Lateinshowing wrote:
Sorry, I think I didn't make myself clear. Probably should have kept writing.



What I meant was that costwise, fighters/bombers should always (unless at a tech disadvantage or attacking a hardened target that could really only be damaged by heavy guns) be able to beat their cost in larger ships even if most if not all of those ships would have anti-fighter guns, unless said ship is desigined to destroy fighters.



The origin of this thread was to figure out the role of smaller ships when you can build the larger ships. I'm just proposing that the larger ships, while very useful, aren't the end all and that smaller ships/fighters/anything else in this category is still worth building.



Still it should take a lot of fighters to do so, and that many fighters would be vulnerable to burst effect weapons (if they exist).

Sounds good to me This pretty much sums up my view on the matter.

Xervitus wrote:
Yes, there were many reasons why this occurred but most would not be applicable to a hyper-advanced space battle. If a battleship had regenerative shielding and dedicated anti fighter capability then it would be a different story (during WWII most battleships designs marginalized the threat airplanes would play). No more 10 fighters can take down a battleship, you would have to wear it down with far more forces and not just a few critical bomb hits through weak deck armour that was not designed to sustain a direct hit.



That is not to say that a capital ship in ES could not be overcome by fighters, I am just saying that the idea that a large ship can be overcome by a small number of significantly smaller ships unlikely in the context of this game.

Sorry, I think I didn't make myself clear. Probably should have kept writing.



What I meant was that costwise, fighters/bombers should always (unless at a tech disadvantage or attacking a hardened target that could really only be damaged by heavy guns) be able to beat their cost in larger ships even if most if not all of those ships would have anti-fighter guns, unless said ship is desigined to destroy fighters.



The origin of this thread was to figure out the role of smaller ships when you can build the larger ships. I'm just proposing that the larger ships, while very useful, aren't the end all and that smaller ships/fighters/anything else in this category is still worth building.



Still it should take a lot of fighters to do so, and that many fighters would be vulnerable to burst effect weapons (if they exist).

Think of World War II and the end of the battleship era. Basically every big ship there was destroyed or incapacitated by airborne forces. Which is the reason we now build destroyers and aircraft carriers or submarines.

I can imagine some reasoning along these lines for spaceborne battle, too.

Yes, there were many reasons why this occurred but most would not be applicable to a hyper-advanced space battle. If a battleship had regenerative shielding and dedicated anti fighter capability then it would be a different story (during WWII most battleships designs marginalized the threat airplanes would play). No more 10 fighters can take down a battleship, you would have to wear it down with far more forces and not just a few critical bomb hits through weak deck armour that was not designed to sustain a direct hit.



That is not to say that a capital ship in ES could not be overcome by fighters, I am just saying that the idea that a large ship can be overcome by a small number of significantly smaller ships unlikely in the context of this game.

Xervitus wrote:
I don't mean to be rude, but I absolutely hate that idea...it assumes that the designers of a capital ship would not mount weapons designed to engage smaller ships (which would be their most numerous opponents). That is like a battleship only having its main batteries...the entire point of big ships is that they have the ability to overpower smaller ships effectively while still engaging targets of equal calibur.



Massive requirements in resources and manpower should apply however...there is a reason a fleet consists of only a few capital ships and swarms of escorts.

Think of World War II and the end of the battleship era. Basically every big ship there was destroyed or incapacitated by airborne forces. Which is the reason we now build destroyers and aircraft carriers or submarines.

I can imagine some reasoning along these lines for spaceborne battle, too.

Nycidian wrote:
the problem I think is the command point system doesn't do that.



It is much more beneficial to pay much more for less bigger ships that rarely get destroyed then to pay all teh time in smaller amount for lots of small ships that often get destroyed.



Their is a saying, "Given sufficient information a rational mind has no choice, they must pick the best option." As it stands now picking anything but largest ship is a stupid decision in almost every situation.

Fair enough, I've not been playing long enough to have come to that conclusion myself, nor have I crunched the numbers, but I gather someone at least has .



So, my suggestion would at least go some way towards remedying that I guess? Since a fleet with 5 x 4 CP ships might not beat a fleet with 1 x 4CP, 2 x 3CP, 3 x 2CP and 4 x 1CP ship if the bonus for 'varied' fleets was sufficient.

you want to know why small ships are not outclassed?



