Official: Save the Database (Club a baby Screenmonger) Thread

[EternusIV]

Hello fellow SNROTE players!

 

A Brief (re)Intoduction

 

After a long hiatus from the Universe, the Spawn arrived from their home system of [CENSORED] and into my new neighborhood in central Wisconsin. I grew tired of rooting them from my lawn and finally agreed to resume the SN position in exchange for their departure, so Earth is saved from hyperfoliage for the very near future.

 

I will continue to honor all treaties and agreements put in place by my earlier administration, and all new agreements made by the Spawn's recent custodian, Will Karlin of the Ring of Vheissu.

 

Nanomaids continue to clean the empty halls of the Galactic Senate and its good to see that many of those who sent emissaries in years past are still prospering, and in many cases, pushing back the forces of chaos and piracy. We've converted the lobby into a Starbar and I'll be sending coordinates for all (especially pirates and those who lead said forces of chaos) whom seek a cold one among aquatic plants.

 

I can't promise I'll make myself present on the boards with the same fervor as the past, but I am available to assist any of the new players with friendly advice and/or efforts towards condensing the rules updates, etc.

 

Does the Database Need Saving?

 

Other players agreed to move the discussions regarding database conjecture and how we might reduce tension to the database. I propose this be the thread! (Although I think Lord Xaar presents a more specific discussion regarding the Flag Bridge which I hope receives some contribution.)

 

Without more detail, there isn't much we, as a player base, can accomplish in 'saving' the database. It's up to the powers that be to shape that discussion and I trust Pete and Russ will always do the right thing by us based on their track record. Heck, I'm not even sure how troubled the database really is. Some of you sound jaded in that regard, which is your right, but for this game to improve it might take some adjustment and flexibility on our end in terms of what we expect from the game.

 

Locklyn's Hellenic Liberation thread poses many questions, but I also sense Pete working hard in the background to resolve the issue. I think the road to improving the game involves a decision to revamp the database entirely, or change the rules. I'm curious as to see how other players see the issue in light of their own experiences.

 

Death to Screens! Off with their Ten Trillion Heads!

 

I am all for this.

 

My empire is guilty of the screen strategy. As you may recall, we featured an article in the SNReader about this very dilemma and I for one am THRILLED that there is a counter to the strategy aside from pumping up FC and stacking leaders to insane levels. Another strategy involves sending in waves of high FC screen killers.

 

With permission from the source, I'll be happy to provide the Flag Bridge ANZ if someone doesn't beat me to it, but I want to honor the sources whom were gracious, fortunate and benevolent enough to have shared the information with others. On a sad note, I'll flush out how it is to counter those expensive baddies...and in the end I think the Mk I Version doesn't completely eliminate the nuisance of screens.

 

The fundamental truth of screens remains:

 

Screens are by far the most resource efficient defense for most players who lack a deep tech tree or the benefit of a diversified high-tech ally.

 

Prove it wrong. I think I issues that challenge three years ago and only the crickets arrived, and they didn't know jack about how to run my fleets. It would be nice, if to save the database, a player such as the Hellenic League would ditch the screen strategy, but from what I've seen, it would spell swift disaster for the Hellenes as there is no viable, and more critically, cost-effective solution. Count the resources expended in that battle: advantage Hellenes.

 

Turning our focus to the future of screens. I know that Pete has alluded to how screens aren't efficient in the long run...but I'm wondering how long of a run we're talking here. At least a year for most budding empires to grab the Flag Bridge tech...maybe another to mobilize 'em....its fairly relative. If the Flag Bridge isn't protected, and the Gremloids arrive the very NEXT turn with screens against a Flag Bridge-less defense...and so on.

 

I think we had a chance years ago to address this issue and cut it off at the pass (ie scale FC more favorably or require higher tonnage per screen, etc) but we're stuck with what we have. Many of us have invested THOUSANDS of dollars into this game and changing the rules midstream is probably an option next to the selfdestruct button.

 

Thus, I'm with Hobknob on this one: drastic change is bad. Until somebody convinces me otherwise that a basic screen strategy is less resource effective than building massive high FC, high damage, high armor ships, then I'll print this post, eat it and film the whole thing on Youtube for you to witness.

