Try out fighter bays which take up % tonnage. Why bother using a large ship as a carrier when you are going to get the same amount of fighters, for more expense and far more tonnage? -.-

GruulTapul wrote:
Sadly, I think the underlying problem is that you can only unlock two items per technology

Nope, there is no technical restriction to it. i think the only reason why not more items are unlocked per tech is because it might look strange. But you can unlock everything you want with one tech in a mod.



I also plan to make a mod that reverts some changes of the expansion.



While there's some cool new things I really like, there's also enough that I don't like in it's current shape.

yea, the techs can only display 2 unlocks at a time.

In general, i like the fewer, tighter warfare techs. I would rather focus on these special modules and other mechanics instead of just getting better weapons and armor all the time. I also feel like it gives more early game variety, as now one weapon tech opens 3 ranges of options. It waits to be seen whether the attacks at each ranges are effective enough to warrant using, i'm still trying to wrap my head around how weapon vs defense works now.

I like that you don't gain a massive advantage from T1 to T2, as that really helps races like the cravers and hissho, where military tactics is still better then brute technology.



Would love more battle cards involving the strike craft.





QUESTION



Anybody else feel like bombers are kinda bad against ships in comparison to fighters?

I did a small rant about this in another thread.



Anyway, I couldn't agree more with those who say that taking options away is never a good thing. There's no customization anymore. Being forced to use the latest tech you've researched breaks the game both for me and the AI. Since I've seen plenty of fleets with no attack power because they are stuck on weapons without the required resource.



75% of the games you're on the second tier of weapons and defense and my fully equipped Dreadnoughts struggle to take down smaller ships for some reason and I often need three or four Dreadnought fleets to take down a single fleet in one round. This isn't fun anymore, just annoying and extremely tedious.



Please, just give us back our customization and tech from before, and include it with the new mechanics. This is supposed to be an expansion, not a downgrade with a new gimmick.

Whoh whoh whoa....you're complaining about having to take more then one battle to kill an enemy?



That's the best part! Especially when before we could barely get past the first combat phase.



I thinks that's fantastic.

Ervik wrote:
Being forced to use the latest tech you've researched breaks the game both for me and the AI. Since I've seen plenty of fleets with no attack power because they are stuck on weapons without the required resource.

At this point, I think everyone has expressed very similar opinions about this mechanic. I'm sure the Devs are looking into it.

Ervik wrote:
75% of the games you're on the second tier of weapons and defense and my fully equipped Dreadnoughts struggle to take down smaller ships for some reason and I often need three or four Dreadnought fleets to take down a single fleet in one round. This isn't fun anymore, just annoying and extremely tedious.

I actually like this aspect to a degree. Before the expansion, battles took (mostly) less than one encounter for a fleet to be completely destroyed. These better hulls do have a lot more hp and tonnage in conjunction with lower tier weapons make for some cool battles. Perhaps a better balance can be found with more tiers of weapons, but more competitive battles are not a bad thing.

Well I see it more like the devs a fulfilling their wish of a space opera, with ships being tankyer then ever we can really dive into the ship xp system, and truly epic battles where century's old ships still cling to life in endless battles against their foes.

Ervik wrote:
I did a small rant about this in another thread.



Anyway, I couldn't agree more with those who say that taking options away is never a good thing. There's no customization anymore. Being forced to use the latest tech you've researched breaks the game both for me and the AI. Since I've seen plenty of fleets with no attack power because they are stuck on weapons without the required resource.



75% of the games you're on the second tier of weapons and defense and my fully equipped Dreadnoughts struggle to take down smaller ships for some reason and I often need three or four Dreadnought fleets to take down a single fleet in one round. This isn't fun anymore, just annoying and extremely tedious.



Please, just give us back our customization and tech from before, and include it with the new mechanics. This is supposed to be an expansion, not a downgrade with a new gimmick.

Wow, that seems like a pretty massive design oversight, I have to say... Wonder if we can fix that...

Igncom1 wrote:
Whoh whoh whoa....you're complaining about having to take more then one battle to kill an enemy?



That's the best part! Especially when before we could barely get past the first combat phase.



I thinks that's fantastic.

