Print

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

[Morbo513]

The utility of lighter ships is already clear and profound enough

And what would this be?

The things their relative speed and mobility and small size enable them to do better than others; Pressuring and kiting enemy ships, screening for retreats, escorting and flanking.
The issue at hand is that this is generally outweighed the by pure firepower, durability and longevity of larger ships in-battle when it comes to negotiating the 30-ship limit (and the planned change that allows the player to exceed it at disproportionate penalty).

The type of battle you propose, in which frigates/faster ships would be more advantageous, would do little to offset the aforementioned issue especially if they're a relatively niche occurrence, which is what it sounds like to me.

That, and any given fleet would have no logical reason to leave their logistics ships undefended. All fleets travel at the speed of their slowest ships so as to remain together - in which case an "ambush" is just going to play out like a standard battle. The only circumstance in which it'd make sense for a fleet's combat ships to separate from their logistics ships is if they're are being used as bait - but the mechanics to make that feasible in my mind would be a lot of effort to make work and have it be balanced, for relatively little gain. And of course, that that's not what you were aiming for.

I get that the idea is as a counter-point to the bigger = better meta, but it's an extremely roundabout and work-intensive way of going about it, and at that isn't devoid of logical flaws, when there are much simpler ways of addressing it.

[Lucky33]

The utility of lighter ships is already clear and profound enough

And what would this be?

The things their relative speed and mobility and small size enable them to do better than others; Pressuring and kiting enemy ships, screening for retreats, escorting and flanking.
The issue at hand is that this is generally outweighed the by pure firepower, durability and longevity of larger ships in-battle when it comes to negotiating the 30-ship limit (and the planned change that allows the player to exceed it at disproportionate penalty).

These issues mean that there is no clear and profound utility for the light ships in the game right now.

The type of battle you propose, in which frigates/faster ships would be more advantageous, would do little to offset the aforementioned issue especially if they're a relatively niche occurrence, which is what it sounds like to me.

They are clearly offsetting these issues by removing non-fast combat ships from the initial stage of the battle and making quick victory by the fast ships possible without overpowering larger ships by some unbalanced shenanigans.

That, and any given fleet would have no logical reason to leave their logistics ships undefended. All fleets travel at the speed of their slowest ships so as to remain together - in which case an "ambush" is just going to play out like a standard battle. The only circumstance in which it'd make sense for a fleet's combat ships to separate from their logistics ships is if they're are being used as bait - but the mechanics to make that feasible in my mind would be a lot of effort to make work and have it be balanced, for relatively little gain. And of course, that that's not what you were aiming for.

Normal logic fully applies. Fleets are traveling inside the hyperspace bubbles. From the navigation safety standpoint you cant keep ships with the different maneuverability in the strict formation because any course change under military command will result in the risk of collisions. Also you have to keep some space between ships in case of emergencies and malfunctions. And from the combat point of view the last place you want your transports is in your battle line. All of it dictates that fleet will travel in different small groups of similar ships. There is only two alternatives to that: 1. No course or speed change after forming up; 2. No formation whatsoever.

And this opens up opportunities of attacking transport ships unless they are literally encircled by the fast picket.

I get that the idea is as a counter-point to the bigger = better meta, but it's an extremely roundabout and work-intensive way of going about it, and at that isn't devoid of logical flaws, when there are much simpler ways of addressing it.

For example?

[Morbo513]

The utility of lighter ships is already clear and profound enough
[...]
The things their relative speed and mobility and small size enable them to do better than others; Pressuring and kiting enemy ships, screening for retreats, escorting and flanking.
The issue at hand is that this is generally outweighed the by pure firepower, durability and longevity of larger ships in-battle when it comes to negotiating the 30-ship limit (and the planned change that allows the player to exceed it at disproportionate penalty).

These issues mean that there is no clear and profound utility for the light ships in the game right now.

I disagree. Your own cruisers and capitals are vulnerable to those same threats without frigate/fast destroyers to back them up, while denying you the same opportunities. Lacking frigates also means you can't chase down fleeing enemy fleets anywhere near as successfuly. They each have a defined purpose in gameplay by virtue of being the fastest and most maneuverable.
I think there should be other content that is exclusive, or more suited to frigates than other ship classes - but that's a separate issue, and this isn't a tidy solution.

