Ship types (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Distant Worlds 1 Series



Message

new_bee -> Ship types (1/10/2012 7:29:49 PM)

Anyone think they should be redisigned somehow similar to carriers? Carrier could be bigger then your ship-size tech level by 50% but must consist 40% of fighters bays. Or let say designating ship as frigate give him 20% sublight speed bonus, while same design but designated as cruiser - 20% to shield str. Battleship - twice as big but 3 times expensive both in build cost and maintance.

My point - i wish to build all ship types with my current tech levels, and wish they benefit from their role. Carrier - good example of such mechanic.



Gargoil -> RE: Ship types (1/10/2012 7:56:25 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: new_bee

Anyone think they should be redisigned somehow similar to carriers? Carrier could be bigger then your ship-size tech level by 50% but must consist 40% of fighters bays. Or let say designating ship as frigate give him 20% sublight speed bonus, while same design but designated as cruiser - 20% to shield str. Battleship - twice as big but 3 times expensive both in build cost and maintance.

My point - i wish to build all ship types with my current tech levels, and wish they benefit from their role. Carrier - good example of such mechanic.


This idea has some merit. I generally only start using Carriers and Cruisers at the 300 space lvl and Battlehips at the next build level. I does seem that ships built with a specific role should get the advantages and detriments of the role (ship speed for the smaller ships for example).



Astax -> RE: Ship types (1/10/2012 8:23:41 PM)

Indeed. In mean time I use my own role bonuses.  Like frigates are my first defensive ships, max space / current tech and no troops bays, while destroyers are similar but with troop bays.  Escorts are always smaller and faster, and I dont fleet them, so they escort.  



Sylian -> RE: Ship types (1/11/2012 10:02:27 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: new_bee
My point - i wish to build all ship types with my current tech levels, and wish they benefit from their role. Carrier - good example of such mechanic.


I'm totally against this.
I really don't see, why some people want more emphasized ship roles. The role is just a guideline for the AI. In my opinion introducing dedicated ship types and roles is not adding something to the game, but is REMOVING something.
What benefit do you get by restricting the player to design certain ship types with strict constrains? (and giving a "role bonus" is also some sort of constrain)
There is no need for role bonuses and dedicated ship types. You can design them freely. No one forces you to design always ships with maximum size. You want fast light frigates? Go for it! Want a battleship? Do it - it will have 3 times higher maintainance easily.
My point is: you can do all this fancy fleet role ship type stuff without actually hardcoding them into the game. Just design the ships in a way you like them to work and they will do their job accordingly. With the benefit that in the way it is now you have all freedom to create any kind of weird ship types without resrictions.



J HG T -> RE: Ship types (1/11/2012 11:30:09 AM)

Agreed with Sylian. I very much like the freedom that ship designer gives the player.
The only way I think the restrictions could work would be to add optional side-role researches on different research trees. Kinda like the current carriers. For a simple example, missile boat designs could be bigger but could only be fitted with missile weapons and would need to have X% of their size fitted with engines.

The only thing that currently need enhancing are the AI designs that don't take full advantage of all the components and size limitations. I know there's some RPing aspects on AI designs but they still could be better in many cases.
We'll see what the next patch is gonna bring.



Howard Mitchell -> RE: Ship types (1/11/2012 5:08:11 PM)

I agree with Sylian to, and for the reasons he states. I wouldn't want to have ship designs limited to 20th Century naval analogues.



Ogaburan -> RE: Ship types (1/11/2012 5:20:38 PM)

I'll add my voice to Sylian.

I would like to create my own "classes" actually.
I just hate the current system! When the AI overrides your design! Yet you must tell him to retrofit automatically unless you want the micro all your bases and fleets.

In my dreams i design a specialized "carrier", full of fighter bays. Slow as hell with almost no firepower and full of troops as well! And i would create it as a class of its own!
Separate form the default-capital-ship. So that the AI wont "update" it all the time.
Separate so i can easily construct them without having to flick over the ship design, considering it docent go completely obsolete because the damn AI says so.

Current system really bugs me, not once i ordered the wrong type of ship to be built because i wasn't paying attention.

Hope you get my drift...