I'd like that too, if people had fewer ships. But there's still tons of fleets running around, and they still like to run away a lot. When you have 20 ships, big battles where ships last a long time and go back and forth is great. When you're trying to fight a guy with 200 ships, you kind of just want them to start dying (particularly if he can build them faster than you can kill them).

Well it is hard to cover much ground with a single fleet.



Hell there are even sifi's where a single planet can have a few hundred ships, let alone a empire.



But yeah it can become a hassle.

We could further change the dynamics of weapons over the range's.



For instance:



Long-range: Meteor guns, Photon torpedoes, Capital missiles.



Mid-range: Heavy kinetic cannons, Beams, Rockets.



Melee: Kinetics, Laser streams, Multi missile madness.



And have the techtree further upgrade the distinctiveness of the different range weapons?

Some factions have larger ships that decrease the tonnage of fighter bays, like the Hissho are super good with strikecraft.

Is it just me or do the largest ship frames die easily/always die get killed first since Disharmony? Have the mechanics of the largest ship frames changed? I can't seem to make the biggest ships useful, being unable to apply decent defenses, attack and/or special abiltiies to them effectively. Making a large fleet of smaller ships seems way better than using any large ships right now.

Igncom1 wrote:
Some factions have larger ships that decrease the tonnage of fighter bays, like the Hissho are super good with strikecraft.

Yes, some factions. I don't mind at all that - faction characteristics are something I've wanted for ages - but the basic system on which it's built is quite horrifically broken. The Hissho can still have their bonus without having the awful, awful system that has been implemented now.

No doubt Doc.

The_Doctor wrote:
Yes, some factions. I don't mind at all that - faction characteristics are something I've wanted for ages - but the basic system on which it's built is quite horrifically broken. The Hissho can still have their bonus without having the awful, awful system that has been implemented now.

so evidentally, I'm not missing anything by playing the classic game with disharmony AI. Good to know. I had a feeling that fighter/bomber play would be gimmicky. Especially since someone can just throw a flak bomb out into space from a capital ship airlock, and you know what you'll get? Lots of dead strike craft and clean skies.

Pondera wrote:
so evidentally, I'm not missing anything by playing the classic game with disharmony AI. Good to know. I had a feeling that fighter/bomber play would be gimmicky. Especially since someone can just throw a flak bomb out into space from a capital ship airlock, and you know what you'll get? Lots of dead strike craft and clean skies.

Your comment makes no sense.



Strike craft combat is really good, but their tonnage costs are a little too high.

I actually really support obsolete tech being phased out on the following conditions



1. If you lack a required resource you can still use old tech BUT it comes with the penalty in terms of damage dealt. You're not completely up shit creek without anti matter, but your weapons will suffer. (if you need a fluff reason, it could be that enemies have adapted their shields/armor/flak to compensate for new designs and have become perfected for old designs)



2. If you want to use old modules you pay a tonnage and industry surcharge for the obsolete tech. You can still use it but it will be marginal and case by case. EOL stuff is expensive.



The reason I support this is that it adds flavor to the races. If a race has to adapt to not being able to use one weapon type that positions them as weak against some races and stronger against others. You might be less apt to declare war against someone if all you have is kinetic weapons and missiles because you have weaker beam weapons because they have sufficiently strong counters to kinetic and missiles but not beams.



I'd really like to see less entropy towards common designs in ES.

Igncom1 wrote:
Your comment makes no sense.



Strike craft combat is really good, but their tonnage costs are a little too high.

Then I'll be glad to explain. See, a flak bomb is basically an explosive charge surrounded by shrapnel. It was, and still is in some situations, a very effective anti-aircraft weapon. It's only real limitation is atmospheric resistance, as in the pieces of debris slow to such a level that they won't pierce aircraft fuselages anymore. In space, this is obviously not a factor. A capital ship can throw a flak bomb out into space in the direction of an incoming wave of strike craft, and they'll just get SHREDDED. However, given that capital ships tend to have thicker armor, a flak bomb wouldn't do anything to them.



At least, that's how I hand-wave the lack of strike craft in vanilla ES.

Why are you hand waving at all? That's kind of an weird thing to do while calling them a gimmick when there a specific anti-fighter defences that aren't a flak bomb.

