How about a dedicated escort function - switch it on then merge with your colony ships.

In combat you can see the unarmed ships break away from the fleet and start withdrawing.

If you lose the battle you lose the unarmed ships.

Lone unprotected ships remain vunerable targets.

ive noticed this too. and it doesn't matter how many ships I have "protecting" my transports they are always the first to die...even with defenses. case in point: Had 4 Battleships decked out for laser combat (seems the AI is very found of lasers while packing on deflection plating >.<) and 2 transports to assault the enemy system and low and behold i run into 2 enemy dreadnaughts. guess which ships died first. smaller ships seem to bear the brunt of the attacks on both sides (human and AI)

Interesting idea -- a dialog which pops up with a "ransom" request from the pirates, when noncombat ships are involved. As long as the dialog had a checkbox which said "Don't show this again (always just destroy the ships)", that would be an interesting extension. I turn off pirates myself, because the difficulty varies too much now.

SpinnerMaster wrote:
Once I had a couple of fleets with some colony ships in them and I got spammed by pirates. All of my attacking ships were defeated and my small fleet of colony ships were attacked by pirates, the entire battle was a lesson in frustration. I really wish that I could have just have parted with gold rather than the pirates just killing my ships, I mean seriously, what are pirates who do not gain wealth?

That's an unrelated idea that should be posted in a separate thread.

Once I had a couple of fleets with some colony ships in them and I got spammed by pirates. All of my attacking ships were defeated and my small fleet of colony ships were attacked by pirates, the entire battle was a lesson in frustration. I really wish that I could have just have parted with gold rather than the pirates just killing my ships, I mean seriously, what are pirates who do not gain wealth?

The AI should be intelligent enough to prioritize targets.

Tikigod wrote:
That's just one example though 4x_fan.



There are examples for both situations I am sure, what I was doubting was the "Always go for the live fire targets unless it's a suicide mission"... as that's never always going to be the case.



Sometimes it will be and tactics adapt.



Other times such as aircraft bombers attacking static structural objectives it's not the case as the live fire targets such as flak defences and the like are not instant death but rather a probability of death... mission takes priority in those situations and live fire targets are ignored.

You're still not getting it.



The people ordering the missions have a very decent idea of the % chances of survival ~ and the more clued up people doing them did as well. They're suicide missions, merely not labelled as such. Anyone telling you to "get around / through / ignore those hostiles until you get to X to blow it up / kill X / capture Y" are playing the odds with your life. You can dress it up anyway you want to, but you know nothing about current military doctrine if you think otherwise [whichiswhysomuchisspentontechnologicaladvantage/countermeasuresthesedays].



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yaXyDU6YB0





Never forget ~ the Dam Busters was actually less about crippling Nazi industry, more to do with convincing Stalin that the Eastern front had some support and wasn't being asked to take the costs [20,000,000people] alone. For that reason... eight of the Lancasters never returned. Not for anything but the larger game.

That's just one example though 4x_fan.



There are examples for both situations I am sure, what I was doubting was the "Always go for the live fire targets unless it's a suicide mission"... as that's never always going to be the case.



Sometimes it will be and tactics adapt.



Other times such as aircraft bombers attacking static structural objectives it's not the case as the live fire targets such as flak defences and the like are not instant death but rather a probability of death... mission takes priority in those situations and live fire targets are ignored.





More constructively... in the case of Endless Space the entire point can often be thrown out the window and ignored because the attacking fleet has defences that completely nullify the incoming fire and they can attack whatever the heck they would like without concern.

Well....they were not that superiour, the germans just knew how to actually design and drive their tanks.

Tikigod wrote:
Are you sure?



Strikes me that a bomber aircraft en route to destroy a hostile munitions depot wouldn't abandon their mission to spend the bombs on flak defences if they came under fire during the mission.



Other similar examples come to mind as well where mission objectives against an inert target (building, bridge, dam, supply convoy) are followed through rather than breaking off and abandoning mission as soon as becoming under fire.



I mean, we're not talking about infantry on foot combat engagements here... we're talking about heavily armed and defended war machines (well well beyond anything we have in our day and age) designed for a task and sent out on very specific orders.

