Star Tactics: An Experiment in Limited Design

Time to Beat (the Main Campaign and Dogfights): 5 Hours

Star Tactics, is a bare-bones tactical space sim that looks like a series of introductory CAD sketches. Unfortunately, while the game is as sparse at it appears, it doesn't have the depth it wishes it does.

Star Tactics contains no story, aside from a small, hidden outline of a plot. It appears to have been written by someone who has read nothing but summaries of young adult novels for the last five years. It was short, it was vague, and complete with overused cliches. The entire description nearly fits in a single screenshot (see below). The hackneyed story devices are like laser beams through the heart of anyone who regularly reads the latest Hugo winner. Star Tactics' summary describes two opposing forces, neither whom could be a sympathetic protagonist. It's a difficult choice to foist upon the player. Would you rather command the “Devil's Dozen”, a corporation spanning five star systems (why “Dozen”? And don't says its because they have seven planets in five systems, no one adds like that), or the Delanel Theocracy, fanatics determined to impose their beliefs (whatever they are – presumably evil, based on the author's understanding of stereotypes) on the expanse of the Universe? If you'd like to learn more about these two dueling foes, the game is unwilling to comply. Go shoot something instead.

Um, bad news beaming in. I'm sorry to say there isn't much to do here either. Star Tactics includes, if one is being incredibly generous, four styles of gameplay, but it would be easier to call it what it is: one.

There is a campaign. One must tread carefully when using words like this. A normal player would expect, at a minimum (in addition to combat) a story. There isn't any. Just a screen offering level one, two, three, and so on, to thirty. There is no text related to the plot before a battle. There is no text related to the non-existent plot after a battle. But I didn't buy the game for the plot, so it's not a loss (is what one says when they become desperate for an excuse not to criticize anything too quickly).

There are two versions of the campaign: Main and Dogfight. The main campaign is “The Game!” It includes thirty scenarios, the first of which includes two fighter ships. By the final, anti-climactic battle, the player commands nine non-fighter ships (A note on the ships available. There are ten different ships, beginning at Fighter and ending at Battlecruiser. I consider the first four ships to be the fighter size, and number five, the Frigate, to be the first warship). The Dogfight campaign offers ten levels but includes only fighters, thought they are slightly modified from the campaign versions. Instead of including the Dogfight mini-campaign (which is padding), the developer would have been better off incorporating those fighters into the main campaign, and altering the game so small ships could be useful in larger battles.

The padding of the campaign section isn't the worst fault. Star Tactics also offers two skirmish modes. Each mode mirrors the ships available in each of the campaigns. In Main Skirmish, the player starts with the smallest fighters. Battle are randomized, unlike the campaign which had set scenarios. After each Skirmish the player is awarded one to three stars. Earning more stars unlocks larger ships for the skirmish mode. But you're already seen all the ships in the campaign. The Dogfight skirmish mode commits the same sin, offering the smaller customized fighters.

So there is one type of gameplay (two if you're kind) broken up into scenarios and randomized battles. There aren't many different ships, or many differences between ships. But at least the game seems to offer unlimited replayability with its randomized battles.

Well, it would if combat wasn't broken. It's not busted because that it doesn't work, but unworkable because the enemy isn't sufficiently programmed to compete against a human opponent.

If the commander of the enemy was sent to tactical school, he'd flame out for two reasons. The first has to do with how he maneuvers his fleet. He directs them to move on the shortest path toward the closest enemy. This would be an egregious error if the commanders of each ship changed their facing as they approached combat, but they don't.

Imagine you're watching two sailing ships in battle. The age of the British Navy, Old Ironsides, and the Pirates of the Caribbean. You'll notice their cannons are along the sides of the ship. They can't fire forward, and to strike foes, the ship needs to turn to have its side face the target. In Star Tactics, each ship has a different orientation for its guns. Some fire forward, but some shoot out the side, others behind, while the largest ships may be able to attack from more than one facing .

The AI doesn't understand the best method of orienting their ships to effect the strongest attack. Everything else being equal, a commander wants to bring the greatest firepower to the weakest defense. Star Tactics' AI doesn't just have a tactical problem, it has a ship maneuver problem. The computer always moves ships directly toward the closest enemy ship. This wouldn't be a disaster if all their ships had forward mounted cannons, but the strongest enemy ship has no forward mounted guns. They have a devastating side barrage. But they only use it occasionally: when they accidentally end with the correct orientation.

The following three images will illustrate the fault.

The Black Ship is the enemy. The Green Ship is the player. The arrow is the front of the ship, and the direction of travel. Ships fire from the red area. So the computers ship fires from the sides, while the players shoots from the front. In the first image the enemy is chasing the player, but can't hit him because of the angle:

If he wants to hit the player after the movement phase, he should turn like this:

Instead, the AI turns to follow the player, offering no opportunity to shoot:

Of course the player can't shoot him either. This isn't a single, out-of-the-ordinary mistake. The computer always acts like this. Consider missiles.

Warship have the ability to launch a missile instead of firing guns, but are limited to every other turn. The computer may use this opportunity every chance it has, irrespective of the current tactical situation. I don't know, but it wouldn't surprise me. For them, rockets are useless, but for the player they are the best weapon to achieve victory. Considering how the enemy moves, it may not surprise you to learn their torpedoes move unerringly toward the nearest possible target. Unfortunately for the enemy, they're effortless to dodge, especially if the missile is chasing you.

Take for example, missile chasing ship:

If I turn like this:

The rocket will always go:

And miss.

It's quite possible to avoid a head on torpedo as well. As long as one makes a sharp turn, the missile will go right on by.

But the same trait that makes the computer abominable at connecting with missiles and guns, insures they are always in the players crossfires. They have no idea how to dodge a missile, and since they always take the quickest path to the player, there's never any question about where each ship will be.

In the beginning, before the player becomes aware of the ineptitude of the enemy, the computer will seem a formidable foe, because they always outnumbers the player. But a perceptive review of each battle will reveal the truth. From then on, it's difficult to lose a battle. As long as the player has one missile/rocket/torpedo capable ship, they can move away from the enemy, firing a missile every two turns. Eventually there will be no more enemy ships.

To close out, there is one final weakness that's been hinted at, but not elucidated. Since the enemy will always follow the closest ship, its possible to lead two thirds of an enemy fleet on a merry chase with a single, insignificant (but fast and maneuverable fighter), while the whole of the players fleet attacks the rump enemy fleet, and then chases them down the remainder.

While Star Tactics has some interesting ideas, the implementation is a more draft than construction.