|
GunnerJ posted:I know, it's just a joke. XL mounts are a bit disadvantageous due to the fact that the ship has to be fully bow on to fire them as they have an 80 degree firing angle, so you can be outmanoeuvred before any engagement by simple movement across the clock. On top of that, they take up two large slots while not doing as much damage over time. It does however, inadvertently encourage the use of a smaller skirmish fleet to engage the enemy before they can accomplish that so that your artillery fleet can blast everything to smithereens. And yes! The more ridiculous the better. SotS was pretty great about  designs for their spaceships. I couldn't get into Dreadnought for some reason, it felt like Space World of Tanks with respawns to me.
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 14:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 16:25 |
|
|
Heartcatch posted:I couldn't get into Dreadnought for some reason, it felt like Space World of Tanks with respawns to me. Their visual ship design is hella cool though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 15:18
|
|
|
Kitchner posted:Just literally two pages ago we were talking about why mixed fleets are important and how your all battleship fleet would get totally wrecked by any fleet that had decent numbers of torpedo corvettes. I'd suggest you read it. I wonder if this still applies for battleship fleets relying heavily on strike craft. Strike craft should be able to hit small ships like corvettes that will race ahead of their destroyer/cruiser pd screen.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 15:38
|
|
|
Thyrork posted:They really were. I have a soft spot for the Kultorask, the Vasari Rebel's titan, and how great it was for devouring entire fleets while keeping itself and its allies fully repaired.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 15:54
|
|
|
I think there was activity on their forums by the developers about remaking SOTS1, so may still be defending their IP.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 16:06
|
|
|
Kitchner posted:That's fine though. If someone tells me they run fleets with big ships because they are lazy and don't care about the optimal way of designing their fleet that's cool. I never tailor my fleets unless I'm really in trouble so that's fine. If the advantage requires you to sperg like a mofo it's bad / lame
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 16:10
|
|
|
In another nod to Sword of the Stars (and Homeworld), I'd love for Stellaris to have spinal mounts for corvettes, destroyers and cruisers. Perhaps it takes up the first two parts, perhaps its very energy costly but I loves me some Ion Frigates. Perhaps spinal mounted Cruisers could mount a XL weapon too.... 
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 16:33
|
|
|
Sibling of TB posted:I think there was activity on their forums by the developers about remaking SOTS1, so may still be defending their IP.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 16:35
|
|
|
Talkie Toaster posted:That's promising, though they may be wildly optimistic about their odds of working with Paradox again... Eeeh, If Paradox applies the clamps very early on to Kerberos's proverbial bollocks, it might work out. Still, I'd rather Stellaris rip into the corpse of Sword of the Stars II for ideas and takes what fit's Wiz's vision.  The Loa, the various ways of going FTL and the Lords of Winter themselves are cool.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 16:41
|
|
|
SotS 2's fleet system would be a near perfect fit for Stellaris too, with sensible range limits (based on stations and supplies in the fleet) and good mechanics for preventing doom stacks (max fleet size scales with CnC tech and Admiral skill). Not to mention most SotS Grand Menaces would make great Endgame Crises (Von Neuman, Puppetmaster) or Leviathans (SystemKiller, loving Gort)
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 17:05
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/Martin_Anward/status/839094033981014016 Really like the idea of hivemind empires having names like "Entity."
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 17:13
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:I know, it's just a joke. They aren't. They have the longest ranges of any direct-fire weapon, so if you get a critical mass of XL dreadnoughts together it's hard for the opponent to approach. They get killed halfway across the system. If you run a few XL dreadnoughts in a large cruiser fleet they'd be pretty bad. Moving across the field of fire is less effective at long range. At a long range even large tangential velocities only amount to a few degrees of arc. More to the point, Stellaris doesn't let you control your ships' movement in combat, so I'm not getting how these ships are supposed to dodge. You want the XL weapons that ignore armor and shields because despite their lower DPS they kill ships a lot faster. In my experience.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 17:21
|
|
|
DatonKallandor posted:SotS 2's fleet system would be a near perfect fit for Stellaris too, with sensible range limits (based on stations and supplies in the fleet) and good mechanics for preventing doom stacks (max fleet size scales with CnC tech and Admiral skill). Not to mention most SotS Grand Menaces would make great Endgame Crises (Von Neuman, Puppetmaster) or Leviathans (SystemKiller, loving Gort) Oh goodness, Gort would be absolutely fantastic. No wars! I said no! Use these worlds in peace! 
