166
Bug Reports & Support / Re: Overworld speed jitters
« on: February 24, 2012, 09:15:16 PM »
This happens with my fleet at speed 111 as well.
Fractal Softworks Forum
- April 19, 2024, 05:51:48 AM
- Welcome, Guest
News:
Starsector 0.97a is out! (02/02/24); New blog post: Save/Load UI, Autosave, Intel Map Markers, and More (04/10/24)
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
167
General Discussion / Re: crew deaths
« on: February 24, 2012, 09:14:23 PM »Most likely reason green crew aren't dieing is the ship isn't using them during battle. Your ships use your most experienced crew first, the green ones will only be loaded on ships if you don't have enough more experienced crew.
Yeah. Check your ships' crews in the fleet screen. If you have more than enough experienced crew, they will be the ones crewing your ships, and they will be the ones that take losses, I think. But yeah, usually, once a ship starts taking hull damage, I have it retreat to minimize crew losses.
168
General Discussion / Re: Bombers/Reaper torp
« on: February 24, 2012, 04:38:59 PM »
Well, think WWII. Battleships could very feasibly be sunk by a few successful torpedo hits. The game is in preventing the Dagger wings from getting to your cruisers/battleships in the first place. And if they do, well, then it comes down to your dodging skills and getting a "flux buffer" prepped for your shield.
169
General Discussion / Re: How do I update to the latest version?
« on: February 23, 2012, 01:17:15 AM »
Note that you won't have to uninstall first. You can just install 0.50 over 0.35.
170
General Discussion / Re: Fighter AI
« on: February 22, 2012, 09:46:09 PM »
I believe if you set a Strike target, the default behavior for bombers (Piranhas, Tridents, Daggers) is to restock on bombs/torpedoes once they've delivered the payload to the target. They'll only really engage with secondary weapons if the enemy is in their way or if it's otherwise beneficial at the moment.
As for the other fighters, when they lose a majority of their wing, they usually head back to refit, but yeah, sometimes they don't head back soon enough and get wiped out (ahemTalonsahem). If your flagship is a carrier, you'll probably be removed enough from direct combat to micro some of those wings, though.
As for the other fighters, when they lose a majority of their wing, they usually head back to refit, but yeah, sometimes they don't head back soon enough and get wiped out (ahemTalonsahem). If your flagship is a carrier, you'll probably be removed enough from direct combat to micro some of those wings, though.
171
Suggestions / Re: Bribing Enemy Fleets
« on: February 22, 2012, 12:37:37 PM »
I kind of like this. But then, something would have to be done about how easily you could then catch up to the enemy fleet again and extort them again a few seconds later 
172
Suggestions / Re: 2 Mild suggestion (locational armor + ship boarding)
« on: February 21, 2012, 11:00:47 PM »Maybe it's not the player but the ship designer who has control over that.
Yeah, I'm all for complexity in a tactics game, but there's some line you have to draw. I think the existing customization available is already reaching the limits (the only other thing that I can think of that would be nice is changing the type of mount point on a ship; ie large energy to large ballistic). After all, it's no simple matter to tack on more armor to an existing ship, thus nearly entirely changing the role of the ship. Ship hulls are designed with the armor already in mind, I think: the level of armor a sailing ship had was determined in the earliest stages of a ship's design, so the other elements could be put in place.
#1 point is pretty fair, though, I think.
173
Suggestions / Re: pilum missile tracking
« on: February 21, 2012, 10:55:57 PM »
No, the point is that a Pilum volley does relatively good damage if it actually hits, although it's nothing spectacular. So, it is in the best interest of the target to turn their shield to absorb it, thereby opening themselves up to more damage (or, if you launch two volleys, another set of Pilum missiles). The relative ease with which Pilums can be destroyed is countered by the large rack size, the 3x missiles per volley, and the extremely long range.
174
Suggestions / Re: pilum missile tracking
« on: February 21, 2012, 06:17:03 PM »
Yep, I think Pilums are near-useless in terms of doing actual damage except against small ships that lack PD, but they're mainly useful in pressuring enemies to redirect their shield or occupying their PD, giving other ships more of a chance to deal some actual damage.
175
General Discussion / Re: Piloting Captial Ships
« on: February 21, 2012, 06:14:58 PM »For ships like the conquest you need to force a fight, but on your terms, so you want to make sure ALL the enemies are on one side of you so you don't get flanked.
I dunno man, there are times when the spinal torpedoes are VERY important to have. But yeah, I agree that in general you should try to use the broadside to your advantage.
The rule I've used with the Conquest, to pretty good effect, is that if the enemies are comparatively weak but fast, to attempt a broadside. But for other capital ships and cruisers, the hardpoint Reapers are very useful. And, you probably want to minimize the area of your ship that the enemy can hit.
176
Suggestions / Re: Flameout Duration Too Long?
« on: February 21, 2012, 06:11:12 PM »
Yes, I do know about the hull mods. Yes, I do know about rotating omni-shields. And for the record, I think I might've gotten a flameout during the campaign maybe a total of once or twice.
But again, you might want to try playing the mission Predator or Prey, where you have a Dominator with frontal shields and no hull mods.
But again, you might want to try playing the mission Predator or Prey, where you have a Dominator with frontal shields and no hull mods.
177
Suggestions / Re: Flameout Duration Too Long?
