|
Baronjutter posted:What is combat width in space? What's the bottleneck or restriction? Command & Control limitations make the most sense. Either direct (C&C computers which, fluff-wise, are what are used to link ships together for coordinated firing and point defense) or indirect (limitations based on the skill of the admiral leading the fleet; it makes sense that 1000 ships are much harder to manage in a fight than 10).
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 22:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 21:44 |
|
|
Ways the game currently limits fleet size: -There is a fleet size limit. Your fleet limit is controlled indirectly, by starbases and planets and tech, though you can pay to temporarily exceed (by 10-20%) this limit. -You cannot support more ships than you can pay in energy upkeep, this is basically a second, identical soft cap on the size of your fleet that is roughly the same as the fleet cap, for a large part of the game. Deploying your fleet is basically like upping maintenance, they automated that portion which is cool that I don't have to gently caress with a slider. -You have a limited number of admirals and leaders, with more fleets needing more admirals or they operate at like 70-80% efficiency, so trying to have two fleets is immediately dicier than one And in each case, I ask why. Why is it not ok that I can build 100 destroyers and wreck my neighbor that only has 10? I don't know but it's not allowed that I customize my empire in that sort of direction. If my neighbor has 10 I'll only be able to field 20, and that may or may not be enough to destroy his space station - depending on how far above 1k my fleet size is. Like, if a limit serves a gameplay purpose by putting the player in charge of an interesting decision, that's great. If a limit detracts from gameplay by killing possibilities for no reason, that's not great. Each constraint on fleets and warfare means that if I want to have a big fuckoff army, or a big fuckoff fleet, or be a science guy, I can do less and less of that due to soft caps in the design. In MOO or SOTS if I want to make a giant fleet and send it at my neighbor, I can. In Stellaris, even if I somehow cheated myself a bunch of energy and minerals, I would still be very constrained in the size of my fleet and what I can do with it. And I'll ask the same question to the thread: Why? Why does forcing the player to have 20-22 ships max before they [build a station, research the tech, etc] to make sure player / AI parity fleet size parity - why is that a good thing? I am not a fan. Look at all the drags on getting your fleet to 1k or 1.5k - the mineral cost, the build time, the energy cost, the supply cap, needing a leader, etc, and ask yourself if any of that makes what you're doing more fun, or if these are just brakes on stuff you're going to do anyway but remove any meaningful way to implement it YOUR way.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 23:07
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:No paradox game has taken place in space though where there isn't some narrow mountain pass you're fighting in to limit your combat width. What is combat width in space? What's the bottleneck or restriction? I guess we could make something up. But if the mechanic just breaks up fleets but doesn't make war more interesting what's the point? It's just more micro. Hyperlanes make for maps with important chokepoints. Having a fuel/supply mechanic, even a basic one that's just a circle around planets/supply stations you control, would also create points of interest that are important enough to defend with a split fleet. Longer battles or slower movement might also help so you actually have time to bring in your other fleets instead of being forced to doomstack for the killing blow. I frankly don't know why you can jump to any direction from any edge of the system either, because that just makes the system view matter even less. But hey, if the military strategic layer expansion is as good as Utopia (looks like) I'm hopeful all of this will be fixed in some way. DatonKallandor fucked around with this message at 23:30 on Mar 29, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 23:27
|
|
|
Combat width does make some sense. Ships need room to maneuver, haven't you seen the typical sci fi battle with capital ships crashing into each other because they were way too close?  The range of ships and fleets in game during combat is ludicrously exaggerated to be practical unless all weapons travel several times the speed of light.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 23:39
|
|
|
Poil posted:Combat width does make some sense. Ships need room to maneuver, haven't you seen the typical sci fi battle with capital ships crashing into each other because they were way too close? Yeah, while space is unimaginably huge, you actually have to be really close to engage with non-missile weapons (missiles can have on-board targeting computers so they're able to operate at better ranges). Unless you have instantaneous communications and sensors, you really do have to be very close, relatively to speaking, to hit what you're aiming at even with a laser that travels at the speed of light. Rakthar posted:Ways the game currently limits fleet size: Combat Width (or an equivalent mechanic) doesn't prevent you from doing this, so I'm not sure what you're going on about really. What Combat Width does mean, however, is that you're not punished for *not* doing a Doomstack.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 23:48
