Clan Elder 'Keen Posted July 6, 2004 Report Share Posted July 6, 2004 Don't forget that as a player you have much control over when the enemy will get to see a battle report with that fancy dreadnaught of yours. So if you don't want his gnat to start a fight and gain intelligence on your design... well send in a small screening fleet ahead of your travel route. ------------- I do have a question about deployment locations and weapon ranges. Will "assault" ships be closer to the enemy, therefore more likely to use short ranged weapons to better advantage? How about "standoff" ships, will they be at longer range? Will some deployment locations try to move to or stay at particular ranges, or will each fleet just barrel in toward each other? For example, it would be an interesting strategy to design an entire fleet with high manueverability and Plasma Torpedos with the intent to rush into short range. Or perhaps the opposite approach with a fast fleet equipped with Standoff Missiles who constantly fall back and stay at long range. I don't see how these senarios are currently supported. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ur Lord Tedric Posted July 7, 2004 Report Share Posted July 7, 2004 I do have a question about deployment locations and weapon ranges. Will "assault" ships be closer to the enemy, therefore more likely to use short ranged weapons to better advantage? How about "standoff" ships, will they be at longer range? Will some deployment locations try to move to or stay at particular ranges, or will each fleet just barrel in toward each other? For example, it would be an interesting strategy to design an entire fleet with high manueverability and Plasma Torpedos with the intent to rush into short range. Or perhaps the opposite approach with a fast fleet equipped with Standoff Missiles who constantly fall back and stay at long range. I don't see how these senarios are currently supported. The first bit I think we can answer without Pete..... As you decide the DepLoc for your ships by class, you can decide where your Assault, StandOff, etc lie in your 'formation' The second goes back to what I asked above. We just need to know if the DepLoc ranges are 'fixed', or whether the fact that you have no ships in DepLoc's 1-6 automatically means that DepLoc 7 becomes DepLoc 1 by default. And then we just need to know if speed differences will affect ranges during a battle (and I suspect the answer is currently no). With two simple answers and the hoped for change to the FOB order so it shows the same details for your own ships we could then design with confidence with only a reasonable amount of trial and error. At that point you could design a ship with StandOff weapons, for example, that had their maximum yield at ranges from DepLocs 6-8 and put that ship into one of them. Then you'd know, quite probably, that it would always fight at that range..... As Pete has explained before, we are getting a 'strategic' level of battle and not a 'tactical' one. What we just need now is sufficient evidence to be able to design ships that make use of all that lovely technology that we can produce/research. There will be some 'realism' deficits, but we can cope with them if only we know what they are. Some of them may subsequently need resolving, such as the situation where one empire has long range weapons and the other short. If there is indeed no way to 'close the range', then the longer-ranged equipped empire will always be able to 'stand off' and blow the other away.......whatever the possible speed advantage of the short-range equipped empire, which wouldn't make any sense whatsoever...... M2CW Chief Warmaster to Ur-Lord Tedric Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pig Skin Posted July 8, 2004 Report Share Posted July 8, 2004 Lord Xaar, Ur Lord, and Hobnob all bring up some good points here. Maybe if you could just not include what the enemy ships had on them and only the stats then that would be a good for now until some coding was done for sensors to detect these things. Make sensors useful to scan enemy ships. I'd like to see some more explaination of space combat with ranks and ranges. If someone with long range weapons puts all there ships in a high deployment will my plasma weapons be nearly worthless? More info would help here, and sooner the better since many of us are building warships and have researched many techs that may become worthless if we can't ever get ships into short range even if they maneuver faster. -Pig Skin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ur Lord Tedric Posted July 8, 2004 Report Share Posted July 8, 2004 I'd like to see some more explaination of space combat with ranks and ranges. -Pig Skin Yes, please! An updated and rewritten Naval Combat Primer with a few decent examples and most definitely an explanation of the Fighter & Drone Options would be brilliant...... Chief Warmaster to Ur-Lord Tedric Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hobknob Posted July 8, 2004 Report Share Posted July 8, 2004 Speaking of fighters. How are you supposed to have fighters both attack and defend? If I have devoted massive research to get better fighters it seems kind of silly to also have to spend research on CIDS. I may have really good fighters that can intercept stuff, but as I read the fighter deployment rules it is all or nothing for the fighters on board. Is there some sort of coding for fighter types that we don't see? I really don't want my anti ship fighters on defensive missions just as I don't want my interceptors trying to assume the role of antiship fighters. Any chance of some clarity on this issue? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pig Skin Posted July 9, 2004 Report Share Posted July 9, 2004 How are you supposed to have fighters both attack and defend? Any chance of some clarity on this issue? Good question. The way I read fighters (except for some of the advanced versions ) that they both attacked ships and give thier CIDS defense. The launch type isnt explaned very well. Hopefully they can do both at the same time by using the Standard attack launch option. -Pig Skin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eldred Posted July 9, 2004 Report Share Posted July 9, 2004 Still with Fighters and Drones.... I fully understand the arguments put forward regarding resupply of the above to the front line. (Personally I don't think crating should be allowed and that carriers should be used for this purpose). BUT.... Can we please have crating for fighters and drones found using XEXPL orders to enable them to be stored temporarily in cargo bays. Perhaps it could be along the lines of... "The exploration team partially dismantle the Fighter and place it in a crate in the cargo hold" Fighters and drones could then only be "uncrated" when offloaded to a PG with a shipyard... "3 Crated Fighters were unloaded and shipyard workers quickly reassemble them, they are now ready for use" My only justification for requesting this additional piece of coding is that IMHO Fighter Bays and Drone Racks should not be an essential requirement for Exploration ships! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pig Skin Posted July 9, 2004 Report Share Posted July 9, 2004 Can we please have crating for fighters and drones found using XEXPL orders to enable them to be stored temporarily in cargo bays. Perhaps it could be along the lines of..."The exploration team partially dismantle the Fighter and place it in a crate in the cargo hold" Fighters and drones could then only be "uncrated" when offloaded to a PG with a shipyard... "3 Crated Fighters were unloaded and shipyard workers quickly reassemble them, they are now ready for use" My only justification for requesting this additional piece of coding is that IMHO Fighter Bays and Drone Racks should not be an essential requirement for Exploration ships! Will all the people who invested in fighter bays and drone racks on exploration ships get a refund for their then-worthless investments? -Pig Skin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Palladium Regency Posted July 9, 2004 Report Share Posted July 9, 2004 I fail to see how the investment is worthless, please explain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ali-t-akua Posted July 9, 2004 Report Share Posted July 9, 2004 Will all the people who invested in fighter bays and drone racks on exploration ships get a refund for their then-worthless investments? I think you are making assumption that most people have done so. Frankly the thought had not occurred to me to put bays and racks on my explorers until I read this in this thread (and I would probably kick myself once I found some fighters and drones). I think this is a valid concern and think there should be crating allowed at least in this limited circumstance (although at a 1:1 ratio or worse). Otherwise finding fighters and drones seems to me to be worthless (unless you are getting atech bump as well). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pig Skin Posted July 9, 2004 Report Share Posted July 9, 2004 I fail to see how the investment is worthless, please explain. Some people built exploration ships with 25,000 Cargo Bays plus fighter bays and drone racks. With a rule change to allow carting fighters and drones, they fighter bays and drone racks were a wasted investment. For those who have high AP explorers, the investment is doubly wasted with unneeded extra fusion engines. I never said the majority did this, but those who did would have a wasted investment when 25,000 cargo bays would have been enough (and the fewer fusion engines). -Pig Skin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hobknob Posted July 9, 2004 Report Share Posted July 9, 2004 There is no waste in the investment. Those empire now have a surplus of drone racks/fighter bays to put into actual naval service. No fighter bay or drone rack is ever wasted as it can always be used somewhere and there is no indication that it will ever be upgraded. This is perhaps the biggest advantage to fighter and drone technology. One of the down sides to fighters and drones is that you need to explore side tech trees to get the full advantage out of them. That can be a lot of research to get to Mk III Pulse engines to enhance your fighters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pig Skin Posted July 9, 2004 Report Share Posted July 9, 2004 There is no waste in the investment. Those empire now have a surplus of drone racks/fighter bays to put into actual naval service. No fighter bay or drone rack is ever wasted as it can always be used somewhere and there is no indication that it will ever be upgraded. This is perhaps the biggest advantage to fighter and drone technology. One of the down sides to fighters and drones is that you need to explore side tech trees to get the full advantage out of them. That can be a lot of research to get to Mk III Pulse engines to enhance your fighters. And to regain the bays and racks the ships have to be pulled off of Exploration duty, moved back, and scraped. That costs, time, orders, and ties up productions to scraped and rebuild. So yes, the bays and racks are wasted in the meantime, and the effort wasted when redone. -Pig Skin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hobknob Posted July 10, 2004 Report Share Posted July 10, 2004 Well, by that logic then anything is wasted that isn't in service for a few turns. Including any surplus items that you may have lying around. I would also suppose that you would be happy with 1st generation ship designs forever. I have already broken down a good deal of old obsolete shipping to add faster engines and better sensors amongst other things. At that point it would be no inconvenience to not put fighter bays or racks back on an exploration fleet. About the only time anything is wasted in this game is when you build too much of something that then can't be used. Or the biggest waste, mistyping your BI order and selecting cargo barges at 400,000 instead of cargo bays. Now there is a true waste. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pig Skin Posted July 10, 2004 Report Share Posted July 10, 2004 Well, by that logic then anything is wasted that isn't in service for a few turns. Absolutely. You never know when you need that extra weapon to turn the tide of a battle. Everything counts, especialy when an enemy shows up uninvited on your doorstop. Not to mention the lost orders.... Orders = $$$$. for example: MOVE to warp for each fleet, WARP for each fleet, NM's for each fleet, OC for the fuel for each fleet, Scraps for each ship, NUD for new design, DSIM for industries, CON for shipyard, CON for slips, SHIP for rebuilds, LC for the fuel MOVE for each fleet, Warp for each fleet, NM for each fleet, DISM for shipyard, DISM For slip, CON for industry. And..... at least 2 turns for no explorations, and lost production for those industries tied up in scraping duties. You may not call that a waste, but I sure would. Who said that all exploration ships were first generation? For some, the wait for better science labs and advanced translators are a looooonngggg way off. Some people are way beyond first generation exploration ships So yes, for those who built them, they could consider it is wasted time, orders, and effort. Just because it isnt for you doesnt mean that it isnt for someone else. -Pig Skin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.