Fractal Softworks Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Starsector 0.95.1a is out! (12/10/21); Blog post: Hyperspace Topography (10/12/22)

Pages: [1] 2

Author Topic: Rugged Construction Should Also Reduce Crew Casualties  (Read 1390 times)

Embolism

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 492
    • View Profile
Rugged Construction Should Also Reduce Crew Casualties
« on: January 25, 2022, 10:05:12 PM »

Knowing that your ship is likely going to outsurvive you when it blows up is cold comfort for the crew of a Vanguard. A rugged ship should also be a safer ship.
Logged

Farya

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 218
    • View Profile
Re: Rugged Construction Should Also Reduce Crew Casualties
« Reply #1 on: January 28, 2022, 07:00:10 AM »

Ship being durable does not always mean it's safer for the crew inside. Even IRL there are ships and ground vehicles infamous for outliving their crews in combat - it's simply much easier to knock out the crew and disable the vehicle this way rather then disabling it by smashing it beyond repair, human inside a metal can will always be the weakest link. However it might make sense for some low tech ships to have more blastdoors built-in for safety. Especially if it's some kind of drop ship.
Logged

Embolism

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 492
    • View Profile
Re: Rugged Construction Should Also Reduce Crew Casualties
« Reply #2 on: January 28, 2022, 09:57:35 AM »

Ship being durable does not always mean it's safer for the crew inside. Even IRL there are ships and ground vehicles infamous for outliving their crews in combat - it's simply much easier to knock out the crew and disable the vehicle this way rather then disabling it by smashing it beyond repair, human inside a metal can will always be the weakest link. However it might make sense for some low tech ships to have more blastdoors built-in for safety. Especially if it's some kind of drop ship.

No but I find the idea that it's "okay" to lose ships because they're recoverable and don't get d-mods to be weird when you're still losing actual living humans in droves. Why would people sign up for a junk fleet known to replace its entire crew every cycle or so?

Yes you can go out of your way to install blast doors (and also recovery shuttles for carriers) on all your ships but that's an OP tax for what is, really, a lore/suspension of disbelief consideration. Now if losing crew makes crew salaries go up (hazard pay for a known hazardous fleet), so that crew losses actually matter, then blast doors might be more than just a role-playing hullmod.
Logged

Farya

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 218
    • View Profile
Re: Rugged Construction Should Also Reduce Crew Casualties
« Reply #3 on: January 29, 2022, 12:30:42 AM »

No but I find the idea that it's "okay" to lose ships because they're recoverable and don't get d-mods to be weird when you're still losing actual living humans in droves. Why would people sign up for a junk fleet known to replace its entire crew every cycle or so?

Yes you can go out of your way to install blast doors (and also recovery shuttles for carriers) on all your ships but that's an OP tax for what is, really, a lore/suspension of disbelief consideration. Now if losing crew makes crew salaries go up (hazard pay for a known hazardous fleet), so that crew losses actually matter, then blast doors might be more than just a role-playing hullmod.
Remember that Persean Sector is not exactly the best place to live to begin with. And the cheapest crews come from pather and pirate planets - people are ready to accept dangerous job of spess sailor because their other alternatives are even worser. Especially if you compare Starsector with it's "Space is an ocean" with an actual Age of Sail in human history. Life of typical sailor didn't worth much that time and in some countries like Great Britain it was not even a willing carrier choice - poor were press ganged into the navy and treated not much better than slaves (though an army soldier at the time was not treated much better either). Though a kind of morale mechanic would kind of make sense to give even more value to marines - age of sail ships always had a marine contingent which was housed between officers and sailors for a very good reason... Your best bet for now is Starship Legends mod
« Last Edit: January 29, 2022, 12:44:41 AM by Farya »
Logged

Megas

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 10913
    • View Profile
Re: Rugged Construction Should Also Reduce Crew Casualties
« Reply #4 on: January 29, 2022, 04:34:43 AM »

A major reason why Vanguard is disliked is its cost.  While the hull is overpriced (it should be 15k to 20k instead of 30k), losing crew on a zombie ship that is expected to die and rise back up like a revenant adds to the cost, plus maybe force trips back to restock on crew sooner if player did not have extra capacity or take Containment Procedures.