The type of battle you propose, in which frigates/faster ships would be more advantageous, would do little to offset the aforementioned issue especially if they're a relatively niche occurrence, which is what it sounds like to me.

They are clearly offsetting these issues by removing non-fast combat ships from the initial stage of the battle and making quick victory by the fast ships possible without overpowering larger ships by some unbalanced shenanigans.

Removing non-fast combat ships from the initial stage of certain battles.
Either way, your suggestion would basically coerce the player into keeping some frigates around when they might otherwise prefer not to, for a specific eventuality that may not even occur.
Keeping a number of frigates (or any other type/size of ship) in one's fleet should be a decided and purposeful choice, not because the player's been railroaded into doing so. Trade-offs are more fun than penalties.

There's also the issue of DP limit/performance for such a battle, as Goumindong already went into detail on. Further, how would the game decide a ship is specifically for logistics or otherwise susceptible to ambush - what of ships (especially amongst mods) that are both suitable for combat, and have logistical utility? In other words, how do you determine which ships are the ones isolated during this ambush, and which are the reinforcements?

That, and any given fleet would have no logical reason to leave their logistics ships undefended. All fleets travel at the speed of their slowest ships so as to remain together [...]

Normal logic fully applies. Fleets are traveling inside the hyperspace bubbles. From the navigation safety standpoint you cant keep ships with the different maneuverability in the strict formation because any course change under military command will result in the risk of collisions
 Also you have to keep some space between ships in case of emergencies and malfunctions. And from the combat point of view the last place you want your transports is in your battle line. All of it dictates that fleet will travel in different small groups of similar ships. There is only two alternatives to that: 1. No course or speed change after forming up; 2. No formation whatsoever.

Likewise, the fleet maneuvers at the rate of the least maneuverable ship. The spacing required for safe distancing isn't so huge as to put ships several hours away from one-another as demonstrated by all the current mechanics and presentation regarding battles and transit.

All of it dictates that fleet will travel in different small groups of similar ships.

How so? What is there to stop a fleet's commander splitting the fleet into mixed groups of ships - 4 destroyers and a freighter here; 2 frigates, a cruiser and a tanker there? Or grouping combat ships with logistic ships of similar mass and speed?

And from the combat point of view the last place you want your transports is in your battle line

This is what I think you're failing to understand; Fleets in the game travel in a mutually defensive formation. When you enter a battle, the enemy fleet has already been detected; that's when those logistics ships are held back (which is by choice of the player) and the combat ships intercept the enemy.
Assuming the attacking fleet stayed undetected to the point of being able to initiate an ambush, again, those ships are in a mutually-protective formation.

I think there are two best-case implementations of something to the effect of what you're suggesting, but not without problems.
 One is a pre-battle option. You meet the enemy fleet, choose X ships to maneuver on the enemies' back-line. You fight the regular battle as normal; You then fight a second battle; Ships held in reserve by the enemy are in the centre of the map, and the player has the freedom to deploy his ships from all 3 sides like a disengagement. Enemy ships retreated from the first battle come in as reinforcements; Reserved combat ships are with this back-line fleet.

But then there's the question of, wouldn't the enemy detect those ships and send those reserved combat ships, if any, to intercept, picket or otherwise interfere? In which case you've just got a 2nd smaller scale battle after the first.

The second implementation I imagine would require a lot of changes to sensor mechanics/stealth. Essentially the same as the 2nd-stage as above, but with all enemy ships in the centre. Again deployment points and performance become an issue here, and again you've basically just got a disengagement.

And I just thought of a third; Being able to "retreat" your own ships from the initial battle in the direction of the enemy. Basically chasing down those retreating or reserved enemy ships while the main battle is still ongoing.

Oh, and number 4: If you're joining a battle, you can choose to go after the enemy's reserve ships. But this can't currently be inflicted on the player because whether an enemy fleet is in range to join a battle is binary; Either they're close and their ships are added to the first fleet, or they're too far and they aren't.

