Redesign of ships and supplies

[drawar]

To begin with, each empire will initially have access to models of corvettes and cruisers.

Why? because with the addition of the supplying system, the corvettes would have low range due to supplying, they would be suitable for homeland defense and for adjacent combat, but might have problems on long expeditions away from friendly starbases .
The cruisers would have a much greater range for long missions, but they would also have their disadvantages.

Later, we will be able to unlock the destroyers which would have an “medium” autonomy and the battleships which would have a very great autonomy.

Supplying :
Starbases will passively generate Supply depending on their level. Anchorages increase supply production, but they do not increase naval capacity, but the effect of Naval Logistics Office is increased to +4 naval capacity from Anchorages .
Starbases can store a limited amount of Supply depending on their level. The Resource Silo building increases the maximum amount of supply that can be stored in a starbase.

Supply is managed individually for each ship in a fleet. You can activate an option to authorize the sharing of supplies: autonomous or manual? By manual, I mean you have to click on the option, not that you have to manually distribute the supply between each ship.
This can be useful in mixed fleets where cruisers and battleships could allow corvettes (and destroyers) to benefit from a better autonomy.

Each ship consumes part of its supply each day (or month?).
Factor that increases supply consumption:
- moves;
- is not in Allied territory;
- is in combat.

Factor that decreases the supply consumption:
- is around an allied starbase;
- is around an allied starbase equipped with a Crew Quarters;
- is in Mothballing*.

As in EU4, a fleet can be mothballing around a starbase. This greatly reduces its supply consumption, but also the value of its hull and armor. The reactivated ships will therefore have to be repaired before being fully operational depending on the capacity of the starbase and the needs of the fleet in supply, supplying the fleet could also take some time.

Yes, in combat, ships consume more supply. Ships can therefore run out of supplies in combat ... Long fights or repeated fights can therefore cause problems. A ship without supply suffers heavy penalties for its armament, shield and propulsion, and it cannot self-repair, but it remains “functional”.

Starbases occupied during a war have a production and supply storage capacity reduced by 50%. One can imagine an option to allow the victorious fleet to recover supplies after a battle (by recovering battle debris): automatic or manual (therefore which takes 1 month or 2, which immobilizes the fleet). Perhaps also be able to recover supplies by bombarding a planet, the amount of supply would depend on the level of development of the planet, to put it simply, we can base ourselves on the level of the planetary capital or its energy consumption for example.

The Juggernaut could possibly also produce Supply.
We can also imagine a new auxiliary components which increase the supplying capacity of the ship.


Accuracy, Tracking and Evasion :
The tracking would have a maximum value depending on the size of the weapon:
- S and H: 90
- M and G: 70
- L: 50
- X: 30
- T: 10

So even with good technology and components, large guns retain limited accuracy. Basically, we can say that regardless of sighting systems, a large weapon is less maneuverable and therefore more difficult to aim quickly and correctly.


The Accuracy would have a maximum value depending on the type of ship. However, this maximum value does not affect H and G weapons:
- Corvette: 100
- Destroyer: 90
- Cruiser: 80
- Battleship: 70
- Titan and other large ships: 60

Or this value could be dynamic and depend on the type of the two ships. For example, the maximum accuracy of a titan attacking another ship:
- Titan and other large ships: 100
- Battleship: 90
- Cruiser: 80
- Destroyer: 70
- Corvette: 60
We can keep the same logic of a loss of 10 in maximum Accuracy against each lower level.

Large ships will therefore have a harder time hitting small ones, even with smaller weapons, except with G and H weapons.
Putting this limit on ship type reduces the accuracy of large ships without directly affecting the accuracy of large weapons for smaller ships.
For example, a battleship will have more difficulty hitting a Destroyer with an L or X weapon, regardless of the Destroyer's escape, while a Destroyer with an L weapon will have no penalty (apart from tracking maximum due to the size of the weapon).
And this will not affect the accuracy of two battleships fighting each other, unlike the fixed example where the maximum accuracy of battleships is 70.


New ship section :
With technologies, we can unlock new sections for ships, which can allow new strategies and adapt to the appearance of new ships etc. I'm thinking of adding new tech, but that these new sections will be unlocked by already existing tech that affects these ships.

Corvette section :
Standardized Corvette Patterns :
- Core :

Armored interceptor :​

- Weapon Slot : 1M​

- Utility Slot : 4S, 1A​

Improved Corvette Hulls :
- Core :

Torpedo boat :​

- Weapon Slot : 2G​

- Utility Slot : 2S, 1A​

​

Advanced Corvette Hulls :
- Core :

Artillery :​

- Weapon Slot : 1L​

- Utility Slot : 2S, 1A​

Destroyer section :
Standardized Destroyer Patterns :
- Bow :

Protector:​

- Weapon Slot : 2P​

- Utility Slot : 6S, 1M, 1A​

- Stern :

Second engine :​

- Weapon Slot : none​

- Utility Slot : 1M, 1A​

Improved Destroyer Hulls :
- Bow :

Hangar :​

- Weapon Slot : 1H​

- Utility Slot : 6S, 1A​

- Stern :

Missile :​

- Weapon Slot : 1G​

- Utility Slot : 1A​

​

Advanced Destoyer Hulls :
- Bow :

Heavy Artillery :​

- Weapon Slot : 2L​

- Utility Slot : 2S, 1A​

- Stern :

Protector :​

- Weapon Slot : 1P​

- Utility Slot : 1S, 1A​

Cruiser section :
Standardized Cruiser Patterns :
- Bow :

Armored torpedo:​

- Weapon Slot : 1G​

- Utility Slot : 5M​

- Core :

Interceptor :​

- Weapon Slot : 2S, 2P​

- Utility Slot : 5M​

- Stern :

Second engine :​

- Weapon Slot : none​

- Utility Slot : 1M, 2A​

Improved Cruiser Hulls :
- Bow :

Artillery-torpedo :​

- Weapon Slot : 1L, 2G​

- Utility Slot : 2M​

- Core :

Heavy Torpedo :​

- Weapon Slot : 4G​

- Utility Slot : 3M​

- Stern :

Protector :​

- Weapon Slot : 1P​

- Utility Slot : 1S, 2A​

​

Advanced Cruiser Hulls :
- Bow :

Spinal Mount :​

- Weapon Slot : 1X​

- Utility Slot : 2M​

- Core :

Heavy Artillery :​

- Weapon Slot : 2L​

- Utility Slot : 3M​

- Stern :

Auxiliary engine:​

- Weapon Slot : none​

- Utility Slot : 3A​

Battleship section :
Standardized Battleship Patterns :
- Bow :

Armored hangar:​

- Weapon Slot : 1H​

- Utility Slot : 4L​

- Core :

Interceptor :​

- Weapon Slot : 2S, 2M, 2P​

- Utility Slot : 4L​

- Stern :