Harry2 -> RE: Ship types (1/11/2012 6:12:49 PM)

I too agree with Sylian. I like to design ships for specific roles within ship classes: eg. PD Frigates, Torpedo Frigates, etc.

Unfortunately the current design screen is not well suited for this. It assumes there is only one type of Cruiser and one type of Destroyer, etc. Multiples of each class can be done manually but they're not easy to keep updated.

And as soon as you enable auto-ship design/upgrade: "poof" goes your multiples in each class.



new_bee -> RE: Ship types (1/11/2012 7:58:17 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sylian


I'm totally against this.
I really don't see, why some people want more emphasized ship roles. The role is just a guideline for the AI. In my opinion introducing dedicated ship types and roles is not adding something to the game, but is REMOVING something.


So what exactly AI does when it see my cruiser and battleship? And i believe you against dedicated carriers?


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sylian
You want fast light frigates? Go for it! Want a battleship? Do it - it will have 3 times higher maintainance easily.


I'm start to play with tech level sets to starting. I'm really cannot design anything bigger than a destroyer. Ok let say i design a ship with hull size 300 and name it a BattleShip. 10 maxos blaster 1 concussion missile 6 corvidan shields and a cruise speed 20. pretty good. But how i should design my destroyer? It should be smaller faster, ok i remove 3 shield and 7 blaster - size 235 c.speed - 26 much less firepower and shields but 30% faster. Now where to put frigates and cruisers? Even smaller frigates? I don't want to put 1 reactor on them cuz it slow down my hyper speed. Cruiser inbetween of destroyer-battleship, what so special?

My approach: i'm name forementioned 10-laser ship as destroyer. then remove those lasers and place 1 fighter-bay - now it's my cruiser, serving a role of escort carrier. Now im discover tech that allow dedicated carriers, set those cruiser as carrier... WOW i can add another 3 F.bays! Now it like my 4 cruiser-carrier in firepower, and without such invention i cannot build a ship with 4 fighterbays, cuz it size 4x50=200 and with max hull 300 - there is no space for reactors, engines etc.

if you liked those dedicated carriers, why you against a bonuses for every ship type?





jalapen0 -> RE: Ship types (1/11/2012 8:35:27 PM)

I think smaller ships should at least get a defence bonus. It should be much harder to hit a small ship vs a giant capital ship.



Jerkface -> RE: Ship types (1/11/2012 8:55:49 PM)

Space Empires did this fairly well.  Different hull types had different bonus's for attack, defense, cost, whatever.   Overall the Distant Worlds design works pretty good, although I find artificial size limits rather...unrealistic.  A neat way to do it is would be to have the hull costs act like multipliers.

Say average sized early tech ship (size 300) has a hull cost factor of 1.  Lets say your ship costs 5000 credits.  5000 X 1 = 5000
A larger, early tech ship (size 400) has a hull cost factor of 1.5.  5000 X 1.5 = 7500, until you research some tech to bring it down to 1.2 or something.



jpwrunyan -> RE: Ship types (1/12/2012 12:45:48 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jalapen0

I think smaller ships should at least get a defence bonus. It should be much harder to hit a small ship vs a giant capital ship.

Why on earth do you assume that is not already the case? Have the developers stated otherwise?



Sylian -> RE: Ship types (1/12/2012 9:13:58 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: new_bee

So what exactly AI does when it see my cruiser and battleship? And i believe you against dedicated carriers?



Yes i'm against dedicated carriers. I don't see what they add to the game. I could make ships with lots of fighter bays before, without now have to have 40% or so fighter bays.




quote:

ORIGINAL: new_bee

I'm start to play with tech level sets to starting. I'm really cannot design anything bigger than a destroyer. Ok let say i design a ship with hull size 300 and name it a BattleShip. 10 maxos blaster 1 concussion missile 6 corvidan shields and a cruise speed 20. pretty good. But how i should design my destroyer? It should be smaller faster, ok i remove 3 shield and 7 blaster - size 235 c.speed - 26 much less firepower and shields but 30% faster. Now where to put frigates and cruisers? Even smaller frigates? I don't want to put 1 reactor on them cuz it slow down my hyper speed. Cruiser inbetween of destroyer-battleship, what so special?




