plutar wrote:

I kind of agree, the new modules make it possible if the adjascent flottilla is at the proper range to litterally one shot a resourced up carriar with railguns. Granted this is only four CC of your fleet but that for the first opening volley of combat is way too much. 

Also the early game up till medium ships rarely ever sees a 2nd combat round or survivng ships.

I miss the 3 card system in ES1, it let you get involved, mix up your tactics a bit mid-battle, instead of just using one card and then watching without involvement.

Dragar wrote:

If battles are typically going to last longer than a turn, then fleets need to be locked in place over multiple rounds of combat, until a retreat is called.

Otherwise we will see ships arrive, fight a round, and then move on to a target next round. This would also avoid 'click fights' where players have to click faster than their opponent to start a fight/move away.

Would it solve the problem of click fights it if the player was given a choice to stay or to retreat on the end battle screen? Like with ground invasions? So nobody can attack until the screen is not resolved.

Hit and run attacks, on the other hand, are possible in the game already and I don't see any problem with that.

Dragar wrote:

If battles are typically going to last longer than a turn, then fleets need to be locked in place over multiple rounds of combat, until a retreat is called.

Otherwise we will see ships arrive, fight a round, and then move on to a target next round. This would also avoid 'click fights' where players have to click faster than their opponent to start a fight/move away.

Would it solve the problem of click fights it if the player was given a choice to stay or to retreat on the end battle screen? Like with ground invasions? So nobody can attack until the screen is not resolved.

Hit and run attacks, on the other hand, are possible in the game already and I don't see any problem with that.

samsonazs wrote:

I would suggest that the additional command points per hull is provided by the earliest tech (or even given when getting tier 2 military tech).

This way CP cap scales troughout research without such big jumps.

This is a very smart idea!

Disabling auto repair and limiting the overuse of repair modules to repair a ship that didn't take any damage was to mitigate situations when because of increased health the battles take for ever.

But also this stops a huge fleet from rolling trough your empire repairing damage as it goes along.

Each encounter that does some damage leaves a mark on that fleet.

I agree that battles should turn into too complicated micro management and we should just have a few choices to make once a battle starts.

(we already make the most critical choices by designing our ships and fleet composition)

One last thing to consider here also.

The CP cap for a fleet is growing in big leaps.

You get 4 then 10 and then with the bonus per hull type you get to 20 or more with a single tech (adjusted by faction traits).

That creates a huge force imbalance between fleets.

I would suggest that the additional command points per hull is provided by the earliest tech (or even given when getting tier 2 military tech).

This way CP cap scales troughout research without such big jumps.

Well, after reading all your ideas, I still think that increasing ship health would solve all the issues. Everything else sounds way too complicated to me. I like it simple but effective.

One thing that comes to mind, for example, is that I almost never get to see my bombers attack a ship because, by the time they get to one, it is destroyed by long-range weapons. Now if the ships had more health (or weapons did far less damage, whatever works), I'd actually see the battle realized. I absolutely wouldn't mind clashing with the enemy several times to decide a battle, the space battles are one of the favorite parts of the game for me. How do you all feel about that?

samsonazs wrote:

I have the same feeling during battles.

The winning side usually takes little damage and it is rare to have battles that go trough all 3 phases.

Very often 1 or 2 is the most that is needed to kill a fleet.

And once battle starts you have no control over what is happening (but that is intended as you are the leaded of a space faction not a battle admiral).

That is also due to a defence gap between projectile and energy defence (more in this thread). But even putting this asside you still don't have any mechanic in play that would help.

I have some ideas that could help here:

  1) No automatic repairs on ships (except for special modules) - this will mean that your massive fleet will need to return home for repairs from time to time

       That would need a fix for current repair modules so they only repair damage received during this battle.
       Currently if your ship has 50% health and a module that repairs 15% after battle then if the ship doesn't take any damage it is suddendly at 65% health.

  2)  Each ship should automatically try to retreat if it is at low health (unless there is a tactic card that you played ordering your ships to fight till death).

         It doesn't mean it will be successfull in the retreat but success should be based on ship speed.

