The further Adventures of

[Paradigm]

Speaking from my view. My flagship was quite the biggest ship that has been fielded in the long battle between our groups. It is small by comparison to others that have been posted, but for our section of space it was quite large. What probably bugs me more than anything is that my flagship actually out massed the combined enemy forces yet only managed to destroy< 1M tons of shipping before being obliterated. That is truly a sad epithet to post on Fleet Admiral <needs name>'s grave. Now if I had managed to take out a couple of the enemy capital ships before going down, then it would have been a much softer blow.

 

Odd, I have an Admiral <needs name> as well. I wonder if they are related.

 

Issues of swarm units and flag bridges aside, from the battles I've seen the supernova combat system does seem to usually end in a very lopsided outcome with one side destroyed and the other largely undamaged. Especially once everyone had Mk IX Force Shields technology which is so much better than Tckon 68 armor on ships. There are exceptions, but that seems to be what usually happens even when the sides are fairly close in tonnage and technology. I personally don't care for such all-or-nothing combat systems in games because it makes luck too large of a factor and can make it very hard for the looser of a major battle to recover and not loose the entire war due to one lost battle. It also means a smaller opponent is little threat because he can't even hurt a larger attacker. It takes away any reluctance for a larger empire to attack a smaller for fear that even though they would surely win the war, it would cost them. I would prefer a system where when the sides are vaguely even that the winner end up with capital ships battered and cratered requiring the victor to have to put in for repairs that really cost resources and time, or choose to press on with a damaged fleet. Currently things like Repair Bays are virtually useless for anything other than surface forts. Big ships don't get damaged. Either their shields hold or they are destroyed. Maybe we need a weapon that bypasses shields to spice things up. Not one as powerful as other weapons, but one that would give a reason to put some armor on your ships and that would result in the chance of ships ending up being damaged after a hard fought battle. Like the old Starfire Energy Beam weapon did for example.

[Coconutheads]

In order to achieve your desired 'battered and cratered' capital ship scenario, you'd need to have the option to withdraw damaged ships from battle, which isn't allowed. I think that the major drawback in the SN combat system is that it is designed as a 'fight to the death' type system. There is no way to issue even simple conditional-type orders such as 'If x% of the fleet is destroyed, attempt to break engagement'. Of course there are probably thousands and thousands of potential conditional orders that would be possible so I can understand why.

 

As to having weapons that avoid shields, that's not going to solve the problem of the fight to the death system. Sure, when these 'shield bypassing' weapons were first employed then existing ship designs without armor would be cleared quickly. But once the system was known to exist in the game and once the existing designs were cleared from the universe (either by being destroyed or by being scrapped and rebuilt), all the 'new designs' would incorporate armor as well as shields and boom, we are right back where we started.

 

Regarding having smaller opponents being little threat to larger empires, I'm not sure what the objection is. How could it be otherwise? That's the point to expanding your empire.. so that you can have the ability to construct and field larger fleets which will allow you to expand further to build even larger fleets. I can imagine the uproar in the SN community if a relatively small fleet could consistently (or even occasionally) defeat a larger fleet... the boards would be just roaring with complaints to Pete in that case.

 

 

 

Speaking from my view. My flagship was quite the biggest ship that has been fielded in the long battle between our groups. It is small by comparison to others that have been posted, but for our section of space it was quite large. What probably bugs me more than anything is that my flagship actually out massed the combined enemy forces yet only managed to destroy< 1M tons of shipping before being obliterated. That is truly a sad epithet to post on Fleet Admiral <needs name>'s grave. Now if I had managed to take out a couple of the enemy capital ships before going down, then it would have been a much softer blow.

 

Odd, I have an Admiral <needs name> as well. I wonder if they are related.

 

Issues of swarm units and flag bridges aside, from the battles I've seen the supernova combat system does seem to usually end in a very lopsided outcome with one side destroyed and the other largely undamaged. Especially once everyone had Mk IX Force Shields technology which is so much better than Tckon 68 armor on ships. There are exceptions, but that seems to be what usually happens even when the sides are fairly close in tonnage and technology. I personally don't care for such all-or-nothing combat systems in games because it makes luck too large of a factor and can make it very hard for the looser of a major battle to recover and not loose the entire war due to one lost battle. It also means a smaller opponent is little threat because he can't even hurt a larger attacker. It takes away any reluctance for a larger empire to attack a smaller for fear that even though they would surely win the war, it would cost them. I would prefer a system where when the sides are vaguely even that the winner end up with capital ships battered and cratered requiring the victor to have to put in for repairs that really cost resources and time, or choose to press on with a damaged fleet. Currently things like Repair Bays are virtually useless for anything other than surface forts. Big ships don't get damaged. Either their shields hold or they are destroyed. Maybe we need a weapon that bypasses shields to spice things up. Not one as powerful as other weapons, but one that would give a reason to put some armor on your ships and that would result in the chance of ships ending up being damaged after a hard fought battle. Like the old Starfire Energy Beam weapon did for example.