Second engine :​

- Weapon Slot : none​

- Utility Slot : 1L, 2A​

Improved Battleship Hulls :
- Bow :

Bomber :​

- Weapon Slot : 2L, 1H​

- Utility Slot : 2L​

- Core :

Bomber :​

- Weapon Slot : 3L, 1H​

- Utility Slot : 2L​

- Stern :

Protector :​

- Weapon Slot : 2P​

- Utility Slot : 1M, 2A​

​

Advanced Battleship Hulls :
- Bow :

Glass cannon :​

- Weapon Slot : 2X​

- Utility Slot : 1L​

- Core :

Mothership :​

- Weapon Slot : 4H​

- Utility Slot : 2L​

- Stern :

Auxiliary engine:​

- Weapon Slot : none​

- Utility Slot : 4A​

 

[GOLANX]

Supply system suggestions always strike me as being Micro Heavy a performance burden, and just another complicated mechanic stacked on a game with already too much poorly explained complexity that almost certainly is not well conveyed to the player. Your suggestion made me realize that I don't like the idea of supply mechanics being used in tandem with naval capacity, one or the other but not both please.


Tracking, currently has 50% small 30% medium 5% Large, those kind of changes would require a global balance pass, although guided weapon tracking should be significantly improved.

Sure ship type could have an effect on your accuracy, it would be interesting I'm not sure many will agree.

Needing spreadsheets to calculate evasion hurts my brains, the way evasion works now is fine, the numbers could use some tuning, and different core and Auxiliary components could provide unique modifiers to it.

I would prefer new ship sections be run through traditions, they can really add variety and definition to a empire if you don't get access to all of them

Splitting up Supremacy: more military traditions.

Supremacy Tradition is too generic as a military/warfare Tradition, it just boosts your military capability without adding flavor and we really could use to see more flavor in how we build our Fleets and Armies. Traditions are the perfect tools...

forum.paradoxplaza.com

That's how I would do new ship sections.

 

[drawar]

It obviously depends on how the system works and values.
I keep it simple, we refuel directly from a starbase (with possibly some additional point sources).
Afterwards, we can also imagine being able to refuel remotely according to the distance of an allied starbase (where the efficiency decreases according to the distance), if we have a direct connection a bit like for trade routes, but this adds calculations for the game.

Afterwards, a supply / attrition system must go with a naval capacity system or a system where the maintenance costs of the ships are more significant to weigh more heavily on the economy.
Or else it means that the supply system must be even more important and punitive.

The goal is not to prevent travel far from his empire, but to complicate it.
The goal is not to prevent massive regrouping of its fleets, but this should cause medium or long term concerns.
Such a system also gives a certain advantage to the defenders who should more easily be able to supply themselves.

For tracking, I am talking about a maximum value according to the category of weapons. The current base values do not change. Obviously, putting maximum values will obviously bring changes in the game, especially for L, X and T weapons (after that, this is the objective) which target corvettes or destroyers.

I'm used to people disagreeing with me. : p I'd rather receive red than keep these ideas in my head and think about them all the time. XD
Afterwards, it would not displease to see messages of complaints about a fleet of "glass cannon" battleships destroyed by a fleet of "artillery" corvettes or destroyers which dodged almost all fire ...

I don't think it takes a calculator sheet to calculate the evasion, like everything else.
The bigger a weapon, the lower its maximum tracking, the G and H weapons keep a good maximum tracking, which can be useful for large ships to defend against smaller ships, but these small ships can counteract this partly by P weapons.
And the more a ship targets a smaller ship in relation to it, the lower its maximum accuracy is.
After each type of fleet composition has its advantages and disadvantages. If you make a very homogeneous fleet in its weaponry, you could certainly have unpleasant surprises.

For the ship sections, yeah, I would like more choices, but instead of multiplying the models, if we really want to give freedom, we should more do a modular system.

For example each section model, we would have a list of compatible component locations and a certain amount of points.
Each component would have a cost in points:
- S, P: 1
- M, S: 2
- A: 3?
- L, H: 4
- X: 8
- T: 16

Once a model is created, it would create a special engineering research project, of course, the bigger the model, the more it costs.

Once a model has been researched, it would be usable for the design of a ship and we can choose the components for each available location.
As now, we can easily update a ship model with more advanced components.

However, if we change the section model, it will be necessary to create a new section model and complete the special research project, which obviously takes some time, which could cause a problem if one has to adapt during a war.

We could unlock new models by studying the debris of other types of ships.

Each empire could pre-customize its starter ship model (s) in its empire's customization menu.
Each new type of ship unlocked would also allow the creation of a free model of each of its sections.

This could therefore make it possible to create very different ship models from the start, but would also make it more complicated to adapt to an enemy fleet, because if you want to change the section model, you would have to do a research.


With the technologies, we could unlock new section models that would have more points and / or different limitations.
For example, the base model of the corvette could not receive L or H weapons, but a later model could.
There might also be limitations when it comes to the number of component types. For example, the base model for the corvette should have at least two utility slots. A later model would not have this limitation.

Each time you unlock a new section template, you can create a free section of this new section.
Endgame corvettes would not be better than because they have better equipment, but also because they have more "customization points" and also a more flexible design.

 

[GOLANX]

It obviously depends on how the system works and values.
I keep it simple, we refuel directly from a starbase (with possibly some additional point sources).
Afterwards, we can also imagine being able to refuel remotely according to the distance of an allied starbase (where the efficiency decreases according to the distance), if we have a direct connection a bit like for trade routes, but this adds calculations for the game.

Afterwards, a supply / attrition system must go with a naval capacity system or a system where the maintenance costs of the ships are more significant to weigh more heavily on the economy.
Or else it means that the supply system must be even more important and punitive.

The goal is not to prevent travel far from his empire, but to complicate it.
The goal is not to prevent massive regrouping of its fleets, but this should cause medium or long term concerns.
Such a system also gives a certain advantage to the defenders who should more easily be able to supply themselves.

That is still a lot of work for a complicated system adding more numbers to confuse newbies and I think you can achive that goal through simpler methods like making it so that you can't immediately use starbases you have captured in particular for ship repairs, ship damage builds up more and you have to make the decision to keep going and risk losses or pull back and save your forces (adequate nerfs to engineer admiral trait and regenerative hull plating would further reinforce this value) I might post a suggestion detailing this system.

For tracking, I am talking about a maximum value according to the category of weapons. The current base values do not change. Obviously, putting maximum values will obviously bring changes in the game, especially for L, X and T weapons (after that, this is the objective) which target corvettes or destroyers.

I'm used to people disagreeing with me. : p I'd rather receive red than keep these ideas in my head and think about them all the time. XD
Afterwards, it would not displease to see messages of complaints about a fleet of "glass cannon" battleships destroyed by a fleet of "artillery" corvettes or destroyers which dodged almost all fire ...