I don't know what's your point. If you think your destroyer design doesn't look like what you want it to be then don't use it. Maybe if you do not have the tech to design bigger ships you're not meant to use them. Its not like any crappy little space empire can build and support a fleet with battleships. Or do you see every little coastal land in the world building aircraft carriers and destroyers? If you absolutely have to have every ship type in your fleet from the beginning then name your little nutshell a capital ship, i don't care.

I stick to my point: fixed roles add nothing, they remove freedom.

How the AI handles designing and controlling ships is a completely different matter. I agree that there has to be some improvement.



jalapen0 -> RE: Ship types (1/12/2012 2:10:51 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jpwrunyan


quote:

ORIGINAL: jalapen0

I think smaller ships should at least get a defence bonus. It should be much harder to hit a small ship vs a giant capital ship.

Why on earth do you assume that is not already the case? Have the developers stated otherwise?


Why on earth do you think it is?



Harry2 -> RE: Ship types (1/12/2012 3:29:51 PM)

quote:

Yes i'm against dedicated carriers. I don't see what they add to the game. I could make ships with lots of fighter bays before, without now have to have 40% or so fighter bays.




Exactly. The only reason I like dedicated carriers is that that they add a separate ship class to the game. This means they can can have their own graphic and their own category in the ships list making them easier to find. They make it easier to build carriers since you don't have to scroll through the drop-down list searching for the "fighter bay enhanced" cruiser or cap ship design to build.

Hopefully the upgraded ship design mechanics in the next release will allow this for all the different ships classes, including a different ship graphic for each (?) (if you want, of course)



Shark7 -> RE: Ship types (1/13/2012 3:17:20 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Howard Mitchell

I agree with Sylian to, and for the reasons he states. I wouldn't want to have ship designs limited to 20th Century naval analogues.


And actually those naval classifications from the 20th century depend on the country that is classifying the ship. Some go by displacement (size in DW terms) while others go by function (role) in DW terms. A good example where this is shown in real life was the case of the UK where a frigate (sub hunter) might very well be larger than a destroyer (air defense). The US system would go by size where a destroyer displaces more than a frigate.

I like it just like it is in DW...using the function system independent of the actual size of the ship.



Brainsucker -> RE: Ship types (1/15/2012 7:20:14 AM)

The problem of Ship Design in 4x games are always the same. People tend to maxed their ship size to the design limit. That's because design feature always favor to the bigger ships, instead of balancing both big and small one. The example of these are :

1. The more weapons you put on a ship, the deadlier your ship will be
2. The more shield or armor you put on the ship, is also making your ship unbeatable.
3. Weapons can fire 360 degree around the ship

These two reason are the reason why we always favor cruiser to small frigate, and battleship to other design. With these rules, Death Star that have 1000 size will automatically able to beat frigates that have 200 size. There is no drawback for the Death Star because of it's huge size.

So how to solve these problems?



AminMaalouf -> RE: Ship types (1/15/2012 7:48:57 AM)

quote:



So how to solve these problems?


By Newtonian physics

The relation of force and mass defines the velocity.

a = f/m; v = x/t

A quantification for the mass solves the problem.

The game simulates inertia (by giving components being placed on a ship a "weight" which effects on the speed of the ship can reach).

The problem of the "hullsizes" has insofar already been solved. [;)]



Harry2 -> RE: Ship types (1/15/2012 4:27:33 PM)



quote:

So how to solve these problems?


By making big ships hugely expensive to build, operate and maintain....just like in real life.



Shark7 -> RE: Ship types (1/15/2012 4:43:39 PM)

The fix is rather easy actually.

You cap each ship roles size, then make each successive size ship exponentially more expensive.

So if we compare a frigate to a cruiser:

Frigate is size 230 at cost factor x 2, where a Cruiser could be size factor 920 at cost factor x 8. That way the cruiser is 4 times as powerful, but at 8 times the cost...you'd still want to build a few to counter larger enemy ships, but you'd also build a lot more frigates due to their lower cost.



Brainsucker -> RE: Ship types (1/16/2012 4:04:10 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

The fix is rather easy actually.

You cap each ship roles size, then make each successive size ship exponentially more expensive.

