I didn't quote the post that made the accusation. No insult to you was intended.
Fleet minmaxing/game balance
- Thread starter Pahvimato
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
That's not the issue. Yes they are good. Corvettes can also use them. Corvettes with an extra 400 HP or so and evasion from 60-90% are going to obliterate battleships using crystal plates.
Are there any techs that boost accuracy? I'm not a fan of capping values (soft caps can be okay to represent diminishing returns, but ideally that's baked into the system)
Arguably, the counter to highly evasive ships with low dps (aside from subtractive armor negating them) is a very high accuracy weapon system.
Arguably, the counter to highly evasive ships with low dps (aside from subtractive armor negating them) is a very high accuracy weapon system.
There's some precedents for this in naval history, specifically the French Jeune_École, which favoured the massing of smaller torpedo boats as a response to Britain's strength in capital ships https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeune_École
This was used very well in practice by the Japanese at the battle of Tsushima against the Russians. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tsushima
That said, the idea was never to use smaller ships in a head-on fight where the enemy could see you coming, but to sneak up close to make up for the range disadvantage and then wreak hell. So perhaps weapon sizes should have even more impact on range. Rather than torpedoes going from 40-50-60, it should be more like 40-60-80. That would allow for destroyers and cruisers to still contribute with medium weapon slots against corvettes, with the battleships striking from the back. Also agree with those suggesting a (small) flat damage-reduction from armour, modified by size.
This was used very well in practice by the Japanese at the battle of Tsushima against the Russians. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tsushima
That said, the idea was never to use smaller ships in a head-on fight where the enemy could see you coming, but to sneak up close to make up for the range disadvantage and then wreak hell. So perhaps weapon sizes should have even more impact on range. Rather than torpedoes going from 40-50-60, it should be more like 40-60-80. That would allow for destroyers and cruisers to still contribute with medium weapon slots against corvettes, with the battleships striking from the back. Also agree with those suggesting a (small) flat damage-reduction from armour, modified by size.
- 1
I browsed through the Wikiarticle. What @Gamesguy said about the Reds cheating is false.
What happened was that the Reds wrecked the Blue side (conventional US forces) at the beginning of the exercise and the Blues were afterwards reset and the exercise rigged into such a fashion that the Blues would win no matter what.
Rigged war games are nothing special and I've been a part of several such exercises. Being ordered to drive into a mine and ambush instead of being allowed to dismount and attack isn't all that fun, but the other side needs to get to practice its doctrine as well.
- 2
Carriers and increased effectiveness of armor (a battleship needing armor piercing weapons to be taken down, especially if its built for armor) should help counter corvettes. But strike craft and armor are both really bad right now
I'm not sure. The people who claim he cheated sometimes have very specific examples. He claims he did things like put missile systems on ships that are incapable of carrying them in reality due to weight, and because there's no "Model" in the system for things like motorcycle delivery of messages, they were handled instantly without giving the blue side any ability to disrupt them in the simulation. Also he had hundreds of ships willing to do suicide bomb runs of the carrier group, which while not impossible... It's not always that easy to find hundreds of people willing to kill themselves to win a war. The problem is these are all claims and I can't find any actual info from the event, so who knows how accurate it is.
Like many cases, I suspect the answer lies somewhere in the middle. Red team clearly used unconventional tactics for a huge win, but these exercises aren't actually about "Winning" or "Losing" they're about testing ideas.
- 1
Red did cheat! Well, it depends on what you mean by cheating. The unconventional tactics that the Reds used would not have worked in real life, and that's why it is reasonable for the exercise to have banned such tactics. So while those tactics were technically within the rules of the game, it is absolutely reasonable for them to correct those rules in future exercises.
For example, consider the small boat missile spam that the Reds used. Cruise missiles are actually very high maintenence - unless the Red commander was also an engineer with some serious technological breakthrough, it would not have been possible to launch cruise missiles from boats that size. And this is one of the points that should be corrected in the rebalance - a large weapon should be more than twice the strength of a smaller weapon, due to economies of scale.It's also not obvious why larger weapons should be less accurate. In the example of kinetic weapons, large weapons should actually be more accurate, since they move faster, giving less time for high evasion ships to dodge.
- 2
- 1
You both have very valid points. I admit that I didn't read the entire article, only browsed through it and read some parts.
- 1
I don't think larger hardpoints need more accuracy as that is offset by the evasion penalties larger ships have. It makes sense that you cannot easily vaporise a corvette with the main cannon on a battleship, but it doesn't make sense that the main cannon is about the same as 4 small guns when it comes to dealing damage.
