Ship Class Necessity

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Ship Class Necessity

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 >> Ship Class Necessity

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Ship Class Necessity - 5/31/2013 4:19:24 PM

solops

Posts: 814
Joined: 1/31/2002
From: Central Texas
Status: offline

Having played this game since its original release I still cannot see very many reasons for the different ship classes....BB vs CA vs DD, etc. [EDIT: THIS MEANS HULL SIZES, NOT NECESSARILY ROLES]. There are some benefits inherent in the classes, i.e. the base starting characteristics and economies of scale, but their advantages are not readily apparent not have I seen a discussion if them. I ask that the devs give us a note about this.

Also, as a reason to build different different types I suggest having some weapons available only on certain ship classes or by having larger, more damaging "mounts" for some weapons on the larger ship classes or better anti-fighter mounts on the smaller classes....or something.

< Message edited by solops -- 5/31/2013 11:20:52 PM >

_____________________________

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.-Edmund Burke
Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; if it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it.-Judge Learned Hand

Post #: 1

RE: Ship Class Necessity - 5/31/2013 5:06:13 PM

Spacecadet

Posts: 1780
Joined: 4/18/2010
Status: offline

As DW has evolved through the expansions, I can now see the need for more Classes of ships.

The tendency is to try to build a "Jack of all Trades" type of ship, especially for the larger ship Classes, but I think this reduces your options.

With all the new weapons types that have been added over the development of DW, I'm now starting to see specialized needs:
- Patrol, Escort, and light/medium/heavy duty defense ships running on full auto
- System ships for a guaranteed presence in critical systems
- Fleet ships for you main Military campaigns

Fleet ships, start thinking about this one.
With Shadows I've been putting together Fleets with ships of multiple mission types, and I've still a long way to go.

If I need Hyper Deny capabilities, I don't want to put them on all my large ships of the same type (waste of space) - make one Class with this ability in your Fleet.
Mass Drivers/Gravity Weapons - need to deal with these, so design some ships that are only long range standoff, quick, and maneuverable.
Heavily Shielded targets - make a special design to deal with these (flip side of the above).

These are just a few examples of some of the Strategic designs I'm starting to think about.

Look over your available Components, and start thinking about how they could be used in special Platforms to deal with your Enemies.

_____________________________

CPU: Intel 2700K
RAM: 16 GB
GPU: GTX 970
OS: Windows 7 (64 bit)
Res: 1920 x 1200

(in reply to solops)

Post #: 2

RE: Ship Class Necessity - 5/31/2013 5:23:01 PM

solops

Posts: 814
Joined: 1/31/2002
From: Central Texas
Status: offline

I would think most people specialize ship types, but this has little to do with ship class differentiation. And making specialized ships and actually trying to use them tactically underscores the difficulty of organizing and using ships in DW without going totally manually...a nightmare in any but the smallest galaxies. I do not really want to go into tactical management here, but that would be another good thread. This is supposed to be more about differences in ship class characteristics for ship design.

_____________________________

(in reply to Spacecadet)

Post #: 3

RE: Ship Class Necessity - 5/31/2013 5:53:25 PM

CyclopsSlayer

Posts: 583
Joined: 2/11/2012
Status: offline

The Best option in my opinion would be to class things by hull size.

For instance;
-Escort sz 0-149
-Frigate sz 150-249
-Destroyer sz 250-399
-Cruiser sz 400-899
-Capital sz 900-1500

-Carrier +50% as usual
OR
-Escort Carrier (CVE) sz 1-449
-Light Carrier (CVL) sz 450-799
-Carrier (CV/CVA) sz 800-1499
-Fleet Carrier (CVN) sz 1500-2250 (technically CVN is Carrier-Nuclear powered)

When the game wants an Escort for the role of escorting the civilian ships you build something in the Escort category.
As it stands right now an "Escort" can be the same 1500 size that a "Capital" could be. So what is the point of the designations as is?

(in reply to Spacecadet)

Post #: 4

RE: Ship Class Necessity - 5/31/2013 6:25:57 PM

Tree Dog

Posts: 129
Joined: 3/27/2010
Status: offline

But I don't want to be limited by your arbitrary limits and sizes, that would fit you and only you.

It should be dynamic and let you name new hulls on the fly as you play, while the AI could still use the old system, or occasionally entirely steal a player ship design (and hull designation) and tweak it a bit before using it too (or not).
Or it could just be a new batch of hull names accessible in the drop-down list to the player that the AI wouldn't touch ever.