Igncom1 wrote:
Why are you hand waving at all? That's kind of an weird thing to do while calling them a gimmick when there a specific anti-fighter defences that aren't a flak bomb.

I'm just saying that's my own way of justifying the fact that fighter and bomber craft, while practically mainstays in science fiction space combat since the 80's, are not in Endless Space up until now. Seriously, why is this such a big deal to you?



Changing the subject back to capital ship weapons, I'm kind of hopeful that, one day, we'll get beam weapons like THIS



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMa3LXe6oVc



instead of the sad little pew-pew-pew colored lights we have now. They're just sad is what they are.

Pondera wrote:
I'm just saying that's my own way of justifying the fact that fighter and bomber craft, while practically mainstays in science fiction space combat since the 80's, are not in Endless Space up until now. Seriously, why is this such a big deal to you?

Me? It seemed like a big deal to you.



Besides if you ant a lore reason, it's probably kinda hard to develop an aircraft carrier that works in the void of space.

Changing the subject back to capital ship weapons, I'm kind of hopeful that, one day, we'll get beam weapons like THIS



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMa3LXe6oVc



instead of the sad little pew-pew-pew colored lights we have now. They're just sad is what they are.

Why not both? Like like pew pew lasers and beams!

Well it's from the list of previous weapons.



I don't mind personally if some different more high tech weapons are possibly introduced later.

Well balance could have determined that.



And I will say that weapons really were nothing but fluff before, as they really were all the same but Mark I or Mark IV in gameplay terms.

But sometimes fluff is what it is really about. Plus considering military tech, it slows down the research process, even if it is by a small amount, which gives players more time to catch up or attack. Plus they looked cool for each individual style of laser, kinetic, missile, compared to the last one.

Well....... in my mind, gameplay comes first.



So I don't think you can be really that far behind with a 3 tier weapon system.



However I would prefer a system that introduces new weapon types later on to widen the strategic choice.

Granted gameplay does come first, but forgive me to say that these top tier weapons don't feel very top tier. The best an interstellar empire with the aid of dust can do for beam weapons is electromagnetic fields that pinch plasma at a target? I call BS. Here, let me show you how a REAL cataclysmic beam weapon should be described.



Energy-Matter Equivocation Battery



The EMEB is not really a single beam, but several. To watch an EMEB in action, one would first see an initial beam strike the target with the purpose of bringing it into harmonic equality with the attacking vessel. Once equality has been achieved, the main battery opens fire, converting large portions of the enemy ship into energy in a massive chain-reaction.



Or a missile weapon...



Singularity Inducer



This missile never truly strikes the target, but merely flash spawns a miniature singularity near the target vessel. The singularity, for its brief lifespan, causes obscene damage before collapsing upon itself.



And who can forget kinetics?



Solar Mass Launcher



This unique weapon combines the miracle of self-propagating fusion reactions and extreme gravatic technology into a nasty little package. A large solar mass is created and compressed within the weapon, and fired at a target. On its way there, the mass grows in heat and size until smashing into the target, causing a miniature supernova upon impact. Obviously, this weapon was designed with a single-shot nature in mind. Our scientists shudder to imagine the vessel that would require a second shot.

I'm inclined to agree: balance and gameplay in definitely important, but half the fun (for me) with this game is reading all the little details that make this game different from others with things like Laser 1 and Laser 2.



EDIT: See? I feel strongly enough about it to spend my first post on it.

I don't doubt you guys at all. (Also welcome to the forums! )



But the number of kinetic, missile and beam weapons kinda blurred the line in the end of what does what.



How about alternatives for our lore/technology wise weaponry?



Like torpedoes, energy streams, meteor weapons, particle weapons and more.



Then we can dive into cthulhu waking end game technology.

Pondera wrote:
Granted gameplay does come first, but forgive me to say that these top tier weapons don't feel very top tier. The best an interstellar empire with the aid of dust can do for beam weapons is electromagnetic fields that pinch plasma at a target? I call BS. Here, let me show you how a REAL cataclysmic beam weapon should be described.