Because ican build a friggn bajillion of them per turn by the time dreads start rolling.

With fleet size up to 15+ you can start building what amounts to gun platforms that move , en masse.



See that dread your enemy has rolled out? yeah he spent a whoel turn o nhis best world building that. and it still looses to the crapload of destroyers my worlds just shat out this turn alone - without killing all of them in return.







Destroyers: pick you best weapon and load up on it, ignore defense it doesnt matter anyway.

I agree, in reality you don't see a fleet of battleships. Sure you see them there, but there are smaller vessels that screen for the larger ones.

Challenge accepted.



The fundamental question upon which the answer rests is: can you fire a shot at one ship, miss, and hit a different ship?



Destroyer (180 ton capacity):

1x High Energy Couplings (14 tons, +40% weapon damage, -20% hp)

11x Gluon Disruptor (20*75% = 15 tons each, 200-220 damage)

Total 179 tons used.

Total damage: (200-220) * 11 * 140% = 3080-3388 -> round down to 3080



Dreadnought (570 ton capacity):

1x Accelerated Magnetics (16 tons, +15% all defenses)

1x Quantum Damping (14 tons, 90 absorption)

13x Ablative Wave Shield (20 tons, 250 absorption)

14x Gluon Disruptor (20 tons, 200-220 damage)

Total 570 tons used.

Total defense: (13*250+1*90)*115% = 3841

Total damage: (200-220) * 14 = 2800-3080 >> hp of one destroyer

Total HP: 1200 * ~1.5 (from + base hp, + ship xp, etc.) = 1800



Damage necessary to one shot dreadnought: 3841+2400 = 6241



Damage output from full destroyer squadron (4 destroyers) = 4*3080 * 0.45 (accuracy specified) = 5544

Adjust for soak by dreadnought: damage (on first shot) = 5544 - 3841 = 1703



Dreadnought remaining health after 1 shot from destroyers: 1800 - 1703 = 97

Destroyers remaining after 1 shot from dreadnought: 3



Damage output from reduced destroyer squadron (3 destroyers) = 3*3080 * 0.45 (accuracy specified) = 4158

Adjust for soak by dreadnought: damage (on second shot) = 4158 - 3841 = 317



Dreadnought remaining health after 2nd shot from destroyers: 97 - 317 = dead dreadnought

Destroyers remaining after 2nd shot from dreadnought: 2



It does look possible for the dreadnought with these sorts of accuracy numbers (with more hp, or with a few less guns).

From my experience, there is no added benefit to the dreadnought once you have the firepower to one shot a single enemy ship, since the system only targets one enemy at a time per ship.



That said, 45% accuracy? my gunners should be shot, then hanged, then shot again. See my post in this thread regarding accuracy of targeting systems at range...

reynanuy wrote:
Maths aside, in the end the game should promote a varied combination of ships; such as to cover each other weakness. There is a reason why the Combined Arms approach to warfare has been so successfully adapted world wide and that's because it works, thus any "believable" space warfare mechanics must take it into account. This would translate into manoeuvrability vs weapon precision, the first comes from mass, acceleration and maximum speed. Weapon precision must include ROF, stability and targeting. I wouldn't really worry about any of this though, I trust that the developers got this right; but of course at this point that's all there is: trust.

I agree with these points. Combined Arms is a big factor in successful combat.



In the end, a player will always go with the most optimal solution for success, if it's a group of dreadnoughts or a mix of ship classes. But I'd prefer if combined arms mattered in the game.

PyroVortex :



There's a secondary problem your math doesn't factor in, which is what gives dreads in particular a significant advantage - damage distribution. You're assuming lab conditions and some fairly extreme setups. Namely DE's rigged for a situation where incomming fire has no effect on their combat efficiency, and Dreads rigged specifically to be shot at.



Whilst on paper this all looks fine and well, beam weapons have a definite malus to hit at the long range stage (I think we're talking at best 50% accuracy), let's assume our imaginary Dreads had some guns on them to return fire with, there's a very realistic chance that the DE's will fall quicker than a single dread will. Each DE lost will result in an effective loss of combat damage, as well as higher material costs through replacements. Currently there's little benefit to swarming with smaller ships as a clutch of bigger ones properly outfitted will reduce the swarm down to a size where their return fire isn't enough to hammer down the big ships before they've reloaded.



