Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

please judge and criticize my ship design methidology

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Distant Worlds 1 Series >> After Action Reports >> please judge and criticize my ship design methidology Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
please judge and criticize my ship design methidology - 8/27/2012 6:18:24 AM   
endoric_MatrixForum

 

Posts: 71
Joined: 6/14/2012
Status: offline
(please note the actual stats are all realative to each other and dependant on current tech levels)

ok without specifics here is how i do it.

i do not use frigates or escorts roles at all.

i use destroyers, crusiers, capitalships and carriers

i divide destroyers into three specialties:

destroyers size 230 speedy lighter shields and armor
heavy destroyers size 250 same but more damage dealing
missile (or torpedo) destroyers size 250 long range stand off ship (think like an archer) i like missiles due to 0 loss of damage with range

cruisers

light cruisers size 300 fastest ship in speed and acceleration better shields and armor than destroyers equal in damage capacity
heavy cruisers size 350 heavier armor and shields than above slowest of destroyers and cruisers but more damage capacity than all
command cruisers size 350 fast enough to keep up with cruisers and destroyers carries fleet bonus mods
recon cruisers size 350 light fast scanner capable ship uses stealth when available.

battleship

battleship size 400 damage dealer slow with heavy shields and armor
command ship size 450 serves as flag ship with fleet bonus mods (battleship without the damage
dreadnaught size 500 slow hard to kill highest weapons damage

carriers

light carrier size 750 fast enough to keep up with cruisers and bring fighters to the battle. used in small fast fleets with command cruisers as lead
carrier size 900 slow lots of fighters and defences
heavy carrier size 1000 less fighters than a carrier more than a light carrier but has fleet bonus modules and hard to kill (think Battlestar)
Post #: 1
RE: please judge and criticize my ship design methidology - 8/27/2012 7:24:16 AM   
Panpiper

 

Posts: 64
Joined: 7/9/2005
Status: offline 		As opposed to my ship design strategy. I use only capital ships. I have just one top tech design built to the maximum size my tech allows. They are fast, maneuverable, have good defense, good electronics, and very good direct fire weaponry (phaser lances). I throw in light point defense and ion defense. If I have allowed disasters, I will also give each of these ships a couple of ion cannons. I also tend to very quickly achieve an extreme tech advantage, so these designs tend to be well above the rest. There is absolutely nothing a concentration of these ships cannot utterly obliterate, and do so fast. The only question is if I have enough of them nearby to cover all bases.

< Message edited by Panpiper -- 8/27/2012 7:02:25 PM >

(in reply to endoric_MatrixForum)
Post #: 2
RE: please judge and criticize my ship design methidology - 8/27/2012 10:21:10 AM   
endoric_MatrixForum

 

Posts: 71
Joined: 6/14/2012
Status: offline 		i play huge with 1400 stars on hard. i find it a decent challenge and affordable ships in larger quantities are nessisary to cover everything and fight wars on several fronts.

(in reply to Panpiper)
Post #: 3
RE: please judge and criticize my ship design methidology - 8/27/2012 11:24:18 AM   
szabferi

 

Posts: 51
Joined: 8/26/2012
Status: offline 		So far - im a beginner tough - I also don't find the reason to have several different kind of ship designs for combat as you described above.

I used to have a top line (max size) combat ship with the best available shields and weaponry plus a carrier design. I don't feel the urge to have small frigates, cruisers etc.... its ok, I need ships in the empire to guard the important colonies, but I prefer to have 1-3 big ships instead of 8-10 small. So I don't think having many small cannon fodder ships have any advantage (eg cost/maintenance) over a few big one. Apart from having clutter on the screen :D


(in reply to endoric_MatrixForum)
Post #: 4
RE: please judge and criticize my ship design methidology - 8/27/2012 3:19:25 PM   
Panpiper

 

Posts: 64
Joined: 7/9/2005
Status: offline 		I look at it from a firepower to maintenance ratio. The maintenance cost of two frigates is equal to that of a single capital ship. Yes, two frigates can be in two places at once, but what does that help with? A solitary frigate is insufficient to do anything but chase a pirate away, it lacks the firepower to decisively kill it, so that pirate will be back at some point to be chased away yet again. And that assumes the pirates have not come in force, as if they have, it is the frigate that is in peril.