 

I'll be happy to DISM all my screens (and perhaps even pay for the joy of all those DISM orders) if fire control is scaled, or everyone receives the Flag Bridge tech as a present. (More SRPs for the lucky souls who 'found' it, although I tend to agree with the thought that the Flag Bridges arrived as the NTWDs did )

 

Database Errors and Engine Flaws

 

This to some of you is clearly more troubling. Perhaps more solutions can be suggested and hopefully Pete can address or verify the claims made.

 

Reducing Convoy Infodumps

 

Amen to the ideas posted in the other thread, with the caveat that we can expand the infodump as is with a new order in the event we want to troubleshoot the convoy. Perhaps a CRPT or "Convoy Report" order?

 

Attitude and Turn Deadlines

 

I don't know Rhousasnonsna from the frog next door, but I tend to think that demanding a turn result is low priority given the current state of the game. In my view, patience is the better rule unless you can show you are booked solid for two weeks, every two weeks except for the Friday night/Saturday morning in which turns are traditionally 'due.'

 

I have tremendous respect for Pete and Russ despite my criticism of screens and I know they make a great PBM product in a world that's growing too strange for PBM gaming. I propose we continue to be supportive and proactive in finding a solution to the many (and ancient) quirks of SNROTE.

 

It seems Pete has a talented player base upon which to draw assistance from, especially on the database front but in the end, its his game to save, if it needs saving, and its our game to play, or tolerate, as it grows. But you're a smart bunch and didn't need to hear any of that from me But sometimes it feels better to point at the sky and call it blue anyway, especially when its falling.

 

Toodles....and leave my little plants alone until I can develop the damn Flag Bridge meself!

[WKE235]

The fundamental truth of screens remains:

 

Screens are by far the most resource efficient defense for most players who lack a deep tech tree or the benefit of a diversified high-tech ally.

 

Prove it wrong. I think I issues that challenge three years ago and only the crickets arrived, and they didn't know jack about how to run my fleets.

 

Until we see the analyze and requirements for the Flag Bridge, this is a fact of the game. I would like to add that even WITH a deep tech tree, whatever the combination is that is needed for this magical tech has eluded even many of the oldest players. I mean it's been 5 years since this game started. And whatever is required for this tech is not widely known. If it takes five years for someone to find this and analyze it or stumble blindly into it as the tech path is in not obvious, then what are other players supposed to do? Sit around and hope they don't get attacked by a similar tech level neighbor? Or build the only defense they can, screens.

 

As the rules are structured, screens are especially useful for home world defense in the early years. Armor and defenses increase faster in points than weapons at start. IE, where a weapon upgrade doubles the firepower, an armor or shield upgrade gets you 2.5 x the armor at least, or 2.25 times in shielding. Add in that HW screens built as sats get 3x their hit points, and built as fortresses they get 9x. That in effect multiples your resource use in defense of the homeworld, making it that much tougher for someone to come in and attack. In other words, early in the game the research curves give an advantage to defense and screens support this. The game is structured to virtually force you to build screens, since there is no way around them until later (4-5 years) in the game.

 

Sure, once weapons get to higher powers they catch up and pass armor and shields which max out. And of course with high FC, fleets can use this fire power to blast many single 1000 ton blocks of T'ckon 68 into dust. But it's use as a screen requiring the enemy to waste fire power on it still exists, even at that point.

[Locklyn]

I would say this, from the basic premise that Pete has postulated how Flag Bridges work is that you are suddenly able to discern the actual firing warships from the non-firing junk ships in a battle and concentrate on those viable targets, there still remains problems.

 

Unless all your fleets or ships have Flag Bridges, you will want to have screens to protect the non flag bridge ones from other non-flag bridge fleets, consider what happens if fighting a screen fleet and your flagships die?

 

Even with Flag Bridges present you will want to maintain high FC as the whole concept of ignoring the screens can be twisted around quite profusely if you think about it.

 

And even if are handed the flag bridge tech as Pete seems to pass it left and right now with new neutrals and such, which those who worked their way hard through the techpaths are not all too happy about, screens can still be a fighting force, especially if you upp the tonnage from the basic 1000 ton design.

 

Raising the shipyard slip cost or raise the number of shipyards required would hurt all the new empires and benefit those already with 10-20000 slips or it would have been one way to go.

 

Ive still to see a battle with flag bridge system to see that it actually works, in this game, seeing is believing nothing else, rules or anz blurbs matter until you see it actually working the way it has been described.

