Fractal Softworks Forum
Starsector => Suggestions => Topic started by: NaniByte on April 26, 2021, 06:53:47 AM
-
If I'm attacking, then it makes sense since the defenders can just run to the station. However, if I'm defending from a small picket it can force a station battle. This makes no sense because my ships should be able to stay out of range of the space station.
-
If I'm attacking, then it makes sense since the defenders can just run to the station. However, if I'm defending from a small picket it can force a station battle. This makes no sense because my ships should be able to stay out of range of the space station.
If it goes both ways, we could have "Why is my battlestation next to me not attacking that invasion fleet I am fighting?"
-
If it goes both ways, we could have "Why is my battlestation next to me not attacking that invasion fleet I am fighting?"
I think it's because battlestation doesn't have ability to move and can't follow you into attacking. Therefore battlestation can not attack or participate in harassing.
But if you are attacked next to battlestation, there's no reason why it can't fight alongside battlestation just as TS stated.
What you stated is not "both ways", it's a strawman
-
Not a strawman.
If I wait next to my station until an invader comes, then I intercept it, I want my battlestation to attack the invader with me, and it does if contact is close enough.
If an enemy intercepts my fleet when it is almost next to their station, they all attack my fleet as expected. Can be an annoyance.
If there is symmetry in rules, then if an enemy battlestation does not back up the fleet that intercepted mine, then it stands to reason that if my fleet intercepts an invader, then my battlestation would not back my fleet up due to rules symmetry. If that happened, we can expect complaint in patch notes or new topics in Suggestions or Bug Reports about "Help! My battlestation is not helping me!" or something similar. All because the current rules are inconvenient when our fleet is invading the enemy. I merely pointing out the downsides if rules symmetry is enforced to make things fair.
-
Can't you tell your fleet to disengage? The side with a station can never pursue a retreating fleet AFAIK.
-
Can't you tell your fleet to disengage? The side with a station can never pursue a retreating fleet AFAIK.
Yes, except their harassment costs huge chunks of CR from all of your ships, more than usual because a battlestation was involved.
Instead of losing about 20% CR from all ships, I lose about 50% from all ships instead. That is too much.
-
I think it should go both ways, a station should only be able to participate in a figt if it is attacked (reallyreally close to the encounter) no matter if it yours or the enemies.
One thing I find really irritating in this forum is old players acting like all things are fine in the current game. But they are not. This is an awesome game, but until it is done a lot of things need to be changed.
-
If I'm attacking, then it makes sense since the defenders can just run to the station. However, if I'm defending from a small picket it can force a station battle. This makes no sense because my ships should be able to stay out of range of the space station.
The engagement system is symmetric. So there isn't a way to differentiate that they're attacking you or you're attacking them. The only thing that matters is whether or not they want to take the fight or not and whether or not they can force a retreat battle. When you're close to a station there are overrides such that any fleet with a station cannot pursue.
So if you want to fight and they want to fight they want to fight at the station. And if you want to retreat they're going to harass you and you cannot turn around and fight them because they're going to retreat back to the station.
You could always attack, kill the defending picket and then retreat from the station. Just put the avoid command on the station and it shouldn't be too difficult if you have a decent fleet
-
You could always attack, kill the defending picket and then retreat from the station. Just put the avoid command on the station and it shouldn't be too difficult if you have a decent fleet
Maybe they could just add the option to disengage from the station in the Dialog Tree. You would be in the "retreat scenario" type battle, which could cost you your logistic ships but the station would not be pursuing you.
-
I think stations being dragged into fights near them is the only way to really make them matter, otherwise the best approach would always be to fight any defending fleets separately. The harrying feels quite BS since it's usually some tiny picket fleet versus a much larger force but OTOH if you can just get away without much CR loss then you could just plow past the picket fleet to the planet the station is defending.
-
Random concept for how the dialog should play out:
Don't let the station insta-join, unless it's really close. Instead, if engagement occurs near a station friendly to one side, that fleet can choose to run to the station, or fight where it is.
If it chooses to run, the attacker can choose to follow and fight it with the station, or walk away (should absolutely not be subject to harrying in this case, since that would require the enemy fleet to come out of station cover where it can be killed in a fair fight).
-
That action already takes place on the campaign map, the defending fleets will flee into the range of the station and if you follow them you get dragged into a fight with the station. The difference is that you don't have to touch the station on the map to be considered in range of the station.
