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 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 11

Author Topic: Ambush Bickering  (Read 16936 times)

Lucky33

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 894
    • View Profile
Re: Ambush Bickering
« Reply #60 on: February 07, 2020, 10:49:25 AM »

No, if they run away they do not need to face the battleships. These are behind and not in front.
No, the are not surrounded. Exit is free.
All that they need to do is to run.

In the ambush scenario its them who need to close the distance to the transports, fight and destroy majority of the superior frigate force in order to get the clean disengage ticket out.

I can see strictly zero advantage points in the second scenario.
Logged

Goumindong

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1886
    • View Profile
Re: Ambush Bickering
« Reply #61 on: February 07, 2020, 11:37:28 AM »

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).

Logged

Cyber Von Cyberus

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 212
  • Warcrimes are very profitable...
    • View Profile
Re: Ambush Bickering
« Reply #62 on: February 07, 2020, 11:47:39 AM »

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.
Logged
Diktat Admiral:"What do we have here ? A dissident ? A pirate ? Or maybe a degenerate ?"

Me:"Yes, I'm all of those."

Lucky33

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 894
    • View Profile
Re: Ambush Bickering
« Reply #63 on: February 07, 2020, 01:54:00 PM »

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).

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. Not to mention that with so DP heavy frigates you can just take the phase ones and run the whole map while in phase. If you somehow managed to purposely built such an ambush fleet that will get pursued that is. Needles to say that Hyperion containing fleets are radically atypical for the game. And, lastly, your description of the pursuit type of the battle is not fit with the one in the game. 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".

You are free to do what you want. You claimed that it has advantage. Thats a different story. As things are right now you are comparing fight against stronger force with the slight CR loss or running the map while claiming that choosing the fight is invariably better. Thats obviously not the case since the very act of engaging in the battle raises the chances of losing it while other option has an option of not getting into actual fight one way or another.

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.

How is that different from "forcing" players to modify battle and fleet sizes to make room for more Paragons?
Logged

Goumindong

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1886
    • View Profile
Re: Ambush Bickering
« Reply #64 on: February 07, 2020, 02:34:28 PM »

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.

Quote
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".

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
Logged

Lucky33

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 894
    • View Profile
Re: Ambush Bickering
« Reply #65 on: February 07, 2020, 03:50:54 PM »

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.

You just confirmed the possibility of getting away without a fight and that you need some special circumstances to get into one.

Ergo fight is not a given.
 
Quote
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".

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.

On the smallest map its more than 4000 su. Well beyond most weapon's range and cant be considered "very close", "close" or even "medium" range.
Retreat zone is on top and not on the left or right side. Hence pursuer is not deployed anywhere near "significantly between you and your exit".


Here we can see that i have forced a kite into an pursuit engagement without having a hyperion

https://imgur.com/Ggtt7Qz

By having a ship what is faster. What will happen if you dont have a faster ship?

Here we can see that i can deploy both at the front and back of the engagement.

https://imgur.com/i62ZaAj

Here I most definitely can not see your ability to deploy "significantly between you and your exit".

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

Here we can not see that "large ships deploy extremely close to you". Its beyond guns range with no prospects of closing it.

Here we can see the clear exit route with no ships on it.



Hence the last claim "you absolutely have to fight with battleships on the field and absolutely start surrounded" is null and void.

And if I was piloting "insert your favorite phase frigate name here" I would just turn my phase shield on and get away.

You are talking about personal preferences.

But in general case the most advantageous option for the weaker fast frigate fleet is not to ambush stronger frigate force but to avoid the battle entirely and if pursued then just run.
Logged

xenoargh

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 5078
  • naively breaking things!
    • View Profile
Re: Ambush Bickering
« Reply #66 on: February 08, 2020, 01:30:22 AM »

There are a bunch of problems comparing this to Real Life, and I've asked for more mechanics that force players to risk Logistics vessels for years now.

Let's start off with Real Life vs. Starsector.

1.  In Real Life, nobody uses battleships any more.   Even cruisers are basically larger frigates with more ordinance and ECM / ECW.

