|
|
|
 |
 |
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
OrionSol
Vanguard
Joined: 28 Sep 2006
Posts: 26
|
 Posted: Wed Dec 06, 2006 1:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Shuttle = Explorer class. Very Small and easy to construct. Although in the begining a very pricey thing to do.
Fighters/Interceptors = Very Small, no warp engines - intrasolor defense or launched from Carrier.
Frigates = Small or Medium Class, mainly designed for defense of large ships, or solo patrol operations along your boarders.
Destroyer = Large Early on would be a tough flagship and later a support vessel.
Battleship/Flagships = Huge, massive ability... command and control, very pricey one or two in a large empire. (Think Darth Vaders mother of all capitol ships)
Carrier (Battleship size) designed mainly to transport massive numbers of fighters. This could be the same as flagship, but just designed in another way.
Planetoid - Death Star Class = Planet Killer size with loads of fighters, defense, offense...and ability to colonize.
Colony ships.
Troop Transports (aka fighters for the ground)
So all in all I would say 8-10 sizes... with the ability to design them for whatever we see fit.
Faster, more defense, more offense, scouting, carrier, etc etc. |
|
| Back to top » |
|
|
specialist
Explorer
Joined: 06 Dec 2006
Posts: 12
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 2:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
A fleet train (re-supply) would add a interesting possibiltys for blance of missle/fighters as attack on supply lines would halt any advance of a fleet using lots of missles/fighers. Abstract method of resupply would pretty much limit deep invasions by fleets using missles/fighters.
Having to deal with logistics would be a bit of a pain... but if the advantage to missles was enought to offset the additional resource required to protect supply lines it might be worthwhile. Tactics of the whole thing might get very interesting. As an invasion fleet would have longer supply lines (harder to protect) then a defending fleet. The AI would have to be smart enought to go after supply lines when it could.
Stealth convoy raiders perhaps? Stealth convoys too? Larger ships might be harder to hide with stealth technology... so small raiders might be more sneaky.
| Zaimat wrote: |
Didn't mean there won't be any means to remote re-supply. It's just not in atm. And how developed it'll be is not defined at this point, at the very least ammunition will be easyer to re-supply vs. say fighters.
It's a relatively simple matter to do it in an abstract method where ships have a % chance of being re-supplied every X period (game option). The chance goes up the closer they are to friendly territory/bases and the opposite the further they are. This makes having a base nearby a strategic advantage and necessary for sustained presence.
The second method of player directed re-supply or actually having cargo ships accompany a fleet adds more complexity and management. Ideally you'll have all these options as a player. |
|
|
| Back to top » |
|
|
OrionSol
Vanguard
Joined: 28 Sep 2006
Posts: 26
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 2:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I like that idea of attacking someones "supplyline" - this in every war has been a key to outcomes.
I also think that "blockade" would be very cool.
Imagine getting a trade agreement only meant you now have to build "trade ships". And pick a planet to go from...and too. Set it on its way. Trade = credits.
However, a warship could intercept and "pirate" the trade ship. Or block it at its source or destination causing the income to drop off. Of even attack it... and that would bring up using fighters to escort your trade vessels! ooohhh that would be fun! |
|
| Back to top » |
|
|
specialist
Explorer
Joined: 06 Dec 2006
Posts: 12
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 4:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I would not really want tobe a book keeper for a trade empire.
Making sure your battleships have enough missles and figher replacements is one thing, but dealing with 40624 different kinds of supplies would be.... like work. |
|
| Back to top » |
|
|
OrionSol
Vanguard
Joined: 28 Sep 2006
Posts: 26
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 4:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| specialist wrote: |
I would not really want tobe a book keeper for a trade empire.
Making sure your battleships have enough missles and figher replacements is one thing, but dealing with 40624 different kinds of supplies would be.... like work. |
Trade and Trade routes are the life blood of any civilization.
"Taxation of Trade Routes is in Despute" - SW EP1
Setting up a trade fleet that went back and forth to another empire may be the way to do it, but the concept would not only be realistic but very fun if designed properly. |
|
| Back to top » |
|
|
specialist
Explorer
Joined: 06 Dec 2006
Posts: 12
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 08, 2006 4:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
From looling at the ship design screen shot it does not seam there is an easy fashion to make trade offs in ship design.
Could you make a battlecruiser rather than just a battleship? That is trade off armor/firepower for speed?
Ship design to me means some sort of comprimize need to be reached between several goals.
A carrier might trade off armor and fire power for extra figher space.
A battleship might trade speed for armor and firepower.
A destroyer would trade all armor for tons of speed, and maybe single shot hard hitting weapon system.
The way it looks right now is that you have a pretty genertic hull, with slots that can be filled with stuff that takes up tonnage? untill the ship is filled. If some of the standard slots had a slider that could be adjusted for increased/decreased amount, more specilized ship could be builit.
Sliding up a sensor/scanner bar would yeild a radar search ship. (perhaps?) |
|
| Back to top » |
|
|
OrionSol
Vanguard
Joined: 28 Sep 2006
Posts: 26
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 08, 2006 5:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I totally agree.
Ships designed needs to have trade offs... but that can be done simply by making only X amount of room and items costings a certain amount you have to decide to make it one way or another.
You COULD have a jack of all trades ship...but would be weaker by far than specialized ones. |
|
| Back to top » |
|
|
Zaimat
Dev. Team
Joined: 08 Aug 2003
Posts: 350
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 09, 2006 6:42 pm Post subject: Re: Specialist on ship design |
|
|
Those are some excellent suggestions.
The ship design was meant to be easy to understand (visual) and fun for the player to outfit his/her ships quickly.
You are correct that it comes down to deciding what to put in the slots from the proper category until the design is full (not the slots but the amount it can handle). The trade offs are on the weapons, the specials and the hullsize.