-
That action already takes place on the campaign map, the defending fleets will flee into the range of the station and if you follow them you get dragged into a fight with the station. The difference is that you don't have to touch the station on the map to be considered in range of the station.
Good point, but problem with this is the station join range is huge and not indicated on the map. If stations had a big circle showing their join range, at least players would know the risk they take by entering it.
(Also I'd like it to be harder or outright impossible to have the 'tiny picket harries huge fleet by claiming to use station as cover' thing)
-
That action already takes place on the campaign map, the defending fleets will flee into the range of the station and if you follow them you get dragged into a fight with the station. The difference is that you don't have to touch the station on the map to be considered in range of the station.
Good point, but problem with this is the station join range is huge and not indicated on the map. If stations had a big circle showing their join range, at least players would know the risk they take by entering it.
(Also I'd like it to be harder or outright impossible to have the 'tiny picket harries huge fleet by claiming to use station as cover' thing)
Showing those ranges would definitely be a good step. Also applies to one fleet dragging allies into a fight so you know when they're separated enough to be picked off individually. Though maybe showing circular ranges would get cluttered so just show connecting lines between fleets (and stations) that are close enough to support each other in a fight?
The AI is clearly aware of these ranges and the player can drag allies into a fight as well so it would make sense to show these.
-
The problem I run into is when I kill a defensive patrol outside of station range, but a lone frigate survives. Then, as I approach the colony, the lone frigate can run up and force me into a nasty station battle when I just want a quick in-n-out raid for some commodities, even though the ship is entirely harmless on its own - and so would the station be, had I been a smidge luckier when my CO cleaned up the survivors of the battle.
-
Not a strawman.
If I wait next to my station until an invader comes, then I intercept it, I want my battlestation to attack the invader with me, and it does if contact is close enough.
If an enemy intercepts my fleet when it is almost next to their station, they all attack my fleet as expected. Can be an annoyance.
If there is symmetry in rules, then if an enemy battlestation does not back up the fleet that intercepted mine, then it stands to reason that if my fleet intercepts an invader, then my battlestation would not back my fleet up due to rules symmetry. If that happened, we can expect complaint in patch notes or new topics in Suggestions or Bug Reports about "Help! My battlestation is not helping me!" or something similar. All because the current rules are inconvenient when our fleet is invading the enemy. I merely pointing out the downsides if rules symmetry is enforced to make things fair.
You are missing underlying reasoning for why TS has stated he thinks it should be changed. He is not attacking rules symmetry.
"This makes no sense because my ships should be able to stay out of range of the space station."
In other words, battlestation should not participate in offensive because it has no ability to move.
For Suggestions or Bug Reports about "Help! My battlestation is not helping me!" or something similar answer would be simple: because it has no ability to move, you have to be attacked to get help from battlestation
If you still don't understand the difference, I'll try an analogy.
By law police officer can attack a criminal, but why can not a criminal then attack police officer too? Because the law states that arrest is an action allowed on a criminal only.
In discussed situation, if law allows everyone to attack everyone instead, the TS is arguing with the reasoning for why the law allows it, not the symmetry.
-
Not a strawman.
If I wait next to my station until an invader comes, then I intercept it, I want my battlestation to attack the invader with me, and it does if contact is close enough.
If an enemy intercepts my fleet when it is almost next to their station, they all attack my fleet as expected. Can be an annoyance.
If there is symmetry in rules, then if an enemy battlestation does not back up the fleet that intercepted mine, then it stands to reason that if my fleet intercepts an invader, then my battlestation would not back my fleet up due to rules symmetry. If that happened, we can expect complaint in patch notes or new topics in Suggestions or Bug Reports about "Help! My battlestation is not helping me!" or something similar. All because the current rules are inconvenient when our fleet is invading the enemy. I merely pointing out the downsides if rules symmetry is enforced to make things fair.
You are missing underlying reasoning for why TS has stated he thinks it should be changed. He is not attacking rules symmetry.
"This makes no sense because my ships should be able to stay out of range of the space station."
In other words, battlestation should not participate in offensive because it has no ability to move.
For Suggestions or Bug Reports about "Help! My battlestation is not helping me!" or something similar answer would be simple: because it has no ability to move, you have to be attacked to get help from battlestation
If you still don't understand the difference, I'll try an analogy.
By law police officer can attack a criminal, but why can not a criminal then attack police officer too? Because the law states that arrest is an action allowed on a criminal only.
In discussed situation, if law allows everyone to attack everyone instead, the TS is arguing with the reasoning for why the law allows it, not the symmetry.