So if we compare a frigate to a cruiser:

Frigate is size 230 at cost factor x 2, where a Cruiser could be size factor 920 at cost factor x 8. That way the cruiser is 4 times as powerful, but at 8 times the cost...you'd still want to build a few to counter larger enemy ships, but you'd also build a lot more frigates due to their lower cost.


The problem is..., like the other 4x game, that when you have research cruiser; destroyer and Frigate role in military will be void. You will tend to use the bigger ship as your main military combat ship.

It is also true to Distant World. I saw somebody show his / her ship design (fast ship, fire ship, etc) that have 800 size (rather than 150 or 200 ship size).

The reason is simple, Shield and the 360 degree weapon fire.

In real world, big ships always require escort. Because whatever they do, or whatever equipment they have, big ships always considered as easy target by the enemy. Thick armor can't help the ship to survive torpedo / missile attacks alone. But because of "Shield feature" in most 4x games, this problem become void. Big ship can always bully small ships. They can even single-handedly destroy a squadron of small ships without the help of escorts.

I'm not against shield feature. But, in most 4x games, shield is not considered as a kind of force field. It require no power to maxed it's potential capability. So... Shield is... and always is considered as an armor that has big HP. Plus, maneuverability of your ships won't effect the targeting ability of the opponent, thus make the need of fast / high maneuverable ship need become void.

Edit :
So, what about this idea (I don't know if it's work or not) : When a ship is not in combat, it's shield will work only at 1/4 power, and need the usual constant power like usual. But when it go to combat, it will take the free power from reactor to maximize it's shield potential. If by then the reactor lacks of power to empower all of it's combat feature (weapon, speed, and shield), then only of one them that can be activated (well, weapon always go first, so, you have two choice. To balance the number of weapon and shield of your ship or you get only 1/4 of your shield power.

To limit the number of reactor for a starship, you can always increase the need of fuel for each reactor and add the weight for it.



Kayoz -> RE: Ship types (1/16/2012 5:37:36 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jalapen0


quote:

ORIGINAL: jpwrunyan


quote:

ORIGINAL: jalapen0

I think smaller ships should at least get a defence bonus. It should be much harder to hit a small ship vs a giant capital ship.

Why on earth do you assume that is not already the case? Have the developers stated otherwise?

Why on earth do you think it is?


I haven't seen any mention of a "small ship defense bonus" on the forums, either.



jpwrunyan -> RE: Ship types (1/16/2012 7:26:44 AM)

Ok smart guys, riddle me this:
I believe it states in the galactopedia that there are "other factors" used to calculate to-hit bonuses. What do you suppose those are? I suppose they are logical things like size, distance, and speed. I think that is a safe assumption because, well, like every war game ever factors those elements into to-hit bonus in every combat system since the stone age. Just an assumption, yes, but a logical one. So again why do you assume otherwise? As a particularly ingenious person once said: "have you the brain worms?!"
Or do you know something I don't? Cause you havent said anything yet.

Your brain: use it. Good things will happen. I promise. ;-)

This post may contain snark. Reader discretion is advised.



feelotraveller -> RE: Ship types (1/16/2012 7:47:48 AM)

Brainsucker the power of small ships is that there are many of them.

Early game I have several times had the situation of having one destroyer defending a mining base from two pirate escorts. Often base destroyed (usually along with one pirate). If I had two frigates at half the price of the destroyer (and say 1/3 its firepower but still more than the escorts) the base would survive. Later game think about what happens if you have a single capital/death star defending a system with at least two targets (say mining bases) and I jump into system with two cruisers (say for simplicity sake half cost but only 1/3 firepower). I attack each target with one cruiser, you have lost one base. The other cruiser may take some fire from your capital but its smaller size will allow it to flee before it suffers any real damage since it is quicker than your behemoth.

Sure big ships are good. [:)] But smaller more numerous ships can cover more targets (offensive or defensive). Usually they are quicker and can outrun the bigger more powerful ships. Your death star is going to have a hard time destroying an escort when it can't catch up with it!



onomastikon -> RE: Ship types (1/16/2012 12:55:49 PM)

I like the way the system is now. I frequently build escorts for just that: they escort my larger ships (both civilian and military) and with their incredible maneuverability (and cheapness), they can often pester enough to keep my larger, more expensive ships, alive.
The "only" thing I find in need of improvement is, as someone else already mentioned, more diversification in naming, or rather simply more sub-roles under which we can save ship designs. A "dedicated carrier" or "dedicated troop transport" is useful in that its role is clear -- I can find them easily and use them accordingly. In a similar vein, I'd like to be able to save 4 or 5 further ship designs (no matter what the size, really) for certain tasks; while I won't have a "sub-hunter", I'd like to have a cruiser-sized ship with purely long-range weaponry, and one with ion-cannons, etc. to fit my needs.



