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)

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5

Author Topic: Small ships, battle sizes, fleet limits  (Read 13288 times)

AgentFransis

  • Lieutenant
  • **
  • Posts: 65
    • View Profile
Re: Small ships, battle sizes, fleet limits
« Reply #30 on: October 16, 2019, 04:25:22 PM »

What are you even talking about? They can engage isolated ships/smaller forces directly, not any serious opposition (even if we're imagining they're piloted by real captains and not braindead AI). If you unphase in front of an Onslaught you're gonna get wrecked. But if you managed to get your phase squadron in position to use all that fancy gear you mentioned without being instantly blown up then you did a good job and will delete somebody. But generally to accomplish that you need to have a real fleet around you to tie up the enemy and then find good angles of attack where you can flank and unphase without being surrounded by enemies. Phase ships 101. Now you can have a whole fleet of phase ships of course but in that case some are just distractions while the rest proceed as usual (excepting full Doom fleets that can potentially just nuke everything with mines).

Anyway, the nature of phase ships in relation to regular ships is similar to the nature of submarines in relation to surface ships in that both exist in a separate realm from regular ships, both are stealthy, both can offer deadly threat to regular ships while at the same time being very fragile and can get one-shot if they're not careful.
Logged

TrashMan

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1325
    • View Profile
Re: Small ships, battle sizes, fleet limits
« Reply #31 on: October 17, 2019, 03:04:03 AM »

odyssey and conquest are burn 8 capital ship. With augmented drive they can be drive 10. Making a quick fleet is not too hard even without frigate.

This..
The speed advantage of frigates is really pointless. With hullmods and skills, any player can get a burn 10 fleet of capitals (and often be faster than a small AI fleet). This shouldn't be.

On the battlemap side of things, the speed is only useful in a pursuit scenario. Mobility is not an issue when the player never has the need to split his forces and the enemy will mindlessly charge at him.

So how to fix this?
One idea is to remove the burn cap limit OR/AND reduce capital burn. That way smaller ships will be even faster and really useful as patrols.

On the battlemap side of things, re-work of the enemy AI so it doesn't blindly charge in, proper squadron/wolfpack AI and possibly an expanded battlemap that will give the player a reason to stop bunching up.
No fixed map borders will prevent map edge hugging cheese and make having your own fast anti-flankers important.
Logged

AgentFransis

  • Lieutenant
  • **
  • Posts: 65
    • View Profile
Re: Small ships, battle sizes, fleet limits
« Reply #32 on: October 17, 2019, 03:28:15 AM »

No fixed map borders will mainly lead to fast ships running from you until CR 0 and the player banging his head against the wall. Do you seriously hug the walls? That sounds really lame. I would rather my ships have room to kite back if they need to.

Frigates are already useful as anti-flankers and straggler hunters if the enemy has a lot of frigates, and for pursuits of course. Some also make good torpedo boats. I always have 3-4 frigates in my fleets. Capitals are already slower than frigates.

It would of course be very nice, and not just in the context of frigates, to be able to form squadrons that will work together as one as an alternative to the lackluster escort behavior. It would fix much of the AI's cohesion issues. Would also be nice to have a way to tell my ships to go flank the enemy formation and harass it from behind.
Logged

Noviastar

  • Lieutenant
  • **
  • Posts: 58
    • View Profile
Re: Small ships, battle sizes, fleet limits
« Reply #33 on: October 17, 2019, 08:52:38 AM »

some tactics i employ is to always keep a few fast ships in fleet.  even if only for mop up actions.  you can start a battle with lots of missles and heavy ships and have them smash a few big ships. 

Then send the big boys back and toss out a swarm of small ships for pop up operations. 

The battle becomes a fun endeavor.  I think though as players we are so loss averse that if one ship dies its reload I messed up. 

When you make 500k a month or more you can afford a few small ship losses.
Logged

Lucky33

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 894
    • View Profile
Re: Small ships, battle sizes, fleet limits
« Reply #34 on: October 17, 2019, 10:16:15 AM »

What are you even talking about? They can engage isolated ships/smaller forces directly, not any serious opposition (even if we're imagining they're piloted by real captains and not braindead AI). If you unphase in front of an Onslaught you're gonna get wrecked. But if you managed to get your phase squadron in position to use all that fancy gear you mentioned without being instantly blown up then you did a good job and will delete somebody. But generally to accomplish that you need to have a real fleet around you to tie up the enemy and then find good angles of attack where you can flank and unphase without being surrounded by enemies. Phase ships 101. Now you can have a whole fleet of phase ships of course but in that case some are just distractions while the rest proceed as usual (excepting full Doom fleets that can potentially just nuke everything with mines).

