Fractal Softworks Forum

Starsector => Suggestions => Topic started by: AppleSpice on November 19, 2022, 10:29:43 AM

Title: Militarized sub system needs a rework.
Post by: AppleSpice on November 19, 2022, 10:29:43 AM
Right now militarized subsystem is extremely underwhelming if you want to use combat ships with civilian hull built-in. The extra 10% percent flux dissipation only applies to base flux dissipation value, which is extremely inefficient for how much op points it costs.

This hull mods purpose is to make civilian hull more viable as combat vessels so I think a small rework would be nice. The non combat focused effect +1 burn level should be removed In exchange for maybe 5/6/7/8% increase of total flux dissipation.
Title: Re: Militarized sub system needs a rework.
Post by: Megas on November 19, 2022, 10:57:38 AM
Military Subsystems is weird.  I use it mainly either as +1 burn speed or put logistics hullmods on a hauler without the maintenance penalty.  Otherwise, as long as the ship does not need skill buffs from the likes of Crew Training, Civilian-Grade seems more like a buff by not eating into the DP pool of skills that count combat ships.
Title: Re: Militarized sub system needs a rework.
Post by: SCC on November 19, 2022, 11:02:16 AM
I would rather prefer removing Militarised Subsystems entirely, or removing the combat buffs, because the issue with civilian ships is not just the stats, but also the mounts. Mounting any kind of actual weaponry will leave them both badly defended and undergunned for their size. Basically the only exception is Mercury, because it can spam missiles like there's no tomorrow.
Title: Re: Militarized sub system needs a rework.
Post by: AppleSpice on November 19, 2022, 11:16:43 AM
The main effect of this change would be applied to civilian hull ships meant for combat like Atlas mk 2, Prometheus mk2, etc. I would never put this on a buffalo or troop transport, but for converted combat ships they are extremely under utilized right now because they just don't have enough op points or enough flux dissipation to make them viable even as a budget fleet.
Title: Re: Militarized sub system needs a rework.
Post by: intrinsic_parity on November 19, 2022, 11:22:21 AM
Bulk transport gives +2 burn to civilian ships, so MS when you have that skill is actually net -1 burn. And those ships also count against flux regulation and crew training which makes it quite bad as a pure +1 burn skill for dedicated logistics ships IMO.

The only reason I use militarized subsystems now is to remove the sensor debuffs of civilian hulls, particularly on tugs that have horrible sensor profiles.
Title: Re: Militarized sub system needs a rework.
Post by: BCS on November 19, 2022, 10:46:27 PM
It does seem to be in a rather odd place. It's basically mandatory on every civilian ship you want to use in combat(because only "combat" ships qualify for fleet-wide skills) so it ends up simply being an OP tax on hulls that already tend to have less OP available in general. And on actual civilian logistics ships you never want to use it because they will count towards the combat DP some skills scale off of; it's better to eat the supply penalty from using expanded cargoholds/auxiliary fuel tanks and use efficiency overhaul instead.
Title: Re: Militarized sub system needs a rework.
Post by: Serenitis on November 20, 2022, 02:00:50 AM
I don't use it at all. It has too many downsides, and only one of the benefits (sensor profile) is worth anything to me. And there's a cheaper way of getting that (Insulated Engines).

If it is going to be kept, perhaps it might be worth considering rolling in some of the benefits from the depreciated Escort/Assault conversion mods?
Even then I'm not sure I'd use it that much, because it interferes with the Bulk Transport ability.
Title: Re: Militarized sub system needs a rework.
Post by: Grievous69 on November 20, 2022, 02:02:53 AM
Well if you don't pick Bulk Transport, then it's pretty useful.
Title: Re: Militarized sub system needs a rework.
Post by: Lortus on November 20, 2022, 02:22:13 AM
I think militarized subsystems is pretty great as is.

For logistics ships, it switches between two different logistics costs, and gives you some free burn if you aren't taking Bulk Transport. I think Bulk Transport kind of delegitimizes Militarized Subsystems because it's the skill you take on your way to the two yellow combat skills, but I still use it often enough. Also you should consider that not the entire game is spent at 240 DP, and I personally am fine with losing 1% damage to be at a higher burn.

For combat ships, it's an OP tax that gives you some flux and leadership skills for losing OP. I've used combat ships with and without militarized, and as of now, I think it's a bit underwhelming on combat ships in most situations, since the skills that you get to benefit from aren't all that impressive. The flux is also nice, since it can get you from being overfluxed to neutral. I use it on remnant hunting atlases.

What I think is the coolest part of Militarized for combat is the two exclusive hullmods. I wish these were buffed to be actually usable, although it might make them a bit oppressive on the ships that are already good at combat like the Prometheus MkII. I don't even think it needs to be particularly viable. Just maybe stuffing a colossus' cargo with ablative armor, and throwing it in combat where it can soak a couple hits in the early game sounds fun, or maybe fitting a kite with a PD conversion that turns it into a usable PD escort.
Title: Re: Militarized sub system needs a rework.
Post by: Serenitis on November 20, 2022, 02:46:54 AM
Well if you don't pick Bulk Transport, then it's pretty useful.
Why would I not pick Bulk Transport though?
It lets me run fast logistics ships without having to use Augmented Drives.
It lets me use Venture as early brick/missile distractions without ruining fleet speed.
It lets me salvage Collossi without having to care about degraded engines. (Also having access to Collossus3s that you can use without paying an OP tax is nice.)
It lets me use "heavy" transports without slowing down my fleet once capitals come into play.

I don't even care about the cargo effect. That skill is all about the burn boost imo.
Plus not having to use tugs frees up ship slots, and keeps the fleet profile (somewhat) sensible.

Also you should consider that not the entire game is spent at 240 DP
In no game I have ever played in the current version, have I ever cared even the tiniest bit about skill limits/dropoff.
If it goes over, it goes over. So what? A smaller buff is still a buff.

