RE: Ship Class Necessity

RE: Ship Class Necessity (Full Version)

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

Message

Noble713 -> RE: Ship Class Necessity (6/1/2013 3:29:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bingeling 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. Sometimes I wonder if this is WAD. If it is, it needs to be tweaked so the AI's tasking of your ships is a bit more rigid according to their classification. Have you ever left individual cruisers on AI control? Sometimes I'll build a few and leaving them sitting around before roping them into a new fleet, then I have to search around for them. Why? Oftentimes they end up running around escorting freighters. IMO, that should NEVER happen. That's what I build escorts and frigates for.

Bingeling -> RE: Ship Class Necessity (6/1/2013 3:32:12 PM)
It is easy enough to add fighter bays in the designTemplates, and have the autoDesigner insert them for you. It removes the racial feel, though. With your own custom design set, and some care in what is researched, the auto designer could be a lot of help. Too bad the design templates are not quite detailed enough to have full control. My main beef is when the AI messes up which hyperdrive is used, or inserts the wrong kind of "mid tier" blaster or torpedo. I was not as much speaking of auto design, though, but of the auto upgrade option in the design list. It replaces components with 'newest'. But newest is not always what one wants. I would love to have some multi-select replacement of ship components in designs. "Update selected designs to use quantum reactor". I find the ship list a good tool as it is. But if I have to use firepower or maintenance to find specific spic classes, I am in trouble. That is one reason why I would prefer some flexibility in ship classes. They would also allow to specify new paths of retrofitting.

Bingeling -> RE: Ship Class Necessity (6/1/2013 3:36:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Noble713 quote: ORIGINAL: Bingeling 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. Sometimes I wonder if this is WAD. If it is, it needs to be tweaked so the AI's tasking of your ships is a bit more rigid according to their classification. Have you ever left individual cruisers on AI control? Sometimes I'll build a few and leaving them sitting around before roping them into a new fleet, then I have to search around for them. Why? Oftentimes they end up running around escorting freighters. IMO, that should NEVER happen. That's what I build escorts and frigates for. I don't usually leave any military ship under AI control. Turning off "newly built ships are automated" is nice, but maybe not so nice if you enjoy having automated smaller ships fly around.

Noble713 -> RE: Ship Class Necessity (6/1/2013 4:31:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bingeling I don't usually leave any military ship under AI control. Turning off "newly built ships are automated" is nice, but maybe not so nice if you enjoy having automated smaller ships fly around. With a sufficiently large empire (pre-Shadows, haven't played Shadows long enough), when the pirate attacks started to get annoying I'd just queue up the production of ~50 Frigates and hope that solves it. I'm usually a fan of micromanagement but manually tasking and tracking every ship defending every podunk backwater mining station is too much.

scotten_usa -> RE: Ship Class Necessity (6/1/2013 7:12:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bingeling My main beef is when the AI messes up which hyperdrive is used, or inserts the wrong kind of "mid tier" blaster or torpedo. I was not as much speaking of auto design, though, but of the auto upgrade option in the design list. It replaces components with 'newest'. But newest is not always what one wants. I would love to have some multi-select replacement of ship components in designs. "Update selected designs to use quantum reactor". You are spot on, Bing. One of the reasons I prefer to design my own ships is I don't trust the AI to keep the better components.

Plant -> RE: Ship Class Necessity (6/1/2013 7:29:40 PM)
Do you really need so many designs bingeling? 7 Design is excessive, and would be near impossible to micromanage in battle with the current interface. As it is, there are 5 designs (and carrier) to play around with, mostly speaking, having so many designs reduces flexibility. Btw Bingeling, I see you talking about ordering by firepower, I use Escort/Frigate/Destroyer and then order by names. Ships ordered will be perfectly ordered by order of being ordered by name. I've had ship/fleets upgraded from beginning to end using this system, the only flaw is that they bear the original name they started with. quote: ORIGINAL: CyclopsSlayer 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. Quite the turnaround, but having Hulls 1 2 3 4 5 6 is exactly what the game is right now. Your escort designs don't have to escort, your destroyer designs don't have to destroy, your cruisers don't have to cruise anywhere in particular, only carriers are the exception. As to the difference between the size, the game AI doesn't work that way. quote: ORIGINAL: solops This discussion bears no resemblance to the thread I thought I started. When you posted this it did, it was just that you don't like your personal role playing definitions clashing with other people's personal roleplaying definitions.