         This way you get low HP ships after battle that can be persued by enemy fleet to finish them off but that will take additional turns.

         It gives you a chance to recover the ships and repair them for another battle.

         You could have a special tactic that would make them jump outside of star lanes to escape. Just a wild idea.

         There could also be a tactic where each ship escapes in a different direction so that enemy fleet would need to divide to persue (a chance to set a trap for persuing forces?) Probes might become usefull here.

         A lot of interesting things can be happening here.

  3)  Increase defence or decrease damage so that we get more of full battles (all 3 phases). I don't mind that a battle between two fleets of 10 CP will last multiple turns just like ground combat and that at the end of a turn all ships are still operational but just lost some HP. You would get a chance to play a different tactic each turn and maybe even stay alive long enough for rainforcements to arrive.

        

  4)  That brings me to the last point. With all those changes implemented I would make combat tie up both fleets just like ground combat does. It lasts and lasts until one side decides to retreat or it simply dies.

What do you think about that?

I agree somewhat. 

Yes, battles should take longer. and yes I also would agree that you should have some kind of influence between the "rounds" of battle and effect the situation with change of strategy or focus. Reatreat could be one of them, and individual ships could try to "auto reatreat" unless the enemy has a jammer or the warp drive is damaged (but we dont have such a detailed damage model, so skip that).

However, moving fleets back to repair I think is a management nightmare. That is an overhead I think would just be annoying to manage, as you move them back and forth as a no brainer. Repairing on the spot does the same, but saves you the hassle of managing that logistic aspect. 

Overall I think prolonged combat with different fleet states would bring the game-system to the next level. 

Fleet states such as:

Moving to attack, Engaging long range, Engaging mid range, brawling, jousting, getting distance, moving to warp jump range, evaiding enemy warp interdiction, recharging shields, repairing, sealing hull breach etc etc etc

Some of these state are temporary, some of them keep on to the next round.

If you see what your ships are doing, you can assist them by choosing the right strategy for the turn end.

Other factors might be morale, maybe a damage model, maybe "energy levels" and things like that. 

I think the idea should be, that you "evaluate" the shape of your fleet, your personal and your assets, and then make one or two decisions for the next round for that fleet. 

It would be in the same philosophy as the current combat system (meaning it is gameplay on the strategic level, not operation level).

The system needs depth and decisions, with more prolonged encounters, but without creating too much micro management, I think.

I have the same feeling during battles.

The winning side usually takes little damage and it is rare to have battles that go trough all 3 phases.

Very often 1 or 2 is the most that is needed to kill a fleet.

And once battle starts you have no control over what is happening (but that is intended as you are the leaded of a space faction not a battle admiral).

That is also due to a defence gap between projectile and energy defence (more in this thread). But even putting this asside you still don't have any mechanic in play that would help.

I have some ideas that could help here:

  1) No automatic repairs on ships (except for special modules) - this will mean that your massive fleet will need to return home for repairs from time to time

       That would need a fix for current repair modules so they only repair damage received during this battle.
       Currently if your ship has 50% health and a module that repairs 15% after battle then if the ship doesn't take any damage it is suddendly at 65% health.

  2)  Each ship should automatically try to retreat if it is at low health (unless there is a tactic card that you played ordering your ships to fight till death).

         It doesn't mean it will be successfull in the retreat but success should be based on ship speed.

         This way you get low HP ships after battle that can be persued by enemy fleet to finish them off but that will take additional turns.

         It gives you a chance to recover the ships and repair them for another battle.

         You could have a special tactic that would make them jump outside of star lanes to escape. Just a wild idea.

         There could also be a tactic where each ship escapes in a different direction so that enemy fleet would need to divide to persue (a chance to set a trap for persuing forces?) Probes might become usefull here.

         A lot of interesting things can be happening here.

  3)  Increase defence or decrease damage so that we get more of full battles (all 3 phases). I don't mind that a battle between two fleets of 10 CP will last multiple turns just like ground combat and that at the end of a turn all ships are still operational but just lost some HP. You would get a chance to play a different tactic each turn and maybe even stay alive long enough for rainforcements to arrive.