Energy-Matter Equivocation Battery



The EMEB is not really a single beam, but several. To watch an EMEB in action, one would first see an initial beam strike the target with the purpose of bringing it into harmonic equality with the attacking vessel. Once equality has been achieved, the main battery opens fire, converting large portions of the enemy ship into energy in a massive chain-reaction.



Or a missile weapon...



Singularity Inducer



This missile never truly strikes the target, but merely flash spawns a miniature singularity near the target vessel. The singularity, for its brief lifespan, causes obscene damage before collapsing upon itself.



And who can forget kinetics?



Solar Mass Launcher



This unique weapon combines the miracle of self-propagating fusion reactions and extreme gravatic technology into a nasty little package. A large solar mass is created and compressed within the weapon, and fired at a target. On its way there, the mass grows in heat and size until smashing into the target, causing a miniature supernova upon impact. Obviously, this weapon was designed with a single-shot nature in mind. Our scientists shudder to imagine the vessel that would require a second shot.

Then it seems like your problem is more with the weapons themselves and their apparent "epicness" rather than the sheer number of them. I'd love to see the next addon/DLC/expansion add new "doomsday" weapons or something, but at the moment there really isn't a need to have 10 of the exact same weapon with just minor differences in state bonus's for capital ships. However, I do indeed miss being able to read the variety of different weapons as you advanced the tech tree.



I hope they can find a way to work a few new weapons into the tech tree because I do miss Entropy Missiles, Dark Energy Beams, and Dark Matter Kinetics.

When I first was confronted with the drastical reduction of weapon-levels in the VIP-Beta I was like: WTF? Why did they take out all those weapon-levels?



If you expect me to now say something along the lines of: "But after getting used to it..." I have to disappoint you.



I still think it was a horrible design-choice to reduce the amount of weapons-levels to such a small number.



For most of the game you simply are on Tier 2 and putting more attention to the military-tech-tree feels almost pointless. And if you manage to get to Tier 3 some time before your enemies, you have such a massive edge since they are so much better than the previous. I don't see how this could be considered a good thing from the balancing-point of view.



My opinion:



There should be many tiers of weapons. 10 like before was a good number.

The difference in damage-output/defensive capability between 2 Tiers should be relatively small. Like Tier2=Tier1x1.2, Tier3=Tier2x1.2 and so on.

Weapons and Defenses should not share the same tech!

If you commit to improving one weapon-type it shouldn't be so easy to get the other types.

Allow the player to decide on his own how to best adapt to his opponents.

I think GalCiv2 is a good example how it should be. You could have Level 10 Kinetics, Level 9 Shields and Level 0 for anything else if this was okay to counter your enemies fleets.

I dunno, I kinda like the lower set of weapon tiers as it keeps low tech races competitive for a long time as it kinda dampens the effects of having much more advanced technology and wiping the board.



I haven't gotten to T3 yet but that does seem like a problem.



I would prefer if sub weapon types appeared later on, with their own advantages and disadvantages to the Kinetic-beam-missile line up.



But this is defiantly coming from a non sophon player

Igncom1 wrote:
I dunno, I kinda like the lower set of weapon tiers as it keeps low tech races competitive for a long time as it kinda dampens the effects of having much more advanced technology and wiping the board.



I haven't gotten to T3 yet but that does seem like a problem.



I would prefer if sub weapon types appeared later on, with their own advantages and disadvantages to the Kinetic-beam-missile line up.



But this is defiantly coming from a non sophon player

The least thing they could due is change the 3 tiers of weapons. Why are Fusion Torpedoes, Pinch Guns, Ultradense Slugs the top tier of weapons? Kind of lame.

Well it's from the list of previous weapons.



I don't mind personally if some different more high tech weapons are possibly introduced later.

I just took a look at weapons for the big classic ships of ES, and while I haven't gotten an abundance of time to play the game, it seems like there are less options for them now. A LOT less options. I mean, it seems like there's only 3 choices for kinetics, for example. The ones you get at the start of a game, one research option for early game, and a 3rd for late game. One of my favorite parts of ES was reading all the techy lore they put into the weaponry choices and knowing that some weapons were going to inflict CATACLYSMIC damage (Torpedos that increase local levels of entropy? YES PLZ, I'll take 500!). Am I missing some part of the game where weapon choices are going to branch out later in the game and this isn't shown on the research screen, or did ES axe a ton of weapon choices for this expansion?