« on: February 21, 2012, 02:02:52 PM »
Well, if you want to talk "realism," the actual "engines" of ships aren't even exposed; what you see are just the "nozzles." So, shooting at the nozzles wouldn't disable the engines themselves. But I think that's getting a bit overly-technical.
Speaking more from a game-balance point of view, the ability to nearly-continuously keep a ship's engine disabled (thus killing the ship) seems overpowered to me.
I'm kind of on the fence regarding the duration as well; I do see that if it was cut in half, flameouts wouldn't be as much of a tactic.
But what I'd really like to see is it taking a big impact to knock out engines (thus also making missiles such as the Salamander more useful for immobilizing ships), rather than "collective" minimal damage (from, say, a Wasp wing) that "realistically" a large ship's engineering/fire control teams would be able to handle.
Try playing Predator or Prey a few times and you may see what I mean.
Speaking more from a game-balance point of view, the ability to nearly-continuously keep a ship's engine disabled (thus killing the ship) seems overpowered to me.
I'm kind of on the fence regarding the duration as well; I do see that if it was cut in half, flameouts wouldn't be as much of a tactic.
But what I'd really like to see is it taking a big impact to knock out engines (thus also making missiles such as the Salamander more useful for immobilizing ships), rather than "collective" minimal damage (from, say, a Wasp wing) that "realistically" a large ship's engineering/fire control teams would be able to handle.
Try playing Predator or Prey a few times and you may see what I mean.
178
Suggestions / Flameout Duration Too Long?
« on: February 21, 2012, 01:52:59 AM »
I like most of the tweaks that have been made since 0.35 in terms of combat mechanics, with the exception of the extraordinarily long flameout duration (and to a degree, the weapon disability duration, but that's far less of an issue). This is a bit too easily exploited on both the AI and human fleets.
For instance, in Dire Straits: I was able to single-handedly take down a Medusa using the Hammerhead by scoring a flameout when it was distracted by my Hound. Then, since the Medusa's momentum was carrying it straight forward without turns, I proceeded to continuously overload the shield that he directed to cover his engine while he was immobile and strike his engine again, triggering another flameout. Repeated about 4-5 times, and I had then taken out a much stronger destroyer that I would have to avoid back in 0.35.
Another example, from Predator or Prey: The Wasp wings, which could almost be ignored by the Dominator back in 0.35, will continuously strafe my engine, triggering an almost-continuous flameout. If I am unlucky enough to have some sideways momentum, I will spin and due to the frontal shields of the Dominator, be unable to block the nonstop Hurricanes from the Astral. That, and I will be nowhere near close enough to the Astral to deploy my Reapers.
I think either (or both) of two tweaks could be made to make flameouts more balanced:
Personally, I think the latter is the more important change, as intuitively it's a bit improbable to think that a tiny drone wing could keep a much larger ship disabled indefinitely. I would venture to say that such a change to the weapon-disabling system would also balance the game as well.
Thanks for bearing with me through this lengthy post!
For instance, in Dire Straits: I was able to single-handedly take down a Medusa using the Hammerhead by scoring a flameout when it was distracted by my Hound. Then, since the Medusa's momentum was carrying it straight forward without turns, I proceeded to continuously overload the shield that he directed to cover his engine while he was immobile and strike his engine again, triggering another flameout. Repeated about 4-5 times, and I had then taken out a much stronger destroyer that I would have to avoid back in 0.35.
Another example, from Predator or Prey: The Wasp wings, which could almost be ignored by the Dominator back in 0.35, will continuously strafe my engine, triggering an almost-continuous flameout. If I am unlucky enough to have some sideways momentum, I will spin and due to the frontal shields of the Dominator, be unable to block the nonstop Hurricanes from the Astral. That, and I will be nowhere near close enough to the Astral to deploy my Reapers.
I think either (or both) of two tweaks could be made to make flameouts more balanced:
- The flameout duration could be cut in half
- One would have to take a significant impact to the engine area to trigger a flameout (ie, the minimal damage by a Wasp wing would not trigger a flameout, whereas a Salamander missile would)
Personally, I think the latter is the more important change, as intuitively it's a bit improbable to think that a tiny drone wing could keep a much larger ship disabled indefinitely. I would venture to say that such a change to the weapon-disabling system would also balance the game as well.
Thanks for bearing with me through this lengthy post!
179
Suggestions / Re: Fighter wings
« on: February 21, 2012, 01:40:46 AM »
Would be an interesting idea. But I think it would frustrate some beginning players, who would stop playing the game before they get to the real interesting fleet-level tactics. Perhaps set several stages that you can choose to start at (ie, fighter-level, frigate-level, light destroyer-level) and set a decreasing number of "campaign points" or whatever depending on where you start from.
180
General Discussion / Re: What's your favorite ship?
« on: February 21, 2012, 01:37:35 AM »Yeah, the AI is pretty remarkable except when one lone frigate goes off and dies against three frigates and two destroyers while the rest of my fleet is elsewhere not even engaging the enemy's main force...
Happens sometimes when you don't give any orders and just go with the flow. IMO all ships should default to escorting the flagship.
Here's the problem. If the desire is to keep your forces generally together, make sure you have a Defend/Assault order active. Shift around the Defend/Assault rally point(s) as the battle lines change.