Fighters/bombers would be a valuable addition. Think of it like this: torpedoes and kinetics and beam weapons are at will weaponry. They're fired and deal damage if they aren't deflected/resisted. But a swarm of fighters would act like a debuff. They would be launched during the first round and persist to the end of the engagement.



It would sacrifice an immediate source of damage (eg a beam salvo) for a long term investment in the battle. Even in two minutes.



You could have different kinds of fighters/bombers. Maybe some are, like you said, just missile delivery platforms, chipping away a small amount of health over a long time. Maybe some have EMP weapons that reduce enemy fire rates. Maybe some are kamikaze types (lore wise it would make sense for the non-organic factions) and they reduce the efficacy of the enemy ship defences, slamming into armour, disabling shields and such.





You're absolutely right on the need for each ship class to be better defined. Dreadnought should bring something unique to the table, because like you said, right now you should just take battleships or even cruisers en masse because it is simply, mathematically, more effective.



If we're talking ideas, I think there should be some unique weapon modules. Keep the beam/kinetic/missile trifecta as a base, but have some heavy-fit weapons available for the large hulls. Some kind of ultimate superweapon, maybe it takes all three battle phases to 'charge up' but once it fires it delivers massive damage in a wide area. Make it so that the module itself is so heavy that only battleships or dreads can even fit it, let alone accommodate it with other defenses.





With regards to space stations. Sins of a Solar Empire was greatly improved by the addition of stations in my opinion. It filled the gap that currently in Endless Space has been hamfisted. There needs to be a way to block enemy fleets from entering your territory in a non trivial fashion. In SoaSE, fleets could just dance around your planets and as long as they had a fast enough charge up time on their jump drives, they'd never get hit and just beeline for your capital. In Endless Space, having fleets 'embargo' your own planets ties up ships in the wrong task. Fleets should be mobile, they should be reactionary and offensive. It makes no sense to have 'attendant fleets' sitting around, doing nothing, using up dust and tying up heroes. A permanent station would serve gameplay functions and be a cool new addition to the visuals of the game.



They'd needs two things, minimum. A way to attack fleets in the same system. This would require a whole new battle mode where a fleet is attacking a stationary object in orbit. That comes with all sorts of cool balance additions, such as the idea of siege fleets fitted for invasions, but poorly equipped to fend of enemy ships. Also, stations would need a way to block fleet movement. Making your frontiers secure and freeing up your own fleets for mobile engagements.



I mean, I'm not suggesting they copy SoaSE, but you could even add civilian operations to them. Make them trade hubs, give them bonuses that apply to the other planets in the system. Couple them with a suite of other active planet defenses (like shields, orbital guns etc) and you have yourself an entire expansion pack right there. Aesthetically pleasing, narratively sound and most importantly, an important and pleasing addition to the game mechanics.

Sparks wrote:
Fighters/bombers would be a valuable addition. Think of it like this: torpedoes and kinetics and beam weapons are at will weaponry. They're fired and deal damage if they aren't deflected/resisted. But a swarm of fighters would act like a debuff. They would be launched during the first round and persist to the end of the engagement.



It would sacrifice an immediate source of damage (eg a beam salvo) for a long term investment in the battle. Even in two minutes.



You could have different kinds of fighters/bombers. Maybe some are, like you said, just missile delivery platforms, chipping away a small amount of health over a long time. Maybe some have EMP weapons that reduce enemy fire rates. Maybe some are kamikaze types (lore wise it would make sense for the non-organic factions) and they reduce the efficacy of the enemy ship defences, slamming into armour, disabling shields and such.

Again, what is the reason to have fighters instead of launching missles from ship right away? No friction in space, anyway.

What is preventing ships from just running away from swarm of fighters untill they run out of fuel?

How are the kamikaze for mechanical races different form missles?



Again, I see no reason to have fighters, other than the carriers rule the current navies due to atmosphere having friction.

Sparks wrote:


You're absolutely right on the need for each ship class to be better defined. Dreadnought should bring something unique to the table, because like you said, right now you should just take battleships or even cruisers en masse because it is simply, mathematically, more effective.