Title: Re: Militarized sub system needs a rework.
Post by: BCS on November 20, 2022, 03:17:29 AM
Well if you don't pick Bulk Transport, then it's pretty useful.

Are you talking about the supply penalty for using expanded cargoholds/auxiliary fuel tanks without militarized subsystems? That's usually not a big deal(the most supply expensive freighter is only 10 after all) and can be partially alleviated with efficiency overhaul.
Title: Re: Militarized sub system needs a rework.
Post by: Grievous69 on November 20, 2022, 04:10:32 AM
Nah I'm talking about the +1 burn speed you get from the hullmod.

@Serenitis
And none of those points help me in combat or doing combat things, so it's useless for me. And it's never the logistic ships that slow me down, it's the battleships. ADF on logistics is a no brainer since they don't even see combat. But it does make a difference on big ships which could use that extra OP.

I'd take your reasoning in account if only combat ships I had were destroyers and frigates.
Title: Re: Militarized sub system needs a rework.
Post by: Big Bee on November 20, 2022, 05:17:00 AM
Honestly the only reason I use it is to not have to deal with the increased maintenance from Expanded Cargo Holds or Auxiliary Fuel Tanks, as well as  to remove the sensor debuff. Mostly the maintenance though.
Title: Re: Militarized sub system needs a rework.
Post by: Wyvern on November 20, 2022, 10:44:31 AM
For me, personally, the reason I'd take it is the sensor debuff it gets rid of.

...But then you get all the issues other people have mentioned (counting against skill limits, reduced burn speed from Bulk Transport, uses up a logistics slot that I'd rather spend on something else)...

And my conclusion is: Just use Revenants. They don't need Militarized Subsystems, they don't count against skill limits, they get full benefit from Bulk Transport, and they actually improve your sensor profile rather than harming it.
Title: Re: Militarized sub system needs a rework.
Post by: BCS on November 20, 2022, 11:02:37 AM
Revenants can be tanker replacements but they are bad haulers. 15 supply for 600 cargo is close to Mule level of efficiency, and that actually shoots things.
Title: Re: Militarized sub system needs a rework.
Post by: Wyvern on November 20, 2022, 11:34:01 AM
Spoken like someone who doesn't take the Makeshift Equipment skill.

...But more seriously, yes, there are tradeoffs to using Revenants, they're not pure up-side. I still like them better than the standard civilian-hull freighters, but once you're into late-game fleets with 5+ combat cruisers, there's a strong argument to be made for switching from Revenants with Efficiency Overhaul to Colossi with Insulated Engines. I generally don't, because by that point I've got a couple of Revenants with s-mods, and swapping story point expenditures around is a nuisance. But I might add an extra Colossus if, sometime after that point, I decide I need more cargo space.

(Excluding trying to get a coronal tap back online. There it's Atlases or nothing because of the ridiculous requirement of delivering all the cargo all at once.)
Title: Re: Militarized sub system needs a rework.
Post by: Lortus on November 20, 2022, 12:05:08 PM
bruh hell nah no way people are recommending revenants
Title: Re: Militarized sub system needs a rework.
Post by: Hiruma Kai on November 20, 2022, 01:51:56 PM
Militarized subsystems I find is an early game compromise hullmod that you have from the beginning of the game.  It is quite good at the stage of the game where you have less than 240 DP worth of ships in total, at which point the skill fall off doesn't even happen.  It's +1 speed, reduced sensor signature in a single hullmod, allowing for another logistics hullmod without penalty, where as +2 burn from Augmented Drive Field and Insulated Engines take two, and even if you use s-mods, expanded cargo holds or auxilliary fuel tanks still adds some additional expense.

It definitely falls off in use late game, but the whole concept, militarizing civilian ships, is by its nature a "make do with what you have" philosophy.  Late game you aren't making do; you're specializing your fleet. I think it is fine to have such hullmods useful early game, and as the game transitions, for them to stop being used.

As for Revenants, I think they're perfectly fine late game transports for combat fleets - if you can acquire them.  They're not as efficient as an Atlas or Prometheus in terms of raw cargo or fuel capacity per credit, but on the other hand, they're not capitals, which does weird things to your fleet's campaign maneuverability and efficiency traversing deep hyperspace and the like, not to mention ballooning your sensor profile if you're not already stacking 5 combat capitals.  I certainly prefer them in "light weight" high tech fleets.  High DP cost but small physically ships like Hyperions, Scarabs, and so on maybe with a single fast capital leading the pack.  A low tech Onslaught/Legion heavy fleet likely would just grab a couple Prometheus though. Might still slap an s-mod on them though for either +2 burn or insulated engines.

Your typical late game logistics solution options are basically:
Atlas (Pro: 2000 cargo/400 fuel, Con:Civilian, 50 crew, 10 supplies/month, 6 fuel/ly, 6 burn base)
Prometheus (Pro: 200 cargo/3000 fuel, Con: Civilian, 50 crew, 10 supplies/month, 6 fuel/ly, 6 burn base)
Colossus (Pro: 900 cargo/120 fuel, Con: Civilian, 40 crew, 6 supplies/month, 4 fuel/ly, 7 burn base)
Phaeton (Pro: 20 cargo/800 fuel, Con: Civilian, 10 crew, 4 supplies/month, 2 fuel/ly, 8 burn base)
Revenant (Pro: 600 cargo/900 fuel, phase field, Con: 30 crew, 15 supplies/month, 3 fuel/ly, 8 burn base)

Let us assume no story points spent s-mods, and just slap on expanded cargo hold or auxiliary fuel tanks along with insulated engines to get the sensor signature down.  Revenant just has both cargo and fuel mods (and still will tend to have smaller signature and full cruiser sensor benefit).

