The Roman War: All is Quiet?

[hobknob]

Capital ship details are trivial. They will most likely be scrapped and remade into something bigger and better. Screens are usually worthless for much else and so the only important info is how many of them there are.

[Lord Uriel]

I have to agree that several thousand screen ships being more important than dreadnaughts seems just wrong.

[ShadowKitsune]

Advanced Fire Control systems, which can generate high FC values, will allow you to carve through multiple screen ships. My problem has been that the FC systems are still pretty simplistic. [Mind you I only know what has been posted to the boards.] It seems that everyone's targetting systems shoot at the nearest target regardless of threat.

 

If I have 10,000 Corvette-sized (1000 ton) screen ships in DepLoc1 armed with Light Beam Lasers and armored with Standard Hull Plate and 2 Ultra-Mega SuperNova Dreadnaught-sized (10,000,000+ ton) warships in DepLoc2 armed with Mk IX Deathrays and armored with Unobtanium Weaveplate, any invading Fleet is going to be expending a lot of "overkill" firepower vaporizing my annoying gnats (aka Corvettes) while my two behemoths are punching large holes in your fleet. Unless you too have brought 10,000 screen ships and two humungous warships, then we'll both be obliterating screen ships until just the behemoths are left. Unfortunately, if you only bring 9,000 screen ships, I'll be pounding your warships first. If you bring 11,000 screen ships, the opposite is true.

 

Even Victory! allows you to choose between Auxiliary Ships, Light Warships, Heavy Warships and Carriers as a primary target. Why doesn't SN:ROTE?

 

Regardless, we all know what the current state of the Art of War is, and whether we like it or not screen ships will be with us for a while.

 

-SK

[NeilGartner]

I have to agree that several thousand screen ships being more important than dreadnaughts seems just wrong.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Pete said there is a way to defeat screen ships (and he's not telling )and if you look at the defeated fleet you can see only two of the ships had CIDS defences. Also, the few ships that had any defense shields were mere token. 50,000 tons of shielding generators (5000 x 100= 50,000 tons) on the Tuetonberg Forest, a 11 million ton ship is very thin. This fleet was poorly design if confronted by missile or torpedo ships and defense sheilds like force shields protects the ship from damage, so it won't lose critical systems in battle early as long the shield is up.

 

Anyone, that my view of things.

 

Cheers!

[Lord Uriel]

Advanced Fire Control systems, which can generate high FC values, will allow you to carve through multiple screen ships.  My problem has been that the FC systems are still pretty simplistic.  [Mind you I only know what has been posted to the boards.]  It seems that everyone's targetting systems shoot at the nearest target regardless of threat.

 

If I have 10,000 Corvette-sized (1000 ton) screen ships in DepLoc1 armed with Light Beam Lasers and armored with Standard Hull Plate and 2 Ultra-Mega SuperNova Dreadnaught-sized (10,000,000+ ton) warships in DepLoc2 armed with Mk IX Deathrays and armored with Unobtanium Weaveplate, any invading Fleet is going to be expending a lot of "overkill" firepower vaporizing my annoying gnats (aka Corvettes) while my two behemoths are punching large holes in your fleet.  Unless you too have brought 10,000 screen ships and two humungous warships, then we'll both be obliterating screen ships until just the behemoths are left.  Unfortunately, if you only bring 9,000 screen ships, I'll be pounding your warships first.  If you bring 11,000 screen ships, the opposite is true.

 

Even Victory! allows you to choose between Auxiliary Ships, Light Warships, Heavy Warships and Carriers as a primary target.  Why doesn't SN:ROTE? 

 

Regardless, we all know what the current state of the Art of War is, and whether we like it or not screen ships will be with us for a while. 

 

-SK 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

SK,

You bring up a valid point. There should be a way to choose a primary target. Using the Victory model of primary, secondary or whatever-ary targeting could allow, say, 70% of offensive weapon fire to be targeted against battle line formations, etc. while the remaining 30% would be divvied up amongst the enemy fleet at random.

As a player you'd have to bring in more viable options for all ship classes, never knowing what your opponent has chosen.

I think setting primary targets is a great idea.

[hobknob]

There are plenty of ways to defeat a screen swarm and CIDS are not really a part of it. The methods are pretty simple really and boil down to about 3 options;

 

1) Bring your own swarm

2) Make sure you have incredibly high FC and lots of power to go with it

3) time your attacks to strip the screens using sacrificial ships prior to the big engagement

 

Swarms of screens are primarily an early tech advantage when your ships can't go toe to toe with an opponent and for equalizing the size of the forces. When you get well along in the tech trees the role of a screen will change into something much more formidable.

 

In the end it is an arms race. You have to pick your poison and then go for it.

 

[ShadowKitsune]

SK,

You bring up a valid point.  There should be a way to choose a primary target.  Using the Victory model of primary, secondary or whatever-ary targeting could allow, say, 70% of offensive weapon fire to be targeted against battle line formations, etc. while the remaining 30% would be divvied up amongst the enemy fleet at random. 

As a player you'd have to bring in more viable options for all ship classes, never knowing what your opponent has chosen. 

I think setting primary targets is a great idea.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

On the way to a more refined system, it could start with a simple tonnage level. Primary Targets are ships whose tonnage >= 500,000 tons (or whatever), as set by the player, empire-wide. The 'default' value would be 1000 tons, since that is the theoretical bottom limit to ship size.