On the other hand, if one of my capital ships shows up, a solitary pirate is toast. It is very likely to be destroyed. Even a fleet of pirates, perhaps emboldened by their numbers to stick around and fight it out, will find themselves being destroyed by a solitary one of my capital ships. And if and when I find a pirate base, four of those capital ships will make short work of their starbase.

I too play on large maps with 1400 stars. I find even with my empire advisor set to suggest a 'low' quantity of ships (with a 100% allocation to capital ships), I am more than able to completely cover my empire with proper two ship fleet coverage, which frankly is overkill for pirates, and that's with pirates set to max.

(in reply to szabferi)
Post #: 5
RE: please judge and criticize my ship design methidology - 8/27/2012 3:49:16 PM   
endoric_MatrixForum

 

Posts: 71
Joined: 6/14/2012
Status: offline 		i see how that works and actually i am dismayed that it does. Maybe capital ships should just be more expensive and take long to make?

i mean what fun would it be to have fleets of death stars flying around?

after playing around with things a bit it does seem that the following is true

a ship at 500 size is greater than to two ships at 250 size give the same tech level.

a ship at 500 is Less than the cost and maintenance of two ships at 250 size.

as a mater of fact to make a ship of 500 with twice the armor, shields and weapons than a ship of 250 AND keep both ships the same acceleration and turn rate the capital ship achieves that well before size 500 AND ends up with a faster top speed.

this was all done at tech level 7.

honestly this is disappointing. there is no reason for light ships as its more affordable to have a fleet of capital ships and zero smaller vessels.

so to dominate build as big as you can and maintain only a limited number of ship types.

carriers, battleships, command ships and resupply ships are all one needs.

i say given all that the only way to make small ships worth anything at all is nerf the larger ship sizes. make them more expensive and costlier by making a steeper modifier in cost and maintenance calculation the larger the size goes.

it would be like having a fleet of nothing but aircraft carriers since no other ship types serve any purpose.

meh this revelation is a game killer for me :(



< Message edited by endoric -- 8/27/2012 4:23:32 PM >

(in reply to Panpiper)
Post #: 6
RE: please judge and criticize my ship design methidology - 8/27/2012 7:22:05 PM   
Panpiper

 

Posts: 64
Joined: 7/9/2005
Status: offline 		In defense of this game, I tend to do virtually the same thing in every 4X game I have ever played (and I've played a lot of them). ALL of them make this an optimum strategy, though I am sure they did not do it on purpose. I have never seen a 4X game with mechanics that accurately and effectively encouraged a mixed fleet design.

Even PnP games (pen and paper) games have this problem. I can think of only one exception, High Guard, a very old school element of the SciFi RPG game Traveler (first edition), which had a mechanic in it which made it highly effective at least at the higher tech levels to have at the very least two different ship types in fleets and possibly more if actually gaming out strategically as opposed to just fighting it out tactically.

That is not to say that a game could not be constructed that would in fact encourage a mixed fleet structure. However any such game would necessarily introduce a great deal of detail into ship design and fleet management that from the perspective of most game designers would be more likely to harm the marketability of their game than help. While there are those among us in the gaming community that would enjoy this (there is NOTHING I want more in a game than a robust design system, the more detailed the better), the vast majority of people do not. Just look at the number of people who play this game who let the automation handle ship design. I do not understand these people. but they would likely be driven away by a game that required them to delve into such design detail.