|
|
|
I agree with a lot of that. Station buff has just made early game wars more of a grind. But the stations don't at all scale so they're super over-powered at the start then become soft targets by the mid game. Moo2 had command points and going over cost money, was basically exactly the system in Stellaris. Moo I don't think had any sort of ship upkeep system. Civ classic, which I've been playing a lot of lately, had different mechanics for different governments. Despotism had each city support for free units up to its population size, and military units reduces unhappiness. The tradeoff though is that no tile could produce more than 2 food, but for rapid expansion and war despotism was extremely powerful. Monarchy removed the food production per-tile cap but made it so only 2(?) units decreased unhappiness and all units cost 1 production for upkeep. Democracy gave a +1 trade bonus for every tile, a huge buff, but not only do all units cost 1 production to maintain, and can't make any unhappy people content and any unit not in your city causes unhappiness. So right there you have a system where you can be a huge mongol hoard or a rich democracy with a small but advanced military. There's so many ways to spice things up.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 23:50
|
|
|
Making fights less all or nothing could help alleviate the doomstacking. Instead of making emergency FTL one button, I'd give every ship a chance to emergency FTL on their own. The chance to emergency ftl would be adjusted based on class, admiral skill level, hp, and speed. So every day a ship is in combat below a certain HP threshold they have a chance to get out. Then you adjust recovery time based on distance to friendly space such that defending ships get back into the action faster. This dissuades doomstacking because you can commit smaller forces to tie up a larger enemy fleet while you split up and take objectives on your own.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 23:53
|
|
|
Zurai posted:Combat Width (or an equivalent mechanic) doesn't prevent you from doing this, so I'm not sure what you're going on about really. What Combat Width does mean, however, is that you're not punished for *not* doing a Doomstack. Those are the current mechanics that discourage having a larger fleet than your enemy and using it to win a war. Combat width is yet another drag on the empire with the larger fleet (more ships does not directly translate to more power, rather there's diminishing returns). Drags and constraints are fine. I would suggest that adding combat width on top of the existing system will further limit player choice in a system that is already very limited for player choice. Put it another way, Stellaris already penalizes the empire with the bigger fleet 4 ways to make sure they don't just roll over their neighbors (without getting into warscore and the peace system) compared to a typical 4x, what do we gain by adding a fifth? I'm not sure doing so will make space combat suddenly fun. Why do fleets retreat from combat? I know, Paradox, but why? If I catch your smaller fleet can I not wreck it? That's how it works in other 4x games. Again, why are doomstacks and having an effective fleet that projects force bad?
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 23:56
|
|
|
Rakthar posted:Put it another way, Stellaris already penalizes the empire with the bigger fleet 4 ways to make sure they don't just roll over their neighbors (without getting into warscore and the peace system) compared to a typical 4x, what do we gain by adding a fifth? I'm not sure doing so will make space combat suddenly fun. Well, since the first four just plain do not work and the only actually valid way to play is to doomstack, yes, I think it needs to go farther. quote:Why do fleets retreat from combat? I know, Paradox, but why? If I catch your smaller fleet can I not wreck it? That's how it works in other 4x games. I don't know what 4Xs you've been playing but all the ones I play allow for retreats. quote:Again, why are doomstacks and having an effective fleet that projects force bad? False Dichotomy. You can have effective fleets which project force without having them be doomstacks. In fact, I'd argue that it would be much better from a force projection standpoint if you could afford to spread your fleets out instead of keeping them all together. With the latter, you can only ever engage one target at a time. With the former, you're actually able to fight across one or more fronts instead of a single battle at a time. Unfortunately the game mechanics just do not really support that if you're fighting anyone who actually stands any chance at all against you. Fortunately, Wiz knows that combat has a lot of problems and I'm sure he'll fix it. Zurai fucked around with this message at 00:07 on Mar 30, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 23:59
|
|
|
