Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[TaLaR]

How about dropping whole concept of ambushes and modifying base deployment rules instead:

- Deployment is now a queue instead of instant. Every deployed ship adds cooldown before next one can be deployed. Cooldown increases faster than linear with DP. So deploying 200 DP of frigates is a lot faster than 200 DP of capitals.
- Capture points on map reduce deployment cooldowns AND stretch out PPT/CR of dominant side (for example, by up to twice when all taken).
- Would probably need to be able to give standing order for ships to be deployed and/or have ability to issue orders for free to freshly deployed ships.
- Officers can be used on 4 size points worth of ships (1 capital vs 1 DE +2 frigates vs 4 frigates, etc). Officers can also be swapped between ships while not currently deployed. This is where it gets unwieldy, I don't know how to fix officer availability problem without adding a lot of micro management. Officer-less ships are fodder, so doing something about it is mandatory.
- Lift or significantly relax fleet size limits. We still have DP limits in combat to keep things sane.

Not saying that this is good idea, but I think we'd need to take things at least this far to break capital dominance on battlefield

[Lucky33]

But then why don't they ambush?

Because one fleet is weaker and for other, stronger, fleet its no different than a pursuit.

In your cases neither of the fleets will ambush each other. In the first case both fleets are too slow due to having battleships and logistics. In the second case there is no logistics to target.

An ideal construction of your system produces a very narrow band of situations where either one side wants to ambush and the other side does not, or even more rare when neither side wants to ambush. If that is the case then the system does not contribute to interesting gameplay. It simply produces a different dominating solution.

I have no idea how you even came to this conclusion. There is no logical connection between my suggestion and your conclusions. Why "very narrow"? Why only "either one side wants to ambush and the other side does not, neither side wants to ambush". Why "does not contribute to interesting gameplay". What does "different dominating solution" is even supposed to mean? It looks like you are talking to yourself with some of your internal arguments are spilling out into the forum. Im not that good at mindreading so could you please include the actual me in your internal discussion?

[Lucky33]

How about dropping whole concept of ambushes and modifying base deployment rules instead:

- Deployment is now a queue instead of instant. Every deployed ship adds cooldown before next one can be deployed. Cooldown increases faster than linear with DP. So deploying 200 DP of frigates is a lot faster than 200 DP of capitals.
- Capture points on map reduce deployment cooldowns AND stretch out PPT/CR of dominant side (for example, by up to twice when all taken).
- Would probably need to be able to give standing order for ships to be deployed and/or have ability to issue orders for free to freshly deployed ships.
- Officers can be used on 4 size points worth of ships (1 capital vs 1 DE +2 frigates vs 4 frigates, etc). Officers can also be swapped between ships while not currently deployed. This is where it gets unwieldy, I don't know how to fix officer availability problem without adding a lot of micro management. Officer-less ships are fodder, so doing something about it is mandatory.
- Lift or significantly relax fleet size limits. We still have DP limits in combat to keep things sane.

Not saying that this is good idea, but I think we'd need to take things at least this far to break capital dominance on battlefield

I like it.

The officer problem could be resolved in the natural way. They should have ranks. And insteed of 10 officers capable of reaching lvl 20 there should be 5 lvl 20 max plus 10 lvl 10 max plus 20 lvl 5 max. Or something like that.

[Goumindong]

But then why don't they ambush?

Because one fleet is weaker and for other, stronger, fleet its no different than a pursuit.

In your cases neither of the fleets will ambush each other. In the first case both fleets are too slow due to having battleships and logistics. In the second case there is no logistics to target.

An ideal construction of your system produces a very narrow band of situations where either one side wants to ambush and the other side does not, or even more rare when neither side wants to ambush. If that is the case then the system does not contribute to interesting gameplay. It simply produces a different dominating solution.

I have no idea how you even came to this conclusion. There is no logical connection between my suggestion and your conclusions. Why "very narrow"? Why only "either one side wants to ambush and the other side does not, neither side wants to ambush". Why "does not contribute to interesting gameplay". What does "different dominating solution" is even supposed to mean? It looks like you are talking to yourself with some of your internal arguments are spilling out into the forum. Im not that good at mindreading so could you please include the actual me in your internal discussion?