(in reply to endoric_MatrixForum)
Post #: 7
RE: please judge and criticize my ship design methidology - 8/28/2012 10:26:28 PM   
endoric_MatrixForum

 

Posts: 71
Joined: 6/14/2012
Status: offline 		well why have roles then? only two ships mean anything in this game and that's huge capital ships and carriers. I was impressed with this games attempt to make more of ships than the 'as big as it gets' method but i see that was more of a cover as ship roles do not mean anything with the exception of carrier as you can cram more into it if you keep it at 40% hangers. escorts frigates destroyers cruisers capital ships are really all the same thing perhaps just a simple way to sort different ship types in the ship screen but that usefulness is negated by the first point of only needing two ship types.

the only solution to this is that each role has a min and max size AND that the bigger roles cost more per point of size. to make things even better give a speed penalty to larger sizes. escorts would be a .75 modifier per point in size for maintenance and on up the scale to capital ships and carriers that could have a 2.0 modifier per point in size maintenance. without something like that you can just make massive ships and only massive ships which the AI does not do therefor the AI will always be out matched.

Great game i just hope they make something out of ship roles or just remove them all together.

(in reply to Panpiper)
Post #: 8
RE: please judge and criticize my ship design methidology - 8/29/2012 12:37:12 AM   
Panpiper

 

Posts: 64
Joined: 7/9/2005
Status: offline 		Technically there IS a difference in the ship roles, and that is the AI the ship uses. An escort ship will in fact do escort missions, escorting constructors and such as they do their job. I do not know precisely what the differences are in the roles, the differences in AI scripting, but they do behave differently.

The primary reason I stick to only capital ships is because pirates 'steal' the designs of your escorts, frigates and destroyers. So if you make one that is bigger, better or higher tech than the pirates, hoping to get an advantage over them, you are completely wasting your time. Worse, you are needlessly inflating your maintenance budget. Your bigger and better escorts will simply find themselves up against equal bigger and better pirates. By sticking solely with capital ships, I avoid this (to my mind) rather absurd and frustrating game 'feature'.

Actually, now that I am thinking about it, if it was possible to disable this Pirates Use Your Designs 'feature', I might in fact use the different ship classes more as they were intended, so as to take advantage of their different functions. My existing capital ship design would become my cruisers, with the same tonnage being used as for capital ships. The difference would be that the capital ships would become my 'command cruisers', containing those things I only need one of in a fleet. Escorts would be designed more like fast frigates, frigates would be destroyer sized. I am not sure what I would use destroyers for, probably nothing. Fleets would be composed of cruisers and a solitary capital ship. The escorts and frigates would be left solitaire on auto to keep the pirates and critters off my bases and merchant ships.

< Message edited by Panpiper -- 8/29/2012 12:48:56 AM >

(in reply to endoric_MatrixForum)
Post #: 9
RE: please judge and criticize my ship design methidology - 8/29/2012 4:04:26 AM   
endoric_MatrixForum

 

Posts: 71
Joined: 6/14/2012
Status: offline 		the insight you supply on pirates is new to me. they have never posed a problem for me so i never paid them any attention. I find a base i kill it. i see a ship i kill it. they do not really cause me any problems.

if you have every played hearts of iron 3 a mechanic they use to keep you from using nothing but larger capital ships is that there is a penalty applied if there is not at least one escort sized ship (light cruisers or destroyers) for each heavy cruiser Battleship or carrier.

i really just want the makers of the game to use the roles and ship sizes to their full potential as design of ships is the strong point of this game.

(in reply to Panpiper)
Post #: 10
RE: please judge and criticize my ship design methidology - 9/2/2012 4:18:45 PM   
Brainsucker

 

Posts: 100
Joined: 8/2/2010
Status: offline 		I agree with Endoric. The problem of many 4x Games are always classic. Bigger ships >>>> Smaller Ships, thus there is no reason to make the smaller one when you can create the bigger, meany ones.

I think we need to create a penalty for creating a big, meany star ship in order for players to have a reason to create smaller ones. Of course, bigger Star Ship is still needed, but it won't deny the smaller ones.

