Fractal Softworks Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

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

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5]

Author Topic: Raids make little sense  (Read 14923 times)

Megas

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 12118
    • View Profile
Re: Raids make little sense
« Reply #60 on: November 12, 2019, 10:57:23 AM »

Quote
To be fair, nobody but you is doing that and it's not sensible to design for it.
Are you sure?  I guess I could be an anomaly that I try not to cheat (although I gleefully abuse exploits).  Most munchkins would probably outright cheat (like third-party maphacks or duping in Diablo).  It is not a sensible design, which puzzles me why add anti-scum technique if all it did was extend the grinding time required (and still be the fastest legit way) to get a rare ship?  Not that it matters since that nonsense is history.

Back then, if I want a rare ship, scumming the rare fleets that had the rare ship was the only reliable way, if not using mods.  What is the point of some ships if you cannot even play them due to being too rare?

As for too much money, 0.6.5a had those infamous food runs for power-leveling and income.  What would I need that high income for, after I have about twenty Atlases?  Probably nothing, except gamble it away for rare ships.  I wanted Hyperions and Tempest, but they were very rarely sold.

Console is playing with mods.  I should not need a mod to play with content offered by the base game.  I am glad that era of boarding was scrapped for ship recovery.
Logged

Lucky33

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 894
    • View Profile
Re: Raids make little sense
« Reply #61 on: November 12, 2019, 01:15:48 PM »

If boarding was a thing, you would expect ships to be able to render themselves unrecoverable. Even in WW2, crews of tanks and ships would often destroy their vehicles with explosives in case of capture. If capturing ships was an actual tactic, you would expect your ships to have countermeasures against being captured, rather than being passive. Too often boarding mechanics are from the perspective of an active attacker against a passive defender, which is understandable because only the player can recover ships.

Anyways, historically speaking, boarding rarely happened against large ship of the line, as they were simply too large to be boarded. Boarding was not a military tactic in major battles and only really happened during the age of sail against ships which were small or slow enough to be boarded.

As I said it is the goal of the attacker to make impossible for the defender to destroy the ship. You are talking about failed boarding attempt. And I dont think that anybody expecting that such a ship will be granted as salvagable.

Sure. Boarding in the sail age wasnt widespread. The whole idea of the line of battle was against it. However the main reason behind limited boarding action was the fact that most of the ships which lost the gun fight just surrendered. But. If the fight degraded into melee and conditions were favourable than Nelson with its third rate ship boarded and captured spanish third rate and, from its deck, the first rate.

Honestly, boarding and/or surrender of the low CR transports being the only ships left after major fleet action, is make much more sense than their mersiless destruction in all those pursuit battles. And I dont think we need any intricate mechanics to implement that. We already have the crew counter. Multiply it by CR with some additional coefficients and if the result is low enough make the ship "boardable" or "surrendered". Just this simple.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5]