This 100%
If I attack a ship near a station friendly to it, yes 100% the station should be involved.
If a ship near a station friendly to it attacks me, no, the station should not be able to join it in the attack. The station is immobile.
The same goes for if the enemy attacks me.
If I am attacked near a friendly station, the station should be involved.
If I attack an enemy near a friendly station, I should not get a free station involved in the fight. It is immobile and cannot come to my aid.
Too often I see weak fleets turn to flee to a station, then suddenly turn bloodthirsty the second they get into range of the station. If they do this the options to me should be as follows:
1. Disengage
1a. If the enemy chooses to engage without the station I can choose to engage them without the station involved or disengage while they harry me or perform a Story Point combat maneuver.
1b. If the enemy chooses not to engage without the station I can disengage without penalty as they were too weak to harry me on their own.
2. I have the option to attack if I want.
3. Story point option to trap them away from the station.
If I choose to engage an enemy within the range of a station my options for battle should be similarly altered:
1. Disengage (This can bring up a new set of options depending on enemy decisions)
1a. If enemy chooses to engage the station, they can harry my retreat.
1b. If the enemy chooses not to engage the station, it's a clean disengage.
2. I have the option to attack if I want.
3. Story point to open a fight to maneuver the main fight over to the station. (Need to defeat X CR to complete this action based on relative fleet size) Upon completion of this objective, able to retreat and start a new battle with the station involved.
-
The problem I run into is when I kill a defensive patrol outside of station range, but a lone frigate survives. Then, as I approach the colony, the lone frigate can run up and force me into a nasty station battle when I just want a quick in-n-out raid for some commodities, even though the ship is entirely harmless on its own - and so would the station be, had I been a smidge luckier when my CO cleaned up the survivors of the battle.
Hm, maybe if the station plus defenders wouldn't be enough to deter raiding then they also shouldn't be able to harry?
-
The problem I run into is when I kill a defensive patrol outside of station range, but a lone frigate survives. Then, as I approach the colony, the lone frigate can run up and force me into a nasty station battle when I just want a quick in-n-out raid for some commodities, even though the ship is entirely harmless on its own - and so would the station be, had I been a smidge luckier when my CO cleaned up the survivors of the battle.
Hm, maybe if the station plus defenders wouldn't be enough to deter raiding then they also shouldn't be able to harry?
Harry indicates that they want to fight seriously and that they want to chase. The station cannot chase, so it fails that check. The defenders in this case do not want to fight seriously without the station, so they fail that check. Since both fail a check each, no one gets to harry.
-
It seems reasonable that only defenders should get the benefits of a station, because only defenders are retreating to the station for help.
-
That action already takes place on the campaign map, the defending fleets will flee into the range of the station and if you follow them you get dragged into a fight with the station. The difference is that you don't have to touch the station on the map to be considered in range of the station.
Good point, but problem with this is the station join range is huge and not indicated on the map. If stations had a big circle showing their join range, at least players would know the risk they take by entering it.
(Also I'd like it to be harder or outright impossible to have the 'tiny picket harries huge fleet by claiming to use station as cover' thing)
Showing those ranges would definitely be a good step. Also applies to one fleet dragging allies into a fight so you know when they're separated enough to be picked off individually. Though maybe showing circular ranges would get cluttered so just show connecting lines between fleets (and stations) that are close enough to support each other in a fight?
The AI is clearly aware of these ranges and the player can drag allies into a fight as well so it would make sense to show these.
The campaign UI for entities, like fleets, is primitive. It could really use more features. For example, I made a mod that shows which fleets are hostile and which fleets are pursuing your fleet - vanilla could easily do a superior implementation.
-
It seems reasonable that only defenders should get the benefits of a station, because only defenders are retreating to the station for help.
Only defenders get the benefit of the station. They can Harry you, since maneuvering to force a pitched battle means they can retreat to the station. And if you try to back off they Harry you again....
That being said a story point to engage without the station present would be nice. “Execute a feint to draw the attacking fleets in where the station cannot support them (1 SP, 0% bonus XP)
-
It seems reasonable that only defenders should get the benefits of a station, because only defenders are retreating to the station for help.
Only defenders get the benefit of the station. They can Harry you, since maneuvering to force a pitched battle means they can retreat to the station. And if you try to back off they Harry you again....
That being said a story point to engage without the station present would be nice. “Execute a feint to draw the attacking fleets in where the station cannot support them (1 SP, 0% bonus XP)
If a defending fleet around a station harries me, that means they are leaving the protective defensive area of the station. What is stopping me from just turning around and smashing them once they've done that?
