And how would "ambush" work?
combat starting with enemy fast ships deploying against player's logistic ones while the reinforcement deployment availability is being timer limited by the ship's speed (can deploy Tempest right from the start but Paragon... not so fast).
In real life smaller ships don't just ambush larger ships
Force deploying the player's logistical ships to be vulnerably picked off like in a pursuit will prove to be very strange I'm sure.
Why selective qoute? Here's the full quoteAnd how would "ambush" work?combat starting with enemy fast ships deploying against player's logistic ones while the reinforcement deployment availability is being timer limited by the ship's speed (can deploy Tempest right from the start but Paragon... not so fast).In real life smaller ships don't just ambush larger ships in the open sea
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMS_Szent_Istv%C3%A1n#Otranto_Raid (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMS_Szent_Istv%C3%A1n#Otranto_Raid)
In real life smaller ships don't just ambush larger ships in the open seaWhen you have to selectively quote in support yourself, don't you feel like you have debased yourself?
What are you even writing? Are you blind? I literally wrote pursuit as the point of comparison, it's right there in your quote and everyone can see it is there in my post.Force deploying the player's logistical ships to be vulnerably picked off like in a pursuit will prove to be very strange I'm sure.
The only strange thing here is the complete unawarenes of certain someone of the the pursuit mode.
Oh look, ambushes, another topic done to death.
In real life smaller ships don't just ambush larger ships in the open sea
What are you even writing? Are you blind? I literally wrote pursuit as the point of comparison, it's right there in your quote and everyone can see it is there in my post.
Why don't you try to counter the criticism of the points raised instead of a wierd all out attack on someone?
You arent the OP. You do not get to demand what or who i reply to.Oh look, ambushes, another topic done to death.
Please, address my point and not some obscure topic.
"combat starting with enemy fast ships deploying against player's logistic ones while the reinforcement deployment availability is being timer limited by the ship's speed"
However, since you asked...Why would you or an enemy not choose this option?
The utility of lighter ships is already clear and profound enough
The things their relative speed and mobility and small size enable them to do better than others; Pressuring and kiting enemy ships, screening for retreats, escorting and flanking.The utility of lighter ships is already clear and profound enough
And what would this be?
The things their relative speed and mobility and small size enable them to do better than others; Pressuring and kiting enemy ships, screening for retreats, escorting and flanking.The utility of lighter ships is already clear and profound enough
And what would this be?
The issue at hand is that this is generally outweighed the by pure firepower, durability and longevity of larger ships in-battle when it comes to negotiating the 30-ship limit (and the planned change that allows the player to exceed it at disproportionate penalty).
The type of battle you propose, in which frigates/faster ships would be more advantageous, would do little to offset the aforementioned issue especially if they're a relatively niche occurrence, which is what it sounds like to me.
That, and any given fleet would have no logical reason to leave their logistics ships undefended. All fleets travel at the speed of their slowest ships so as to remain together - in which case an "ambush" is just going to play out like a standard battle. The only circumstance in which it'd make sense for a fleet's combat ships to separate from their logistics ships is if they're are being used as bait - but the mechanics to make that feasible in my mind would be a lot of effort to make work and have it be balanced, for relatively little gain. And of course, that that's not what you were aiming for.
I get that the idea is as a counter-point to the bigger = better meta, but it's an extremely roundabout and work-intensive way of going about it, and at that isn't devoid of logical flaws, when there are much simpler ways of addressing it.
I disagree. Your own cruisers and capitals are vulnerable to those same threats without frigate/fast destroyers to back them up, while denying you the same opportunities. Lacking frigates also means you can't chase down fleeing enemy fleets anywhere near as successfuly. They each have a defined purpose in gameplay by virtue of being the fastest and most maneuverable.The utility of lighter ships is already clear and profound enough
[...]
The things their relative speed and mobility and small size enable them to do better than others; Pressuring and kiting enemy ships, screening for retreats, escorting and flanking.
The issue at hand is that this is generally outweighed the by pure firepower, durability and longevity of larger ships in-battle when it comes to negotiating the 30-ship limit (and the planned change that allows the player to exceed it at disproportionate penalty).
These issues mean that there is no clear and profound utility for the light ships in the game right now.
Removing non-fast combat ships from the initial stage of certain battles.The type of battle you propose, in which frigates/faster ships would be more advantageous, would do little to offset the aforementioned issue especially if they're a relatively niche occurrence, which is what it sounds like to me.
They are clearly offsetting these issues by removing non-fast combat ships from the initial stage of the battle and making quick victory by the fast ships possible without overpowering larger ships by some unbalanced shenanigans.
Likewise, the fleet maneuvers at the rate of the least maneuverable ship. The spacing required for safe distancing isn't so huge as to put ships several hours away from one-another as demonstrated by all the current mechanics and presentation regarding battles and transit.That, and any given fleet would have no logical reason to leave their logistics ships undefended. All fleets travel at the speed of their slowest ships so as to remain together [...]
Normal logic fully applies. Fleets are traveling inside the hyperspace bubbles. From the navigation safety standpoint you cant keep ships with the different maneuverability in the strict formation because any course change under military command will result in the risk of collisions
Also you have to keep some space between ships in case of emergencies and malfunctions. And from the combat point of view the last place you want your transports is in your battle line. All of it dictates that fleet will travel in different small groups of similar ships. There is only two alternatives to that: 1. No course or speed change after forming up; 2. No formation whatsoever.
All of it dictates that fleet will travel in different small groups of similar ships.How so? What is there to stop a fleet's commander splitting the fleet into mixed groups of ships - 4 destroyers and a freighter here; 2 frigates, a cruiser and a tanker there? Or grouping combat ships with logistic ships of similar mass and speed?
And from the combat point of view the last place you want your transports is in your battle lineThis is what I think you're failing to understand; Fleets in the game travel in a mutually defensive formation. When you enter a battle, the enemy fleet has already been detected; that's when those logistics ships are held back (which is by choice of the player) and the combat ships intercept the enemy.
And this opens up opportunities of attacking transport ships unless they are literally encircled by the fast picket.As far as the game represents, fleets travel together in clumps and aren't impeded by one another. You can even see the smaller ships bouncing around within the formation.
See mine and others' posts earlier in the thread. Short version: Supplies/mo, DP, and/or other "points" systems. They avoid the root issue of equating the smallest frigate to the largest capital in respect to the fleet cap, as is the case currently. Very inexpensive development-wise I'd imagine - Mods have already done it, and while it's not devoid of problems it's certainly a step up.I get that the idea is as a counter-point to the bigger = better meta, but it's an extremely roundabout and work-intensive way of going about it, and at that isn't devoid of logical flaws, when there are much simpler ways of addressing it.
For example?
In real life smaller ships don't just ambush larger ships in the open sea
They were attacked while steaming the part of the sea not enclosed between headlands or included in narrow straits: the main sea. It was called Adriatic by the way.What are you even writing? Are you blind? I literally wrote pursuit as the point of comparison, it's right there in your quote and everyone can see it is there in my post.
"Wouldn't you just immediately retreat your logistic ships and then what happens?" - in a pursuit you have to cross the map for that to happen so your question is already answered. Hence you are clearly not aware of the nature of pursuite mode.Why don't you try to counter the criticism of the points raised instead of a wierd all out attack on someone?
I answer criticism of what Im saying. Not some constructs that exists only in your head and have nothing to do with the point I've made.
This is a game where you can pick and choose which ships you can deploy normally. Force deploying the player's logistical ships to be vulnerably picked off like in a pursuit will prove to be very strange I'm sure. Wouldn't you just immediately retreat your logistic ships and then what happens? You aren't forced to deploy all your frigates either if you have any. So you'll be staring at empty space till the timer runs out.
However, since you asked...Why would you or an enemy not choose this option?
To ambush? Because other side has too powerful group of the fast ships or/and combat freighters.
However, since you asked...Why would you or an enemy not choose this option?
To ambush? Because other side has too powerful group of the fast ships or/and combat freighters.
So why does that side not decide to ambush?
Because other side has too powerful group of the fast ships or/and combat freighters.
I disagree. Your own cruisers and capitals are vulnerable to those same threats without frigate/fast destroyers to back them up, while denying you the same opportunities. Lacking frigates also means you can't chase down fleeing enemy fleets anywhere near as successfuly. They each have a defined purpose in gameplay by virtue of being the fastest and most maneuverable.
I think there should be other content that is exclusive, or more suited to frigates than other ship classes - but that's a separate issue, and this isn't a tidy solution.
Removing non-fast combat ships from the initial stage of certain battles.
Either way, your suggestion would basically coerce the player into keeping some frigates around when they might otherwise prefer not to, for a specific eventuality that may not even occur.
Keeping a number of frigates (or any other type/size of ship) in one's fleet should be a decided and purposeful choice, not because the player's been railroaded into doing so. Trade-offs are more fun than penalties.