I don't think it takes a calculator sheet to calculate the evasion, like everything else.
The bigger a weapon, the lower its maximum tracking, the G and H weapons keep a good maximum tracking, which can be useful for large ships to defend against smaller ships, but these small ships can counteract this partly by P weapons.
And the more a ship targets a smaller ship in relation to it, the lower its maximum accuracy is.
After each type of fleet composition has its advantages and disadvantages. If you make a very homogeneous fleet in its weaponry, you could certainly have unpleasant surprises.

Ok I didn't realize those were maximums and how far they will stack that makes more sense. That said I feel that a battleship filled with S slots would effectively counter corvettes while being countered by L slot warships and doing poorly vs other battleships.

For the ship sections, yeah, I would like more choices, but instead of multiplying the models, if we really want to give freedom, we should more do a modular system.

For example each section model, we would have a list of compatible component locations and a certain amount of points.
Each component would have a cost in points:
- S, P: 1
- M, S: 2
- A: 3?
- L, H: 4
- X: 8
- T: 16

Once a model is created, it would create a special engineering research project, of course, the bigger the model, the more it costs.

Once a model has been researched, it would be usable for the design of a ship and we can choose the components for each available location.
As now, we can easily update a ship model with more advanced components.

However, if we change the section model, it will be necessary to create a new section model and complete the special research project, which obviously takes some time, which could cause a problem if one has to adapt during a war.

We could unlock new models by studying the debris of other types of ships.

Each empire could pre-customize its starter ship model (s) in its empire's customization menu.
Each new type of ship unlocked would also allow the creation of a free model of each of its sections.

This could therefore make it possible to create very different ship models from the start, but would also make it more complicated to adapt to an enemy fleet, because if you want to change the section model, you would have to do a research.


With the technologies, we could unlock new section models that would have more points and / or different limitations.
For example, the base model of the corvette could not receive L or H weapons, but a later model could.
There might also be limitations when it comes to the number of component types. For example, the base model for the corvette should have at least two utility slots. A later model would not have this limitation.

Each time you unlock a new section template, you can create a free section of this new section.
Endgame corvettes would not be better than because they have better equipment, but also because they have more "customization points" and also a more flexible design.

You don't need to convince me we should have more ship sections, you need to convince the devs its worth the blood sweat and tears of the art team, because that is something they said is why they don't want to do it. My only kaveat is that it should be tied into traditions and have some mutually exclusive options.

Mutually exclusive options helps differentiate warships so that you pick different combinations each game and there is more mix to the Meta that keeps the game feeling fresh for longer with more replayability. Each Tradition gives you a set of options based on its theme. Admiralty gives high damage sections that deal a lot of damage in a short time to better utilize their mobility and retreat early in tough battles. Quality focus provides high defense sections for brawler warships to absorb lots of damage at short range. Quantity provides cheap sections that focus on particular strengths without power creep. Because you pick a different path each game, and every empire picks a different path empires don't feel samey by endgame and are bringing different warships that need different strategies to counter rather than the Arty BB mono that dominates the current Meta.

No mutually exclusive random techs wouldn't be a good option either, your ultimately relying on RNG to give you a good option or the option that fills the flavor your looking for, allowing the player the agency to pick the path they want is the better option.

 

[Kiwibaum]

For the supply mechanic there would need to be a to prevent the following in the later game: Throwing 1 empy, cheap corvette after another at the enemy to starve their supply and then engage them.

Maximum Tracking for weapon size sounds like an ok idea to solve the problem of the 4 ship types not having clear identities and roles in combat and thus a few always being useless once the others are researched. I makes it easier to keep the tracking vs evasion sweet spot for ship sizes.

The ship secions seem a little much for not adding that much tbh. I'd rather have heavily specialised sections, that can only be or only be effective on one type. Example: A slot that allows really close range weaponry with high damage but bad accuracy/tracking on corvettes. This would possibly make them good battleship counters, giving them a clear combat role.

 

[drawar]

Except that this does not prevent regrouping its fleets and keeping them grouped to create a road roller without consequences.
It's complicated to be able to do a "balanced" defense when the Starbases are limited in their power and enemy fleets "virtually unlimited", although I understand that a starbase should not be invinsible.
Border starbases will always be vulnerable to fleet consolidation, especially without allied help. But the inner Starbases could become more of a problem.
In the event of a rush against the interior of an empire, fleets could become vulnerable to a counterattack, in the event of a lack of supply.

Taking into account the evasion (the battleship would still have its precision penalty, even if it could have good tracking with S weapons), I don't know and, especially that a battleship could not necessarily have only of S.
Especially if imagine "opposite" situations where the corvettes would be equipped with a weapon L or H or 2M or 2G, even if for that it would have to possibly sacrifice a little protection.
But even corvettes could be vulnerable to lighter armament corvettes and destroyers or to cruisers and battleships armed with G and H.

It seems to me that the important thing in the design of the ships is the location of the weaponry.
Each type of model can have maximum number of locations for arming (and other restrictions). The player is free to occupy each location or favor heavy weapons or utility components.
Which still opens up greater freedom while framing it. So you don't necessarily need a battleship with 24 weapon slots if you wanted to put only S or P.

After that, of course it's better if the different basic models don't have the same appearance, even if small variations can do the trick and, in fact, I think we don't care. little of the aesthetics of vessels between two basic models of a section of a vessel.

In fact, it's even a shame that Stellaris has opted for customizable 3D ships and real-time combat directly on the map, when this is by no means really exploited.
When we compare for example to Sin of Solar Empire, of course, we cannot customize the ships. The location of the weapons is important and the inertia of the vessels important, especially for large vessels.
A combat system "like" in EU4 would have been better and would have less annoyance for the artistic team.
Anyway, the fights are a mush in Stellaris and we have no control over the ships in combat, except to make a retreat ... The game can saturate during the battles, which affects the outcome of a battle. due to the fact that it can affect the interception of missibles and strike craft, it seems to me.

In fact, a tradition system doesn't really make a difference. If a tradition is judged to be better, you will also have the same “uniformity”.

It also means similar ships for those taking the same traditions.
It also means similar starter ships.

If you want to make different types of ships. Perhaps they would be better to combine personalization and aesthetics.

Indeed, we can choose the graphic appearance of the ships of our empire and this does not affect its playability. The appearance of the vessels can be selected independently of its species.

We can imagine that each section model for each ship has a “fixed core” and that we can customize around this core, with the restrictions associated with this model.

For example for lithoid type ships, maybe for example a bonus for the hull, but a limited number of shield slots. Lithoids would favor kinetic weapons (perhaps also large weapons).

Arthropoid ship could perhaps favor strike crafts, drown the enemy in numbers, even if it meant neglecting protection.
After, as always, if a type of model is considered superior ... Hence the importance of having a system that allows different models, but "balanced".

