Presently, I'm not persuing this issue. As per my article Fleet Doctrine: Practical Evolution it appears that diverse fleet composition is viable, including the use of large ships.



Introduction:

This proposal was born out of dissatisfaction over the merits of Glass Cannon Destroyer fleets, and how they severely limit (to one hull and four modules) the technology available to races in Endless Space, as well as make for a bland battle experience. When I wrote this post, I had not yet written Evolution and Equilibrium of Glass Cannon Destroyer Fleet Doctrine, which codifies my misgivings about the current state of affairs.



I want to see diverse fleets pound the Dust out of each other over three full phases of firepower, stagger out of the theatre of battle having taken significant casualties, and have damage on all of the surviving vessels. I think the frontier mentality of Endless Space could be greatly improved by the kind of tense, ongoing fight for survival as crews struggle to patch up their burning ships as they limp from one crippling battle to another (think Battlestar Galactica).





Goals:

-Improve fleet diversity by adding larger ships

-Increase the number of meaningful interactions between modules like armour plating, defences, repair, etc. Obviously, missles would work a bit differently, being based on interception %, but you get the idea

-Prolong combat.



Unless I have misunderstood the mechanics, it looks like the defences simply counteract one weapon of the appropriate type per round on a 1:1 ratio, which doesn't work particularly well because it means that each weapon fired at a ship in excess of the number of defences deals full damage. So, 10 weapons vs. 9 defences and 2 weapons vs. 1 defence does the same amount of damage per round. How about changing the system to one of resistance?





Proposal Proper:



1) reduce all incoming damage of the multiple types by the listed percentage, with primary and secondary values

For example, a beam shield might absorb 20% of all beam damage, but deflect/intercept only 10% kinetic/missile damage.



2) stack, but with a penalty

Let's say have two modules like the one described above, both on the same hull. For the beam defence, the first module provides the 20% beam resistance, while the second module provides 20% beam resistance out of the remaining 80%, making the total beam resistance 36% (20% + 16%). Similarly, the pair of modules provides 19% resistance against both kinetics and missiles. Resistance values would be applied from highest-to-lowest in this fashion, so mixing modules with different specialized damage types would apply the highest percentage first for each resistance, then the lesser affect of the other defence module.



3) be limited to one module per CP per hull

Large ships suffer in fleet composition so far, and this would be a nice boost for them. Costs and such would have to change, but that's a matter of fine tweaking. note that the even number of CPs on the bigger ships currently causes maxed defences to have relative strong and weak points.





Here are some examples to help clarify the issue. Also, I would encourage you to read a related proposal of mine here, regarding fleet bonuses as Command modules on larger ships; it will provide some context for some of my ideas.





Scenario 1A: Focused Defence

Let's say you have 1 Destroyer, a Battleship, and a Dreadnought, each with the maximum number of resistance modules, all specialized in the same defence type. For the sake of simplicity, let's also use a 20%/10% primary/secondary defence split like I did above. Once you factor in stacking penatlies, the primary and secondary resistances are are follows:



Destroyer (1CP, 1 defence module)

Primary 20%

Secondary 10%



Battleship (2CP, 2 defence modules)

Primary 36%

Secondary 19%



Dreadnought (4CP, 4 defence modules)

Primary 59.04%

Secondary 34.39%





Scenario 1B: Focused Defence + Fleet Bonuses

No let's add fleet bonuses from 4 Battleships, each equipped with a +8% defence bonus, which in acts as a resistance under this paradigm (therefore subject to stacking penalties). Since all of the modules are on different ships, they sum before getting stacked with a given ships resistance. Also note that, as per my proposal on Command modules, defence buffs are only applied to ships of the same CP or lower, so the Dreadnought gets no additional bonuses in this scenario. This makes Battleships quite tough, but a Battleship fleet starts getting hurt by casualties (lose fleet bonuses).



Destroyer (1CP, 1 defence module)

Primary 45.6%

Secondary 38.8%



Battleship (2CP, 2 defence modules)

Primary 56.48%

Secondary 44.92%



Dreadnought (4CP, 4 defence modules)

Primary 59.04%

Secondary 34.39%





Scenario 2: Dispersed Defence (Omni Tank)

Note that this indroduces a third category, tertiary, on the larger ships because there is an even number of CPs and an odd number of weapon types. For the purposes of this example, I am spreading the defenses as evenly as possible.



