XL and L only meta

[MrGuyPerson]

I agree with the philosophy of "quick, easy fixes" (way too late for another overhaul, and if 3.0 has shown anything it's that major overhauls will cause tons of problems), but I have to ask: Why would battleship limits improve combat? It would certainly hurt performance, and personally I like mono-BB fleets even outside of them being effective (easy to manage, fights decisive battles). Being forced to field mixed fleets because reasons would not improve my game. I'm OK with titan and juggernaut limits because of their auras and "flagship" status (what with the special build requirements and no standardized patterns techs, they're clearly meant to be distinct from "workhorse" ships), but battleships are just big normal ships.

Could the performance issue be solved by reducing available fleet capacity and doubling the cost and effectiveness of ships? Mixed fleets, and fewer but stronger ships. Maybe that has some unforeseen consequences. I haven't really given it a lot of thought, though.

 

[GnoSIS]

On the discussion of doom stacks, please consider federation and imperial fleets here, that have no command cap.

 

[HFY]

reduced starbases per system from 0.1 to 0.05

You could go even farther and reduce starbases per system to -0.1

Blobbing earns you resources, it's weird that it also earns you bonus capacity instead of costing capacity.

 

[grommile]

Blobbing earns you resources, it's weird that it also earns you bonus capacity instead of costing capacity.

an assumption that you "should" have X starbases per Y systems seems perfectly reasonable to me.

 

[LughC]

A better way to limit it rather than just a universal max cap would be to do it via the GC. Like in the real world implement treaties (resolutions) that puts a cap on ship size and how many ships of that size you can have.

 

[HFY]

an assumption that you "should" have X starbases per Y systems seems perfectly reasonable to me.

Why would the systems themselves give you that capacity though?

Why don't you need to earn that capacity before you can use it to control the territory?

 

[Pancakelord]

I think the simple and obvious way to do that is to reduce navy cap rather than add more limits to battleship numbers (especially since BB fleets are more performant then non-BB fleets because they're smaller).

See, the cap is really more of a suggestion rather than a ... cap. So, sure, shrinking it helps - but you're also shrinking it for the other side too, so this definitely makes the game faster - but with respect to alpha strikes specifically, relatively speaking, changing the net-cap on it's own does nothing. Fewer L-guns firing at fewer targets leads to the same outcome - more or less.

The AI does not (ever?) exceed its naval cap, only players do - aggressively so if you have a strong economy (easy in 3.0+ with all the edicts and power creep from output multipliers). Setting hard-caps on the 4 classes does solve this, with the option (I'm still trying to figure out) to run an edict to inflate the caps, at risk of making anyone else in the GC, that isn't friendly, mark you for sanctions.

so, right now i've got it set up like this.

Class	base (non- mil/pac/ Gestalt	pacifist | F.pacifist	militarist | F.militarist	Gestalt	Exterminator civic
Corvette	100% FP	100% FP | 100% FP	110% FP | 130% FP	115% FP	uncapped (vanilla)
Destroyer	90% FP	80% FP | 60% FP	100% FP | 120% FP	105% FP	uncapped (vanilla)
Cruiser	60% FP	50% FP | 30% FP	70% FP | 90% FP	80% FP	uncapped (vanilla)
Battleship	30% FP	20% FP | 00% FP	40% FP | 60% FP	50% FP	uncapped (vanilla)

So for example, only 20% of a pacifist's total fleet capacity can go towards battleships, and fanatic pacifists can build no battleships at all. Whilst militarists can build more of each ship class than most nations. Now, by setting caps like this, you can also encourage the AI to "top-fill" their navies, by weighting BBs with a high chance for construction in the games files, and once that's maxed, CVs follow, down to DDs etc.

And still looking at adding a perpetual Edict for non-exterminators that can slap an extra 25% on to all 4 class limits (so a fanatic militarist running this could get up to 85% of their fleet made out of BBs). But can be used to flag you in the GC for sanctions.

This also means when you hit your cap (unless you are in a category that has >100% FP for a ship class, or using the above edict, you cannot exceed your naval capacity at all, the game bars more of those ships being built). I did think about re-balancing the percentages as techs unlock (so when you unlock DDs, CVs falls to 80%) but it was leading to some weird errors, so always letting you build all corvettes is a simple enough compromise.