(in reply to CyclopsSlayer)

Post #: 5

RE: Ship Class Necessity - 5/31/2013 6:37:43 PM

Plant

Posts: 418
Joined: 4/23/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: solops

...BB vs CA vs DD, etc.

What is this? Using US Navy ship designations? Why should your roleplaying affect other people's roleplaying?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Spacecadet

As DW has evolved through the expansions, I can now see the need for more Classes of ships.

The tendency is to try to build a "Jack of all Trades" type of ship, especially for the larger ship Classes, but I think this reduces your options.

With all the new weapons types that have been added over the development of DW, I'm now starting to see specialized needs:
- Patrol, Escort, and light/medium/heavy duty defense ships running on full auto
- System ships for a guaranteed presence in critical systems
- Fleet ships for you main Military campaigns

There is no need for any of this, nor have you explained such need.
Not to mention the nightmare of producing these 7 extra ship types and controlling them in any manner that doesn't involve making one game year last as long as a literal year.
Plus the AI will never be designed to meet one person's particular roleplaying need. (Other than the game designer's haha.)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpacecadetFleet ships, start thinking about this one.
With Shadows I've been putting together Fleets with ships of multiple mission types, and I've still a long way to go.

If I need Hyper Deny capabilities, I don't want to put them on all my large ships of the same type (waste of space) - make one Class with this ability in your Fleet.
Mass Drivers/Gravity Weapons - need to deal with these, so design some ships that are only long range standoff, quick, and maneuverable.
Heavily Shielded targets - make a special design to deal with these (flip side of the above).

These are just a few examples of some of the Strategic designs I'm starting to think about.

Look over your available Components, and start thinking about how they could be used in special Platforms to deal with your Enemies.

You can already do just that within the game.
Why try to force your roleplaying playstyle onto other people's roleplaying playstyle?

quote:

ORIGINAL: CyclopsSlayer

The Best option in my opinion would be to class things by hull size.

For instance;
-Escort sz 0-149
-Frigate sz 150-249
-Destroyer sz 250-399
-Cruiser sz 400-899
-Capital sz 900-1500

-Carrier +50% as usual
OR
-Escort Carrier (CVE) sz 1-449
-Light Carrier (CVL) sz 450-799
-Carrier (CV/CVA) sz 800-1499
-Fleet Carrier (CVN) sz 1500-2250 (technically CVN is Carrier-Nuclear powered)

When the game wants an Escort for the role of escorting the civilian ships you build something in the Escort category.
As it stands right now an "Escort" can be the same 1500 size that a "Capital" could be. So what is the point of the designations as is?

AI ship design are already hobbled by their innate shipe sizes they are designed to.
Why do you want to hobble other peoples designs? And according to your own specific US Navy roleplaying. People who design ships tend to decide what ships they want to make.
You limit frigates to size 150-249? Then that player will just make pure capital ships instead. The only difference is that they can't use name ordering in the ship screen to easily select ships to create fleets.

...
Posted whilst I was writing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tree Dog
But I don't want to be limited by your arbitrary limits and sizes, that would fit you and only you.
It should be dynamic and let you name new hulls on the fly as you play, while the AI could still use the old system, or occasionally entirely steal a player ship design (and hull designation) and tweak it a bit before using it too (or not).
Or it could just be a new batch of hull names accessible in the drop-down list to the player that the AI wouldn't touch ever.

Yes exactly!

< Message edited by Plant -- 5/31/2013 6:38:14 PM >

(in reply to CyclopsSlayer)

Post #: 6

RE: Ship Class Necessity - 5/31/2013 6:47:59 PM

jamthree

Posts: 28
Joined: 5/18/2013
Status: offline

Keep in mind that the only difference is the AI script attached to the ship type which is only applicable when that ship is automated. And also for the AI build manager for the number of the ship types to have in an empires Navy. In other words for non-automated ships the type is meaningless.

(in reply to Plant)

Post #: 7

RE: Ship Class Necessity - 5/31/2013 6:56:18 PM

CyclopsSlayer

Posts: 583
Joined: 2/11/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Plant

AI ship design are already hobbled by their innate shipe sizes they are designed to.
Why do you want to hobble other peoples designs? And according to your own specific US Navy roleplaying. People who design ships tend to decide what ships they want to make.
You limit frigates to size 150-249? Then that player will just make pure capital ships instead. The only difference is that they can't use name ordering in the ship screen to easily select ships to create fleets.

