Fractal Softworks Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Starsector 0.97a is out! (02/02/24); New blog post: Simulator Enhancements (03/13/24)

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Eji1700

Pages: 1 ... 12 13 [14] 15
196
General Discussion / Re: Thoughts on Cargo/Support Hulls
« on: September 29, 2018, 02:07:31 PM »
Quick frigate spam is pretty easy.  They aren't going to take out any capitals, but if you've got a large and high quality frigate force (ideal of course being something like a tempest but hardly the only thing), you can deploy  a swarm of them at the start of a fight and have them chase around other frigates on the edge of a fight (you do need to command them carefully though).  After you've picked off enough targets you can call them back while sending in the bigger guns to mop up.

Are 10 frigates even worth calling spam? And you can't get more officers, while doing this much already prevents you from having larger ships with officers.
Without being at least able to reallocate officers in pre-deployment, I don't see a point.

Same officer considerations prevent any tactics other than single big deployment + optional reserve/forward (player piloted Afflictor/etc) from being viable.
1. Yes i'd call it spam given it's a significant number and they can easily swarm down ships.
2. By command I meant giving them proper orders to group them and select targets, not using officers.  It works fine without officers, and there is an inherent problem with putting officers on fragile ships.
3. The whole point is that it's viable, not optimal.  I think everyone here is well aware of what's optimal at this point.

197
General Discussion / Re: Thoughts on Cargo/Support Hulls
« on: September 29, 2018, 02:21:29 AM »
Deploying frigates first to alpha strike down weaker targets or throwing out missile boats that'll harass and fire off before retreating for example vs the "Send in the biggest guns" stuff.

Yeah, these do not really work as fleet tactics.

Clearing up enemy Capitals with chain-deployed Afflictors is very much viable, but do not expect AI to pull it off.
Same goes for effective massed missile usage, which basically boils down to Sabot/Squall spam with decisive follow-up - both are things AI is not too good at (too conservative with Sabots, too indecisive with finishing blow).

You want to keep your AI ships as simple to pilot as possible. For example, Hammerhead is perfect AI DE - there is almost nothing to fail about it's ship system usage, and it's overall just a brick of good stats with long ranged weapons. Point it at enemy and you are mostly done.
Compare that to Medusa, which needs to exploit phase skimmer to maximum effect to compete. Or TL Sunder which needs to plan HEF usage (simpler task, but AI is not quite up to it either).

Eh I pretty heavily disagree. 

Quick frigate spam is pretty easy.  They aren't going to take out any capitals, but if you've got a large and high quality frigate force (ideal of course being something like a tempest but hardly the only thing), you can deploy  a swarm of them at the start of a fight and have them chase around other frigates on the edge of a fight (you do need to command them carefully though).  After you've picked off enough targets you can call them back while sending in the bigger guns to mop up.


As for missiles, just load your AI missile boats with as many hyperions as they can hold and pair them with something that can pop shields (usually not worth it to give them sabots as well).  The moment the shields pop they'll focus fire and annihilate it, which works wonders when you want a strong alpha strike.  Only issue is that they're not great at picking the best targets, so it's ideal if you can clean up some frigates first (hence the earlier strat), or vs heavier fleets.

Although I agree both are a hell of a lot more effort than just loading up on hammerheads which do a good job of being a complete package.
Thinking about solutions again

Functionally all solutions which involve secondary fights and stuff seem too fiddly. Hard to understand and harder to strategize around. Designing the system so that it’s possible to fly around the enemy fleet and get to the squishy center while not being easy enough or exploitable enough that that is the ideal option is very difficult. And a few pushes in either direction could make the game feel not fun for the players.

A simpler solution is this

When a player/NPC attacks an enemy fleet they have the option of “forcing the battle”. Doing so makes the engagement happen at the support fleet instead of between the support fleet and the enemy fleet.

All enemy support ships are force deployed for zero DP and they are unable to run out of CR or retreat. The attacking force may only deploy ships faster than the slowest ship in the enemy fleet(equally slow does not cut it)

What this does is give a significant deployment advantage for defending fleets(which makes them harder to crack) and also makes combat freighters valuable (because the larger deployment value is even more valuable now!). If/when looting bugs are fixed it makes hit and run tactics interesting and valuable. You could force the battle and use fast ships to avoid enemy defenses while destroying the cargo ships. Then retreat and bring in a larger force to push the enemy off the wreckage field. Or simply making them eat the cost... but the point is hat you don’t get to do it without additional risk and you can’t cheese it by running them out of CR.