For the supply mechanic there would need to be a to prevent the following in the later game: Throwing 1 empy, cheap corvette after another at the enemy to starve their supply and then engage them.

Maximum Tracking for weapon size sounds like an ok idea to solve the problem of the 4 ship types not having clear identities and roles in combat and thus a few always being useless once the others are researched. I makes it easier to keep the tracking vs evasion sweet spot for ship sizes.

The ship secions seem a little much for not adding that much tbh. I'd rather have heavily specialised sections, that can only be or only be effective on one type. Example: A slot that allows really close range weaponry with high damage but bad accuracy/tracking on corvettes. This would possibly make them good battleship counters, giving them a clear combat role.

If the corvette is destroyed in less than a day. I don't think it would have an impact on the supplyings.

It does, however, remind me of a possible option that could affect supply consumption in combat. For example, in “economy” mode, the supply consumption drops, but the rate of fire, dodge and movement speed are also reduced.
On the contrary, in "overdrive" mode, the rate of fire, dodge and movement speed increase, but the supply consumption also increases.

 

[Kiwibaum]

If the corvette is destroyed in less than a day. I don't think it would have an impact on the supplyings.

Due to hyperjump load up and movement stopping for combat you could delay a fleet heavily at rather low costs. Currently this is not saving you that much and costs ressources, but if you'd be able to drain a fleat of ressources and thus firepower this way it could become strong.

 

[GOLANX]

Except that this does not prevent regrouping its fleets and keeping them grouped to create a road roller without consequences.
It's complicated to be able to do a "balanced" defense when the Starbases are limited in their power and enemy fleets "virtually unlimited", although I understand that a starbase should not be invinsible.
Border starbases will always be vulnerable to fleet consolidation, especially without allied help. But the inner Starbases could become more of a problem.
In the event of a rush against the interior of an empire, fleets could become vulnerable to a counterattack, in the event of a lack of supply.

Supply won't solve the problem of doomstacking, your always going to concentrate forces to take on tougher targets and a good player will plan around the supply system. The problem is doomstacks never take long term damage. A fleet half the size of a doomstack picks a fight with the doomstack will get wiped, it will be lucky if it picks off 1 or 2 ships from the doomstack, the rest only take minor damage and repair at a captured enemy starbase in no time, this means that reguardless of the number of times the small fleet engages the doomstack they will never push them back. If the doomstack has trouble repairing in enemy territory they may need to retreat or risk higher casualties. What's more the defenders can flank the doomstack and easily recapture the bastions they had on the border, if they want to go home and repair they may be risking a showdown or call a retreat

 

[drawar]

Due to hyperjump load up and movement stopping for combat you could delay a fleet heavily at rather low costs. Currently this is not saving you that much and costs ressources, but if you'd be able to drain a fleat of ressources and thus firepower this way it could become strong.

This is one thing that can already be done and it is significant micromanagement and even abuse of game mechanics.
It also raises attrition, but arguably too weakly to be very meaningful.
Afterwards, that does not mean that this “problem” should not be solved, but it is present with or without a supplying system.

Supply won't solve the problem of doomstacking, your always going to concentrate forces to take on tougher targets and a good player will plan around the supply system. The problem is doomstacks never take long term damage. A fleet half the size of a doomstack picks a fight with the doomstack will get wiped, it will be lucky if it picks off 1 or 2 ships from the doomstack, the rest only take minor damage and repair at a captured enemy starbase in no time, this means that reguardless of the number of times the small fleet engages the doomstack they will never push them back. If the doomstack has trouble repairing in enemy territory they may need to retreat or risk higher casualties. What's more the defenders can flank the doomstack and easily recapture the bastions they had on the border, if they want to go home and repair they may be risking a showdown or call a retreat

If you make it difficult to repair fleets, it means that it is all the more important to keep your fleets together in order to minimize losses and damage.

The whole question is precisely about the ability to supply its fleets.
It just depends on values.

As said, the fleets must join a starbase to refuel.
The starbase has a monthly supply production.
The starbase can also store a certain amount of supply.
We can also play on the speed at which a Starbase can supply a fleet. For example, a starbase can tame "X ships according to its level +" Y "by anchorage.
Note that the size of the ship could matter. For example a battleship could count for 8 ships (corvettes) or a battleship would take longer to supply than a corvette for example.

If too many fleets are grouped together in a starbase, the fleets could consume more than the production and therefore consume the (limited) reserves of the starbase. If consumption is practically equal to production, a starbase having exhausted its reserve could have difficulty supplying the fleets to fill the reserves of the ships.

Without forgetting, as said that the Starbase occupied in a war would have a production and storage reduced by 50%.

Obviously, a good player will plan, but precisely what does that imply?

A player can before a war or before an objective gather his fleets at a "nearby" starbase and if necessary use the reserves of the starbase to supply the fleets while waiting for all the fleets to assemble, if the reserves allow it.

The player can then launch their attack to the desired location. If this place is conquered, what does that mean for its fleets? Even if it is a starbase, even ideally a starbase dedicated to supplies. This starbase would undoubtedly not have the capacity to meet the basic needs of all the fleets and undoubtedly even less to fill their reserves.

Depending on the initial reserves of the ships, the distance traveled to reach the objective and the possible fights that have taken place during the journey, the reserves of the ships will have diminished.

Perhaps the regrouping of the fleets can be maintained to attack another objective (although it could become risky afterwards for the supply).
Either they have to separate the fleets, for example, to try to conquer other starbases to increase the supply capacity.
Or maybe send fleets to allied territory to restock, which takes time, and depending on the production and reserve of the nearest starbase.

If the fleets are dispersed, they become more vulnerable to a counterattack.
If the regrouping of the fleets is maintained, the supply may end up running out and the player will probably not be able to effectively protect his rear including the occupied starbases.

If the fleets run out of supplies, they will be much more vulnerable to a counterattack.
Additionally, if occupied starbases perform less well for supply, it becomes more difficult to project into an empire (unless they're small) and maintain a powerful fleet there.

Then, of course, I'm not saying that it can solve “all problems”, there are many factors and mechanisms involved.

 

[Kiwibaum]

This is one thing that can already be done and it is significant micromanagement and even abuse of game mechanics.
It also raises attrition, but arguably too weakly to be very meaningful.
Afterwards, that does not mean that this “problem” should not be solved, but it is present with or without a supplying system.

I agree that this problem needs to be fixed anyways, but it is much more effective with supply if the corvetes can do damage to the fleet by draining it's supplies and thus might even be a costeeffective trade.

 

[drawar]

The simplest and most logical is to simply put an option to ignore the enemies.
When the option is activated, the fleet does not engage in combat, but it still gets attacked. The fleet can perhaps be replicated, but the ships maintain the formation, since there is no real orientation of the weapons, it seems to me, maybe put a penalty on the accuracy, tracking and/or cadence of shoot.

When a fleet prepares for a jump its weapons are disabled, maybe also put a penalty on the shields or slower the loading of the jump, if the ships are attacked.

