The problem is that right now destroyers are very good and dreadnoughts just plain aren't worth it. Right now there's no "what do I want this ship to do?" thinking going on, it's "oh, this is the hull that fits my industrial strategy so this is all I build" (which basically boils down to "I like replacing ships" or "I'm fighting the AI and don't have to replace ships".

What in the hell is wrong with my 20 destroyer fleet?

Here is another angle.



Currently Corvettes/Destroyers are 1cp, Cruisers/Battleships are 2cp, and a Dreadnaught is 4cp.



Allow the CP cost of a larger hull to cover the costs of half its command points in smaller vessels.



Example, twenty point fleet.

20 Destroyers

-or-

5 Dreadjaughts (which add ten extra cps for smaller ships) and 10 Destroyers

-or-

5 Dreadnaughts (+10) 5 Cruisers (+5) and 5 Destroyers.

-or-

10 Cruisers provide 10 extra points for +10 Destroyers

etc/etc.



Still that leaves not much variety, you can end up with a large number of small ships and it might make fleets large...



So changing up the rate of gifted CPs so that the first gives its full CP rating back, the second half, the third one less than half etc..

So DNs would gift four, two, one, and zero. Cruisers would award one then zero



Making twenty point fleets

3DN -12F +5G

1CR -2F +1G



So 14 points spent of the 20 on larger hulls providing a gift of 6 extra points so your left with 12 points which is another 3 DNs or 6CRs or 12DDs



More effective and balanced looking than just 20DDs



If you extend out the types and change their bonuses



DN is 4cp, gifts 4+2+1

BB is 3cp, gifts 2+1

CR is 2cp, gifts 1

DD is 1cp

CT is 1cp

TN is 1cp

oflow wrote:
The WWII ship analogy already mentioned is a good one.

Isnt a analogy towards the age of sail more accurate?

I think something that would also help is make racially specific weapon types. It would add more strategy to the battles if you know one race favors beam weapons and another uses missiles, another favors close kinetics etc. You would have to design your ships based on what enemies your're facing. Sorta like on Star Trek how the Klingons had disruptors, the Romulans had plasma torpedos, the Feds had photons, the Tholians had the web etc.



I also think it would help like others have said if different weapon types were only mountable on certain class hulls.

The WWII ship analogy already mentioned is a good one.

costi wrote:


- medium scale, good against cruisers and somewhat battleships, can try to bite a dread but you'd need a large amount of these to be a serious threat; not so effective against destroyers

- large scale/capital class, for taking out battleships and dreads, useless against smaller, more agile ships.

Instead of useless I would prefer the term over kill. Agility means nothing from one beam weapon to another, if they can nail you with an itty bitty tickling laser they can atomize you just fine with any other beam size... the difference is there are less bits to mail back to mommy. So I disagree that all large weapons are less useful against small targets, I am more aligned with that they are simply and always over kill.



Playing off what you gave as examples. To make it much simpler on the programming I would increase the size of weapons and increase the size of hulls for larger vessels. Command points will still restrict the sheer number of larger ships that appear but it could least to specialized smaller ships whose purpose is to carry fleet wide defensive systems to protect those big ships.

I'm not a fan of hard-coded fleet composition limits. While this may be used as a way to differenciate races (so one race prefers swarm tactics, another a balanced mix, while yet another is a battleship nerd), it also leads to cookie-cutter fleet and ship designs.



I think the best idea is to:

1. allow bigger ships to attack more targets in a single round (destroyers - 1, cruisers 2, battleships 4 and dreadnoughts 8)

2. vary the types of weapons each hull size can fit. For example:

- point defence/small scale, effective against destroyers and below, can damage cruisers, useless against bigger ships

- medium scale, good against cruisers and somewhat battleships, can try to bite a dread but you'd need a large amount of these to be a serious threat; not so effective against destroyers

- large scale/capital class, for taking out battleships and dreads, useless against smaller, more agile ships



So, a destroyer hull might fit a couple of small weapons, or one or two medium ones. A cruiser could be made into an all-rounder (mostly medium and some small weapons), a picket ship (mostly small guns) or a "tank destroyer" with a couple of large guns and little other weaponry. Battleships and dread would carry a mix of guns, with a preference for large ones.