If we're talking ideas, I think there should be some unique weapon modules. Keep the beam/kinetic/missile trifecta as a base, but have some heavy-fit weapons available for the large hulls. Some kind of ultimate superweapon, maybe it takes all three battle phases to 'charge up' but once it fires it delivers massive damage in a wide area. Make it so that the module itself is so heavy that only battleships or dreads can even fit it, let alone accommodate it with other defenses.

AOE?

A stack of big ships enters battle, bang, everyone are dead?

No, thanks.



I think what needs to be done, is change repairs and maybe introduce range. Make sure that small ships can be in enemy space alon only for a brief period of time, while big ships last longer. Make cruisers counter DDs stronger, so that BBs have their role of heavy, survivable worhorses, dreadnoughts would be ultimate anti-battleship, and dreadnought would be hard-countered by DDs.



Dreadnoughts coul be more mothership-like guys, with good support capabilities, like capital ships in sins of solar empire.

Sparks wrote:


With regards to space stations. Sins of a Solar Empire was greatly improved by the addition of stations in my opinion. It filled the gap that currently in Endless Space has been hamfisted. There needs to be a way to block enemy fleets from entering your territory in a non trivial fashion. In SoaSE, fleets could just dance around your planets and as long as they had a fast enough charge up time on their jump drives, they'd never get hit and just beeline for your capital. In Endless Space, having fleets 'embargo' your own planets ties up ships in the wrong task. Fleets should be mobile, they should be reactionary and offensive. It makes no sense to have 'attendant fleets' sitting around, doing nothing, using up dust and tying up heroes. A permanent station would serve gameplay functions and be a cool new addition to the visuals of the game.



They'd needs two things, minimum. A way to attack fleets in the same system. This would require a whole new battle mode where a fleet is attacking a stationary object in orbit. That comes with all sorts of cool balance additions, such as the idea of siege fleets fitted for invasions, but poorly equipped to fend of enemy ships. Also, stations would need a way to block fleet movement. Making your frontiers secure and freeing up your own fleets for mobile engagements.



I mean, I'm not suggesting they copy SoaSE, but you could even add civilian operations to them. Make them trade hubs, give them bonuses that apply to the other planets in the system. Couple them with a suite of other active planet defenses (like shields, orbital guns etc) and you have yourself an entire expansion pack right there. Aesthetically pleasing, narratively sound and most importantly, an important and pleasing addition to the game mechanics.

Again, we are speaking about space. Space stations in Sins were pure fantasy, based arround the very limited space of gravity wells.



You can not build a space station in a way that would not allow the enemy fleet approach by having the planet in question in between station and fleet.



While i agree that there is a need for defender advantage, space stations are not a good way to make it.



They are always in a gravity well, and at severe disadvantage against fleet.



THen, i like the idea of harrasment of rears. creating narrow chokes and having only option of assaulting strongholds head on is a vey bad idea.



Yes, you do in fact need a fleet to defend shipping lines. Ask the British in WW1&WW2. Space is even more empty than ocean, and mainitaining your system unblocaded should take resorses.



While as a defender it may be annoying, look at it from the attacker standpoint. That is something you can use to get an edge.



Again, why would you attack the strong point, armed station floating somewhere, if you can just go arround it? What exacly is preventing you from passing a few million kilometers away from station and terrorise the rears anyway?



What if i would harras you by destroying your stations? You would be in an even worse spot, since you will not be capable of attacking me with resourses invested in stations instead of fleet, so the game would just be a waiting game of who got more territory and will build bigger/better fleet, without each side being capable of activly participating in war.



But, fleet allows you to expand, so eventually a player that invested in fleet will grow beyong the space station holding power.



Space stations only make things worse. It is a big ball of resourses that hangs in there forcing the turtling, and than get`s destroyed, and you`re screwed, like forever.

Because fun.



You are seriously overvaluing realism in a game that literally has sentient alien jellyfish. Stop it.





