|
Preechr posted:I would really appreciate the ability to drop a space habitat onto a planet as a bombardment option. Can't put habitats around habitable planets so that option would be kind of useless.
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2017 15:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 23:55 |
|
|
Argas posted:Wouldn't it be lovely if you could trade food to an Empire whose citizens you ground into food? As far as I know, you can.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2017 16:27
|
|
|
I'm in a war between my enormous federation bloc and the other enormous federation bloc. My main fleet gets its rear end kicked near one of the wargoal worlds. I look around for my allies. Every single allied fleet, like 300K strong, is bombarding the gently caress out of one world on the rear end end of nowhere. Not a single troop transport is moving anywhere near it. The main enemy fleet is about to bombard and recapture a wargoal world. Guys... could yall maybe... help out here... guys... 
GunnerJ fucked around with this message at 19:07 on Mar 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2017 17:15
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:I'm in a war between my enormous federation bloc and the other enormous federation bloc. My main fleet gets its rear end kicked near one of the wargoal worlds. I look around for my allies. Every single allied fleet, like 300K strong, is bombarding the gently caress out of one world on the rear end end of nowhere. Not a single troop transport is moving anywhere near it. would be nice if you could like, ping targets for allied/federation war efforts
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2017 17:21
|
|
|
I'm a little confused with some things in the Star Trek mod. Ships use way more of your fleet capacity, and when you advance to the next era your existing ships don't change to the new models and there's no way to upgrade them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2017 18:35
|
|
|
Anticheese posted:Dang. And you purged the Preserve. That's cold. Hot take, better to be purged than be put in some gilded molestation cage for a FE to drool over. Who knows what they do to them there!
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2017 18:43
|
|
|
Namaer posted:I'm a little confused with some things in the Star Trek mod. Ships use way more of your fleet capacity, and when you advance to the next era your existing ships don't change to the new models and there's no way to upgrade them. Ships use more fleet capacity but they also seem to be a lot meatier than the vanilla counterpart, especially once you start getting some of the advanced designs. Which is good, because they're also super expensive. Also I kind of like how the new models don't upgrade- having a mixed fleet of federation ships imo looks cooler (and more reminiscent of scenes out of star trek!) than a series of identical ships all lined up. At least the innards upgrade, so it's just a visual thing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2017 18:45
|
|
|
Argas posted:Wouldn't it be lovely if you could trade food to an Empire whose citizens you ground into food? Sindai fucked around with this message at 19:15 on Mar 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2017 19:13
|
|
|
What's the name of the Star Trek mod?
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2017 19:15
|
|
|
Star Trek New Horizons: https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=688086068&searchtext=
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2017 19:16
|
|
|
Thank you.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2017 19:20
|
|
|
Bohemian Nights posted:Ships use more fleet capacity but they also seem to be a lot meatier than the vanilla counterpart, especially once you start getting some of the advanced designs. Which is good, because they're also super expensive. It does keep with the show in that sense. In the dominion war you frequently saw a bunch of old ships alongside newer models. I know STNH mod is very much in Alpha but was there really meant to be so many placeholders? I got the Space Seed event twice and it just said space_seed_event.desc and various other poo poo like that. Even the faction descriptions are WIP. Makes me think I didn't install it right.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2017 19:23
|
|
|
skooma512 posted:It does keep with the show in that sense. In the dominion war you frequently saw a bunch of old ships alongside newer models. That definitely sounds wrong. All the species have descriptions of various size in my version. Most of the stuff that literally says WIP for me seems to be in the tech tree, other than that I only stumbled on a single event that had a missing text line
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2017 20:05
|
|
|