That's the point. If they want the protection of the station, they can't harry. They lose that protection if they do. If they choose to harry, they lose the protection and the attacker can choose now to engage.
-
It seems reasonable that only defenders should get the benefits of a station, because only defenders are retreating to the station for help.
Only defenders get the benefit of the station. They can Harry you, since maneuvering to force a pitched battle means they can retreat to the station. And if you try to back off they Harry you again....
That being said a story point to engage without the station present would be nice. “Execute a feint to draw the attacking fleets in where the station cannot support them (1 SP, 0% bonus XP)
If a defending fleet around a station harries me, that means they are leaving the protective defensive area of the station. What is stopping me from just turning around and smashing them once they've done that?
That's the point. If they want the protection of the station, they can't harry. They lose that protection if they do. If they choose to harry, they lose the protection and the attacker can choose now to engage.
You could even go a step further and say that if defenders want the protection of the station, they need to retreat to the station first to have that protection, implying they would be harried until they get there and accordingly lose CR before the fight even starts. It's not even that large a penalty tbh, considering the defending fleet can immediately resupply and repair after the fight is done, arguably the biggest advantage of being near a station to begin with.
-
It seems reasonable that only defenders should get the benefits of a station, because only defenders are retreating to the station for help.
Only defenders get the benefit of the station. They can Harry you, since maneuvering to force a pitched battle means they can retreat to the station. And if you try to back off they Harry you again....
That being said a story point to engage without the station present would be nice. “Execute a feint to draw the attacking fleets in where the station cannot support them (1 SP, 0% bonus XP)
If a defending fleet around a station harries me, that means they are leaving the protective defensive area of the station. What is stopping me from just turning around and smashing them once they've done that?
That's the point. If they want the protection of the station, they can't harry. They lose that protection if they do. If they choose to harry, they lose the protection and the attacker can choose now to engage.
If you turn around and smash them they retreat to the station...then you must smash them at the station.
You cannot smash them without flying into the station. They can harass you because they can always retreat to the station...
-
But the whole point of harassment causing CR loss is that the harassed party is forced to create distance. You have no need to create distance from a tiny picket fleet, and a fleet moving to an allied station is being forced to create distance from the attackers.
Imagine it's a water gun fight. On one side you've got 20 kids, on the other side you have 3 + 1 kid at the 5ft garden hose. If the hose is in the back yard and the 20 meet the 3 in the front yard, who is going to get soaked on the way to the back yard? And if the 20 want to leave entirely so they can refill across the street, are they going to get soaked by the 3 kids? No, because they could just fight them in the front yard. The hose (station) doesn't come into play unless someone is willing to fight for control of it's immediate space.
What you're describing, having a small force attack a larger one, then retreat and recover at the base, is already possibly by doing exactly that. You can sit at a friendly station, attack a large force to pick off a couple ships or force them to deploy something you can't pick off, then retreat (assuming they can't catch you.) But this costs the smaller fleet much more resources than the larger fleet and requires much faster ships, as it should, because they need to deploy to attack, and then deploy to retreat as well, and risk destruction both times if the large fleet can catch them.
-
You cannot smash them without flying into the station. They can harass you because they can always retreat to the station...
If they come out to harass me, I stop and prepare to fight them, and they retreat to the station, at that point they have ceased to harass me!
I'd say the situation is symmetrical between the fleets: neither can get close to the other without putting itself in danger. But given this symmetry, one of them should not be able to inflict massive supplies damage on the other.
Actually, I want to say this: Why does harry even exist now? For player it does nothing unless you really want to run some smaller fleet into the ground; for NPCs its main function seems to be to punish the player for committing one of an undefined set of mistakes.
-
You cannot smash them without flying into the station. They can harass you because they can always retreat to the station...
If they come out to harass me, I stop and prepare to fight them, and they retreat to the station, at that point they have ceased to harass me!
I'd say the situation is symmetrical between the fleets: neither can get close to the other without putting itself in danger. But given this symmetry, one of them should not be able to inflict massive supplies damage on the other.
Actually, I want to say this: Why does harry even exist now? For player it does nothing unless you really want to run some smaller fleet into the ground; for NPCs its main function seems to be to punish the player for committing one of an undefined set of mistakes.
No. As soon as you turn around to leave they harass you again. You can uhhh. "Sit ready for combat forever" but that would be them successfully harrying you by forcing you into peak readiness and thus reducing your combat readiness in the future.