Some support modules could also be added to further enhance some roles - Advanced Flak Array that allows cruisers (and maybe destroyers) to attack one or two targets with small guns in addition to the normal targeting limit, perfect for picket ships and anti-swarm tactics. Shield Generators that could cover other ships. Sensor Jammers that reduce enemy accuracy against targets in their field of effect, and so on...

Also, make the Battleships and Dreadnoughts the only classes capable of carrying advanced anti-planet weaponry, leaving cruisers (and maybe destroyers) with basic stuff, that can only harm an undefended colony.



This way, varied fleets build themselves. You want to play a swarm of destroyers? Be my guest, it might work, but don't expect to take over my fortified colonies easily without help from the big guys. All-battleship fest? Go ahead, those huge guns are scary but what will they do against my swarm of destroyers, each toting a single anti-capital gun, without any cover of lighter ships? In the end, we would end up with mixed fleets of different classes and purposes (flak cruisers with battleships, for example), with some specialized fleets thrown into the mix for specific operations (for example, a siege group).



You don't even need formations for that, only setting a target priority for each class when designing it, which will tell the combat AI who should attack what first. Of course, a complete revamp of the ship design system (and probably the tech trees as well) would be needed, along with tonnage and cost tweaks.

GC13 wrote:
The problem is that right now destroyers are very good and dreadnoughts just plain aren't worth it. Right now there's no "what do I want this ship to do?" thinking going on, it's "oh, this is the hull that fits my industrial strategy so this is all I build" (which basically boils down to "I like replacing ships" or "I'm fighting the AI and don't have to replace ships".

Well one fix is to set maximum numbers for hull type within available command points. There could also be combat technologies which only fit on larger hulls. Like a C&C suite that provides combat bonuses. Another option is to have weapons implemented by mounting points on a hull. So a destroyer hull might have four small weapon mount points whereas a dreadnaught has four large weapon mounts and eight small mounts. Mounting points would be used for weapons and active defense systems. There are many ways around it, the issue I see is having the AI smart enough to design with them.



So...



1. Have combat modules that only work in larger hull sizes.

2. Have a maximum number of weapons mounts per hull size.

3. Have different size weapon mounts.

I think the more advanced a hull-type, the more advantages it should have. If you weren't going to change the tech tree at all, the dreadnought SHOULD be the best hull type, since it required the most effort to get.



However, maybe a better way to go would be to give dreadnoughts a 20% weight bonus to ALL module types - they have the disadvantages of being single expensive ships already, which gives the dual disadvantages that a player spamming destroyers will almost always have more CPs of ships on the field than you do (yours come in chunks of 4 CPs, theirs come in chunks of 1 CP, so when they've got 3 destroyers out and fighting, you've still got nothing) as well as the problem that a ship can only target ONE ship per shot in combat, which reduces the power of missiles enormously, but also lasers and kinetics to a lesser degree.



Perhaps a rethink of the ship research tech tree is in order, however. At the moment, you unlock ship hulls one at a time. Perhaps it would be better if at each step in the tech tree where you currently unlock a ship, you instead unlock several - a damage ship (destroyer), a support ship (cruiser), a defense ship (battleship) and a huge, expensive, all-rounder (dreadnought). You then unlock better versions of each ship as you go up the tech tree. That way hulls can be specialised right from the word go.



I also love the idea of ships that can defend other ships or otherwise boost their capabilities. That way the optimal fleet might be a bunch of ships with a ton of guns but no defenses, all defended by a battleship with a big shield generator.

Igncom1 wrote:
What in the hell is wrong with my 20 destroyer fleet?

Its fine for people who like swarm mechanics and min/maxing. However it only really works because the way the AI handles ship combat in that one ship can only attack a single target per turn which negates some advantages large ships get. Theoretically 5 Dreadnaughts using weapons which fire three times a round will only kill 15 ships if I understand the phases right. If so you could never destroy a 20 ship fleet with anything short of seven ships.



I would like to see more traditional appearing fleet composition without forcing it to one side or the other... as in always DNs or always DDs.

I had to log in just to post this.



