What's the difference in escorts, destroyers, cruisers, etc. (Full Version)

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



Message

rogerbacon51 -> What's the difference in escorts, destroyers, cruisers, etc. (6/9/2012 4:11:55 PM)

If all of the ships can be the same size what is the difference between them? Is it just in the roles the AI will use them or is there something else?



jlevans -> RE: What's the difference in escorts, destroyers, cruisers, etc. (6/9/2012 5:34:48 PM)

There is no difference except for the visual on screen representation, with the exception of Starbases and Carriers which can be 100% and 50% larger than your current max size technology, assuming you meet their other criteria (no engines on bases, 40% of carriers must be flight decks, etc.). Besides the visual effect, the primary game purpose is to provide some structure for the AI in what ratios of which ship type to build (see Policies).

I choose to limit my ships by the number of habitat and life support units I allow on each - 2 for escorts, 3 for frigates, 4 for destroyers, etc. That way, to make each class more powerful, I have to research those techs.

There are lots of threads on this site debating what distinctions there should be but for whatever reason it has never been changed.



Fishman -> RE: What's the difference in escorts, destroyers, cruisers, etc. (6/9/2012 7:12:15 PM)

You can build a ship capable of doing anything other than exploding on two support units? I've never been able to construct a useful ship like that, even a scoutship takes at least 3 units, and the end result is slow and unarmed. I mean, I see the AI build ships that are apparently that size, but all they ever do is explode, so...not a design to emulate. If you're just going to make something whose sole purpose is to cease existing, you may as well just shortcut the entire "building" process and skip straight to the not-existing part.



MartialDoctor -> RE: What's the difference in escorts, destroyers, cruisers, etc. (6/9/2012 7:43:42 PM)

I like to have my ships fill in different roles, so that's how I use them. I typically make a ship with a support role, one as assault, one as a long ranged fighter, that sort of things.



Fishman -> RE: What's the difference in escorts, destroyers, cruisers, etc. (6/10/2012 10:01:04 AM)

My ships all fill different roles, too. The distinction is in whether they're intended to kill everything or not. A ship that is intended to kill everything packs enough firepower to win a fight against entire enemy fleets at once, blowing them away in massive explosions in seconds. A ship that isn't intended to kill everything merely packs enough firepower to win a fight against entire enemy fleets at once, taking awhile to kill them all. Bases range from "DeathStar-like Leviathans capable of mowing down entire enemy fleets" and "Mini-DeathStars capable of mowing down entire enemy fleets". I take the size limits as mandatory, not suggestions. In addition to Large spaceports, I have designed Huge, Gargantuan, and Colossal space ports. A Large spaceport weighs in at about 4000 size. A Huge spaceport was 7500, and a Gargantuan spaceport weighs in at over 9000. The Colossal Spaceport was some 15000-size, but I never actually built one.



Gareth_Bryne -> RE: What's the difference in escorts, destroyers, cruisers, etc. (6/10/2012 4:27:25 PM)

If roles are to be more than show paint, we could have the weapon to-hit rate depend slightly on the ship size: the larger the ship, the easier to hit.



WiZz -> RE: What's the difference in escorts, destroyers, cruisers, etc. (6/10/2012 5:30:54 PM)

Role differentiation needs in game. Maybe would be nice, when new class unlocks with specific tech?



Fishman -> RE: What's the difference in escorts, destroyers, cruisers, etc. (6/10/2012 7:52:23 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gareth_Bryne

If roles are to be more than show paint, we could have the weapon to-hit rate depend slightly on the ship size: the larger the ship, the easier to hit.
I wonder if this is already true: The larger the ship, the bigger it is, so the less likely even a badly off-center shot hits, perhaps, seeing as ships seem to spray gunfire everywhere rather than at the target. Whether or not this is a real effect or purely cosmetic, is hard to say, since any battle where this effect could possibly have made a difference is too covered in explosions to tell.

But they're not quite show paint: They also influence the AI's usage of them. The problem is that all of the AI's usages are stupid, so it doesn't matter much. Any human-usage of ships tends to be far more specialized than such narrowly-defined generic roles.