There's also the issue of DP limit/performance for such a battle, as Goumindong already went into detail on. Further, how would the game decide a ship is specifically for logistics or otherwise susceptible to ambush - what of ships (especially amongst mods) that are both suitable for combat, and have logistical utility? In other words, how do you determine which ships are the ones isolated during this ambush, and which are the reinforcements?
Likewise, the fleet maneuvers at the rate of the least maneuverable ship. The spacing required for safe distancing isn't so huge as to put ships several hours away from one-another as demonstrated by all the current mechanics and presentation regarding battles and transit.
This is what I think you're failing to understand; Fleets in the game travel in a mutually defensive formation. When you enter a battle, the enemy fleet has already been detected; that's when those logistics ships are held back (which is by choice of the player) and the combat ships intercept the enemy.
Assuming the attacking fleet stayed undetected to the point of being able to initiate an ambush, again, those ships are in a mutually-protective formation.
One is a pre-battle option. You meet the enemy fleet, choose X ships to maneuver on the enemies' back-line. You fight the regular battle as normal; You then fight a second battle; Ships held in reserve by the enemy are in the centre of the map, and the player has the freedom to deploy his ships from all 3 sides like a disengagement. Enemy ships retreated from the first battle come in as reinforcements; Reserved combat ships are with this back-line fleet.
Oh, and number 4: If you're joining a battle, you can choose to go after the enemy's reserve ships. But this can't currently be inflicted on the player because whether an enemy fleet is in range to join a battle is binary; Either they're close and their ships are added to the first fleet, or they're too far and they aren't.
As far as the game represents, fleets travel together in clumps and aren't impeded by one another. You can even see the smaller ships bouncing around within the formation.
Again, I understand what you're going for, but you have to hand-wave a lot of semi-established internal logic to justify it, while contending with existing mechanics and immutable limitations.
See mine and others' posts earlier in the thread. Short version: Supplies/mo, DP, and/or other "points" systems. They avoid the root issue of equating the smallest frigate to the largest capital in respect to the fleet cap, as is the case currently. Very inexpensive development-wise I'd imagine - Mods have already done it, and while it's not devoid of problems it's certainly a step up.
Both sides cannot have more powerful fast attack ships
Dude I live in Europe, I know what the Adriatic Sea is without looking up some wiki article, and it is most emphatically not the open sea. Go look at a map. It is afterall a very popular holiday location. You may also be suprised to learn that a strait is not the open sea either.
Not that it matters since your example is not only not a fleet of smaller ships against a fleet, but you completely failed at describing a circumstance where a logistical ship is fighting a smaller ship alone when ships are nearby. You said this is very historical right? Should be very easy for you to show proof of this very historical facts of what you just wrote right?
You have no interest
one side must have the upper hand. At the very least the relative advantage.Both sides cannot have more powerful fast attack ships
One side not having the upper hand is enough.
one side must have the upper hand. At the very least the relative advantage.Both sides cannot have more powerful fast attack ships
One side not having the upper hand is enough.
But then why don't they ambush?
An ideal construction of your system produces a very narrow band of situations where either one side wants to ambush and the other side does not, or even more rare when neither side wants to ambush. If that is the case then the system does not contribute to interesting gameplay. It simply produces a different dominating solution.
How about dropping whole concept of ambushes and modifying base deployment rules instead:
- Deployment is now a queue instead of instant. Every deployed ship adds cooldown before next one can be deployed. Cooldown increases faster than linear with DP. So deploying 200 DP of frigates is a lot faster than 200 DP of capitals.
- Capture points on map reduce deployment cooldowns AND stretch out PPT/CR of dominant side (for example, by up to twice when all taken).
- Would probably need to be able to give standing order for ships to be deployed and/or have ability to issue orders for free to freshly deployed ships.
- Officers can be used on 4 size points worth of ships (1 capital vs 1 DE +2 frigates vs 4 frigates, etc). Officers can also be swapped between ships while not currently deployed. This is where it gets unwieldy, I don't know how to fix officer availability problem without adding a lot of micro management. Officer-less ships are fodder, so doing something about it is mandatory.
- Lift or significantly relax fleet size limits. We still have DP limits in combat to keep things sane.
Not saying that this is good idea, but I think we'd need to take things at least this far to break capital dominance on battlefield
But then why don't they ambush?
Because one fleet is weaker and for other, stronger, fleet its no different than a pursuit.
In your cases neither of the fleets will ambush each other. In the first case both fleets are too slow due to having battleships and logistics. In the second case there is no logistics to target.An ideal construction of your system produces a very narrow band of situations where either one side wants to ambush and the other side does not, or even more rare when neither side wants to ambush. If that is the case then the system does not contribute to interesting gameplay. It simply produces a different dominating solution.
I have no idea how you even came to this conclusion. There is no logical connection between my suggestion and your conclusions. Why "very narrow"? Why only "either one side wants to ambush and the other side does not, neither side wants to ambush". Why "does not contribute to interesting gameplay". What does "different dominating solution" is even supposed to mean? It looks like you are talking to yourself with some of your internal arguments are spilling out into the forum. Im not that good at mindreading so could you please include the actual me in your internal discussion?
How about dropping whole concept of ambushes and modifying base deployment rules instead:
- Deployment is now a queue instead of instant. Every deployed ship adds cooldown before next one can be deployed. Cooldown increases faster than linear with DP. So deploying 200 DP of frigates is a lot faster than 200 DP of capitals.
- Capture points on map reduce deployment cooldowns AND stretch out PPT/CR of dominant side (for example, by up to twice when all taken).
- Would probably need to be able to give standing order for ships to be deployed and/or have ability to issue orders for free to freshly deployed ships.
- Officers can be used on 4 size points worth of ships (1 capital vs 1 DE +2 frigates vs 4 frigates, etc). Officers can also be swapped between ships while not currently deployed. This is where it gets unwieldy, I don't know how to fix officer availability problem without adding a lot of micro management. Officer-less ships are fodder, so doing something about it is mandatory.
- Lift or significantly relax fleet size limits. We still have DP limits in combat to keep things sane.
Not saying that this is good idea, but I think we'd need to take things at least this far to break capital dominance on battlefield
The only thing there that really may warrant explaining is a "dominating solution". In game theory there are a number of descriptors of strategies. A strategy dominates another when its the optimal choice in all situations. The classic example is in the simple prisoners dilemma. The dominating strategy is to defected and cooperate is dominated. This is because, regardless of what the opponent chooses, defecting produces higher rewards.
So what I am saying is that, in an effort to stamp out one boring solution you have proposed another, more boring solution.
Assume they have logistics in the second case... i figured this would be obvious... But even then they could ambush the frigates and get an advantage.
Also you need to have no battleships to ambush? I thought you said that you get to bring in those ships later? As soon as you have any non-frigates you cannot ambush? So its an option limited to... almost nothing? Because like... everyone has logistics ships
For any fleet there must exist one side that has an advantage in frigates. If that side can ambush they would likely want to unless for some reason they are hard prevented from ambushing. If they are hard prevented from ambushing then the system proposed has little use case. If they're not hard prevented from ambushing then almost everyone always wants to ambush due the inherent advantages of it.
What kind of rewards would you get anyways if you win those 'ambush' battles anyways ?
Really ? So, what I got from your reply is that little crappy fleets can still come and bite your arse with your ambush mechanic and waste your time and supplies by having a few kites running away from your own frigates for 3 minutes until their PPT inevitably runs out except without the possibility of erasing them with a carrier.
Not a fan of that idea honestly, also if that Pather patrol hailed you, then how the hell did they get past my dozens of warships and carriers to end up to the logistic ships ?
Not saying that this is good idea, but I think we'd need to take things at least this far to break capital dominance on battlefieldIt's a result of fairly simple math.
The thing that truly stops me from using frigates honestly is how they seem to always hesitate to commit to an attack, even with agressive/reckless fleet doctrine and aggressive officers I noticed they tend to stay at range from even a phanteon during a pursuit instead of going full speed and using every single one of their weapons, sometimes you won't even see them use any of their missiles unless the enemy overloads, only frigate I've seen do something smart during a big battle was the disruptor which tries to phase and go behind my ship to use it's EMP disruptor to disable my engines, yet even then it doesn't follow that with any other attack.
Not saying that this is good idea, but I think we'd need to take things at least this far to break capital dominance on battlefieldIncidentally, Alex shot down this idea.
...
I suggested this idea in the past as well, to be discarded, too.
...
The thing that truly stops me from using frigates honestly is how they seem to always hesitate to commit to an attack, even with agressive/reckless fleet doctrine and aggressive officers I noticed they tend to stay at range from even a phanteon during a pursuit instead of going full speed and using every single one of their weapons, sometimes you won't even see them use any of their missiles unless the enemy overloads, only frigate I've seen do something smart during a big battle was the disruptor which tries to phase and go behind my ship to use it's EMP disruptor to disable my engines, yet even then it doesn't follow that with any other attack.