Re: TL sunders... put HIL on your sunders

I agree that elegant is probably better.  If need be it can be modified down the line by factors such as speed/size/skills/hull mods/whatever. 

The only problem here I see is how do you determine "attacks".  As a player i can just pause before engagement and click on the enemy fleet to make sure we're attacking each other vs them just running away, unless it's just the dialogue option to flee which is already rarely used (but could see more use if theres a way to figure this out).


198
General Discussion / Re: Thoughts on Cargo/Support Hulls
« on: September 28, 2018, 10:52:20 PM »
a general solution is needed probably based on some combination of burn, stealth/phase features, and fleet commander tactical proficiency.

don't get me wrong, getting a bunch of ships together and blowing *** up is a good time and all, but i'd really like to be able to play the game in a way that isn't simply "acquire large gunships, shoot the *** out of everything to death."

the lore, while secondary paints an interesting picture of increasing sophistication of fire & maneuver tactics, gambits and ruse de guerre etc. but all that's hardly represented in the game. even in the battle itself tactics are hardly represented, because it's essentially just a firebrick contest. whoever has the bigger firebrick wins.

edit: i complain mostly because i want the game to be more than a shoot 'em up. in many ways it already is, but perhaps some day it could theoretically be the "space commander fleet engagement simulator thing" of my dreams.



To be fair I think the base combat system as is works very well.  The way shields/armor/flux interact does a good job of giving more than one viable strategy.  the limits on AI + control weaken crazy options, but I think the biggest problem is that since simple strats work so well you're not often incentivized or shown what else you can do.  Deploying frigates first to alpha strike down weaker targets or throwing out missile boats that'll harass and fire off before retreating for example vs the "Send in the biggest guns" stuff.

199
General Discussion / Re: Thoughts on Cargo/Support Hulls
« on: September 27, 2018, 12:57:26 PM »
Hypothetical scenario:
You're a medium-size fleet with a cruiser, some destroyers, and many frigates. You have a smattering of support ships for cargo, fuel, and crew.
Out in the fringes you get jumped by a pirate fleet. Their ships don't outsize yours, but their mobility allows them to quickly close in your support ships. Knowing this, your fleet is forced to assume a tight formation around those ships.
If a battle occurs your fleet will be on the field, though you can 'deploy' ships of your choice around the rest of your fleet. Without a doubt you'll want to protect your support ships and, if the fight isn't hard fought, you won't lose all the CR spent for every ship.

I think I'm a genius here: now that fielded support ships is much more likely to occur, the binary all-or-nothing strategies with them will be replaced with more meaningful choices e.g. Colossus/Tarsus to withstand ambush attack vs Atlas/Buffalo for Core trade.
As a tangent to this, maybe a deploy timer based on ship size (modified by if you're on defense/offense + all the usual stuff like buoys/skills/etc)

This way you can have all support ships on the field at the start when on defense, along with all frigates, with destroyers reinforcing near instantly.  Cruisers and capitals can take X seconds to get to the battle.

Its a new system though so a lot of dev overhead and I can already see area's where it'd need better balance, but again it'd give more point to battle ready cargo haulers if they start on the field with them.

200
General Discussion / Re: Thoughts on Cargo/Support Hulls
« on: September 26, 2018, 09:14:48 AM »
Straight up zero deployment cost could work.
Not with Converted Hangar around.  Buffalo and Tarsus fleet with Converted Hangar can do serious damage.
Actually on that note I think more mods like converted hanger would help a lot.  Right now it's literally the only way to get another weapon slot on a ship.  I'd love to see something specific to civilian hulls only that adds one or two weapon slots, although I can see that being a pain to code

201
General Discussion / Re: Thoughts on Cargo/Support Hulls
« on: September 25, 2018, 04:26:53 PM »
I would not fly a dedicated hauler, but I need their capacity, and anything bigger than a frigate is most efficient at the job.  All fleets leaving core need a tanker, and if you plan to chain battle enemies with nowhere nearby to store loot, you need freighters to haul loot.

I attack civilians mainly to steal their wrecks, since they are not very common in a market.  If I need a capital hauler, the most reliable source of them is stealing it from an NPC fleet or debris field left behind by one.  In earlier versions, trade fleets can have a surplus of valuables to steal.  Not often, but it can happen.