Anyway, the nature of phase ships in relation to regular ships is similar to the nature of submarines in relation to surface ships in that both exist in a separate realm from regular ships, both are stealthy, both can offer deadly threat to regular ships while at the same time being very fragile and can get one-shot if they're not careful.


Im talking about difference between phase and sub.

Looks like you are thinking while writing and not before. Yes you can build phase fleet. In this fleet you can pilot any ship and you can use all that fancy gear I mentioned without being instantly blown up. It can be Doom fleet, it can be Afflictor chain deployment or it can be mixed force. Key words: "can be". Phase battlefleet "can be".

WWII sub battlefleet - can not.

You struggling to grasp it but unable to because of all that wrong assumptions you made.

Submerging is not phasing. It is possible to hit submerged vessel. It is impossible to hit phased one. You have to un-fase it to attack it. P-space is the separate realm. Water is the same.

WWII subs were build for tactical stealth (to close through gun range) and strategically they moved while surfaced.
Phase ships have strategic stealth but tactically they are as detectable as any other ships. They do not hide in tactical battle. They move through gun range not because they can not be seen but because guns cant hit them even if they can be seen.

And the last thing. Apart from phase cloak phase ships are not fragile. Actually, compared to other ships, they have the best armor to hull ratio. In a sense they are true flying armor bricks. Although small and light ones.
Logged

AgentFransis

  • Lieutenant
  • **
  • Posts: 65
    • View Profile
Re: Small ships, battle sizes, fleet limits
« Reply #35 on: October 17, 2019, 01:40:06 PM »

Oh dear, I seem to have underestimated the level of autism we're working with here. Yes, there are many differences as you say. Also you forgot to mention that phase ships can fly through space while normal submarines cannot.

Let's try this again.
A submarine has to be ware of surface ships since it can be destroyed easily if detected and caught. A phase ship has to be ware of shielded ships since it can be destroyed easily if it runs out of flux in a bad position. Or it can be hounded by fast fighters until it has to unphase.
A submarine carries strike weapons that can quickly destroy a capital ship. A phase ship carries strike weapons that can quickly destroy a capital ship.
A submarine will try to find a good angle of attack so it can hit and run. A phase ship will try to find a good angle of attack to flank a ship so it can hit and run (and to clarify, I'm talking about how a typical phase ship would typically be used in the game by the player or in AI fleets, not about specific systems of specific models of phase ship nor about atypical tactics and fleet compositions involving phase ships).

For some reason what I was saying translated in your mind to "I will hereby rigorously prove that WWII submarines are isomorphic to Starsector phase ships" and set out to list counterexamples to disprove the theorem. While what I was actually saying was there are some similarities between submarines and phase ships, which there are.
Logged

lethargie

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 183
    • View Profile
Re: Small ships, battle sizes, fleet limits
« Reply #36 on: October 17, 2019, 03:07:50 PM »

Oh dear, I seem to have underestimated the level of autism we're working with here. Yes, there are many differences as you say. Also you forgot to mention that phase ships can fly through space while normal submarines cannot.

Personal attack, even if deserved, do nothing to make the forum a nice place. Troll should be ignored, not engaged.

I think we should try to drop phase ship from frigate discussion because they are ultimatly very different ship that are not balanced by exactly the same factor as shield based ships

Few people commanted on the idea of making specific battle or part of battles that would make more use of the smaller ship (like the currently facultative pursuit). Is it because people think it would not be fun?
Logged

Alex

  • Administrator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 23988
    • View Profile
Re: Small ships, battle sizes, fleet limits
« Reply #37 on: October 17, 2019, 03:22:02 PM »

Keeping an eye on this thread; if it continues or escalates in the manner that it has been, I'll have to ... well, that'll depend on the specifics. However, please be aware that if I have to do something here, it'll likely be more than a warning, because this is the warning. Please be civil and don't engage in, or respond to, personal attacks.

My autistic friend, Wolf pack tactics are used by more than submarines.
Oh dear, I seem to have underestimated the level of autism we're working with here.

In addition to the above: please don't use this kind of language on this forum.
Logged

Locklave

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 631
    • View Profile
Re: Small ships, battle sizes, fleet limits
« Reply #38 on: October 17, 2019, 06:43:54 PM »

I tend to think Phase ships are a beast onto themselves. I don't believe anything in modern warfare aside maybe similarities to elements of Electronic warfare do the kind of things Phase ships do.