There is, however, another argument: Back when I first played this, in the 1.0.x days, designing an Escort, Frigate, Destroyer, or Cruiser, constituted a footbullet, because such designs were copied by Pirates, while Capital Ships, Troop Transports, wouldn't. Since these other classes are mainly used for defending against pirates, it's an entirely self-defeating exercise when the pirates have the exact same ship. Does this still happen? I have been intentionally avoiding the smaller roles for exactly that reason: Because they exist as self-defeating exercises.



jpwrunyan -> RE: What's the difference in escorts, destroyers, cruisers, etc. (6/11/2012 2:17:08 AM)

Although it hasnt been stated expliciyely that I have seen, I still believe size affects to hit. Smaller ship is harder to hit.
I make escorts and small freighters that have 1 support module. They work just fine. Escorts dont go in my attack fleet so they dont get destroyed as often as my bigger ships.

Frigate squads are good as automated fleets for destroying enemy infrastructure so your attack fleets can do more important stuff. Multiple small ships confound an enemy ship from focus fire. Also I have seen ships in a fleet split up to destroy mining stations in the same system saving time.



Beag -> RE: What's the difference in escorts, destroyers, cruisers, etc. (6/11/2012 5:19:16 PM)

Well both in Space Empires and MoO 1 and 2, ship size AND speed affected the defense of the ship, and it should be included here as well if it isnīt already.



Bebop Cola -> RE: What's the difference in escorts, destroyers, cruisers, etc. (6/11/2012 6:45:15 PM)

I would very much like to have separate class and role designations for ships. For example, I'd like to design both standoff missile-boat cruisers as well as beam-focused. Currently I can design one, and the second is deemed an upgrade of the first. I'd like to have two simultaneous lines so they're not upgrading away from one to another, differentiated by role.

Beyond that, I tend to agree that larger ship classes should receive speed and defense penalties in exchange for their increased component capacity.



Fishman -> RE: What's the difference in escorts, destroyers, cruisers, etc. (6/12/2012 2:46:24 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Beag

Well both in Space Empires and MoO 1 and 2, ship size AND speed affected the defense of the ship, and it should be included here as well if it isnīt already.

It already does: A faster ship requires more engines to do the same thing as a smaller ship. SE just made an arbitrary rule saying you simply COULDN'T put more engines on it, so engines as a percentage of space fell rapidly as ship size increased there, with very arbitrary breakpoints where a ship went from "fast" to "instantly clumsy". DW doesn't have any such hard breakpoints: You can design a massively large, massively fast ship, but it's going to be an enormous flying engine.



MartialDoctor -> RE: What's the difference in escorts, destroyers, cruisers, etc. (6/12/2012 4:59:23 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bebop Cola

I would very much like to have separate class and role designations for ships. For example, I'd like to design both standoff missile-boat cruisers as well as beam-focused. Currently I can design one, and the second is deemed an upgrade of the first. I'd like to have two simultaneous lines so they're not upgrading away from one to another, differentiated by role.



I was having the same issue until I realized one thing... a frigate can be just as large as a capital ship (it just depends on your technology). So, I see the game as having 5 templates. Each can be made for different roles.

For instance, I make my escort my smaller ship used to guard small spots. Or to make small groups to defend more important ones. My frigate is made into a long range support ship, with lower shields / armor, and bombardment abilities. My destroyer is my medium sized ship which fits a generalized role. My cruiser is my large sized attack ship, which can take a beating and heads right into the heat of things. My battleship is always my largest ship and I like to have 1 or 2 in each of my fleets. My carrier is a large support ship with massive amounts of fighter bays.

If you do it as you are doing it and as I once was, it gets very frustrating. Since it makes upgrading a real issue. The game doesn't differentiate between two different destroyers, and so your ships won't upgrade correctly.



Fishman -> RE: What's the difference in escorts, destroyers, cruisers, etc. (6/12/2012 5:58:30 AM)

Honestly, I've never had an issue with upgrading, since I've seen how the AI upgrades, and therefore, I don't let him do it. Deciding what to build and how to build it is practically the ONLY thing I get to do in this freaking game, and dammit, I'm gonna DO that. Frankly, if I let the AI upgrade things, it'd spam me with tons of barely differentiated designs that would clog up my list of stuff. Since I use the "obsolete" toggle to clean up my build menu and keep construction ships from being confused about WHICH kind of base I want built there, I certainly don't want the AI "upgrading" for me. The AI couldn't make a worthwhile design to save its own ass, anyway. And it doesn't, because the one common thing I have noticed with AI designs is that they explode a lot. This is not a behavior I want my designs emulating.