2.  In Real Life, battleships are faster on the open seas than frigates (unlike the silly movie / video game tropes), unless the distance is short and the weather's amazing.  Yup, faster.  Why?  Deeper hulls and more sustained power on their engines.  A battleship wasn't very manueverable, but in a race, it won.

3.  In Real Life, the only major engagements between large fleets were the result of both sides deciding to converge on a point of strategic value.  Otherwise... the ocean is vast, and back before constant realtime satellite observation was a thing, fleets met only when both sides wanted them to meet.

4.  In Real Life, battleships were the long-range fighters, protected by frigates from torpedo boats and later on, submarines, and nowadays, long-range missiles launched from boats and aircraft.  In WWII, this turned out to be irrelevant, because aircraft could reliably attack battleships anyhow.  So by the end of the war, nobody was using battleships for much and carriers had become the center of fleets.  Thus it remains to the modern day, with various caveats.  One modern attack submarine is far more dangerous than WWII subs were, and tactical nuclear warheads on cruise missiles or long-range anti-ship missiles make the true value of carrier groups against an opponent willing to use them a little dubious. 

5.  In Real Life, aircraft carriers have more long-range firepower than any battleship could, with strike radii of hundreds of miles.  So there really aren't any battleships that can go kill a carrier at all IRL; there is no armor thick enough to stop anti-ship missiles.

So, basically, Real Life is totally not what Starsector is about.  Starsector is a fun game about building space fleets and bashing them on other space fleets, with RPG / strategic aspects on top of that.  So there are absolutely no "realistic" reasons why we can't have Space Ambushes. 

If we need in-fluff excuses, fine:

1.  Smaller ships are faster, because this is space and they're moving less mass with their magic space-engines or something.
2.  "Ambushes" consist of said faster ships getting in front of your slower fleet and dumping out Space Chaff, or something, throwing all your high-tech systems into disarray (which leads to "give players a Space Chaff ability that they can use themselves", which is actually interesting.
3.  Once said Space Chaff's deployed, the enemy can concentrate on the slowest-moving ships in the fleet, the transports, forcing their tugs (if any) to run away.
4.  If we need more excuses, please let me know; everything from having ambushes in debris-filled space, near a convenient large asteroid the enemy hid behind, etc., etc., but some of them would be hard to pull off in the SS engine without major changes to the AI (like, it would need to be able to pathfind, which is totally doable but mildly un-fun to write; I'm tempted to port my node-based pathfinder over to try it some time, though, when SS finally goes Beta).

Basically, coming up with fluffy excuses isn't a big deal.  Ambushes that force the player to do something different would be fun.  Not having the battleships available for a while would be fun.  So why isn't this a feature?

Let's see what might go wrong:

1.  Players would hate not being able to just use battleships in every fight.  Nah.  I think most players would appreciate more layers to gameplay.
2.  Players would hate having some random stuff happen to battle conditions.  Nah.  I think that's a lot of the fun of the game, frankly; when it's same ol' same ol', it gets stale.
3.  Whiny people would complain about Realism.  Go read the first things I said.  SS isn't real.  It's not a "representation of WWII naval combat" in any but the vaguest sense.  And that's good.
4.  People would hate losing logistics ships, because they're so weak.  Meh.  Make them more combat-worthy, then.  Not a big deal.  It'd feel like Mad Max: Fury Road; your armed-to-the-teeth Space Tanker trying to survive waves of fast-movers while you sweat out rushing in with your destroyer pack to save the day.  That sounds like Fun.
« Last Edit: February 08, 2020, 01:35:06 AM by xenoargh »
Logged
Please check out my SS projects :)
Xeno's Mod Pack

xenoargh

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 5078
  • naively breaking things!
    • View Profile
Re: Ambush Bickering
« Reply #67 on: February 08, 2020, 01:38:16 AM »

There are a bunch of problems comparing this to Real Life, and I've asked for more mechanics that force players to risk Logistics vessels for years now.

Let's start off with Real Life vs. Starsector.

1.  In Real Life, nobody uses battleships any more.   Even cruisers are basically larger frigates with more ordinance and ECM / ECW.