Yeah, that's a good argument for armor outright blocking some amount of damage (though imperfectly). As larger ships tend to be far more heavily armored then the small weapon mounts of little ships will mostly just bounce off. Requiring either smaller ships trade more mounts for larger ones or bringing in heavier ships of your own.
First, this thread is great. Many great points.
Second, it ought to be possible to corvette-spam a bb into submission, as it is in RL. That's why we have torpedo boats. I've been thinking about missiles vs torpedoes, and I'm not impressed. Torps and missiles should be the way that corvettes can dent a bb, not pewpew-ing your red lasers. Torps should be shield-ignoring, yes, but also slow and short range. Missiles, on the other hand, should be longer range and quicker, but not ignore armor and shields. This would also make both useful. I'm only now getting to the lategame techs, but why would I bother with missiles when torps hit harder and from longer range?
Second, it ought to be possible to corvette-spam a bb into submission, as it is in RL. That's why we have torpedo boats. I've been thinking about missiles vs torpedoes, and I'm not impressed. Torps and missiles should be the way that corvettes can dent a bb, not pewpew-ing your red lasers. Torps should be shield-ignoring, yes, but also slow and short range. Missiles, on the other hand, should be longer range and quicker, but not ignore armor and shields. This would also make both useful. I'm only now getting to the lategame techs, but why would I bother with missiles when torps hit harder and from longer range?
- 1
- 1
I agree it should be possible for a number of corvettes to take down a bb but not with small weapons designed to counter other corvettes. That's why there's a suggestion for armor to block small damage packages. But absolutely a torpedo-boat build should work against capitals but that would be vulnerable to interceptor corvettes which themselves would be useless against capitals. This encourages more balanced fleets.
- 5
What about strike craft they sound like good counter on paper ther are a lot of them so it should increase the hit rate
Range 8.
By the time a ship large enough to contain hangars comes into range it has already been destroyed. Also most corvettes will also include some form of PD.
Agreed. But point defence on BB should be effective against corvets. And it should be practically impossible to kill BB with corvets.
- 1
1% hit ratio is not just unbalanced, it's completely broken. There's no way to make anything balanced while that's happening. What is the game doing, just taking the base chance to hit and subtracting off the enemy's evasion? Sounds like classic Paradox maths in action to me if this is the case.
Giving battleships more armour isn't going to solve the most serious problem - corvettes need to be more hittable, with a wide variety of weapons.
One way to calculate chance per hit would be as follows:
- Ship has an evasion rating, which translates into a base chance to evade, but with *diminishing returns* as with armour. There are support modules you can add for extra evasion rating (so it's still possible to get a high chance to evade, but you have to sacrifice other systems to get there). Large ships get much less evasion than small ships.
- Weapons don't have a base chance to hit - if the enemy has no ability to evade (e.g. an orbital station), weapons will always hit. Instead, weapons have an 'evasion factor' that effectively multiplies the enemy's chance to evade. So let's say regular missiles have x0 (they flat-out ignore evasion), torpedoes have x0.5 (they're slow enough to outrun), lasers have 0.8-1.0-1.2 (depending on size), kinetics have 1-1.5-2. Kinetics can be made more useful with higher base DPS and a very high fire rate; also it should be kinetics that have the inherent 50% armour piercing instead of lasers.
- Large weapons have significantly higher DPS to compensate for their low accuracy and overkill problems.
- There's a combat computer that significantly reduces the evasion factor. (Not a stupid 'offensive' computer that charges at the enemy - it's just focused on better targeting algorithms to catch moving targets.)
So now if the target has an evasion rating of 100, maybe that gives them a base chance to evade of 60%. This means in the absence of a tracking computer, missiles hit 100% of the time, torpedoes will hit 70% of the time, small lasers hit 52% of the time, medium kinetics hit 10% of the time and so on. So evasion is still an effective counter to the most inaccurate (and damaging) weapons, but weapons with an evasion factor less than 1 are effectively 'evasion piercing' to a certain extent. Also you can't just become unkillable by stacking evasion, due to the diminishing returns (base chance to evade is never more than 100%).
Giving battleships more armour isn't going to solve the most serious problem - corvettes need to be more hittable, with a wide variety of weapons.
One way to calculate chance per hit would be as follows:
- Ship has an evasion rating, which translates into a base chance to evade, but with *diminishing returns* as with armour. There are support modules you can add for extra evasion rating (so it's still possible to get a high chance to evade, but you have to sacrifice other systems to get there). Large ships get much less evasion than small ships.