This would give additional utility for penalties increasing the jump duration of enemy fleets and would also give greater utility (even if already great) for FTL Inhibition.

However, it sure could make the borders at the beginning more easily porous.
So no need to take big detours to avoid starting a fight with a starbase. After that, the starbases would have to have an "unlimited" range to be able to attack any intruder, the platforms of defenders could have engines for powers to move in the system and to support the allied fleets, even if they are on the edge of the system.

We could therefore choose to cross a system and ignore the starbase, unless FTL Inhibition, but the fleet would still suffer potentially significant damage, if the starbase is heavily armed and the crossing of the system is long.

 

[Tamwin5]

Honestly, I think this suggestion is trying to do too much all at once. Rebalancing ships weapons, changing ship section philosophy, then throwing a whole supply system on top of things. Since so many things are changing, it's hard to properly understand everything that's going on, much less judge it. Still, I'm going to give it a shot. Things will be roughly divided into sections.

Accuracy/Tracking changes
Hard disagree with these changes. While I do think that the tracking/evasion dynamic needs to be looked at, this is a far too complicated and confusing system. Tracking comes from a grand total of four sources: the weapon itself, sensor system, combat computers (although only for picket/platform/starbase designation or precognitive), and a single titan aura. Considering that the picket combat computer isn't even available for battleships, and X slots have 0 tracking base, the only way you'd run into that tracking cap is if you stacked a precognitive computer (+10), max sensors (+15) and the titan aura (+10). Most large slot weapons have a base tracking of 5 (Particle launchers and kinetic artillery are 0). The one exception is cloud lightning at 30. It is literally impossible to hit the tracking cap on L slot weapons for anything but cloud lightning.

You also appear to be trying to nerf larger ships by giving them an inherent accuracy penalty. That is what the evasion/tracking balance exists to provide. It also makes no sense that a weapon on a larger ship is magically worse. All of this mess and numbers is solvable by a single, very simple change: make non weapon tracking sources modifiers rather than flat values. After all, it doesn't matter how good your sensors/computers are if your gun can't turn that fast, or the projectile takes a while to arrive. This change will reduce the accuracy of an artillery battleships vs a max evasion corvette from 25% down to 10%, something your tracking suggestion does not effect at all. It also means that the small amount of evasion a cruiser can get can actually be useful against battleships, and make them slightly less bad.

Ship Sections
Here, I think you simultaneously went too far and not far enough. I'm optimistically in favor of the ability to change the balance of weapons vs utility vs auxiliary, but this would need through research/testing to make sure they are properly balanced. I could easily see a medium weapon slot being twice as good as a medium utility slot. But actually being able to specialize ships for defense or offense could help make varied fleet compositions optimum, which I would sorely love to see.

Where you went too far (at least in my opinion)
Too much expansion of weapon types. Corvettes shouldn't have L slot weapons, and imo should only have Medium as part of a bonus weapons load out. Destroyers (probably) shouldn't get hangers or missiles. Battleships shouldn't get small weapons (yes, including the existing sections which have them). In terms of technology, I think that the "standardized pattern" techs shouldn't grant any ship sections. While looking at the entire list all together makes me think that you are adding too many options, I suspect that it would be much less overwhelming when actually implemented.

Where you didn't go far enough (again, in my opinion)
The only things your ship sections change is the weapon/utility/auxiliary balance. Ideally, I'd like to see sections which effect the speed of the ship, how much it costs, its speed, base hull, disengagement chance, build time, even potentially materials needed to make it. A scout corvette with reduced weapons for high speed. A tank cruiser with a high disengagement and bonus hull. Glass cannon ships with reduced hull as well as lower utility slots. Another thing I think you should have done is rebalanced the existing ship sections, rather than just added on your own. Plenty of existing sections are never used, and so it's make sense to adjust things a little and give them some new factors.

Overall agree with you on the idea of more ship sections, but C- on the actual execution.

Supply system
Finally, we come to the most complicated of the lot. Honestly it's impossible to get a sense of what you are trying to do with supply without any numbers involved. How long can a corvette last on it's own? A month? A year? How much is the upkeep increased while in combat? How much is it decreased while in friendly space, or around a friendly starbase? How much storage does an outpost/starbase have? How many years of supply can they story? Personally I'd recommend my own supply system suggestion, which has actual numbers associated with all of these things.

With any supply system, you need some form of scaling. In the early game, a fleet of 20 corvettes is likely an empires entire military, and even for the full on blitz conquerors it would be a large portion of their fleet. In the late game, you'll probably have multiple 160 strength fleets sitting around. The two simple/easy ways to handle this is through tech or starbase level. Of course, both have downsides. Tech based scaling makes tech rushing even more overwhelming as a strategy, as you will both have better ships and more of them. Starbases mean that the location of starbases becomes hugely important, both for attacking and defense. You could theoretically make a sizable invasion impossible just by having no upgraded starbases on a front, and so any enemy fleet sent in would run out of supply and be crippled.

The supply system as currently presented is far too incomplete to make a proper judgement on, but you seem to be following fairly close to my own ideas (if tending more towards production rather than storage and transfer).

 

[drawar]

Accuracy/Tracking changes
Hard disagree with these changes. While I do think that the tracking/evasion dynamic needs to be looked at, this is a far too complicated and confusing system. Tracking comes from a grand total of four sources: the weapon itself, sensor system, combat computers (although only for picket/platform/starbase designation or precognitive), and a single titan aura. Considering that the picket combat computer isn't even available for battleships, and X slots have 0 tracking base, the only way you'd run into that tracking cap is if you stacked a precognitive computer (+10), max sensors (+15) and the titan aura (+10). Most large slot weapons have a base tracking of 5 (Particle launchers and kinetic artillery are 0). The one exception is cloud lightning at 30. It is literally impossible to hit the tracking cap on L slot weapons for anything but cloud lightning.

You also appear to be trying to nerf larger ships by giving them an inherent accuracy penalty. That is what the evasion/tracking balance exists to provide. It also makes no sense that a weapon on a larger ship is magically worse. All of this mess and numbers is solvable by a single, very simple change: make non weapon tracking sources modifiers rather than flat values. After all, it doesn't matter how good your sensors/computers are if your gun can't turn that fast, or the projectile takes a while to arrive. This change will reduce the accuracy of an artillery battleships vs a max evasion corvette from 25% down to 10%, something your tracking suggestion does not effect at all. It also means that the small amount of evasion a cruiser can get can actually be useful against battleships, and make them slightly less bad.

The calculation of precision, tracking and evasion seems pretty straightforward to me, unless the formula on the wiki isn't up to date.
Tracking decreases evasion and the result of this decreases accuracy.
However, I am not against a change in the formula.