Quote
There is a major problem with the games economy in general where combat ships like the hammerhead are just as easy to get as a venture
Nevermind economy, which is only useful to someone with commission.  Many combat ships are easier to obtain from wrecks, especially hulls that are common in NPC fleets but rare in shops, like Tempest.  Want some combat ships?  Go fight a few pirates and steal their wrecks.  Most weapons are harder to find than ships.

I get the passive point of the haulers/tankers.  You buy them to hold things/go farther, but it seems a huge waste to have them only do that, especially when you're trying to have some fight. I get that you'll always have some tankers/haulers be nothing more than storage space and target  practice, but that doesn't mean they should all be that way. 

And yeah the whole ship thing is weird.  I really think the restore feature should become a top level industrial skill (and require specific shipyards) and also have far fewer wrecks in the game (again modified by industrial skill) so ships can actually be an interesting commodity.

That said it's not really the point.  Yes if you're just playing to kill things the best way to play is get a decent tanker, get a decent hauler, and then murder your way to a hodgepodge super fllet while exploring the rim.  The main point is that while that gameplay style works, there's more than enough room for others, and I'd like to see it more encouraged and rewarded.

202
General Discussion / Re: Thoughts on Cargo/Support Hulls
« on: September 25, 2018, 02:04:53 PM »
If we count the Apogee I think it's more than good enough, although I see it as a dedicated combat vessel (i also think i've been able to buy it maybe 3 times, seems rare).

And my point on the non combat freighters is it still does feel like a waste of assets.  I have literally never seen or even bought an atlas/Prom after my first game.  Pirating them isn't worth it (and it's not like they're common) and you never EVER want to fly it, so why do they exist?  Efficient late game hauling scenarios and that's about it.  Just feels like a waste of good sprites.

As for the venture, eh I think it's somewhat ok.  There is a major problem with the games economy in general where combat ships like the hammerhead are just as easy to get as a venture, so it's sorta pointless to ever get one, but that said for screwing around it's hardly bad.  Yes it's useless once it's dumped it's missiles, but so are plenty of other ships so just have it retreat.  At least in the meantime it's unlikely the AI will die with it and it'll probably take down 2/3 destroyers with any decent support (it's NOT a solo ship like the hammerhead).

That said i'm all for ways to make these things a little better so you don't just feel punished for using them, and stuck choosing them only for thematic reasons.

203
General Discussion / Thoughts on Cargo/Support Hulls
« on: September 25, 2018, 10:59:33 AM »
Something that was brought up with the recent blog post was that currently a lot of the cargo/support ship hulls are sort of wasted assets.  They look really cool in the store and then are never seen again as they're essentially passive boosts and serve no real tactical or strategic purpose.  Alex mentioned he had something in the works for this, but I've got some downtime so here we are:

First off, flavor- The idea of a trade armada is something we've already seen in mods and it's not really viable right now. Neither is the smugglers ship.  Something that would normally be innocuous at first glance but has been heavily modified to murder anything that bothers it (millennium falcon being the popular example).  Hell in the Escape Velocity series some of my most fun runs were taking "Cargo" ships and modifying them with as much heavy weaponry as possible (IDE frigate was the easiest to show this off with, but with how that game worked you could do it with almost anything).

Second redundancy- Even as just passive stat boosters, there's little reason other than scarcity to get anything other than the biggest support ship that fits your needs.  Speed could technically be an issue, but it's rarely a factor in practice (and honestly the whole navigation aspect of the game is ripe for more gameplay.)

Third, Risk- It's worth mentioning the inherent issue with using combat support/cargo ships, and that's if you DO lose one, you can wind up winning the battle but having to pitch half your cargo.  I think this is actually an interesting decision compared to the current all or nothing system of only sending in your military fleet and basically being screwed if you lose, but either way it's something that has to be considered when looking at hulls.

Hulls-

Quick thoughts on each.  There's a few that are "ok" but none that I feel you'd ever ideally take to battle.  Of note fuel ships not included since you can summarize them with "nope, just passive upgrades"

Frigates:

Hermes- No combat ability to my knowledge.  Have rarely touched it though.

Kite- I've been told these can actually be used to great effect, but then whenever I play I forget to test it.

Mercury- A slightly better hermes that's still useless.