Relevant: http://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=13540.msg228070#msg228070

And this opens up opportunities of attacking transport ships unless they are literally encircled by the fast picket.

As far as the game represents, fleets travel together in clumps and aren't impeded by one another. You can even see the smaller ships bouncing around within the formation.

Again, I understand what you're going for, but you have to hand-wave a lot of semi-established internal logic to justify it, while contending with existing mechanics and immutable limitations.

I get that the idea is as a counter-point to the bigger = better meta, but it's an extremely roundabout and work-intensive way of going about it, and at that isn't devoid of logical flaws, when there are much simpler ways of addressing it.

For example?

See mine and others' posts earlier in the thread. Short version: Supplies/mo, DP, and/or other "points" systems. They avoid the root issue of equating the smallest frigate to the largest capital in respect to the fleet cap, as is the case currently. Very inexpensive development-wise I'd imagine - Mods have already done it, and while it's not devoid of problems it's certainly a step up.

[Plantissue]

In real life smaller ships don't just ambush larger ships in the open sea

They were attacked while steaming the part of the sea not enclosed between headlands or included in narrow straits: the main sea. It was called Adriatic by the way.

What are you even writing? Are you blind? I literally wrote pursuit as the point of comparison, it's right there in your quote and everyone can see it is there in my post.

"Wouldn't you just immediately retreat your logistic ships and then what happens?" - in a pursuit you have to cross the map for that to happen so your question is already answered. Hence you are clearly not aware of the nature of pursuite mode.

Why don't you try to counter the criticism of the points raised instead of a wierd all out attack on someone?

I answer criticism of what Im saying. Not some constructs that exists only in your head and have nothing to do with the point I've made.

Dude I live in Europe, I know what the Adriatic Sea is without looking up some wiki article, and it is most emphatically not the open sea. Go look at a map. It is afterall a very popular holiday location. You may also be suprised to learn that a strait is not the open sea either.

Not that it matters since your example is not only not a fleet of smaller ships against a fleet, but you completely failed at describing a circumstance where a logistical ship is fighting a smaller ship alone when ships are nearby. You said this is very historical right? Should be very easy for you to show proof of this very historical facts of what you just wrote right?

This is what I wrote.

This is a game where you can pick and choose which ships you can deploy normally. Force deploying the player's logistical ships to be vulnerably picked off like in a pursuit will prove to be very strange I'm sure. Wouldn't you just immediately retreat your logistic ships and then what happens? You aren't forced to deploy all your frigates either if you have any. So you'll be staring at empty space till the timer runs out.

You have no interest in debate, preferring instead to pick and choose phrases out of context and meaning. Instead of answering the clear proposition I gave you, you prefer to misquote, to cut up sentences, claim others are unaware of the very point they brought up. Interesting technique, but why do you do this? Do you imagine that others are intimidated by your ability to reply with a bunch of meaningless one-liners to quotes of cut up sentences? Do you imagine your suggestions to improve the game has more weight from doing this?

[Goumindong]

However, since you asked...Why would you or an enemy not choose this option?

To ambush? Because other side has too powerful group of the fast ships or/and combat freighters.

So why does that side not decide to ambush?

[Lucky33]

However, since you asked...Why would you or an enemy not choose this option?

To ambush? Because other side has too powerful group of the fast ships or/and combat freighters.

So why does that side not decide to ambush?

Because other side has too powerful group of the fast ships or/and combat freighters.

[Goumindong]

Both sides cannot have more powerful fast attack ships

[Lucky33]

I disagree. Your own cruisers and capitals are vulnerable to those same threats without frigate/fast destroyers to back them up, while denying you the same opportunities. Lacking frigates also means you can't chase down fleeing enemy fleets anywhere near as successfuly. They each have a defined purpose in gameplay by virtue of being the fastest and most maneuverable.
I think there should be other content that is exclusive, or more suited to frigates than other ship classes - but that's a separate issue, and this isn't a tidy solution.