I've been too busy with other things to test this thoroughly, but it was interesting seeing pacifists fielding radically different fleets to militarists, not in %Armor/Shields or kin/Eng/Missile but in actual ship classes/fleet compositions.

Haven't gotten around to touching federal fleets, so they're probably uncapped for now - but could inherit caps based on the kind of federation using them (e.g. military-alliance federal fleets get more BBs than a galactic union or a trade union).
And the Custodian / Imperial fleet ratio could also be FP-weighted, with new resolutions to increase or skew the CV/BB limit - at the cost of, ahem, higher taxes for members (and perhaps more calls to dissolve the custodian / oppose the imperium - as they become more oppressive/powerful).

 

[Ludaire]

The thing I'd like to see is for the different hull types to all be earlier in the game so they can be balanced against each other better. It feels bad to have your super awesome tier 4 tech not greatly improve your power, so I think that's a needed first step to make the different hull types matter more. If you get destroyers and cruisers in T1 and battleships in T2, you can balance them against each other much more closely without making any of the techs feel bad.

Then, I think it would be best if each hull type had a major role that it filled best as a mono fleet while also bringing something unique to a mixed fleet. Something like this:

• Corvettes mono fleets are the best for rapid response defense by being fast, cheap, and quick to build. However, they don't have any major advantages once in combat, and they're week against starbases so they're poor for offense (this could maybe be reinforced by giving them some built-in home/federation territory advantages so they aren't also awful at retaking starbases).
• Destroyer mono fleets are best at taking on starbases and clearing out large amounts of territory. They do this by punching much above their weight against starbases and are only a bit slower than corvettes. However, they're middling in terms of speed and cost, and a bit weaker than average in fleet vs fleet combat.
• Cruisers are the most survivable by tankier per fleet cap and a much higher disengagement chance. They accrue fewer losses over time, but don't have any of the key strengths the other mono fleets have, making them best for hit and run battles of attrition (the disengagement rate of other ships would probably have to be nerfed to make this strength stand out).
• Battleship fleets are strong, being about on par with destroyers against stations and having an edge against other mono fleet types in fleet vs fleet combat. However, they're very slow to move and to build. They're good for defending a single point and being the tip of the spear, but they're bad at handling multiple spread out fleets and cleaning up a large number of systems, whether to occupy them or retake them. They're also harder to reinforce or build up mid-war.

In mixed fleets:

• Corvettes add cheap and quick to replenish firepower to a mixed fleet. Since they're the fastest, they never slow down any fleets they're added to.
• Destroyers bring the best point defense or can add starbase killing power without losing much, if any, speed.
• Cruisers provide tankiness and extra staying power for repeated battles.
• Battleships make a mixed fleet mostly act like a mono battleship fleet, but with the other ships shifting the overall power of the fleet in different directions (easier to reinforce if some of the fleet is corvettes, better overall against starbases if some of the fleet is destroyers, etc.)
• Titans are stronger, but more expensive battleships that are limited in number. They also provide through their fleet-affecting auras (some of which could maybe be buffed to make them more powerful?).

These are just tossing out ideas for fun, but the key thing is that the ships have different strengths that affect how you use them at the higher level of the war, not just that you need to build mixed fleets because of a forced rock/paper/scissors. That way, you can choose whether you want mixed fleets that combine strengths, have a few different specialized fleets you use for different purposes, or go all in on one type to really emphasize a particular kind of strength with your fleet.

I think the weapon level is better for the rock/paper/scissors variety. We already have strengths and weaknesses in the types of weapons. I think the size of the weapons just needs to make a bigger difference so if you go all XL/L, then a corvette or destroyer fleet is going to have a serious edge.

 

[DC E1G]

I know a lot of people are all for the "tidal wave of ships" / big battle thing. But to me it doesnt actually benefit the game, and just looks messy after a certain level of ships are participating in a battle.. I'd much rather have fewer ships on average, with tighter limits on numbers of classes you can field, with each ship being more impactful. Seeing a stack of 20 battleships flying in, escorted by a 40 plus cruisers could be just as powerful as 200 BBs if tweaked right. It would be more performative, and would let things like ship XP, even ship names matter more.