Regarding this:

- S and H: 90
- M and G: 70
- L: 50
- X: 30
- T: 10

Maybe the values could be adjusted. For example :
- S and H : 90
- M and G : 60
- L : 35
- X : 15
- T : 5

However, L weapons are usable by destroyers and cruisers, which can use the Picket, as well as defense platforms.

If the large ships have an accuracy penalty against smaller vessels, it is to symbolize that the large vessels are less maneuverable, so can less easily position themselves correctly.
Afterwards, we could say that this is already taken into account in the game but, in fact, it seems to me that since the ships do not really have inertia and the positioning of the weapons on the ships does not really allow you to simulate this, it seems to me.
However, yes, we can say that it is "duplicated" with the evasion.

However, yes, we can also do dynamic values.

Ship Sections
Here, I think you simultaneously went too far and not far enough. I'm optimistically in favor of the ability to change the balance of weapons vs utility vs auxiliary, but this would need through research/testing to make sure they are properly balanced. I could easily see a medium weapon slot being twice as good as a medium utility slot. But actually being able to specialize ships for defense or offense could help make varied fleet compositions optimum, which I would sorely love to see.

Where you went too far (at least in my opinion)
Too much expansion of weapon types. Corvettes shouldn't have L slot weapons, and imo should only have Medium as part of a bonus weapons load out. Destroyers (probably) shouldn't get hangers or missiles. Battleships shouldn't get small weapons (yes, including the existing sections which have them). In terms of technology, I think that the "standardized pattern" techs shouldn't grant any ship sections. While looking at the entire list all together makes me think that you are adding too many options, I suspect that it would be much less overwhelming when actually implemented.

Where you didn't go far enough (again, in my opinion)
The only things your ship sections change is the weapon/utility/auxiliary balance. Ideally, I'd like to see sections which effect the speed of the ship, how much it costs, its speed, base hull, disengagement chance, build time, even potentially materials needed to make it. A scout corvette with reduced weapons for high speed. A tank cruiser with a high disengagement and bonus hull. Glass cannon ships with reduced hull as well as lower utility slots. Another thing I think you should have done is rebalanced the existing ship sections, rather than just added on your own. Plenty of existing sections are never used, and so it's make sense to adjust things a little and give them some new factors.

Overall agree with you on the idea of more ship sections, but C- on the actual execution.

Regarding L for Corvettes, H and G for destroyers.

It also made sense and corvettes and destroyers (with the idea of a supply system) is that it was suited to the empire's internal defenses and the border offensive.
And that at the start of a game, we would have access to corvettes and cruisers.

And it also came with “late” technologies.

However, yes, I would like a bigger overhaul for the sections. Maybe I'll do another topic for that soon.

Supply system
Finally, we come to the most complicated of the lot. Honestly it's impossible to get a sense of what you are trying to do with supply without any numbers involved. How long can a corvette last on it's own? A month? A year? How much is the upkeep increased while in combat? How much is it decreased while in friendly space, or around a friendly starbase? How much storage does an outpost/starbase have? How many years of supply can they story? Personally I'd recommend my own supply system suggestion, which has actual numbers associated with all of these things.

With any supply system, you need some form of scaling. In the early game, a fleet of 20 corvettes is likely an empires entire military, and even for the full on blitz conquerors it would be a large portion of their fleet. In the late game, you'll probably have multiple 160 strength fleets sitting around. The two simple/easy ways to handle this is through tech or starbase level. Of course, both have downsides. Tech based scaling makes tech rushing even more overwhelming as a strategy, as you will both have better ships and more of them. Starbases mean that the location of starbases becomes hugely important, both for attacking and defense. You could theoretically make a sizable invasion impossible just by having no upgraded starbases on a front, and so any enemy fleet sent in would run out of supply and be crippled.

The supply system as currently presented is far too incomplete to make a proper judgement on, but you seem to be following fairly close to my own ideas (if tending more towards production rather than storage and transfer).

Indeed, there is no figure. Already that basic, I do not know how the system must be "restrective".
Then adjusting the values requires clear vision and testing to see if it works as you think it does.
Indeed, it was a general idea.

I'm not against transferring supplies between starbases.
However, I don't think the Outposts should be able to supply fleets.
I don't think that space yards should be able to generate supplies, they are already very useful for building ships.
This is why in my idea, it is the anchorages that increase production (can receive more supplies from the rest of the empire including planets).
And that the Resource Silo increases storage.

However, if we allow the transfer between Starbase, it makes it easier to keep a well-supplied starbase at the border (and occupied during a war?).

After that makes me think that I did not speak of cargo ships, either that we can personalized ships in supply storage, or that we have dedicated ships, maybe 3 size.
- small cargo : 1 section (1P)
- medium cargo : 2 section (1P or 1S; 2P or 2S or 1M)
- large cargo : 3 section (2P or 2S or 1M; 1M or 2S; 1P or 1S)

We can also imagine unarmed ships. The purpose of the weapons is to provide a little support and survival against missiles and strike craft and prevent a single corvette from blocking a medium or large cargo ship. Obviously, ideally, it would be necessary to escort the freighters or make sure to properly protect its supply lines. Which could add an interesting strategy. Smaller freighters are faster, but larger ones can carry more and are more resistant to attack.

The cargo ship can be used to deliver supplies to fleets away from allied starbases, but this takes time supply lines can be vulnerable, so possibly dispersing fleets to protect these paths.

Cargo ships could also increase the autonomy of a fleet.
However, freighters should not render a supply system useless by allowing absurd amounts of supply to be stored before a war.

Maybe play on fleet command points:
- small cargo: 3 command points
- medium cargo: 6 command points
- large cargo: 9 command points

More cargo therefore means less fleet power, especially if they are unarmed or very lightly armed.
Maybe even put an option to favor attacks on cargo ships in a fleet.
This could allow interesting strategies, such as a "brief" attack against an enemy fleet to destroy its freighters before making an Emergency retreat.

This can be a way to starve an enemy fleet to force it to retreat or make it vulnerable to future attack.

Obviously, adding cargo ships can add micromanagement.

 

[Tamwin5]

The calculation of precision, tracking and evasion seems pretty straightforward to me, unless the formula on the wiki isn't up to date.
Tracking decreases evasion and the result of this decreases accuracy.
However, I am not against a change in the formula.

Regarding this:


Maybe the values could be adjusted. For example :
- S and H : 90
- M and G : 60
- L : 35
- X : 15
- T : 5

However, L weapons are usable by destroyers and cruisers, which can use the Picket, as well as defense platforms.

It's not that the base system of tracking and accuracy is confusing. It's that as far as I can tell there is no real reason to add these tracking caps, and the values are completely arbitrary. I think we need to take a step back. What are you trying to accomplish with these changes? Because whatever it is, I am 95% sure that the same goals can be accomplished with a much simpler change. In general, suggestions should aim to change as little as possible to accomplish their goals, since that both makes it easier to implement and limits the numbers of various cases (both mainstream and edge) that need to be tested.