In 0.9 when battle size was 200 I ended up with the two capital main force plus two Herons back up. After battle size went to 300 that duo turned into trio and with that I was capable of wiping out any strongest fleets what vanilla has to offer and I have  absolutely no idea what do you mean by stating that capitals are vulnerable. They are anything but vulnerable. Some faulty builds may be. Or with lack of competent control. But capital ships as they are now have no need in any kind of support that smaller ships have to offer. For the most part insteed of helping they only create more troubles.

Removing non-fast combat ships from the initial stage of certain battles.

Exactly. The ones that smaller ships are supposed to fight. They are not battleships for a reason. And as long as true battleships can form a battleline without getting handicapped there will be no place for the weaker ships in it. That logic defined the nature of the naval combat for centuries and the Starsector is no different.

Either way, your suggestion would basically coerce the player into keeping some frigates around when they might otherwise prefer not to, for a specific eventuality that may not even occur.
Keeping a number of frigates (or any other type/size of ship) in one's fleet should be a decided and purposeful choice, not because the player's been railroaded into doing so. Trade-offs are more fun than penalties.

Stacking deadweight Paragons to boost deployment limit is supposed to be fun? Or what? Current situation is absurdish. And all I suggest is the actual reason for the small ships to be.

There's also the issue of DP limit/performance for such a battle, as Goumindong already went into detail on. Further, how would the game decide a ship is specifically for logistics or otherwise susceptible to ambush - what of ships (especially amongst mods) that are both suitable for combat, and have logistical utility? In other words, how do you determine which ships are the ones isolated during this ambush, and which are the reinforcements?

My initial suggestion was a solution to all issues in the Goumindong's wall of text.

There are already Designation and Hints columns in the ship_data.csv. The game is already sorting all ships out by using those. You can see it in the Command/Doctrine&blueprints section of the menu. "Civilian" and "Combat Freighter" are the ones isolated.

Likewise, the fleet maneuvers at the rate of the least maneuverable ship. The spacing required for safe distancing isn't so huge as to put ships several hours away from one-another as demonstrated by all the current mechanics and presentation regarding battles and transit.

Nope. Under military command all orders are to be executed as quick and as precise as possible. This is the basics of the military chain of command as it is. There is no such thing as the "maneuvers at the rate of the least maneuverable ship". Larger and smaller ships are separated and maneuver each on their own with smaller ships being outside of turning circle of the larger ones.

Here is an excellent example:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ee/Japanese_aircraft_carrier_Zuikaku_and_two_destroyers_under_attack_on_20_June_1944_%2880-G-238025%29.jpg

There is also a bad example with what happened to HMS Victoria when admiral on board of it literally ordered to be rammed and the order was executed although captains of the ships realized the dangerous nature of the order. And this is what will happen if a military unit of very different ships will be ordered to maneuver together under the same orders.

Thats the reason to keep only the same (or at least as close to the same as possible) ships in the single maneuvering unit acting under command of a single officer.

This is what I think you're failing to understand; Fleets in the game travel in a mutually defensive formation. When you enter a battle, the enemy fleet has already been detected; that's when those logistics ships are held back (which is by choice of the player) and the combat ships intercept the enemy.
Assuming the attacking fleet stayed undetected to the point of being able to initiate an ambush, again, those ships are in a mutually-protective formation.

To keep combat ships between enemy and the transports you need to be more agile than enemy. If not it will outmaneuver you and will attack from the direction of its choice. Not yours. For some reason you think that your intention alone is enough to prevent it but this is not how reality works. You can detect all you want but the lack of capabilities will prevent you from executing your plan. "Being able to see" dont equal "being able to act accordingly".

One is a pre-battle option. You meet the enemy fleet, choose X ships to maneuver on the enemies' back-line. You fight the regular battle as normal; You then fight a second battle; Ships held in reserve by the enemy are in the centre of the map, and the player has the freedom to deploy his ships from all 3 sides like a disengagement. Enemy ships retreated from the first battle come in as reinforcements; Reserved combat ships are with this back-line fleet.

It (all three variants) destroys the whole purpose of being able to achieve at least a limited success with light ships alone. This battle will be decided as usual. By the capitals.