skooma512 posted:It does keep with the show in that sense. In the dominion war you frequently saw a bunch of old ships alongside newer models. I got that too but it seems to be a bug. Most the placeholders I've seen are icons and descriptions. There were a lot more at one stage trust me. I really think they have over egged the tech system though, far too many techs for a three category three tech draw system. They need a new category or more drawn as default. In Stellaris you mostly get the tech you were hoping to see in a couple of draws, though sometimes the game doesn't like you and it takes more. In STNH I research an upgraded phaser tech and then don't see it again for like 300 years.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2017 22:21
|
|
|
Namaer posted:I'm a little confused with some things in the Star Trek mod. Ships use way more of your fleet capacity, and when you advance to the next era your existing ships don't change to the new models and there's no way to upgrade them. I think the idea is to reflect how ships in Star Trek tend to be far less numerous. No one in Star Trek has giant fleets of hundreds of ships except under the most dire of circumstances.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 01:46
|
|
|
I think the Dominion War was the worst conflict in regards to scale? Looking at the start point for that Star Trek mod, starting small and eventually working up to that scale sounds like a solid way to keep the game from chugging while making the era's feel distinct.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 02:50
|
|
|
Thyrork posted:I think the Dominion War was the worst conflict in regards to scale? Looking at the start point for that Star Trek mod, starting small and eventually working up to that scale sounds like a solid way to keep the game from chugging while making the era's feel distinct. During the Dominion war that cool scene where there's like poo poo tons of federation ships they are like "Benjamin, if we do this and you're wrong, we will be defenceless!". Also counter intuitively it's doing the opposite to what Stellaris is doing. Paradox were like "Hmm there should be a reason to build corvettes and destroyers etc even late game" and made a system that does that. These guys do what has happened in tsar trek lore and said "It's loving space with lasers, theres no reason ever to fly a small ship". What is a bit lame is the romulan cloaking devices at the moment just give a massive boost to evasion. As far as an abstract concept goes this is kind of OK, apart from it doesn't hide your fleet's movement and it doesn't give you a short term boost to damage at the start of the fight to represent the sneak attack. It does mean you can get like a cruiser with 40% evasion though which is pretty funny.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 03:18
|
|
|
There's no reason to build corvettes and destroyers once you get cruisers in stellaris though?
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 03:36
|
|
|
Jeb Bush 2012 posted:There's no reason to build corvettes and destroyers once you get cruisers in stellaris though? If you had fleet of cruisers and battleships only I could, in theory destroy them with corvette with torpedoes because you'd struggle to hit my ships but I would do massive damage to you. Its best to always have a mixed fleet
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 04:05
|
|
|
Am I the only person who's hype to watch the GDC presentations by the Stellaris AI dev and the Paradox exec?
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 04:10
|
|
|
Kitchner posted:If you had fleet of cruisers and battleships only I could, in theory destroy them with corvette with torpedoes because you'd struggle to hit my ships but I would do massive damage to you. I thought cruisers-corvettes was still fine or is that destroyers-corvettes?
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 04:32
|
|
|
Jeb Bush 2012 posted:I thought cruisers-corvettes was still fine or is that destroyers-corvettes? If I'm reading the Paradox forums correctly, either all torpedo corvettes as cheap as possible or all cruisers with 2 shield capacitors and all shields is the current thinking.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 04:51
|
|
|
I'm still learning not to put too much trust in threat values. A fallen empire woke up, and I decided to just try attacking them with the intention of reloading after my fleet was destroyed. Imagine my surprise when my 100k 16/16/32/32 blob annihilated their 140k fleet (albeit with only 17 battleships left at the end). Did I just get lucky in that kinetics are the best counter to fallen empires?
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 07:57
|
|
|
quote:If I'm reading the Paradox forums correctly, either all torpedo corvettes as cheap as possible or all cruisers with 2 shield capacitors and all shields is the current thinking. Can I presume the point of the first is to outright overwhelm point defence/fighters? Or are they using Energy Torpedoes? All Cruisers; a single design, or multiples?