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 17:36
|
|
|
can't believe how long i banged my head against the wall of "why aren't my localizations working??" before i realized that the folder had to be spelled british-english "localisation" lmao 
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 17:39
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:can't believe how long i banged my head against the wall of "why aren't my localizations working??" before i realized that the folder had to be spelled british-english "localisation" lmao I couldn't understand this post until I realised you spelt "British English" the American way instead of the British English spelling of "Real English"
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 18:20
|
|
|
Thyrork posted:In another nod to Sword of the Stars (and Homeworld), I'd love for Stellaris to have spinal mounts for corvettes, destroyers and cruisers. Perhaps it takes up the first two parts, perhaps its very energy costly but I loves me some Ion Frigates. Yeah, it would be neat if instead of "360 degree turrets for everything" we instead had something like MOO2's ship design where weapon size was linked to the mount, flexibility, and modifiers. So, in Stellaris, a corvette might be able to be equipped with a medium mount weapon, but it'd act as a spinal mount as far as traverse goes. Destroyers likewise would be able to mount Large weapons as a spinal mount. Cruisers could theoretically mount XL weapons as a spinal mount, but make the power consumption high enough and utility slots limited enough so that an XL cruiser would essentially be a glass cannon for long range artillery or planetary bombardment. Only Battleships would be able to effectively mount spinal XL weapons and still be semi-standalone vessels. If you do this and open up more possibilities for the ship behavior via the combat computers, so that (for example) corvettes aren't always doomed to rush and die, then I could see a lot more diversity in ship design and combat. One could also include interesting techs, like one that unlocks the smaller spinal mount ship components. Or inertial dampeners that allows ships to turn more quickly, thus making the spinal mounts more useful. Hard to balance? Sure, but at least it's more interesting than "Laser Versions 1 through 5".
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 19:17
|
|
|
Any increase in ship design detail would have to correspond to wayyy better feedback and focus on battles. Stellaris doesn't have turn based combat like other 4x games, it doesn't even stop the game to process the combat letting you pay full attention. If anything the combat and ship design needs to be drastically simplified presenting only a few actually meaningful balanced choices. Because right now it's just "look up what a bunch of spergs with spreadsheets and testing have determined is the optimal fleet and design, do that" for every update.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 19:24
|
|
|
Ship design in general usually sucks pretty bad
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 19:44
|
|
|
Nordick posted:Point is, it would be a cooler visual element if that giant laser beam came out of a giant gun barrel in the nose of the ship, instead of a generic turret on top. That's what "spinal mount" means, a giant gun inside the ship sticking out of the front. I can clearly see the Ion Beam Frigate from Homeworld here. Best SotS ship is the Morrigi dreadnought from SotS2, it looks seriously great.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 20:27
|
|
|
I think the big pirate ship in their Origin System is literally the Ghost Ship from SOTS2. I too morn for the decent SOTS sequel that will never now come, but I'm not sure Stellaris is suitable for a more detailed combat simulation - the scale is just too big. Edit: Just had a look at the Kerberos forums for the first time in years, and in the thread on a SOTS1 HD remake Mecron is still being an rear end to his fans. He still seems convinced he's a genius videogame auteur. Aethernet fucked around with this message at 20:50 on Mar 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 20:46
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:can't believe how long i banged my head against the wall of "why aren't my localizations working??" before i realized that the folder had to be spelled british-english "localisation" lmao you do realise that everywhere else uses 'british' English right
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 21:00
|
|
|
I was going to say the New Horizons mod is pretty good, but actually I think i'm going to have to retract that because the beginning is so ridiculously difficult and the mod team seem hell bent on making it this way. The cost of building ships is astronomical and you're hit with pirates, aliens and Xindi two times your power and ability almost right off the bat. The whole experience isn't fun at all and unless you get a good roll in regard to setting up UFP and resources, you'll probably have to restart over and over again. It's kind of sad really as it would be good otherwise, but really it's just incredibly difficult and frustrating. Will wait for the DLC and see if I'm going to continue playing this game.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 21:03
|
|
|
Rumda posted:you do realise that everywhere else uses 'british' English right I'm not really complaining. It's just something that I ended up spending a lot of time on and was kinda obvious in hindsight. Maybe people need to chill a lil bit about how I identify spelling systems of my language that aren't native to me tbh.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 21:06
|
|
|
sorry I haven't been updating the OP extensively, I honestly thought that the new expansion would be out let me know if there's anything that needs to be added on PMs, also, we should probably make a decision if we start a new thread for the expansion or not, or if you just want me to binge play it for a day and whip up a new OP once it drops
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 21:09
|
|
|
Sperglord Firecock posted:sorry I haven't been updating the OP extensively, I honestly thought that the new expansion would be out Can we include more goon mods/modpacks in the OP?