By your logic, why even have ships at all? Even a five kilometer long dreadnought that has an effective attacking range of a thousand times its size is still the equivalent of invading America by spitting from Ireland. You're right, space is huge. Space is actually so unimaginably huge and empty and devoid of anything interesting that concessions need to be made for fun. The game is pure artifice. Why use ships at all? They are no different in your logic than stations. Just fly around them? Why not? Why even have people on these ships at all? Just build a fleet of missiles and launch a billion of them into your enemies. Why use conventional explosives? Use nukes. Use a million nukes each having a yield of eighty megatons. Fry every piece of silicon for a thousand cubic kilometers. Just carpet bomb entire systems with a billion megatons of fiery death.



Do you see why your complaints are silly and misjudged now?

Sparks wrote:
Because fun.



You are seriously overvaluing realism in a game that literally has sentient alien jellyfish. Stop it.





By your logic, why even have ships at all? Even a five kilometer long dreadnought that has an effective attacking range of a thousand times its size is still the equivalent of invading America by spitting from Ireland. You're right, space is huge. Space is actually so unimaginably huge and empty and devoid of anything interesting that concessions need to be made for fun. The game is pure artifice. Why use ships at all? They are no different in your logic than stations. Just fly around them? Why not? Why even have people on these ships at all? Just build a fleet of missiles and launch a billion of them into your enemies. Why use conventional explosives? Use nukes. Use a million nukes each having a yield of eighty megatons. Fry every piece of silicon for a thousand cubic kilometers. Just carpet bomb entire systems with a billion megatons of fiery death.



Do you see why your complaints are silly and misjudged now?

Actually your`re the only one looking like a silly cry baby that got deprived from imaginary candy so far.



Current system makes perfect sence. Space is empty and uninteresting and battles only happen around planets that are habitable, when one mobile acet catches with another one, and, surprise, one of the fleets can just flee right way.



Effective attacking range is very dependent on projectile spead and manuverability of target. Even WW2 battleships that were 250m long evaded eachother`s shots at distance greater than 20km just fine. and that is like 100times their length.



Currently missles are carried by ships and fired at a target. To have fighters that are carried by ships, to launch missles makes no sence, since fighter is more vulrnable than missle, and more expencive, and there is no difference if the ship itself fires the missle, or fighter.



Space stations are silly and unimaginative way to introduce defender advantage. It can be done much better than that.



And, by the way, nobody is forcing you to agree with me, just stop pretending that mindless introduction of anything one makes a vish of is the only way to see things, and anything else are misjudged complains by the fun-police, OK?

Let's not argue, please?

I like all of those ideas listed on the main post. Sorry, but I didn't read through all 20 pages, so if it's already been said forgive me all. My main thing about battles were just how it ends up being the same thing over and over.

Once you've seen what it looks like after having built all of the different types of ships, it's the same thing over and over. If there were more random fleet formations, and also different views of the battles, as well as the fleets warping in from different areas.

Oh that would be cool. warp in on a battle and their in front of you, face to face, so both fleets have to start flying in on one another slowly turning their broadside to fire. Things like that. What about being able to have more than two fleets in the battle? If you are allied with another race and both are in the same area and an enemy comes along. Maybe be able to have all 3 fighting in same battle?

The battle timers would have to be changed for sure though. Some longer, some shorter. All based off which type of battle happens.



Also more along a cosmetic route, all races have the same weapons? missiles/laser/guns.

What if that was changed around some and be based off the race itself? So rather than every race shooting the same looking weapons, change the name of them and graphics. missile for one race, while a different race would be called plasma torpedo, or what have you. They would all work the same under the hood, just look different in the battles.

I dunno. hehe I just know I do enjoy this game a lot!



Anyways keep up the good work Devs.

1alexey wrote:
Actually your`re the only one looking like a silly cry baby that got deprived from imaginary candy so far.



Current system makes perfect sence. Space is empty and uninteresting and battles only happen around planets that are habitable, when one mobile acet catches with another one, and, surprise, one of the fleets can just flee right way.



Effective attacking range is very dependent on projectile spead and manuverability of target. Even WW2 battleships that were 250m long evaded eachother`s shots at distance greater than 20km just fine. and that is like 100times their length.