The very generic Wolf with Pulse Laser, Sabot SRMs, Expanded Missile Racks and Unstable Injector kills Phaeton with no problems. No officer, just a Reckless doctrine. Brawler (LP) kills it in a couple of seconds.
The thing that truly stops me from using frigates honestly is how they seem to always hesitate to commit to an attack, even with agressive/reckless fleet doctrine and aggressive officers I noticed they tend to stay at range from even a phanteon during a pursuit instead of going full speed and using every single one of their weapons, sometimes you won't even see them use any of their missiles unless the enemy overloads, only frigate I've seen do something smart during a big battle was the disruptor which tries to phase and go behind my ship to use it's EMP disruptor to disable my engines, yet even then it doesn't follow that with any other attack.
Check your builds. Or post them here.
The very generic Wolf with Pulse Laser, Sabot SRMs, Expanded Missile Racks and Unstable Injector kills Phaeton with no problems. No officer, just a Reckless doctrine. Brawler (LP) kills it in a couple of seconds.
Well of course they will kill it (although probably not as fast as it truly could under human control), but point is, AI frigates often either hesitate too much.
I guess the problem might be that I like using dual machine guns on frigates which act as both PD and a decent anti shield weapon, but the PD tag probably means the agressive officer doesn't consider it one of the weapons they need to get in range with.
Not enough to stop 2 frigates from overloading it yet my pilots seem to think otherwise.I guess the problem might be that I like using dual machine guns on frigates which act as both PD and a decent anti shield weapon, but the PD tag probably means the agressive officer doesn't consider it one of the weapons they need to get in range with.
That and the fact that Phaeton have LDMGs too so it can actually fight back.
Not enough to stop 2 frigates from overloading it yet my pilots seem to think otherwise.I guess the problem might be that I like using dual machine guns on frigates which act as both PD and a decent anti shield weapon, but the PD tag probably means the agressive officer doesn't consider it one of the weapons they need to get in range with.
That and the fact that Phaeton have LDMGs too so it can actually fight back.
I dont get it. Alex thinks that current state of the combat is a way to go or he just dont like the solution mechanics but acknowledge the problem?For what it's worth, I asked both of these questions years ago, before capital spam. I also might have presented them in a bad way (at the time — in relation to combat freighters being not particularly useful, once you know how to play).
The only thing there that really may warrant explaining is a "dominating solution". In game theory there are a number of descriptors of strategies. A strategy dominates another when its the optimal choice in all situations. The classic example is in the simple prisoners dilemma. The dominating strategy is to defected and cooperate is dominated. This is because, regardless of what the opponent chooses, defecting produces higher rewards.
Ambush is not even a solution to the game. The whole point is to avoid the main forces.So what I am saying is that, in an effort to stamp out one boring solution you have proposed another, more boring solution.
You realize that you are making a judgment upon the subject what you didnt even bother to understand?Assume they have logistics in the second case... i figured this would be obvious... But even then they could ambush the frigates and get an advantage.
As I said. No logistics - no target. No, Fleet 2 cant target frigates. Borderline case is the combat freighters. If there is logistics then Fleet 2 is at disadvantage unless it has better frigates. You said nothing about quality of the fleets so it again ends up in no ambush scenario.Also you need to have no battleships to ambush? I thought you said that you get to bring in those ships later? As soon as you have any non-frigates you cannot ambush? So its an option limited to... almost nothing? Because like... everyone has logistics ships
Yes. You cant detach an ambush force so its either "no heavy ships fleet" or "no ambush". Defender can bring its heavy ships later. How "everyone has logistics ships" limits ambush options if it is all about targeting the logistics ships?For any fleet there must exist one side that has an advantage in frigates. If that side can ambush they would likely want to unless for some reason they are hard prevented from ambushing. If they are hard prevented from ambushing then the system proposed has little use case. If they're not hard prevented from ambushing then almost everyone always wants to ambush due the inherent advantages of it.
Not "must" but "can". And the existance of at least a single ambusher doesnt mean that "almost everyone always wants to ambush". Because "almost everyone always" is not equal to "is an ambusher"
I dont understand what youre trying to get at, could you rephrase? Like. You say that having logistics ships in your fleet prevents you from ambushing but then say that you don’t understand why every fleet having logistics trains prevents ambushes. You surely must be saying something different from what it looks like
I don’t understand why not mentioning quality means “no ambush”. can ships of even quality not ambush each other if they have more?(or less but a relative advantage?) what does not mentioning auality have to do with it? Was it not clear the relative fleet advantages in the example fleets?
Why would it not? Ive explained how it would be advantageous for it to attack in that situation. Each option is bad but ambush is the best of the options
I still don’t understand what youre talking about with the first quote. I dont understand what combat freighters have to do with what we were talking about.
What I was complaining about was that frigates would often hesitate to the point of allowing transport to escape during pursuits, in actual combat most decent frigates will destroy transport ships, so they're easy targets. If the player is given the opportunity to directly target them without worrying about them escaping, you can bet that they'll abuse that mechanic.
You are contradicting yourself. Earlier you had troubles with both transports and frigates. Now you are taking a loot as a given.
Massive bounty fleets are all about capitals. They are unable to ambush. However if you are running "capital only" fleet and there will be some frigates who managed to run away from the battle, they can harass you after it.So here you say that massive fleets with loads of big ships can't ambush despite having frigates with them, so wouldn't that restriction apply to the player too ? Which would defeat the purpose of the mechanic (make players use frigates) and if any frigates escapes we now have to risk our cargo too and are forced to lose even more CR as we are already bleeding supplies after such a large battle.
Why would it not? Ive explained how it would be advantageous for it to attack in that situation. Each option is bad but ambush is the best of the options
I still don’t understand what youre talking about with the first quote. I dont understand what combat freighters have to do with what we were talking about.
Because other side has an advantage in the fast ships. Best option is to run away. Taking a field against a stronger opponent is not the "better" option. Its a strategic mistake what allows a stronger force to materialize its advantage. If the weaker force was incapable of running away then its best option is to "attempt to disengage" because this option doesnt require destruction of the large portion of the stronger force. And since weaker force is supposed to consist of the fast ships, loses in the running battle can be minimized.
Combat freighters provide logistic support without hindering ambush capability.
When you "attempt to disengage" there are no deployment restrictions on the enemy. Their large ships deploy extremely close to you and have the ability to deploy frigates from the sides, which will be significantly between you and your exit. You absolutely have to fight with battleships on the field and absolutely start surrounded.
I would much rather fight "disadvantaged" in the first scenario where i have to fight 15 to 20 frigates and also can destroy their logistics ships than fight 15 to 22 while surrounded and not being able to do damage to their logistics ships (and potentially having mine exposed).
To be completely honest Lucky, I don't think we need to force players into using frigates. If they want to use them wether as a personal craft, a support unit for other ships, as flankers or for pursuits then they'll use them and if they don't want to then they'll make sure to avoid this mechanic like the plague, either by not having any cargo craft or by using some modded combat cargos like the Imperium's Barrus.
At the default battle size there are alot combinations of the 15 frigate force what allows disengage with only a harry option available to the pursuer. Actually, you have to take Hyperions to even be able to get into the "no disengage without being pursued" range with the 15 frigates.
There are no such things as: "no deployment restrictions", "large ships deploy extremely close to you", "will be significantly between you and your exit", "you absolutely have to fight with battleships on the field and absolutely start surrounded".
At the default battle size there are alot combinations of the 15 frigate force what allows disengage with only a harry option available to the pursuer. Actually, you have to take Hyperions to even be able to get into the "no disengage without being pursued" range with the 15 frigates.
No. The current system is that if the attackers fastest ship by strategic burn speed is faster than the defenders slowest ship by strategic burn speed then the pursuer can choose to have a standard pursuit fight. If this is not the case then the retreating side can retreat freely (though may be harassed). The only other limitations here is if the retreating side has too many deployment points in their fleet they may be prevented from retreating at all.
QuoteThere are no such things as: "no deployment restrictions", "large ships deploy extremely close to you", "will be significantly between you and your exit", "you absolutely have to fight with battleships on the field and absolutely start surrounded".
Yes.... There are. In a pursuit battle the defenders start on the attackers side of the map, ~3/4 of the map from their retreat point. Battleships tend to deploy inside of or very close to inside of their engagement range. The defender may deploy as normal and may additionally deploy any frigates on the left or right side of the map about half way between the retreating sides retreat point and the retreating sides start point.
Here we can see that i have forced a kite into an pursuit engagement without having a hyperion
https://imgur.com/Ggtt7Qz
Here we can see that i can deploy both at the front and back of the engagement.
https://imgur.com/i62ZaAj
Here we can see the end point for where battleships join the fight after entering the field and note that its almost exactly where frigates start. We can also see that this kite is quite clearly surrounded. If i were piloting the kite. I would have preferred to take my chances with the cerberus and Omen alone and not let them also bring in a Hammerhead. And i would have preferred for those two ships to start on the other side of the map or at the very least not sandwiching me between them. Now maybe i lose that second fight too (i mean... its a kite) but if it were a tempest i was piloting i don't think so do. Even though i clearly have a DP deficiency.
https://imgur.com/m8P9IXN
I don't fully agree with all the details here, but I do agree heartily with the general need for another engagement type that puts (some/many/all) logistic ships at risk. If it's required to have specially designed ships or fleets to make that more likely, super.
