eviliron wrote:
Yes, I know, I played Eve for 3+ years. These are great mechanics that lend utility to every ship size. It also keeps all ships relevant throughout the entirety of game play. Increasing signature radius, webbing, jamming, etc... are all great features. It would be great to re-purpose smaller ships when they become obsolete...

See, I think THAT is the right idea to keep smaller ship classes relevant. Make them flak ships or EWAR ships or Logistics ships. This sort of thing could easily be reflected within the abstracted battle system that Endless Space uses.

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 Like this, there is already a strong rock/paper/scissors element to the combat. This would be more so. Anyway, I already use this tactic.. I build small missile boats. They only launch one salvo before being destroyed, but I can crush much bigger ships with their deaths, and they are cheap to make later in the game. You can fit 4 small missile boats into the fleet space of one dreadnought. Thats a lot of fire power, devoted to different (not the same) targets.

GuruVII wrote:
I'm uncertain why a big ship would have a harder time hitting a smaller ship. I understand the basic logic, a smaller ship is a smaller target, it would be more manoeuvrable, but wouldn't a smaller ship also have a harder time hitting it, when compared to a dreadnought?



Then again a dreadnought would also have more computers, which would in turn mean greater computing power, which would come very handy when using predictive algorithms to target the enemy ship.

The idea is (on EVE anyway), the bigger the weapon you have, the slower it turns. In other words, it is capable of dishing out insane amounts of damage against stationary & slow moving / big targets. Faster targets would be able to avoid enemy fire - and EVE simulates this by reducing the damage.



Even if you have a super-computer that uses the latest predictive algorithms, in the end, smaller ship is capable of avoiding much. Avoidance is the word here. Each missed shot means less DPS. Sure, it won't matter if you have a super-cannon capable of dealing high damage and has a very high rate of fire, but there isn't a such thing in the game :P

Mr_Eon wrote:
Because it's a nightmare to balance and because even in Eve's system it is not that cut and dried. It's entirely possible, for example, to pop drones or web a frigate and absolutely shred it with a Battleship.



Given the abstracted nature of the combat system it makes much better sense to keep smaller ships relevant by granting them a specialist role - perhaps as a screen against large weapons that target the capital ships.

Yes, I know, I played Eve for 3+ years. These are great mechanics that lend utility to every ship size. It also keeps all ships relevant throughout the entirety of game play. Increasing signature radius, webbing, jamming, etc... are all great features. It would be great to re-purpose smaller ships when they become obsolete...

Smaller and faster ships could be used to flank the enemy. Big heavy ships should be slow with heavy armor and weapons. medium ships should be allround ships protecting your flanks or join the flanking together with the smaller ships.

Tzimisce wrote:
From what I've found in my grand 4 hours of Alpha gaming, you can't really assign roles to smaller ships, the system is too abstract for that, you can use a fleet made up of smaller ships, or you can have a fleet of mixed size ships. the real use is that in the time it takes my opponent to build one super dreadnaught, I can build 4,392 fighters... the dreadnaught doesn't stand a chance.

I used to love taking out the guardian in MOO 1 with fighters.

This; price should be the limiting factor of large ships - the reason dreadnaughts don't obsolete smaller ships ought to be that only a giant mega-shipyard should be capable of producing dreadnaughts in a reasonable amount of time, while space fighters should be something you can churn out in your garage. If I can build 1 fighter a turn on every planet, but have to spend 10 turns building a single dreadnaught on my best planet, then fighters will remain useful.



Combine that with making big ships large tempting targets (so, make the number of separate targets a dreadnaught can fire on is limited to 5 at a time, with each of those five shots being more than powerful enough to destroy a frigate), and a dready becomes wasted on little targets - it can only destroy 5 at a time, yet costs 500 times as much, so it rarely makes back it's value when fighting little units. Of course, if it survives, then you've lost nothing from the battle, where as even if it's destroyed it'll take out a fair chunk of your opponent's fleet.

i think that the secialist roles of the smaller ships simply havent been balanced yet.



corvet-- speed, sensor and repair bonus means a ship designed to raid and scout, maybe a blockade running/espionage feture is in the works. they are the eyes of an empire, and they would be good at stoping trade/threatening unguarded/developing systems. they just need a boost in that area.



destroyer-- pure weapon power-- they augment/fill out battle fleets. counter corvettes (you don't necessarily want dreadnoughts chasing corvettes). i think that they need a bonus because they pop so quickly in combat, big fleets of them have huge damage output -- mounted with lasers and missiles they will end a battle fast-- low health and armour force them to rely on good counter cards in combat.



cruiser-- plannet bombardment, armour--- ment to tag along with battle groups to aid with invasion/raiding corvets. if modules that boost fleet efficiency are in the works then the cruiser is a likely candidate, it is the large support ship designed to survive long enough to bombard a planet. fairly useless in combat except as a target or a flying brick



battleship-- tank tank tank. it needs ether a stronger defence bonus or a weapon bonus. load it up with the appropriate defences and hold the line.



dreadnaught-- needs to be a jack of all trade and master of none. big fleet actions should benefit from them and they should exel at blockading but they should be nighther as durable as battleships nor useful as cruisers, nor fast as corvettes, nor damaging as a fleet of destroyers.

Maths for the win. Reminds me the old days when I was studying it. *sigh*

Raptor wrote:
2x

Lamb lamb cow dog hippogrif pancake?

Alderbranch wrote:


Yellow striped pink blue spherical.... CIRCLE!!

2x

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.

Well this doesnt mean we cant discuss stuff even though we know nothing of the system yet. Still Id like to see advantages to cover weaknesses just as you say and we are basically arguing it so that the devs will come to the rescue and say "our system is based on this and that and works like this" Or well not exactly that as that would merely be annoying but you get the point.

Raptor wrote:

Yellow striped pink blue spherical.... CIRCLE!!

Alderbranch wrote:
You just make that up as you go along dont you.

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.

Raptor wrote:
I meant I wouldn't like a race with such "characteristics" in the game.

You just make that up as you go along dont you.

Headcrab wrote:
Big balls and big guns is the perfect way to discribe most of the ships in the perry rhodan saga ;p

LOL, thats really one interesting way to look at it.

Big balls and big guns is the perfect way to discribe most of the ships in the perry rhodan saga ;p

Alderbranch wrote:
That says more about you than me... ^^

I meant I wouldn't like a race with such "characteristics" in the game.

Raptor wrote:
buahaha I just imagined that and I didn't like it

That says more about you than me... ^^

Alderbranch wrote:


But I sincerely hope they wont make the race that flies around with big balls and huge guns...

buahaha I just imagined that and I didn't like it

So what you are saying Nosferatiel is that Spaceballs were right all along... ^^ Even the title set it perfectly.



But I sincerely hope they wont make the race that flies around with big balls and huge guns...

Alderbranch wrote:
Lamb lamb cow dog hippogrif pancake?

lol I give up