The only thing there that really may warrant explaining is a "dominating solution". In game theory there are a number of descriptors of strategies. A strategy dominates another when its the optimal choice in all situations. The classic example is in the simple prisoners dilemma. The dominating strategy is to defected and cooperate is dominated. This is because, regardless of what the opponent chooses, defecting produces higher rewards.

In general we want to avoid these types of situations when designing games because games aren't usually fun when they're solved. They can be, when the difficulty is in executing the strategy but in general they're not. (As an example in an FPS the optimal strategy is to always headshot everything that enters your view" and these games are still fun because doing that is difficult and so you can attain mastery). An example of this in practice might be rock paper scissors. The optimal strategy to RPS is to play perfectly randomly, but this is hard. And so its possible to exploit a persons non-randomness if you can observe them play. This is one reason why rock paper scissors type setups are very popular in strategy games. They can provide branching response paths where mastery of the technical aspect of the game and responding to the paths leads to victory.

So what I am saying is that, in an effort to stamp out one boring solution you have proposed another, more boring solution. This is especially apt because starsector is a "mastery" type game rather than a divergent strategy type game. There are multiple ways to master the game but the core of the game comes down to flying or directing your ships and you win by getting better at that.

---

Assume they have logistics in the second case... i figured this would be obvious... But even then they could ambush the frigates and get an advantage.

Also you need to have no battleships to ambush? I thought you said that you get to bring in those ships later? As soon as you have any non-frigates you cannot ambush? So its an option limited to... almost nothing? Because like... everyone has logistics ships

For the first part. You're still losing me. For any fleet there must exist one side that has an advantage in frigates. If that side can ambush they would likely want to unless for some reason they are hard prevented from ambushing. If they are hard prevented from ambushing then the system proposed has little use case. If they're not hard prevented from ambushing then almost everyone always wants to ambush due the inherent advantages of it.

How about dropping whole concept of ambushes and modifying base deployment rules instead:

- Deployment is now a queue instead of instant. Every deployed ship adds cooldown before next one can be deployed. Cooldown increases faster than linear with DP. So deploying 200 DP of frigates is a lot faster than 200 DP of capitals.
- Capture points on map reduce deployment cooldowns AND stretch out PPT/CR of dominant side (for example, by up to twice when all taken).
- Would probably need to be able to give standing order for ships to be deployed and/or have ability to issue orders for free to freshly deployed ships.
- Officers can be used on 4 size points worth of ships (1 capital vs 1 DE +2 frigates vs 4 frigates, etc). Officers can also be swapped between ships while not currently deployed. This is where it gets unwieldy, I don't know how to fix officer availability problem without adding a lot of micro management. Officer-less ships are fodder, so doing something about it is mandatory.
- Lift or significantly relax fleet size limits. We still have DP limits in combat to keep things sane.

Not saying that this is good idea, but I think we'd need to take things at least this far to break capital dominance on battlefield

It also doesn't work since you could just... not deploy ships until you had a full deploy. Maybe sacrifice a single fast frigate who has orders to avoid everything? Its also counter-intuitive. We have deployment limits because of computer limits not because of a system in the game. Why could you not just slow roll your frigates so everything got there at the same time.

Also i want to say it was... kinda tried. The first iterations of capture points granted deployment point advantages. Optimal strategy was to quick capture with fast frigates and then bring in your dominating force.

Imagine a system which is analogous to yours but in real space. Rather than making things take longer to deploy you make the space between fleets much bigger and everything deploys at once. Then your frigates will race ahead and be able to really engage the enemy first! Well no, because optimal strategy will be to slow roll your entire fleet so you get there at the same time.

[Lucky33]

The only thing there that really may warrant explaining is a "dominating solution". In game theory there are a number of descriptors of strategies. A strategy dominates another when its the optimal choice in all situations. The classic example is in the simple prisoners dilemma. The dominating strategy is to defected and cooperate is dominated. This is because, regardless of what the opponent chooses, defecting produces higher rewards.

Ambush is not even a solution to the game. The whole point is to avoid the main forces.

So what I am saying is that, in an effort to stamp out one boring solution you have proposed another, more boring solution.

You realize that you are making a judgment upon the subject what you didnt even bother to understand?