Bingeling -> RE: Ship Class Necessity (6/1/2013 7:59:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Plant Do you really need so many designs bingeling? 7 Design is excessive, and would be near impossible to micromanage in battle with the current interface. As it is, there are 5 designs (and carrier) to play around with, mostly speaking, having so many designs reduces flexibility. Need? My games usually end before capitals do much, so I pretty much get by with 2 designs. Because doing something creative is a pain. How to spend 7 designs if you optimize a bit? Without being "fleet formation" kind of fancy? Different ships or different tasks. The main fleet Well armored, slow, powerful. A main fleet ship - the cruiser. A fleet gadget ship - the capital. A fleet carrier - a massive carrier. Colony defense. Not to stop main invasions, though. They need to intercept. They are faster, and less defenses. A short range, high damage, fast ship to burn down troop carriers. A faster carrier for better escape when starting in the middle. A raider fleet A main raider ship with good firepower, decent range, decent speed, and good defenses. Or maybe crazy fast and long range? A raider carrier with good defenses but more agile than the main fleet one. Usually the colony defense fleet will not be the target of attackers, and will be shot at less. Thus, less armor and more hurt. The raiders will be the target of anyone around. And the main fleet ships are brutes that accept to be shot at, and is in no particular hurry. Would it work? Dunno, I am not crazy enough to try this. Which of these roles fit the escort label? They are multiple variants of cruisers/destroyers and carriers. One could argue that raiders are frigates, but I think mine would be the largest I can make a reasonably fast ship :)

jomarmont -> RE: Ship Class Necessity (6/1/2013 8:00:59 PM)
This is totally off topic and I am just a noob but I think there is a feature to save and load your own designs so you do not need to redo them every game. That said, I am sure someone will come up with an argument about why it is just not enough. I paid a fortune for this game exactly because it lets you fly with your imagination. It does not shackle you with definitions and ideologies. It has so many "Oh, ****!" moments it is just glorious. Please do not change that concept. It is exactly what keeps this game in my hard drive and mind. If it is too easy or too hard just mess with the settings...and there are so many settings it is just awesome. Have a great game.

Brainsucker -> RE: Ship Class Necessity (6/2/2013 12:57:47 AM)
Well, the problem of some people here is that the AI is not effective enough to utilize the 'space', because the AI is strictly follow the size limit rule. If that so, then what the dev needs is to improve them. But be wary, don't make them too effective to kill people's role play here. And of course, the dev should improve the maintain cost of the ships, so people won't limit themselves to a single design of the maximum size.

DeadlyShoe -> RE: Ship Class Necessity (6/2/2013 2:24:47 AM)
as far as I can tell Escorts never join fleets, and prefer to protect ships and stations Frigates are fast attack ships armed with beam weapons Destroyers are lighter warships that tend towards torpedoes (rarely troops) Cruisers are heavy slow ships that mount fleet electronics and sometimes fighters or troops Capital Ships are as strong and big as possible and often mount hyperdeny systems for winning big fleet battles. they often mount fighters. In space SIZE is irrelevant to speed, all that matters is Thrust/Mass ratios. There's nothing wrong with a size 800 escort, you're just choosing to have fewer more capable escorts.

turtlefang -> RE: Ship Class Necessity (6/2/2013 4:02:07 AM)
This discussion is interesting to read. I find that the 7 design is a limitation on what I would like to have. Currently, I use the following: - Escorts. usually ends up about size 300 by middle to late game. Never used in a fleet and set to partol my territory and protect trade from pirates and single ship raids. Usually has fighter bay, hyperdeny when available, and hvy weapons to finish off the opposition ASAP. - Frigates. Usually missiles early, although experimenting with grav weapons now. Later, a mix of beams and torps. Designed to operate in 4 ship groups, sweep planets before a colony ship arrives, and patrol the planet until a space station or space station and defensive base is built. Size usually ends up about 300 but has a mix of torp and beams. - Destroyers. Primarily against Pirates. Operates in six ship groups, uses in hvy wpns. - Hvy Ships. Build as I can and have the technology. - Carriers. Used to use them as about 30% of my battle fleet. With Shadows, not sure that fighters are as effective now, still testing it. Would like to see a Scout class in addition the Exploration ship. The Scout would be assigned to fleets. carry weapons, etc... CVL - Light carrier. Once that could be assign to support DDs rather than a full carrier. BC - Would like to see a class between a CA and BB. And given the new expansion, would like to see at least two DD classes - maybe Fleet DD and DD. These classes are more to keep up with functions and upgrading. Hull 1 to 12 would work too. As far as absolute limits on class sizes - ie an escort is 200 pts or less - just dislike that idea. The player should be able to design a ship to his likes or dislikes - either as big or as small as he wants. - Destroyers.

Bingeling -> RE: Ship Class Necessity (6/2/2013 11:40:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DeadlyShoe Escorts never join fleets, and prefer to protect ships and stations Frigates are fast attack ships armed with beam weapons Destroyers are lighter warships that tend towards torpedoes (rarely troops) Cruisers are heavy slow ships that mount fleet electronics and sometimes fighters or troops Capital Ships are as strong and big as possible and often mount hyperdeny systems for winning big fleet battles. they often mount fighters. AI designs have changed in shadows, so old rules may not apply. Teekan frigates prefer 3 missile as weapon. Teekan destroyer prefer 3 missile and 6 beam. Sluken frigate prefer 5 phaser Sluken destroyer prefer 7 missile, 1 bombard, 1 graviton (that graviton looks odd there). Gizurean frigate refer 5 beam Gizurean destroyer prefer 6 beam, 3 torpedo, 1 bombard Quameno frigate has 4 torpedo Quameno destroyer has 12 beam It is not that hard to go through the files in the designTemplates folder, and this smallish sample say that there is no clear rule of how they do it.

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2