You can't just blindly upgrade. Every design must carefully balance energy expenditure with reactor power and it's not just about upgrading everything to the latest version. For instance, I run my military ships on the high-powered Hydrogen reactors, but I run my civilian fleet on mostly-Caslon, so that I don't end up with a massive fuel crunch grinding my military to a halt. Plus, SOMETHING has to consume all that Caslon that gets mined.



Bebop Cola -> RE: What's the difference in escorts, destroyers, cruisers, etc. (6/12/2012 6:16:31 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MartialDoctor
If you do it as you are doing it and as I once was, it gets very frustrating. Since it makes upgrading a real issue. The game doesn't differentiate between two different destroyers, and so your ships won't upgrade correctly.

Honestly, I'd considered that. It just offends my sensibilities to call my bombardment ship a Frigate because my Destroyers are Escorts for my Cruisers that are really more like Capital Ships(aren't all of these things capital ships?) because Capital Ships are just too damn slow/power-hungry. [:'(]

Obviously, I'm being a little melodramatic here as it's really a fairly minor issue. The current system is functional, though not particularly to my personal organizational preference. However, I would be interested in a tweak for design ship/base designs to remove any requirements for fuel storage components.

I'd like to design a ship with no/minimal hyperdrive just for in-system patrol duties. Unless I'm misunderstanding how fuel is used by ships and bases, it seems like engines and hyperdrive use energy directly, and fuel is only used to produce the required energy. As such, a ship in hyperdrive when fuel gets depleted briefly drains the current energy reserve before its speed gets cut from lack of power or "fuel." As such, I'd like to have the option of leaving off fuel storage as well as reactors in favor of the solar power generators. Solar power generators would presumably be able to generate sufficient power such that fuel storage and ship reactors would be unnecessary so long as a ship or base is in a system with a star. However, it seems that fuel storage is a requirement even if it isn't being used, such as on bases or my proposed system patrol boat.

Now, it might be a good idea to have fuel and a reactor for emergency power production needs like in a tough firefight, but I should have the option one way or the other. If I design a ship or base that runs solely on solar power and build/deploy them to a gas cloud or something then the fault is on me.

Also, is there a thread around here where people post/upload their ship designs for critiquing? I've been tinkering with those a bit in my recent game, and while I could certainly trial and error my designs to learn what works it seems like it might be more efficient to see what others have put together and tested already. For example, the default designs seem to try to adhere to a steady slope in power consumption for engine speed at the very least. Sticking with that model, however, makes my ships a bit slower than I'd prefer, especially my larger ships. I've played around with it a bit, but the speed increase tends to drop off and power requirements tend to spike pretty quickly. Each is reasonable, but leads me to believe I'm looking at some trial and error testing I'd like to avoid.



Fishman -> RE: What's the difference in escorts, destroyers, cruisers, etc. (6/13/2012 5:25:07 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bebop Cola

Honestly, I'd considered that. It just offends my sensibilities to call my bombardment ship a Frigate because my Destroyers are Escorts for my Cruisers that are really more like Capital Ships(aren't all of these things capital ships?) because Capital Ships are just too damn slow/power-hungry. [:'(]
It's okay, we've arbitrarily redefined the roles of preexisting ship classes since they were first made. "Destroyers" were originally short for "Torpedo Boat Destroyers", and were a class created to counter a specific type of new threat. Then they came to be torpedo boats themselves, then ASW ships, and now they're being used in the same roles that one might have previously found a "battleship", because no one builds "battleships" anymore. A "cruiser" used to be a type of fast general-purpose warship often used for commerce raiding and anti-commerce-raiding, and now we use them as anti-aircraft ships.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bebop Cola