Here's a story that doesn't often get told, but is 100% true, and which might challenge some of your ideological mistakes about war.



In WWII, German heavy tanks were so vastly superior to the allies' tanks that they were universally feared. On the Eastern front, it wasn't until 1944 that the Soviets out-tech'd the Nazi tank / mobile anti-tank guns to win major battles (and when that happened, it was like missiles vrs beams ~ the newer / heavy plate tanks melted the Nazi ones). However, the Western allies went another 'democratic' route.



For every Panzer / Tiger there were four Sherman tanks.



The first tank died, always. However, the Tiger had a slow turret rotation speed. So as the first died, the other three split up to attempt to flank the German tank. The unlucky one got killed [dependingonrange]; the lucky remaining two got behind where their guns could actually kill the tank.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBp4eWqXfno







~ Lesson: they were suicide missions. And the allies knew it. Same goes for bombing missions ~ Catch-22 shows it well:



"If you were told that 25% of you would have to go on one way missions, but this meant 75% of you never had to fly, would you do it?... because those are better survival odds than flying return missions multiple times".



And that statistic is true: if the allies bombing runs had only run suicide missions, the actual losses would have been less. People just don't like to think dispassionately about their odds, however.

As in the title, with the addendum that any ship without weapons that's attacked by an armed ship = instant loss.





This is required because at the moment escorting / protecting unarmed transports is impossible as the AI simply targets the unarmed ships first. Great for cheap spam of disposable fodder to protect expensive assets, useless if you're attempting to protect a colony / invasion force.

4x_Fan wrote:
Unless you're on a suicide mission, you always target the live threat in a military engagement first.



Always.

Are you sure?



Strikes me that a bomber aircraft en route to destroy a hostile munitions depot wouldn't abandon their mission to spend the bombs on flak defences if they came under fire during the mission.



Other similar examples come to mind as well where mission objectives against an inert target (building, bridge, dam, supply convoy) are followed through rather than breaking off and abandoning mission as soon as becoming under fire.



I mean, we're not talking about infantry on foot combat engagements here... we're talking about heavily armed and defended war machines (well well beyond anything we have in our day and age) designed for a task and sent out on very specific orders.

PyroVortex wrote:
Logically, the only way to do this (in a real situation) would be to have your armed ships literally blocking the line of fire (which, of course, is useless against missiles) from the enemy ship to your unarmed ship. Otherwise, it's physically impractical...

Unless you're on a suicide mission, you always target the live threat in a military engagement first.



Always.

davea wrote:
The OP's point is that within a single combat, you should be able to protect unarmed ships.

Logically, the only way to do this (in a real situation) would be to have your armed ships literally blocking the line of fire (which, of course, is useless against missiles) from the enemy ship to your unarmed ship. Otherwise, it's physically impractical...

Several of you have missed the point. If you have a colony ship and a warship together in the same fleet, and the fleet is attacked, you are likely to lose the colony ship. The OP's point is that within a single combat, you should be able to protect unarmed ships.



There is some disagreement on exactly which order the AI targets your ships. I have not tried much, but other players report the order is random. So if you have two ships and the enemy has two, you can be pretty much guaranteed your transport will take fire, and die. If you have five (one transport) and the enemy has two (both armed) the transport has a 40% chance to die.

Strike a balance between defensive shields and support modules. I don't see a problem. I pretty much always escort my unarmed colony ships and rarely have a problem. If you just lost your newly minted 5 x +60 invasion ship, awe... life's like that. I don't see why your unarmed, +10 sensor scout ship should get a free ride either?

I occasionally use unarmed corvettes in my fleets and it would be silly for them to not be included in combat.

I feel that this is fine as is as it teaches you to scout first with an armada rather than just sending in a colony ship blind thinking its a free resource. Simply put send your fleet ahead and have your colony seperate from the fleet follow as its movement will always be less.

This is debateable. Currently AI is overpowered that will be sorted in addition ideas had been suggested and are listed on summary list here. If you feel you have any other suggestion or ideas and want to disuss them further do so here