  4)  That brings me to the last point. With all those changes implemented I would make combat tie up both fleets just like ground combat does. It lasts and lasts until one side decides to retreat or it simply dies.

What do you think about that?

FreedomFighterEx wrote:

Manpower sound good on paper but the implement of it is bad. Even Stellaris is going to change how it work too, or remove it entirely. I get the sense that Amplitude try experiment with every new thing that no other games have try before to stop the snowball/rush effect but it still isn't enough. If Manpower is mandatory requirement for ship to operate then it going to hurt tall empire playstyle more than helping them. Heck, Vodyani wouldn't be able to has fully functional ship at all if they choose this way.

Manpower's prevalence has already been diminished quite a bit from Early Access days. Now having Manpower is a plus, not a requirement.

How about we increase damage mitigarion further while nerfing the repair modules? Also making strategic defense and weapons more fun, Id love to see ship battles last for more than a turn. Just that would change a lot for me, youd have the decision of my carriar fleet lost two escorts and took thirty percent damage while only destroying a hunter, do I retreat or press the attack? Kind of feeling, similar to the manpower invasion of do I press the attack or run away. 

I kind of agree, the new modules make it possible if the adjascent flottilla is at the proper range to litterally one shot a resourced up carriar with railguns. Granted this is only four CC of your fleet but that for the first opening volley of combat is way too much. 

Manpower sound good on paper but the implement of it is bad. Even Stellaris is going to change how it work too, or remove it entirely. I get the sense that Amplitude try experiment with every new thing that no other games have try before to stop the snowball/rush effect but it still isn't enough. If Manpower is mandatory requirement for ship to operate then it going to hurt tall empire playstyle more than helping them. Heck, Vodyani wouldn't be able to has fully functional ship at all if they choose this way.

Well, if you limit ships somehow, you still have the issue of 

Build -> Send to death -> Build again -> Send to death again AKA = spam.

Increasing HP so ships survive a battle seems promising. More reaction possibilities. Or they could have an ability to try to survive and go home when they are low on HP. 

I can agree with manpower mattering more to ship operation even if not affecting the building of ships directly. Ships with no crew should operate at around 35% efficiency. Missing engineers, navigators and gunners should mean something!

There is already a limiting factor built into the game. It's called upkeep.

I get what you are talking about but I like the current system. Why would I be limited to 3 fleets only when I'm a rich empire? How is that realistic?

One thing I was wondering though. How would it change the game if ships had much more health? So in one encounter, you'd lose one or two ships instead all. That would give you the opportunity to retreat after the battle. I don't like seeing my newly built ships be blown up in their first battle. But if that's how the game is then I am prepared to accept that as well, we're just playing with ideas here after all.

Another thing is, what if ships had a manpower cost as well? If you don't have manpower, you cannot build ships. As far as I understand ships are filled up with manpower after they're built. What if they came filled up already?

You could have a fleet system where there are limits to the number of fleets you can field exempting explorer ships. Just like how manpower is tied to your food production/population, the number of systems you have could limit the number of fleets you can field. One major military fleet per system. Or based on the number of colonized planets. 

SOTS 2 used a similar system where each colonized world generated a fleet admiral with unique stats. So if you had 5 worlds, you could field 5 fleets. The idea was that you could protect each world with a fleet, but then you couldn't attack if you did. You would need to leave holes in your defense to go on the offense.

You could have inflation for ship building. It would work like the marketplace.

The game already increases the prices of ships when there are rising tensions between factions. But in this case the cost of a ship would become higher every time you build a new one.

So you either have a breaking point where you have to stop spamming and deal with your present fleet or you keep increasing your industry or dust (or influence for United Empire) to increase production.

Agree with 1 and 2, however 3 would be too situational imo to devote much development resources to. Not only will often not have the required ships/conditions to make use of any of it, but also there's a lack of moons and whatnot in-game anyways, they're rare anomalies that appear in a few systems. I wouldn't design a brand new combat feature on the off chance that maybe you'll have a big fight on a system which maybe has a moon. Besides, glhf programming an AI to do it, lord knows devs are having trouble fixing it as it is..