suffered from the drawbacks like you did. Thus you had to use speed and your escorts wisely, and most importantly not switch your carrier's radar on. The same with submarines, active radars sink ships, too bad they weren't so bloody useful for finding things. So thats it--the radar shell game, if you can see it, it probably sees you. Using multiple interceptors and ground based systems carefully may add a new dimension to tracking and downing ufo's, the avoidance of detection.
local AI.... each platform seemed to have a low-level AI that took time to process your request. I don't want to make it sound too complicated, because Im not sure it was. The gist is that if you told an aircraft to fly somewhere, it would handle the flight itself, including turning to maneuver, setting basic speed etc. You could after-the-fact choose between High-Med-Low altitude, High-med-low speed, etc. Platforms handled their own countermeasures, often to better effect than manually doing it. I used to specifically tell the pilots where to turn to evade a missile, until I realised, that for the most part they knew what they were doing. This also helps keep the commander able to focus on concurrent events by having faith the unattended minions aren't idiots.
Realistic platforms and mechanics.....Low speed conserved fuel. High altitude = energy ==> more maneuverability. Low altitude = radar evasion?. Aircraft had to be prepped(time delay) before carrier launch. Some planes crashed on take off or landing depending on pace of battle (like troop stress). A little randomness and tragedy goes a long way to depth and realism. You may want to launch a dozen missiles by fast clicking, but if you send too many assignments, your crew might not process it the way you intended. Realism led to intuitive strategies. FltCmd demonstrates the sales pitch for BeyondVisualRange engagement in modern warfare rather than dog-fighting, but a decent simulator can demonstrate the value of changing tactics as tech improves. If stealthy platforms are encountered missiles can't find their target, dogfighting becomes more important than standoff, and you may want to control every platforms individual orders and maneuvers, whereas at long range the weapon is more important than maneuverability. Some of the same tactics are becoming the basis for modern air war. And in TFTD when you couldn't breach the Lobstermen with old fashioned Gauss guns you may of resorted to a thermic knife fight.
Track-heavy.... I should face it, there were a lot of platforms in FltCmd. That means ships, aircrafts, subs, helis hunting subs, civilians, missile boats hiden with tankers, etc. This is what made it great. #1 - don't be dissuaded by this. It is still possible to implement a busy world, if we start with an efficient open-ended structure. For sanity sake, perhaps minimize the amount of hostile and friendly platforms at first to get acquainted with it. We also don't want to lose sight of the game we're used to. However, thinking for the future may allow the interception game to be grown to include all kinds of platforms without too much modeling or additional programming. Gameplaywise, what Im implying is potentially a LOT of micromanagement. It must be introduced slowly or efficiently so as not to overwhlem the player. This was even true in XCOM.
I know the post was long, I hope someone knows where Im coming from. I think this would be a great fusion of 2 complementary games.
I strongly suggest the developers check out this game, and anyone else who likes old strategic games that allow you to manage a lot of platforms at once. Robust Gameplay, Simple interface.
Keep up the good work