I think the reduction was a step in the right direction, but it was a bit too extreme. I'd be fine with an additonal tier or two. So, around 4-5 in total.



The main problem is that "T3" will not be obtained in at least 75% of the games anyway, which essentially leaves you with just two levels of weapons, which is probably not enough. Sadly, I think the underlying problem is that you can only unlock two items per technology, so in order to actually create the additonal tiers, Amplitude would be forced to reintroduce the weapon tech clutter from the vanilla game. I have no idea how to solve this without regressing to the old system.

Agreed.



I think 5 tiers of weapons would be okay (adding one between current tier I & II + one between II + III) and really increase the importance of the military tech tree.

As it is, I finish most of my games with tier I weapons, rarely getting anything better. I have yet to touch tier III and can't really think of any reason for getting it.

Honestly, I kind of don't like the way weapons have gone in the expansion. Obviously, the fighters sound awesome (haven't survived long enough against the Craver onslaught to use them), but giving you the ability to install various ranges of weapons to ships makes the "you can, but why would you want to?" mistake.



You CAN stuff your unarmored frigate with short-range missiles, but why would you want to?

You CAN add 50 long-range kinetic weapons to your battleship, but why would you want to?



The fact of the matter remains that missile weapons are still most effective at long-range, lasers are most effective at mid-range, and kinetics are most effective in short range. And honestly, given how few weapon choices there are, it's easy to grab the research necessary to use every weapon in their original capacity. Nothing has changed except the developers are giving players choices no person in their right mind would do.



When it comes to Cravers, don't ♥♥♥♥ around with long-range kinetics. Seriously, they'll just ♥♥♥♥ing eat you for it.

I was a little disappointed to find that i can't use different range weapons of the same weapon type at a time.



Like having medium and melee range kinetics.





However weapons like melee range missiles when combo'd with fighters are very effective at finishing off en enemy ships, while not totally effective at killing ships straight off.

Igncom1 wrote:
I was a little disappointed to find that i can't use different range weapons of the same weapon type at a time.



Like having medium and melee range kinetics.





However weapons like melee range missiles when combo'd with fighters are very effective at finishing off en enemy ships, while not totally effective at killing ships straight off.

Agreed. That and I think having at least 5 tiers of weapons would be better.

Ail wrote:
When I first was confronted with the drastical reduction of weapon-levels in the VIP-Beta I was like: WTF? Why did they take out all those weapon-levels?



If you expect me to now say something along the lines of: "But after getting used to it..." I have to disappoint you.



I still think it was a horrible design-choice to reduce the amount of weapons-levels to such a small number.



For most of the game you simply are on Tier 2 and putting more attention to the military-tech-tree feels almost pointless. And if you manage to get to Tier 3 some time before your enemies, you have such a massive edge since they are so much better than the previous. I don't see how this could be considered a good thing from the balancing-point of view.



My opinion:



There should be many tiers of weapons. 10 like before was a good number.

The difference in damage-output/defensive capability between 2 Tiers should be relatively small. Like Tier2=Tier1x1.2, Tier3=Tier2x1.2 and so on.

Weapons and Defenses should not share the same tech!

If you commit to improving one weapon-type it shouldn't be so easy to get the other types.

Allow the player to decide on his own how to best adapt to his opponents.

I think GalCiv2 is a good example how it should be. You could have Level 10 Kinetics, Level 9 Shields and Level 0 for anything else if this was okay to counter your enemies fleets.

Yeah i am sorry to say that but iam very unhappy with the new weapon it was imo also a poor design choice.



Your and Igncoms1 suggestions in my ears far more enjoyable then this... i mean look at the tech tree...everyone will cruise arround with Tier 2 weapons.

GruulTapul wrote:
I think the reduction was a step in the right direction, but it was a bit too extreme. I'd be fine with an additional tier or two. So, around 4-5 in total.

I agree with you here and would like to mention that the 3 tiers of weapons makes non militaristic races much better now. Once T2 weapons/def are gotten on both sides, they could essentially beat each other into a stalemate.