This does beg the question of if stealth ships have or rather should have a place in this game. Think ships that lower the profile of the fleet. Frigates and Destroyers seem like ripe grounds for that kind of fleet. Really we need more small ships that support the fleet in unique ways and/or fight better if their are others of similar type. Think combat advantages/bonuses for having 3-4 of a bonus type or scouting bonuses to fleet scan range.

We need a reason to bring smaller ships that is not forced but rather logical and desired. Benefits that can be felt on and off the battlefield.

- Lower fleet profile (stealth ships)
- Bonuses for combat types (with reasonable caps on those bonuses, including effecting other larger ships)
- Scan range bonuses (scout ships)
- Repair features (cheaper repairs)
- Fighter booster ships (have no fighters but buff them, scanning/max range booster)

Seems like a lot of stuff could be added to make smaller ships meaningful, like they are IRL.
« Last Edit: October 17, 2019, 06:58:09 PM by Locklave »
Logged

Cik

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 607
    • View Profile
Re: Small ships, battle sizes, fleet limits
« Reply #39 on: October 17, 2019, 07:29:48 PM »

the problem with small ships is and has always been that they are not suited to a line engagement but that's all the game is. there's no real objectives worth taking, so overland speed means nothing. post-officer introduction turn speeds are too high for flanking to be viable, even against the ships without omnishields that won't just swivel them to cover.

the only real advantage to frigates is replaceability, which is a total non-starter  because they are not overly cheap when well-armed and whether or not you can replace them is a low chance of success dice roll.

if you could actually have real factions building real ships and not rely on total RNG markets you could simply order a group of wolves, organize them into a pack and then field them, and if 10 battles hence they're all dead you could just order more. Failing this, frigates are basically worthless.

I made a post way back about how you could fix all this but it was all ignored.

tl;dr you need an actual battle system that can handle things that aren't straight shooting engagements between big ships, a way to order ships from naval yards that actually produce them, and the ability to squadron small ships under a single officer. then it would be fine.

really the core battle system's main problem is that it's been unchanged from .5 and while it's the most important system in the game it's barely there. there is the barest veneer of the most tactical kind of strategic thinking, but it doesn't even handle the most basic types of engagements you would find in a naval context. Thus anything that is even slightly tangential to the direct progression of bigger gun == better is directly harmed in proportion to how tangential it is.
« Last Edit: October 17, 2019, 07:33:15 PM by Cik »
Logged

Lucky33

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 894
    • View Profile
Re: Small ships, battle sizes, fleet limits
« Reply #40 on: October 17, 2019, 10:47:00 PM »

Let's try this again.
A submarine has to be ware of surface ships since it can be destroyed easily if detected and caught. A phase ship has to be ware of shielded ships since it can be destroyed easily if it runs out of flux in a bad position.

Any battleship has to be aware of the tactical situation unless it wants to be destroyed quickly. Its basics from the begginings of the line of battle era which developed exactly from the idea of keeping warships in the best position.

Quote
Or it can be hounded by fast fighters until it has to unphase.

Normal ship can be outright destroyed by fighters. Sub too.

Locate->destroy.

Phase:

Locate->wait till unphase->destroy.

Quote
A submarine carries strike weapons that can quickly destroy a capital ship. A phase ship carries strike weapons that can quickly destroy a capital ship.

And since the times of the first ram had been implemented, capital ship also carries strike weapon that can quickly destroy a capital ship. Before that there were super-heavy (comparatively) guns for this very purpose.

Quote
A submarine will try to find a good angle of attack so it can hit and run. A phase ship will try to find a good angle of attack to flank a ship so it can hit and run

The zone of immunity concept was all about getting a warship into good distance and angle. And before that the whole ram era was about the same. Ah... Wait... And the sail age. The last thing - submarine isnt supposed to actually run after attack. If target was only single ship and is destroyed there is no need to run. If there are other combatants in area it will only helps them to located the submarine and after this submarine unable to outrun most of the surface ships anyway.

Phase ship can.

You are talking about tactical basics for any type of the warship. This applies to Starsector too. Good luck charging through death ball in your shielded Onslaught with dozen enemy frigates right behind you. Didnt work? Has to be ware of your surrounding? Does it make the Onslaught a submarine?

Quote
(and to clarify, I'm talking about how a typical phase ship would typically be used in the game by the player or in AI fleets, not about specific systems of specific models of phase ship nor about atypical tactics and fleet compositions involving phase ships)

These specifics are in the game and they used in typical battles. Looks like you didnt get to meet the mass phase ship fleets and thats all.

Quote
For some reason what I was saying translated in your mind to "I will hereby rigorously prove that WWII submarines are isomorphic to Starsector phase ships" and set out to list counterexamples to disprove the theorem. While what I was actually saying was there are some similarities between submarines and phase ships, which there are.