[Paradigm]

In order to achieve your desired 'battered and cratered' capital ship scenario, you'd need to have the option to withdraw damaged ships from battle, which isn't allowed. I think that the major drawback in the SN combat system is that it is designed as a 'fight to the death' type system. There is no way to issue even simple conditional-type orders such as 'If x% of the fleet is destroyed, attempt to break engagement'. Of course there are probably thousands and thousands of potential conditional orders that would be possible so I can understand why.

 

Not necessarily. It could still be a fight to the death system but the victor could certainly end up with damaged ships given the right combat system.

 

As to having weapons that avoid shields, that's not going to solve the problem of the fight to the death system. Sure, when these 'shield bypassing' weapons were first employed then existing ship designs without armor would be cleared quickly. But once the system was known to exist in the game and once the existing designs were cleared from the universe (either by being destroyed or by being scrapped and rebuilt), all the 'new designs' would incorporate armor as well as shields and boom, we are right back where we started.

 

That is not true either. If there was a weapon that bypassed shields, the result would be damaged ship in the winning fleet since armor doesn't repair all damage after a battle like shields do.

 

Regarding having smaller opponents being little threat to larger empires, I'm not sure what the objection is. How could it be otherwise? That's the point to expanding your empire.. so that you can have the ability to construct and field larger fleets which will allow you to expand further to build even larger fleets. I can imagine the uproar in the SN community if a relatively small fleet could consistently (or even occasionally) defeat a larger fleet... the boards would be just roaring with complaints to Pete in that case.

 

Again you didn't grasp my point. I never said a small fleet should defeat a much larger fleet of equal technology. But if a smaller empire could do real damage to the fleet of a larger attacker, then large empires would have to think twice before attacking smaller neighbors since there would be a cost to pay for conquest. And they would have to watch their back against neighbors their size that might be waiting for them to weaken themselves temporarily due to conquering a smaller empire. They couldn't just steam roller them with impunity as they now can. Currently if my fleet is twice your size, and technology and all else is equal, and without swarm units or other such unbalancing factors involved, just a meeting of capital ships, not only am I going to win but you are unlikely to do any damage to my fleet at all.

[Locklyn]

I remember us discussing fleet loss thresholds on the first forum but Pete never seemed positive to it from the way combat worked. I too would have liked a "Damn 75% of my fleet is gone, I'm running for the nearest known WP or system orbit if I have the APs for it" Perhaps a Engine Generation vs Engine Generation would have given a % chance of escape, hmm. that's a nifty idea, must remember that for our next game.

 

Cheers

 

/Locklyn

[Damiano]

I remember us discussing fleet loss thresholds on the first forum but Pete never seemed positive to it from the way combat worked. I too would have liked a "Damn 75% of my fleet is gone, I'm running for the nearest known WP or system orbit if I have the APs for it" Perhaps a Engine Generation vs Engine Generation would have given a % chance of escape, hmm. that's a nifty idea, must remember that for our next game.

 

Cheers

 

/Locklyn

 

Don't forget as well that the faster fleet also controls the range the battle is fought at, keeping the range at the best distance for their weapons system. Though with 30,000+ ships, you better hope your squadron commanders have practiced their fleet maneuvers well.

[Locklyn]

In an old game of ours you set your frigates at various encounter levels (like DL), your escape chance was much dependant on a factor of your and the enemys ELs and how they tried to position during combat. Certain weapon systems also affected the escape chance like Cruise Missiles and other FnFs

 

/Locklyn

[Coconutheads]

In order to achieve your desired 'battered and cratered' capital ship scenario, you'd need to have the option to withdraw damaged ships from battle, which isn't allowed. I think that the major drawback in the SN combat system is that it is designed as a 'fight to the death' type system. There is no way to issue even simple conditional-type orders such as 'If x% of the fleet is destroyed, attempt to break engagement'. Of course there are probably thousands and thousands of potential conditional orders that would be possible so I can understand why.

 

Not necessarily. It could still be a fight to the death system but the victor could certainly end up with damaged ships given the right combat system.

 

As to having weapons that avoid shields, that's not going to solve the problem of the fight to the death system. Sure, when these 'shield bypassing' weapons were first employed then existing ship designs without armor would be cleared quickly. But once the system was known to exist in the game and once the existing designs were cleared from the universe (either by being destroyed or by being scrapped and rebuilt), all the 'new designs' would incorporate armor as well as shields and boom, we are right back where we started.

 

That is not true either. If there was a weapon that bypassed shields, the result would be damaged ship in the winning fleet since armor doesn't repair all damage after a battle like shields do.

 

Regarding having smaller opponents being little threat to larger empires, I'm not sure what the objection is. How could it be otherwise? That's the point to expanding your empire.. so that you can have the ability to construct and field larger fleets which will allow you to expand further to build even larger fleets. I can imagine the uproar in the SN community if a relatively small fleet could consistently (or even occasionally) defeat a larger fleet... the boards would be just roaring with complaints to Pete in that case.

