- Jun 5, 2012
Everyone keeps saying "ex nihilo energy" wrt logistics, but what about provisions? Is food and water created ex nihilo as well?
I think there is a real-world quote that sums this up well:Is food and water created ex nihilo as well?
Worm help you if you get to the mess hall, and all that's left are some chocolate-chip muffins, reconstituted from a Blorg crewman's first dump of the day."Yesterday's coffee, is tomorrow's coffee. [...] I drank it for six months, and it was actually quite tasty."
- Col. Douglas H. Wheelock, ISS commander on water recycling in space.
Where does it say that assault armies are only infantry?And it also doesn't make sense if we're using Space Fleets in space, but now we're invading, let's just bring in foot soldiers without similar war machines. I think you need at least some tanks, airplanes, sea ships and combat robots.
Those are called battle frames and mega-warforms.And there will be no reason to never build war machines similar in scope to the spaceships but adapted for surface combats.
Interesting. It reminds me some similar power management concepts in other space games like EVE, ED...3: Power should be much more important, and I absolutely want negative power to be a thing. Here are some of the changes I've been considering:
- Shields should now have no base power cost. Instead, they recharge per day at a rate equal to the ships excess power capacity. So if you have 100k shields but +1 power capacity, your shields will recharge at the rate of 1 unit per day. Conversely, you can have a ship capable of recharging it's shields daily, if you build right. [Don't worry, I got counters ]
- To compensate, Armor will give comparatively more defense [due to not being able to be fixed in the field, barring use of a defensive aux slot].
- To compensate, two Aux weapons will directly target a ships power: The Energy Siphon (which also boosts your power generation, but has a lower effect) and Disruptors (deal small damage, but hit a ships power systems HARD)
- If a ship reaches negative power, it will begin powering off systems to try and regain power. There will be a priority, with Thrusters and FTL being the last two systems off.
Well this would be difficult.I think i'd do away with the ship designer / component system, and instead have a larger variety of predefined classes of ships, with strengths and weaknesses against each other / against starbases / against planet defenses.
focus the balance more around a few powerful units and their strike fighters. a battleship should be a significant investment and risky to deploy on its own. fleets would be more of a loose association, with an admiral giving a buff to nearby ships, and the option to form up and move as a fleet. but there would be situations where it's worth micromanaging the individual carriers and bigger ships.
match this with a logistics system (fuel and crew), and components that can take damage (e.g. broken hyperdrive, shield generator, fighter bay). implement training manouvers in peacetime (something like EU4 where your troops are temporarily vulnerable, cost more in maintenance, but gain xp). the idea is that you care more about the individual ships / fleets, they have a history, and you might want to try to salvage a crippled fleet stuck behind enemy lines.
Well they don't require as advanced of materials, because they're not in space - which is a hostile environment that puts constaint strain on materials - but they certainly have the raw quantity down. If you took the minerals for a mega warform and converted them, you'd end up with 400 alloys - so if it's really just one gigantic war machine, it ought to be cruiser-sized!If it doesn't cost Alloys for building and upkeep, then it isn't on the same level of things.
Yes it's fun when you can move the goal. Not particularly a bad thing but sometimes we want to stick to the basics.Well they don't require as advanced of materials, because they're not in space - which is a hostile environment that puts constaint strain on materials - but they certainly have the raw quantity down. If you took the minerals for a mega warform and converted them, you'd end up with 400 alloys - so if it's really just one gigantic war machine, it ought to be cruiser-sized!
is, almost always, only fun to play if you are the rebels.
It's very difficult to design a satisfactory gameplay loop for counterinsurgency operations, since the whole point of insurgency is to harass, disrupt, and frustrate.
Those aren't means to defeat bigger fleets.I am thinking mostly about ambushes, stealth ships, surprise attacks, heroic raids, and hit and run tactics, that is, means to defeat bigger fleets.