Mudskipper- straight up target practice.  I don't hate that though as such ships SHOULD exist, but I also like that there's a (very silly) combat variant

Ox- literally just a passive.  No point to ever deploy/touch/interact with it again after you've bought it except to lower its sensor profile (another passive do it once and forget interaction).

Shepherd- The game actually starts you with one of these depending on your choices.  I love that it gives salvage bonuses (a reason to have it in your fleet), but combat wise there's not much you can do with it.  I would like if you could get a modspec or something that would allow you to upgrade the drones (not a full fighter bay but if you wanted to beef this thing up).  Either way it's mostly useless in practice with no option to change that.

Wayfarer- hey this one isn't awful.  It's hardly great, but it's got enough slots to actually be a threat and it's stats aren't terrible.  I feel like this is a good baseline for what's actually worth bringing into combat.  As the game's economy is now you still never would outside of the early game, but at least you don't feel punished for it.


Destroyers:

Buffalo- obviously not intended to fight like the mudskipper, and like the mudskipper has a combat variant at least (which is fun if dumb).  Also does have a P variant with shielded cargo holds, so there's some interesting choices there.

Gemini- I've actually used this in fleets as a quick and dirty carrier and certainly haven't hated that decision, especially in multiples when I find some good fighters early on but haven't gotten a condor or something else to hold them yet (or are avoiding them just to test). It's still very fragile though which can be a problem.

Mule- Literally designed as a combat freighter in game, in practice it's not awful, but I use it mostly to distract/support.  I've rarely had one kitted out to kill anything.  The pirate version is flat out worse in almost every way except having shielded cargo and a medium universal instead of medium energy.  I suspect they could do ok in mass.

Nebula- like the buffalo not really designed to ever be useful in combat, which really just makes it the occasional eye candy before it explodes.

Salvage rig- Obviously not meant for combat, but only mentioning because I'd again like something that lowers refit times/costs if included in the fleet (a staging base).  I understand there's minmax concerns with that, but I think it makes logistical sense that these large fleets might have something to help them swap out weaponry.   I'd expect it to come with restrictions though (lowered fleet speed while refitting and different sized/multiple rigs required to swap out larger equipment).

Tarsus- Another pure cargo ship that gets a nod just because it has a combat variant (condor).

Valkyrie- Of note because of the upcoming changes meaning carrying crew will matter again.  That said as it stands now it's maybe barely deployable as a support ship.

Cruisers:

Colossus- another "has combat variants" which again makes sense given the hull.  Only issue I have is the pirate variant is laughably bad.

Starliner- I don't think i've ever bought/fought this and i'm not sure what it's purpose is.  There was a starliner in Escape Velocity Nova which wasn't a terrible ship, in part because it could get special missions that paid well, but I have no idea what the purpose of this is in Star Sector.  It certainly looks like glorified target practice.

Venture- I see a lot of people knock this but I think it's a pretty good example of how these ships could work.  First off, yes it's a crusier that, power wise, is more on line with a destroyer, but that said it's a pretty serious one.  Sabots + Hyperions + expanded missile racks give it serious killing power and it's not going to evaporate under fire if you don't babysit it.  It's hardly on par with any other ship its size, but I don't mind bringing them to combat to serve as fire support.

Capitals:

There's only the Atlas and the Prometheus and neither does anyting other than hold some passive mods after you buy it and forget about it.  I really think either of these should have a pirate/condor type variant.

Special mention:

Lore wise the mora is a military ship, turned support, turned military again and happens to be my favorite hull in the game.  Only pointing it out because it makes sense within lore that larger hulls can be repurposed for combat when heavy military hulls aren't available.

Anyways that's basically my breakdown.  I mention all this mostly because playing a trade fleet in vanilla is super unrewarding.  Not only do the base mechanics prohibit it even if you bend them to their max (manipulate the market and smuggle), but it doesn't help that the "lore" appropriate fleet would just be terrible compared to a full on military fleet with an atlas.  I think this is a huge area where the game already has the framework in place, it just needs some tweaking.

One possible option is to allow players more freedom in refitting their ships.  Not full on customization, but a big part of why anything works in EV is because you could convert cargo space to hull space, so the equivalent here might be sacrificing cargo/fuel capacity for more OP.  This doesn't solve the terrible weapon selection for most of these ships, but some converted hangers + heavy armor could go a long way towards giving your merchant fleet some bite. 