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 07:59
|
|
|
GotLag posted:I'm still learning not to put too much trust in threat values. A fallen empire woke up, and I decided to just try attacking them with the intention of reloading after my fleet was destroyed. Imagine my surprise when my 100k 16/16/32/32 blob annihilated their 140k fleet (albeit with only 17 battleships left at the end). Did I just get lucky in that kinetics are the best counter to fallen empires? It depends on the empire in question. Depending on their type they use different designs and I assume you went against a shield heavy AE that your kinetics could eat through in short order.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 08:16
|
|
|
Tarquinn posted:What's the name of the Star Trek mod? 
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 08:55
|
|
|
Jeb Bush 2012 posted:I thought cruisers-corvettes was still fine or is that destroyers-corvettes? In theory you could have a fleet that was entirely destroyers and battleships, or corvettes and cruisers. The logic is that both these combinations share the same combat AI, so right now half your fleet tears off after the enemy while the other half stays back. If you had destroyers and battleships everything would hang back and engage at maximum range and the destroyers should take care of any frigates. Frankly though the whole system still needs a lot of work. They've tried to make smaller ships relevant by going the EVE route, talking about turret tracking and the like, but ultimately how well you turret tracks isn't really relevant when you're shooting someone from across the other side of the solar system, so it's not particularly intuitive. There's also pretty much no reason to have anything other than the infamous Paradox death stack which is a shame because I think is instead of one big blob you had several smaller fleets it would be far cooler. There just isn't the need right now though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 09:46
|
|
|
What if there was combat width in the game? At first glance it might not make much sense in space but really there should be a cap on how many ships can effectively maneuver and engage before you just end up in a clusterfuck where everyone is blocking each other. Also, cruisers can take small guns that blow up corvettes fine can't they?
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 11:32
|
|
|
Poil posted:What if there was combat width in the game? At first glance it might not make much sense in space but really there should be a cap on how many ships can effectively maneuver and engage before you just end up in a clusterfuck where everyone is blocking each other. There'd need to be a much more streamlined fleet system though, with auto-refilling etc.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 11:39
|
|
|
Fleet auto-filling would be dreamy. I don't particularly mind limitations on fleet size or diminishing returns on fleet sizes larger than X, with your proposed modifiers. I've always liked the idea of having multiple utility fleets in Stellaris, sort of like HOI territorial deployment, but right now there's really no reason to do that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 12:12
|
|
|
Poil posted:What if there was combat width in the game? At first glance it might not make much sense in space but really there should be a cap on how many ships can effectively maneuver and engage before you just end up in a clusterfuck where everyone is blocking each other. Combat width doesn't make sense when like your fleet is at Earth and the fleet you're shooting at is at Mars. The best cruiser to shoot at small ships would be a torpedo fore, a hangar middle, and a gunship stern which would give you 4 small guns, 2 point defence (which can do some damage small ships), and a hangar which could be used to shoot corvettes, plus a torpedo which won't hit corvettes in the slightest. Or you could build two destroyers, with a gunship fore and a picket ship stern, which would give you a total of 4 small guns and 4 point defence which are for small ships and 1 medium gun which can sort of shoot small ships (or you could get another point defence). On top of that, destroyers get a bonus to their tracking meaning they are more likely to hit ships with high evade, such as corvettes. This becomes more pronounced with scale. Say you have 10 of these cruisers. You have 40 small guns, 20 point defence, 10 fighter wings, and 10 (next to useless) torpedos. Your fleet of 20 destroyers though would have 40 small guns, 40 point defence, and 20 (not great) medium guns, all with a tracking bonus. On top of that the computer systems in a cruiser give you bonuses to attacking up close and personal, I believe the destroyer combat computer gives even more bonuses to tracking. The other alternative to building a single cruiser or two destroyers is simply to build 4 corvettes. If they have all small guns that's a total of 12 small guns, more than two destroyers even (less tracking bonus though). So while in theory you could have these cruisers to kill small ships, you might as well just build twice as many destroyers who will do it better. So in theory you could have loads of long range battleships and then destroyers (who don't Leroy Jenkins themselves into close range) and the destroyers could be built with 2 small guns and 3 point defence each to be super defensive against small things and torpedoes. I always build my fleet as a ratio of 1:2:4:8. So for every battleship there are two cruisers, four destroyers, and eight corvettes. It's boring and a blunt instrument but it seems to work.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 12:36