But for now, just go to hell creating the most efficient star ship by the game mechanic. You want to create all capital ship with 900 Kt, go to it. or you want to create a combination between small and big, don't make the game break your heart.

Although, maybe if we make the reactor cost in the game very expensive, it will prevent people from creating all 5 reactor star ship; because the cost of 1 reactor ship and 2 reactors one will become like heaven and earth

< Message edited by Brainsucker -- 9/2/2012 4:24:46 PM >

(in reply to endoric_MatrixForum)
Post #: 11
RE: please judge and criticize my ship design methidology - 9/3/2012 11:39:06 AM   
Bingeling

 

Posts: 5186
Joined: 8/12/2010
Status: offline 		When I have played I tend to use fewer and larger ships too, but not as bad as described in this thread. Also, by the time you can field a lot of large ships (lots!) there is usually little point in playing.

Without thinking too much about it, I would figure that to make different sized ships relevant one ought to:

1: Make sure that the smaller escort is the most "bang for the buck". This is the way to get firepower cheaply. And of course have the cost increase with size faster than firepower does.

2: Make some kind of limit to fleet sizes and number of ships in battle. Think that all ships in a skirmish are under the same control structure, and this carries penalties with additional ships. A rather bad penalty.

That way you could balance things so that a 4 ship escort fleet is the cheap fleet of some power. A 4 ship frigate fleet is less bang for the buck, but beats the escort fleet easily. And to create a powerful fleet, you pay a lot to sport 8 capital ships under a leader. A 8 ship fleet that costs a whole lot to maintain. But that leader could allow you to run a 8 ship fleet of any kind.

So maintenance pushes you to build small ships, but control limits and the wish to have powerful fleet pushes you towards larger ships that are more efficient, but cost way more to maintain.

(in reply to Brainsucker)
Post #: 12
RE: please judge and criticize my ship design methidology - 9/3/2012 3:39:48 PM   
Arcatus


Posts: 197
Joined: 1/2/2012
Status: offline 		KISS: Make lifesupport, or as mentioned earlier, reactors, expensive.


(in reply to Bingeling)
Post #: 13
RE: please judge and criticize my ship design methidology - 9/3/2012 4:43:05 PM   
feelotraveller


Posts: 1040
Joined: 9/12/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Arcatus

KISS: Make lifesupport, or as mentioned earlier, reactors, expensive.




They are relatively. Unfortunately the economy of scale means you need proportionally less for bigger ships. Since for example you are only carrying one hyperdrive, one ecm, etc.

One way to do it would be to make engines (thrusters) more inefficient the bigger the ship gets. This could be done by needing a greater proportion of the ships size in engines to attain the same speed, or by making it guzzle more gas per engine as the size of the ship increases, or both.

(in reply to Arcatus)
Post #: 14
RE: please judge and criticize my ship design methidology - 9/12/2012 3:26:18 PM   
Brainsucker

 

Posts: 100
Joined: 8/2/2010
Status: offline 		Well, just make the reactor very expensive. it will help the game a lot. Because reactors are the sole reason why a ship could become bigger. A ship with 2 reactors definitely could be equipped with more weapons and engines than a ship with a reactor.

(in reply to feelotraveller)
Post #: 15
RE: please judge and criticize my ship design methidology - 9/16/2012 1:21:19 PM   
endoric_MatrixForum

 

Posts: 71
Joined: 6/14/2012
Status: offline 		glad to see there was some discussion here. any other ideas?

(in reply to Brainsucker)
Post #: 16
RE: please judge and criticize my ship design methidology - 9/16/2012 1:33:03 PM   
feelotraveller


Posts: 1040
Joined: 9/12/2011
Status: offline 		Well a simple one would be to increase the existing added maintenance by ship size factor.  It's already there but currently pretty much trivial.