204
Blog Posts / Re: Salvaging Mechanics Update
« on: September 06, 2018, 02:54:56 PM »
Good changes. Making the system easier to understand at a glance is a big improvement.

While we're at it are there any plans to give more of a purpose to salvage rigs outside of what basically equates to a salvage skill bonus?  I like the fleet composition is a thing tactically, but it's really really shallow strategically.  You basically have your fuel/cargo passive modifier ships (now with marines) and your battle ships, and that's basically it.

Support ships are worthless to the point of not existing tactically unless they're one of the few combat variants ( Gemini comes to mind), and there's really not much thought to how much space they take up in your fleet either, so the only other consideration comes with a few of the hull mods that provide fleet bonuses.  For example I was hoping we'd see a hull mod that lets you turn a salvage rig into a mobile refitting bay, lowering the supply cost of refitting when not at a planet (maybe only for smaller size ships).  Just something to make me give more thought to the support/logistics half of my fleet composition besides numbers.

205
General Discussion / Re: what is wrong with trade?
« on: August 20, 2018, 07:48:42 PM »
I like a good bit of trading myself and was a bit little sad as a new customer that it .... doesn't really seem to be a thing.

Totally understand why trading is an icky thing in a lot of games, where it essentially becomes rote repetition. Location A sells product 1, you carry it to Location B to trade it for product 2, then finally Location C and sell your product 2 for insane profits. Then you do it over again.  The thing that makes systems like that terrible are lack of unpredictability...  EV:Nova was absolutely terrible about this, where you could run the same freight loop a few times, hire a freighter, run the loop, hire a bigger freighter, run the loop, and then before you even start doing anything fun in the game you have oceans of cash that you didn't really earn. THAT should be avoided, yes.  But Starsector already has concepts in place to prevent that, i.e. pirates and dynamic economies. Even the fact that in Starsector you have to pay for fuel and supplies acts as an informal trade tariff in its own right, since unlike most similar games we have to pay to move freight around

It seems like trading is a thing that could be in the game and not completely destroy the fun, so long as you're actually competing against other agents for the cargo and so long as the pirates become very interested in what you're up to. A massively profitable trade route should either be temporary (causing a scramble of activity when it opens) or very dangerous (known routes would be ambush bait). Would love to see the 30% trade tariffs reconsidered in light of the otherwise wildly unstable economy, as well as some new missions offered to players. Either one-off "courier this small valuable thing", or bulk freight where the base pay is really pathetic but we get a bonus by the ton for how much freight we arrive with. Or even sign on to a convoy, where we put in some money to help stock the convoy and everybody shares the profits at the end.

(shrug)
Since you mentioned EV:N, did you play before they nerfed the Opal run?  I don't remember the name of the system but the idea was pretty simple.  There were two planets in system, but very far apart (by EV:N standards).  One had opals at a low price, one had them at a high price, so obviously stupid easy trade.

The one catch was that the system was always swarming with high quality large pirates (manticores and the like), so it was supposed to be a death sprint to see if you could manage to protect your fleet whilst running the blockage (rather than shift queue a few jumps and watching the animations play).

In practice you bought and afterburner, jetted around them, and broke the economy faster and harder than normal, first by trading opals for profit, then by trading lots of opals for profit, then by just pirating the pirate ships in the system (which quickly became worth more than the opals when you plundered and sold them), so they nerfed the whole thing.

While obviously demonstrating the flaws with bad trading systems, it shows the idea that I really wish starsector would try to capture.  Trying to evade pirates (something you'd actually have to do in star sector compared to EV:N's watch me jump), smuggle cargo, and still turn a profit. 

The exact same idea (highly profitable in system trade route with dangerous pirates everywhere) already works so much better in star sector just do to it's general design.  There's an actual stealth mechanic, systems are much larger, fleets are much more dangerous, and there's a hell of a lot more interaction possible (although maybe not currently, map skills are mostly stealth or go faster) to trying to get past them.

206
Blog Posts / Re: Raids, Bombardments, and Planetary Defenses
« on: August 16, 2018, 02:43:11 PM »
Sounds great, but some small suggestions (mostly cribbed from Endless Space 2's ground combat system):

1. A max invasion cap that can be modified by ship types (troop transports/siege?), modules, skills.

This limits the amount of just "oh i'll raid today, swap out the spare guns, sell all the trash and AI cores from our last run and load up the gun totting hobos we keep in storage".  Fleet composition will actually matter more for serious raids.  No showing up with a cruiser and 4 atlas' full of marines and expecting a quick and easy victory.