 

Refinements could include being able to set Primary Targets at the Fleet Level, or, as an additional use for Naval Officers, set by ranking Naval Officer. [The 'by Naval Officer' idea is not mine, I wish it was, but it isn't. ] Personally, I think the Naval Officer idea combined with the Empire-wide concept would be the most 'fun'. Your Empire-wide level would constitute "standing orders" for all generic ship captains, while having a Naval Officer in charge carrying his/her/it's own ideas of how the battle should be fought would allow flexibility and a touch of RP to the system.

 

FWIW,

-SK

[hobknob]

If there some consideration for ship size that would be enough. Just enough weighting that you would be 20% likely to ignore screens if there is a target of size also available.

 

The down side is that there are many wars being waged today that would have very different outcomes if the targetting system is changed. The last thing I want on the eve of battle is for the formulas to change.

 

We have a dog and it has fleas. If we change the dog there will still be fleas, we just won't know what they are.....

 

[Lord Uriel]

Hobknob,

I would accept a 20% chance to ignore screens and target something different. I was just thinking that if I as a player realize that my opponent has figured out he should target my uber carrier deployed at 12; I can develop a carrier that is somewhat different, maybe an assault carrier.

 

You're right about the dog and flees. I just wish the dog smelled better.

[ShadowKitsune]

If there some consideration for ship size that would be enough.  Just enough weighting that you would be 20% likely to ignore screens if there is a target of size also available.

 

The down side is that there are many wars being waged today that would have very different outcomes if the targetting system is changed.  The last thing I want on the eve of battle is for the formulas to change. 

 

We have a dog and it has fleas.  If we change the dog there will still be fleas, we just won't know what they are.....

 

   

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I doubt this dog will be changing anytime soon with all of the other improvements, modifications and repairs already on Pete's plate for SN:ROTE. Any change to the combat engine will cause painful ripples, especially for empires already in the middle of major conflicts (e.g. The Roman War). Ideally, if there were any major changes to the combat system, RTG would give us all a multi-turn warning with a countdown. Five or six turns would be sufficient warning, if the details of the modifications were posted.

 

Example: On April 1st, RTG will be rolling out Combat Engine v.2.0 for SN:ROTE. [see RTG Boards for Details] That is [X] turns away.

 

I'm not saying it has to change, either. I'm just saying that I would like it to change because I think the way it works now is somewhat counter-intuitive, at least to me. It might be my wet-navy style of thinking. It may be that I'm not far enough up the tech trees. Trust me that being low on the tech trees, especially Fire Control technologies, only serves to seriously outline the counter-intuitiveness of the system to me.

 

I'm just glad that I didn't build my Empire as a war-like conqueror.

 

-SK

[ali-t-akua]

I think both SK and HK have good points. It would be great that the system worked differently and I appreciate all of the idea but it does not work differently and all I want to know is how it woks so I can plan accordingly. If Pete is going to make a change than I would like advanced notice although I am not sure that 5 or 6 turns will be sufficient especially for those on limited turn budgets. Just my two cents.

[ShadowKitsune]

I think both SK and HK have good points. It would be great that the system worked differently and I appreciate all of the idea but it does not work differently and all I want to know is how it woks so I can plan accordingly. If Pete is going to make a change than I would like advanced notice although I am not sure that 5 or 6 turns will be sufficient especially for those on limited turn budgets. Just my two cents.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I think that the best two sources [on this board] would be Hobknob or Justinian (Roman Empire) as far as how the combat system works. They may not have it all figured out, but at least they're winning their battles.

 

-SK

[hobknob]

Well, it only appears that I win my battles. I do have other battles for other positions that have not been nearly so glorious or victorious.

 

Of course, there is alot that can be learned from losing big time too.

 

 

[Hughestrog]

The down side is that there are many wars being waged today that would have very different outcomes if the targetting system is changed.  The last thing I want on the eve of battle is for the formulas to change. 

 

We have a dog and it has fleas.  If we change the dog there will still be fleas, we just won't know what they are.....

 

   

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I doubt this dog will be changing anytime soon with all of the other improvements, modifications and repairs already on Pete's plate for SN:ROTE. Any change to the combat engine will cause painful ripples, especially for empires already in the middle of major conflicts (e.g. The Roman War). Ideally, if there were any major changes to the combat system, RTG would give us all a multi-turn warning with a countdown. Five or six turns would be sufficient warning, if the details of the modifications were posted.

 

Example: On April 1st, RTG will be rolling out Combat Engine v.2.0 for SN:ROTE. [see RTG Boards for Details] That is [X] turns away.

 

I'm not saying it has to change, either. I'm just saying that I would like it to change because I think the way it works now is somewhat counter-intuitive, at least to me. It might be my wet-navy style of thinking. It may be that I'm not far enough up the tech trees. Trust me that being low on the tech trees, especially Fire Control technologies, only serves to seriously outline the counter-intuitiveness of the system to me.

 

I'm just glad that I didn't build my Empire as a war-like conqueror.

 

-SK

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Good points, and this may make the system more intuitive.

 

What about tying any proposed changes into the tech system, i.e. requiring 3rd Gen Social Science with 5th Gen Psych and 4th level Space Science? Would this then be as unbalancing?

[Lord Uriel]

The funny thing is that Hugh may be onto something and it might have something to do with complex research.

 

Enjoy your turns.

 

Lord Uriel