I think what some people are trying to say is that having that force is kind of useless since current war mechanics don't let you do alot with that force in the first place. I guess then the idea is that despite things like fleet cap, building costs/times, maintenance and having use leader slots for fleets, doomstacking still happens but all it does is let you hammer the enemy in a war that only allows you to do a tiny portion of what you should be able to do if you're overwhelming them to that point. Not that I agree or hold this view myself personally, but I do feel that the current system needs a look at force, how you can use that force and what happens if you win or lose with that force overall rather than trying to fix it one bit at a time and still having it all not fit right.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 00:31
|
|
|
One question I have in this doom stack discussion that I haven't quite figured out is...what is people's end goal here? Because as I see it either (A) the empire with the largest "fleet plus industry in some weighted combination is going to win the war reliably" or (B) they aren't and it's more of a coin flip. If A, then all the solutions are just adjusting details and potentially increasing micromanagement. If B, then why? And how do you reflect that? Obligatory: historical naval warfare has a heavy doom stack component.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 00:49
|
|
|
Rakthar posted:SOTS forces you have to have several fleets since the travel times and combat mechanics mean that it's generally useful to have 2-3 on different sides of your empire. Zurai posted:In fact, I'd argue that it would be much better from a force projection standpoint if you could afford to spread your fleets out instead of keeping them all together. With the latter, you can only ever engage one target at a time. With the former, you're actually able to fight across one or more fronts instead of a single battle at a time. Unfortunately the game mechanics just do not really support that if you're fighting anyone who actually stands any chance at all against you. Splicer fucked around with this message at 00:55 on Mar 30, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 00:51
|
|
|
Doomstacks could maybe be fixed by adding a fleet size penalty to evasion and accuracy due to trying to not run into or shoot other ships in your fleet. Maybe add tech for command ships that alleviates this - coordination modules, combined sensors/targeting. Also, I wouldn't mind having to designate supply lines. Build a couple of supply ships and set a route between systems. Any fleets in a radius around those systems would function as if they were inside a friendly system, with penalties when you're outside a friendly system. Small fast fleets could raid supply lines and weaken enemy fleets attacking your systems, etc. AI would prolly have trouble handling that though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 00:55
|
|
|
ulmont posted:Because as I see it either There are definitely more possibilities than "bigger empire wins" vs "pure random".
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 00:56
|
|
|
CrazyTolradi posted:I think what some people are trying to say is that having that force is kind of useless since current war mechanics don't let you do alot with that force in the first place. I guess then the idea is that despite things like fleet cap, building costs/times, maintenance and having use leader slots for fleets, doomstacking still happens but all it does is let you hammer the enemy in a war that only allows you to do a tiny portion of what you should be able to do if you're overwhelming them to that point. Yeah this is a good summary of what I wanted to point out, thanks mang.  I'm quite excited to see what Wiz and co end up doing with future Stellaris expansions given the way Utopia turned out.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 00:59
|
|
|
Staltran posted:EUIV added a naval combat width a while back. When it was first introduced it was just x ships in combat at a time, so you wanted all heavy ships and any non-heavies would actually be worse than useless in the battle. It's been since modified so that you can have 3 light ships instead of a heavy or something like that. but anyway you don't need to have everything in a deathball, you can just reinforce once a fight starts. that sounds less appealing than just deathballing though ulmont posted:One question I have in this doom stack discussion that I haven't quite figured out is...what is people's end goal here? those aren't the only choices! lots of games have a large enough tactical element to war that victory doesn't consistently go to the biggest military, but is also not random however I do think a lot of the suggestions people come up with to break up doomballs wouldn't actually help the game achieve the above, and it wouldn't help the game for war to be "largest fleet wins, but you break it up into a series of reinforcing fleets this time" or w/e
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 01:00
|
|
|
Zurai posted:There are definitely more possibilities than "bigger empire wins" vs "pure random". And yet you named zero of them, as did the next person to make this comment...