- Weapons don't have a base chance to hit - if the enemy has no ability to evade (e.g. an orbital station), weapons will always hit. Instead, weapons have an 'evasion factor' that effectively multiplies the enemy's chance to evade. So let's say regular missiles have x0 (they flat-out ignore evasion), torpedoes have x0.5 (they're slow enough to outrun), lasers have 0.8-1.0-1.2 (depending on size), kinetics have 1-1.5-2. Kinetics can be made more useful with higher base DPS and a very high fire rate; also it should be kinetics that have the inherent 50% armour piercing instead of lasers.
- Large weapons have significantly higher DPS to compensate for their low accuracy and overkill problems.
- There's a combat computer that significantly reduces the evasion factor. (Not a stupid 'offensive' computer that charges at the enemy - it's just focused on better targeting algorithms to catch moving targets.)
So now if the target has an evasion rating of 100, maybe that gives them a base chance to evade of 60%. This means in the absence of a tracking computer, missiles hit 100% of the time, torpedoes will hit 70% of the time, small lasers hit 52% of the time, medium kinetics hit 10% of the time and so on. So evasion is still an effective counter to the most inaccurate (and damaging) weapons, but weapons with an evasion factor less than 1 are effectively 'evasion piercing' to a certain extent. Also you can't just become unkillable by stacking evasion, due to the diminishing returns (base chance to evade is never more than 100%).
- 4
- 1
So, I've modded the game ever so slightly to achieve a balance point I like.
My expectation for balance is basically this.
Corvettes strongly counter battleships, weakly counter cruisers.
Destroyers strongly counter corvettes, weakly counter battleships.
Cruisers strongly counter destroyers.
Battleships strongly counter cruisers.
I've run a large number of battle tests featuring end game technology (no shipyards, admirals, anomaly or resource bonuses). Weapons consisting primarily of tachyon lances and material disintegrators at a 20k mineral price point. Meaning every fleet costs as near to 20k as possible.
I ran these tests with a number of different modifications to the base ship size evasion.
Vanilla
Corvettes have a 0% modifier. Destroyers have -25%. Cruisers have -50%. Battleships have -75%.
I ran a large series at different numbers but these are the two test groups I find the most interesting.
Test 1
Corvettes at -15%. Destroyers at -30%. Nothing else changed.
Test 2
Corvettes at -20%. Destroyers at -30%. Nothing else changed.
Because these tests ONLY used thrusters and CPU's to achieve their evasion, the top end point of evasion is 60% for corvettes in the vanilla test. The vanilla test however was very shocking. At the base evasion of 60%, destroyers absolutely destroyed them. Not a competitive battle. In fact, even when I simulated evasion to 80% for corvettes, destroyers still beat them. The problem with corvettes, is simply that they can achieve 80, 90, even 100% evasion rates.
Let's talk about the two test groups. Referring to that point of balance I'd like to achieve.
Test 1, Destroyers handle corvettes easily at -15% and -30% respectively. The curious issue is battleships versus destroyers. At this point of evasion, destroyers at 42% evasion, this is a coin toss. Granted, these tests were done with Destroyers designed to fight corvettes, and battleships NOT running an aura. This actually makes me pretty happy with this change. On the flip side of this, cruisers were handling the destroyers quite easily. Lastly, corvettes did to battleships what I think they should, they swarm them and defeat them quite easily.
Test 2, again, the Destroyers obliterate the corvettes easily with them at -20% and -35% respectively. The interesting point of balance again is the destroyer versus battleship balance point. Here, with the destroyers at -35% evasion sitting at 39%, the battleships reliably won, taking over 50% losses in terms of ships, with most of the remaining battleships at or below 50% hp. Cruisers kill destroyers even more effectively.
So here is the sticking point. Test 1 is a better point of balance for destroyers and battleships. With battleships running auras, they would tip the balance and win with losses reliably to the destroyers. With test 2 figures, I feel destroyers will get rolled even harder. However, the big problem is, all the little addons you can get to boost your evasion up even higher with corvettes, to the point where you can actually achieve 100% or higher evasion with vanilla corvettes. Test 1 is at -15% which means that if you pushed your corvettes to 100% evasion, they would be at 85% evasion in game, and at this point destroyers PROBABLY will no longer directly counter them. With test 2 numbers, they would be at 80% and destroyers would counter them (I tested corvettes at 80% vs destroyers and they lost, albeit closely). Once corvettes hit 80-90% they are hitting the point where they are no longer countered by destroyers.
Right now, I am actually considering pushing corvettes to -25% and destroyers to -35%. Destroyers will obliterate corvettes, cruisers will obliterate destroyers, and corvettes will still obliterate cruisers and battleships. The -25% on corvettes will prevent them from hitting the god-mode tier where they start beating destroyers.
I'll let you guys know how it goes.
My expectation for balance is basically this.
Corvettes strongly counter battleships, weakly counter cruisers.
Destroyers strongly counter corvettes, weakly counter battleships.
