Naval Combat Primer (old)

[Ur Lord Tedric]

Hmmmmm,

 

Pretty sure I cannot agree with you this time Pig Skin.

 

To me these aren't wasted orders, this is just part of the game.....

 

There is, IMHO, rather a lot of players who seem to want something for very little and want somewhat too much just given to them.

 

This rather flies in the face of those of us who like more 'realism'.....

 

Successful exploration gathers one of two (and perhaps occasionally 3) results:

 

1) You gain an RCPoint or 2 in some field of research - don't need any bays whatsoever for that. In addition you might get a message or WP survey.

 

2) Some multiple of items from the Items list, which seems biased to resources and relatively low level techs. Fighters, Drones, Colonists and Troops are all part of that items list, but of low incidence. If you really want a chance to get everything you might find, then you need need all the specialist bays as well as quite a few (up to 100,000 ) Cargo Bays free.

 

Given that it is therefore unlikely that you will get such special things, then you're not really losing much if you don't have the bays in the first place. The main use of such exploration is discovering technology you don't have and determining the prerequisites by ANZ so you can determine how to get there.

 

I do indeed have a Fighter and Drone Bay for each exploration fleet, but they are in accompanying Destroyers, which are part of my reserve defences - certainly not wasted....but I don't expect them to find any useful numbers of Fighters and Drones for goodness sakes. And I certainly cannot be bothered to try and obtain the odd lone Colonist.....

 

Chief Planner to Ur-Lord Tedric

[Pig Skin]

Hmmmmm,

 

Pretty sure I cannot agree with you this time Pig Skin.

 

To me these aren't wasted orders, this is just part of the game.....

 

There is, IMHO, rather a lot of players who seem to want something for very little and want somewhat too much just given to them.

 

This rather flies in the face of those of us who like more 'realism'.....

Nobody agrees 100% of the time.

 

With that being said,

 

Your desire for more orders is well known. However, not everyone wishes to spend time and money on orders that do not really acomplish anything. When everything works as it is presented and if your aditional orders would acomplish something more than color, then more people might be interested.

 

I enjoy the game. I pay good money to play. I don't mind the costs the way they are but sure dont want to be forced into paying more just to do what I am doing now (unless RTG needed to raise prices to survive, but instead of that they are the only company I've seen to lower prices last year by increasing order count! ). BUT... even with that I still have to balance what I WANT to do and what I NEED to do each turn. I have discovered plenty of detail within the game that if others spent more time studying their turns they might FIND more realism, clues, and detail buried within the game. If people want more color in the game I suggest writing stories as good as WKE.

 

When Someones rules changes wants impact me or an ally's empire, that isnt me asking something for nothing. It is me standing up and questioning:

 

WHY DO YOU want the change... ?

What are you gaining by getting the rules change?

What roadblocks does your rules-change-in-the-guise-of-supposed-reality create for me?

How many wasted orders will it cost me now?

 

...and I'm going to stand up every time and echo these questions and point out those who PEE (personal empire enhance) themselves. If it is a loophole then great, change it. If it is anything else, and nobody else has the guts to questions it, I will. Count on it.

 

-Pig Skin

[Palladium Regency]

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.

 

How is that investment wasted? Do the fighter bays and drone racks quit working for some reason? Do the engines quit working? Is there some reason these components can't be reused that I don't know about? You still haven't demonstrated how this is a wasted investment.

[Eldred]

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.

 

How is that investment wasted? Do the fighter bays and drone racks quit working for some reason? Do the engines quit working? Is there some reason these components can't be reused that I don't know about? You still haven't demonstrated how this is a wasted investment.

Here Here! Many people were forced to redesign their exploration ships when the exploration routines where upgraded - whilst this was inconvenient and cost additional orders I don't think that you could say that any of the components were actually wasted.

 

There is clearly a precedent in this game that adjustments can be made to the game mechanics by the GM in the interests of improving gameplay and that this will sometimes have an impact on current positions. I suppose the real question is whether the proposed changes are fair and worth any short-term disruption this may cause.

 

In this particular area - ie the proposed crating and uncrating of fighters and drones found in explorations - I can see why it will upset those of you that have already built those fighter bays and drone racks. Perhaps this proposal could be better "balanced" - for instance crating of fighters in the cargo bays could require double the cargo space. Also, if your exploration fleet has fighter bays then obviously you can use the fighter straight away, if not then you have to crate it and haul it to the nearest shipyard and unload it and then reload it to a carrier fleet before it can used. IMHO I think this is quite balanced But I stand (or should I sit down) to be corrected

[Pig Skin]

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.

 

How is that investment wasted? Do the fighter bays and drone racks quit working for some reason? Do the engines quit working? Is there some reason these components can't be reused that I don't know about? You still haven't demonstrated how this is a wasted investment.

Metal Parrot Dude,

 

You may not consider several hundred lost orders a waste, but I do.

 

The better point is that you haven't explained why we need this rules change, especially the 2-for-1 deal.... Unless it is to enhance your own empire, and not pay the price yourselves for Fighter Bays and Drone Racks on your exploration ships.