...
Posted whilst I was writing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tree Dog
But I don't want to be limited by your arbitrary limits and sizes, that would fit you and only you.
It should be dynamic and let you name new hulls on the fly as you play, while the AI could still use the old system, or occasionally entirely steal a player ship design (and hull designation) and tweak it a bit before using it too (or not).
Or it could just be a new batch of hull names accessible in the drop-down list to the player that the AI wouldn't touch ever.

Yes exactly!

It was arbitrary designations yes, but it was done to make the hull names mean Something.
Rather than Escort/Frigate...Capital used currently Which mean NOTHING. What is the difference between a sz1500 Escort, sz1500 Destroyer and a sz1500 Capital? Nothing at all, except the AI will be totally confused in wanting to fill light escort roles with massive Battleships.

Just Call them Hull1/Hull2/Hull3 with no size restrictions. And assign them a Role that the game can understand.
Escort is no longer a Hull name but a Role of the ship.
Bombardment is a Role assigned to say Hull3.
Troop Transport is a Role assigned to Hull4.
Combat is a Role assigned to Hull5 and Hull6.

You could in theory have 10 Hull slots filled with nothing but ships on Escort roles, and no Combat roles at all.

(in reply to Plant)

Post #: 8

RE: Ship Class Necessity - 5/31/2013 7:56:27 PM

TrooperCooper

Posts: 80
Joined: 1/29/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tree Dog

But I don't want to be limited by your arbitrary limits and sizes, that would fit you and only you.

QFT!

(in reply to Tree Dog)

Post #: 9

RE: Ship Class Necessity - 5/31/2013 9:51:03 PM

jamthree

Posts: 28
Joined: 5/18/2013
Status: offline

The only real argument is that here on earth ships are built by first creating a Hull, and you want that process to be replicable. Shipyards lay down set hull sizes that are requested by the navy and commercial interests almost entirely on the basis that the larger the hull the slower the ship. Navies are defined by the number of ships it has and a ship is generally viewed as self-sustaining while on tour. And even the smallest ship is a large investment for most countries.A Captain of a ship is the closest thing to god next to a submarine captain, and thats only in the modern era. Once a ship is out to sea on tour and away from its home nation it becomes an island unto itself.

What this means is if you want to model a 4x Space Navy after what we know about navies you would create fixed hull sizes and they would have a inverse size-speed correlation. Sword of the stars is probably the closest to giving you a "Navy" feel to your ships. And you are perfectly capable of doing this in distant worlds, your also capable of not doing it. If you look at the default designs it is the way the ai works with the ship types, so basically its your choice just like its your choice which parts of the ai you leave on or off.

(in reply to TrooperCooper)

Post #: 10

RE: Ship Class Necessity - 5/31/2013 10:35:40 PM

necaradan666

Posts: 256
Joined: 5/28/2012
Status: offline

I'm not sure I understand the question, there are no ship classes in DW. You can check the design screen it calls them sub-roles or whatever. It's what they do that defines them.. ~ Batman.

(in reply to jamthree)

Post #: 11

RE: Ship Class Necessity - 5/31/2013 11:19:28 PM

solops

Posts: 814
Joined: 1/31/2002
From: Central Texas
Status: offline

This discussion bears no resemblance to the thread I thought I started.

_____________________________

(in reply to necaradan666)

Post #: 12

RE: Ship Class Necessity - 5/31/2013 11:28:44 PM

solops

Posts: 814
Joined: 1/31/2002
From: Central Texas
Status: offline

A little clarification seems necessary..., DW gives the option of building different hull sizes. Different hull sizes should have different capabilities...this is the issue, not their role. There should be, I think, a difference between building a big hull ship versus an equal tonnage of smaller ships. Right now, there seems to be very little difference. Now, loop back to my first post...

_____________________________

(in reply to solops)

Post #: 13

RE: Ship Class Necessity - 5/31/2013 11:33:36 PM

Raap

Posts: 404
Joined: 1/12/2011
Status: offline

Well, the fact that they're different hull sizes initially doesn't mean anything, you're free to make escorts ten times bigger than capital ships( well, within the size limit).

That said, I do agree that smaller ships should have some advantages compared to bigger ships.Other games have fixed( well, tried to fix) this by giving smaller ships a bonus to evasion, while giving larger ships a penalty to evasion.