Oh, and number 4: If you're joining a battle, you can choose to go after the enemy's reserve ships. But this can't currently be inflicted on the player because whether an enemy fleet is in range to join a battle is binary; Either they're close and their ships are added to the first fleet, or they're too far and they aren't.

My whole point is about how this can be inflicted upon the player.

As far as the game represents, fleets travel together in clumps and aren't impeded by one another. You can even see the smaller ships bouncing around within the formation.

If you want to choose this as an accurate representation then it means that there is no formation whatsoever. Just a gaggle.

Again, I understand what you're going for, but you have to hand-wave a lot of semi-established internal logic to justify it, while contending with existing mechanics and immutable limitations.

What "semi-established internal logic"? I didnt propose any of it neither there is a need for it.

See mine and others' posts earlier in the thread. Short version: Supplies/mo, DP, and/or other "points" systems. They avoid the root issue of equating the smallest frigate to the largest capital in respect to the fleet cap, as is the case currently. Very inexpensive development-wise I'd imagine - Mods have already done it, and while it's not devoid of problems it's certainly a step up.

In the beggining of the supply system large ships were about ten times more demanding as they are now (15-20 supplies per day, triple digit deployment costs in "CR repairs"). This is almost exactly the thing you are talking about only insteed of lowering the small ship logistic profile the capital one was high.

[Lucky33]

Both sides cannot have more powerful fast attack ships

One side not having the upper hand is enough.

[Lucky33]

Dude I live in Europe, I know what the Adriatic Sea is without looking up some wiki article, and it is most emphatically not the open sea. Go look at a map. It is afterall a very popular holiday location. You may also be suprised to learn that a strait is not the open sea either.

You will be even more surprised by the fact that Adriatic Sea is the Sea and not a Strait or a Gulf. And while it is so you will have to live with that.

Not that it matters since your example is not only not a fleet of smaller ships against a fleet, but you completely failed at describing a circumstance where a logistical ship is fighting a smaller ship alone when ships are nearby. You said this is very historical right? Should be very easy for you to show proof of this very historical facts of what you just wrote right?

I didnt fail. Thats for sure. Anything else?

You have no interest

Absolutely.

[Grievous69]

My dude you can edit your posts, stop triple spaming.

[Thaago]

As this is a derail of the original topic, it has been split off into its own thread.

[Goumindong]

Both sides cannot have more powerful fast attack ships

One side not having the upper hand is enough.

one side must have the upper hand. At the very least the relative advantage.

[Lucky33]

Both sides cannot have more powerful fast attack ships

One side not having the upper hand is enough.

one side must have the upper hand. At the very least the relative advantage.

That would be the other side.

[Goumindong]

But then why don't they ambush?

OK fleet 1 and fleet 2 meet on the strategic map. Fleet 1 decides to ambush fleet 2 and fleet 2 decides to ambush fleet 1. What happens?

Fleet 1 and Fleet 2 are similar in composition. Fleet 1 has 10 frigates, 2 battleships, and logistics. Fleet 2 has 10 frigates, 1 battleship, and logistics. Fleet 1 has a strict advantage in attempting to ambush fleet 2 because it no longer has to face two battleships against its one. Why does or doesn't it? If it does ambush then why did fleet 1 not understand that it would likely do so and head fleet 2 off at the pass by also ambushing?

Fleet 1 and Fleet 2 are dissimilar in composition. Fleet 1 has 20 frigates and 5 battleships. Fleet 2 has 15 frigates. Fleet 2 obviously wants to ambush fleet 1 if they cannot run(in fact they probably want to simply due to logistics ships speed and them being outnumbered unless they have all small logistics). Does it? If so, why? If so, how? Indeed selecting "ambush" is less risky than running because now the enemies logistics ships are on the field and yours are not.

In these situations we can see that "selecting ambush" will produce less risky results because the side that gets ambushed is forced to deploy its logistics ships. As a result most every fleet wants to have a bunch of frigates and most every fleet wants to select "ambush" as their battle type of choice. Almost always. Even if they're weaker in frigates than the other side.

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.