 

Again you didn't grasp my point. I never said a small fleet should defeat a much larger fleet of equal technology. But if a smaller empire could do real damage to the fleet of a larger attacker, then large empires would have to think twice before attacking smaller neighbors since there would be a cost to pay for conquest. And they would have to watch their back against neighbors their size that might be waiting for them to weaken themselves temporarily due to conquering a smaller empire. They couldn't just steam roller them with impunity as they now can. Currently if my fleet is twice your size, and technology and all else is equal, and without swarm units or other such unbalancing factors involved, just a meeting of capital ships, not only am I going to win but you are unlikely to do any damage to my fleet at all.

 

I'm pretty sure I got your point. You are suggesting that introducing a shield skipping weapon would force all empires to have a more equalized ratio of shield points to integrity points (as opposed to the ratio being heavily skewed towards shield points as it is now). But to what end?

 

Since there are Repair Bays in the game I'm not recognizing any significance that would be associated to this change. Perhaps having surviving capital ships with less than full integrity would have been some kind of 'penalty' that would cause a larger attacker to think twice before attacking smaller neighbors before Repair Bays were introduced. But with Repair Bays available, all one need do is to create 'fleet tenders' designed to repair battle damaged ships.

 

Heck, you could take current 'refueling' class ships and add on Repair Bays, thus having non-combat ships doing double duty. If one opponent is significantly larger than the other, it's going to be much simpler for the larger empire to build superior fleet tenders and repair damaged capital ships faster than the smaller empire which will build inferior fleet tenders or none tenders at all. So...?

[Paradigm]

I'm pretty sure I got your point. You are suggesting that introducing a shield skipping weapon would force all empires to have a more equalized ratio of shield points to integrity points (as opposed to the ratio being heavily skewed towards shield points as it is now). But to what end?

 

Since there are Repair Bays in the game I'm not recognizing any significance that would be associated to this change. Perhaps having surviving capital ships with less than full integrity would have been some kind of 'penalty' that would cause a larger attacker to think twice before attacking smaller neighbors before Repair Bays were introduced. But with Repair Bays available, all one need do is to create 'fleet tenders' designed to repair battle damaged ships.

 

Heck, you could take current 'refueling' class ships and add on Repair Bays, thus having non-combat ships doing double duty. If one opponent is significantly larger than the other, it's going to be much simpler for the larger empire to build superior fleet tenders and repair damaged capital ships faster than the smaller empire which will build inferior fleet tenders or none tenders at all. So...?

 

I see lots of strategies that opens up. It would give people a reason to actually build repair bays. An opponent could try to circle around to an enemy's rear areas and kill the repair ships before engaging the fleet. A fleet without repair ships might have to retreat to a friendly system for repairs. Anything that improves on the current situation of both sides building one big fleet then when they clash one is gone and the other largely undamaged, is for the better.

[Coconutheads]

I'm pretty sure I got your point. You are suggesting that introducing a shield skipping weapon would force all empires to have a more equalized ratio of shield points to integrity points (as opposed to the ratio being heavily skewed towards shield points as it is now). But to what end?

 

Since there are Repair Bays in the game I'm not recognizing any significance that would be associated to this change. Perhaps having surviving capital ships with less than full integrity would have been some kind of 'penalty' that would cause a larger attacker to think twice before attacking smaller neighbors before Repair Bays were introduced. But with Repair Bays available, all one need do is to create 'fleet tenders' designed to repair battle damaged ships.

 

Heck, you could take current 'refueling' class ships and add on Repair Bays, thus having non-combat ships doing double duty. If one opponent is significantly larger than the other, it's going to be much simpler for the larger empire to build superior fleet tenders and repair damaged capital ships faster than the smaller empire which will build inferior fleet tenders or none tenders at all. So...?

 

I see lots of strategies that opens up. It would give people a reason to actually build repair bays. An opponent could try to circle around to an enemy's rear areas and kill the repair ships before engaging the fleet. A fleet without repair ships might have to retreat to a friendly system for repairs. Anything that improves on the current situation of both sides building one big fleet then when they clash one is gone and the other largely undamaged, is for the better.

 

 

Ok.

[hobknob]

Some of the early battles the Bombay had were with ships that did not utilize high level shields. When the combat was over you really had to limp home to be repaired. It also made your 750,000 ton CCA susceptible to small ships as I found when my heavily damaged CCA was destroyed by a couple of fresh CL's < 10% of its mass.

 

There is also something to be said for the value of a "good" death if it results in the enemy fleet being damaged. Hence my disappointment with my battle. What a waste. I didn't even fire on a single worthwhile target. The loss of the ship is not a big deal, but it would have been so much nicer if I could have taken out a couple of capital ships along the way.

[Paradigm]

There is also something to be said for the value of a "good" death if it results in the enemy fleet being damaged. Hence my disappointment with my battle. What a waste. I didn't even fire on a single worthwhile target. The loss of the ship is not a big deal, but it would have been so much nicer if I could have taken out a couple of capital ships along the way.

 

FWIW I agree. I railed against the swam effect as soon as I learned about it. I'm not saying there should be no place in the game for swarms, the more strategies to choose from the greater the depth to the game, but they should have much much less impact, flag bridge or no flag bridge. And I'm also not saying the defender shouldn't have some advantage. But when two roughly equal size forces meet in battle, with roughly equivalent technology, and one is destroyed while the other is effectively unscathed, I don't like it.