Colossus + Phaeton: 1190 cargo and 1160 fuel
50 crew (500 credits/month), 15 supplies/month (1500 credits), 6 fuel/ly (150 credits per light year)

Revenant: 780 cargo, 1170 fuel
30 crew (300 credits/month), 15 supplies/month (1500 credits), 3 fuel/ly (75 credits per light year)

You're trading off about 400 units of cargo for one fewer logistics ship and slightly longer fuel endurance (30 light year trip from the core out and back is 180 fuel difference, so 1160-360=800 fuel for other ships vs 1170-180 = 990 fuel for other ships.  Plus the advantages of a smaller fleet profile from phase field.

The Atlas and Prometheus are more efficient, however at the cost of adding capital logistics to your fleet (i.e. base 6 burn, which either means Bulk transport late game, taking a hit to sensor profile, and whatever the behinds the scene calculation for terrain and campaign maneuverability there is).

Atlas + Prometheus: 2800 cargo, 4300 fuel
100 crew (1,000 credits/month), 30 supplies/month (3000 credits), 12 fuel/ly (300 credits per light year)

3x Revenant: 2340 cargo, 3510 fuel
90 crew (900 credits/month), 45 supplies/month (4500 credits), 9 fuel/ly (225 credits per light year)

For a 2 month run (15 days out, 30 days exploring/hunting bounties/etc, 15 days back), going out 30 light years and coming back 30 light years, most of the expense is in the fuel.
18,000 credits in fuel versus 6000 credits in supplies and 2000 credits in salaries for the capitals (or about 9.2 credits per cargo, and can handle a 59.7 fuel/ly fleet).
13,500 credits in fuel versus 9000 credits in supplies and 1800 credits in salaries for the Revenants (or about 10.4 credits per cargo, and can handle a 49.5 fuel/ly fleet).

Although, at the point of the game where I'm considering between capital logistics and Revenants, I really don't care about a few thousand credits here and there, and just tend to grab the Revenants for the better sensor stats.  I'll take a hit of 10% to my logistics credit costs for those sensor stats in an iron man game.
Title: Re: Militarized sub system needs a rework.
Post by: Megas on November 20, 2022, 01:56:47 PM
Revenant is handy for the 100 DP max fleet led by Ziggurat.
Title: Re: Militarized sub system needs a rework.
Post by: intrinsic_parity on November 20, 2022, 03:50:50 PM
Do people not take bulk transport early? That solves all the civilian burn problems without any hullmods and also significantly reduces the number of civilian ships required in the first place. For me, that's a super easy early game skill pick and I always want ordinance expertise so I have to take a tier 1 industry skill late game anyway. None of the other tier 1 industry skills seem much better.

Also, I'm not a big fan of using the extra cargo/fuel hullmods. If I need more cargo/fuel capacity, I will just get more logistics ships. With efficiency overhaul instead of expanded cargo holds/auxiliary fuel tanks, I end up with much more cargo/supplies/month and about the same fuel capacity/fuel/ly, plus reduced crew requirements.

The only reason to use the extra/cargo/fuel hullmods IMO is to reduce the number of logistics ships if you are running into the 30 ship fleet cap, but in my experience, it's actually kinda hard to run into that on default setting because you can only use 240 DP of combat ships, several skills punish you for having more than 240 DP of combat ships, and the officer limit incentivizes you to use some larger ships.

In my experience, 2-3 colossus/phaeton are fine until I start using capital ships, at which point I can just use atlas/prometheus instead. That leaves 24 slots for combat ships. I have a hard time imagining my combat ships costing less than 10 DP/ship on average. Even if you leave a few slots open for recovery, most 'normal' fleets with some cruisers/capitals shouldn't have too many issues IMO. I feel like you would need to be doing really frigate/detroyer heavy support doctrine/derelict operations stuff to have issues.
Title: Re: Militarized sub system needs a rework.
Post by: FastestDraw on November 20, 2022, 03:55:42 PM
The +1 burn and sensor fix is very nice for early game smuggling where you don't expect/want to fight (I often go 0 combat ships selling everything for starting cash). D mod mudskippers with it and insulated engines are really credit-efficient, can be purchased almost anywhere. Its apx3K credits for 70 cargo at the lowest detection range.

You can start transverse jump + navigation for neutrino/'faster go slow' without needing to go into industry for cargo.

I wouldn't mind another burn level on them, so they don't fall off in terms of speed compared to cargo hauling, but they still have a niche outside that.
Title: Re: Militarized sub system needs a rework.
Post by: Megas on November 20, 2022, 04:04:38 PM
Do people not take bulk transport early? That solves all the civilian burn problems without any hullmods and also significantly reduces the number of civilian ships required in the first place. For me, that's a super easy early game skill pick and I always want ordinance expertise so I have to take a tier 1 industry skill late game anyway. None of the other tier 1 industry skills seem much better.
If I take Industry, I get Field Repairs because I lose ships and frequently recover enemy ships early, and for partial repairs in fights that take more than one round to finish (like solo Ziggurat against some endgame fights).  If I get Hull Restoration, my primary source of pristine ships becomes whatever I loot from the enemy (instead of buying them from markets) and having some armor and CR right off the bat is convenient.  Also, late in the game, Field Repairs is handy for regenerating armor in fights that take more than one round to finish.

Bulk Transport is nice (and I have used it in early 0.9 releases when we had that funky mutually exclusive choice system), but I cannot afford more than one tier 1 Industry skill, and I consider Field Repairs the most valuable of the three tier 1 Industry options.
Title: Re: Militarized sub system needs a rework.
Post by: BCS on November 20, 2022, 11:32:03 PM
Also, I'm not a big fan of using the extra cargo/fuel hullmods. If I need more cargo/fuel capacity, I will just get more logistics ships. With efficiency overhaul instead of expanded cargo holds/auxiliary fuel tanks, I end up with much more cargo/supplies/month and about the same fuel capacity/fuel/ly, plus reduced crew requirements.