I've run into big pirate fleets with 0 armour and all gun loadouts (thank you AI for that), and in most cases what happens is that even a handful of stray shots result in a bunch of dead destroyers, and the incomming fire such that nano-repairs by the next phase covers me and means I will win through attrition.



The worst case scenario for me in those positions is where both fleets murderise each other at more or less the same time, but 0 armour on destroyers will mean they get rinsed alive long before they've fired enough to ensure the demise of my fleet.



EDIT : Here's a fun little thought experiment - convert half of your defense tonnage into guns, then reduce accuracy for both sides to 45%. Then factor for the DE's much lower HP and zero soak in your setup.

PyroVortex wrote:


In any event, in order to come to any reasonable conclusions, we will have to wait for the multilayer support in the beta.

This I agree with as far as player versus player, but I still think it is almost always better to have large ships versus the computer as it will never do the type of strategy your talking about. Talking about versus the computer is what I was thinking about when I first posted in this thread.



As for against players it very possible your strategy will be the only viable one which makes me somewhat sad.

Corrected above post to account for accuracy and power modules.



In any event, in order to come to any reasonable conclusions, we will have to wait for the multiplayer support in the beta.

Your not including accuracy, and frankly I don't know the base accuracy I just know that not all weapon strikes hit.



I don't know any of the hard numbers and can only go off of what I've seen and what I've seen is that the ships are highly inaccurate and since defenses are always effective to 100% of what hits them your above numbers are more likely to be that the destroyers(if accuracy is taken into account) would do 0 damage.

Nycidian wrote:
However, you devote 50% to 75% of your tonnage to defensive modules no amount of corvettes is going to kill a dreadnaught, granted it may take longer to kill those corvettes but you will win eventually.

So, running the numbers (ignoring for a moment the effect of cards and leaders, since those should more or less cancel with the other side):



The top tier beam weapon does 200-220 damage (call it 200 to be pessimistic), weighs 20 tons * 75% on destroyers -> 15 tons

The top tier shield has 250 absorption, also weighs 20 tons



Assuming that you can only predictably get 4 destroyers to target a single dreadnought, we have:

4 destroyers * 12 beams each * 200 damage = 9600 beam damage / salvo

1 dreadnought * 570/20 shields * 250 absorption = 7000 absorption / salvo with 10 tons of displacement left over.



So damage dealt to dreadnought (who has no room left for weapons) = 9600 - 7000 = 2600 damage per salvo.



Base dreadnought has 1200 HP -> dead in a single salvo.



Now, I have just assumed perfect 100% accuracy, which although it would be realistic, is obviously not correct within the game mechanics. I have also not accounted for power support modules.



Revising my designs:

Destroyer (180 ton capacity):

1x High Energy Couplings (14 tons, +40% weapon damage, -20% hp)

11x Gluon Disruptor (20*75% = 15 tons each, 200-220 damage)

Total 179 tons used. Total damage: (200-220) * 11 * 140% = 3080-3388 -> round down to 3080



Dreadnought (570 ton capacity):

1x Accelerated Magnetics (16 tons, +15% all defenses)

1x Quantum Damping (14 tons, 90 absorption)

27x Ablative Wave Shield (20 tons, 250 absorption)

Total 570 tons used. Total defense: (27*250+1*90)*115% = 7866

Total HP: 1200 * ~1.5 (from star system improvements adding to base hp) = 1800



Since we have 4 destroyers, we have 3080 * 4 = 12320 potential damage

Our dreadnought has 7866 soak + 1800 hp = 9666 hp to kill in one salvo



So, the amount of accuracy needed to accomplish this feat is 9666/12320 = 78.5% accuracy.

If there were no defenses dreadnaughts wouldn't be viable, I agree.



However, you devote 50% to 75% of your tonnage to defensive modules no amount of corvettes is going to kill a dreadnaught, granted it may take longer to kill those corvettes but you will win eventually.

It is worth observing that, under the current system (assuming the bug with ship +x% weight techs is fixed) at max tech, we have the following:



Corvette/Destroyer: 130+50 = 180 tons @ 1 CP

Cruiser/Battleship: 260+50 = 310 tons @ 2 CP

Dreadnought: 520+50 = 570 tons @ 4 CP



So spending 4 CP on ships:

1 dreadnought: 570 * 1 = 570 tons

2 cruisers/battleships: 310 * 2 = 620 tons

4 corvettes/destroyers: 180 * 4 = 720 tons



Add to that that the smaller ships have discounts on certain module types...