Currently missles are carried by ships and fired at a target. To have fighters that are carried by ships, to launch missles makes no sence, since fighter is more vulrnable than missle, and more expencive, and there is no difference if the ship itself fires the missle, or fighter.



Space stations are silly and unimaginative way to introduce defender advantage. It can be done much better than that.



And, by the way, nobody is forcing you to agree with me, just stop pretending that mindless introduction of anything one makes a vish of is the only way to see things, and anything else are misjudged complains by the fun-police, OK?

But again, my point stands. If you're going to invoke the superiority of missiles over fighters, then why not go all the way and only have missiles? What is the point of kinetics or beam weapons? Just use guided missiles from ten lightyears away. Why get as close as they do in the game right now? It only exposes you to fire that is unnecessary if you launch a salvo of missiles from the far side of the planet. Or from the planet itself.



Also, it is strange to bring up WW2 as a reason why carriers are superfluous considering how vital they were to world navies at the time. Heck, they are still the most powerful vessel in a fleet today, and we have cruise missiles and all that jazz.



It is not a case of 'fighter plus bomb = manned missile, therefore just use missiles'. That is a gross oversimplification of highly complicated mechanics.





When you say that the current system makes perfect sense because, and I quote, space is empty and uninteresting, then I fear you have missed the point of a video game.



Anytime you are unhappy with the realism in a science fiction setting, a space wizard did it. Using space magic.



Game mechanics should be in the service of fun only. Once you abandon that cause you aren't making a game.

The funny thing you should be asking is... why do we use fighters and bombers today etc.?



On the serious side of this. Small Manned Space Ships, reasonably sized at prox 2-4 crew because of weapon size, lets call them SMSS's. They can deliver their payload manually without having to suffer various set backs that the larger ships have; they have maneuverability for one, portability, easier to manufacture, less crew, can be potentially more dangerous when swarmed, harder to hit and they can get where the larger ships cannot. They have their use, their greatest use will be on the use of small transport craft to ship troops to the ground etc (this is why they should be included when the ground combat is introduced), the SMSS's acting as gunships in the atmosphere with the larger ships in orbital bombardment. Expanding on this, transporters and boarding vessels are a good idea (visually if possible at least).



Lets face it, if your dreadnought is being "Deathstar run" by a ton of fighters and bombers, your going to have a hard time dealing or targeting such small targets and with each one slowly whittling you down. Like a fly avoiding a swatter, or a lot of fly's avoiding multiple swatters. And the fun thing is that they cannot be a glass cannon due to the commanding vessel style of a carrier. Now if you act like Ork'z and just ram them with a lot of boarders... that creates the rocket scenarios we get now where we annihilate each other simultaneously, but you capture their ships!

1alexey wrote:
Actually your`re the only one looking like a silly cry baby that got deprived from imaginary candy so far.



Current system makes perfect sence. Space is empty and uninteresting and battles only happen around planets that are habitable, when one mobile acet catches with another one, and, surprise, one of the fleets can just flee right way.



Effective attacking range is very dependent on projectile spead and manuverability of target. Even WW2 battleships that were 250m long evaded eachother`s shots at distance greater than 20km just fine. and that is like 100times their length.



Currently missles are carried by ships and fired at a target. To have fighters that are carried by ships, to launch missles makes no sence, since fighter is more vulrnable than missle, and more expencive, and there is no difference if the ship itself fires the missle, or fighter.



Space stations are silly and unimaginative way to introduce defender advantage. It can be done much better than that.



And, by the way, nobody is forcing you to agree with me, just stop pretending that mindless introduction of anything one makes a vish of is the only way to see things, and anything else are misjudged complains by the fun-police, OK?

Dude, really?



I'm going to try a different train of logic, but I don't agree with you here, and I'm going to try to explain why without using hyperbole like your main opposer currently (as hilarious as it was lol).



First of all, physics in this game have nothing to do with anything. The game leaves a LOT of details up to the imagination of the player. The way systems are laid-out, the means of travel (or why you are able to travel faster with certain techs), or even the range/effectiveness of certain weapons is largely imaginery for the sake of making a game that is easy to pick-up and play for virtually anybody. Using hypothetical limitations of physics should not be a reason to not add something to the game.