Destroyer (1CP, 1 defence module)

Primary 20%

Secondary 10%

Tertiary 10%



Battleship (2CP, 2 defence modules)

Primary 28%

Secondary 28% (same as primary because two defences get focused treatment from different modules)

Tertiary 19%



Dreadnought (4CP, 4 defence modules)

Primary 48.16%

Secondary 41.68%

Terrtiary 41.68 (same as secondary because only one defence doubles up on focused treatment)





Scenario 2: Dispersed Defence (Omni Tank)

Similar to Scenario 1B, let's add those same four Battelships with their +8% defence Command modules.



Destroyer (1CP, 1 defence module)

Primary 45.6%

Secondary 38.8%

Tertiary 38.8% (same as secondary because there is only one defence module on this hull)



Battleship (2CP, 2 defence modules)

Primary 51.04%

Secondary 51.04% (same as primary because two defences get focused treatment from different modules)

Tertiary 44.92%



Dreadnought (4CP, 4 defence modules)

Primary 48.16%

Secondary 41.68%

Terrtiary 41.68 (same as secondary because only one defence doubles up on focused treatment)

GO EVE! But seriously this is a really nice simple idea to dramatically improve the armour plating and sustainability of big ships, helping fleet diversity. Nice work.

Sounds like an excellent proposal. It would solve the rock-paper-scissors problem in the combat too. There would be a point in having a standing fleet of ships that are slightly outdated and not totally modeled to counter the enemy, since all ships would be somewhat good against each other. I fully approve.

After thinking about it a bit more, I'm slightly apprehensive about 3).



I think big ships would be survivable even without 3) if you just use the Repair systems and armor, which you probably won't on smaller ships. As it is, if the defence is limited but weapons aren't, it'll lead to a strange sort of glass-cannon effect, unless you suppose that where previous ship designs were based on high defence, these would be based on high armor?

Tiavals wrote:
After thinking about it a bit more, I'm slightly apprehensive about 3).



I think big ships would be survivable even without 3) if you just use the Repair systems and armor, which you probably won't on smaller ships. As it is, if the defence is limited but weapons aren't, it'll lead to a strange sort of glass-cannon effect, unless you suppose that where previous ship designs were based on high defence, these would be based on high armor?

I looked over the numbers, and I came to the conclusion that your concerns about the big ships were justified. Therefore, I altered how my proposed mechanic for Command modules would work and added bonused and unbonused examples to the original post. So far, it looks like the Dreadnoughts aren't favoured in the grand scheme of things.

You missed a vote option - The current system and this system are just as broken.



Without specific numbers I am unwilling to judge such a system. At current glance with reasonable numbers estimates it seems to encourage glass cannon builds, and far more than the current system. I do not know how it scales, but I would expect it to make defenses practically useless at earlier levels until they suddenly hit high-tech defenses and were reasonably good.



As a general rule this would stifle many of the strategic implications of gameplay.



I am willing to reconsider if you give specific numbers, but again - I am just not really seeing this work.

Ketobor wrote:
You missed a vote option - The current system and this system are just as broken.



Without specific numbers I am unwilling to judge such a system. At current glance with reasonable numbers estimates it seems to encourage glass cannon builds, and far more than the current system. I do not know how it scales, but I would expect it to make defenses practically useless at earlier levels until they suddenly hit high-tech defenses and were reasonably good.



As a general rule this would stifle many of the strategic implications of gameplay.



I am willing to reconsider if you give specific numbers, but again - I am just not really seeing this work.

A fair request, and I will fill this post with a concrete example using real numbers from existing tech, then substitute the hypothetical resistance defences for a counter-example to make my case.



When I complete the demonstration, I will add it to the original post and edit this one accordingly. I will post the results regardless of whether my argument is supported or refuted. Meanwhile, thank you for your patience.

Yeah, I am very wary of this specific change as well. Any hard caps on modules isn't a very good idea as far as I'm concerned; if you want to limit how many modules, use the tonnage. With your system that doesn't work out because at 50 tons they're either obligatory on a destroyer or worthless.

GC13 wrote:
Yeah, I am very wary of this specific change as well. Any hard caps on modules isn't a very good idea as far as I'm concerned; if you want to limit how many modules, use the tonnage. With your system that doesn't work out because at 50 tons they're either obligatory on a destroyer or worthless.

The most efficient ship fits are glass cannon destroyers, which use only 30-72 tons, so the tonnage of a module is currently irrelevant. See my methodology here. I agree that overhauling a defensive system is a risky business, but I've come to the conclusion that addressing the fleet bonuses is a much more pressing matter than tinkering with defences. However, if fleet bonuses were moved to ships of 2CP or more, I'm almost certain that resistances would be the way to go. I just need a little more time to draw up a good illustration for you and Ketebor.