So yes, I like the idea of Rugged Construction reducing casualties.  Acceptable break from reality for the sake of gameplay.
« Last Edit: January 29, 2022, 04:38:41 AM by Megas »
Logged

Rusty Edge

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 24
    • View Profile
Re: Rugged Construction Should Also Reduce Crew Casualties
« Reply #5 on: May 20, 2022, 01:19:42 PM »

Narratively, the ship could have life support systems similar to the ones in "The Expanse" where the working space of the ship is kept in a vacuum during combat, and the crew wear space suits.
 This means that a hull beach is not as catastrophic and deadly.
 Perhaps the vacuum safeties could be an optional hullmod that drastically reduces casualties, with a slight penalty to in combat repair times, or a small increase in maintenance costs. Your crew's safety will cost you.
 This allows the choice between the common morally dubious approach; or the safer, church approved (albiet slightly hampering) option.
« Last Edit: May 20, 2022, 01:21:36 PM by Rusty Edge »
Logged

Brainwright

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 298
    • View Profile
Re: Rugged Construction Should Also Reduce Crew Casualties
« Reply #6 on: May 24, 2022, 01:45:09 PM »

Let's be clear : all the crew die because the fuel breaches containment.  That's why when ships die, they light up like a star.

And this fact makes most low-tech ships exorbitantly costly compared to high-tech.  It's not just the Vanguard.

Adding a way to increase the chance of recovering crew after the battle is a needed mechanic. Heavier rad shielding or something.  I dunno.  I don't know if anything currently affects it, but current ways of reducing crew casualties from hull damage would be a bit too much given the current stats.

Also, placing an event to do search and rescue after a recent battle would certainly be a good thing.

If this makes low tech push for the win because they need to do search and rescue to recoup their losses?  I like that.
« Last Edit: May 24, 2022, 01:47:10 PM by Brainwright »
Logged

Drazan

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 279
    • View Profile
Re: Rugged Construction Should Also Reduce Crew Casualties
« Reply #7 on: May 25, 2022, 02:36:00 AM »

I like the lore of lowtech and how they feel in battle. But yeah beacuse of the more crew and lower fuel efficency they are actually more expensive to maintain than hightech ships, this make no sense in lore.
I think a mechanic that reduces crew casuality would be awesome. At least on ships like the vanguard that is expected to die. Or support ships like valkyrie should have a fleetwide buff to recover lost crew after battle.
Logged

Amoebka

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1000
    • View Profile
Re: Rugged Construction Should Also Reduce Crew Casualties
« Reply #8 on: May 25, 2022, 05:47:28 AM »

this make no sense in lore
While the gameplay impact is debatable, lore-wise it makes perfect sense. Less automated systems means higher crew. Heavier armor and more hull structures (storing physical ammo which energy weapons don't use, housing additional crew, etc) means less fuel efficiency.
Logged

Brainwright

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 298
    • View Profile
Re: Rugged Construction Should Also Reduce Crew Casualties
« Reply #9 on: May 25, 2022, 06:16:24 AM »

While the gameplay impact is debatable, lore-wise it makes perfect sense. Less automated systems means higher crew. Heavier armor and more hull structures (storing physical ammo which energy weapons don't use, housing additional crew, etc) means less fuel efficiency.

That may be the case, but the difference is certainly too extreme.
Logged

Drazan

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 279
    • View Profile
Re: Rugged Construction Should Also Reduce Crew Casualties
« Reply #10 on: May 26, 2022, 02:29:29 AM »

While the gameplay impact is debatable, lore-wise it makes perfect sense. Less automated systems means higher crew. Heavier armor and more hull structures (storing physical ammo which energy weapons don't use, housing additional crew, etc) means less fuel efficiency.

Yeah I mean it is true, but it is stated numerous times everywhere in the game that lowtech ships should be cheaper and more accesible than high tech ones. They should have a lower logistic profile, thats why lots of people use them.
And if you think about it, ehich one should be more expensive to maintain: a top of the line cutting edge technology using rare materials and few people know how it works, or a tried an trusted basic ship which have spare parts in abundance and its workings are common knowledge? Right know the maintanece of a Legion is about 20% more than a goddamn Paragon (see table in the linked mod).
Of course lore wise the solution could be that for hightech ships you need a better trained crew costing more money but who the hell wants this kind of *** in the gamplay.
Lowtech ships cost more to maintain than hightech, generaly worse in combat, (beacuse for ai only speed and range counts, it cannot armor or hull tank if its life depended on it), cannot retreat as easily beacuse they are slower. Thus, they blow up more commonly, this is acknowledged by implementation of the rugged construction. On the top of ths you have to spend even more money on replacement crew (even worse if you buy it beforehand becuse then you have to give them salary all the way, and if by some mirracle your ship didnt get killed then you are practically throwing money out of the airlock).
So im only asking for something that reduces crew losses for lowtech ships, at least for those that have the rugged construction.

There is a nice mod called Low Maintanence, that is aiming to solve this problem, I absolutely recommend it to every lowtech enjoyer.
https://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=21715.0
Logged

Amoebka

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1000
    • View Profile
Re: Rugged Construction Should Also Reduce Crew Casualties
« Reply #11 on: May 26, 2022, 04:17:46 AM »

I very strongly disagree with "generally worse in combat, only speed matters" sentiment. Low-tech has received enormous buffs recently, and is arguably "generally better in combat" now. New low-tech ships have about the same speed as high-tech ones, with double the range and triple the efficiency on their weapons.

Shieldless ships with rugged construction specifically could use crew casualties reduction, but the rest seem priced correctly to me.
Logged

Drazan

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 279
    • View Profile
Re: Rugged Construction Should Also Reduce Crew Casualties
« Reply #12 on: May 26, 2022, 06:54:05 AM »

I very strongly disagree with "generally worse in combat, only speed matters" sentiment. Low-tech has received enormous buffs recently, and is arguably "generally better in combat" now. New low-tech ships have about the same speed as high-tech ones, with double the range and triple the efficiency on their weapons.

Shieldless ships with rugged construction specifically could use crew casualties reduction, but the rest seem priced correctly to me.

Lowtech is much better now, after the buffs, now I dont feellike im directly making the game harder for myself when i use them. For normal battles they are the same as any other. However try to take down the doritos or even just heavy ordos with a lowtech themed fleet. It is possible but with enourmus losses.
Currently the 40 dp lowtech battlecarrier have a higher logistical profile than a 60 dp hightech battleship. I'll borrow Zyms chart from the Low Maintanence mod.

This is not priced correctly in my oppinion.
Manticore and Eradicator are in a better place exactly beacuse they are faster, and have better logistical profiles.
Logged

Rojnaz

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 23
    • View Profile
Re: Rugged Construction Should Also Reduce Crew Casualties
« Reply #13 on: May 26, 2022, 07:44:10 AM »

Quote
Yeah I mean it is true, but it is stated numerous times everywhere in the game that lowtech ships should be cheaper and more accesible than high tech ones.

Low tech ships getting more hull/armor damage or getting destroyed in battle being the problem, I think the logic solution is giving them better "Recovery rate (per day)%", instead of less "maintenance (supplies/month)" they will get damaged but they will recover faster, making them more cheaper in the long term.

Uhhh... I have a question: Do "Blast doors" or/and "Containment Procedures" reduces crew lost from destroyed ships?
Logged

Amoebka

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1000
    • View Profile
Re: Rugged Construction Should Also Reduce Crew Casualties
« Reply #14 on: May 26, 2022, 09:15:01 AM »

Lowtech is much better now, after the buffs, now I dont feellike im directly making the game harder for myself when i use them. For normal battles they are the same as any other. However try to take down the doritos or even just heavy ordos with a lowtech themed fleet. It is possible but with enourmus losses.

Low-tech is better than high-tech against both omega and remnants. Onslaught is by far the best capital against hypershunts.

High-tech speed doesn't matter one bit against tesseracts, because they still outrun you no matter what. Menawhile not having the kinetics to get though 0.4 shields is suicide.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2