Stop trying to make endless space a "spam the biggest ship to win" game like so many other games have gone. Those other games exist and they're great, but for the life of me I can't understand why people want this game to be another game where your fleets are 5 dreadnoughts every time.



What's more, hard caps are never good. Never. It just makes the game a "the good and the rest" style. Nobody likes it when they HAVE to build "the rest" cause "the good" got capped.



Stay focused on motherships. Big ships that make the little ships better at what they do and therefore more worth the cost. One thing I'd like to see is fleet wide shielding/flak so a cruiser could eat up shots for the destroyers.

Adger wrote:
Ships Of The Line got obsolete due to their lack of maneuverability and design related disadvantages in terms of military combat use. They depended on wind and sail surface. The introduction of the steamengine put an end to them. This new propelleing method allowed for heavier ships resulting in new types of armor (see "Iron Clad") and more and heavier weaponry. Counter-developments in the long run are carriers and guided missile destroyers, both using either fighters or batteries of / fire and forget surface to surface / air to surface missiles. Modern naval battles are decided by recon through means of aircrafts (and space, eg. sattelites, for that matter) and spread out, highly agile fire"plattforms" (eg. planes, destroyers) concentrating their fire on target. That's btw the reason why all navies got rid of their BB's: Yes, they do wield tremendeous firepower, but they are ONE target and once they are disabled combat value of the naval group deteriogates exponentially. The single one important rule in "modern" warfare is: spread your units and concentrate fire. That way losing one firing unit does not render your whole detachment exposed, underpowerd and prone to be overrun. This explains why Dreadnaughts (or Battleships) are the exact opposite of this idea and can ultimately be overcome by amassed small yet agile vessels with high powered long range weaponry.

This is absolutely correct. It is so fundamental that it transcends game mechanics as a strategy. In a table top war game I play called Full Trust this is also very much an issue. At first many players of the game notice that ships become exponentially more effective the larger you design them because some ship systems have tonnage costs by % of total ship weight while others are fixed so on the largest ships you have quadratic increase in the number of the fixed systems you can fit. However due to the way the game is actually played however while those ships are point for point more effective in isolation swarms of specially designed smaller ships can grind them down to dust. The game requires you to purchase Fire Control systems and you can only target a number of ships per turn based on the number you have. As systems can be knocked out a Huge ship with literally 100x the mass of 20 smaller ships will be brought down due to the limit on its fire controls and the ability of the smaller ships to equip weapons that specifically harm its fire control and other operational systems.

But what was the leading reason behind the end of AOS type combat an thus the beginning of more modern fleet combat?

Ships Of The Line got obsolete due to their lack of maneuverability and design related disadvantages in terms of military combat use. They depended on wind and sail surface. The introduction of the steamengine put an end to them. This new propelleing method allowed for heavier ships resulting in new types of armor (see "Iron Clad") and more and heavier weaponry. Counter-developments in the long run are carriers and guided missile destroyers, both using either fighters or batteries of / fire and forget surface to surface / air to surface missiles. Modern naval battles are decided by recon through means of aircrafts (and space, eg. sattelites, for that matter) and spread out, highly agile fire"plattforms" (eg. planes, destroyers) concentrating their fire on target. That's btw the reason why all navies got rid of their BB's: Yes, they do wield tremendeous firepower, but they are ONE target and once they are disabled combat value of the naval group deteriogates exponentially. The single one important rule in "modern" warfare is: spread your units and concentrate fire. That way losing one firing unit does not render your whole detachment exposed, underpowerd and prone to be overrun. This explains why Dreadnaughts (or Battleships) are the exact opposite of this idea and can ultimately be overcome by amassed small yet agile vessels with high powered long range weaponry.

An extra way of altering mono hulls would be for Heroes to give bonuses to random hulls. For example, if the Hero gives damage bonuses to Cruisers and Battleships, then you might be better off using either one or both. This is also true to the real world. No man can command different parts of an army if he hasn't been trained for them. An officer who enrolls in the airforce division might know how to fly one particular ship, but he might be oblivious to other ships and their possible advantages/disadvantages. Likewise, a hero who has spent his life leading Destroyers should be much better in leading destroyer than any other ship (unless he has multiple experiences).



