Fractal Softworks Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Starsector 0.97a is out! (02/02/24); New blog post: Simulator Enhancements (03/13/24)

Pages: [1] 2 3 4

Author Topic: Zen and the Art of Battlestation Construction  (Read 22502 times)

David

  • Global Moderator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 909
    • View Profile
Zen and the Art of Battlestation Construction
« on: March 02, 2018, 05:29:51 PM »

Blog post here.

(I suppose the title is ever so slightly misleading. This is actually about battlestation game design but I don't want to give up that title.)
« Last Edit: March 14, 2018, 01:49:02 PM by David »
Logged

SafariJohn

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 3010
    • View Profile
Re: Zen and the Art of Battlestation Construction
« Reply #1 on: March 02, 2018, 06:01:11 PM »

Should have used a Pather Kite ;)


I can't wait for part 2!
Logged

Techhead

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 184
    • View Profile
Re: Zen and the Art of Battlestation Construction
« Reply #2 on: March 02, 2018, 06:02:50 PM »

I kinda feel bad for all the unused art that was dropped in development iterations. I think the underlay modules looked especially cool.
Logged

Histidine

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 4661
    • View Profile
    • GitHub profile
Re: Zen and the Art of Battlestation Construction
« Reply #3 on: March 02, 2018, 06:41:57 PM »

Ha, I thought of star forts the moment I read the part with this image:


Ahh, the things you pick up from a loose interest in early modern period warfare. (Thanks, Eric Flint!)
Logged

Dal

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 146
    • View Profile
Re: Zen and the Art of Battlestation Construction
« Reply #4 on: March 02, 2018, 07:10:49 PM »

It does sound like you guys are approaching the classic fort design problem. The good news is you have literally hundreds of interesting and in some cases really creative real-world solutions for this exact challenge. I for one would not mind seeing some proper Star Forts (groan) in the game. You could even have the sophistication rise with tech level, similar to how it did in the real world.
« Last Edit: March 02, 2018, 07:12:47 PM by Dal »
Logged

David

  • Global Moderator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 909
    • View Profile
Re: Zen and the Art of Battlestation Construction
« Reply #5 on: March 02, 2018, 07:35:57 PM »

Should have used a Pather Kite ;)

I thought I'd make like certain eccentric billionaires and go with the sports-car option.

(Thanks, Eric Flint!)

(Yup, read that one. Side-note: there was an interesting War Nerd podcast recently saying Gustavus Adolphus is overrated and the anglo world is too fanboy about him, which is ... probably true. But that's a bit of a tangent!)

I for one would not mind seeing some proper Star Forts (groan) in the game.

 8)
Logged

Clockwork Owl

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 790
    • View Profile
    • Starsector South Korean Community
Re: Zen and the Art of Battlestation Construction
« Reply #6 on: March 02, 2018, 07:42:47 PM »

So we need space-barbed-wires and space-trenches. Also space-machineguns...wait we have that already. nvm

I like how you approached the design by thinking the player approaches - form follows function eh?
Logged

frag971

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 242
    • View Profile
Re: Zen and the Art of Battlestation Construction
« Reply #7 on: March 02, 2018, 07:54:03 PM »

Obviously still waiting on the next part, but a few things came to mind:

Will there be major variations on stations? One may have an XXL cannon in the middle (but very slow turn rate?), while another may have several overlapping directional shields? To differentiate them.

On the subject of station identity, i thought of various ways to specialize a station:
* One mega cannon in the centre that favours fleets with multiple smaller ships than fewer larger ones.

* "Infinite" fighter squadrons being thrown at the attackers ad nauseum.

* Multiple overlapping directional shields (and respective FLUX bars) that favour splitting up the fleet rather than concentrating on a single point.

* R&R berthing arms for smaller defending ships to restore ammo and readiness,

* Asteroids orbiting the station providing a platforming hazard.

* A solar collector on a station placed close to a star that periodically vacuums up star material for power. Any ship caught in the stream will get pushed into the station.

* Asteroid stations - instead of having those fancy circular stations perhaps have a rocky asteroid with station modules sticking out of it (*whispering* these can be procedurally generated).

* An agglomeration of smaller stations into a space favela.

That said - I imagined the stations to be WAY larger, like, a third of a station spanning the entire battle map from left to right with us fighting our way into it, with frigates/fighters going inside and blowing up the core or something. These just feel like very large battleships that happen to be circular.
« Last Edit: March 02, 2018, 07:57:57 PM by frag971 »
Logged
Let's say I'm captaining the ISS Slightly Lopsided Isosceles Triangle here.

PyroFuzz

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 110
    • View Profile
Re: Zen and the Art of Battlestation Construction
« Reply #8 on: March 02, 2018, 08:04:22 PM »

Those Battlestations are sick. I can't wait to see what the modding community does!  ;D
Logged
Hello!

Lanvrik

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 25
    • View Profile
Re: Zen and the Art of Battlestation Construction
« Reply #9 on: March 02, 2018, 09:27:54 PM »

Can a station have both rotating and counter-rotating segments?
Logged

Thaago

  • Global Moderator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 7173
  • Harpoon Affectionado
    • View Profile
Re: Zen and the Art of Battlestation Construction
« Reply #10 on: March 02, 2018, 10:26:41 PM »

You know, I almost always ended up using marines to disable the weapon systems on stations. Lets not do that :P.

Also, suddenly I feel like my fleets are going to need more Piranhas.
Logged

Goumindong

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1886
    • View Profile
Re: Zen and the Art of Battlestation Construction
« Reply #11 on: March 02, 2018, 11:17:56 PM »

One of the reasons that the [REDACTED] design worked was because of what they call in Starcraft “a good concave”.