I'd like to design a ship with no/minimal hyperdrive just for in-system patrol duties.
You can't even make a ship that functions usefully insystem without a hyperdrive, the hyperdrive is also used for insystem teleportation. The Hyperdrive is also a fairly small component that does not really take up much space, and installing a "better" hyperdrive isn't costly or more space-intensive, so you gain nothing there. This role doesn't exist within the mechanics of the game, because the hyperdrive isn't bulky or expensive enough to matter, and the ship doesn't function as a useful ship even insystem without one.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bebop Cola

Unless I'm misunderstanding how fuel is used by ships and bases, it seems like engines and hyperdrive use energy directly, and fuel is only used to produce the required energy. As such, a ship in hyperdrive when fuel gets depleted briefly drains the current energy reserve before its speed gets cut from lack of power or "fuel." As such, I'd like to have the option of leaving off fuel storage as well as reactors in favor of the solar power generators. Solar power generators would presumably be able to generate sufficient power such that fuel storage and ship reactors would be unnecessary so long as a ship or base is in a system with a star.
Energy collectors only function when the ship isn't moving. Energy storage is performed by the reactor. Without a reactor, the ship stores 0 energy, and therefore, cannot do anything and is useless. Without fuel, the ship is incapable of regenerating its energy when moving. So yes, you really do need fuel storage and reactors on a ship. It is, however, entirely possible to install only a single reactor and backup fuel cell and power an entire base on energy collectors alone, as the base will never move and therefore the collectors will always be sufficient the power the base even when the base is never refuelled. Note, however, that you STILL need reactors to store enough energy so that the base can actually operate all of its weapons, otherwise it will cause a brownout every time the guns are fired.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bebop Cola

Also, is there a thread around here where people post/upload their ship designs for critiquing
Not that I know of.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bebop Cola

For example, the default designs seem to try to adhere to a steady slope in power consumption for engine speed at the very least. Sticking with that model, however, makes my ships a bit slower than I'd prefer, especially my larger ships.
The default designs are laughable and default capital ship designs have speeds which translate as "practically immobile". Seriously, those designs are a guideline of how NOT to build a ship.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bebop Cola

I've played around with it a bit, but the speed increase tends to drop off and power requirements tend to spike pretty quickly.
Speed increase "drops off" because of "thrust-to-weight". A ship design has a maximum theoretical speed where it is composed of 100% engines. You can't actually build this ship, however, because you need reactors and fuel cells, at minimum. Additionally, at some point, adding more engines will actually slow your ship down when it no longer generates enough power to run the engines, causing those engines to become deadweight.

In short, the basic premise is that speed increases as the percentage of ship that is engine increases, as well as if the thrust-per-unit-space of your engine increases. As such, you get used to designing ships by engine ratios. If you design your ship such that, say, 30% of your ship is engines, all ships built with this ratio go the same speed. The AI tends to build designs that have a power curve from stop to warp runs "smoothly", which is, of course, stupid, because it results in larger ships being immobile for all practical purposes. This renders them basically completely useless in an active engagement because they are entirely reliant on enemies coming to them, and completely unable to pursue anything. I, on the other hand, design ships, even ginormous ones, to be capable of LUDICROUS SPEED. My empire demand for engine resources is through the roof as a result. A ship that's 40% engines is basically made of 40% Aculon and Carbon Fiber.



Bebop Cola -> RE: What's the difference in escorts, destroyers, cruisers, etc. (6/13/2012 4:37:05 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fishman
quote:

ORIGINAL: Bebop Cola
I'd like to design a ship with no/minimal hyperdrive just for in-system patrol duties.
You can't even make a ship that functions usefully insystem without a hyperdrive, the hyperdrive is also used for insystem teleportation. The Hyperdrive is also a fairly small component that does not really take up much space, and installing a "better" hyperdrive isn't costly or more space-intensive, so you gain nothing there. This role doesn't exist within the mechanics of the game, because the hyperdrive isn't bulky or expensive enough to matter, and the ship doesn't function as a useful ship even insystem without one.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bebop Cola
Unless I'm misunderstanding how fuel is used by ships and bases, it seems like engines and hyperdrive use energy directly, and fuel is only used to produce the required energy. As such, a ship in hyperdrive when fuel gets depleted briefly drains the current energy reserve before its speed gets cut from lack of power or "fuel." As such, I'd like to have the option of leaving off fuel storage as well as reactors in favor of the solar power generators. Solar power generators would presumably be able to generate sufficient power such that fuel storage and ship reactors would be unnecessary so long as a ship or base is in a system with a star.
Energy collectors only function when the ship isn't moving. Energy storage is performed by the reactor. Without a reactor, the ship stores 0 energy, and therefore, cannot do anything and is useless. Without fuel, the ship is incapable of regenerating its energy when moving. So yes, you really do need fuel storage and reactors on a ship. It is, however, entirely possible to install only a single reactor and backup fuel cell and power an entire base on energy collectors alone, as the base will never move and therefore the collectors will always be sufficient the power the base even when the base is never refuelled. Note, however, that you STILL need reactors to store enough energy so that the base can actually operate all of its weapons, otherwise it will cause a brownout every time the guns are fired.