In my experience it's easy to print supplies with either Salvaging skill or just three Salvage Rigs. Fuel, not so much. So I don't really care about supply use, at least not in the late game.
Title: Re: Militarized sub system needs a rework.
Post by: Lortus on November 22, 2022, 07:19:23 AM
I'm always running at least 3 Atlases in the late game and a Phaeton or something, if I even use a fuel ship. Revenants aren't gonna cut it. Also Atlases are faster, because they can reach 10 burn with ADF and bulk transport, and you only need to spend 1 SP, and you are going Bulk Transport most times anyways to reach higher tier skills.

I guess it depends on how much you care about the logistics and personal preference yadda yadda but Revenants are not the easy answer to the logistics question.
Title: Re: Militarized sub system needs a rework.
Post by: intrinsic_parity on November 22, 2022, 08:02:05 AM
Also, I'm not a big fan of using the extra cargo/fuel hullmods. If I need more cargo/fuel capacity, I will just get more logistics ships. With efficiency overhaul instead of expanded cargo holds/auxiliary fuel tanks, I end up with much more cargo/supplies/month and about the same fuel capacity/fuel/ly, plus reduced crew requirements.

In my experience it's easy to print supplies with either Salvaging skill or just three Salvage Rigs. Fuel, not so much. So I don't really care about supply use, at least not in the late game.
I mean, efficiency overhaul on all your haulers also reduces their fuel consumption too. Quick math:
Spoiler
take
colossus (900 cargo, 120 fuel for 6 supplies/month and 4 fuel/ly)
phaeton (20 cargo, 800 fuel capacity for 4 supplies/month and 2 fuel/ly)

That gives you a base efficiency of:
(900 + 20)/(6 + 4) = 92 cargo/supplies/month
(120 + 800)/(4 +2) = 153.33 fuel capacity/fuel/ly

If you put expanded cargo holds and and auxiliary fuel tanks on each ship respectively, you end up with
(900*1.3 +20)/(4*2 + 6*1.5) = 70 cargo/supplies/month so about 24% less than base efficiency
(120 + 800*1.3)/(4 + 2) = 193.33 capacity/fuel/ly which is about 26% more than base efficiency

But if you put efficiency overhaul on both ships instead, you get:
(900 + 20)/(4*.8 + 6 *.8 ) = 115 cargo/supplies/month which is 25% more cargo/supplies/month (and 50% better than if you used expanded cargo holds)
(120 + 800)/(4*.8 + 2 *.8 ) = 191.66 capacity/fuel/ly which is about 25% more than base efficiency (basically the same as if you used the expansion hull mods)

You also get reduced crew requirements with efficiency overhaul.
[close]
So the overall efficiency of your fleet with bonus cargo/fuel hullmods is clearly worse in the supply department while being pretty much the same in the fuel department. I guess, the best thing you could do fuel-wise would be efficiency overhaul on everything along with auxiliary fuel tanks on fuel ships. But I have not really found any need to do that. It depends on what you are trying to do, but containment procedures gives -50% fuel consumption along with +25% fuel salvaged, and bulk transport also gives lots of extra fuel capacity. With those skills, I find I can explore with capital ships in my fleet and pretty much never run out of fuel. I don't have anything more than a phaeton. I frequently cap out on fuel from random drops and have to leave some behind.

Once I finish exploring, then I will spec out of containement procedures, but at that point, I can usually have a big colony up and can just buy massive amounts of fuel.
Title: Re: Militarized sub system needs a rework.
Post by: BCS on November 22, 2022, 08:23:04 AM
I guess, the best thing you could do fuel-wise would be efficiency overhaul on everything along with auxiliary fuel tanks on fuel ships.

That's what I do. The thing is in the late game you can stack so many bounties in same overall area that salvage really piles up. It's not uncommon for me to leave Corvus with 200 supplies and 1600 fuel and return with 1000+ supplies and 3000+ fuel.

Note that this is with Containment Procedures, but a) I'm generally against respeccing and b) there's almost nothing that I could take in its place anyway.
Title: Re: Militarized sub system needs a rework.
Post by: Hiruma Kai on November 22, 2022, 10:27:31 AM
Do people not take bulk transport early?

Depends on what my final fleet is intended to look like.  If I'm doing an early Hull Restoration run, then probably.  If I'm doing a more normal combat run, then likely not, as Combat 5 for Systems Expertise is a pretty significant buff and lets me solo some fleets where as before I wouldn't be able to.  Or if I'm doing an Automated run then Tech 5 is first stop to get me a Radiant as early as possible (Red Planet gambling).

Since I often fight my way up from the beginning of the game, getting more combat edge sooner means larger enemy fleets I can take on sooner, and I can deploy less on small fry (i.e. solo), which also saves on supplies.  Not deploying a Hammerhead for example, is a month of supplies on an Atlas, so arguing about 1,000 credits here and there in terms of logistics efficiency seems to be losing the forest for the trees.

I view Revenants as being able to pay something like 1000 credits a month each (compared to Atlas and/or Prometheus) for a significantly smaller sensor profile.  45 plus Phase reduction for the whole fleet versus +300 or +150 with Insulated Engines).  They're close enough in terms of hauling (especially by the time you likely have a Revenant on hand to have the choice), that I find it's hard to notice the credit difference.

Opening up one late game campaign save, I've got a Radiant (Neural link), 2 Legion XIV, Doom (Neural Link), 6 Scarabs, 3 Glimmer, 4 Revenant. It has a signature of 420 for the entire fleet due to the x0.5 phase multiplier from having so many cruiser scale phase ships in the fleet.  Sensor Strength is 1020, for a 600 range difference in my favor in terms of spotting and being seen.  Consider that three Atlases by themselves, with nothing else in the fleet, have a base signature of 1200, or 750 with insulated engines.  Even when I stick a pair of Ox tugs in that fleet to get 20 sustained burn, the 115 signature (insulated engine Ox tug) raises overall signature only a bit because of the phase field benefits, to something like 490 or 500 perhaps.  Most players may not care, but for an Iron man play through, it matters to me.

