Dual-FTL Ships?

[Magnificate]

If I’m reading the Wiki correctly it seems that the FTL engine technologies are impossible to reverse-engineer. Why would studying enemy engines be different from studying their weapons? Is the lack of dual-engine ships more of a balance issue or are there technical limitations?

I would definitely like seeing an option to build more versatile ships, perhaps at the cost of severely increased power requirements or perhaps utilizing new modules with FTL slots.

 

[ColZimin]

It's probably a balance issue mixed with intentional game design. While I agree it's strange that you can't learn anything from reverse-engineering other engine types, I wouldn't say that mixing engine types on one ship adds that much. You would get to combine the good qualities of each engine type, but Jump Drives already do that in a single component.

 

[Kayden_II]

1. Warp as the Base-FTL ...
2. Hyper-Lanes as an Improvement, Which increases the Warp-Speed ...
3. Worm-Holes as an expensive Instant-FTL ...

4. Game-Rules
4.1. Warp has to be always in the Game ...
4.2. The Possibility to exclude Hyper-Lanes or Worm-Holes or both FTL-Types ...

What I've readed from the Devs - It's a Nightmare to balance all 3 FTL-Types to each Other ...
Therefore: Warp to Hyper-Lanes to Worm-Holes and by the Way - It seems to be logical.

 

[Foefaller]

I believe FTL in Stelaris will probably involve some sort of multi-FTL ships in the future.

Today in the AMA, Wiz's answer to the biggest design regret/disappointment was the current FTL system, largely because it's extremely difficult to balance (and largely why stations currently are/have to be as crud as they are now) but also said the solution wasn't going to be picking one type and cutting the rest.

IMO, the best way to do that would be to make FTL travel dual- or multi-tiered. What I mean by that is that you have a base form of travel (such as a slower, short ranged Warp, or Hyperdrive similar to what we have now) that any ship with an FTL module can use, and then there is a second, ideal form of travel (i.e. (regular)Warp/Wormhole/Hyperdrive(highways)/Jump when you've unlocked it) that now has harsher restrictions as to where they can go and when they can be used, forcing you at times to use your backup means of travel.

For example, Nebulas, which currently just slow down FTL travel, might outright block some or all forms of higher FTL types, meaning anyone who wants to go into one has to use their basic FTL, creating a natural chokepoint that anyone can use regardless of the FTL types in play. Maybe Wormhole travel is limited to when there is a station that is in-system with the fleet; having your network getting destroyed in a war is a more meaningful impairment to rapidly responding to threats, and while you can still do a deep dive into enemy territory, unless there is a construction ship coming soon after, it's going to take a looong time for that fleet to get back home, never mind hit multiple systems. You could have worlds that are off the hyperlane network, or new galactic "geography" that restricts warp or Wormhole travel in an area. You might even allow, as the OP wonders, for an empire to develop the other basic FTL types, so you can have fleets that are suited for certain tasks (like a Wormhole fleet that can jump past that nebula) or areas of the galaxy (like a Warp Fleet that can quickly move between those worlds that are outside the main hyperlane network.)

Having a second universal mode of FTL travel as a default would also give the devs more tools on how to approach defense. The ever-popular multi-system FTL trap that is often offered as a suggestion to make defenses more worthwhile is often dismissed because of how unevenly it could apply to each FTL type- Warp ships would have a pretty even experience with it, but a Wormhole fleet might be pulled out of their network, or a Hyperdrive fleet could be pulled to a system that by a quirk of the map generator is a half dozen or more jumps from where they were heading would, or to one that's only one jump off. On the other hand, if everyone always had an out that can be relied on no matter where they end up, you can allow something like that.

Anyway, those are my thoughts on it.

 

[The Founder]

Wiz said repeatedly he does not like the Implementation of Multiple FTL drives (inlcuding a very recent Q&A). Stellaris is propably the wrong game for it - SotS was so much better designed for it.
Especailly for stuff like defenses it totally breaks the balancing. A defense suiteable against Warp could be concentrated to OP levels vs Hyperdrive.

He will not kick them out. But he will certainly do something with them.

Dual FTL ships could join both kind of fleets, wich could cause new fleet join/transfer issues. But it would be certainly feasible.
It would cause massive issues deciding wich FTL to use in a purely dual FTL setup. For short ranges, Hyperdrive could be way superior to warp and wormhole. Deciding wich FTL to use at any given time would be the kind of micro they try to avoid.

If I’m reading the Wiki correctly it seems that the FTL engine technologies are impossible to reverse-engineer. Why would studying enemy engines be different from studying their weapons? Is the lack of dual-engine ships more of a balance issue or are there technical limitations?

As the Federtion Fleet designer indicates, the AI has clear preferences for Drivetypes. So if you could get them all, the AI would jsut end up going for one. And you as player propably too. So we might as well throw anything but that One+Jumpdrive out and call it a day.

