Individual sci-fi universes in various media have differing ideas on how much of a given fighting ship is taken up by the FTL system. Vanilla Stellaris basically assumes that every ship of consequence should carry an FTL drive, or at least doesn't give back much in return if a ship is designed without one. But what if carrying or not carrying an FTL drive was much more consequential? What would that make Stellaris gameplay look like?
If an FTL drive was scaled to ship size (i.e., not a set size/cost regardless of how big of a ship it's mounted on) and that meant that a ship of a given tonnage could carry 25% more weapons and/or defensive systems if it went without its own FTL drive, how would that impact the game? I think you would still see much the same as vanilla Stellaris, as the utility of being able to move a given combat capability from system to system would mean likely much more than a slightly cheaper for the same capability, or more capability for the same price, fleet. You'd be giving a bit of an advantage to a "tall" empire, or one that has better access to drive-less FTL (e.g., wormholes (natural or generated), gates, Guild transports). You might need to set up separate ship templates for when FTL is included/required and when it's left out/not available.
What about at 50%? A system warship is now considerably more powerful, ton for ton, than an FTL warship, but probably wouldn't force too many changes beyond the 25% above. A rapid response force of FTL ships is still going to be very valuable, as two 300pt (200pt combat) FTL fleets capable of moving around would almost certainly be better off than three 200pt (200pt combat) system fleets largely stuck in their systems.
What about at 100%? System warships are now categorically more powerful, but only a map/ruleset that offers very little in drive-less FTL is going to see a significant shift toward system fleets. Response fleets are still valuable, but also vulnerable and expensive, and more concentrated empires (either in size or ambition) may opt more for system fleets.
What about 200% or more? Again, ton for ton, FTL ships would be at a decided disadvantage, and only a large speed advantage in FTL drives over drive-less FTL would keep stellar empires from having to shift focus to system fleets. Definitely at this point (possibly earlier), I would switch to calling FTL versus non-FTL ships different names. For example, having three tiers of system ships called Corvettes, Destroyers, and Battleships, versus FTL ships called Scouts, Frigates, and Cruisers.
Finally, what if FTL drives for individual warships (or possibly anything short of a survey ship) weren't available at all? This is far less about offering tough choices rather than a complete shift to wormholes, gates, and other drive-less FTL, and would require a complete rewrite of a lot of systems rather than more gradual adjustments. Personally, I'd also rather look at having tougher choices rather than just a different setting.
If an FTL drive was scaled to ship size (i.e., not a set size/cost regardless of how big of a ship it's mounted on) and that meant that a ship of a given tonnage could carry 25% more weapons and/or defensive systems if it went without its own FTL drive, how would that impact the game? I think you would still see much the same as vanilla Stellaris, as the utility of being able to move a given combat capability from system to system would mean likely much more than a slightly cheaper for the same capability, or more capability for the same price, fleet. You'd be giving a bit of an advantage to a "tall" empire, or one that has better access to drive-less FTL (e.g., wormholes (natural or generated), gates, Guild transports). You might need to set up separate ship templates for when FTL is included/required and when it's left out/not available.
What about at 50%? A system warship is now considerably more powerful, ton for ton, than an FTL warship, but probably wouldn't force too many changes beyond the 25% above. A rapid response force of FTL ships is still going to be very valuable, as two 300pt (200pt combat) FTL fleets capable of moving around would almost certainly be better off than three 200pt (200pt combat) system fleets largely stuck in their systems.
What about at 100%? System warships are now categorically more powerful, but only a map/ruleset that offers very little in drive-less FTL is going to see a significant shift toward system fleets. Response fleets are still valuable, but also vulnerable and expensive, and more concentrated empires (either in size or ambition) may opt more for system fleets.
What about 200% or more? Again, ton for ton, FTL ships would be at a decided disadvantage, and only a large speed advantage in FTL drives over drive-less FTL would keep stellar empires from having to shift focus to system fleets. Definitely at this point (possibly earlier), I would switch to calling FTL versus non-FTL ships different names. For example, having three tiers of system ships called Corvettes, Destroyers, and Battleships, versus FTL ships called Scouts, Frigates, and Cruisers.
Finally, what if FTL drives for individual warships (or possibly anything short of a survey ship) weren't available at all? This is far less about offering tough choices rather than a complete shift to wormholes, gates, and other drive-less FTL, and would require a complete rewrite of a lot of systems rather than more gradual adjustments. Personally, I'd also rather look at having tougher choices rather than just a different setting.
- 4
- 4
- 3
- 1