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 01:11
|
|
|
^^^ I was about to mention that. Very few solutions being explained here, but plenty of claims that solutions exist. If we're discussing purely fleet warfare, then I think the real issue is that combat at the moment is all or nothing - you can't retreat individual ships, individual ships aren't terribly robust, and generally if one side is going to win a fleet engagement, they win it overwhelmingly. I feel like making ships tougher, repair times shorter, and adding the possibility for ships lost in combat to maybe survive and regroup elsewhere after some amount of time has passed could go a long way towards encouraging breaking fleets up to fit specific objectives. In the same vein, comparative empire size and tech level should have a much, much greater effect on war goals and the score they cost - a multiple dozen-star empire that engulfs a neighbor shouldn't have to slowly pick apart said neighbor just because there's more than three planets in it, and on the flip side, it should be possible for that smaller empire to fight an effective and short war of humiliation if they can eliminate a fleet or two from that larger empire, or even sneak in and snipe one of their planets. In other words, pretty much this post OGS-Remix posted:Making fights less all or nothing could help alleviate the doomstacking. That I somehow missed until after I finished typing all of this. Psycho Landlord fucked around with this message at 01:21 on Mar 30, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 01:16
|
|
|
Some kind of rock paper scissors implementation would make sense to me.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 01:22
|
|
|
Agree with the point about individual ships retreating.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 01:30
|
|
|
Jeb Bush 2012 posted:This doesn't really work without something extra, because you'd still be better off creating the largest ball possible even if there's some diminishing returns on size. Unless you crank it up to the point where larger fleets actually take more losses rather than fewer, I guess, but that would cause its own problems. Again, it works well in older versions of Hearts or Iron. If you keep loading more and more armies/ships into a battle, you end up with attack maluses that make it completely pointless to have the additional units. They just take damage and hits to morale, but don't really contribute much. It's not so much that the enemy loses more ships, just that the smaller fleet loses less, and the extra ships on the "overstacked" side are less ready to fight later. I like the idea of having command ships, maybe as a combat computer option.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 01:35
|
|
|
ulmont posted:One question I have in this doom stack discussion that I haven't quite figured out is...what is people's end goal here? B because otherwise it means you spend much of your time in an "already lost" situation where if someone declares war on you, the thing you had to do to not get annihilated was 50 years ago. And also because "my numbers are bigger than your numbers so i win" is not a super engaging mechanic. You might as well replace combat with just doing some maths on the empires' respective income/stockpiles and whoever comes out with more at the end wins the war.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 01:36
|
|
|
ulmont posted:And yet you named zero of them, as did the next person to make this comment... ulmont posted:Because as I see it either is wrong. you just need to have played one of the million other strategy games where this isn't true! that doesn't mean it's easy to solve this in a way that would make the game more fun, mind. just that saying "this whole discussion is pointless because either largest fleet wins or it's random" is silly
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 01:39
|
|
|
I kinda feel like you're looking at this from the wrong angle. instead of trying to find ways to penalise doomstacks, why not give players a reason to split up their fleets? Having your planets bombarded and/or captured should be a Big loving Deal, especially your capital. Sending off your entire navy to destroy a single enemy fleet and having another enemy fleet attack your unguarded capital should hurt you a lot more than it does right now.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 02:26
|
|
|
I do wish there was a diplomacy option to merge federations. It is frustrating to have a civilisation that you have been courting and are on very good terms with join a new federation with another empire. They're just gone forever unless you conquer them or the other empire.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 02:33
|
|
|
GotLag posted:I kinda feel like you're looking at this from the wrong angle. instead of trying to find ways to penalise doomstacks, why not give players a reason to split up their fleets? With the way movement works that would be agonizingly tedious, I don't want to play whack a mole with enemy fleets when they can just fly anywhere.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 02:35
|
|
|
ulmont posted:And yet you named zero of them, as did the next person to make this comment... You also provided zero evidence for your assertions. You don't get to cry "no data!" when you don't provide any yourself. But sure, I'll humor you. (C) Win despite having smaller fleets and smaller economic base because of clever tactical play and ship design choices.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 02:40
|
|
|
I mostly want a counter for doomstacks that is not just a bigger doomstack. Best way to counter them would be to split them up and this already happens in the game if said doomstack comes from the united fleets of a federation and their fedetation fleet, if only we could split up a single empire's fleet in a similar fashion. I agree it should be more about giving more reasons to split the fleet, I'm already tend to make a secondary fleet to deal with stragglers while my main one assaults them upfront. I also like the idea of making fights less absolute, maybe make it a chance that a defeated ship won't blow up but becomes inoperable (not sure how FTL would work but whatever) or unable to contionue combat. I remember some more realism based tactical space combat simulators you would rarely see ships exploding but they would just give up and stop fighting at one point. I know Stellaris only selectively relies on realism but it can be another excuse. Or just go full CK2 and make the diplomacy better to compensate.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 02:48
|
|
|
Zurai posted:You also provided zero evidence for your assertions. You don't get to cry "no data!" when you don't provide any yourself. My assertion was "it's either A or B, which is !A", followed by the question "what the hell is B?" A or !A is just logic, and what the hell is !A is a question. Zurai posted:(C) Win despite having smaller fleets and smaller economic base because of clever tactical play and ship design choices. What do you mean "tactical play" here? This isn't MOO or MOO2 where you get to move each ship individually in combat, so what are you expecting to be able to do? And for ship design, how much of a multiplier do you think should be possible? 100% shutdown with hard counter in the RPS fashion? OwlFancier posted:B because otherwise it means you spend much of your time in an "already lost" situation where if someone declares war on you, the thing you had to do to not get annihilated was 50 years ago. Isn't that, for peer engagements (human-human or AI-AI), how every other Paradox game works? I mean, when the Ottomans declare war on Byzantium, you know they're hosed absent some incredibly exploitative play... Jeb Bush 2012 posted:is wrong. you just need to have played one of the million other strategy games where this isn't true! Such as? I'm not imagining these million other strategy games, unless you mean something with a completely separate battle tactical layer such as Total War or MOO2.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 03:13
|
|
|
ulmont posted:What do you mean "tactical play" here? This isn't MOO or MOO2 where you get to move each ship individually in combat, so what are you expecting to be able to do? Strudel Man fucked around with this message at 03:32 on Mar 30, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 03:27
|
|
|
Zurai posted:(C) Win despite having smaller fleets and smaller economic base because of clever tactical play and ship design choices. To be fair, this already happens pretty routinely, as most people who've ever taken down an Awakened Ascendancy can attest. I propose a system where whenever fleets of more than 40k total power meet, the game stops and you have to play chess against your opponent. If his fleet is much bigger than yours, you have to spot him peices. PittTheElder fucked around with this message at 03:43 on Mar 30, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 03:41
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
ulmont posted:My assertion was "it's either A or B, which is !A", followed by the question "what the hell is B?" A or !A is just logic, and what the hell is !A is a question. ulmont posted:Such as? I'm not imagining these million other strategy games, unless you mean something with a completely separate battle tactical layer such as Total War or MOO2. those would be some, yes! but having a separate battle tactical layer is not necessary. for instance, all of the other current paradox lines have combat systems that, if not super-advanced, involve more decision-making and tactics. even civ games, which are not known for being heavy on war mechanics, are neither "biggest army wins" or "coinflip wins"
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 05:44
|
|
|
There's soooo many moving parts connected to fleets and war it's really hard to give any good suggestions without knowing how many other connecting systems could also be tweaked. Super curious what the team's thoughts are. I think it's all but confirmed the next DLC is going to focus specifically on combat, warscore and peace/conquest and maybe even movement, but I'm really curious what direction the fixes are going to go and how deep the changes will be.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 05:49
|
|
|
Jeb Bush 2012 posted:those would be some, yes! but having a separate battle tactical layer is not necessary. for instance, all of the other current paradox lines have combat systems that, if not super-advanced, involve more decision-making and tactics. even civ games, which are not known for being heavy on war mechanics, are neither "biggest army wins" or "coinflip wins" How so? For EU4: no ship design, army composition generally agreed upon (some known amount of cav, infantry to fill combat width, artillery for back rank), remaining tactical influence down to terrain plus random generals plus random die rolls. For CK2: you can only really control army composition through cultural conversion and then you get to pick generals better, otherwise above. For HOI4: as EU4 (standard target division templates etc). For V2: as EU4. I don't remember Rome well enough to specifically comment. In each case they seem to me much more dependent on economy than any other factor. Jeb Bush 2012 posted:even civ games, which are not known for being heavy on war mechanics, are neither "biggest army wins" or "coinflip wins" Biggest army wins except if the smaller army gets really lucky, or what are you saying is the difference in civ?