 

I will share my findings once I get Flag Bridge tech and how well it works or not but as I and my allies already have discovered, there are plenty of theoretical ways to counter or even impair the effectiveness of a flag bridge system.

 

Eternus, GOOD to see you back! Though I would say I am in opposition to just handing out techs that other players have worked hard and long to find, that is up to you and your ally. Pete designed the convoluted tech tree and that is what has taken so long to finding this tech but since he seems determined to seed it in the game right now it wont stay secret too much longer.

 

Cheers

 

/Locklyn

[Lord Deependra]

I would say this, from the basic premise that Pete has postulated how Flag Bridges work is that you are suddenly able to discern the actual firing warships from the non-firing junk ships in a battle and concentrate on those viable targets, there still remains problems.

 

/Locklyn

 

"Non-firing junk ship"? What are they? All of my 1000 ton screens (not that I have very many) are armed. Does that mean my fleets are immune to Flag Bridges?

[WKE235]

I would say this, from the basic premise that Pete has postulated how Flag Bridges work is that you are suddenly able to discern the actual firing warships from the non-firing junk ships in a battle and concentrate on those viable targets, there still remains problems.

 

/Locklyn

 

"Non-firing junk ship"? What are they? All of my 1000 ton screens (not that I have very many) are armed. Does that mean my fleets are immune to Flag Bridges?

 

Or at the very least you can place some CIDS on the screens. They take up very little room, and using even a small amount of the high end CIDS in screens really boosts your overall kill rate on fighter and missle type attacks.

[chairman lar]

I would say this, from the basic premise that Pete has postulated how Flag Bridges work is that you are suddenly able to discern the actual firing warships from the non-firing junk ships in a battle and concentrate on those viable targets, there still remains problems.

 

/Locklyn

 

"Non-firing junk ship"? What are they? All of my 1000 ton screens (not that I have very many) are armed. Does that mean my fleets are immune to Flag Bridges?

 

Or at the very least you can place some CIDS on the screens. They take up very little room, and using even a small amount of the high end CIDS in screens really boosts your overall kill rate on fighter and missle type attacks.

This is a strategy that escapes me; Someone actually puts out ships that can't shoot back? Are they made of Primitive Artwork & Mineral Fertilizer?

 

Compression seems to be the quickest way to 'save the database', and, if this mysterious Flag Bridge [along with a one line All Destroyed entry instead of pages of individual damage reports] is Pete's way of doing that then I suggest certain revisions in strategy are inevitable.

 

We are hoisted on our own petard, and steps need to be taken to eliminate the tons of useless info we have generated. Since nothing is lost, try scrapping these screens and using the components to build less, but more effective ones. At least fly this by Pete to see if frees up some memory!

 

And thanks for moving this thread; it makes it so much easier to follow the conversation!

[WKE235]

I would say this, from the basic premise that Pete has postulated how Flag Bridges work is that you are suddenly able to discern the actual firing warships from the non-firing junk ships in a battle and concentrate on those viable targets, there still remains problems.

/Locklyn

"Non-firing junk ship"? What are they? All of my 1000 ton screens (not that I have very many) are armed. Does that mean my fleets are immune to Flag Bridges?

Or at the very least you can place some CIDS on the screens. They take up very little room, and using even a small amount of the high end CIDS in screens really boosts your overall kill rate on fighter and missle type attacks.

This is a strategy that escapes me; Someone actually puts out ships that can't shoot back? Are they made of Primitive Artwork & Mineral Fertilizer?

 

Its makes perfect sense. As a ship is damaged in battle, it loses a proportional amount of weapons and other items to damage. If there was some way to keep your fire power and weapons safe even as you take damage to the fleet, that would give you an advantage in battle by pumping out more damage.

 

As part of a screen strategy, the screens are designed to soak off enemy fire power into useless targets. In the meantime you place all the weapons on the main ship or ships. Think of it in terms of moving some of the ships armor into thousands of floating blocks around the ship, designed to intercept / block damage from getting to the weapons. The net result is the screen ships take the damage, but you lose none of your fire power. You maintain a maximum amount of return fire, at least until the enemy starts getting through the screens. And this may mean the difference in winning and losing the fight.

 

This is also one reason why some type of screening, even if modified, may still be useful with mythical Flag bridges. Keeping weapons fire and damage away from your main batteries in a battle so you maintain as much fire power as you can, will always be useful if it is possible.