Assume they have logistics in the second case... i figured this would be obvious... But even then they could ambush the frigates and get an advantage.

As I said. No logistics - no target. No, Fleet 2 cant target frigates. Borderline case is the combat freighters. If there is logistics then Fleet 2 is at disadvantage unless it has better frigates. You said nothing about quality of the fleets so it again ends up in no ambush scenario.

Also you need to have no battleships to ambush? I thought you said that you get to bring in those ships later? As soon as you have any non-frigates you cannot ambush? So its an option limited to... almost nothing? Because like... everyone has logistics ships

Yes. You cant detach an ambush force so its either "no heavy ships fleet" or "no ambush". Defender can bring its heavy ships later. How "everyone has logistics ships" limits ambush options if it is all about targeting the logistics ships?

For any fleet there must exist one side that has an advantage in frigates. If that side can ambush they would likely want to unless for some reason they are hard prevented from ambushing. If they are hard prevented from ambushing then the system proposed has little use case. If they're not hard prevented from ambushing then almost everyone always wants to ambush due the inherent advantages of it.

Not "must" but "can". And the existance of at least a single ambusher doesnt mean that "almost everyone always wants to ambush". Because "almost everyone always" is not equal to "is an ambusher".

[Cyber Von Cyberus]

What kind of rewards would you get anyways if you win those 'ambush' battles anyways ?

[Lucky33]

What kind of rewards would you get anyways if you win those 'ambush' battles anyways ?

As an attacker? Drugs, weapons, organs, supplies, fuel. Whatever is in that merchant fleet. As a defender you will not get grounded in the middle of nowhere with your Paragon stack because you rejected tilhe demand of a tiny pather patrol.

[Cyber Von Cyberus]

Really ? So, what I got from your reply is that little crappy fleets can still come and bite your arse with your ambush mechanic and waste your time and supplies by having a few kites running away from your own frigates for 3 minutes until their PPT inevitably runs out except without the possibility of erasing them with a carrier.
Not a fan of that idea honestly, also if that Pather patrol hailed you, then how the hell did they get past my dozens of warships and carriers to end up to the logistic ships ?

[Lucky33]

Really ? So, what I got from your reply is that little crappy fleets can still come and bite your arse with your ambush mechanic and waste your time and supplies by having a few kites running away from your own frigates for 3 minutes until their PPT inevitably runs out except without the possibility of erasing them with a carrier.
Not a fan of that idea honestly, also if that Pather patrol hailed you, then how the hell did they get past my dozens of warships and carriers to end up to the logistic ships ?

You can autoresolve "few crappy kites" situation with a single Afflictor. They will bite only if you dont have the frigates of your own.

Get into sim and check how long does it take for your "dozens of warships and carriers" to cross the map. And how much ground can cover an SO Hound if given the same amount of time.

[Cyber Von Cyberus]

The thing that truly stops me from using frigates honestly is how they seem to always hesitate to commit to an attack, even with agressive/reckless fleet doctrine and aggressive officers I noticed they tend to stay at range from even a phanteon during a pursuit instead of going full speed and using every single one of their weapons, sometimes you won't even see them use any of their missiles unless the enemy overloads, only frigate I've seen do something smart during a big battle was the disruptor which tries to phase and go behind my ship to use it's EMP disruptor to disable my engines, yet even then it doesn't follow that with any other attack.

[SCC]

Not saying that this is good idea, but I think we'd need to take things at least this far to break capital dominance on battlefield

It's a result of fairly simple math.
Is strategic mobility important? No. Not to individual ships. There's no reason to keep frigates in case you want to do something quickly, they can't dart ahead of the main fleet.
Is tactical mobility important? No. Only some objectives matter and even then, they most likely won't change the balance of power. It isn't important to capture something quickly. In addition to that, battlefield is limited. The only objective is to destroy the enemy and they can't run indefinitely, there are borders against which you can crush them. Finally, fighters are substitutes for enough for frigates and some destroyers.
Officers multiply the strength of a single ship, so you want the individually strongest ships for highest absolute power.
Mobility irrelevant + concentration of power desired = capitals.