Also, for everyone's sanity, I wouldn't get too wrapped around the axle with realism. SS has pretty clearly staked out where it lands on the Realism/Game-play continuum.
I don't fully agree with all the details here, but I do agree heartily with the general need for another engagement type that puts (some/many/all) logistic ships at risk. If it's required to have specially designed ships or fleets to make that more likely, super.
Also, for everyone's sanity, I wouldn't get too wrapped around the axle with realism. SS has pretty clearly staked out where it lands on the Realism/Game-play continuum.
Because you want to play as the agressor or because you want to get attacked?
I dont think the second works and the first happens a lot (theyre retreat actions). You just might not fight them for various reasons. (One of which is kind of an AI issue)
The second doesnt work because of the nature of repeated inteactions and the associated risk. Players are pretty loath to lose ships and doing so consistently makes it exceedingly difficult to win in the long run simply because of the relative costs of repairing. But losing logistics ships is hugely worse than this because the effects can cascade. Losing a fuel ship while far from the core can mean losing half your fleet or more. And even small probabilities of this happening become large over long enough time horizons.
What purpose would ambush mechanic serve other than frustrating the player with constant ambushes?It'd add real risk to Travel (which is one of the major problems with the game design, as things stand). Small fleets of fast-movers might have a point against your lumbering all-capship fleet; if you don't have escorts, you could lose your logistics ships. Sure, most players in regular mode will F9, but for players in Iron Mode, it'll be a really meaningful mechanic and change play style, and not in a bad way.
AI logistics ships are just for show, destroying them gains you nothingThis has always bothered me. We destroy fleets of transports and fuel tankers; we cannot get them to surrender and we cannot get the goods they were hauling in reasonable amounts. This is just one of those areas of the game that should get polished up at some point. I get that it's not a high priority item vs. the big stuff Alex is working on now, but surrendering should definitely be a thing.
I still stand by my opinion, if those ambushes happen to the player because they have no frigates then you are reducing frigates to the role of a logistic vessel since players will need them to make sure their cargo ships don't get destroyed.
The player won't ever use them in actual battles now since if they loose their frigates their cargo ships are now defenseless and any gnat can come and ambush him regardless of how many destroyers, cruisers and capitals they have, the ambush system you're proposing has tge complete opposite effect of what you intended since players will get punished for losing frigates in normal battles.
If the ambushing setup is something like "hide inside an asteroid field and wait for prey", how is the player meant to ever accomplish such a maneuver? Ship paths are pretty random and you could be stuck for days/months waiting for the perfect target
How are you supposed to perform or get ambushed on the strategic layer? The distance between fleets on the map represents several hours or even days of burn travel. It doesn't make sense for an ambushing action to happen in open space.A couple of ideas:
If the ambushing setup is something like "hide inside an asteroid field and wait for prey", how is the player meant to ever accomplish such a maneuver?
@xenoarghMake it worth doing for the player by having AI fleets lose CR from destroyed logistic ships.
Why over-complicate it, when a more simple would be better?
For few seconds after being detected by fleet X you have Ambush Advantage against them, if you were the first to detect them (and vice versa). If combat starts while you have this buff vs them, you can make it an ambush fight.
I still think it would be bad for gameplay though - there is nothing for player to gain by ambushing AI fleets (when we define ambush as ability to throw frigates at logistic ships). So this would be a purely anti-player mechanic.
Player can gain loot by simply defeating enemy fleet in a straight fight. What beside that?
Well it is actually very exploitable since frigates are usually a fraction of the forces AI fleets have, if you were to face them alone with logistic vessels then you could simply overwhelm them with a bunch of cheap, disposable Hounds with a reckless doctrine which would be infinitely cheaper than buying, arming and deploying enough cruisers and destroyers to deal with the main force.
All rationale of the space ambush was already stated in this topic:There's always room to debate rationale until the internet breaks. It's still lacking on the explicit rules that define gameplay.
I want ambush
Okay how
Just do lolDoesn't help anyone.
Thats the point. And this is how pirates and such are supposed to make a living without getting themselves the famous zombie battlefleets. And, more importantly, it makes room for the player's suspension of disbelieve. Because you dont have to ask yourself: "Why the heck am I farming merchants with my armada when I can glass the entire Sector several times over and nobody can do absolutely nothing about it?"
Thats the point. And this is how pirates and such are supposed to make a living without getting themselves the famous zombie battlefleets. And, more importantly, it makes room for the player's suspension of disbelieve. Because you dont have to ask yourself: "Why the heck am I farming merchants with my armada when I can glass the entire Sector several times over and nobody can do absolutely nothing about it?"
Ambushing has nothing to do with glassing the sector. Pirates run around with large fleets of mercs and slap small trade fleets.
Why is everyone ambushing me even though my defensive screen is 120 destroyers arrayed in a large circular wall around my ships, with cruiser blobs spaced in the middle? Why are my transports running so far behind my main fleet? Why does my entire main fleet get to sit in their own little death blob while the transports fight the pirates? By that logic, each ship in a battle should arrive every few minutes because the warships have to stick to a ridiculous spacing scheme. Actually, if the logistics ships can sit in a blob together, why cant the warships? Is it a caste system? Why does my fleet even exist if they cant fight any pirates? Why am I fighting off pirate ambushes even though I can glass the whole sector?
Pirates are raiding capital worlds of the major factions. You can do that too in about... I dont know... an hour of gameplay.
Sorry, you cant have 120 ships in vanilla and the mooded game is not the subject of discussion here.
Ambush logic can not be applied to fleets with close maneuverability. This is why they can choose their positioning and formation before battle.
Pirates are raiding capital worlds of the major factions. You can do that too in about... I dont know... an hour of gameplay.
Sorry, you cant have 120 ships in vanilla and the mooded game is not the subject of discussion here.
Ambush logic can not be applied to fleets with close maneuverability. This is why they can choose their positioning and formation before battle.
Point through exaggeration. You're evading the main point.
One actually can go behind a larger fleet. Its not a theory, its a fact. You can run the game and check it for yourself.
(https://i.imgur.com/NO1vAa5.jpg)
Geometry has nothing to do with that. Problem of the larger fleet is called inertia. Coupled with lack of power it creates a situation when fleet is unable to turn at a rate required to cope with the smaller fleet maneuver while keeping itself as a single formation. It creates an opportunity for the smaller fleet to pick any place and vector for the attack.
While on travel drives the whole combat map is not enough to notice the change of course for any degree. For such a small scale ship is treated as incapable to maneuver. This is why they have to turn the travel drive off to enter combat.
Early warning is not even a factor here. Detected fleet can choose to change its course at any time. Specifically at the closest range when large fleet is fully commited to whatever defensive maneuver it chose previuosly. This is why, any attempt of the larger fleet to rotate in any direction will make things even worse since it will have to fight its own inertia to rotate in the opposite direction. By turning it just presents a better opportunity for the attacker. The larger the difference in sizes the worse things are for the larger fleet. There is no solution here apart from the defensive sphere formation.
What part of this:
https://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=17886.msg281581#msg281581
You cant understand?
All of that? When its a simple denial. And have nothing to do with understanding.
There is no exaggeration. And no point to evade.
What part of this:
https://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=17886.msg281581#msg281581
You cant understand?
All of that? When its a simple denial. And have nothing to do with understanding.
I know I'm repeating myself but this whole "ambush" mechanic completely discourages the use of frigates. For each logistics ship you'll need some frigates to protect them. This effectively reduces frigates into a logistics vessel too since again.. if you lose them in a normal battle your transport ships become completely vulnerable to any "ambush" by whatever crappy fleet flying around.
I do yes. Both for chasing retreating fleets and to support the main fleets. Though i tend to go away from the lower value frigates and hold to things like minotors, omens, and tempests for non-chase work.
One actually can go behind a larger fleet. Its not a theory, its a fact. You can run the game and check it for yourself.
(https://i.imgur.com/NO1vAa5.jpg)
Geometry has nothing to do with that. Problem of the larger fleet is called inertia. Coupled with lack of power it creates a situation when fleet is unable to turn at a rate required to cope with the smaller fleet maneuver while keeping itself as a single formation. It creates an opportunity for the smaller fleet to pick any place and vector for the attack.
While on travel drives the whole combat map is not enough to notice the change of course for any degree. For such a small scale ship is treated as incapable to maneuver. This is why they have to turn the travel drive off to enter combat.