[chairman lar]

I'm not disputing the need for screens; just the wisdom of useless hulks vs 'fire & forget' platforms [say, with CIDS & Missiles] that accomplish the same purpose & still gets your bite of the sandwich.

 

The issue here is not one of strategy, but of turn-around time. If, collectively, we can't come up with a way to reduce the current 5 day wait for results to come back; then we can only take comfort in the postage we're saving and resign ourselves to an eventual system saturation in an electronic game that takes longer than real PBM.

 

Remember, we're the ones generating those '2500' page results; this system is just reacting to our input.

[ShadowKitsune]

Under the current operational definition of a "screen" ship, all it has to be is a valid design that will absorb some damage. This means that as a Starship it needs to have a minimum of one Engine and total at least 1000 tons. Orbital Platforms and Planetary Bases only need to total 1000 tons.

 

Most of the "flying brick" (i.e. unarmed) screen ships are composed of salvage; maybe not Mineral Fertilizer, but Mk I Computer Systems, Standard Hull Plating, Mk I Short Range Sensors, Laser CIDS and the like. The only function of the "screen" ship is to absorb a blob of damage. They are basically, IMO, a Fire Control exploit defense. The Combat System, as I understand it, is really simple. Every ship - regardless of armament - is a target. Targets are chosen at random. The number of targets selected per round is based on your Fleet's Fire Control [FC] rating; the higher your FC the more targets selected. The amount of damage you do per target is based on your Fleet's combined Firepower divided by your FC rating.

 

Thus if your opponent has 1000 screen ships composed of nothing but Engines, Jump Drives and Armor and 10 Nova Dreadnaughts which have all the weaonry, your total number of targets is 1010; even though only 10 are any threat. If you had a Firepower rating of 10,000,000,000 but only an FC of 10; every time your target was one of those "useless" screen ships, which will be about 99% of the time to start with, you will be wasting 10% of your total Firepower with absolutely no reduction in your opponents Firepower.

 

Until something comes along that will allow ships to assess threat levels and select their targets based on threat, screens will be viable. Actually, given the overkill nature of Missile, Drone and Fighter defense, armed screen ships make better "Fighters" than Fighters do. Let me explain that last statement a bit.

 

You can defend against Fighters, Drones and Missiles specifically with CIDS and Manueverability (AP Rating), plus Armor and Shields; and only CIDS actually destroy Fighters, Drones and Missiles. As far as I can tell, every weapon type has a CIDS corollary system. Thus you do not have to research "Fighters" to unlock the specific Fighter defense, unlike other weapons systems. For example, Neutron Fixers technology defends against Matter Disruptors and has the Mk I Matter Disruptors as a pre-requisite technology. (I'm not advocating a change in CIDS technology, I actually think it makes sense as far as the Tech Tree goes.) Additionally, with Fighters and Drones, you need to build a specific ship component to utilize and transport them; Fighter Bays and Drone Racks, respectively. Thus to gain the use of 10,000 tons of Fighters or Drones, you need to build an additional 10,000 tons of "storage" space.

 

Screen ships must be defended against just like any other starship, because unlike Fighters, Drones and Missiles, you can arm them with a variety of weaponry. CIDS seperately targets Fighters, Drones and Missiles, while small starships (e.g. screen ships) are targetted by the same weapons used to bring down Nova Dreadnaughts. Thus, you need better Bridge systems to defend against waves of screen "fighters", instead of adding more CIDS. Additionally, high AP values have no effect on the Firepower of screen ships, while it does lower the Firepower value of Fighters, Drones and Missiles.

 

FWIW,

-SK

[HumVie]

I think of the screen ships as electronic decoys designed to look like larger or more capable designs. Hence, the enemy ends up targeting the wrong thing and wasting firepower.

[chairman lar]

Hello fellow SNROTE players!

 

A Brief (re)Intoduction

 

After a long hiatus from the Universe, the Spawn arrived from their home system of [CENSORED] and into my new neighborhood in central Wisconsin. I grew tired of rooting them from my lawn and finally agreed to resume the SN position in exchange for their departure, so Earth is saved from hyperfoliage for the very near future.

 

I will continue to honor all treaties and agreements put in place by my earlier administration, and all new agreements made by the Spawn's recent custodian, Will Karlin of the Ring of Vheissu.