I've been beating this drum for years. I would go even further than you. Personally, I think individual fleets should generally consist of no more than 20-30 ships instead of the dozens to hundreds they do currently.

It would make combat and loss feel more significant because the numbers would be more easily imagined. Losing 5 of your 25 or 30 stack of battleships just doesn't carry any weight.

 

[Pancakelord]

I've been beating this drum for years. I would go even further than you. Personally, I think individual fleets should generally consist of no more than 20-30 ships instead of the dozens to hundreds they do currently.

It would make combat and loss feel more significant because the numbers would be more easily imagined. Losing 5 of your 25 or 30 stack of battleships just doesn't carry any weight.

I'd agree with this, though I have seen - admittedly anecdotal - evidence that the AI will perform better with larger fleets than smaller ones. This is, seemingly, to do with how it computes fleet power and manages its forces. I do think that using more, smaller fleets is the "ideal" but if it means the AI is even more impotent, I'm not so sure its worth it.

Might be interesting if admirals of big fleets might rise-up and try to take over or carve out their own tiny empire if they win a war (e.g. win most of the battles in a war for you - as a doomstack would). That would be one way to soft-cap fleet sizes, encouraging players to not put everything under one person.

Alternatively, moving most of the current fleet size modifiers in to admiral skill levels (and maybe a "command aura" for titans), would mean most fleets are small whilst, a handful are larger, if you have high-skill admirals. I think fleet size modifiers are handled at the country not per-fleet level, however. And may need PDX to do this rather than modding.

 

[HFY]

Another issue:

M weapons suck.​

If M slot had awesome weapons which you wanted to field, comparable to L and S slot weapons, then L slot might not be so much more overwhelmingly popular, and CC layouts which mix L and M slots might be more viable.

 

[Pancakelord]

Another issue:

M weapons suck.​

If M slot had awesome weapons which you wanted to field, comparable to L and S slot weapons, then L slot might not be so much more overwhelmingly popular, and CC layouts which mix L and M slots might be more viable.

The solution to that probably is having accuracy drop non-linearly with distance, so they have a "mid-range niche".

But that isn't going to happen any time soon, so IMO give them missiles, but with no re-targeting. Where G missiles have intelligent-guidance (and maybe have higher damage - effectively the "L slot" of missiles) M missiles could be lower damage dumb-fire salvos, good for saturating PD and overwhelming enemies at mid-close range.

There aren't really enough modifiers to play with to do much else for M-weapons, unless you just created OP ones that can only fit in the M and not S or L slot, for some contrived reason (maybe you find the designs for arcane laser guns that consume ancient relics to build or something?).

 

[HFY]

There arent really enough modifiers to play with to do much else for M-weapons, unless you just created OP ones that can only fit in the M and not S or L slot for some contrived reason.

Would buffing some existing weapons make them OP?

For example, if M Disruptors had range 120, they would still be doing mediocre damage, but they'd be able to out-range Cloud Lightning, and that would give them a role on Carrier-style builds.

For another example, if there were an M slot Autocannon which did the dame S slot damage as a regular Autocannon but at range 120, I don't think it would be OP -- but it would complement Neutron lanuchers on a CC hull.

As a 3rd example, if there were an M slot "Turbo Laser" which did S slot Plasma damage but at range 120, that would complement Kinetic Artillery on a CC hull, or maybe even create a meta with M-focused hulls built around combo Auto / Turbo.

Basically, giving S damage at L range (except the Disruptor which might be okay with the range buff).


Not sure about going the other way -- giving L damage at S range seems more problematic -- but maybe that could also be a valid niche.

 

[Pancakelord]

Would buffing some existing weapons make them OP?

For example, if M Disruptors had range 120, they would still be doing mediocre damage, but they'd be able to out-range Cloud Lightning, and that would give them a role on Carrier-style builds.

For another example, if there were an M slot Autocannon which did the dame S slot damage as a regular Autocannon but at range 120, I don't think it would be OP -- but it would complement Neutron lanuchers on a CC hull.

As a 3rd example, if there were an M slot "Turbo Laser" which did S slot Plasma damage but at range 120, that would complement Kinetic Artillery on a CC hull, or maybe even create a meta with M-focused hulls built around combo Auto / Turbo.

Basically, giving S damage at L range (except the Disruptor which might be okay with the range buff).