2.  In Real Life, battleships are faster on the open seas than frigates (unlike the silly movie / video game tropes), unless the distance is short and the weather's amazing.  Yup, faster.  Why?  Deeper hulls and more sustained power on their engines.  A battleship isn't very manueverable, but in a long race, it wins.  This wasn't an accident; nations spent the equivalent of billions of today's dollars making them faster and faster, because battleships were strategic weapon systems, not merely tactical; they inspired fear and dread because of how quickly they might show up somewhere you weren't expecting, and could withdraw to the open sea at will.  This was even largely true in the age of sail, although for short distances, they were outpaced by rowed boats (yes, they had rowed warships even relatively late, armed with really big bow guns).

3.  In Real Life, the only major engagements between large fleets were the result of both sides deciding to converge on a point of strategic value.  Otherwise... the ocean is vast, and back before constant realtime satellite observation was a thing, fleets met only when both sides wanted them to meet.

4.  In Real Life, battleships were the long-range fighters, protected by frigates from torpedo boats and later on, submarines, and nowadays, long-range missiles launched from boats and aircraft.  In WWII, this turned out to be irrelevant, because aircraft could reliably attack battleships anyhow.  So by the end of the war, nobody was using battleships for much and carriers had become the center of fleets.  Thus it remains to the modern day, with various caveats.  One modern attack submarine is far more dangerous than WWII subs were, and tactical nuclear warheads on cruise missiles or long-range anti-ship missiles make the true value of carrier groups against an opponent willing to use them a little dubious. 

5.  In Real Life, aircraft carriers have more long-range firepower than any battleship could, with strike radii of hundreds of miles.  So there really aren't any battleships that can go kill a carrier at all IRL; there is no armor thick enough to stop anti-ship missiles.

So, basically, Real Life is totally not what Starsector is about.  Starsector is a fun game about building space fleets and bashing them on other space fleets, with RPG / strategic aspects on top of that.  So there are absolutely no "realistic" reasons why we can't have Space Ambushes. 

If we need in-fluff excuses, fine:

1.  Smaller ships are faster, because this is space and they're moving less mass with their magic space-engines or something.
2.  "Ambushes" consist of said faster ships getting in front of your slower fleet and dumping out Space Chaff, or something, throwing all your high-tech systems into disarray (which leads to "give players a Space Chaff ability that they can use themselves", which is actually interesting.
3.  Once said Space Chaff's deployed, the enemy can concentrate on the slowest-moving ships in the fleet, the transports, forcing their tugs (if any) to run away.
4.  If we need more excuses, please let me know; everything from having ambushes in debris-filled space, near a convenient large asteroid the enemy hid behind, etc., etc., but some of them would be hard to pull off in the SS engine without major changes to the AI (like, it would need to be able to pathfind, which is totally doable but mildly un-fun to write; I'm tempted to port my node-based pathfinder over to try it some time, though, when SS finally goes Beta).

Basically, coming up with fluffy excuses isn't a big deal.  Ambushes that force the player to do something different would be fun.  Not having the battleships available for a while would be fun.  So why isn't this a feature?

Let's see what might go wrong:

1.  Players would hate not being able to just use battleships in every fight.  Nah.  I think most players would appreciate more layers to gameplay.
2.  Players would hate having some random stuff happen to battle conditions.  Nah.  I think that's a lot of the fun of the game, frankly; when it's same ol' same ol', it gets stale.
3.  Whiny people would complain about Realism.  Go read the first things I said.  SS isn't real.  It's not a "representation of WWII naval combat" in any but the vaguest sense.  And that's good.
4.  People would hate losing logistics ships, because they're so weak.  Meh.  Make them more combat-worthy, then.  Not a big deal.  It'd feel like Mad Max: Fury Road; your armed-to-the-teeth Space Tanker trying to survive waves of fast-movers while you sweat out rushing in with your destroyer pack to save the day.  That sounds like Fun.
Logged
Please check out my SS projects :)
Xeno's Mod Pack

Lucky33

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 894
    • View Profile
Re: Ambush Bickering
« Reply #68 on: February 08, 2020, 05:05:24 AM »

I have to make some clarifications about realism.