GruulTapul wrote:
The main problem is that "T3" will not be obtained in at least 75% of the games anyway, which essentially leaves you with just two levels of weapons, which is probably not enough. Sadly, I think the underlying problem is that you can only unlock two items per technology.

Once a stalemate occurs within the T2 weapon/defense range, Non-military faction will have the upper hand because of the lack of sustained pressure by waring factions. There would be no large down side in pursuing stronger economy/research which could result in out-teching the military factions to T3. Of course, this assumption is lacking player tactics/strategies that could be utilized to gain an upper hand to break a stalemate.



The military tree feels very disorganized at the moment which makes it hard to balance. For instance:

-Two armor modules directly next to each other ( Flawless Mechining [Armor] -> Localized Stasis [Armor])

-Two power modules directly next to each other (Evolved Construction -> Stasis Fields)

-Three power modules within the same research area (Directed Plasma, Evolved Construction, and [slightlylower] Hypermagnetics)

-Evolved Construction's Power module is veryunderwhelming compared to power modules on Directed Plasma and even Hypermagnetics (1 is to the fleet while others to the single ship)

-High Alboedo Alloys and Advanced Countermeasures contain slightly different versions of the same buildings, yet they are not separated such as farther down the tree.

-High Alboedo Alloys and Advanced Countermeasures are dead ends (hard to support researching one and less likely getting both)



Aside from the military tree being disorganized, I think there is ample room within the tree to include another tier of weapons/defenses.

its a joke that the Hissho (THE WAR RACE) didnt has a race specific weapon anymore.

Tainted wrote:
I agree with you here and would like to mention that the 3 tiers of weapons makes non militaristic races much better now. Once T2 weapons/def are gotten on both sides, they could essentially beat each other into a stalemate.







Once a stalemate occurs within the T2 weapon/defense range, Non-military faction will have the upper hand because of the lack of sustained pressure by waring factions. There would be no large down side in pursuing stronger economy/research which could result in out-teching the military factions to T3. Of course, this assumption is lacking player tactics/strategies that could be utilized to gain an upper hand to break a stalemate.



The military tree feels very disorganized at the moment which makes it hard to balance. For instance:

-Two armor modules directly next to each other ( Flawless Mechining [Armor] -> Localized Stasis [Armor])

-Two power modules directly next to each other (Evolved Construction -> Stasis Fields)

-Three power modules within the same research area (Directed Plasma, Evolved Construction, and [slightlylower] Hypermagnetics)

-Evolved Construction's Power module is veryunderwhelming compared to power modules on Directed Plasma and even Hypermagnetics (1 is to the fleet while others to the single ship)

-High Alboedo Alloys and Advanced Countermeasures contain slightly different versions of the same buildings, yet they are not separated such as farther down the tree.

-High Alboedo Alloys and Advanced Countermeasures are dead ends (hard to support researching one and less likely getting both)



Aside from the military tree being disorganized, I think there is ample room within the tree to include another tier of weapons/defenses.

agree i hope it will be reorganised with a patch.

I have heard your thoughts, faithful Endless Spacers, and fear not, for I am already working on a way to adapt classic weapon code over to the expansion. It will just take a really long time, and I'm not 100% sure the AI will use it. However, aside from that, I've been working with the Imperium Aeturna mod, and have managed to get the planetary expansion terraforming options, and the orbital technologies and structures working again. As an added bonus, I've written a side-mod of my own creation increasing the hero's level cap by just a smidge. (level 50 heroes anyone?). I'll be releasing both of these to the board soon, and the weapon pack will come later once I've worked all the bugs out.

Pondera wrote:
You CAN stuff your unarmored frigate with short-range missiles, but why would you want to?

You CAN add 50 long-range kinetic weapons to your battleship, but why would you want to?



The fact of the matter remains that missile weapons are still most effective at long-range, lasers are most effective at mid-range, and kinetics are most effective in short range. And honestly, given how few weapon choices there are, it's easy to grab the research necessary to use every weapon in their original capacity. Nothing has changed except the developers are giving players choices no person in their right mind would do.

I personally enjoy the options because they add more depth to combat. However, your right about the Devs providing no incentive to select them over researching other weapons. In fact, it is kinda mandatory to pick up the other weapon tech for the defenses.