(in reply to endoric_MatrixForum)
Post #: 17
RE: please judge and criticize my ship design methidology - 9/17/2012 3:56:39 AM   
Brainsucker

 

Posts: 100
Joined: 8/2/2010
Status: offline 		Right now, I'm playing Star Trek Picard Mod and become the Klingon Empire, and want a bit role play (rather than to winning the game with the most efficient way). So, anyone has suggestion about what kind of ships that I should make? I want to make it more like the Klingon I know in Star Trek rather than making it all capital ships in my fleet. So maybe Bird of Prey, D-7, Vorcha, and Nerd'var should have distinctive role in the fleet.

Right now, I split my design into 2 different class. The small ships (exploration, frigate, and Escort) with designation of BP (Birth of Pray), while the bigger ships (Troop Transport, Destroyer, Cruiser, and Capital Ships ) with designation of D. You know, D-1, D-2, D-3.... I consider Destroyer as Light Cruiser, while Cruiser as Heavy Cruiser (btw, what is the different of Light Cruiser and Heavy Cruiser anyway, at least in this game)

Any suggestion on how to make a good Bird of Prey (they should be small and agile)? and what should Nerd'var's role do? A heavy armed ship? An attack Carrier? or a heavy troop transport? Well, I play aggressively like Klingons. And for anyone who love Star Trek and know the setup of any Klingon Ships are welcome to give suggestion.

and... I won't refit a unit that has different serial number. For example, D-2 can only be refitted into D-2 Refit, or D-2 ++ and more. They can't refitted into D-4 or D-7, etc. I know that it is silly, but for the sake of Role Play, I willing to do it. Because D-2 and D-7 would have different ship image. plus, for me, D-4 and D-7 are different entity with massively different setup. So it would be not role play if I change a heavily equipped torpedo ship to a full laser ship with pressing the refit button. Of course, D-7 will always more advanced than D-5

BTW, I appreciate if it is not an end game design, but more of early game design (the beginning and the middle) Klingon are s*ck at technology development anyway.

< Message edited by Brainsucker -- 9/17/2012 4:08:20 AM >

(in reply to feelotraveller)
Post #: 18
RE: please judge and criticize my ship design methidology - 10/11/2012 3:57:40 PM   
Shark7


Posts: 7937
Joined: 7/24/2007
From: The Big Nowhere
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: endoric

the insight you supply on pirates is new to me. they have never posed a problem for me so i never paid them any attention. I find a base i kill it. i see a ship i kill it. they do not really cause me any problems.

if you have every played hearts of iron 3 a mechanic they use to keep you from using nothing but larger capital ships is that there is a penalty applied if there is not at least one escort sized ship (light cruisers or destroyers) for each heavy cruiser Battleship or carrier.

i really just want the makers of the game to use the roles and ship sizes to their full potential as design of ships is the strong point of this game.


Play with max slider pirates and close to your empire. It's not that killing them is the problem, its the fact that you have only X number of ships and they are everywhere. You get overwhelmed with the pure numbers of them attacking you.

_____________________________

Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'

(in reply to endoric_MatrixForum)
Post #: 19
RE: please judge and criticize my ship design methidology - 11/16/2012 2:47:57 AM   
Cruis.In

 

Posts: 202
Joined: 11/10/2012
Status: offline 		what do the devs say about this? Are they gonna fix it?

(in reply to Shark7)
Post #: 20
RE: please judge and criticize my ship design methidology - 11/16/2012 5:12:19 AM   
Jim D Burns


Posts: 4013
Joined: 2/25/2002
From: Salida, CA.
Status: offline 		I think an easy solution to the problem is simply to require x number of ships be built of a small class to unlock a single slot of the next size class. So for example, you have to build 5 escorts before you can build 1 frigate. 4 frigates unlocks 1 destroyer slot. 3 destroyers unlocks 1 cruiser and 2 cruisers unlock 1 carrier and 1 capital.

Then make it so each class has a max hull size so you can't turn your escorts into capital sized ships and you're good to go.