One "balancing" concisderion is early game vs lategame performance. For example Wormhole is rather poor lategame, with bigger fleets taking a lot longer to charge.
Hyperdrive is rather good early, because the limitations of Hyperdrive are not as bad. And the advantages are considerable. But lategame it falls off, thanks to being limited to a specific network and paths with more stops. Not to mention the enemy being able to learn your network.

 

[Kult der Krähe]

One "balancing" concisderion is early game vs lategame performance. For example Wormhole is rather poor lategame, with bigger fleets taking a lot longer to charge.
Hyperdrive is rather good early, because the limitations of Hyperdrive are not as bad. And the advantages are considerable. But lategame it falls off, thanks to being limited to a specific network and paths with more stops. Not to mention the enemy being able to learn your network.

I always found the opposite to be true as far as wormholes, as in a large galaxy, wormholes provide the fastest travel time across long distances, to the point that warp fleets, and especially hyperdrive fleets, become useless for rapidly countering a threat to your empire from a long distance away.

Of course, that still illuminates the point of the different FtLs still not being balanced. A megastructure portal network might be a good balancing factor for a future update/DLC, at least when it comes to large or huge galaxies.

 

[Ezumiyr]

1. Warp as the Base-FTL ...
2. Hyper-Lanes as an Improvement, Which increases the Warp-Speed ...
3. Worm-Holes as an expensive Instant-FTL ...

4. Game-Rules
4.1. Warp has to be always in the Game ...
4.2. The Possibility to exclude Hyper-Lanes or Worm-Holes or both FTL-Types ...

What I've readed from the Devs - It's a Nightmare to balance all 3 FTL-Types to each Other ...
Therefore: Warp to Hyper-Lanes to Worm-Holes and by the Way - It seems to be logical.

Or rather :

1 - Warp as the base FTL
2 - Hyperlanes becomes a new kind of FTL, with higher speed. It relies on stations you build to connect your systems (apparently you "build" the lanes, but in fact they are already there and you just activate them). You can still use warp where there's no such device.
3 - Wormholes also becomes a new kind of FTL, where you only need one station and can go a lot farther than it's currently the case. However, it takes a lot of time / or you need to build it next to a black hole / and the station is also more costly. You'll still use warp where there's no hyperlanes or wormhole stations, and hyperlane stations which are easier to build (because they cost much less or because you don't need to build them on black holes).

All stations are universal, which mean that given the proper technology, everyone can use them, including your enemy. You can also attack them in the same way that you can attack enclaves (they're not considered as being hostile by default).

I think that this kind of design would help making each kind of FTL more tactical and feel more unique. If Wormholes need black holes to work it also make black holes more relevant. And that way, ships would have effectively 3 types of FTL available. Destroying a wormhole station would be more meaningful of there are only a few of them, and hyperlanes would be a kind of defensive device connecting all your systems (and all colonized systems more largely), while untouched space would still feel different, with slower movements.
The jump FTL techs would have to be removed. They feel kinda bland anyway.

Alternatively, we could imagine an other kind of galaxy generation. Instead of connecting all the stars, they would be grouped in hyperlane pack, and to go from one pack to an other you would need to discover the wormhole technology (with stations that could only be build on systems bordering the pack). The warp would be removed, and the jump would allow to jump from one pack to the other without stations and faster. But it seems like a complicated solution for little gain.

 

[Kayden_II]

2 - Hyperlanes becomes a new kind of FTL, with higher speed.

It relies on stations you build to connect your systems (apparently you "build" the lanes, but in fact they are already there and you just activate them).

Too many Stations !^^ ...
And You have to make these Stations un-destroyable since an Enemy, Which is using Hyper-Lanes, would enter a Star-System right by 1 of these Stations and so On and so On and so On ...

3 - Wormholes also becomes a new kind of FTL, where you only need one station

What I'm wanting as an Extension:
2 Worm-Hole-Stations would serve as Star-Gates: You can travel between 2 Worm-Hole-Stations ...
Possible Advantages: Less Need of Energy or Time to create a Worm-Hole or no Range-Restriction ...
And I wish, that I could build Worm-Hole-Stations in an other Position as outside of the Gravity-Belt of a Star-System.

 

[Zenny]

2 Worm-Hole-Stations would serve as Star-Gates: You can travel between 2 Worm-Hole-Stations ...

So for example you would sent a Jumpgate builder to another system via slow warpdrive and then have it build a jumpgate in the system and connect it with another. That way you still have to travel to unknown or enemy systems via warp but you have a fast and safe travel method inside your own realm.
To attack another empire you would have to cross a couple of systems via warp which should give the other empire more time to prepare defences via their own jumpgate network.
Alliances could also connect their Jumpgate systems with each other to create a galactic highway.