Also that same save had 700,000 passive net income the previous month, so I mostly don't care Revenants are costing me an extra 2000-3000 credits a month in supplies compared to capital logistics.  It literally is a rounding error in my monthly income (702,667 credits income was the exact value).

Also Atlases are faster, because they can reach 10 burn with ADF and bulk transport, and you only need to spend 1 SP, and you are going Bulk Transport most times anyways to reach higher tier skills.

Faster than Revenants?  I can see an argument made for equal since going past burn 10 is a bit silly, but faster?  Bulk Transport Atlas is burn 8.  Bulk Transport Revenant is burn 10.  ADF + Bulk Transport Atlas is burn 10, so equal.  Revenants and Phantoms happen to count as civilian for all of the benefits and none of the disadvantages.   Although you can also use Revenants as logistics in a burn 11 frigate fleet if you throw on ADF and Bulk Transport, but that's pretty niche.

When I'm using Atlases/Prometheus, my logistics hullmods are typically ADF, Insulated Engine, Efficiency Overhaul, and Surveying Equipment (exploration fleet) or Solar Shielding (combat fleet), for 2 story points.  If I am running Bulk Transport, then ADF will probably be swapped for Expanded Cargo Holds, unless I'm running a frigate/destroyer pack.

For my Revenants, I run Expanded Cargo Hold, Auxilliary Fuel Tanks, Efficiency Overhaul, and Surveying Equipment or Solar Shielding, also for 2 story points.  Given there's no supply penalty for putting on the Expanded Cargo Hold and Auxilliary Fuel Tanks, might as well use them.

Atlases are still definitely more efficient in terms of credits and sheer capacity per ship, but personally when I'm playing on Iron man, I care more about signature and fleet range than an extra 1,000 credits a month here and there in terms of my logistics train.  If I've got enough capacity for my needs, then it really is just coming down to a few thousand credits a month.  The exact amount is dependent on distance versus time taken given Revenants are less supply efficient but more fuel efficient.  I suppose over 5 years or something that might be 100,000 or 200,000 credits, a level you might potentially notice if you're not running colonies, but if it saved me a fight I didn't need at a bad time, or saves having to earn back a single story point used to escape an encounter, it's well worth it to me.
Title: Re: Militarized sub system needs a rework.
Post by: YAZF on November 22, 2022, 03:43:05 PM
Like most ship mods, militarized sub sys CAN be useful depending on what you need. It doesn't have to be good all the time. I use it extensively anytime I'm doing a smuggler style playthrough. It provides a small burn boost and a sensor profile buff (which STACKS with insulated engines). Those are great perks! Maybe it's in-combat effect is a bit anemic, but does it need a full rework? I don't think so. 
Title: Re: Militarized sub system needs a rework.
Post by: smithney on November 23, 2022, 04:00:01 AM
One thing I feel needs to be pointed out in this thread is that Militarized Subsystems may act as a noob trap. I might be the only idiot, but in my early runs I used to pick it for the Burn increase and the Sensor buffs, not realizing that I made civilian ships eat into my fleetwide buffs with their DP despite never using them in combat. Doesn't help that Insulated Engine Assembly seems strictly inferior at first glance.

I never really found a good use for Militarized Subsystems in my later runs. True civilian ships plain suck at combat and putting the hullmod on rogue faction rebuilds isn't worth it. The idea of a Daud wannabe scraping up a fleet where auxiliaries play combat support doesn't currently translate into the gameplay in any good way.

EDIT:
Like most ship mods, militarized sub sys CAN be useful depending on what you need. It doesn't have to be good all the time. I use it extensively anytime I'm doing a smuggler style playthrough. It provides a small burn boost and a sensor profile buff (which STACKS with insulated engines). Those are great perks! Maybe it's in-combat effect is a bit anemic, but does it need a full rework? I don't think so. 
Well why would I bother myself with civilian hogs when I can achieve a similar result with customized non-civilian logistics ships, except also getting a passable combat backup? Especially in a world where phase ships exist? If you never get into combat, then sure Militarized Subsystems don't have downsides. But I have two problems with this: First, do you really want to avoid one of the most fun features of this game just to optimize your overworld gameplay? Second, isn't it quite a flavor mismatch when Daud's feat is being shoved into the player's face every other turn of a corner, yet a playstyle emulating it is unfun and suboptimal in practice?
Title: Re: Militarized sub system needs a rework.
Post by: YAZF on November 23, 2022, 01:34:02 PM
I might be the only idiot, but in my early runs I used to pick it for the Burn increase and the Sensor buffs, not realizing that I made civilian ships eat into my fleetwide buffs with their DP despite never using them in combat.
I fully agree that once you go over the 240 DP cap for fleetwide abilities the mod can definitely be more harmful than helpful. And in such a situation I probably wouldn't use it. But like I said it doesn't have to be the type of mod that you use all the time.

Well why would I bother myself with civilian hogs when I can achieve a similar result with customized non-civilian logistics ships, except also getting a passable combat backup? Especially in a world where phase ships exist?
Some of the biggest strengths of civilian ships are that they are easy to find as well as relatively cheap to purchase and maintain. Sure in an endgame fleet you could use rarer and more costly logistic ships but that's not the point of the mod IMO. The point is to take something useful and common, but with crappy downsides, and to shore up it's weaknesses. I don't think the mod is designed to make a freighter or tanker into a combat ship. It's designed to make them less of a liability and to make your fleet not a giant target on the overworld map, especially during the early and mid game.
Title: Re: Militarized sub system needs a rework.
Post by: Schwartz on November 24, 2022, 07:22:50 AM
You can get around this by using Aug Drive Field and Insulated Engine instead. There's also the Survey hullmod and Efficiency Overhaul. More Logistics hullmods than you can fit, so Militarized Subsystems are a choice, not a requirement. The only thing you can't fix 100% is the sensor stats, Insulated Engine only accounts for half of it. I can see why it's a bother to have these cut into DP, but it makes sense why it's like this.