_____________________________


(in reply to Cruis.In)
Post #: 21
RE: please judge and criticize my ship design methidology - 11/19/2012 12:52:00 AM   
Cruis.In

 

Posts: 202
Joined: 11/10/2012
Status: offline 		after having played more. Bigger ships cost more and have more maintenance requirements so not sure what's ruined for you endoric. Also take a gander at my strategy.

I build destroyers/frigates with long range weapons to more hang back (concussion / velocity shard) with about 300-400 damage. They've only got the bare minimum plus good shields on them and enough to go between 4/5 speed.

So thats 10 destroyers for like 6000 price. 60k in all. for 4000 firepower.

The cruisers/capital ships are where your fleet support comes from, hyperdeny's, countermeasures, targeting bonuses, fighter bays, etc etc plus they got good firepower and heavy shielding so i send them in front. They cost a whole lot

(in reply to Jim D Burns)
Post #: 22
RE: please judge and criticize my ship design methidology - 12/14/2012 6:02:32 PM   
mellian

 

Posts: 1
Joined: 12/14/2012
Status: offline 		I have not gone that far yet, only recently discovered Distant Worlds, one way to encourage different designs is make each component matter, while each having a counter as well a penalty for more of it. Prefer large jack of all trades ships in small fleets? Then spam them with smaller specific roled missile boats and beam snipers out of their range and from different sides while having stealth/high ecm recon target them and an area denial ship to distract and slow them down. The Jacks get overwhelmed and taken out. While they take their sweet time building replacements and smaller numbers of them, your larger fleet of smaller specific ships can hit and run or focus in the hole the destroyed small Jack fleet left. The Jack player will then either forced to adapt in design and or tactics, else lose.

Master of Orion 3 was awesome for that, if only publishers were not an ass and developers had more time to complete the game as intended with working AI and AI ground invasions...




(in reply to Cruis.In)
Post #: 23
RE: please judge and criticize my ship design methidology - 4/9/2013 5:19:09 AM   
Brainsucker

 

Posts: 100
Joined: 8/2/2010
Status: offline 		In my recent play, I use a new concept for my military ship design, and divided them into three force. But before that, I would divided my ship category into three role

Specialist ASW Ship (Anti Ship Weapon, not Anti Submarine Weapon).
Elite Class = Destroyer (Big, meany, a lot of protection. The tank of the fleet. ASW ship for Deep Space Military Operation)
Second Class = Frigate (Medium to big, shallow space oriented mission ship to protect important star systems)
Economical Class = Escort (Small, fast, agile, but cheap)

Multi purpose Ship
Elite Class = Capital Ship (the flagship of the fleet. Equipped with the best radar and all sophisticated equipment)
Economical Class = Cruiser (Deep Space Oriented Mission Ship, capable of doing all military mission far from a friendly fuel depot)

Assault
Troop Transport (you know that)

And I divided my Starfleet into three Star Fleet / Forces

1. Star Defense Fleet
- The protector of my homeland. Mainly use ASW ships like Destroyer, Escort and Frigate. Their design philosophy is intercept the enemy as soon as possible. They don't have a lot of fuel container

The organization of this fleet is :
- Escort : Independent / Automatic Ships. Usually Escort Type Ship
- Patrol : Usually contain 3 ships in one group. Early game only for anti piracy mission
- Squadron : Contain 5 - 10 ships of the ship type (all frigates or Destroyers)
- Group : Contain more than 10 ships of mixed type

2. Deep Space Fleet
- An away fleet to conduct military mission far from my homeland. Because of this, I use big ships with all kind of equipments, and protected by destroyers. DSF Ships equipped with all type of weaponry to make them versatile. That's why I put destroyers to protect them.

The organization of this fleet :

- Squadron = A group of Destroyers for Space Superiority Missions.
- Task Force = A mixed units group for all purpose military missions.
- Command = The headquarter of a theater of the fleet. Contain Refuel Ships and long range scanner ships

3. Space Marine
- A force for invading / assault the enemy planet.








(in reply to mellian)
Post #: 24
RE: please judge and criticize my ship design methidology - 5/3/2013 10:57:33 PM   
Plant


Posts: 418
Joined: 4/23/2013
Status: offline 		I have to ask, are you roleplaying, or do you think that it is an effective concept?