There are some ways I can think of that would make mobility more relevant.
First would be the ability to split fleet in campaign. Fighting patrols with just frigates might be preferable to fighting a heavy fleet response. Incidentally, Alex shot down this idea.
Second would be making objectives more important. Battle-winningly important. You would need frigates, if only not to lose right from get to. A variation could be, where both sides can only deploy their vanguard at the start (vanguard being ships of a certain burn level or faster) with a single, giant objective to capture. Whichever side does, they get to deploy their bigger ships, while losing side has to wait. If small ships can't compete, make it so that they don't have to.
Last way is to make it so that getting far enough into the enemy's side allows you to attack their reserve ships to some end. For example, losing logistic ships could increase for much CR the enemy side lost. This creates a way for mobile, hit and run tactics to win against inflexible fleets, while promoting balanced fleets. What good is destroying enemy freighters with a horde of frigates, if their cruisers reach your freighters and now you both are dead in the water? I suggested this idea in the past as well, to be discarded, too.

Battling concentration of power is harder and would most likely be about making AI more coordinated. I don't know how viable that is.

I don't like solving this issue with skills, but some sort of a bandaid would be making tier 4 or 5 leadership skill that gives some advantage to all frigates and destroyers, while the other boosts officers. You could tie this and previous idea together, by making small ship-friendly skill be squadron creation, which would be about buffing and coordinating small groups of ships.

[Lucky33]

The thing that truly stops me from using frigates honestly is how they seem to always hesitate to commit to an attack, even with agressive/reckless fleet doctrine and aggressive officers I noticed they tend to stay at range from even a phanteon during a pursuit instead of going full speed and using every single one of their weapons, sometimes you won't even see them use any of their missiles unless the enemy overloads, only frigate I've seen do something smart during a big battle was the disruptor which tries to phase and go behind my ship to use it's EMP disruptor to disable my engines, yet even then it doesn't follow that with any other attack.

The very generic Wolf with Pulse Laser, Sabot SRMs, Expanded Missile Racks and Unstable Injector kills Phaeton with no problems. No officer, just a Reckless doctrine. Brawler (LP) kills it in a couple of seconds.

[Lucky33]

Not saying that this is good idea, but I think we'd need to take things at least this far to break capital dominance on battlefield

Incidentally, Alex shot down this idea.
...
I suggested this idea in the past as well, to be discarded, too.
...

I dont get it. Alex thinks that current state of the combat is a way to go or he just dont like the solution mechanics but acknowledge the problem?

[Cyber Von Cyberus]

The thing that truly stops me from using frigates honestly is how they seem to always hesitate to commit to an attack, even with agressive/reckless fleet doctrine and aggressive officers I noticed they tend to stay at range from even a phanteon during a pursuit instead of going full speed and using every single one of their weapons, sometimes you won't even see them use any of their missiles unless the enemy overloads, only frigate I've seen do something smart during a big battle was the disruptor which tries to phase and go behind my ship to use it's EMP disruptor to disable my engines, yet even then it doesn't follow that with any other attack.

The very generic Wolf with Pulse Laser, Sabot SRMs, Expanded Missile Racks and Unstable Injector kills Phaeton with no problems. No officer, just a Reckless doctrine. Brawler (LP) kills it in a couple of seconds.

Well of course they will kill it (although probably not as fast as it truly could under human control), but point is, AI frigates often either hesitate too much.

[Lucky33]

The thing that truly stops me from using frigates honestly is how they seem to always hesitate to commit to an attack, even with agressive/reckless fleet doctrine and aggressive officers I noticed they tend to stay at range from even a phanteon during a pursuit instead of going full speed and using every single one of their weapons, sometimes you won't even see them use any of their missiles unless the enemy overloads, only frigate I've seen do something smart during a big battle was the disruptor which tries to phase and go behind my ship to use it's EMP disruptor to disable my engines, yet even then it doesn't follow that with any other attack.

Check your builds. Or post them here.

The very generic Wolf with Pulse Laser, Sabot SRMs, Expanded Missile Racks and Unstable Injector kills Phaeton with no problems. No officer, just a Reckless doctrine. Brawler (LP) kills it in a couple of seconds.

Well of course they will kill it (although probably not as fast as it truly could under human control), but point is, AI frigates often either hesitate too much.