In terms of the space stations, they actually make perfect sense even by your own logic. They have huge mass and they house a huge amount of military personel. A system can not be captured with it being there, because 1.) it's mass would allow it to have much longer range than normal ships (this is not something that I think needs to be implemented right now, but technically would be true), 2.) since it's full of military personel, weapons, and theoretical fighters/dropships, they could send ground forces or harassment fleets to stop enemy fleets trying to capture any planet... Sins has a different mechanic for stations... because the game is different, and 3.) the turns each take a full year, so what happens during the 4-30 years it may take to capture a system is never shown (use your imagination, especially since we are talking about a SYSTEM capture not simply a single planet).



Why fighters and bombers are not the same as missiles:

• Missiles fire in phase 2 and take 3 phases to reach the enemy.
• Once a missle salvo hits, misses, or is destroyed by defenses, it is used and no longer in the game.
• There are a total of 3 missile salvos that can reach the enemy in a battle.
• Fighters/Bombers would take X number of phases to fly to the enemy ships and they would STAY there, doing damage the whole time.
• Fighters/Bombers would not/could not be targetted by standard anti-capital ship weapons (I suggested Kinetic weapons could do some damage, just not Missiles or Lazers), making it work any other way in this game would not make sense and there are a lot of reason why... the simplest example of why not being that modern ICMBs can not target moving aircraft, because they are not designed to (the "design" principle being the reason, I'm not comparing "real" ICBMs to fictional missiles in this game).
• Fighters/Bombers are NOT more vulerable than the large anti-capital ship missiles that are designed to fly in a straight line towards a huge target versus a Fighter/Bomber that would realistically be about the same size as a missile or smaller, and be an independent weapons platform.
• The price of the Fighters/Bombers is not known at this time, you don't have a basis to say "they will cost more than Missiles".... they may cost nothing if the entire "unit" of Fighters/Bombers is not destroyed, instead being repairable... or they may simply be module "weapons" that can not be destroyed at all, only defended against... there is NO current model for how Fighters/Bombers will work in the game (reality and the cost of a modern warhead versus the cost of a modern airplane/ship are not good comparisons here).
  
  

Lastly, Fighter/Bombers and Space stations are a feature that many games include (including Sins of a Solar Empire) that a lot of people (myself included) miss greatly in this game. These are featurs that added extra depth to the game, and yes, they had counters... then again, Sins is a totally different game than Endless, so a lot of the mechanics are going to be different. That does not mean that we can not add additional features to Endless Space based on the features of other popular games (which I have also enjoyed in the past), especially considering that you can work almost any feature into the much more abstract confines of this turn-based game.



P.S. No current game on the market has "realistic" space physics that it takes into account. Even the most detailed "simulators" have ships flying at stupidly slow speeds like 300-1,000 miles per hour through an (almost) frictionless space (there is still space dust/debris), when in real life they would probably be going closer to 17,000 miles per hour while in orbit around a planet our size... if all future space tech was based on aging space tech from 30-40 years ago, of course. The games would have to be of a much more massive scope, and virtually unplayable since you would be going too fast to be able to manually dogfight with ships of the same size (assuming manually-aimed direct-fire weaponry that is present in ALL "space" games). It is not about realism at all, which is O.k. by my book.

1alexey wrote:


Space stations are silly and unimaginative way to introduce defender advantage. It can be done much better than that.

Haegemonia used space stations to great effect. In that game, the stations could move very slowly, but if I recall they were unable to shoot while moving. You had to have them "deployed" in order to be able to fire weapons and thus defend an area. If they do add space stations, I can only see them being useful on the universe map, I don't see how they would really come into play much in the battles, but I'm sure they can find a way. I'm not against the idea, but I do agree with you in some ways that it needs to be handled correctly to not end up causing more of a problem in the end.

Solution: just make it one system-wide upgrade and call it, I don't know, 'orbital defense grid'. The station itself isn't the only point of defense, it is linked to a fleet of orbiting defense guns or shields that are spread across the entire system, on every planet and asteroid belt.



