Lord Xaar Posted November 7, 2004 Report Share Posted November 7, 2004 Nope, this is exactly the result RTG wants. You really can't escort ships unless you include some type of "escort command" ship (with advanced equipment to offset the lack of gear on the ships being escorted). Or you have to design in large amounts of gear onto cargo and colony ships. Or you have to simply live with your fleet having no real chance in a battle as huge amounts of firepower gets wasted. I think there are many aspects of the game were unintended results are occuring due to not thinking out all the interactions that occur. But it's to late to change anything without revamping many aspects of the game. WKE, I'm not so sure this is what RTG "wants". This is the result we are seeing at the moment, but given that many aspects of combat seem fluid right now, how can we be sure this is set in stone? In some ways this makes sense, I think escorts should have to be pretty advanced ships (think of the U.S.'s carrier groups). That said, I think having fire control based on whole fleet tonnage skews the tactical numbers too much. Yes, having to protect a lumbering cargo ship means better fire control is needed, but is going from being able to target 50 ships to targeting 1 ship just because you've added a 500kT freighter to the fleet make sense? Maybe... It seems a bit too harsh though. A counter-argument would be "if you want to really protect that 500kT freighter then add a couple more escorts..." This could be completely fair...trouble is it's hard for one of us to say that as we don't see the bigger picture yet. I think the conversation on the board is veering way too far into conjecture (mine too) as so far we really only have the Vindicator battle to go by, at least as to what has been made public - and that fleet really just needed more FC, but it was a hard way to learn that particular lesson. I haven't seen anything that makes me think the combat system is "broken". We are getting more info with each passing turn, and we have lots of questions. This will all undoubtably make more sense as we get more data. (and guys, please, please, let's not start the "we should have had this all along" thing again) -LX Perhaps OT a bit: but many here have probably read about complexity theory. A simple system can produce surprisingly unpredicable results. Even ones that *cannot* be foreseen from the initial conditions of the system. SN is a complicated system, so I'm willing to bet that Pete hasn't foreseen every single outcome that the players have been able to conjure, even though he designed that complicated system. This is main (if somewhat "philosophical") reason I'm willing to be patient (cut a lot of slack) about game design issues. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WKE235 Posted November 7, 2004 Report Share Posted November 7, 2004 True, only the one battle .. plus Pete's answer to many mails. Most of the other battles I've heard of have been pretty one sided. And yes system complexity can produce some ... interesting ... results from time to time, things unforseen. Actually, a nice battle to see posted would be the one System Lord Ra just had in another thread. From the battle description it seems one large ship of Ra's broached a WP and took on a set of battle stations and cruisers .. and won while being mightly damaged. What we need is Ra to post that battle. Heck, the Roman enemy already knows the results and has likely passed them on to others. So why not post it here as well? Come on Ra, post it, post it, post it... Also, it would be nice to know more about how speed of ships play a role in battles. Does being faster versus slower ships make it harder to hit ships? My battle indicated an enemy ship tried to ram and we evaded. My ships had a calculated AP of 1, the enemy around .01. Can such kamikazee runs be made in battles through random chance, or, was this mere fluff added by Pete? Can ships escape from other ships in a battle and what would that mean for positioning (they still sit at the same WP but can't see each other?)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ur Lord Tedric Posted November 7, 2004 Report Share Posted November 7, 2004 I'm sorry if this is something of a rant but I became quite annoyed as I read this thread. Nothing personal against Ur Lord Tedric but sometimes I think your justifiable enthusiasm for the good parts of this game cloud your perspective on the parts that need more work. There is room for improvement in all things. Greeting Paradigm, And we do not take it as such at all. Indeed, part of our current slant is in the 'devil's advocate' stance. Indeed, we'll go one better! Our alter ego has formal qualifications in Military Vehicle Design & Technology and has a very good understanding of real world fire control....... Thus we too took exactly the line you have..... However, we have, we believe, gone to the next stage and started to appreciate the motives behind that design - that's why we are currently so enthused.... Now, as has been said, a lot of water has gone under the bridge and the clock cannot be turned back. We do believe that we should have known about this before and in detail - that's why we remain unrelenting over our desire to have those last figures on the 'Defensive Numerics' explained and how Fighters and Drones really work, so we can all get down to some proper redesigning and not have to do it 3 more times..... As has been both said and many time alluded to by Uncle Pete, we are playing a strategic game, not a tactical one, so it's the overall effect that matters..... Unarmed merchant men in your fleet will make a substantial difference to your options. Old and antique designs in the fleet mix will also have their effect. Advantages to the defender for having played so long are given. Big ships are nice, but small ships will slow you down. Players who have advanced down certain paths and have access to super weapons can be stopped by a well thought out defence. As yet, we are fairly sure, no played empire has succumbed......and won't do unless they give in a bit too easily, or, perhaps, are just plain unlucky that the enemey has appeared unexpectedly close and is already prepared...... Chief Warmaster to Ur-Lord Tedric Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laserwolf Posted November 7, 2004 Report Share Posted November 7, 2004 Much of this could be minimized by simply making ships assigned as non-combatants to be truly non-combatant...not present to be shot at until after all others are dead and not able to provide and offense either. Then fire control would only apply to the escorts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eldred Posted November 7, 2004 Report Share Posted November 7, 2004 Just comparing the new FOB results to the older versions... We have some data for fire control, shields and structural integrity - although the descriptors appear to have been dropped for these (a shame as it gave a general guide and also added a little colour!) Maneuvarability is the same - just a descriptor ("pondering", etc...) We now get nothing at all on Sensors - not even the old "blind", "groping", "oblivious", etc. To me this doesn't seem a vast improvement, hope Pete will be looking again at this! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RTGPete Posted November 8, 2004 Report Share Posted November 8, 2004 Just comparing the new FOB results to the older versions... We have some data for fire control, shields and structural integrity - although the descriptors appear to have been dropped for these (a shame as it gave a general guide and also added a little colour!) Maneuvarability is the same - just a descriptor ("pondering", etc...) We now get nothing at all on Sensors - not even the old "blind", "groping", "oblivious", etc. To me this doesn't seem a vast improvement, hope Pete will be looking again at this! FOB is a work-in-progress. I'm looking to add considerable detail to it. Aye, it's a shame to drop the descriptive names in favor of raw numbers. Too many raw values can kill flavor out right, a very bad thing. Will do what I can to keep a good balance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurassier Posted November 8, 2004 Report Share Posted November 8, 2004 Personally, I would prefer descriptions over raw numbers. I don't need something else I can calculate (which I would) but think the flavor of the game would be much better with just descriptions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hobknob Posted November 8, 2004 Report Share Posted November 8, 2004 I think you either need the numerical data in the ANZ for each item or in the FOB. It doesn't really matter too much to me one way tor the other which. The other form could always keep all of the old flavour text. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paradigm Posted November 8, 2004 Report Share Posted November 8, 2004 If the numbers are at all available, they should also be summarized in the FOB and in battle reports to save people the work of hand calculating them. Speaking of which, it would be nice if the FOB gave the total targeting number for the entire fleet since that is what is important. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SargonKingOfSlith Posted November 8, 2004 Author Report Share Posted November 8, 2004 One way or another, I need the numbers. Preferably in the ANZ and DD results. The raw numbers are the only way I can do an effective job of ship design and fleet design. Descriptive text just doesn’t get the job done. The descriptions would sound good in a battle report. I think this would be the best place to put the flavor text, add excitement, and generally spark the imagination. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sakarissa Posted November 9, 2004 Report Share Posted November 9, 2004 I would prefer the number in the ANZ. The FOB/DD/Battle Reports should use flavor text like "energized" or "lumbering" or "Where the bloody hell are they?". Sakarissa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WKE235 Posted November 9, 2004 Report Share Posted November 9, 2004 There is still one thing not being displayed in the battles I believe is critical .. the firepower of a fleet of fighters or drones. I would love to know how strong these weapons are. Rumors from those who are building them in droves are they are very powerful vis-a-vis other weapons. Of course it could be their old "drone" mentality from the the old SN game influencing them. Still, curious minds want to know.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sakarissa Posted November 9, 2004 Report Share Posted November 9, 2004 Well, if they are fielding them in clouds of 20,000 to 30,000 strike fighters then there is little that will be able to stop them. Maybe DefSats with an equal amount of CIDS? A battle of ships with engines, jump drive, and nothing else but CIDS? There is a counter to everything in this game. Just depends on how the victims....er, defenders can/will do to defend against what their particular enemies against that kind of tactic. Sakarissa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
General Miles Avatar Posted November 9, 2004 Report Share Posted November 9, 2004 That may be true but Pete has said that fighters require fire control as well. Wont do you a whole lot of good if that cloud can only target 1 ship. The carrier/carrier may bite the dust before thier work is done against an opponent who can fire on multiple targets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WKE235 Posted November 9, 2004 Report Share Posted November 9, 2004 Yes fighers need fire control like any weapon per Pete. So even a swarm of 20,000 can only attack one target if Fire Control rating is 1 or less. Lets imagine this future instead. Both sides start fielding fleets consisting of lots of small ships in deploy location 1 (to soak up the enemies first rounds of fire), armored carriers in Deploy Location 11 (engines, CIDS, defenses, and lots of fighter bays) that launch a swarm of 20,000 fighters, and a Command ship or two in Deploy location 12 (engines, CIDS, defenses, and LOTS of Bridge items of a high tech) to boost your Fire Control Rating to some useful number (way more than 1). Lets see -- you only lose fighter strength in the battle from CIDS fire. At deploy location 11, your ships get bonuses to defense due to distance and become much more difficult to hit with conventional weapons. Your command cruiser is protected (low odds to hit) being at deploy location 12, so you don't lose Fire Control Rating over the battle .. maybe the FCR even goes up if some ships are destroyed on your side. The small junkers in location 1 absorb any initial blows from the enemy (even with good fire control ratings). Why field anything else? Since standard or point blank weapons lose potency so quickly over deploy distance, you have an interesting problem. Keep them near deploy location 1 to up firepower, with an increased risk they are targetted (so you lose capital ships before the enemy does). Or keep them back and get a much reduced firepower, yet greater survivial rate. Of course, even if you get lucky being up close to get through and target a carrier or two early on, damaging or destroying the carrier does nothing to impact the fighter fleet firepower (only CIDS and perhaps your ships movement ability does that). On the other hand any damage or lost ships you take immediately cuts into your firepower. Yep, the future seems clear .. drone fleets and CIDS, like old SN, once more. 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.