Early warning is not even a factor here. Detected fleet can choose to change its course at any time. Specifically at the closest range when large fleet is fully commited to whatever defensive maneuver it chose previuosly. This is why, any attempt of the larger fleet to rotate in any direction will make things even worse since it will have to fight its own inertia to rotate in the opposite direction. By turning it just presents a better opportunity for the attacker. The larger the difference in sizes the worse things are for the larger fleet. There is no solution here apart from the defensive sphere formation.
Going behind a fleet is NOT the same as hitting the logistics ships. There is nothing stopping a fleet from putting ships behind the logistics vessels.
I spent most of that essay explaining exactly why going to the back of a fleet is not the same as ambushing them.
You don't seem to have an understanding of orbital mechanics. Newton's laws dictate that if a fleet of frigates decides to go speeding in, every second spent accelerating in the direction of the target means another second the attacker has to burn to change direction.
The defending fleet's velocity is relative to the attackers, There is no momentum change to face a new attack direction, simply have the vessels you want in the back accelerate (or stop accelerating) in the direction they want to go. Suddenly, they're in the back. I could make a video to show you exactly how that works.
Compare the speed of a frigate to the speed of a destroyer. In sustained burn, exactly the same. That already negates your little dodge idea, not that it would work.
There is no "sidestep" in space. Once the frigates have chosen a course and set themselves to it, they cannot just zip around an intercepting force. They must commit or build so much sideways velocity dodging around that they will have to set up another attack run. Even if they have the acceleration to do so, the intercepting fleet will be able to see the maneuver as it occurs, and dodge backwards, closer to the fleet and thus saving time as they don't need to go as far to resume the block. In this case, your vaunted inertia works against your frigates.
Now, why would a huge battlefleet even intercept? They have the ships to just keep going where their going and take the "ambushers" on the rearguard. Those exist. They put ships behind the aircraft carriers as well. Since that rearguard is most likely that captial ship's cruiser and destroyer escort, the ambushers would get smashed, because they have to engage in a stern chase, slowly closing ground, while the rearguard could just stop accelerating and metaphorically "hit the brakes" to end up in range. Flanking vessels could slow their acceleration a bit and fall into formation to spread out the guard and resume covering the rear.
Besides which, there is nothing stopping the defenders from making a wall in space. The frigates would have to overshoot or dodge around, then spend a ridiculous amount of time building up velocity to return to turn around and come to attack speed.
Newton is mean. He doesn't let your movie tactics work.
One cannot simply go around a defending fleet with fast ships due to the geometry (the defender only has to travel a short distance to intercept the attacker, while the attacker has to pick a direction and close)
and the simple fact that one can intertwine logistics ships with combat ships- think "vulnerable" aircraft carriers sitting in a single formation with their escorts- a patrol boat cannot simply go around the destroyers.
Yes I do (although not in my current save since I'm still recovering from a chaotic pirate start and I'm using my salvaged capitals as a crutch until I get my colonies running and new fleet built) Monitors are an excellent distraction I which I send on the flanks and set on Search and Destroy, I also use them as a PD boat for some larger ships, escorts for carriers, escort for quick destroyers on the flanks if they have a phase skimmer and I also like to personally fly frigates as they make me feel much more nimble than a sluggish capital or cruiser.I know I'm repeating myself but this whole "ambush" mechanic completely discourages the use of frigates. For each logistics ship you'll need some frigates to protect them. This effectively reduces frigates into a logistics vessel too since again.. if you lose them in a normal battle your transport ships become completely vulnerable to any "ambush" by whatever crappy fleet flying around.
Serious question, do you use frigates outside of the early game? I find they get BBQ'ed often enough once I start taking on cruisers that I only keep them for pursuit scenarios. I like the idea that frigates might have some use to me other than used by my second in command to chase retreating tankers.
What part of this:
https://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=17886.msg281581#msg281581
You cant understand?
All of that? When its a simple denial. And have nothing to do with understanding.
There. I understood what you were trying to say, I also understood the physics behind it. There are classes on this thing, and people take them.
There is no exaggeration. And no point to evade.
The point would be exactly the same if I said I had 30 ships in the formation. It's a metaphor for a bunch of the rage that will probably occur when you realize that the scrappy pirate crew you saw across the system still managed to sneak in between your death blob's escorts. It'll be even stupider if the game is modded.
I have provided the proof that it is not the case and the opposite is true.I do revoke. You have provided no proof of anything.
Do you revoke your argument or not?
Is the important part of the aforementioned argument when in addition I have to mention that the said fact do not exist because player is unable to change the travelling formation to the specific order.
What part of this:
https://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=17886.msg281581#msg281581
You cant understand?
All of that? When its a simple denial. And have nothing to do with understanding.
Yes. All of that. Cruisers are usually faster and more maneuverable than logistics ships and so can easily intercept a fleet in their rear. Battleships that are flying behind logistics ships are already between logistics ships and the ambusher and so can easily intercept fleets in their rear. If not because they're already there but because the logistics ships can maneuver to keep the battleships between them and the enemy force.
When fleets meet what happens is that the combat ships fly forward and the logistics ships stay behind. So if you wanted to ambush a fleet such that their logistics ships were at risk one of the forces would have to fly forward their combat ships into nothing while you attacked their logistics. As a result of this it lacks verisimilitude.
I have provided the proof that it is not the case and the opposite is true.I do revoke. You have provided no proof of anything.
Do you revoke your argument or not?QuoteIs the important part of the aforementioned argument when in addition I have to mention that the said fact do not exist because player is unable to change the travelling formation to the specific order.
What? Can you rephrase because this is almost gibberish. I am having trouble following you.
There is no “order” or “traveling formation” to change it to. These things do not exist. Edit: as a result there is also nothing to exploit
You have not? I am not sure what you think that image you linked shows but it does not show a fleet of frigates with the enemy logistics between it and the enemy battleships.
Do you see how the lack of a “fleet order” means that logistics ships cant be “last”?
You have not? I am not sure what you think that image you linked shows but it does not show a fleet of frigates with the enemy logistics between it and the enemy battleships.
Do you see how the lack of a “fleet order” means that logistics ships cant be “last”?
That image shows that fast ships can simply go around a defending fleet. Before that it was stated that they can not.
Not the "last" but "vulnerable to attack from outside".
So looking at that image you shared Lucky33, you think that you can explain the ambush mechanic by simply catching a fleet on the opposite direction of which they are facing, yet you fail to see that the warships are alternating between the front and the back of the bubble, meaning that you can't catch the logistics without encountering the other warships (if they even existed in that fleet you have shown. Good job you didn't even give a good example).
Anyways that whole argument about trying to explain how the ambush even happens is pointless and I feel that you're using it to deviate from the real issue here :
This whole mechanic is superfluous at best, detrimental at worst. It turns frigates into an obligation otherwise the player gets punished hard for daring to not use any of them by destroying all of his cargo and fuel ships. None of the AI fleets except for traders or merchant convoys require these logistic vessels to function, yet they are vital for the player. Infact bounties don't even use cargo ships.
And besides there is no worthwhile rewards from ambushing a fleet except for convoys (but those aren't dedicated combat fleets) they don't carry valuable commodities, the only reward a player gets from destroying such fleets is the supplies, fuel and salvaged ships and most of these rewards come from the main force, not what little logistic vessels they have.
And finally it discourages the player from using frigates in any normal battle since he won't be able to afford losing them as it leaves him vulnerable to ambushes.
You have not? I am not sure what you think that image you linked shows but it does not show a fleet of frigates with the enemy logistics between it and the enemy battleships.
Do you see how the lack of a “fleet order” means that logistics ships cant be “last”?
That image shows that fast ships can simply go around a defending fleet. Before that it was stated that they can not.
Not the "last" but "vulnerable to attack from outside".
They can go around. In your image, you were facing off with a duo of cruisers in the rear line. You legit went around and hit a cruiser formation.
This is "flanking the fleet" to you. You have gone behind the fleet only to run into the rear guard. Your ambush strikes, hard and fast, only to break against the rock that is two cruisers.
You made no such flank, that picture is a brilliant example of covering your own logistics- You want to pull from the game? If I was commanding that fleet, I could click on your fleet and turn around, since any smart commander will have noticed your lurking sensor blip on their scopes, even if your flanking fleet was frigates.
Your argument that I cannot affect my own fleet layout is valid but irrelevant. While I cannot directly affect my own fleet posture, all one has to do is look at the fleet in the campaign screen and notice that they have, all of their own volition, formed a mutually defensive sphere. All of my tactics and maneuver explanation was simply to tell you how easily a fleet could enter the standard engagement instead of your "ambush".
Good. I didnt bother to face anything but the back of the fleet. Because you stated that it is not possible. If needed I can pick any other direction and force the enemy fleet to randomly shuffle its ships. This all together shows clearly that the attacker is in control of the situation while defender is not. And this is why the attacker can have the ambush option.
I edited my earlier comment to show why your example from the Battle of Tsushima was irrelevant.
What if I click on the enemy ships? suddenly my battlegroup is bearing down on the enemy. E-Burn? I still stay facing towards them. They cannot get behind me. While in interstellar space, all ships in starsector turn at the same speed.