I do agree that harry doesn't really have a particular use except to give yourself from negative rep. AI fleets don't have simulated resources so it only gives them CR damage that doesn't matter anyway because like... You are far stronger than them in the first place to be able to harry.
-
You cannot smash them without flying into the station. They can harass you because they can always retreat to the station...
If they come out to harass me, I stop and prepare to fight them, and they retreat to the station, at that point they have ceased to harass me!
I'd say the situation is symmetrical between the fleets: neither can get close to the other without putting itself in danger. But given this symmetry, one of them should not be able to inflict massive supplies damage on the other.
Actually, I want to say this: Why does harry even exist now? For player it does nothing unless you really want to run some smaller fleet into the ground; for NPCs its main function seems to be to punish the player for committing one of an undefined set of mistakes.
No. As soon as you turn around to leave they harass you again. You can uhhh. "Sit ready for combat forever" but that would be them successfully harrying you by forcing you into peak readiness and thus reducing your combat readiness in the future.
I do agree that harry doesn't really have a particular use except to give yourself from negative rep. AI fleets don't have simulated resources so it only gives them CR damage that doesn't matter anyway because like... You are far stronger than them in the first place to be able to harry.
No, if they don't chase you consistently, they aren't harassing you. They harassing requires being in weapons range or at least the threat of weapons range, requiring the other fleet to maneuver to dodge. They can't do that from the safety of a station without losing that safety.
This is the whole pit bull on a leash barking at a cat just outside his leash's radius situation. The pit bull can bark all he wants, but he can't harass the cat. The cat can sit and wait as long as he wants, so long as he stays outside of the range of the leash. The leash in this case is the range of the station.
-
If your force is bigger, how exactly are they chasing you while all your ships have turned around? You can have a small portion of ships waiting for them to approach while everything else retreats. It makes no sense for my paragon to lose CR when only 3 of my kites need to spend the same amount of CR as 3 of your kites to dance around eachother without actually engaging while the fleet moves onward. The idea that 3 of your kites can threaten my entire fleet without even being combat ready themselves, is insanity.
Maybe you could make an argument the station should be able to harass because it's more fun or balanced or whatever (I can't think of one) but you definitely can't make an argument that this is realistic. If retreating back to the station costs nothing, retreating anywhere else would also cost nothing, and I should be able to harass any sized fleet with a rusty buffalo because 'if they turn around to attack me, I'll just retreat.'
The harassing mechanic is based on the premise that you have a superior force, so all you need to do is send a fraction of your force to delay an enemy until your main force arrives casually. Not that you can use your entire fleet at full combat deployment to annoy someone and then leave before they can catch you.
-
They don't chase you when you turn around, they go back to their station. But you turning around and getting ready for battle is quite literally the purpose of harry. If you turn around and get ready to fight then you're dumping CR. They don't take the engagement and run away if you do. But they're forcing you to be ready to fight them.
That is how harrying has always worked. How do you think it works if you want to run away from a larger force when you're a smaller force? They small ships harass you and when you turn to attack the harassers the harassers retreat to the main force preventing you from engaging.
And you indeed can harry any force that does not want to engage you. You cannot harry forces that want to engage you because they aren't leaving the engagement range...
-
They small ships harass you and when you turn to attack the harassers the harassers retreat to the main force preventing you from engaging.
This is the part you aren't understanding. The harassers don't retreat. They don't need to retreat because the main force is coming to them, and fanning out around them to surround the weaker force. So the weaker force can't even try to hold ground against harassing units because it would force a full engagement. Not even with a fraction of it's own force, because then they'd get surrounded and split up. It has to just move away at top speed the whole time, as a group.
There's no reason to do that vs a station. The station isn't going to catch up. The station isn't going to surround you. You don't need afterburners to get away. You don't need to spend any more supplies than the picket does.
-
Middle ground suggestion - " Anchoring "
The fleet exectues a manouver which results in a position fortified by station's fire arcs.
Pros: The station always supports anchored fleet and vice versa, the anch fleet can harry.
Cons: The manouver must be performed basically while sticking to the station side by side, cant move, takes time to execute ( think reverse pulse ).
Possibile SP action : create a diversion to force the anchored fleet into a direct battle without station support.
When caught during preparation time : chase style battle with station present in far up side.
Multiple fleets could flock to the station and orderly surround it. Should also prevent the weird and wonky situation where pickets surround stations like angry bees trying to reach out on the maximum distance to use the station as a CR eating stinger.