The idea is that in order to effectively focus fire your troops need to all be at the same distance from the enemy and so this makes a concave around them. With the same number of troops fighting against each other the side that will win(micro aside) is the one with the better concave. The side with the better concave will be fighting a series of 10 v 1s while the side without will be fighting 10 1v1s. This should be intuitive for any experienced player in this game too. If the enemy has equal quality ships and you’re surrounded you’re going to go down fast.

The “circle” pattern naturally makes it easy to get a good concave against a base even if the turrets have > 180 deg firing arcs. It’s almost impossible to get a bad one and the range issue as it turns makes it hard for higher tech to make up for it.  

The “Star” pattern makes it easy as well, but only against the points. So if the points are hardest and the center is dangerous then when the center comes around things get painful. This is actually really good game design as well because it produces lulls in the fight (and because fleet control is not fine enough to not get wrecked by something that would always have a good concave)

There is a better pattern than both though.

The first pattern is an honest pattern. It has three concave sections like the star design. However, instead of being fixed the entire section pivots around a center point. Each one has a bevy of turrets on the doing their things. Such the most forward section can pivot to focus fire dangerous ships and the other two can pivot to marginally protect the points of the leading concave. If fully surrounded it becomes a star design that can make mistakes. But otherwise it’s pretty ideal.

The second pattern is dishonest. It’s also a concave but it’s not something you can exploit to focus on a side. That is because it’s a concave that takes up the entire side of a map . For good measure it’s fit entirely with Gauss Cannons and Harpoon MRM pods. Ha ha try surrounding that suckers!

Edit: as an aside the next version really needs to have infinite supplies and fuel at least. It is pretty annoying coming back from or setting out to somewhere and it simply being impossible to find the fuel to do it while everyone else burns around like it ain’t no thing. I know it doesn’t fit with the theme of the game but it’s gotta be playable before it fits the theme
« Last Edit: March 02, 2018, 11:26:05 PM by Goumindong »
Logged

Camael

  • Lieutenant
  • **
  • Posts: 70
    • View Profile
Re: Zen and the Art of Battlestation Construction
« Reply #12 on: March 03, 2018, 01:01:46 AM »

Can a station have both rotating and counter-rotating segments?

I think that might be a possible solution to the "just running down weak spots one after another"-issue. After all, just looking at the station I want to kill it, and got some ideas on how to do it. Shoot off the tips, then start focussing on the weak sides etc. - maybe the engine can be made to give us actually "existing" modules rotating in the counter-direction, also armed to the teeth. Maybe at a two different "ring"-sizes. That way weak spots would only pop up from time to time at different angles, favouring more of a hit and run game than a sit there and grind it down slowly-one. Would also exponentially increase the firepower and durability of the stations, as shields rotating away from the enemy regenerate/vent while others get into the fray, without increasing size. More focus on mobility for attacking fleets, instead of firepower in order to keep hitting the same target, more focus on alpha strike potential and coordinated bombing-runs than staying power - makes little sense to try and directly outgun a starbase that can effectively grow in size indefinitely without worries about inertia and mobility. Might be a great space-age solution instead of walls and mountains to funnel enemies into the right spots...

Also, I think modules should not detonate particularly violently. As the station's "core" is the most well protected area, it would make sense that internal infrastructure would place explody parts like missile storage and reactors close to the center instead of fitting each module with their own nuke. Due to the concentrated ring-shape the connections would not be weak spots until most of the external defenses were shot off anyway. Unless, maybe, it's a civillian station, where safety goes first and dangerous stuff is placed further away from the internal shelters. (Considering ressource scarcity in the sector, it would however be reasonable to assume that nobody would fire at the center much as they would not want to blow up the loot...)
A different approach would be to have the modules detach and "blow off" when critically damaged, only detonating when pushed away from the station to a relatively safe distance. Little harm for the station, but fun for those that just scored a minor victory in the skirmish... "sir, we have taken out their fighter-bays. Also, they are now flying in our direction and their battleship-size reactor is overloading...".
Think the whole explody-parts issue might come up with counter-rotating modules present...
Logged

Madao

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 39
    • View Profile
Re: Zen and the Art of Battlestation Construction
« Reply #13 on: March 03, 2018, 04:41:25 AM »

Well, I feel ever so giddy after reading all that.. Is it excitement? Is it a hint of nervousness at the thought of sending my own fleet against such a monster? Possibly both.

Taking a beast like that out will be amazing.. Currently I can't imagine how I'd do it without losing a few and a half ships. Can we assume there will be some associated benefits to taking down a planets station such as raiding privileges?
Logged

Megas

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 12117
    • View Profile
Re: Zen and the Art of Battlestation Construction
« Reply #14 on: March 03, 2018, 05:45:12 AM »

Quote
Stations also get a unique hull system which provides all of their weapons with a huge range boost so you can’t sit at max range and plink the station to death.
So far, the Remnant battlestation manages this by having Gunnery Implants 3 on top of Targeting Supercomputer.  Without it, beam Paragon with max range and max ECM will outrange the battlestation (except maybe Gauss Cannons, which Paragon can shrug off, and fighters, which get mowed down) and can leisurely pick off modules one-by-one.

If the new battlestations do not automatically get Gunnery Implants 3, then station-killer Paragon might make a triumphant return, unless something changes, like bigger range bonus on Targeting Supercomputer or other change.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 4