(in reply to Brainsucker)
Post #: 25
RE: please judge and criticize my ship design methidology - 5/4/2013 4:55:30 AM   
Brainsucker

 

Posts: 100
Joined: 8/2/2010
Status: offline 		well, a bit of role play doesn't hurt; as it's work - with of course, a little modification in the way. I play as Military Dictator with 700% research, Restless Opposition, normal difficulty with maximum Pirate (nearest) and I still okay until now. I won two wars, make my second enemy pay tribute to me, and now I'm at war against the strongest superpower in my game.

Of course, the original plan can't work against everyone. I change my doctrine in every war. But the basic is always the same. But that is the beauty of the role play.

The basic : Big fleet (around 17-20 and maybe more in the future) : For Space Superiority, Marine Corps for assault Mission, Raider Teams (right now 5 units Frigate) for Low - Medium Threat Missions, Recon Teams act like Modern Day AWAC.

Space superiority : Defending planet from the enemy Full Scale Invasion, attacking the enemy Fortress
Low - Medium Threat Mission : Attacking Pirate Bases, Enemy Mines, etc as usually not protected by Defensive Bases and Heavily defended Space Port.
Assault Mission : Planetary Bombardment, Planetary Assault

< Message edited by Brainsucker -- 5/4/2013 5:56:44 AM >

(in reply to Plant)
Post #: 26
RE: please judge and criticize my ship design methidology - 5/5/2013 12:18:22 AM   
Plant


Posts: 418
Joined: 4/23/2013
Status: offline 		That's good, I wouldn't want to critique someone who is having fun micromanaging his roleplaying. I didn't ask for you start settings...or for further extrapolation of your roleplaying.

You use a new concept...yet the basic is always the same? :P




< Message edited by Plant -- 5/5/2013 12:20:13 AM >

(in reply to Brainsucker)
Post #: 27
RE: please judge and criticize my ship design methidology - 5/5/2013 12:50:58 AM   
Brainsucker

 

Posts: 100
Joined: 8/2/2010
Status: offline 		The concept is always the same. I think the other people use the same method as it is the effective method of organize your fleet. I don't know

The basic is :
Big fleet (put a lot of ships in there) for attack and defend. But mostly to destroy the enemy fortification like Defensive Base and Space Port; and to defend against the enemy invasion.
Raiders Team (5 - 6 ships, for me Frigates) for raiding the enemy mining base or other less defend-able objects and raiding the pirate bases
and Assault Fleet (Troop Transports, I call them Marine Corps) for assaulting the enemy planet with troop.

It is the ship role and the composition of each fleet that different and always change. Previously, I planned to use the Capital and Cruiser slot for multi purpose ship that capable of Long Range Mission. But right now I use my Cruiser Slot for 2 role. Light Carrier and my biggest ASW (anti ship weapon) Ship, while I use my Capital Slot as AWACS ship (Equipped with long range sensor). But I guess it will change later, as the range of my enemy territory is farther than before. I'm about in need of long range ship. Well the design policy and the fleet content are always change depend on the enemy capability.

Because using the Military Dictator Gov System, There are always enemies that surpass my technology capability, and my economy won't make me the richest guy in the galaxy. That's why I always use two tier of ship class with the same role. Elite (the biggest, the meanies but expensive ship) and economy Version (cheap, a bit weak, smaller) to fill the rank of my fleet. Well, creating the biggest yet expensive is simple, but creating the economy version is a bit tough. Because I can't let these little ships to become the enemy cannon fodder.

< Message edited by Brainsucker -- 5/5/2013 12:53:04 AM >

(in reply to Plant)
Post #: 28
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Distant Worlds 1 Series >> After Action Reports >> please judge and criticize my ship design methidology Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.844