 

Nanomaids continue to clean the empty halls of the Galactic Senate and its good to see that many of those who sent emissaries in years past are still prospering, and in many cases, pushing back the forces of chaos and piracy. We've converted the lobby into a Starbar and I'll be sending coordinates for all (especially pirates and those who lead said forces of chaos) whom seek a cold one among aquatic plants.

 

I can't promise I'll make myself present on the boards with the same fervor as the past, but I am available to assist any of the new players with friendly advice and/or efforts towards condensing the rules updates, etc.

 

Does the Database Need Saving?

 

Other players agreed to move the discussions regarding database conjecture and how we might reduce tension to the database. I propose this be the thread! (Although I think Lord Xaar presents a more specific discussion regarding the Flag Bridge which I hope receives some contribution.)

 

Without more detail, there isn't much we, as a player base, can accomplish in 'saving' the database. It's up to the powers that be to shape that discussion and I trust Pete and Russ will always do the right thing by us based on their track record. Heck, I'm not even sure how troubled the database really is. Some of you sound jaded in that regard, which is your right, but for this game to improve it might take some adjustment and flexibility on our end in terms of what we expect from the game.

 

Locklyn's Hellenic Liberation thread poses many questions, but I also sense Pete working hard in the background to resolve the issue. I think the road to improving the game involves a decision to revamp the database entirely, or change the rules. I'm curious as to see how other players see the issue in light of their own experiences.

 

Death to Screens! Off with their Ten Trillion Heads!

 

I am all for this.

 

My empire is guilty of the screen strategy. As you may recall, we featured an article in the SNReader about this very dilemma and I for one am THRILLED that there is a counter to the strategy aside from pumping up FC and stacking leaders to insane levels. Another strategy involves sending in waves of high FC screen killers.

 

With permission from the source, I'll be happy to provide the Flag Bridge ANZ if someone doesn't beat me to it, but I want to honor the sources whom were gracious, fortunate and benevolent enough to have shared the information with others. On a sad note, I'll flush out how it is to counter those expensive baddies...and in the end I think the Mk I Version doesn't completely eliminate the nuisance of screens.

 

The fundamental truth of screens remains:

 

Screens are by far the most resource efficient defense for most players who lack a deep tech tree or the benefit of a diversified high-tech ally.

 

Prove it wrong. I think I issues that challenge three years ago and only the crickets arrived, and they didn't know jack about how to run my fleets. It would be nice, if to save the database, a player such as the Hellenic League would ditch the screen strategy, but from what I've seen, it would spell swift disaster for the Hellenes as there is no viable, and more critically, cost-effective solution. Count the resources expended in that battle: advantage Hellenes.

 

Turning our focus to the future of screens. I know that Pete has alluded to how screens aren't efficient in the long run...but I'm wondering how long of a run we're talking here. At least a year for most budding empires to grab the Flag Bridge tech...maybe another to mobilize 'em....its fairly relative. If the Flag Bridge isn't protected, and the Gremloids arrive the very NEXT turn with screens against a Flag Bridge-less defense...and so on.

 

I think we had a chance years ago to address this issue and cut it off at the pass (ie scale FC more favorably or require higher tonnage per screen, etc) but we're stuck with what we have. Many of us have invested THOUSANDS of dollars into this game and changing the rules midstream is probably an option next to the selfdestruct button.

 

Thus, I'm with Hobknob on this one: drastic change is bad. Until somebody convinces me otherwise that a basic screen strategy is less resource effective than building massive high FC, high damage, high armor ships, then I'll print this post, eat it and film the whole thing on Youtube for you to witness.

 

I'll be happy to DISM all my screens (and perhaps even pay for the joy of all those DISM orders) if fire control is scaled, or everyone receives the Flag Bridge tech as a present. (More SRPs for the lucky souls who 'found' it, although I tend to agree with the thought that the Flag Bridges arrived as the NTWDs did )

 

Database Errors and Engine Flaws

 

This to some of you is clearly more troubling. Perhaps more solutions can be suggested and hopefully Pete can address or verify the claims made.

 

Reducing Convoy Infodumps

 

Amen to the ideas posted in the other thread, with the caveat that we can expand the infodump as is with a new order in the event we want to troubleshoot the convoy. Perhaps a CRPT or "Convoy Report" order?

 

Attitude and Turn Deadlines

 

I don't know Rhousasnonsna from the frog next door, but I tend to think that demanding a turn result is low priority given the current state of the game. In my view, patience is the better rule unless you can show you are booked solid for two weeks, every two weeks except for the Friday night/Saturday morning in which turns are traditionally 'due.'