OJsDad -> RE: Ship types (1/18/2012 10:59:09 PM)

I think the problem with ship types in DW is that DW does not allow for formations. Battles are more of a furball. Becuase of these, ships have to have a good balance of both offensive and defensive systems.



JCVocke -> RE: Ship types (1/20/2012 8:56:39 PM)

I am also violently opposed to instituting hard size and composition requirements for ship types, I generally build my Frigates about the same size as my Destroyers, using role as the differentiating factor. Specifically, my Frigates have crazy huge amounts of weaponry, especially Torpedoes, while my Destroyers have crazy heavy Armor. Cruisers are more balanced but favor armor, and Battleships have crazy huge everything. Also, once I get Battleships, I add Long Range Scanners to my Cruisers and make sure every fleet has at least one.

That said, I also support ship size being directly proportional to the accuracy of enemy weapons used against said ship. Bigger ships should be easier to hit.

This would then create a vastly more complex dynamic for ship creation, requiring one to make use of ships of all sizes to adequately cover all possible threats.



J HG T -> RE: Ship types (1/22/2012 7:55:07 AM)

I honestly like the idea of ships size affecting the accuracy a lot.
Ships under certain size (under 600 - 800) would get bonus to evading fire. The smaller the ship the bigger the bonus. For example, ships of size 150 getting 30-50% evasion rate.
Don't know if big enough ships should get "penalties" in evading fire as they are too massive to dodge incoming fire.

Just my thoughts on this, but the idea is still great and I support it 100%.



Sarissofoi -> RE: Ship types (1/22/2012 10:01:07 AM)

Greetings fellow good humans
Main probem I can see lie into ccurrent classification.
Some people see this as role some as class size.
It leads to some sort misurdestanding.
Other problem is that with current state game favors bigger ships because of how shields and weapons working. Especially if you add fact that how construct cost and maintance works.
I think about some simple and plausible answers. This is one of them.
Make ships by classified by role and class.
So you have:
Gunships(former escort)
Frigate
Destroyer
Cruiser
Battleship
etc
and they are bound to size.
Say Gunships have max size 100(random number)
Frigate 1,5x
Destroyer 2x
Cruiser 3x
Battleship 4x
Where is the catch?
Construction and maintance cost is multipled too.
Which mean that when now if you bulid Destroyer 2x times bigger than gunship you pay 2x more(based only on used resources). With this system you will pay 4x more. Which make bigger ships much more costly to fund and make them more rare.
Also it should be allowed to construct big ships from the start. Better construction techs will just multiple allowed for ships space. Like tech multipler 1,2 will allow bulid ships 1,2X bigger. So you can bulid destroyer on 240size.
So you have class.
What about role?
Now it have very limited options. With double system possible options and designs grow in numbers.
Wanna small escorst? Bulid gunships and give them role escort.
Wanna bigger bulid frigate etc.
So examples for role.
Escort
Pirate hunter
Patrol ship
Attack ship
Line ship
Capital ship
Carrier
Troop transport
The roles are pretty obvius. I think.
It have one big problem. It needs gui modification and propably AI too.



Theluin -> RE: Ship types (1/22/2012 11:14:46 AM)

In my opinion the current system is good and like Sylian said the alternative would limit the player too much.
The real problem is that building small ships is cost ineffective - you have to pay the maintenance or several hyperdrives, life supports, targeting computers  etc where in a single big ship you'd pay for those only once. However, that can by solved in a simple way. Instead of the cost being a simple multiplication o resources' prices times their amount the ship's cost should be:
(Ship's size/200[or some other number])^2 x Resource cost
Adding the squared ship's size to the formula for maintenance cost would make small ships much more viable.

Just my 2 cents [:)]



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.140137