Not sure about going the other way -- giving L damage at S range seems more problematic -- but maybe that could also be a valid niche.

S-dmg at L ranges could make cruisers very useful, so I like the sound of that, and it would offer the long range counterpart to dumbfire missiles (though, in the case of cruisers, their higher base speed means you could make it 80% of L range and get the same effect). The biggest benefit of such a setup would be seen in 2M DDs, BB-Carriers (that are forced to use M slots, alongside Hs) and the 6-M cruiser setup

For the destroyer you can swap out the M2S for 1L - so longrange is always better to take the L, but M2S with shortrange weapons that shred better would be ideal (hence dumbfire missiles), whilst 1M and 1L would make for a more efficient station cracker (or atleast thats usually what I do with it early game).
But for the Cruiser and BB-carrier, longrange weapons would probably complement them better, yeah (unless you build for speed and overwhelming the enemy with rockets).

 

[Tobasco da Gama]

Another issue:

M weapons suck.​

If M slot had awesome weapons which you wanted to field, comparable to L and S slot weapons, then L slot might not be so much more overwhelmingly popular, and CC layouts which mix L and M slots might be more viable.

Yes, very true. L slots get all the cool toys.

 

[HFY]

S-dmg at L ranges could make cruisers very useful, so I like the sound of that, and it would offer the long range counterpart to dumbfire missiles (though, in the case of cruisers, their higher base speed means you could make it 80% of L range and get the same effect). The biggest benefit of such a setup would be seen in 2M DDs, BB-Carriers (that are forced to use M slots, alongside Hs) and the 6-M cruiser setup
View attachment 718827View attachment 718826View attachment 718825
For the destroyer you can swap out the M2S for 1L - so longrange is always better to take the L, but M2S with shortrange weapons that shred better would be ideal (hence dumbfire missiles)
But for the Cruiser and BB-carrier, longrange weapons would probably complement them better, yeah (unless you build for speed and overwhelming the enemy with rockets).

Destroyers have another M slot on the tail, which everyone forgets about because M weapons suck.

Perhaps you could make a DD with one L + one M which competed favorably against the two L + two M CC hulls.

Yes, very true. L slots get all the cool toys.

IMHO the Autocannon is also cool but yeah, L got nearly everything.

 

[Ludaire]

A better way to limit it rather than just a universal max cap would be to do it via the GC. Like in the real world implement treaties (resolutions) that puts a cap on ship size and how many ships of that size you can have.

This would be awesome! It would be really cool if the higher level of the military limitation laws went the direction of the Ruusan Reformation from Star Wars and made building battleships or larger a violation of galactic law or even required you to dismantle anything larger than a cruiser. It would probably be best as a separate law where Rules of War focused on placing limits around how you fight with the purging bans and such, but then also have a Demilitarization line that's all about reducing down your power to keep things from escalating in space.

It would certainly make things interesting when suddenly a crisis shows up in the middle of a peaceful galaxy and there's a scramble to repeal the laws to militarize more heavily against the new threat.

 

[Astax]

Cloaking field for smaller crafts, allowing them to get the drop on the bigger ships, would be better balance IMO than fudging the formulas.

But I do not expect them to get this even remotely right, I mean look at strikecraft! They have been going between OP and useless like a ball across pingpong table.

 

[Jamaican Castle]

These are just tossing out ideas for fun, but the key thing is that the ships have different strengths that affect how you use them at the higher level of the war, not just that you need to build mixed fleets because of a forced rock/paper/scissors.

Another factor you might consider: the balance between hull and defensive slots of each type. For instance if corvettes rely on their shields/armor more than hull, they're very vulnerable to missiles (especially in an anti-spaceport role) and disruptors. On the other hand, if cruisers have so-so shields/armor but a beefy hull, that makes them harder to get rid of both for their raw hit points and because they'll make more combat disengage rolls than an equivalent amount of smaller ships, giving them a better chance to come around again.

 

[Dire Poops]

accuracy applies universally.

tracking vs. evasion, on the other hand, is an absolute pain to balance once you start considering buffs.

What if they just removed almost all tracking buffs? That seems to be the source of imbalance. Then fine tune the accuracy a bit and viola it's good enough to encourage diversity in weapon sizes without needing to comprehensively redo combat.