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 05:58
|
|
|
ulmont posted:How so? all of this only makes sense if you think that "war" means, like, a single battle but none of these games come down to a single battle, and in all of them where you move your units and what you do with them makes a big difference to the progress of a war e: ck2 and early game eu are pretty close to being "the country with the best army just wins the war" I guess Jeb Bush 2012 fucked around with this message at 06:11 on Mar 30, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 06:06
|
|
|
Jeb Bush 2012 posted:but none of these games come down to a single battle, and in all of them where you move your units and what you do with them makes a big difference to the progress of a war This exactly, and it was this I was referring to when I mentioned tactics, not tactical battles like MOO2 or SotS. This is an element which is mostly lacking from Stellaris, and it's very much to the game's detriment. Strudel Man posted:Even if we grant it as a factor, too, it seems like if both players act intelligently it would reduce down to one of the previous two choices. We'll get back to that when you develop an AI which is as intelligent as the player. Zurai fucked around with this message at 06:28 on Mar 30, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 06:22
|
|
|
ulmont posted:Biggest army wins except if the smaller army gets really lucky, or what are you saying is the difference in civ? There's a really good report from a Civ IV Pitboss game, the one everyone decries nowadays with the old "doomstack" line since 1UPT is the new "hotness", where a team fends off a 5v1 attack and then goes on to win the game, despite being horribly outmatched in terms of raw unit power and without any sort of technological edge. Turns out that having a solid road network so you could reinforce positions more quickly than the enemy, along with having "safe spots" in cities where your units get massive defensive advantages which you can attack out of, and collateral damage being the ultimate deciding factor makes a huge difference. And of course player skill. The war was won over many small skirmishes and with the defending team simply keeping all of their cities too strong to take outright, and they would quickly keep their roads in place so that they could get sufficient forces to any threatened city to defend it. Stellaris could consider collateral damage. Not sure how it'd work in the current combat system, but it does create an interesting dynamic when "doomstacking" is still generally the strongest option but if you stack too heavily a smaller force with very strong collateral damage can still at least hurt you significantly, even if it maybe doesn't outright destroy you. It could also benefit from the defender having more advantages in war, as is it seems like the attacker can all too easily dictate the terms of battle and defensive stations are generally thought of as kinda weak aside from the occasional FTL trap. Which is an interesting concept that could be developed further.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 06:24
|
|
|
One of the reasons I prefer Hyperlane Only games of Stellaris is that it actually gives the defender an advantage, at least theoretically. The defender has all the internal hyper routes, meaning theoretically shorter reinforcement times, and the attacker likely only has one or two entry points into your territory.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 06:27
|
|
|
Random insomnia-based idea: I wish "fleets" worked the way science ships do. You instead build individual ships, outfitted how you want, and were limited by available captains to crew them. You could build more ships than you had captains, but they'd basically be a reserve to quickly replace losses, with the ability to build a defensive "fleet" of picket ships that simply bee-line towards the nearest enemy in your territory in an attempt to tar pit them long enough for a real ship to show up and engage them. And if you were to, say, pull your warships away from a border to wage a war, well, enemies might take note of your suddenly inadequately-defended border, which would be a way to limit engagement size. Basically, I'd like to see individual ships made more important. The Enterprise didn't tool around with thirty screening destroyers to soak torpedoes for it, and suddenly the I-forget-which-they're-all-basically-the-same-dictatorship's ability to just build a Bigger Ship becomes meaningful.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 06:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 21:44 |
|
|
PoptartsNinja posted:Random insomnia-based idea: I wish "fleets" worked the way science ships do. You instead build individual ships, outfitted how you want, and were limited by available captains to crew them. You could build more ships than you had captains, but they'd basically be a reserve to quickly replace losses, with the ability to build a defensive "fleet" of picket ships that simply bee-line towards the nearest enemy in your territory in an attempt to tar pit them long enough for a real ship to show up and engage them. I actually like this idea - plus if there were less ships in general it would mean battles between entire fleets wouldn't grind my PC to a halt.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 07:34
|
|