On the flipside, does Venture without Militarized hullmod count toward skill DP limits? Because that's actually a competent combat ship. By current logic, it should not.

I agree that this should be more concise, but a solution is not immediately obvious. Making a crowbar separation between combat-capable and fully logistics ships is not so easy (Tarsus? Prometheus?). Maybe skills working with DP should just account for the whole fleet and then be scaled up a bit. Since there's seldom fleets without any logistics ships.
Title: Re: Militarized sub system needs a rework.
Post by: Hiruma Kai on November 24, 2022, 07:58:32 AM
One thing I feel needs to be pointed out in this thread is that Militarized Subsystems may act as a noob trap. I might be the only idiot, but in my early runs I used to pick it for the Burn increase and the Sensor buffs, not realizing that I made civilian ships eat into my fleetwide buffs with their DP despite never using them in combat. Doesn't help that Insulated Engine Assembly seems strictly inferior at first glance.

I never really found a good use for Militarized Subsystems in my later runs. True civilian ships plain suck at combat and putting the hullmod on rogue faction rebuilds isn't worth it. The idea of a Daud wannabe scraping up a fleet where auxiliaries play combat support doesn't currently translate into the gameplay in any good way.

Militarized Subsystems only eats into fleetwide buffs if you're already running a 240 DP worth of combat ships, though.  It is a perfectly reasonable early game choice, especially when ADF is not available yet.  If you only need +1 burn on the ship, do not have Bulk Transport, and your fleet is under 240 DP, then Militarized Subsystems is the optimal choice compared to ADF.  Like adding a Buffalo to a destroyer led fleet, or a Dram to a frigate fleet.

You just need to realize when the costs do start becoming meaningful to you, which might not be at 242 DP of combat ships say, since that level of slight reduction in bonuses is not noticeable in a play experience sense.  You can see it on the info card but actually being able to tell the difference between a 99% and 100% CR ship based purely on their performance in Detailed Combat Reports is probably impossible given the typical wide variation due to AI decision making.

It's the same with Bulk Transport for some builds which don't go down industry, but plan to spend a story point to respec down the line because you want tier 5 combat, leadership and tech.  At which point, how many credits are you actually saving over the duration of the time you have Bulk Transport, and is it worth a story point to you?  Some might answer yes, and others might answer no.  An extra Dram or Hound over the course of an in game year is what, 10,000-15,000 credits?  That sounds like the kind of credits one has to spend to make up for the Bulk Transport difference early game to me.  Maybe 100,000-200,000 total over the time you have Bulk Transport before respecing?  Is a story point worth 200,000 credits?  Early game maybe, late game not at all, at least for me.

Well why would I bother myself with civilian hogs when I can achieve a similar result with customized non-civilian logistics ships, except also getting a passable combat backup?

Again, it's an early game situation where you perhaps simply don't have the option.  Although as far as I know, there are no good non-civilian tankers other than the Revenant, and it's pure RNG if you find one while still in the frigate/destroyer stage of the game.

Especially in a world where phase ships exist? If you never get into combat, then sure Militarized Subsystems don't have downsides. But I have two problems with this: First, do you really want to avoid one of the most fun features of this game just to optimize your overworld gameplay? Second, isn't it quite a flavor mismatch when Daud's feat is being shoved into the player's face every other turn of a corner, yet a playstyle emulating it is unfun and suboptimal in practice?

I mean, I doubt many experienced players would like it, but one way to make Militarized Subsystems clearly more useful to more players to is to prevent the ability to skip the limited selection of ships and hullmods phase of the game.  I believe in the current game there are many players who simply do some black market trading to build up a pile of credits to buy a perfect fleet, or at least the starting core of one, and then proceed into actually playing other phases of the game, such as combat or exploration.

One way to change that, is to make civilian ships, and civilian adjacent ships (combat freighters such as the Hound, Cereberus, and Mule) be the only ones that can be purchased off the open market, and also the only ones that can be purchased off the black market without high pirate relationship (similar to how military markets restrict combat ship purchases based on relationship).  Similarly, lock all new hullmods behind faction markets (and skill picks, which then makes the various skills which provide hullmods much more important).  This then requires the player to do something more than trade to build up credits.  They need higher relationships with factions, to gain access to better ships.  This interesting has a side effect of making black market trading more painful (due to the negative relationship that happens from it), as faction relationship becomes critical to being able to outfit a fleet as you want.

Alternatively, entering combat with inferior (dare I say militarized?) ships becomes more attractive, as it becomes a direct shortcut to specialized combat ships via salvage.  Similarly, colonies and exploration becomes a third option to bypass high faction standing, although on a longer timescale.  Hitting up bars becomes more important as coming across a surplus combat ship being sold via contact is rare and valuable opportunity.

Which means potentially risking combat in sub-optimal ships in order to build up that relationship, or at best, frigates purchased off the lowest tier of faction military markets.  Alternatively, by going directly to combat with sub-optimal ships, salvaging becomes much more important as it becomes a short cut to specialized combat ships without the reputational needs.

In such a drastic change, I'd make the faction military markets even better stocked, so that once you've unlocked the reputational tier needed, it becomes relatively trivial to get the faction related ships and hullmods you want, and probably weapons as well.  And on the other hand, you wouldn't see combat ships in the other markets at all, except for high pirate relationship in the black market.  Pirate relationship becomes your "street cred" in that case.

Unless the game changes such that people are forced to play through the early phases of the game like they play through the end phases of the game, Militarized Subsystems is always going to be considered underpowered by the players skipping that phase.  The entire concept of it is incompatible with perfect end game fleets, simply because it is a "make do with what you have" hullmod.  If you're never just "making do" with a limited selection of options, the hullmod is never going to look appealing or make sense to you.  I'm not sure if such a drastic change would be overall better or worse for the game as whole, but that's what you're going to need to do if you want to see anything along the lines of militarized subsystems be useful to the majority of players.