You do have a good point about L slots being usable on non-battleship ships. I just associate L slot with battleships since artillery battleships are the current meta (destroyers are generally used for early game anti-corvette, so no L slot there, while cruisers are only useful for a strike craft timing).

If the large ships have an accuracy penalty against smaller vessels, it is to symbolize that the large vessels are less maneuverable, so can less easily position themselves correctly.
Afterwards, we could say that this is already taken into account in the game but, in fact, it seems to me that since the ships do not really have inertia and the positioning of the weapons on the ships does not really allow you to simulate this, it seems to me.
However, yes, we can say that it is "duplicated" with the evasion.

However, yes, we can also do dynamic values.



Regarding L for Corvettes, H and G for destroyers.

It also made sense and corvettes and destroyers (with the idea of a supply system) is that it was suited to the empire's internal defenses and the border offensive.
And that at the start of a game, we would have access to corvettes and cruisers.

And it also came with “late” technologies.

However, yes, I would like a bigger overhaul for the sections. Maybe I'll do another topic for that soon.

I'm sorry, but your justification for large ship accuracy penalties makes no sense. Maneuverability has nothing to do with accuracy, weapons are mounted in turrets (the exception is spinal mount X slots, which can only shoot in a 15° arc from the front of the vessel). Furthermore, the larger inertia of large ships would actually make it easier to draw up firing solutions (assuming you are having any trouble at all, which tbh you probably wouldn't) since more inertia means it's more consistent. On a corvette, the very act of firing a weapon might be sufficient to alter the trajectory of the vessel significantly enough to throw off the shot. Now, if there was a solid gameplay reason why this change should be made that's fine. Solid gameplay comes before "accuracy", especially for something like futuristic space battles. But I'm not seeing any good gameplay justifications either.

For corvettes specifically, I strongly worry that a L slot option would lead to something similar to the old days of Tachyon destroyers (especially if tracking gets properly nerfed so L slots can't easily hit max evasion). Destroyers not having strike craft is more because it just seems weird for something that small to be launching fighters. Not being able to have any option you want on a specific ship is a good thing. This is even more the case when you have a supply system, as it means you have to weigh between the concerns of supply and warfare. This creates interesting decisions, and thus interesting gameplay. My goal is always to make the "meta" option for ships to at least involve multiple ship types, since that is far more interesting than mono-fleets.

Indeed, there is no figure. Already that basic, I do not know how the system must be "restrective".
Then adjusting the values requires clear vision and testing to see if it works as you think it does.
Indeed, it was a general idea.

I'm not against transferring supplies between starbases.
However, I don't think the Outposts should be able to supply fleets.
I don't think that space yards should be able to generate supplies, they are already very useful for building ships.
This is why in my idea, it is the anchorages that increase production (can receive more supplies from the rest of the empire including planets).
And that the Resource Silo increases storage.

However, if we allow the transfer between Starbase, it makes it easier to keep a well-supplied starbase at the border (and occupied during a war?).

After that makes me think that I did not speak of cargo ships, either that we can personalized ships in supply storage, or that we have dedicated ships, maybe 3 size.
- small cargo : 1 section (1P)
- medium cargo : 2 section (1P or 1S; 2P or 2S or 1M)
- large cargo : 3 section (2P or 2S or 1M; 1M or 2S; 1P or 1S)

We can also imagine unarmed ships. The purpose of the weapons is to provide a little support and survival against missiles and strike craft and prevent a single corvette from blocking a medium or large cargo ship. Obviously, ideally, it would be necessary to escort the freighters or make sure to properly protect its supply lines. Which could add an interesting strategy. Smaller freighters are faster, but larger ones can carry more and are more resistant to attack.

The cargo ship can be used to deliver supplies to fleets away from allied starbases, but this takes time supply lines can be vulnerable, so possibly dispersing fleets to protect these paths.

Cargo ships could also increase the autonomy of a fleet.
However, freighters should not render a supply system useless by allowing absurd amounts of supply to be stored before a war.

Maybe play on fleet command points:
- small cargo: 3 command points
- medium cargo: 6 command points
- large cargo: 9 command points

More cargo therefore means less fleet power, especially if they are unarmed or very lightly armed.
Maybe even put an option to favor attacks on cargo ships in a fleet.
This could allow interesting strategies, such as a "brief" attack against an enemy fleet to destroy its freighters before making an Emergency retreat.

This can be a way to starve an enemy fleet to force it to retreat or make it vulnerable to future attack.

Obviously, adding cargo ships can add micromanagement.

If you read through my numbers, you'll note that the supply throughput cap means that outposts can only supply 20 corvettes. So a start of the game fleet can move anywhere without any concerns. Of course, any empty space interrupts that so trying to war with a non-neighbor represents significant logistical issues. Even with all the late game techs, outpost supply only goes up to 30 corvettes. The supply generation provided by a shipyard is minimal, only 2 corvettes worth. 6 shipyards won't even support a single battleship at base supply usage. The main reason I added it was that it just makes sense for shipyards to produce spare parts and other such things. It also provides a way for players to build something that produces supply, in case they want higher production.

You mention "it is the anchorages that increase production (can receive more supplies from the rest of the empire including planets)", but I actually have the supplies generate throughout the rest of the empire (both starbases and planets), and then be transported to those locations for storage. The most important part imo is that anchorages serve as the "keystone" of the supply system. For me, that means anchorages provide large amounts of storage and throughput. For a primarily production/upkeep supply system, having them generate the supply makes more sense.

I made my supply system care more about storage than production because I envisioned supply working as a more realistic war exhaustion mechanic. As a war drags on the continuous usage of supply will exhaust storage, and eventually either the front or the empire as a whole is drained for supply. When that happens ships will need to spend most of their time sitting in orbit of starbases in order to reduce supply usage, making an effective status quo purely through mechanics.

I don't think supply ships are a good idea. At the worst, they can completely invalidate the purpose of a supply system. At best, they still add significant micro to warfare, and any supply system is already adding a decent amount of that since you need to pay attention to all your fleets and their supply levels. I do think a utility module which increases supply storage for ships is fine, so if you really want to go on a long expedition there is a way to outfit your ships for the journey (that comes with an associated reduction in combat power).

 

[drawar]

It's not that the base system of tracking and accuracy is confusing. It's that as far as I can tell there is no real reason to add these tracking caps, and the values are completely arbitrary. I think we need to take a step back. What are you trying to accomplish with these changes? Because whatever it is, I am 95% sure that the same goals can be accomplished with a much simpler change. In general, suggestions should aim to change as little as possible to accomplish their goals, since that both makes it easier to implement and limits the numbers of various cases (both mainstream and edge) that need to be tested.

You do have a good point about L slots being usable on non-battleship ships. I just associate L slot with battleships since artillery battleships are the current meta (destroyers are generally used for early game anti-corvette, so no L slot there, while cruisers are only useful for a strike craft timing).