 

I have tremendous respect for Pete and Russ despite my criticism of screens and I know they make a great PBM product in a world that's growing too strange for PBM gaming. I propose we continue to be supportive and proactive in finding a solution to the many (and ancient) quirks of SNROTE.

 

It seems Pete has a talented player base upon which to draw assistance from, especially on the database front but in the end, its his game to save, if it needs saving, and its our game to play, or tolerate, as it grows. But you're a smart bunch and didn't need to hear any of that from me But sometimes it feels better to point at the sky and call it blue anyway, especially when its falling.

 

Toodles....and leave my little plants alone until I can develop the damn Flag Bridge meself!

 

Try highjacking another thread. Apparently, the logic behind 'Save the Database' and the one about 'screens' and 'Flag bridges' has confused the masses.

[Kurassier]

Welcome back oh flowery one. May the sun shine on your leaves.

 

Oh, and in case anybody cares, my screen ships are at least 100,000 tons. I wanted to make them small so you could see the important ships behind them.

[WKE235]

Most of the "flying brick" (i.e. unarmed) screen ships are composed of salvage; maybe not Mineral Fertilizer, but Mk I Computer Systems, Standard Hull Plating, Mk I Short Range Sensors, Laser CIDS and the like. The only function of the "screen" ship is to absorb a blob of damage. They are basically, IMO, a Fire Control exploit defense. The Combat System, as I understand it, is really simple. Every ship - regardless of armament - is a target. Targets are chosen at random. The number of targets selected per round is based on your Fleet's Fire Control [FC] rating; the higher your FC the more targets selected. The amount of damage you do per target is based on your Fleet's combined Firepower divided by your FC rating.

 

Some changes to this. From mails I traded with Pete long ago, the random selection process is weighted towards picking ships closest to the battle when deployed. In other words, ships in deploy location 1 get a higher chance of random selection than ships in deploy location 2, then 3, 4, etcetera... So placing all the screens in 1 and other ships in 2 decreases the chances a capital ship is selected. Of course the trade off is firing from 2 means your weapons lose some punch. So whether this bias in odds makes a difference in battle or not is hard to tell.

 

Also he stated the random selection process does a double select. Select a target, select a second target, and then fire on the more interesting one. He never provided details on what interesting means, but I always took it to be size based. So if your screen ships out number capital by only 10 to 1, each glob of fire has about a 20% chance to target a capital ship if everything is in deploy location 1. By the time you outnumber the capital ships 100 to 1, this double select doesn't do a lot (now the odds are about 2%). And with some folks at 1000 to 1 or more screens, well....

[Lord Deependra]

Most of the "flying brick" (i.e. unarmed) screen ships are composed of salvage; maybe not Mineral Fertilizer, but Mk I Computer Systems, Standard Hull Plating, Mk I Short Range Sensors, Laser CIDS and the like. The only function of the "screen" ship is to absorb a blob of damage. They are basically, IMO, a Fire Control exploit defense. The Combat System, as I understand it, is really simple. Every ship - regardless of armament - is a target. Targets are chosen at random. The number of targets selected per round is based on your Fleet's Fire Control [FC] rating; the higher your FC the more targets selected. The amount of damage you do per target is based on your Fleet's combined Firepower divided by your FC rating.

 

Some changes to this. From mails I traded with Pete long ago, the random selection process is weighted towards picking ships closest to the battle when deployed. In other words, ships in deploy location 1 get a higher chance of random selection than ships in deploy location 2, then 3, 4, etcetera... So placing all the screens in 1 and other ships in 2 decreases the chances a capital ship is selected. Of course the trade off is firing from 2 means your weapons lose some punch. So whether this bias in odds makes a difference in battle or not is hard to tell.

 

Also he stated the random selection process does a double select. Select a target, select a second target, and then fire on the more interesting one. He never provided details on what interesting means, but I always took it to be size based. So if your screen ships out number capital by only 10 to 1, each glob of fire has about a 20% chance to target a capital ship if everything is in deploy location 1. By the time you outnumber the capital ships 100 to 1, this double select doesn't do a lot (now the odds are about 2%). And with some folks at 1000 to 1 or more screens, well....

 

Maybe flag bridges add extra selections so there is more chance of finding an interesting ship. Of course, that would slow things even further...