 

Show us that this is something other than Personal Empire Enhancement. I'm still waiting.

 

Other than using the guise of realism, please explain why we need this rule change when Fighter Bays and Drone Racks work just fine, and especially why we need to give it a 2-for-1 deal. The burden of arguement is on the people who demand a change, not the people who dont.

 

And do explain how the combat routine will choose which fighters are sitting in cargo and which will launch in the fighter bays in a fleet with mixed bays and mixed fighters. In people's rush to PEE, I haven't seen anyone even talk about that.

 

Or, if a fleet is in combat and all the carriers die but you have cargo bays will the fighters then be added to crates magically?

 

Lots of fun stuff to code and think through just to enhance your empires, when fighter bays and drone racks work just fine now, and other things need work.

 

Then go tell the guys who are waiting on Towing to get fixed , and other requests, why this PEE change is somehow more important than theirs.

 

 

-Pig Skin

[Clan Elder 'Keen]

Quite the huffing and puffing over a trivial issue.

 

Fighters and drones found in exploration orders are not only rare, but not worth much in my opinion since they are depletable, compared to an advanced weapon system which you can hide behind armor and shields. Do or don't put fighter bays and drone racks on your ships, I don't see how it really matters one bit.

 

As for crating for resupply, I haven't seen anyone jumping up and down demanding the change. It was a suggestion for consideration by multiple people. Long term games tend to evolve, and this resupply issue should have been considered when fighters/drones became depletable. Now whether the GMs include it or not isn't the real issue, its simply that they look at the whole situation and balance, and make a determination one way or the other.

[Turok]

All any of us can do is play the game to its rules and to the best of our ability. I accept that rule-changes may be made at any time but only for one reason - because Pete or Russ believe that change would be benificial to the game.

 

I'm sure we would all argue about rule-changes that might suit our individual positions but at the end of the day it is outside our control and long may it continue to be so. As long as there is faith in the GMs there should be no great problems.

[Eldred]

Pigskin,

 

This is not a personal attack on you or your empire, it is not "personal empire enhancement", it is merely a discussion of a possible option for game development. I am not "demanding a change" just exploring possible game enhancements with fellow players - which I believe is one of the main points of having these boards in the first place!

 

True, there are more important things out there, and yes I wish they'd fix towing first.

 

Yes, my exploration ships don't have fighter bays, it just wasn't worth the cost. Just as this issue just isn't worth getting so worked up about - it is up there for discussion - I won't be losing any sleep if my explorers miss out on the occasional fighter

 

btw: How will you have wasted several hundred orders - your exploration ships will still be effective and would still have an advantage over "standard" exploration ships with no fighter bays or drone racks??

[Palladium Regency]

Metal Parrot Dude

 

Nice, but apparently it is the best you can do when trying to present your arguments.

 

You may not consider several hundred lost orders a waste, but I do. 

First you have mentioned orders as being the investment you were concerned about. Explain to me, how your orders would be lost by such a change? The ships will still be there and still working. Those orders wouldn't have been wiped from your current standing orders or otherwise have been changed.

 

The better point is that you haven't explained why we need this rules change, especially the 2-for-1 deal.... Unless it is to enhance your own empire, and not pay the price yourselves for Fighter Bays and Drone Racks on your exploration ships.

Please post a quote where I have made a case for a 2-for-1 deal. You won't be able too. You keep posting like this is a personal issue where you would be somehow screwed by such a change. You have yet to provide one real example where you are though. You want to talk about injustice? New races are given at least three research items that races that started on turn 0 didn't get. Starting races that played the first eight turns using the incorrect surveying rules. They were screwed by the resources and research they choose after some surveying tests from those first couple turns which were invalid. Changes will occur, and there will be cost. Nothing you have listed so far shows me where you have a wasted investment.

 

Show us that this is something other than Personal Empire Enhancement.  I'm still waiting.

How would such a change fail to enhance every empire in the game, since everyone can make use of EXPL orders? However, I figure you are approaching it from a combat angle because "fighters/drones are more powerful", even if you keep arguing about it from an EXPL angle. They also are expendable which means they can't be repaired. This has been addressed several times during this topic.

 

Assuming I use fighter or drones, I could argue the exact same way against adding the ability to repair ships to the game. Short of dismantling the ship and rebuilding, it doesn't currently exist in the game. It is working just as it is intended. A fighter/drone race loses the resources it invested in its systems. A weapon race loses its crew experience. Repair then become a PEE for those races that don't use fighters/drones.

 

And do explain how the combat routine will choose which fighters are sitting in cargo and which will launch in the fighter bays in a fleet with mixed bays and mixed fighters.  In people's rush to PEE, I haven't seen anyone even talk about that.

Why? What possible importance can it have to the debate? If Pete/Russ institute such a change, it would have to be handled. Why should I care beyond it being another order that probably needs to be issued? Or another FOB variable?