The maximum tracking can be explained by the limitations of the maneuverability of the weapon, the speed of the weapon to be fired, of the ship ...
Better aiming computers and computer programs can help aim better, but their effectiveness can be hampered by other factors.
Yes, these are arbitrary values, like all values in the game.
Then, of course, there can be other methods, each with its advantages and disadvantages, although some may be better overall, depending on what you want.

I'm sorry, but your justification for large ship accuracy penalties makes no sense. Maneuverability has nothing to do with accuracy, weapons are mounted in turrets (the exception is spinal mount X slots, which can only shoot in a 15° arc from the front of the vessel). Furthermore, the larger inertia of large ships would actually make it easier to draw up firing solutions (assuming you are having any trouble at all, which tbh you probably wouldn't) since more inertia means it's more consistent. On a corvette, the very act of firing a weapon might be sufficient to alter the trajectory of the vessel significantly enough to throw off the shot. Now, if there was a solid gameplay reason why this change should be made that's fine. Solid gameplay comes before "accuracy", especially for something like futuristic space battles. But I'm not seeing any good gameplay justifications either.

For corvettes specifically, I strongly worry that a L slot option would lead to something similar to the old days of Tachyon destroyers (especially if tracking gets properly nerfed so L slots can't easily hit max evasion). Destroyers not having strike craft is more because it just seems weird for something that small to be launching fighters. Not being able to have any option you want on a specific ship is a good thing. This is even more the case when you have a supply system, as it means you have to weigh between the concerns of supply and warfare. This creates interesting decisions, and thus interesting gameplay. My goal is always to make the "meta" option for ships to at least involve multiple ship types, since that is far more interesting than mono-fleets.

Yes, the weapons are usually turrets on the "roof" of the ship. It's a choice made, since it seems to me that the battles in Stellaris are rather 2D. However, this can still be seen as a simplification of "reality" for gameplay reasons.

Imagine with a change in the design of the ships, even keeping a “2D” combat.
You can position weapons in front, on the right and left side, behind and on the "roof" (possibly on the bottom).
Each location which can vary according to the type of weapon, the size and the type of section of the ship has a certain angle of fire.

Let us also imagine that the ships(according to their size/mass possibly varying according to the types of sections) have a significant inertia. Ships change speed, direction and turn more slowly, better thrusters will help increase maneuverability, obviously corvettes and destroyers will be more maneuverable than cruisers and battleships.

What does this imply and allow?
Without adding weapons and other components, this can result in quite different ships and possibly different strategies.

A ship with these weapons mainly facing forward with a low angle of fire will be very efficient to bombard an enemy fleet in the distance with all its firepower.

However, if the enemy fleet is in contact. Such a ship may perform less well, as it will have to turn to aim its weapons, if enemy targets are mobile enough (relative to its rotational speed), it might even have difficulty using its weapons effectively (not add arbitrary penalties to simulate this in this case, just the physics of the game in action).

On the contrary, a ship with more distributed weapons covering more angle of fire, but which the weapons cannot all target the same enemy will be less efficient for long-range combat, but on contact its weapons should be able to find more easily target on average.

It can also add an interesting feature for G and H weapons, in fact, these weapons do not have firing angles, since missiles and small spaceships can adjust their trajectories.

Let us imagine that we want to give (progressively) a “specific” identity to each model of “species” vessels, so this allows even more possibility of personalition. Obviously, that would be a significant change. Would that be good? I let others judge. Each system to have its interest.

If you read through my numbers, you'll note that the supply throughput cap means that outposts can only supply 20 corvettes. So a start of the game fleet can move anywhere without any concerns. Of course, any empty space interrupts that so trying to war with a non-neighbor represents significant logistical issues. Even with all the late game techs, outpost supply only goes up to 30 corvettes. The supply generation provided by a shipyard is minimal, only 2 corvettes worth. 6 shipyards won't even support a single battleship at base supply usage. The main reason I added it was that it just makes sense for shipyards to produce spare parts and other such things. It also provides a way for players to build something that produces supply, in case they want higher production.

You mention "it is the anchorages that increase production (can receive more supplies from the rest of the empire including planets)", but I actually have the supplies generate throughout the rest of the empire (both starbases and planets), and then be transported to those locations for storage. The most important part imo is that anchorages serve as the "keystone" of the supply system. For me, that means anchorages provide large amounts of storage and throughput. For a primarily production/upkeep supply system, having them generate the supply makes more sense.

I made my supply system care more about storage than production because I envisioned supply working as a more realistic war exhaustion mechanic. As a war drags on the continuous usage of supply will exhaust storage, and eventually either the front or the empire as a whole is drained for supply. When that happens ships will need to spend most of their time sitting in orbit of starbases in order to reduce supply usage, making an effective status quo purely through mechanics.

I don't think supply ships are a good idea. At the worst, they can completely invalidate the purpose of a supply system. At best, they still add significant micro to warfare, and any supply system is already adding a decent amount of that since you need to pay attention to all your fleets and their supply levels. I do think a utility module which increases supply storage for ships is fine, so if you really want to go on a long expedition there is a way to outfit your ships for the journey (that comes with an associated reduction in combat power).

Except that the Outposts are numerous, each Outposts can therefore supply a fleet in part, thus making up for a part of the losses, even for “larger” fleets, thus increasing their autonomy.
Not to mention that these Outposts can transfer their supply to other Starbases. Is this all really necessary and useful?
In addition, Outposts cannot be used to repair ships.

However, if you want to keep a utility at the Outposts for supplying. Supply consumption can be reduced in allied territory and/or increased in enemy/occupied territory. These differences can be explained by the presence of weak local supplies and local enemy resistance.

Except that the supplies can be "fuel", ammunition, food (Hydroponics Bay), various items for the crew and etc.
Yeah, it's not illogical for Shipyards, but it would probably make even more sense for Trades Hubs (obviously, we would need an equivalent for Gestalts), which could give commercial starbases military use.

Indeed, the addition of cargo ships is something very tricky. The main one being to avoid allowing mass pre-stocking in cargo vessels.
But they can also help to avoid very frustrating situations, see also some abuse (but can allow others if poorly framed), to avoid certain uninteresting paralyzing situations and to give a possible additional flexibility necessary to the fleets.
But at the same time, they must not lose interest in a supplying system ...

Can freighters be built freely?
Are they created and linked to a specific starbase?

The addition of a cargo system could potentially be interesting if it is accompanied by an overhaul of the trade route trading system, but would it affect performance too negatively?

But yes, as suggested, we can add an auxiliary component to increase the storage capacity, so to be able to “customize cargo ships”.
We can also imagine a module to reduce the consumption of supplies and/or produce a little, such as a system for recovering organic and other materials, manufacturing workshops ...
Each module can be useful depending on the type of ship and the situation.