How did you do the scripted caps, if you don't mind sharing?Nobody likes caps, but the simple fact is, we Do Not have proper AI access, and have to play with a hand behind our backs if we're going to see any measure of competitiveness. Being able to overflow my fleet cap by 2x destroys difficulty when the AI doesn't 1) consider aggressively raising its FC 2) consider aggressively going over its FC (because its shite economy couldn't support it anyway).
Sure you can increase exceed_naval_cap penalties by a factor of 10x, or increase individual ship upkeep costs, but that accomplishes the same thing - whilst also shattering the AIs economy when it loses a starbase, sending it into a death spiral.
Caps, IMO, are the lesser evil.
- Hard caps using the "titan code", as I'm calling it, are very binary (though do integrate into the game well as you say).
- Rather, scripted caps appear in tooltips (with the checks and crosses) and are more flexible and respond to different conditions + can take variables that are scaled dynamically - they'd be what I use.
No, battleships cannot dodge as easily as a tiny fighter. Part of it is physics, the rest is just size.On planets, yes. Airplanes are much more able to dodge than oceanic ships. But in space, all spaceships are equally maneuverable. A big battleship can dodge just as easily as a tiny fighter (assuming competent ship design, of course). This is why it's bad when people treat space combat as being the same as naval combat: The physics involved are completely different and give rise to different tactical situations.
Stellaris doesn't have "tachyon" weapons, they have Tier 6 weapons which are fractionally better than Tier 5 weapons, which are fractionally better than Tier 4, etc. If they were actual "tachyon" weapons, they would have much greater range, accuracy, and tracking than the "particle" predecessors. But they don't because it's just techno-babble Stellaris uses to sound fancy. Same thing with the "tachyon" sensors - they don't have effects that would be in line with predicting target movement.There's a lot of stuff in this thread, but you forgot a pair of things, there are tachyon sensors that are instantaneous and tachyon lances that are instantaneous because tachyons travel backwards in time, people keep thinking stellaris is eu4 or hoi4 in space but they forget all the advanced tech in stellaris:
Advanced sensors that rely on rotating tachyon beams to detect ship movements even at extreme distances.
A more powerful version of the particle lance, this weapon fires a tachyon beam of immense power. Like its predecessor, its use is limited to battleships and titans.
/ˈtækiɒn/) or tachyonic particle is a hypothetical particle that always travels faster than light.
I do disagree with your take on weapon ranges, but you actually kept in mind that the "ranges" shown on the system map are a total conceit to the "game clock = calendar" reality (I just thought you overcorrected). Weapon ranges for direct-fire mounts are more likely to be in light-second territory, with the best beam weapons reaching out to several million kilometers (e.g., 3M km is 10 light-seconds). Kinetic weapons are going to have real difficulty getting their projectiles to even 10% of the speed of light, and at that speed, for example, event a 1M km shot is going to deal with 33.3 seconds of flight time (plus at least 3.3 seconds of sensor lag), gobs of time for a target to even unwittingly wander away from where the attacker expects them to end up (never mind a target that is actively "drunk walking"). These ranges are necessary for energy weapons to have any chance of missing, while not dooming every single kinetic shot to an all-expenses-paid trip to a neighboring galaxy, and a chance at being included in some distant event's flavor text.Stellaris missiles are only Ballistic Missiles in name. They don't act like them.
You don't shoot and go drink tea to wait for the results. You shoot and watch it hit. It's more like homing missiles of air fighters.
If they're actually Ballistic Missiles, they should outrange strikecrafts by 100 times and regular weapons by 1000 or more times.
Stellaris ranges are actually just within a few hundreds of km, but only with graphics enlarged to look nice. And the missiles are just combat missiles instead of cruising or any longer range. Strikecrafts are unmanned drones with limited reception ranges.
That's why Dog Fights need to be a thing. Because at extreme distances, you aren't really shooting them with any plausible accuracy. And you don't have cruising missiles somehow.
Cruising Missiles should be shot at even longer ranges and you expect none to actually hit due to countermeasures when you have nothing else going on. But they can be shot at 5x engagement ranges. Then dog fights would be like 3x engagement ranges.
The 5x and 3x are compromises. You don't want a real-world tactic simulator.