 

Or, if a fleet is in combat and all the carriers die but you have cargo bays will the fighters then be added to crates magically?

The ability doesn't even exist yet. While it has some measure of worth in this topic, ie making sure such silliness doesn't happen, it doesn't add anything to the case against adding the ability to the game.

 

Lots of fun stuff to code and think through just to enhance your empires, when fighter bays and drone racks work just fine now, and other things need work.

They do? You have some sort of empirical data on this? Or is it just more speculation on your part? I agree other things need work as well, but that shouldn't preclude the discussion of this topic. It is up to Pete/Russ to set the priority of what enhancements are added to the game.

 

Then go tell the guys who are waiting on Towing to get fixed  , and other requests, why this PEE change is somehow more important than theirs.

You certainly have a knack for putting words in people's mouths and spouting off. Do you even stop to consider your arguments before you start to type? Nevermind it is irrelevant. I am starting to descend to your level and letting this turn in to a flame.

 

I'll close with my belief that the game should have a means of shipping fighters and drones via cargo. That it makes sense to me that surveying teams on EXPL results should be able load an "alien" fighter/drone into cargo. That I don't think fighter/drones should magically be placed in cargo if they started out in bays/racks and their carrier was destroyed.

[Paradigm]

And do explain how the combat routine will choose which fighters are sitting in cargo and which will launch in the fighter bays in a fleet with mixed bays and mixed fighters. In people's rush to PEE, I haven't seen anyone even talk about that.

Alphabetical or whatever order is most convenient. Tell people what the order is, and if they don't like it, then they shouldn't carry more fighters than their fleet can launch from fighter bays. I can't think of an excellent reason to do so anyway and it would be simple enough to put the freighters in a separate fleet.

[Locklyn]

I would like to wonder when we're going to see the new Naval Combat Manual?

 

 

/Locklyn

[4aeog16]

Thanks, Pete --

 

-- the things I'd like to see in battle reports:

 

1.  The degree of damage sustained by a surviving ship -- did it only just survive (eg 90% damaged), or was it no contest (eg 10% damaged)?

 

2.  The degree that defensive systems (armor coatings, shields, hull plate, etc) helped in reducing the effect of weapons.

 

3.  Rather than the ability to ANZ the opponent's technology (with full info on pre-requisites, etc), why not just give a bonus to its research, rather like a scientist's technology breakthrough (even if it can't be researched yet)?

 

4.  Give the Player the option of switching between Detailed or Summary battle reports.  While my fleets are small, and I'm still trying to learn from my battle reports, the details contained within my battle reports will be important to me and won't be too lengthy;  later in the game, when I'm less interested in reading battle report details, and when I expect my fleets to contain many ships, I will want the reports to be summarised.

 

5.  SNROTE seems to be defender-friendly.  To continue this trend, remove the "repaired as if by magic" rule for damaged ships, and allow them to be degraded in abilities according to their damage, as done for naval vessels in "Victory!".  The damaged ships can continue to move and fight in their damaged & degraded state, or they can return to space dock for repairs, where the size of the repair facilities denotes how many tons can be repaired each turn (as done for naval vessels in "Victory!").  Otherwise, an attacking super-dreadnought of 1 billion tons will continue to fight at 100% after each and every battle, all the way to the defender's Home World.

 

6.  An indication of what helped or hindered my fleet in battle:  legendary characters, Imperial Naval Installations, training & experience (or lack of it), racial modifiers, etc, etc, etc.

 

7.  An indication of weapons' effective ranges.  I reckon that a Long Lance Torpedo has a longer range than a Short Range Torpedo, but what about a Frost Cannon or Medium Beam Laser?  Or does it not matter in SNROTE?  Again the comparison with "Victory!":  I could set each individual fleet's "Open Fire" range, and also give different battle options to different ship-types, eg try to stay at particular ranges (for battleships with big long range guns) or try to close with the enemy (for destroyers with short range torpedoes).  This may clash with SNROTE's "deployment location" concept, though.

 

Please let me know what you think of each of the above.

 

Thanks,

 

Limey O'Riley

Hi All,

 

I've just gone back and reviewed my postings from many months ago, and came across this one. It seems that Pete & Russ have been listening to us (well, me anyway):

 

-- Points 1 & 7 have been adressed completely

-- Point 2 has been addressed by giving us the stats so that we can work out effectiveness of Shields, Armor, CIDS, etc

-- Point 5 has been sort of addressed -- if there is a lot of damage, then some of it "hangs over" to next turn, which is good enough for me!

 

Thanks, Pete & Russ, and may the improvements continue!

 

Limey O'Riley

(feeling a bit happier now )

[Octus Imperium]

Warming up this thread. Hey, got my turns done and sent in. Got to do something with the time on my hands. Would love to read a new manual........

 

Octus Imperium

[Locklyn]

Rejump starting this thread with hopes that we soon can be discussing the new Navla Combat Primer

 

 

/Locklyn

[Locklyn]

BUMP!

 

 

/Locklyn