(in reply to solops)

Post #: 14

RE: Ship Class Necessity - 6/1/2013 2:20:22 AM

Brainsucker

Posts: 100
Joined: 8/2/2010
Status: offline

Well, honestly, size doesn't matter to measure the capability of the ship in DW. It is attack and defense power. It is the shield and weapon stats. The problem in DW is that the more weapon you put on your ship, the more powerful your ship is. it is the same as the more shield you put there, the more powerful your platform is. That's why, bigger ship have more favor to most (if not all) players decision in building of warship.

To eliminate this design decision, we must eliminate the "stack". For example, you can only capable to put 1 shield on a ship, more extra shield you put on your ship won't matter. It will also true to the armor. You can only put one armor to the ship. Extra armor won't matter to the battle. What about weapon? That need another tweaking. But long to short, it is the stacked weapon, shield, and armor that make bigger ship better than small ones.

(in reply to Raap)

Post #: 15

RE: Ship Class Necessity - 6/1/2013 5:32:42 AM

necaradan666

Posts: 256
Joined: 5/28/2012
Status: offline

Well.... what do you mean different hull sizes? There is only role and size. There are no different hull classes or sizes to choose between in DW.

You build a size 1500 ship and make it's role whatever you like, even this max sized ship can be put in the role Escort where, when automated, it will follow other ships around and protect them. It's role is just so the AI knows what to do with it.. there's nothing that mentions it's class or hull... unless you're talking about the names of the designs themselves, which are no more than random names meant to differentiate between them.

Building a larger ship just means you've put more components together, if the size goes over a certain limit you require a higher tech level to build it. Still no mention of hull or class.

(in reply to Brainsucker)

Post #: 16

RE: Ship Class Necessity - 6/1/2013 5:43:44 AM

Cruis.In

Posts: 202
Joined: 11/10/2012
Status: offline

I have a detailed post on this if you care to search for it. Ship class in DW is null and void. Because you can take an escort ship or destroyer, put in excess hab modules and life support and then stick on as much guns/shields/armor etc as you wish.

This is why DW became so easy for me. Where as the AI sticks to 'classes' per se, even my escort ships out class his best ships. None of his ships on any level can compete. And this removes the fun of DW for me. Because the most fun I ever had in DW was before I realized this was possible, and had awesome 'wars' with the AI which were hectic. Him destroying half my empire, my fighting back, it felt great, intense.

Simply not doing something you know you can isn't an option. They just need to apply a few changes to ship classes and it would remove this issue. First being, set hull classes to only be allowed a max number of hab/life support per class, so I cannot add more to ships to then turn them into something they weren't meant to be.

Stacking penalties would also work a little bit for components.

(in reply to necaradan666)

Post #: 17

RE: Ship Class Necessity - 6/1/2013 6:54:44 AM

Jim D Burns

Posts: 4013
Joined: 2/25/2002
From: Salida, CA.
Status: offline

What is missing and is needed is some kind of bonus/penalty for the different hull types. For instance small escorts should receive a very high bonus to avoid weapons fire based on how small and fast they are. The smaller and faster you make your escorts, the harder they should be to hit in battle.

Frigates could possibly get some kind of missile and countermeasure bonus to all missile combat. Destroyers would get combat bonuses when placed in a fleet with classes larger than themselves. Cruisers would get a beam weapon bonus and capital ships would get armor and shield bonuses but suffer speed penalties and could be hit more easily. Carriers of course would benefit their fighter compliments somehow.

I'm just throwing this out there, you could easily make cases for why these particular bonuses or penalties suck, but the fact remains the different classes need something to make their particular class valuable to game play for a particular reason. And the size of the class would need to be kept within some kind of limits that make sense else severe penalties would apply.

Jim

_____________________________

(in reply to solops)

Post #: 18

RE: Ship Class Necessity - 6/1/2013 9:52:55 AM

BenLen

Posts: 8
Joined: 6/1/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jamthree

Keep in mind that the only difference is the AI script attached to the ship type which is only applicable when that ship is automated. And also for the AI build manager for the number of the ship types to have in an empires Navy. In other words for non-automated ships the type is meaningless.

What are the differences in the AI schemes? I would guess that "escort" class escorts defenseless ships.. but what about the other types?

(in reply to jamthree)

Post #: 19

RE: Ship Class Necessity - 6/1/2013 11:27:17 AM

Brainsucker

Posts: 100
Joined: 8/2/2010
Status: offline

I think putting size limit to... let say "Destroyer", Frigate, Escort, etc are just gamey and not represent the real... say destroyer / cruiser / frigate. Because even in the real world, there is no rule to limit the ship size for these roles. You can see the difference between USN Destroyers and Frigate, to Chinese Destroyers and Frigate, to the other's Destroyer and Frigate. You can see that US's Destroyer's Arleigh Burke has around 8000 - 9000 Ton, Sumwalt Class has 14000 tonnages, Chinese 52C, 52D Destroyer has around 7000 Ton, Japanese's Destroyer (beside Kongo) has 5000 - 6000 Ton, etc. You can also see that Chinese Frigate, the 54A Jiangkai II has 4000 Ton, while Japanese Frigate has only around 2000 Ton. You can even also notice that Destroyer ship in WW 2 was actually smaller than today Destroyer Class Warship.

So what does it mean? There is no size limitation to what we call Destroyer Class Warship. Everyone have their own standard for this matter. And, the most important problem is, that the role of today DDG and the World War II DD is very different. They are not the same kind of ship.

I think, until Distant World II is out, the only one that we can do to balance big - small ship is the cost effective of each ship. We can do that by increase the cost of each reactor that you put into a single ship. the reason is simple. Operating two nuclear reactors in a single ship is definitely more complicated and costly than operating one nuclear reactors in a single ship. The reason can be vary, but the important thing is that by putting 2 reactors in a single ship, you pay more maintain cost to your single ship than you create two ships with 1 reactors each. It's also true if you put 3 reactors, 4, 5, and more.

So basically, you will be able to create a 10 reactors in your 1500 size ship, but the cost will be nightmare for your empire's financial. Maybe you can create one or two, but you'll be definitely need more smaller and weaker ships for the work horse of your empire.

(in reply to BenLen)

Post #: 20

RE: Ship Class Necessity - 6/1/2013 11:35:42 AM

Sirian

Posts: 174
Joined: 11/29/2012
Status: offline

For what I have observed in Legends, Escorts would indeed escort ships and patrol installations. Frigates would patrol your space. These are the only two ship classes I ever set to Auto. I use Destroyers for defense fleets and Cruisers and Capitals and sometimes destroyers for offense fleets.

My Destroyers are anti ship designs for catching and destroying pirates when there are no automatic patrollers nearby, my Cruisers are battleships with long breath (for extended missions) and Capitals are fleet support vessels. Usually I create those design far before they become available, nothing hinders me to create a Cruiser design with size=300. But of course, this is how I play. Your milage may vary.

I thought about giving special bonuses for specific roles (similar to Endless Space where battleships get a bonus to shields and armor) but in the end, I would rather go in the opposite direction. Give me a few more "design slots" and remove the names. Lets say 10 slots and no naming "Escort", "Frigate", etc. This way, newer players do not get fooled into thinking they have to design an escort in this slot or cannot make a CapShip on day 0. The question is, will the AI be smart enough to see what these ships were designed for? (Maybe we could give the AI a hint how to use this design)

Sirian

_____________________________

Visit Sirian's Mods

(in reply to BenLen)

Post #: 21

RE: Ship Class Necessity - 6/1/2013 11:56:21 AM

Bingeling

Posts: 5186
Joined: 8/12/2010
Status: offline

I believe the AI has a value for various mines and colonies, and the automated ships tend to get tasks according to their class. So an escort would patrol a less valuable object than a cruiser.

The AI also uses ship classes when making orders and setting up fleets.

It could work to specify a difference between a class name and a class role. That way the AI could have its default frigates and friends that has fixed names, while the player could set up additional classes, but be force to assign them a role (like escort or frigate) just in case a ship of the class is ever automated.

AI builds could keep to the default classes anyways, including build suggestions.

(in reply to Sirian)

Post #: 22

RE: Ship Class Necessity - 6/1/2013 12:41:14 PM

Mansen

Posts: 352
Joined: 5/3/2013
Status: offline

More ship classes? What's stoppping you from running multiple designs in the same class? No need to clog it up further.

_____________________________

Currently Working On:
X-Universe Conversion (Hiatus)

(in reply to Bingeling)

Post #: 23

RE: Ship Class Necessity - 6/1/2013 12:51:30 PM

Bingeling

Posts: 5186
Joined: 8/12/2010
Status: offline

Because running 3 different destroyer designs is so convenient? It is a very requested feature among those that enjoy a ship for every task (and then some).

(in reply to Mansen)

Post #: 24

RE: Ship Class Necessity - 6/1/2013 1:10:22 PM

Mansen

Posts: 352
Joined: 5/3/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bingeling

Because running 3 different destroyer designs is so convenient? It is a very requested feature among those that enjoy a ship for every task (and then some).

It's a hell of a lot less cluttered than having even more ship types that are only visual and AI related anyway. Multiple designs is already in the game - you can pull off all the things you want, I really don't see why this is an issue or a priority.

_____________________________

Currently Working On:
X-Universe Conversion (Hiatus)

(in reply to Bingeling)

Post #: 25

RE: Ship Class Necessity - 6/1/2013 2:31:40 PM

Bingeling

Posts: 5186
Joined: 8/12/2010
Status: offline

Why do we need a gui at all? We could play this game in a spreadsheet.

The clunkiness of everything ship design related is probably my personal main issue with the DW interface. Flexibility in roles of designs is a minor part of this.

I run mostly AI designs for a reason; manual design is a chore.

(in reply to Mansen)

Post #: 26

RE: Ship Class Necessity - 6/1/2013 2:41:43 PM

ASHBERY76

Posts: 2136
Joined: 10/10/2001
From: England
Status: offline

I do not find ship design UI that much of an issue.

I would like new designs to mainly help the A.I like a designated command flagship,bombard ships,Escorts carrier,Recon Frigate,Assualt Destroyer.With the new templates if would not be hard.A.I logic would need a bit of work for the flagships and fleet organization.

The player can do these but every A.I cruiser having fleet countermeasures,bombard and fighters,assualt pods,ect makes them much less efficient.

_____________________________

(in reply to Bingeling)

Post #: 27

RE: Ship Class Necessity - 6/1/2013 2:44:14 PM

Mansen

Posts: 352
Joined: 5/3/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bingeling

Why do we need a gui at all? We could play this game in a spreadsheet.

Come back when you're ready to discuss on an adult level You're not going anywhere by using poor strawman fallacies.

_____________________________

Currently Working On:
X-Universe Conversion (Hiatus)

(in reply to Bingeling)

Post #: 28

RE: Ship Class Necessity - 6/1/2013 2:58:03 PM

Bingeling

Posts: 5186
Joined: 8/12/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mansen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bingeling

Why do we need a gui at all? We could play this game in a spreadsheet.

Come back when you're ready to discuss on an adult level You're not going anywhere by using poor strawman fallacies.

Have you tried running multiple designs of the same class, and keep them up to date when new tech is available? Do you find it fun to have to sort your ships by maintenance or firepower to get them over on the right design? If they are in fleets and should retrofit at different places and at different times? I am weird and can be picky about when and where a fleet retrofits.

Have you tried changing the components used in many designs when the Auto Upgrade inserts the wrong piece? Swapping 7 torpedoes for another kind in one design is a bit annoying, doing that in 10 designs is a pain. And there is way more than 10 design classes.

It could be fun to try to tune designs properly once. 3 different designs for main fleets. A couple of different designs for defensive fleets. Another couple of designs for fleets meant to bust mining bases in war.

3 + 2 + 2 = 7 different designs.

escort+frigate+destroyer+cruiser+capital+carrier = 6 different designs.

You don't have to be too fancy for the number of different designs to be a part of the challenge.

But sure, the game is fun with auto design as well. And if I only really use 2 designs, correcting the AI when it is stupid with component choices is not that much work. Luckily capitals arrive quite late, and by that time the painful "mid tier" is mostly finished and even the AI can pick the correct components to use. So I don't have to keep 3 frequently updated designs on manual...

(in reply to Mansen)

Post #: 29

RE: Ship Class Necessity - 6/1/2013 3:07:21 PM

Mansen

Posts: 352
Joined: 5/3/2013
Status: offline

Much better - constructive at least.

Yes, filtering needs some optimization. I'd love to be able to filter out things in the ships list, a real time search tool (filters with every keystroke) and preferably one that is remembered once the window is closed.

But does it work as is? Yes - It's a bother, but it's just as much a bother to find newly created ships.

If Auto-Design is sabotaging your designs, stop using it - I know I had to. It kept removing my fighter bays, so I turned it off completely for all military ships and bases. Takes a few minutes to update designs every so often. I don't find it a chore personally.

_____________________________

Currently Working On:
X-Universe Conversion (Hiatus)

(in reply to Bingeling)

Post #: 30