Cruisers strongly counter destroyers.
Battleships strongly counter cruisers.
I've run a large number of battle tests featuring end game technology (no shipyards, admirals, anomaly or resource bonuses). Weapons consisting primarily of tachyon lances and material disintegrators at a 20k mineral price point. Meaning every fleet costs as near to 20k as possible.
I ran these tests with a number of different modifications to the base ship size evasion.
Vanilla
Corvettes have a 0% modifier. Destroyers have -25%. Cruisers have -50%. Battleships have -75%.
I ran a large series at different numbers but these are the two test groups I find the most interesting.
Test 1
Corvettes at -15%. Destroyers at -30%. Nothing else changed.
Test 2
Corvettes at -20%. Destroyers at -30%. Nothing else changed.
Because these tests ONLY used thrusters and CPU's to achieve their evasion, the top end point of evasion is 60% for corvettes in the vanilla test. The vanilla test however was very shocking. At the base evasion of 60%, destroyers absolutely destroyed them. Not a competitive battle. In fact, even when I simulated evasion to 80% for corvettes, destroyers still beat them. The problem with corvettes, is simply that they can achieve 80, 90, even 100% evasion rates.
Let's talk about the two test groups. Referring to that point of balance I'd like to achieve.
Test 1, Destroyers handle corvettes easily at -15% and -30% respectively. The curious issue is battleships versus destroyers. At this point of evasion, destroyers at 42% evasion, this is a coin toss. Granted, these tests were done with Destroyers designed to fight corvettes, and battleships NOT running an aura. This actually makes me pretty happy with this change. On the flip side of this, cruisers were handling the destroyers quite easily. Lastly, corvettes did to battleships what I think they should, they swarm them and defeat them quite easily.
Test 2, again, the Destroyers obliterate the corvettes easily with them at -20% and -35% respectively. The interesting point of balance again is the destroyer versus battleship balance point. Here, with the destroyers at -35% evasion sitting at 39%, the battleships reliably won, taking over 50% losses in terms of ships, with most of the remaining battleships at or below 50% hp. Cruisers kill destroyers even more effectively.
So here is the sticking point. Test 1 is a better point of balance for destroyers and battleships. With battleships running auras, they would tip the balance and win with losses reliably to the destroyers. With test 2 figures, I feel destroyers will get rolled even harder. However, the big problem is, all the little addons you can get to boost your evasion up even higher with corvettes, to the point where you can actually achieve 100% or higher evasion with vanilla corvettes. Test 1 is at -15% which means that if you pushed your corvettes to 100% evasion, they would be at 85% evasion in game, and at this point destroyers PROBABLY will no longer directly counter them. With test 2 numbers, they would be at 80% and destroyers would counter them (I tested corvettes at 80% vs destroyers and they lost, albeit closely). Once corvettes hit 80-90% they are hitting the point where they are no longer countered by destroyers.
Right now, I am actually considering pushing corvettes to -25% and destroyers to -35%. Destroyers will obliterate corvettes, cruisers will obliterate destroyers, and corvettes will still obliterate cruisers and battleships. The -25% on corvettes will prevent them from hitting the god-mode tier where they start beating destroyers.
I'll let you guys know how it goes.
- 6
- 1
http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/Reading...llennium-Challenge-2002-Experiment-Report.pdf
There was absolutely cheating involved. Here's a list of things Van Riper did that were physically impossible or nearly so:
1. In order to avoid comm intercepts and and jamming by Blue Force, Van Riper had all his communications delivered via bike messenger. The computer simulation had no setting for such a delivery method, so all his messages were considered to be instant and yet completely impossible for Blue Force to intercept. Unless someone has invented motorcycles that drive on water and move at the speed of light, this was obviously cheating.
2. Van Riper mounted large anti-ship missiles on small yachts that had no ability to fire them. Theoretically those boats could fit the missiles, but only with very extensive modifications that Red Force didn't have access to. It's not until over a decade later did the someone produced a weapon that would have worked for Van Riper's purposes. Plus a rival nation buying thousands of Russian klubs in the container configuration would be immediately be noticed and the commander of Blue Force would have taken that into account.
3. Van Riper exploited the computer software's constraints by labeling all his ships as civilian pleasure craft. This meant the computer ignored them even when hundreds of them were rapidly converging on Blue Force. In real life this obviously would not be workable since any human with a brain will rapidly recognize such an event as an attack. Computers however, are not so smart. Moreover, the entire scenario takes place in a situation where Blue Force had just demanded the surrender of Red Force(cough Iran cough) and steamed in to attack. There is zero chance that in a period such high tension that an American admiral would let even one yacht approach his fleet, let alone hundreds.
Last edited: