Print

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

[happycrow]

So I'm a weirdo who plays almost exclusively with fleet-level combat (I'm a fencing instructor and get my fast-action needs there). I have the speed-up combat mod installed and have the slider set to allow really BIG battle deployments (so I can play with preliminary deployments vs reserves, all that operational-level stuff).

So the game is balanced around driving the ships yourself. Not doing that is a major gimp.
Setting the DP really high is a super buff.

Where do y'all figure a pretty good balance point is for total deployment points of fleets in action? 1600 is probably vastly too high, 400's "annoyingly low" for me.  Ideas?

[MN64]

Honestly piloting and not piloting a ship yourself isnt that big of a difference.  Sure you could use a ship like a scalpel to take out some high priority targets but you could do most of that with just orders in the tactical map too.  Other than that i just use a slider for 600.  Its just enough that in a large fight you can throw out an assortment of around ten or fifteen ships of varying sizes.  Usually starting with something like two of every size and with a few to spare of the smaller ships or an extra capital or so.  After capping a point you can usually throw out an extra cruiser or a couple destroyers.  Just remember that more isnt always better fights usually hit a kind of critical mass where its just impossible to have any control over what is going on.  That and the fact the AI can potentially swarm you with multiple fleets with dozens of ships you have to fight off entirely at the same time which isnt that fun.

[ayckoster]

Honestly piloting and not piloting a ship yourself isnt that big of a difference.

Piloting a good ship can change the battle completely, especially in the end game with max level. Your character has 15 levels and has the most skills of your officers. Additionally, you are not limited to one ship. If you have enough reserves you can pilot a ship to the ground and jump to the next one. This is like 2-3 level 15 officers.

The effectiveness of piloting your ship can vary a lot and depends on skill, fleet composition of your opponent's and your own forces and loadouts.

I'm usually assuming that my flagship alone pulls down more than 300% of its DP in enemy forces. That's easily 120 DP.

The bigger the battles, the less of an impact your flagship will have on it. It will be swarmed more often and while 120 is 30% of 400 it's only 20% of 600.

Additionally, with bigger fleets your logistics become more difficult and expensive. Having a lean fleet throughout the game allows you to save more money and therefore enter the mid and late game faster.

Many of the crisis battles assume that you are very efficient with your fleet and that you can defeat 2-3 fleets at once either with defenses or without (AI inspection).

In summary, don't discount the effect of piloting your flagship. The game works well without it and you can have tons of fun with the strategical aspect of battles, but I believe the balancing assumes you pilot your ship. I believe the divisive opinions on the Persean League crisis are a symptom of this.

Back to the original question: What is a good balance for fleets? I'd start with 500 and increase it by 100 until you feel your hardware gives out or you have less fun than before. Consider other factors like count of officers and supply / fuel costs. I tried bigger battles and reverted it to the original.

[Sinigr]

So I'm a weirdo who plays almost exclusively with fleet-level combat (I'm a fencing instructor and get my fast-action needs there). I have the speed-up combat mod installed and have the slider set to allow really BIG battle deployments (so I can play with preliminary deployments vs reserves, all that operational-level stuff).

So the game is balanced around driving the ships yourself. Not doing that is a major gimp.
Setting the DP really high is a super buff.

Where do y'all figure a pretty good balance point is for total deployment points of fleets in action? 1600 is probably vastly too high, 400's "annoyingly low" for me.  Ideas?

Hier field, more Paragons I can deploy. For size of 1000 it is 9 paragons, so for example (here are some examples of ordoes, or other bounties https://youtu.be/AOm4O1e9SlA?t=1) for one fleet battle we can see 3 capitals, one paragon vs each, 26 other ships so one paragon vs two cruisers, minus 4 cruisers. We have 4 paragons more, so 5 small ships counters each paragon. I think it is extra easy mod, and you try to speak about balance. I tried big battle deployments, it is just easy mod. In other matters, this would help all those pretzels who could not overcome the Persian blockade.

[SCC]

Currently you can do just fine without personally piloting ships.

[Killer of Fate]

piloting ships isn't important. Plenty of ships can work extremely effectively with just an NPC behaviour tied to them. In fact the way how omni-shields and concentrating fire works, makes a lot of ships simply way too convenient to be left to NPCs.

However, there is a class of ships that need a player to make them work. Those would usually be phase ships.

[eert5rty7u8i9i7u6yrewqdef]

So I'm a weirdo who plays almost exclusively with fleet-level combat (I'm a fencing instructor and get my fast-action needs there). I have the speed-up combat mod installed and have the slider set to allow really BIG battle deployments (so I can play with preliminary deployments vs reserves, all that operational-level stuff).

So the game is balanced around driving the ships yourself. Not doing that is a major gimp.
Setting the DP really high is a super buff.

Where do y'all figure a pretty good balance point is for total deployment points of fleets in action? 1600 is probably vastly too high, 400's "annoyingly low" for me.  Ideas?

What type of fencing?

400 is good. I boosted it to 600 once during modded playthroughs, and it turns out a bunch of Victorys just kill everything. It was less due to the ship being OP, and more due to the power density and additional ships resulting in the enemy getting pushed back to their spawn and dying.
Currently Novas even at 400 DP have a similar effect.

If you boost it much above 600, a good generalized loadout of most capitals will be too much for the enemy AI to deal with. For reference, 734 DP battle size would allow 440 DP at max deployment size for each side. Meaning you could deploy 11 officered Onslaughts, the max without mercenaries. This in conjunction with the AI spamming too many small ships will cause the AI to be unable to give them proper orders, and the enemy ships will block each other's line of site due to the small battle map size. Which results in an ineffective enemy while you have an impenetrable wall of Onslaughts slowly encroaching forward.

Edit: Did the math wrong. It's Battle Size * .6 for max deployment, not /1.6

[Killer of Fate]

the AI spamming too many small ships

incoming sleep deprived rant

Spoiler

the NPC factions donut necessarily spam that many small ships. In fact their doctrines are usually set to be on 4 and with all priority ships being capitals. It's just that capitals and cruisers take a disproportionately small amount of fleet PTS compared to frigates, destroyers...

Meaning that if there are frigates and destroyers, they devour such a large chunk of the fleet's PTS that the game becomes slightly unfair for the NPCs. This is effectively also underlined because plenty of frigates and destroyers have no redeeming qualities. At least in their default variants. Causing their job to be "awkwardly shuffle towards an enemy before overfluxing and then retreating". With inevitably them trying their best to pretend that they do something, so that they don't get fired from their job for being useless.

For eg. Shrike's PTS being 9, compared to Eagle's 14 or Conquests 24. Now, I don't really think that 3 Shrikes equal to 2 Eagles in terms of usefulness. Or 3 Shrikes equal to one Conquest.

One could account mobility into the calculations and get these kind of numbers. But we also need to remember that strength is received in what I could be like... A logarithmic scale. Meaning that even though Shrikes have alacrity, their lack of range and hit strength of their typical weapons harms their effectiveness in combat significantly so. This could be said about other destroyers... Bla bla bla bla... Bla bla... Bla bla bla bla. Bla.

Also, I don't really like having destroyers and frigates nerfed so much in terms of PTS values, when their efficiency is already harmed by peak operating time mechanics, PD vulnerability, shield mechanics, armour mechanics... And a limited number of officers favouring larger ships too.

HOWEVER, I feel like the reason this kind of PTS calculation is in place, is so that the game doesn't become about hunting million annoying ships roaming about the battlefield. And the player has like an actual enemy to fight, rather than guerilla warfare simulator. Solution would be buffing destroyers then, so that their PTS is their value. With higher mobility, general improvements to small and medium weapons, like IR pulse laser. Some minor durability changes. But eh, that's impossible. Forget I said anything.

[close]

[eert5rty7u8i9i7u6yrewqdef]

the AI spamming too many small ships

incoming sleep deprived rant

Spoiler

the NPC factions donut necessarily spam that many small ships. In fact their doctrines are usually set to be on 4 and with all priority ships being capitals. It's just that capitals and cruisers take a disproportionately small amount of fleet PTS compared to frigates, destroyers...

Meaning that if there are frigates and destroyers, they devour such a large chunk of the fleet's PTS that the game becomes slightly unfair for the NPCs. This is effectively also underlined because plenty of frigates and destroyers have no redeeming qualities. At least in their default variants. Causing their job to be "awkwardly shuffle towards an enemy before overfluxing and then retreating". With inevitably them trying their best to pretend that they do something, so that they don't get fired from their job for being useless.

For eg. Shrike's PTS being 9, compared to Eagle's 14 or Conquests 24. Now, I don't really think that 3 Shrikes equal to 2 Eagles in terms of usefulness. Or 3 Shrikes equal to one Conquest.

One could account mobility into the calculations and get these kind of numbers. But we also need to remember that strength is received in what I could be like... A logarithmic scale. Meaning that even though Shrikes have alacrity, their lack of range and hit strength of their typical weapons harms their effectiveness in combat significantly so. This could be said about other destroyers... Bla bla bla bla... Bla bla... Bla bla bla bla. Bla.

Also, I don't really like having destroyers and frigates nerfed so much in terms of PTS values, when their efficiency is already harmed by peak operating time mechanics, PD vulnerability, shield mechanics, armour mechanics... And a limited number of officers favouring larger ships too.

HOWEVER, I feel like the reason this kind of PTS calculation is in place, is so that the game doesn't become about hunting million annoying ships roaming about the battlefield. And the player has like an actual enemy to fight, rather than guerilla warfare simulator. Solution would be buffing destroyers then, so that their PTS is their value. With higher mobility, general improvements to small and medium weapons, like IR pulse laser. Some minor durability changes. But eh, that's impossible. Forget I said anything.

[close]

https://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=17985.0
TLDR Fleet Points are the way they are due to multiple patches of balance issues without them being as they are.
Frigate spam first, then capital spam, enemies being too aggressive, enemies not being aggressive enough, etc. So, it ended up the way it did to fix issues.

The enemy deploying too many frigates or destroyers, tends to be an issue when fighting multiple fleets, which get compounded by the small map size when the enemy is able to deploy well over 240 DP.

Average builds with very little effort put into combined arms doctrines, tends to be what makes frigate and destroyers irrelevant.

[happycrow]

What type of fencing? Edit: Did the math wrong. It's Battle Size * .6 for max deployment, not /1.6

Thanks for the clarification - based on what you've said I have the slider def a bit high for later game.
I'm a historical fencer, Austro-Hungarian and Italo-Hungarian sabre mostly, plus fokos (long-handled tomahawk) and some weird stuff.

[Bungee_man]

So the game is balanced around driving the ships yourself. Not doing that is a major gimp.
Setting the DP really high is a super buff.

Not at all on the first point. Most of the most effective endgame builds, which can fight five giant fleets of elite officers and too-powerful-for-unlimited-player-access ships in one battle, rely on not directly controlling any ships. Not having to focus on what your flagship is doing allows you to check positioning of your other ships, and support ones that are out of position. Using the 'f' key to view a camera feed from ships that are engaged with the enemy is vital to using the commands correctly - it's something I didn't realize until a while in, but the battle screen itself doesn't give you enough information by itself to make informed decisions.

On the second point, spot on. The game is balanced around you being able to put 200DP of ships on the screen, or 240 if you dedicate yourself to point capture early on, with some fast frigates/destroyers and a suitable set of skills. Even raising it to the point where you can but 240 on the screen initially in a major fight is a very substantial buff to the kinds of fleets you can field. For higher values, the AI will try to extend itself to the new settings, but it really isn't designed for battles with more ~500 DP of ships on the screen, in total.

[Killer of Fate]

the AI spamming too many small ships

incoming sleep deprived rant

Spoiler

the NPC factions donut necessarily spam that many small ships. In fact their doctrines are usually set to be on 4 and with all priority ships being capitals. It's just that capitals and cruisers take a disproportionately small amount of fleet PTS compared to frigates, destroyers...

Meaning that if there are frigates and destroyers, they devour such a large chunk of the fleet's PTS that the game becomes slightly unfair for the NPCs. This is effectively also underlined because plenty of frigates and destroyers have no redeeming qualities. At least in their default variants. Causing their job to be "awkwardly shuffle towards an enemy before overfluxing and then retreating". With inevitably them trying their best to pretend that they do something, so that they don't get fired from their job for being useless.

For eg. Shrike's PTS being 9, compared to Eagle's 14 or Conquests 24. Now, I don't really think that 3 Shrikes equal to 2 Eagles in terms of usefulness. Or 3 Shrikes equal to one Conquest.

One could account mobility into the calculations and get these kind of numbers. But we also need to remember that strength is received in what I could be like... A logarithmic scale. Meaning that even though Shrikes have alacrity, their lack of range and hit strength of their typical weapons harms their effectiveness in combat significantly so. This could be said about other destroyers... Bla bla bla bla... Bla bla... Bla bla bla bla. Bla.

Also, I don't really like having destroyers and frigates nerfed so much in terms of PTS values, when their efficiency is already harmed by peak operating time mechanics, PD vulnerability, shield mechanics, armour mechanics... And a limited number of officers favouring larger ships too.

HOWEVER, I feel like the reason this kind of PTS calculation is in place, is so that the game doesn't become about hunting million annoying ships roaming about the battlefield. And the player has like an actual enemy to fight, rather than guerilla warfare simulator. Solution would be buffing destroyers then, so that their PTS is their value. With higher mobility, general improvements to small and medium weapons, like IR pulse laser. Some minor durability changes. But eh, that's impossible. Forget I said anything.

[close]

https://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=17985.0
TLDR Fleet Points are the way they are due to multiple patches of balance issues without them being as they are.
Frigate spam first, then capital spam, enemies being too aggressive, enemies not being aggressive enough, etc. So, it ended up the way it did to fix issues.

The enemy deploying too many frigates or destroyers, tends to be an issue when fighting multiple fleets, which get compounded by the small map size when the enemy is able to deploy well over 240 DP.

Average builds with very little effort put into combined arms doctrines, tends to be what makes frigate and destroyers irrelevant.

you definitely need way too much tinkering and planning to make frigates and destroyers have any use. A ship like Vigilance, Brawler (non-LP, no-TT versions), Lasher I guess is probably kinda useful, but I assume useless in late game. Destroyers are kinda decent... But their job is usually point a light at the enemy to wait for them to drop their shields. Fire velociraptors from far away or spam SO.

Frigates and destroyers suffer significantly from having very little durability and shields. Making them all die very quickly if sneezed on, their shields will pop from 4 Tachyon Lances and then it will explode to Atropos missiles. And if it comes to fighting destroyers as the player. You're usually happy to see those deployed instead of a Cruiser, cause their bad range, low peak operating time, often small kill potential. They are usually designed for bullying targets weaker than them or maybe fire support...

It doesn't help that their low amount of weapons makes it very difficult for them to create synergistic sets, and they will usually be reduced to a very impairing specialist role that will get further *** over by autofit. Sunder being equipped with Sun Lances for example.

my garbo fix

Spoiler

I have a solution to this, but it's a solution of my own, and no one is going to like it. No one, not even god himself. I was thinking about buffing shields, armour of destroyers and frigates, but only slightly. Or just cover up some of their weaknesses in general, like giving Enforcer a bit more mobility and better acceleration. And then changing the nature of medium and small weapons to more of a generalist role. Just like large weapons have more of a generalist role, tbh. I mean MARK IX does so much damage, that it technically can qualify as an anti-medium rare armour weapon. But eh, that's nonsense... Never mind.

[close]

[eert5rty7u8i9i7u6yrewqdef]

What type of fencing? Edit: Did the math wrong. It's Battle Size * .6 for max deployment, not /1.6

Thanks for the clarification - based on what you've said I have the slider def a bit high for later game.
I'm a historical fencer, Austro-Hungarian and Italo-Hungarian sabre mostly, plus fokos (long-handled tomahawk) and some weird stuff.

I forgot to reply so sorry for the late reply.
If you're ever working or teaching classes in the western half of the US, do send me a PM.
I've had an interest in historical European fencing and martial arts. However, everything I've run into is either closer to larping, or too close to Portland or Seatle for comfort.