Consider, for example, outfitting a fleet with only beam weapons.

4 destroyers would have 720 / 15 = 48 beam weapons

while the 1 dreadnought would only be able to mount 570 / 20 = 28.5 beam weapons



Furthermore, since the current targeting IA only allows one target per salvo per ship, after one phase of combat there would be 3 destroyers and 0 dreadnoughts remaining.



In order for the dreadnought to win, it needs to:

[LIST=1]

Survive hits from 4+3+2+1=10 destroyer salvos

Kill one destroyer per salvo

[/LIST]

Alderbranch wrote:
Id like if accuracy of bigger ships toward smaller ships was decreased. That way it becomes a rock-paper-scissor-like build to most fleets if one focus on just one shipsize.

Mostly since a bunch of small ships can take out a much bigger ship while a bigger ship takes out medium ships more easily and medium takes out small.

I don't mean to be rude, but I absolutely hate that idea...it assumes that the designers of a capital ship would not mount weapons designed to engage smaller ships (which would be their most numerous opponents). That is like a battleship only having its main batteries...the entire point of big ships is that they have the ability to overpower smaller ships effectively while still engaging targets of equal calibur.



Massive requirements in resources and manpower should apply however...there is a reason a fleet consists of only a few capital ships and swarms of escorts.

lurker wrote:
My £0.02:



(note, I'm looking at this largely from a game balance perspective, not a realism/lore perspective)



Most of this thread seems to be about keeping the small ships relevant. But doesn't the command point system provide a good measure of balance already? 4 command point ship needs to be at least as good as 4 x 1 command point ships to be worth adding to a fleet...

the problem I think is the command point system doesn't do that.



It is much more beneficial to pay much more for less bigger ships that rarely get destroyed then to pay all teh time in smaller amount for lots of small ships that often get destroyed.



Their is a saying, "Given sufficient information a rational mind has no choice, they must pick the best option." As it stands now picking anything but largest ship is a stupid decision in almost every situation.

My £0.02:



(note, I'm looking at this largely from a game balance perspective, not a realism/lore perspective)



Most of this thread seems to be about keeping the small ships relevant. But doesn't the command point system provide a good measure of balance already? 4 command point ship needs to be at least as good as 4 x 1 command point ships to be worth adding to a fleet.



However, you also need to take into account that the larger ships require more advanced tech and therefore require more investment in research to build, this implies that to be really worthwhile they should have a slight advantage in terms of utility per command point.



I agree that a combined force fleet should be optimal, this is good from a game design perspective as it keeps all ship types relevant and rewards players for going to effort in building 'well formed' fleets rather than just pumping out N x whatever ship.



Perhaps a percentage bonus to fleet power based on fleet composition would be best? With an 'optimal' fleet being one with all ship types represented in equal proportion, and diminishing bonuses as you stray from that ideal, with no bonus for 'single type' fleets. This would make balancing your fleets an aspect of game play. Of course any such bonus should not be extreme, just enough that in a battle between two equal-size and equal tech fleets the fleet with the broader composition would have the advantage. Overall I think this would add depth.

My suggestion is Have a accuracy bonus and minus by level of class and to reduce the accuracy of all weapons to -25% base

• Smallest
  
  
  100% Bonus to Hit
  
  
  
  0% Increase to be Hit
• Small
  
  
  75% Bonus to Hit
  
  
  
  25% Increase to be Hit
• Medium
  
  
  50% Bonus to Hit
  
  
  
  50% Increase to be Hit
• Big
  
  
  25% Bonus to Hit
  
  
  
  75% Increase to be Hit
• Biggest
  
  
  0% Bonus to Hit
  
  
  
  100% Increase to be Hit
  
  
  

This would mean 2 equal size ships would always have a 75% chance of hitting each other in combat before modifiers.



A class size of one magnitude difference would mean the lesser one would have a 100% chance to hit the larger one while the larger one would only have a 50% chance to hit the lesser one.



In the extreme case of a smallest vs a biggest the smallest would have a 175% chance to hit the biggest while the biggest would have a -25% chance to hit the smallest. This is before any modifiers of course.



This would encourage the use of mixed forces, and makes some sense as it is obviously much easier to hit a bigger target.