In the beginning there were warships. As a ship used by warriors to cover sea. Ship-to-ship combat deemed a probability but not the main task for the warship. The main resoning for that were supply concerns. It was rather difficult to store food and water for a long time so nobody stayed at sea for a long time. In turn that lowered the probability of ships meeting in the sea. Major action between fleets was something exceptional and rare.

Battleship was born as an answer for the rising probability of the major action. It demanded the specialized ship for this particular task and that demand was met.

But that created severe personnel problems. Required specialization meant very specific set of skills. And that was in a very short supply. So rating system was invented which assigned priorities to all types of ships. First rates got largest crew of best specialists, unrated got whats left but werent too demanding to operate and provided easy start for learning needed skills. There was a threshold to define a battle capable ship. And here lies the distinction between battleships and frigates.

Lowest rating battleships were ships with minimum crew sufficient to operate minimally acceptable number of guns and full ship rigging. Highest rated frigates carried only full ship rigging but less than acceptable number of guns.

Major strategic task of the frigate was the reconnaissance. They searched the sea for any ships, captured weaker ones and located the enemy battlefleet. After that both forces settled for a decisive battle or a blockade. By definition, frigates werent expected to fight in the battle. In general, they were faster than battleships because they had about the same rigging on a hull with smaller underwater area and better form. Here lies the origins of the Fleet and Detached service. First are ships assigned to operate with the battlefleet and second ones are ships assigned to operate without direct contact to it, simply on their own.

At the end of the Napoleonic wars Royal Navy emerged victorious with no other battlefleet on the planet being capable to challenge it in the battle. That resulted in a frigate race when all possible competitors started to enlarge their frigates but werent planning to use them against RN battleships for obvious reasons insteed having the british shipping as a main target.

Here, finally, we are getting to the industrial era. Steam propulsion created the disproportion between endurance, speed and combat capabilities. Battleships, still being a very specialized combat ships, had to be balanced in a way that limited endurance for the sake of firepower and armor with the last one given the new distinctive term "ironclad". Frigates were the other way around: maximum endurance at the cost of firepower and armor. And this resulted in the wide use of the term "cruiser" since the capability to cruise was the strongest and defining feature of the new frigates compared to new battleships.

It was all fine and dandy.

But.

The self-propelled torpedo was invented. Capable of sinking any battleship. And it was light enough to be used from even a boat. First generation of torpedo carrying boats were seemed as a failure because apart from having naturally low seaworthiness and low endurance (as expected of boats) they were also rather slow. The reason being that short hulls of the boats created too much wave resistance at the speeds necessary to effectively deploy torpedoes in the battle without being shot to pieces by the battleship guns. Early steam machinery had very low power-to-weight ration so boats were incapable of carrying powerfull and strong enough machinery.

But.

New boilers were invented as a sideproduct to propel a plane. At that time plane project failed but installation of the new generation of boilers on the boats gave the desired power boost. Witnessing the operations of the new boats in the fleet maneuvers resulted in one certain Royal Navy officer concluding that it was no longer possible for the lines of battle to fight at shortest ranges which guaranteed the maximum effectiviness of the battleship guns. The name of that officer was John Arbuthnot Fisher. And his very well known creation was specifically designed to provide adequate effect of fire at the longer ranges required to safely operate battleships in line ahead formation.

But.

Gyroscope was invented. Resulting in torpedoes now being not only self-propelled but also guided. And as a result their effective range being much longer. What in turn opened up a possibility of firing massed torpedo salvoes at the battlefleet as a whole. And that made it no longer possible for the battlefleet to operate in the classic line-of-battle formation containing most of the battleship force. So, after the Jutland battle resulting in no decisive results for this very reasons, new, taskforce, way of operating the fleet was implemented.

And that was the end of the battleship as a tactical phenomena with all future ships being designed around operational and strategic level demands.

In the very same period frigate itself was reinvented as a combat ship with minimal crew for the detached service because at this point large cruisers started to become indistinguishable from the fast battleships and even the light cruisers demanded too large crew to operate.