I mean, all we're looking for here is some way to hardpoint a system without having to have permanent fleets. In most of my games I custom fit an entire range of 'defense orientated' ships that load up on defenses and armor and go light on weapons. All they do is hold a system, prevent travel, and stay alive long enough for my damage dealing fleets to arrive. It's a valid strategy but it feels like another level of pointless artifice.



Since the dawn of time mankind has used static defenses. And for good reason. They concentrate resources and provide permanent defense over longer periods, without as much upkeep or logistical support.





One starbase for the system controls all the defenses. Make it a targetable enemy like regular fleets and put in a simple siege mode. Just like regular fleet battles except with a new animation rig. I mean, it's one space station. Give it a standard suite of weapons and its own deck of combat cards and we're good to go.



I mean, this isn't a huge problem. I'd rather actual fleet combat received a huge amount of attention first. But if we're looking for gaps in the game, static defenses is one. As it stands, all you have are percentage upgrades and those are never fun. Active defense rather than passive defense is needed.

Well said sir, I agree with you on pretty much all points.

I did not have time to read all the posts in this thread yet, but:



Is this extension going to be sold full price or with a lower "extension" price? Should I consider this as a true extension or rather a sequel?



Is there someone who would like to share what has been planned to implement to the new combat system (latest info)?

BALANCING SUGGEST:

try make in this extension some balancing.



I play some time and find one VERY OP Affinity

http://endlessspace.wikia.com/wiki/Factions#Horatio



HERATIO and his Cloning of a Hero.



This affinity is OP in early and in end game phase. Early i can fast high powered HERO in empire and with

futuristic game theory additional +2 http://endlessspace.wikia.com/wiki/Futuristic_Game_Theory



Problem ? i clone all abilities and EXP current hero!!! In end game i can clone any 17-18 lvl hero only for 300dust. Its VERRY OP !!!



- Any player have random heroes and max 3 on start. no heratio player must chose from random heroes to his empire.

- HERATIO can make 5 heroes to 40 turn. and if hind good hero can his copy.



- Any buyed HERO have 1 lvl,

- HERATIO can copy existing HERO with his lvl.



In early game with Dust Archaeology+Legendary Heroes combo i can buy first hero for 20dust on 3lvl, and in next 5-10 turns i can clone him on 3 lvl and add to next system. In next 5 turn both heroes should level up on 4lvl. In next 10-20 turns i should have dust to clone any hero form existing (i n this phase should be on 4-5 lvl) and clone him.

In first 30 turns i have 3 heroes on 5-6 lvl in 3 systems.



In last game i have 5 heroes 4 on planets and one admiral on 17 lvl. i dismiss my 3 planet heroes anc clone my 17 lvl admiral and my fleet in one turn was the best fleet in game. THIS IS OP!



My suggestion:

Cloning should clone only type of HERO!!! without his EXP an lvl.

or

more worth CLONE next hero in DUST (x2 or x3 or ( 1/2 his actualy lvl example: i want clone 10 lvl hero i must spend DUST to clone x10)



Because now this affinity dis-balance game.

I beg to differ, because if you are able to clone a hero to that extent then you have already won the game by far.

There are no systems in this game. This is the secret you have all been waiting for. When you understand this, only then can you achieve what you want to achieve. Mental stuff really!

what even?

Combat is the only thing this game really needs worked on, so this looks very cool.

wahnvorstellung wrote:


-make "small" ships also useful! It makes no sense, that "bigger" is always better - why can't small ships be very effective vs bigger ones, because they can more easily dodge the attacks (death star VS x-wing => x-wing wins :P!). Create Techs, which force people to think about the composition of their army. More diversity within an army is always more awesome =)!

Very good point there. Maybe small ships could also move faster to the close range battle?



Also I would like to see more freedom to my decisions in diplomacy. Now, for example, I can not declare war whenever I like.

Oh gosh. Everything. I want all of those. Espionage, top for sure, followed by planetary defense stations and destroying star systems. Flagships, definitely, invasion combat definitely. All things I felt the game could improve on. The boarding of enemy ships is never something that occurred to me, but I think that sounds awesome, so consider that my honorable mention. ^ ^