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 21:32
|
|
|
Just give me Dropfleet Commander ships. Laser ship! There's a heavy cruiser with a second laser on the dorsal hull.  Even bigger laser ship!  Let's just stuff all the guns on our ship! 
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 21:59
|
|
|
That starship looks like a laser rifle.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 22:03
|
|
|
Strudel Man posted:That starship looks like a laser rifle. It looks like the default assault rifle from mass effect.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 22:05
|
|
|
Ainsley McTree posted:It looks like the default assault rifle from mass effect.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 22:18
|
|
|
Just a quick balance. question but if you can afford it is there any reason why you would make CAs over BBs? The only reasons I can think of is that either Cruisers are useful potential carriers or they are in the DPM is better than an equivalent of BB in terms of naval capacity? Is there something I am missing here otherwise?
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 22:30
|
|
|
SkySteak posted:Just a quick balance. question but if you can afford it is there any reason why you would make CAs over BBs? The only reasons I can think of is that either Cruisers are useful potential carriers or they are in the DPM is better than an equivalent of BB in terms of naval capacity? Is there something I am missing here otherwise? Video on Cruisers / Battleships here. ASpec claims it's inconclusive, although it sounded like he was favoring the cruisers overall. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PxDEXo0xU0 Paradox forums say cruisers all the way: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/the-perfect-cruiser.990209/ ulmont fucked around with this message at 22:52 on Mar 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 22:48
|
|
|
Aethernet posted:I think the big pirate ship in their Origin System is literally the Ghost Ship from SOTS2. I too morn for the decent SOTS sequel that will never now come, but I'm not sure Stellaris is suitable for a more detailed combat simulation - the scale is just too big.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 22:50
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Any increase in ship design detail would have to correspond to wayyy better feedback and focus on battles. Stellaris doesn't have turn based combat like other 4x games, it doesn't even stop the game to process the combat letting you pay full attention. If anything the combat and ship design needs to be drastically simplified presenting only a few actually meaningful balanced choices. I guess it's not so much an increase in detail, as it is keeping a similar level of detail as we have now, but shifting around some of the options so there's a bit more diversity possible with said detail. Like, you could go with torpedo 'vetts vs spinal mount 'vetts, based on your tech situation or enemy. I'm also bummed out by recent games that boil down to the "lets perfectly balance everything because I can't stop myself from min-maxing based on spreadsheets". Some times it's fun to run gimmicks and role-play in 4x's, even if it's sub-optimal. I think a real problem with Stellaris combat is the fuzzy attempt at a rock-paper-scissors system. It means that all weapon types are (in theory) viable until the late game, which is kinda boring and ends up with the "Well, lets quickly refit my entire fleet to min-max against this guy" mentality. It also leads to the frustrating imbalances when you bump into someone and either wipe them (or you get wiped) because they chose the wrong matchup at random, since you can't really scope out the enemy fleets before contact. Instead, it would have been neat if the three competing tracks had varying effectiveness over time. Like, here's a hypothetical since I enjoy tilting at windmills: In the beginning everyone starts with missiles, torpedoes, kinetics, and both kinetic-based and energy-based PD. Armor exists right off the bat. -Missiles are great at tracking and damage, but are limited to small mounts. -Torps have big damage (station killers), but poor tracking and are toast when faced with PD or evasion, similar to now. -Kinetics are decent all rounders. Kinetic PD is kinda poo poo and extra short range, but cheap. -Energy-based PD is a bit longer range and much better at tracking, but eats up more power and expensive. -Armor is expensive and reduces evasion (due to increased mass). -Basic deflectors are an early tech. Think, navigational screens. However, as they're only nav screens, lets say they only boost non-combat ship speed and give a very slight boost to evasion. They have very little HP and take lots of power. You then have an early-middle phase (the "Battlestar" phase)... -Missiles and Torps have a horse race with both kinetic and energy PD. -Kinetics get better, have a slight boost to shield damage (takes a lot of energy to absorb/deflect inertia?) -Energy stays only as basic PD at first, however as you invest more research into it you unlock the "full sized" weapons. -Deflectors still kinda crap. Basic shields arrive towards the end. -Armor gets lighter and harder, reducing and eventually eliminating the evasion penalty. -Heydey for strike craft. ...And a late-middle phase (the "Star Trek" phase): -Conventional Missiles and Torps start to rapidly drop off in effectiveness as energy PD improves significantly. -Kinetics improve but the Small/Medium/Large mounts top out towards the end. -Energy weapons improve dramatically, and you get more diversity with plasma cannons, disruptors, and such. -Shields are a big part of defense and are needed to counter the increasing