2. To piggyback on this, raid stages.  Make it so that it's possible to only partially complete a raid depending on forces, you can then continue the raid (thus leaving your ship in orbit longer) for better results.  This gives the max cap more meaning as you CAN accomplish something with fewer troops, but it'll take more time, while bringing a bunch of troops and enough ships to properly deploy them means you could maybe accomplish your goal in one go.

Edit- just read about getting away from "in orbit holding position tasks" due to error handling stuff.  In that case you could still do something like multiple attempts/tiers with a cd in between.

3. Once you have time as a factor as well as defenses, tactics could be an option.  You've arguably already got 3 (raid, bomb, Bomb Harder) , but given that raid seems like the default attempt you might want something like Aggressive (faster but higher casualties, Best results, worse rep penalties and maybe even noticed even if stealth), cautious (slower, less casualties, worse results), smash and grab (very fast, extreme casualties, only very specific results).

4. Lastly you could consider troop types as an additional modifier (again this only matters if you cap troop deployment).  I'm not thinking anything major, but something simple like:

Base marine.  Good at winning fights and not dying, not great at other objectives. More likely to die than other types (they protect them).  Average rep penalties.
Saboteur- die like flies but very good at accomplishing your goal and tend to cause very high rep penalties.  Work fast.
Infiltrator- don't contribute much at all to fights but also not likely to die.  Not results are eh but very weak rep penalties.

Anyways all of it's just spitballing ideas.  As always i'm just glad the system exists in the first place.  The base game as is is so fun, I just want more reasons to do things with it.

207
General Discussion / Re: what is wrong with trade?
« on: August 14, 2018, 02:27:54 PM »
"Trading", in the "buy low sell high" sense, is not intended to be profitable.

The reason for this has to do with gameplay patterns. People, even when playing games, will typically go for the easiest option even if that option takes a lot of time. We often call this "grinding". As a result, unless there is some fun gameplay pattern involved in trading what will tend to happen is that players will want to grind money doing it until they can afford to go fight. What is intended is to go fight immediately. This gets you into the core gameplay experience faster and wastes less time doing boring things.

So while people may say they want it "trade" its actually bad for the game in the long run.
While I agree many player will optimize to the point of losing enjoyment, what bugs me is that there's so many systems in the game already to make trading exciting and fun.  You've got a built in smuggling system, you have pirates, you have cargo ships that you can even arm, the idea of running a pirate infested run is something that should be fun (or sneaking a bunch of terrible stuff past system security) is inherently fun.  As would be screwing with the economy to make money (destroying traders/stopping shipments).

The only reason it's not done more is because there's no reward for accomplishing it as the prices are tanked.

Hell the way the game handles the ship economy takes away from a lot of potential fun (and better use for industry skills as well).  Salvageable wrecks should be MUCH less common to encourage faction loyalty, or to reward you for speccing into industry.  Something like low level you'll see more wrecks with d mods, and max level gives you the restore option.  In the meantime you can start making ships sell for a reasonable price as well and allow that as part of the economy because it's not something that will happen by default.

208
Blog Posts / Re: Pirate Bases, Raids, and Objectives
« on: June 12, 2018, 02:21:53 PM »
Do bases serve economic purpose as well?  I assume so, but you can land/trade etc there just like anywhere else?

Could you form an alliance or up relations with pirates and then use these bases, or smuggle to them, or have your station raid them back?

Just curious what options there will be (and for some of these I'm more curious if that's an eventual maybe, not next patch stuff).

209
General Discussion / Re: Missile Behavior
« on: June 06, 2018, 02:25:40 PM »
I'm fine with missiles.  I'm also fine retreating my missile ships from combat when they run dry?

Seriously having a few Gryphons for the initial engagement just annihilate anything they fire at and then leave is such a huge combat swing it's not even funny.  Yes you can't leave them on the field, but by that point you've already won.

210
Announcements / Re: Starsector 0.9a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
« on: June 04, 2018, 12:30:09 PM »
Any notable differences between Hegemony and Diktat now?  You user Pathers as an example, but they were already fairly distinct, while I feel Hege/SD fleets are almost colorswaps sometimes.

Pages: 1 ... 12 13 [14] 15