Fair enough. It's a little disappointing as I find the notion of a system boat appealing for some reason, but you make a good point that the hyperdrive is small enough to that it makes no sense to not have one. In retrospect, the addition of system ships like this would just increase clutter anyway.

As for the solar generators, that makes sense too. I hadn't considered where the power was stored or the requirement that a ship be stationary.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fishman
quote:

ORIGINAL: Bebop Cola
I've played around with it a bit, but the speed increase tends to drop off and power requirements tend to spike pretty quickly.
Speed increase "drops off" because of "thrust-to-weight". A ship design has a maximum theoretical speed where it is composed of 100% engines. You can't actually build this ship, however, because you need reactors and fuel cells, at minimum. Additionally, at some point, adding more engines will actually slow your ship down when it no longer generates enough power to run the engines, causing those engines to become deadweight.

In short, the basic premise is that speed increases as the percentage of ship that is engine increases, as well as if the thrust-per-unit-space of your engine increases. As such, you get used to designing ships by engine ratios. If you design your ship such that, say, 30% of your ship is engines, all ships built with this ratio go the same speed. The AI tends to build designs that have a power curve from stop to warp runs "smoothly", which is, of course, stupid, because it results in larger ships being immobile for all practical purposes. This renders them basically completely useless in an active engagement because they are entirely reliant on enemies coming to them, and completely unable to pursue anything. I, on the other hand, design ships, even ginormous ones, to be capable of LUDICROUS SPEED. My empire demand for engine resources is through the roof as a result. A ship that's 40% engines is basically made of 40% Aculon and Carbon Fiber.

I'll have to integrate this into my ship designs. How fast are your ships consuming fuel?



Fishman -> RE: What's the difference in escorts, destroyers, cruisers, etc. (6/14/2012 3:56:35 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bebop Cola

I'll have to integrate this into my ship designs. How fast are your ships consuming fuel?

The fuel consumption isn't actually terrible. You only really use your thrusters much when you are in battle. The rest of the time, you're not using any fuel because you're stationary and just waiting for an enemy to show up so you can toast him, and therefore, feeding only your static requirements from an energy collector. Alternatively, you are in hyperdrive, which means you consume fuel at the same rate at anyone else in hyperdrive. In theory, if you thrusted everywhere, those engines would be real gas guzzlers, but in a fight, firing your guns is going to draw at least much fuel as your engines would have anyway, if not more. A warship is going to be a gas guzzler whether the engines are monstrous or not. Sure, you might guzzle fuel twice as fast as a warship without the engines, but the ability to guzzle gas can be seen as a positive thing: Over the lifespan of this ship, I'll probably guzzle hundreds of times more fuel than a ship without those engines...because the ship without those engines has ceased existing after the first major battle. When you're taking on the AI's Mile Wide Mass of Zergs, you'll be happy you had those engines, rather than being an immobilized sitting duck. Prepare for ludicrous speed!



ParachuteProne -> RE: What's the difference in escorts, destroyers, cruisers, etc. (6/20/2012 2:20:38 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Fishman

You can build a ship capable of doing anything other than exploding on two support units? I've never been able to construct a useful ship like that, even a scoutship takes at least 3 units, and the end result is slow and unarmed. I mean, I see the AI build ships that are apparently that size, but all they ever do is explode, so...not a design to emulate. If you're just going to make something whose sole purpose is to cease existing, you may as well just shortcut the entire "building" process and skip straight to the not-existing part.




Good idea.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
5.046875