You can't get behind a player. All they need is to click on you, and viola, they have their battleline on you.
And therin we see the issue with your ambush mechanic. There arent any real downsides. Besides which, the logic is, any competent commander, (ie an ai that know whats it's doing) will turn and fight rather than let you into whatever line you've hit.I edited my earlier comment to show why your example from the Battle of Tsushima was irrelevant.
What if I click on the enemy ships? suddenly my battlegroup is bearing down on the enemy. E-Burn? I still stay facing towards them. They cannot get behind me. While in interstellar space, all ships in starsector turn at the same speed.
You can't get behind a player. All they need is to click on you, and viola, they have their battleline on you.
You clearly dont even know what Battle of Tsushima is.
That fleet in the picture did have all the options without any real downsides. Like me luring it into the nebula or into the Remnant patrol. Or both. And I dont need to get behind a player since there is no multiplayer in the game.
And therin we see the issue with your ambush mechanic. There arent any real downsides. Besides which, the logic is, any competent commander, (ie an ai that know whats it's doing) will turn and fight rather than let you into whatever line you've hit.I edited my earlier comment to show why your example from the Battle of Tsushima was irrelevant.
What if I click on the enemy ships? suddenly my battlegroup is bearing down on the enemy. E-Burn? I still stay facing towards them. They cannot get behind me. While in interstellar space, all ships in starsector turn at the same speed.
You can't get behind a player. All they need is to click on you, and viola, they have their battleline on you.
You clearly dont even know what Battle of Tsushima is.
That fleet in the picture did have all the options without any real downsides. Like me luring it into the nebula or into the Remnant patrol. Or both. And I dont need to get behind a player since there is no multiplayer in the game.
You seem to want this feature so you can abuse the AI with it.
The battle of Tsushima, Admiral Togo v. Rozhestvensky?
27 May 1905?
the "dying echo of an old era"?
And therin we see the issue with your ambush mechanic. There arent any real downsides. Besides which, the logic is, any competent commander, (ie an ai that know whats it's doing) will turn and fight rather than let you into whatever line you've hit.I edited my earlier comment to show why your example from the Battle of Tsushima was irrelevant.
What if I click on the enemy ships? suddenly my battlegroup is bearing down on the enemy. E-Burn? I still stay facing towards them. They cannot get behind me. While in interstellar space, all ships in starsector turn at the same speed.
You can't get behind a player. All they need is to click on you, and viola, they have their battleline on you.
You clearly dont even know what Battle of Tsushima is.
That fleet in the picture did have all the options without any real downsides. Like me luring it into the nebula or into the Remnant patrol. Or both. And I dont need to get behind a player since there is no multiplayer in the game.
You seem to want this feature so you can abuse the AI with it.
The battle of Tsushima, Admiral Togo v. Rozhestvensky?
27 May 1905?
the "dying echo of an old era"?
There are real downsides. Because you are on the clock. It is not that the rest of the fleet is cut off for the whole battle. Its only delayed according to ship's speed.
Yes. 1905. Not the "First World War example" when both sides (Russia and Japan) were allied and it was 1914-1918. And none of the:
"the cruisers didn't have the detection range available our fleets. At the same time, what they fought would be described as a standard pursuit battle in starsector. None of that Cruisers running to save the logistics ***. The fleet was arrayed properly and struck in a nighttime assault impossible in space, by 58 vessels, 21 of them destroyers. They faced off against the Russian battleships escorted by cruisers. There was no scramble to get to the logistics ships. There was no fast gun battle- the attackers pretty much shoved torpedoes at the Russians until they ran away."
Has anything to do with the battle in question. Actually, I have no idea that you are describing. I mean I've read all the post-battle reports from both sides but there is nothing of this in them.
You have not? I am not sure what you think that image you linked shows but it does not show a fleet of frigates with the enemy logistics between it and the enemy battleships.
Do you see how the lack of a “fleet order” means that logistics ships cant be “last”?
That image shows that fast ships can simply go around a defending fleet. Before that it was stated that they can not.
Not the "last" but "vulnerable to attack from outside".
And therin we see the issue with your ambush mechanic. There arent any real downsides. Besides which, the logic is, any competent commander, (ie an ai that know whats it's doing) will turn and fight rather than let you into whatever line you've hit.I edited my earlier comment to show why your example from the Battle of Tsushima was irrelevant.
What if I click on the enemy ships? suddenly my battlegroup is bearing down on the enemy. E-Burn? I still stay facing towards them. They cannot get behind me. While in interstellar space, all ships in starsector turn at the same speed.
You can't get behind a player. All they need is to click on you, and viola, they have their battleline on you.
You clearly dont even know what Battle of Tsushima is.
That fleet in the picture did have all the options without any real downsides. Like me luring it into the nebula or into the Remnant patrol. Or both. And I dont need to get behind a player since there is no multiplayer in the game.
You seem to want this feature so you can abuse the AI with it.
The battle of Tsushima, Admiral Togo v. Rozhestvensky?
27 May 1905?
the "dying echo of an old era"?
There are real downsides. Because you are on the clock. It is not that the rest of the fleet is cut off for the whole battle. Its only delayed according to ship's speed.
Yes. 1905. Not the "First World War example" when both sides (Russia and Japan) were allied and it was 1914-1918. And none of the:
"the cruisers didn't have the detection range available our fleets. At the same time, what they fought would be described as a standard pursuit battle in starsector. None of that Cruisers running to save the logistics ***. The fleet was arrayed properly and struck in a nighttime assault impossible in space, by 58 vessels, 21 of them destroyers. They faced off against the Russian battleships escorted by cruisers. There was no scramble to get to the logistics ships. There was no fast gun battle- the attackers pretty much shoved torpedoes at the Russians until they ran away."
Has anything to do with the battle in question. Actually, I have no idea that you are describing. I mean I've read all the post-battle reports from both sides but there is nothing of this in them.
Ah. WW1 era tech plateau was what i was mentioning. Doesn't really change anything about fleet doctrine, tactics, detection radii, etc. Really just smaller ships with smaller guns. My bad, really meant to say technology level.
Give me your documents.
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/battle-tsushima-when-japan-russias-most-fearsome-battleships-20896
https://www.mhistory.net/battle-of-tsushima-the-birth-of-japans-naval-power/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tsushima
https://www.britannica.com/event/Battle-of-Tsushima
+general lectures and ***.
You have not? I am not sure what you think that image you linked shows but it does not show a fleet of frigates with the enemy logistics between it and the enemy battleships.
Do you see how the lack of a “fleet order” means that logistics ships cant be “last”?
That image shows that fast ships can simply go around a defending fleet. Before that it was stated that they can not.
Not the "last" but "vulnerable to attack from outside".
No it doesn't. It shows you attacking cruisers and battleships... If you "go around to not hit cruisers and battleships" but hit cruisers and battleships it stands to reason that you did not.
The question was about fast ships going around a defending fleet. Do you see the fleet of the fast ships in the back of defending fleet or did you not?Irrelevant and proves nothing. Yes, faster fleets can maneuver around slower fleets. That does nothing to support your assertions that 1: Logistics ships would be in a vulnerable/uncovered position relative to their fleet's combat ships, or 2: that those faster ships could successfuly cut-off or isolate those logistics ships, and in doing so have enough time to accomplish anything before those combat ships could respond.
Your position is nowhere near being constructive. I did provide rationale and no, it is nothing that you have quoted. In view of forum policy which prohibits me from repaying your ad hominem in kind I see no room to debate unless you fix the situation by yourself.Irony is a hell of a drug.
An ambush allows a force of smaller, faster ships to bring superior forces to bear against lumbering big ships. The current deployment point system does the opposite. Bigger fleets allow more ships to be fielded, and larger ships grant a fleet a larger bonus against the enemy fleet. The trouble concerns how fleets are compared against each other. The total deployment points of both fleets are compared, and whoever has the absolutely larger fleet commands more ships on the battle space.
Solving this problem is easy. Delete the total DP comparison, and replace some kind of speed comparison. Perhaps total burn level? It makes sense that a fleet composed of many small fast ships has a higher level of tactical maneuvers at its disposal, and thus it has superior command of the battle space. The mechanic rewards these fast fleets by granting them more Deployment Points on the field. The larger, slower ships have less command of the battlefield, so they get lower deployment points as a result.
Will this play out the way we want? Maybe not. Most capital ships have burn levels of 7 or 8, while most frigates have burn levels around 9 or 10. The fast ships only have a small absolute numerical advantage over the big ships, a fleet of pure burn 9 ships only has a 30% advantage over an equal number of burn 7 ships. The mechanic would mostly favor having the maximum number of ships, since 30 ships is way better than 10 ships, but wouldn't necessarily favor fleets with a naturally high speed.
Geometry!
Further, it does nothing to address the fact that in the time it takes for the faster, attacking fleet to close, the defending/slower fleet can easily reorient its self to face the incoming threat, once again putting those combat ships between the attackers and the defenders' logistics ships.