power of energy weapons. -Energy Torps arrive and are important to break through the increasing defenses of large ships and stations quickly, but have short range (Corvette/brawler cruisers only?) And finally, a "late" phase: -Big spinal mount weapons. Giga Cannons exist but are better at station killing and maybe give a large boost to planetary bombardment -Spinal mount Tachyon Lances are battleship killers and such. -Energy weapons generally rule the field. -A balance of both armor and shields are important. The idea being that these "eras" allow for a moderate amount of customization, but certain weapon classes are distinctly better in certain eras, with a general progression through time. This would be similar to the old school Paradox games like EU, where you'd have "Shock, Fire & Siege" values, and fire and siege would slowly get more powerful as your weapons advanced towards more modern gunpowder-based infantry and artillery. This is fuzzy enough where no particular playstyle rules throughout the entire game. Better tech generally wins, better economies generally win. This is true now, but having a clear(ish) progression avoids the universal uselessness of some weapon tracks (missiles) and the rock-paper-scissors BS. This would involve reworking the tech tree so that it's more of a web than "Laser Versions 1 through 5". Maybe territory for modders rather than the main game, but I choose to dream the impossible dream.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 00:31
|
|
|
I kinda wanna dream this dream now.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 00:51
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Any increase in ship design detail would have to correspond to wayyy better feedback and focus on battles. Stellaris doesn't have turn based combat like other 4x games, it doesn't even stop the game to process the combat letting you pay full attention. If anything the combat and ship design needs to be drastically simplified presenting only a few actually meaningful balanced choices. it's the same basic problem as combat in every paradox game, you've got all these detailed mechanics but the experience for the casual player is "highest number wins, except when it doesn't for some reason"
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 00:54
|
|
|
I really wish that there was a way to quickly see what sort of armaments your opponents/allies are using -- maybe if sharing Star Chart information also included passive scans of other empire's ships. I am admittedly not great at stellaris, so what I end up doing is declare war on someone and then retool my fleet after the initial engagement when I learn what my opponents are using. It just seems like there is a better way to go about conveying that kind of information than what we have now.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 01:08
|
|
|
I'm actually really on board with that whole idea. At least it's actually interesting and dynamic, instead of the current "max out shields, missiles are literally useless, do you want your lasers in grape or lemon-lime?" system.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 01:17
|
|
|
Why are cruisers supposed to be better?
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 01:19
|
|
|
Cruisers get a bonus to their rate of fire via their AIs so I suppose that's why they get favored somewhat more. Thing is, though, they take up half the fleet cap of a battleship, but have only a third of its potential max number of large guns (with no option for the XL). So if you just stop to think about it, cruisers are deffo not as good as battleships in long range combat, in terms of fleet cap efficiency and resources. But where they'd absolutely excel is as part of an ambush fleet, that jumps in or awaits an enemy fleet to start combat at close range. At that distance, their torpedoes or perhaps hangar bombers can do damage fast enough, while their medium guns get immediately in range to start melting any destroyers or maybe enemy cruisers down too for the battleships to finish off and pound from a distance. For example. I think ultimately every ship does have its place right now, but yea...certain mechanics like a fleet feeling obligated to waste time chasing down every goddamn mining station in its way, do kinda make some of the tactics as silly and exploit-y to me. And standard engagement distances still favor only a couple or so setups with different loadouts in the endgame.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 01:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 16:25 |
|
|
WMain00 posted:I was going to say the New Horizons mod is pretty good, but actually I think i'm going to have to retract that because the beginning is so ridiculously difficult and the mod team seem hell bent on making it this way. The cost of building ships is astronomical and you're hit with pirates, aliens and Xindi two times your power and ability almost right off the bat. The whole experience isn't fun at all and unless you get a good roll in regard to setting up UFP and resources, you'll probably have to restart over and over again. You get hit with pirates and xindi right off the bat because that's what happens to the Star Trek humans (well the xindi do, the pirates are the stock Stellaris event that wasn't removed for some reason). New Horizons isn't supposed to be "balanced"- it's a story telling tool for Star Trek. If you want an easier start, try the Dominion - you start as top dog in the less crowded-by-canon gamma quadrant with your perfect clone administrators and drugged up super-soldiers from day 1. DatonKallandor fucked around with this message at 04:09 on Mar 8, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 01:57
|
|