The problem with this is that it doesn't stop you from using mono hull tactics, but only refrains you from using the same hull all the time.



Come to think of it, maybe Hero bonuses could be dynamic. Depending what kind of ships you are using, the Hero gives bonuses based on your fleet composition, up to a cap. Small fast ships would add up a speed bonus, medium to large ships would add up a firepower bonus and dreadnoughts would add up a defense bonus and these bonuses cap at a certain point, in which after that there is a diminishing return which would almost always (if not always) be of a less total than a fleet which is mixed up.



So, if i have a fleet of 12 CP with a dreadnought, 2 Battleships and 2 Destroyers, i would be getting a fleet bonus of Defense, Firepower and Speed respectively. Depending on the hull size, this bonus might be higher, which allows you to reach faster your cap, but in turn spends your fleet total CP faster.

I'd say hire the guy who made Gratuitous Space Battle (http://store.steampowered.com/app/41800/, there is a demo version) and let him merge his game into this one... The ship design process is similar, but there you can also choose e.g. formation in battle.

There is, by the way, yet another problem with the hull sizes.



Support modules come only at a quantity of one per ship. As far as I know the boni for fleets stack with several support modules. It's yet another point that might favor small ships. I'm not certain though to which extend as I never had any closer look at it. So, support modules might need an overhaul as well. Just don't ask me how that part could be done

GC13 wrote:
I think you're overstating the differences of ranges in fleet engagements back in the day. The different ranges between carronades and standard cannons made a big difference in ship vs ship engagements like you'd find in anti-pirate campaigns, but if your ship-of-the-line had carronades it could use them (apparently, though, this stopped when fleets stopped fighting so close to one another).

It is highly likely that I'm overstating the range difference. One thing I'd glossed over is that, apparently, muzzle velocity of black powder weapons, especially smoothbores, has an upper bound that's pretty low, so it really was mostly a case of accuracy at range due to the length of the barrel. Potential engagement ranges also increased for any given weapon as nations improved their metallurgy and machining skill, too.

Mermel wrote:
In that case... try to give the players a reason to fit anything but a giant bunch of torpedos on theirs ships...

Well, there is that single-target missile thing... I'd probably mount just enough missiles to force the other side to honor the threat and then still go for beams.

Igncom1 wrote:
Maybe weapons should only be permitted to fire in their own zones? because you just wast a lot of kinetic ammo in long range-why bother simulating it, give the game a reason to actually progress into medium and short ranges?

In that case... try to give the players a reason to fit anything but a giant bunch of torpedos on theirs ships...

I often find myself using ships that only have 20-30% of their hull using weapons, minimizing damage the enemy can actually do while dishing out my own damage on my terms due to current defenses being better then equivalent weapons (But being leaky), unfortunately the AI is slow to adapt meaning that a flaw in their designs can end empires.

One way to prevent larger ships from replacing smaller ones and to encourage poly-hull fleets is to give the hulls specific advantages that can potentially work in a rock-paper-scissors type fashion where a fleet of T1s might have an easier time taking on a fleet of T3s than a fleet of T2s, but couldnt hope to take on the T2s themselves and neither could the T2s tackle the T3s the way a bunch of smaller ships could. This already exists to some extent but should be expanded on further. For example, lets say T2 ships have bonuses to laser and missile damage and a negative bonus to defensive module tonnage. This will encourage you, but not force you, to fit it a particular way. Let's say the you decide to go with a fleet of T2 ships fitted optimally for it's bonuses and you decide to go up against another mixed fleet of equal strength. You take out half of it easily, but are annihilated by the second half of the opposing fleet since they are T3 and possess modules and bonuses that directly counter your fleet. Now lets say you take another fleet of T2 ships but have fit them with different modules that don't correspond to the bonuses on the hull so that you can deal with the counter that just defeated your last fleet. This time you might win because the modules counter what the opposing fleet uses, but you would have been better off using T1 ships since those received bonuses to the weapons you are now using and would have countered the opposing fleet just as well as your new T2 did and for a much lower cost. In case one a poly hull fleet would have been the truly ideal circumstance, and the second instance shows how a lower tech ship can be made to be just as useful as a higher tech one in particular circumstances. Both combined would help to encourage poly hull fleets.