On the flipside, does Venture without Militarized hullmod count toward skill DP limits? Because that's actually a competent combat ship. By current logic, it should not.

Venture without militarized subsystems neither benefits from nor counts against skills with combat ship limits.
Title: Re: Militarized sub system needs a rework.
Post by: smithney on November 27, 2022, 04:56:32 AM
One way to change that, is to make civilian ships, and civilian adjacent ships (combat freighters such as the Hound, Cereberus, and Mule) be the only ones that can be purchased off the open market, and also the only ones that can be purchased off the black market without high pirate relationship (similar to how military markets restrict combat ship purchases based on relationship).  Similarly, lock all new hullmods behind faction markets (and skill picks, which then makes the various skills which provide hullmods much more important).  This then requires the player to do something more than trade to build up credits.  They need higher relationships with factions, to gain access to better ships.  This interesting has a side effect of making black market trading more painful (due to the negative relationship that happens from it), as faction relationship becomes critical to being able to outfit a fleet as you want.

In such a drastic change, I'd make the faction military markets even better stocked, so that once you've unlocked the reputational tier needed, it becomes relatively trivial to get the faction related ships and hullmods you want, and probably weapons as well.  And on the other hand, you wouldn't see combat ships in the other markets at all, except for high pirate relationship in the black market.  Pirate relationship becomes your "street cred" in that case.
Here's a thought I can get behind. I do agree that acquiring decent ships doesn't really need much of any commitment at this point. I don't think making ships above destroyer size hard to get would make the game much more difficult for a new player. It's compounded by the fact that having good relationships with all standard factions tends to play more optimally than taking a side, at least in my experience. I'd say that what you suggested would help with getting the player more involved in faction politics. Anyway you're onto something that Militarized Subsystems feeling bad is more of a symptom of make-do measures being quickly suboptimal. Does it therefore make sense to try to make Militarized Subsystems feel better? On the other hand, does it make sense for the hullmod to exist if its niche can disappear so quickly?

Unless the game changes such that people are forced to play through the early phases of the game like they play through the end phases of the game, Militarized Subsystems is always going to be considered underpowered by the players skipping that phase. The entire concept of it is incompatible with perfect end game fleets, simply because it is a "make do with what you have" hullmod.  If you're never just "making do" with a limited selection of options, the hullmod is never going to look appealing or make sense to you.  I'm not sure if such a drastic change would be overall better or worse for the game as whole, but that's what you're going to need to do if you want to see anything along the lines of militarized subsystems be useful to the majority of players.
There were attempts at making "trash" viable with stuff like Derelict Contingent and Auxiliary Support and indeed, I don't recall any of these catching on. If playstyles like these are ever to become viable, there has to be a niche at which they outperform the "optimal" stuff. In the end, there's probably no good reason to make these a thing post early game. At the same time, I don't think it's necessary to force experienced players into early game if they feel like skipping it. Afaik most wouldn't want to anyway because it's their favorite part of the game. Regarding early game, I'd agree that it's good to have options like Militarized Subsystems exist, I just probably got blinded by being accustomed to the game.
Title: Re: Militarized sub system needs a rework.
Post by: BCS on November 27, 2022, 08:18:37 AM
I mean, I doubt many experienced players would like it, but one way to make Militarized Subsystems clearly more useful to more players to is to prevent the ability to skip the limited selection of ships and hullmods phase of the game.  I believe in the current game there are many players who simply do some black market trading to build up a pile of credits to buy a perfect fleet, or at least the starting core of one, and then proceed into actually playing other phases of the game, such as combat or exploration. (...)

That sounds great, and I say that as someone who abuses the hell out of black market trading and basically skips the entire early/mid-game.
Title: Re: Militarized sub system needs a rework.
Post by: Hiruma Kai on November 27, 2022, 04:39:31 PM
I suppose it should be possible to put a mod together that alters the base tiers for all vanilla hullmods and ships such that they get the high end military ship treatment.  Not immediately sure how to get military markets to have everything on their faction known list in stock all the time, but I'm guessing there's got to be a hook in the monthly market refresh code.  Black market might be harder to tackle, but presumably overridable.  I might mess around with it to see how it easy it is to have essentially a reputation + commission lock for the vast majority of ships.
Title: Re: Militarized sub system needs a rework.
Post by: Serenitis on November 28, 2022, 01:28:56 AM
I might mess around with it to see how it easy it is to have essentially a reputation + commission lock for the vast majority of ships.
Doesn't Starpocalypse (https://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=21812.0) do this?
Might be worth digging around in there for inspiration.
Title: Re: Militarized sub system needs a rework.
Post by: Hiruma Kai on November 28, 2022, 06:54:50 AM
I might mess around with it to see how it easy it is to have essentially a reputation + commission lock for the vast majority of ships.
Doesn't Starpocalypse (https://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=21812.0) do this?
Might be worth digging around in there for inspiration.

Thanks for the pointer.  I'll check Starpocalypse out, and check out the configuration options on it.  From the sounds of it, it does exactly what we've described here, make the early game last longer by making it harder to get good ships, along with some other stuff, but the description sounds like some of that can be configured.
Title: Re: Militarized sub system needs a rework.
Post by: Lortus on November 28, 2022, 08:16:47 AM
Quote
I mean, I doubt many experienced players would like it, but one way to make Militarized Subsystems clearly more useful to more players to is to prevent the ability to skip the limited selection of ships and hullmods phase of the game.  I believe in the current game there are many players who simply do some black market trading to build up a pile of credits to buy a perfect fleet, or at least the starting core of one, and then proceed into actually playing other phases of the game, such as combat or exploration.

I do the ignore early game build up fleet thing myself and it sounds like it could be interesting for a bit, but I would probably just find some way around it. I think it could be interesting though to make the standard method for acquiring good ships be something other than credits. Missions that reward you with a ship instead of credits for instance. I also don't think grinding rep is fun by any stretch of the imagination.