The question was about fast ships going around a defending fleet. Do you see the fleet of the fast ships in the back of defending fleet or did you not?Irrelevant and proves nothing. Yes, faster fleets can maneuver around slower fleets. That does nothing to support your assertions that 1: Logistics ships would be in a vulnerable/uncovered position relative to their fleet's combat ships, or 2: that those faster ships could successfuly cut-off or isolate those logistics ships, and in doing so have enough time to accomplish anything before those combat ships could respond.
Further, it does nothing to address the fact that in the time it takes for the faster, attacking fleet to close, the defending/slower fleet can easily reorient its self to face the incoming threat, once again putting those combat ships between the attackers and the defenders' logistics ships.
I fail to see how players could be told "This weaker but faster enemy force has magically outmaneuvered your own; your logistics ships are isolated and under attack" in a way that's either satisfactory and/or allows for any agency on the player's part.
If you look at how ships in the bubble are moving you will notice that they always look alongside the course while their trajectory being a wavy line so what all ships shuffle their positions with time.And by what reason are the other ships within the bubble so far away that they can't simply consolidate once an approaching threat has been detected? If we're using the logic of the fleet as represented by the fleet bubble, why would it then necessarily be all the logistics ships separated from all the main combat ships that the attackers encounter first?
That means the possibility of any logistics ships to found themselves in a position closest to the border of the bubble.
And this is where the fast ships are supposed to attack.
Since they actually can go around the defending fleet, they also fully capable of picking exactly that location.Ships can travel in any direction regardless of orientation since there's no drag or air resistance to slow them down (except in nebulas, arguably) - heading in the direction of movement is only necessary for acceleration and course changes. Ships can move towards one another, further shortening the distance between any ship(s) even close to being isolated, and "the rest of the fleet" as if they weren't already contiguous.
While defender can do nothing about that because all its ships are stuck on the single course. Ordering one group of ships to change it means detaching them from the main fleet.
And that's impossible. Sad also.
No they cant simply do anything but their shuffle thing. Reason being Travel Drive and its non-existant turning capability noticably only on the astronomical scale. Since all Travel Drives of the fleet are working in the synchro (what makes Tugs possible) there is no distinction between individual ships. They are all similary bad or good.I think you're right on that as far as the game explains it; even so, what's to stop them "shuffling" towards one another as an enemy fleet approaches? What's to stop them consolidating once they return to combat speed prior to the initiation of combat? How, exactly, does a group of frigates prevent this from happening, and in doing so isolate a group of ships from the main force, to the degree that they're separated by a distance it takes several in-game hours for them to regroup? How is it that a specific classification of ship are the ones isolated, as opposed to any others - despite similar levels of mobility and that those combat ships would be deployed and maneuvered in an effort to specifically to protect those ships and maintain overall cohesion?
The question was about fast ships going around a defending fleet. Do you see the fleet of the fast ships in the back of defending fleet or did you not?Irrelevant and proves nothing. Yes, faster fleets can maneuver around slower fleets. That does nothing to support your assertions that 1: Logistics ships would be in a vulnerable/uncovered position relative to their fleet's combat ships, or 2: that those faster ships could successfuly cut-off or isolate those logistics ships, and in doing so have enough time to accomplish anything before those combat ships could respond.
Further, it does nothing to address the fact that in the time it takes for the faster, attacking fleet to close, the defending/slower fleet can easily reorient its self to face the incoming threat, once again putting those combat ships between the attackers and the defenders' logistics ships.
I fail to see how players could be told "This weaker but faster enemy force has magically outmaneuvered your own; your logistics ships are isolated and under attack" in a way that's either satisfactory and/or allows for any agency on the player's part.
To remind you the history of the question. Inability of the fast ships to go around the slow ones was presented to me as a major argument. Before it was disproved it seemed pretty relevant and you didnt say a word against it.
But at least you dont attempt to deny reality. Good.
If you look at how ships in the bubble are moving you will notice that they always look alongside the course while their trajectory being a wavy line so what all ships shuffle their positions with time.
That means the possibility of any logistics ships to found themselves in a position closest to the border of the bubble.
And this is where the fast ships are supposed to attack.
Since they actually can go around the defending fleet, they also fully capable of picking exactly that location.
While defender can do nothing about that because all its ships are stuck on the single course. Ordering one group of ships to change it means detaching them from the main fleet.
And that's impossible. Sad also.
The question was about fast ships going around a defending fleet. Do you see the fleet of the fast ships in the back of defending fleet or did you not?Irrelevant and proves nothing. Yes, faster fleets can maneuver around slower fleets. That does nothing to support your assertions that 1: Logistics ships would be in a vulnerable/uncovered position relative to their fleet's combat ships, or 2: that those faster ships could successfuly cut-off or isolate those logistics ships, and in doing so have enough time to accomplish anything before those combat ships could respond.
Further, it does nothing to address the fact that in the time it takes for the faster, attacking fleet to close, the defending/slower fleet can easily reorient its self to face the incoming threat, once again putting those combat ships between the attackers and the defenders' logistics ships.
I fail to see how players could be told "This weaker but faster enemy force has magically outmaneuvered your own; your logistics ships are isolated and under attack" in a way that's either satisfactory and/or allows for any agency on the player's part.
To remind you the history of the question. Inability of the fast ships to go around the slow ones was presented to me as a major argument. Before it was disproved it seemed pretty relevant and you didnt say a word against it.
But at least you dont attempt to deny reality. Good.
If you look at how ships in the bubble are moving you will notice that they always look alongside the course while their trajectory being a wavy line so what all ships shuffle their positions with time.
That means the possibility of any logistics ships to found themselves in a position closest to the border of the bubble.
And this is where the fast ships are supposed to attack.
Since they actually can go around the defending fleet, they also fully capable of picking exactly that location.
While defender can do nothing about that because all its ships are stuck on the single course. Ordering one group of ships to change it means detaching them from the main fleet.
And that's impossible. Sad also.
You misunderstand my argument.
you CANT make an attack run AND go around the fleet. The fleet is not separated in any way, even under drive since you seem to have dropped the individual drive bubble *** they are now in one fleet, burning in concert. You say turning occurs on the interstellar scale, which makes sense. Thing is, any ambushers can also be detected on the same scale. In between the fact that large fleets will have some pretty nifty sensor power and that in order to strike past the warships in the drive bubble the frigate fleet has to be large and under sustained/E burn, there's more than enough time to consolidate.
(tbh individual drive is still possible, it could be that tugs simply dock themselves to the slower ships and add their drives to those ship's burn speed)
There's also nothing stopping the combat ships from slowing down a little and thus shuffling towards the back. They don't need to fight their own velocity as they aren't maneuvering with a "stationary" object as a point of reference. With velocity relative to a chasing fleet, one could say the enemy fleet is closing in at burn level 2 or 3. All it would take to shuffle would be to slow the warships down a burn level for a couple of seconds, letting the logistics ships speed ahead while keeping the fleet in one piece, then resuming full speed and stabilizing. Once combat was entered the logistics ships could just speed off while the warships in the back fight. IE pursuit but the big fleet is running
You seem to be confusing strategic maneuvering with creating an open attack vector. You have strategically maneuvered yourself behind the fleet, sure. You have not created a gap in the escort pattern, as if you made an attack run right then, it wouldn't be a stretch for a cap ship to move the 5 kilometers back while you are burning in, let alone the destroyers and cruisers. You have a 1-2 point burn advantage. Strategic mobility isn't a factor in space combat unless you have strategic level weapons (IE some sort of interstellar cruise missile or very long ranged railguns).
No they cant simply do anything but their shuffle thing. Reason being Travel Drive and its non-existant turning capability noticably only on the astronomical scale. Since all Travel Drives of the fleet are working in the synchro (what makes Tugs possible) there is no distinction between individual ships. They are all similary bad or good.I think you're right on that as far as the game explains it; even so, what's to stop them "shuffling" towards one another as an enemy fleet approaches? What's to stop them consolidating once they return to combat speed prior to the initiation of combat? How, exactly, does a group of frigates prevent this from happening, and in doing so isolate a group of ships from the main force, to the degree that they're separated by a distance it takes several in-game hours for them to regroup? How is it that a specific classification of ship are the ones isolated, as opposed to any others - despite similar levels of mobility and that those combat ships would be deployed and maneuvered in an effort to specifically to protect those ships and maintain overall cohesion?
The question was about fast ships going around a defending fleet. Do you see the fleet of the fast ships in the back of defending fleet or did you not?Irrelevant and proves nothing. Yes, faster fleets can maneuver around slower fleets. That does nothing to support your assertions that 1: Logistics ships would be in a vulnerable/uncovered position relative to their fleet's combat ships, or 2: that those faster ships could successfuly cut-off or isolate those logistics ships, and in doing so have enough time to accomplish anything before those combat ships could respond.