|
|
|
Wanna ask a modding question: how do you actually get events to fire at the start of the game? I am using events that do exactly that as a template to apply defined modifiers to every regular empire in the game. I'm following events that do this as a template:code:code:
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 12:47
|
|
|
Kitchner posted:Combat width doesn't make sense when like your fleet is at Earth and the fleet you're shooting at is at Mars. e: Obviously not suggesting porting over SotS1's system to Stellaris.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 12:54
|
|
|
Requiring admirals for significant fleet sizes always seemed like a better way to address this. Fleets without admirals have to be pretty small, size of fleets scales with admiral skill, etc. You can only have as many of anything resembling a deathball as you have admirals, and each fleet is still going to be smaller than the monsters we have now.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 12:56
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:Requiring admirals for significant fleet sizes always seemed like a better way to address this. Fleets without admirals have to be pretty small, size of fleets scales with admiral skill, etc. You can only have as many of anything resembling a deathball as you have admirals, and each fleet is still going to be smaller than the monsters we have now. Make it apply per battle instead or you can just dump multiple tiny fleets into one big battle. If instead the commanding admiral in a battle can only handle 20 or so ship capacity per level (more with tech and traits?) without taking accuracy penalties only then do you create a system that doesn't reward tedious fiddling to bypass it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 13:08
|
|
|
Demiurge4 posted:Make it apply per battle instead or you can just dump multiple tiny fleets into one big battle. If instead the commanding admiral in a battle can only handle 20 or so ship capacity per level (more with tech and traits?) without taking accuracy penalties only then do you create a system that doesn't reward tedious fiddling to bypass it. "Tedious fiddling to bypass the effect" is why I don't play wormholes. Splicer fucked around with this message at 13:32 on Mar 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 13:29
|
|
|
Splicer posted:Making it apply per system would have a similar effect (Using the best admiral in the system as the commanding admiral for fleet cap purposes). Also allows you to bump up the cap depending on how good your planet or space station or defence station is. That's harder to do because you'd have to treat the entire system as an engagement zone rather than the way it works now. That's not necessarily a bad thing but it would completely change the game if any opposed forces in a system automatically engaged and make bypassing defenses and playing cat and mouse impossible.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 13:31
|
|
|
Demiurge4 posted:Make it apply per battle instead or you can just dump multiple tiny fleets into one big battle. If instead the commanding admiral in a battle can only handle 20 or so ship capacity per level (more with tech and traits?) without taking accuracy penalties only then do you create a system that doesn't reward tedious fiddling to bypass it. Instead of applying the effect per system, then, you'd apply it per battle. The best admiral controls how many ships can effectively engage in a battle and beyond that you start seeing effectiveness drop off. eta: If you're significantly outgunned or outnumbered, you might do it anyway, but I guess I'd want "effectiveness" to come down to things like sublight speed (oversized fleets are cumbersome) and defensive penalties so that you can throw more ships at it to overcome being at a disadvantage, but at the price of losing more ships. It's not something you can do consistently without putting a ridiculous burden on your economy. GunnerJ fucked around with this message at 13:39 on Mar 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 13:35
|
|
|
Demiurge4 posted:That's harder to do because you'd have to treat the entire system as an engagement zone rather than the system we have now. That's not necessarily a bad thing but it would completely change the game if any opposed forces in a system automatically engaged and make bypassing defenses and playing cat and mouse impossible.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 13:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 23:55 |
|
|
Kitchner posted:Combat width doesn't make sense when like your fleet is at Earth and the fleet you're shooting at is at Mars. quote:The best cruiser to shoot at small ships would be a torpedo fore, a hangar middle, and a gunship stern which would give you 4 small guns, 2 point defence (which can do some damage small ships), and a hangar which could be used to shoot corvettes, plus a torpedo which won't hit corvettes in the slightest. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 13:55
|
|