There is no theorem. It was stated "since submarines in starsector are phase ships" and "there are strong parallels". Claim of the fact. This was disproved by me by providing conceptual differences between submarines and phase ships. Since then you are only trying to sell some good old ad hominem mixed with cherry picking.
Logged

Lucky33

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 894
    • View Profile
Re: Small ships, battle sizes, fleet limits
« Reply #41 on: October 17, 2019, 11:50:47 PM »

Also.

There is a mission in the game. It is called "The Wolf Pack". Wolves in question are the Aurora-class cruiser, three Wolves (frigates), Tempest and Heron. Not a single phase ship. These forces are supposed to raid the Hegemony convoy.

Kinda direct canon about that is called "wolf pack" and "pack of raiders" in the game.
Logged

TrashMan

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1325
    • View Profile
Re: Small ships, battle sizes, fleet limits
« Reply #42 on: October 18, 2019, 12:49:21 AM »

No fixed map borders will mainly lead to fast ships running from you until CR 0 and the player banging his head against the wall. Do you seriously hug the walls? That sounds really lame. I would rather my ships have room to kite back if they need to.

AI fixes. If you cannot catch a small ship, it would simply retreat instead of drawing the battle pointlessly. Likewise, if you have a fast ship and the AI cannot catch you, it might not even try to hound you (which leaves ship isolated and vulnerable to blitz attack by a fast ship), but rather consolidate and/or retreat.

And wall hugging is the most OP strategy because the enemy can't really advance without walking into a wall of guns, and it cannot flank either. It keeps your ships safe, while preventing the enemy from brining his full firepower and numbers to bear.

Quote
Capitals are already slower than frigates.

Augmented Drive field makes the difference meaningless. You can have an all capital fleet that can keep up and intercept all frigate fleets.
Logged

TrashMan

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1325
    • View Profile
Re: Small ships, battle sizes, fleet limits
« Reply #43 on: October 18, 2019, 12:56:28 AM »

My autistic friend, Wolf pack tactics are used by more than submarines.
Oh dear, I seem to have underestimated the level of autism we're working with here.

In addition to the above: please don't use this kind of language on this forum.

You think that's a big insult or aggressive posting? You do realise autistic can be used as a form of endearment?
Man, how far has the internet fallen... back in the day, people had real thick skin. These days it's more like an orwellian nightmare with false smiles enforced by threats.

Meh.
Anyway, since you are watching this thread and would be the best equipped to comment on this, would a scalable, dynamic battlefield size even be feasable?
Logged

bobucles

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 532
    • View Profile
Re: Small ships, battle sizes, fleet limits
« Reply #44 on: October 18, 2019, 06:17:38 AM »

Quote
post-officer introduction turn speeds are too high for flanking to be viable, even against the ships without omnishields that won't just swivel them to cover.
This seems like a balance tweak. Officers can get +50% turn speed from a single talent, which is pretty amazing for lumbering capitals. A ship's agility is a huge factor in their ability to defend from tiny flankers.

Quote
Augmented Drive field makes the difference meaningless. You can have an all capital fleet that can keep up and intercept all frigate fleets.
Very true, but boosting a capital ship isn't cheap either. The entire capital fleet needs to buy the speed upgrade for it to have any meaning. Talents also provide a +1/+1 that the AI never gets, and Tug boats can bring speeds well above the norm.

It would be nice to have a more significant burn difference between large and small ships, however the scale and granularity of the burn system doesn't allow much to work with. A capital with burn 5 would be very painful to work with, and any ship over 10 burn suffers from the top speed. Perhaps the speed cap should be increased? Or maybe the typical high end speeds slowed down? Perhaps "full burn" should be nerfed to allow for a greater difference of campaign map speeds? That would be a huge speed reduction across the board.

 With a +50% full burn bonus, burn 7 capitals would cruise at 10, while burn 9 cruises at 13 and 12 at 18. The top speed of frigates takes a huge hit, while the slower capitals take less of a hit. Not a very desirable outcome.

 Changing full burn to a flat speed bonus (+7 maybe?) would allow for smaller differences at cruise speed, while making burn power far more impactful when zig zagging through enemy fleets. So for example a capital might have normal burn 5 but full burn 12, while a frigate gets normal 12 and full burn 19. The low end speeds change rather dramatically (5 vs. 12), while the cruise speeds get better constrained to neither be too slow, nor blow over the speed cap (12 vs. 19). It would also be a rather hefty nerf to ADF, since it's only a +2 to top speed instead of +4 at full burn. Just something to consider.
« Last Edit: October 18, 2019, 06:19:57 AM by bobucles »
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5