Further, it does nothing to address the fact that in the time it takes for the faster, attacking fleet to close, the defending/slower fleet can easily reorient its self to face the incoming threat, once again putting those combat ships between the attackers and the defenders' logistics ships.
I fail to see how players could be told "This weaker but faster enemy force has magically outmaneuvered your own; your logistics ships are isolated and under attack" in a way that's either satisfactory and/or allows for any agency on the player's part.
To remind you the history of the question. Inability of the fast ships to go around the slow ones was presented to me as a major argument. Before it was disproved it seemed pretty relevant and you didnt say a word against it.
But at least you dont attempt to deny reality. Good.
If you look at how ships in the bubble are moving you will notice that they always look alongside the course while their trajectory being a wavy line so what all ships shuffle their positions with time.
That means the possibility of any logistics ships to found themselves in a position closest to the border of the bubble.
And this is where the fast ships are supposed to attack.
Since they actually can go around the defending fleet, they also fully capable of picking exactly that location.
While defender can do nothing about that because all its ships are stuck on the single course. Ordering one group of ships to change it means detaching them from the main fleet.
And that's impossible. Sad also.
You misunderstand my argument.
you CANT make an attack run AND go around the fleet. The fleet is not separated in any way, even under drive since you seem to have dropped the individual drive bubble *** they are now in one fleet, burning in concert. You say turning occurs on the interstellar scale, which makes sense. Thing is, any ambushers can also be detected on the same scale. In between the fact that large fleets will have some pretty nifty sensor power and that in order to strike past the warships in the drive bubble the frigate fleet has to be large and under sustained/E burn, there's more than enough time to consolidate.
(tbh individual drive is still possible, it could be that tugs simply dock themselves to the slower ships and add their drives to those ship's burn speed)
There's also nothing stopping the combat ships from slowing down a little and thus shuffling towards the back. They don't need to fight their own velocity as they aren't maneuvering with a "stationary" object as a point of reference. With velocity relative to a chasing fleet, one could say the enemy fleet is closing in at burn level 2 or 3. All it would take to shuffle would be to slow the warships down a burn level for a couple of seconds, letting the logistics ships speed ahead while keeping the fleet in one piece, then resuming full speed and stabilizing. Once combat was entered the logistics ships could just speed off while the warships in the back fight. IE pursuit but the big fleet is running
Honestly this is getting nowhere. Lucky, you keep on bickering and trying to explain how this "ambush" would even happen in the first place and keep on being overly defensive on a useless topic, because let's assume the ambush happens.
Alright, so for bounties it's useless since they don't have any logistic ships, patrols ? Good you got tiny bit of fuel and supplies from destroying what little cargo ships they have but nothing valuable and next time they catch you they'll kick your teeth in since their actual combat force is untouched. The only fleets that this mechanic would be good against is trading convoys, but those are already lightly defended so it's simply serves as a method to exploit trading convoys risk free...
As for the gameplay, it's a glorified pursuit but without destroyers and above.
And if the AI is capable of doing it to the player then frigates become nothing more than a logistic vessel that the players shoves in his fleet with efficiency overhaul out of obligation just to make sure he doesn't loose all of his cargo ships.
Your whole suggestion was flawed to begin with as many people pointed out and instead of trying to improve it you kept on defending it.
Unless you rethink this whole idea I see no point in arguing with you seeing how bloody stubborn you are.
When contact happened all further maneuvers are defined by the agility of the ships. Frigates do have the unique mobility advantage which allows them to deploy from the flanks in the particular type of battle. This is why they still have the upper hand even after fleet bubbles have merged (or whatever they do).
Yes, exactly, frigates are faster than anything even in a full bore pursuit. Any attempts to do something what is not a max speed retreat will help frigates even more for the reason that more complex maneuver requires more coordination and creates more delay and messing things up in general.
Go into tactical mode. Form your fleet with transports in a forward position, multiple battleships in the back.
Example 1. Command Full Retreat.
Example 2. Try to bring battleships in the position to screen the tranports.
First is much simpler and faster to execute.
Example 3. Trade battleships for frigates and repeat example 2. Feel the difference.
It was your idea of the better way to handle things. It has little to do with the possibility of an ambush because it is decided before even getting onto the battle map. However your suggestion nicely illustrates why it is impractical to keep battleships and transports herded up together. In an attempt to get away from the smaller threat you made things much more vulnerable to the major one. Without resolving minor issues (frigates can still attack transports and destroy them using them as a cover and yes AI is smart enought to do exactly this).
It was your idea of the better way to handle things. It has little to do with the possibility of an ambush because it is decided before even getting onto the battle map. However your suggestion nicely illustrates why it is impractical to keep battleships and transports herded up together. In an attempt to get away from the smaller threat you made things much more vulnerable to the major one. Without resolving minor issues (frigates can still attack transports and destroy them using them as a cover and yes AI is smart enought to do exactly this).
This was my statement of how ambushes wouldn't work and why.
The issue is- why the hell would they stay interspersed when fighting a larger force? that force cannot flank. they can sally ahead.
This tactic defends perfectly against small scale assaults, ie an ambush- You ambush would fail against this kind of formation. Weakness against a larger force isn't relevant, as this is an ambush of smaller units.
There is a reason why we don't have the warships in a big blob- to provide good fields of fire, in and around the ships they are protecting. In any case missiles don't care, they can just fly over friendly units and a fleet's worth of SRMs will kill ambushes.
Stop twisting what i'm saying. It's rude and it doesn't show respect for the statement.
Simpler. Doesnt mean better. There are escort buttons. Select every ship except one, tell them to escort a single ship. Tell that ship to run like hell.
You just suggested to put both transports and battleships in the big blob.Simpler. Doesnt mean better. There are escort buttons. Select every ship except one, tell them to escort a single ship. Tell that ship to run like hell.
Obviuosly, ambush will succeed against that.
And what am I twisting?
If you order the battleships to escort the transports, former will stuck behind the latter.
And the point was that if frigates can get ahead of your ships under Full Retreat order they will have even less troubles getting wherever they want if you try anything more complex.
It was your idea of the better way to handle things. It has little to do with the possibility of an ambush because it is decided before even getting onto the battle map. However your suggestion nicely illustrates why it is impractical to keep battleships and transports herded up together. In an attempt to get away from the smaller threat you made things much more vulnerable to the major one. Without resolving minor issues (frigates can still attack transports and destroy them using them as a cover and yes AI is smart enought to do exactly this).
Yes, exactly, frigates are faster than anything even in a full bore pursuit. Any attempts to do something what is not a max speed retreat will help frigates even more for the reason that more complex maneuver requires more coordination and creates more delay and messing things up in general.
Go into tactical mode. Form your fleet with transports in a forward position, multiple battleships in the back.
Example 1. Command Full Retreat.
Example 2. Try to bring battleships in the position to screen the tranports.
First is much simpler and faster to execute.
Example 3. Trade battleships for frigates and repeat example 2. Feel the difference.
Simpler. Doesnt mean better. There are escort buttons. Select every ship except one, tell them to escort a single ship. Tell that ship to run like hell.
Retreat them all once they get near the end.
3 orders, hard to mess that up. Chain of command and easy communications makes it hard to mess up orders. In any case, what if i decide retreating isn't necessary? "all ships, move to area j11 and defend it." One order, and suddenly every ship, including caps, is ready to fend off frigates.
You've conceded that the caps will be part of these battles. Since they are, there's no need to run. Stand and fight, cowards!
They get in front? damn son what if the freighters stop moving (ie the very easily called out rally)- in any case this is no longer an ambush. This is simply forcing the transports into a battle in a poorly thought out way.
It was your idea of the better way to handle things. It has little to do with the possibility of an ambush because it is decided before even getting onto the battle map. However your suggestion nicely illustrates why it is impractical to keep battleships and transports herded up together. In an attempt to get away from the smaller threat you made things much more vulnerable to the major one. Without resolving minor issues (frigates can still attack transports and destroy them using them as a cover and yes AI is smart enought to do exactly this).
Nope. I simply considered your assumption.
I'm free to tell the possible outcome of your actions as long as they were taken as they are, without any twisting. And thats exactly what I did.
My point wasnt about tactical mobility. Availability of the ambush option is decided prior to the deployment just as with the flanking.
1. Strategic level. There all the bubbles are. Attacker (limited force of the fast frigates) flies around the defender while waiting for the opening in the form of transport ships veering close to the bubble's border.
2. Operational level. Everything that happens prior to the battle map. Attacker initiates the battle and desides to choose an ambush option. Reason fot its existance is the possibility that, in terms of travel time, the attacker force might be closer to the transport ship than less agile ships of the defender. And that comes from the fact that in the pursuit, frigates have the flanking position option which requires flying around the whole fleet which can do nothing about it even if it tries its best. Availability of the flanking option is decided before deployment. But in our case, insteed of coming into flanking position against entire defending fleet, attacking frigates are going to cut off the stragglers. Which are obviously closer and what takes less time.
3. Tactical level. Battle map. Here you can give direct orders to your ships.