_______

As you would guess, Starsector is actually somewhere between classic sale age and early ironclad period. With only fighters ruining the idyllium while having almost nothing in common with real life fighters. More like naval zombie apocalypse in the steampunkish Napoleonic era.
Logged

bobucles

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 532
    • View Profile
Re: Ambush Bickering
« Reply #69 on: February 10, 2020, 07:06:57 AM »

I'm still not seeing how the most important part of the ambush happens. Where does the aggressor get to choose the defender's deployment? If you can't pick and choose who gets hit, it's not an ambush. A good ambush also typically has a plan of escape, so if you are trapped into losing all your stuff it's also not a very good ambush.

How much does the vanilla game support an ambush play style? Vanilla does let you to peel off enemy fleets and pick them off one by one. The maneuvers happen on a strategic level, but it does break a large fight into smaller fights. The individual battles don't really change, the enemy still gets a full battle and you are fully committed to it. There is no way to break down a vanilla battle into any smaller types of battles. If they have a 10 capital fleet, you are forced to face down 10 capital ships in a full scale battle, which is very difficult unless you have matching force. Fleets tend to not like being split apart, and fleets are typically visible from many hours distance on the map, so you can't really ambush a fleet that has full cohesion. They're in formation, they see you coming, they have time to prepare. It's not intuitive or reasonable to expect an ambush to succeed.

The next option for an ambush is finding a way to break fleet cohesion. If a tightly packed fleet were to be suddenly split apart, you gain a tactical advantage against them. The split fleet can be attacked at a moment of weakness, and the duration of the vulnerability exists until the fleet can regroup. Attacking in this manner achieves the main goals of an ambush, you can strike a weak point and the disoriented enemy gives time to commit or escape. Fast attack ships intuitively should provide an advantage, as they can maneuver more quickly against the scattered forces. But that's a completely new battle type, which would need its own game field and rules of engagement.

Lucky33

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 894
    • View Profile
Re: Ambush Bickering
« Reply #70 on: February 10, 2020, 08:57:52 AM »

Civilian and combat freighter ships get hit. Defender's actual warships will be deployed under timer, according to their speed.

Dont assemble too large of the force and get too slow. This way you can always disengage.

Large formation on the strategic level is sluggish and unrensponsive. With the sustained drive or in the terrain its almost unmaneuverable. Being seen doesnt change that in any way. You can literally run in circles around large fleet.

Battle type, game field and rules are all the very topic we discuss here.
Logged

Nick XR

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 712
    • View Profile
Re: Ambush Bickering
« Reply #71 on: February 10, 2020, 02:16:26 PM »

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.

Goumindong

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1886
    • View Profile
Re: Ambush Bickering
« Reply #72 on: February 10, 2020, 02:57:06 PM »

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.
Logged

Nick XR

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 712
    • View Profile
Re: Ambush Bickering
« Reply #73 on: February 10, 2020, 06:14:49 PM »

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.

Maybe both?  Some sort of fleet positioning to indicate that you were taken unawares, like a random selection of ships deployed up to your fleet cap.  You'll have time to retreat them, but it'll be a bit PITA and you'll have to eat deployment cost.  Not the end of the world for the player to endure.  As the attacker if you just deployed SO ships you could probably run in and blow the crap out of a bunch of stuff (maybe a few war ships) then retreat, then you would start the "normal" encounter.  Doesn't seem like the scenario where I as the player would F9 and try again and I'm prone to do that ;)

But really I just want some different encounter battle mechanics.  What ever makes that happen I'm all for.

Lucky33

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 894
    • View Profile
Re: Ambush Bickering
« Reply #74 on: February 10, 2020, 07:49:26 PM »

Considering realism.

My reasoning is very simple. Everything was already tried in real wars. Starsector model is much simplier than real life. Why fight the inevitable? It is not that we must implement something because realism.

We have already done it.

Problem is that we did it only partially and now we have issues because those previously discarded parts were actually important for the whole thing to work.
« Last Edit: February 10, 2020, 07:51:18 PM by Lucky33 »
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 11