Quote
There were attempts at making "trash" viable with stuff like Derelict Contingent and Auxiliary Support and indeed, I don't recall any of these catching on. If playstyles like these are ever to become viable, there has to be a niche at which they outperform the "optimal" stuff. In the end, there's probably no good reason to make these a thing post early game. At the same time, I don't think it's necessary to force experienced players into early game if they feel like skipping it. Afaik most wouldn't want to anyway because it's their favorite part of the game. Regarding early game, I'd agree that it's good to have options like Militarized Subsystems exist, I just probably got blinded by being accustomed to the game.

Well as long as Automated Ships remains a skill you can take, no other strategy but High Tech + Auto Ships will ever be viable (unless there is some insane buff to other ship styles). However, trash ships with the dmod skills have been pretty viable?

DC was insanely broken and actually made low tech somewhat good, although the patch changed before I could really take it to it's limit.

DO is arguably even better, because although it isn't as strong, it's a lot more applicable. It's even part of the now best fleet comp you can build where you use DO to abuse Automated Ships even more. If you don't count this because Remnant ship abuse DO is still pretty up there in viability.
Title: Re: Militarized sub system needs a rework.
Post by: Hiruma Kai on November 28, 2022, 09:31:06 AM
I do the ignore early game build up fleet thing myself and it sounds like it could be interesting for a bit, but I would probably just find some way around it. I think it could be interesting though to make the standard method for acquiring good ships be something other than credits. Missions that reward you with a ship instead of credits for instance. I also don't think grinding rep is fun by any stretch of the imagination.

As I said, I'm not sure such a drastic change would be the way to go or not, which is why I'd like to try out the experience with a mod.  New players are likely spend more time at this earlier stage where militarized subsystems make sense than veteran players, so perhaps no change is needed.  It might not be a new player trap, but rather a new player tool that players eventually grow out of needing much as they spend less time in the early stages.  There are some situations early game where it is optimal, and not everything in a game needs to be focused on end game.

I'll also point out people like different things.  Some might like early game reputation grind with smaller and rapidly changing fleets.  Some might like the late game Ordo grind and building up piles of alpha cores and credits with an optimized fleet for the job.  It's all just numbers going up on the campaign layer, the question is do you like the gameplay along the way.  I would tend to think the variety in interesting opposition in the early game is actually much larger than the variety in interesting opposition at end game.

In regards to missions rewarding ships, nearly every single combat mission I've taken provides me the opportunity to grab new ships, albeit with d-mods.  Also exploration missions to a derelict sometimes gives you the opportunity to salvage that ship.  All you have to do is tow them yourself.  So combat salvage, combined with exploring for derelicts would be the short cuts in a system where you can't buy good ships.  if you don't want to travel for your ships, just turn your transponder off before jumping into a system, and go say "Hi!" to your local Tri-tach or Hegemony small patrol.  You even get to see what is in them before you "buy".  Commissions actively encourage you to do this against fleets which your faction is at war with.

There are five mission types now that provide ships directly on the spot, surplus military ship sale (I've even bought an Onslaught XIV for cheap off of a very high military contact), down on their luck freighter captain, pirate using marines to liberate a ship, nanoforge order from the faction, and illegal nanoforge order from pirates.  The last two probably would need to be tweaked in a complete rework of the early game ship/weapon setup, potentially with reputation limits (although in the proposed idea, the faction nanoforge mission wouldn't be necessary because the military markets would be well stocked with faction ships and weapons).  So late game refit becomes trivial and no bouncing from world to world to find just the right weapon, or needing to stock pile from the early game.  Assuming you're flying the style the faction flies.

Well as long as Automated Ships remains a skill you can take, no other strategy but High Tech + Auto Ships will ever be viable (unless there is some insane buff to other ship styles). However, trash ships with the dmod skills have been pretty viable?

I'm not quite sure what you mean by viable here.  I've had success with fleets that didn't take Automated Ships or use any high tech ships.  There are plenty of posts on the forums talking about Gryphon fleets with Legions or Onslaughts leading them taking on triple Ordos and the like, with no Radiants or high tech ships.  If I can beat the hardest fleets in the game with such non-automated ship and non-high tech fleets, they are by definition viable, no?

Perhaps you mean easiest to use or strongest, but a viable fleet just means a fleet that you can make work.  If it can beat the hardest challenges in the game, and be organically grown from the ground up on just combat missions, that strikes me as a plenty viable fleet.
Title: Re: Militarized sub system needs a rework.
Post by: Lortus on November 28, 2022, 10:07:28 AM
Quote
In regards to missions rewarding ships, nearly every single combat mission I've taken provides me the opportunity to grab new ships, albeit with d-mods.  Also exploration missions to a derelict sometimes gives you the opportunity to salvage that ship.  All you have to do is tow them yourself.  So combat salvage, combined with exploring for derelicts would be the short cuts in a system where you can't buy good ships.  if you don't want to travel for your ships, just turn your transponder off before jumping into a system, and go say "Hi!" to your local Tri-tach or Hegemony small patrol.  You even get to see what is in them before you "buy".  Commissions actively encourage you to do this against fleets which your faction is at war with.

Personally I don't usually find decent ships while exploring or taking medium bounties in vanilla. I mean like getting a pristine Aurora instead of 300k for a mission. If we had rewards like that I could see less ships being available through markets.

Quote
I'm not quite sure what you mean by viable here.  I've had success with fleets that didn't take Automated Ships or use any high tech ships.  There are plenty of posts on the forums talking about Gryphon fleets with Legions or Onslaughts leading them taking on triple Ordos and the like, with no Radiants or high tech ships.  If I can beat the hardest fleets in the game with such non-automated ship and non-high tech fleets, they are by definition viable, no?

Perhaps you mean easiest to use or strongest, but a viable fleet just means a fleet that you can make work.  If it can beat the hardest challenges in the game, and be organically grown from the ground up on just combat missions, that strikes me as a plenty viable fleet.

Sorry I meant best.