A large class design will perhaps have room for just 1 fighter bay where as a huge class design can have 2 fighter bays. The same goes for the weapons. There are 8 slots (2 forward, 2 right, 2 left, 2 rear) and each slot can have a number of emplacements.
So it can quickly get quite complex and what you put on the ship will have a quite an impact.
I very much like the slide bar option though for perhaps the hull armor, where you can lower the amount of armor for 25% or so more hull space.
For sensors/scanners I think of it as engines, it's pretty much standard. And if there were to be a "sensor ship", it would just add the mega-sensor special.
_________________
Horizon - Lead Designer |
|
| Back to top » |
|
|
AerionIstari
Vanguard
Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Posts: 35
Location: Columbia, SC USA
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 11, 2006 4:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| specialist wrote: |
I would not really want tobe a book keeper for a trade empire.
Making sure your battleships have enough missles and figher replacements is one thing, but dealing with 40624 different kinds of supplies would be.... like work. |
This is a valid concern. I'm all for somewhat realistic supply lines, but not at the expense of creating excessive tedium. A better answer might be cargo ships to carry resupplies. You can carry some with your fleet and perhaps have some following behind.
Having cargo ships traveling with an invasion fleet sets up additional tactical challenges both as attacker and as defenders. Do you go after the warships or the resupply ships? If you take out the resupply ships, you might stop the invasion in its tracks... but at the expense of having warships that live to fight another day. |
|
| Back to top » |
|
|
RobHuntingdon
Vanguard
Joined: 07 Aug 2004
Posts: 146
Location: Cincinnati, OH, USA
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 11, 2006 5:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| AerionIstari wrote: |
| Having cargo ships traveling with an invasion fleet sets up additional tactical challenges both as attacker and as defenders. Do you go after the warships or the resupply ships? If you take out the resupply ships, you might stop the invasion in its tracks... but at the expense of having warships that live to fight another day. |
True... but if you are crash-building warships yourself (and/or playing for time to get some new research finished up and refitted onto your primary battle fleet) that might be enough to let you survive or even triumph in the end.
Then again I also don't like the idea of a bookkeeper. Nor should you ask the player to do math. Not that we can't do it -- most or all of us can -- but because it turns it from a game to a job. The formulas should be public (to some degree at least) but then the results should be calculated and displayed for you.
RH
_________________
Robert, the Earl of Huntingdon
Tarry here, my merry men, whilst I seek what adventure await in yonder greenwood; but look thou listen for my call, for I will blow my horn if I become hard-pressed.
Adapted from Sterling, pg. 45 |
|
| Back to top » |
|
|
AerionIstari
Vanguard
Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Posts: 35
Location: Columbia, SC USA
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 15, 2006 3:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| RobHuntingdon wrote: |
| AerionIstari wrote: |
| Having cargo ships traveling with an invasion fleet sets up additional tactical challenges both as attacker and as defenders. Do you go after the warships or the resupply ships? If you take out the resupply ships, you might stop the invasion in its tracks... but at the expense of having warships that live to fight another day. |
True... but if you are crash-building warships yourself (and/or playing for time to get some new research finished up and refitted onto your primary battle fleet) that might be enough to let you survive or even triumph in the end.
Then again I also don't like the idea of a bookkeeper. Nor should you ask the player to do math. Not that we can't do it -- most or all of us can -- but because it turns it from a game to a job. The formulas should be public (to some degree at least) but then the results should be calculated and displayed for you.
RH |
Exactly my point. There could be good, sound tactical or stategic reasons to choose to engage the logistics rather than the warships - playing for time being a big one. |
|
| Back to top » |
|
|
AerionIstari
Vanguard
Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Posts: 35
Location: Columbia, SC USA
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 15, 2006 3:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| RobHuntingdon wrote: |
| AerionIstari wrote: |
| Having cargo ships traveling with an invasion fleet sets up additional tactical challenges both as attacker and as defenders. Do you go after the warships or the resupply ships? If you take out the resupply ships, you might stop the invasion in its tracks... but at the expense of having warships that live to fight another day. |
True... but if you are crash-building warships yourself (and/or playing for time to get some new research finished up and refitted onto your primary battle fleet) that might be enough to let you survive or even triumph in the end.
Then again I also don't like the idea of a bookkeeper. Nor should you ask the player to do math. Not that we can't do it -- most or all of us can -- but because it turns it from a game to a job. The formulas should be public (to some degree at least) but then the results should be calculated and displayed for you.
RH |
I agree about bookkeeping being bad. But I have mixed feelings about publishing formulas and results. Too often the end result is that someone designs a spreadsheet or something that figures out down to two decimal places, the perfect loadout of weapons or whatever. |
|
| Back to top » |
|
|
RobHuntingdon
Vanguard
Joined: 07 Aug 2004
Posts: 146
Location: Cincinnati, OH, USA
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 15, 2006 5:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| AerionIstari wrote: |
| RobHuntingdon wrote: |
| AerionIstari wrote: |
| Having cargo ships traveling with an invasion fleet sets up additional tactical challenges both as attacker and as defenders. Do you go after the warships or the resupply ships? If you take out the resupply ships, you might stop the invasion in its tracks... but at the expense of having warships that live to fight another day. |
True... but if you are crash-building warships yourself (and/or playing for time to get some new research finished up and refitted onto your primary battle fleet) that might be enough to let you survive or even triumph in the end.
Then again I also don't like the idea of a bookkeeper. Nor should you ask the player to do math. Not that we can't do it -- most or all of us can -- but because it turns it from a game to a job. The formulas should be public (to some degree at least) but then the results should be calculated and displayed for you.
RH |
I agree about bookkeeping being bad. But I have mixed feelings about publishing formulas and results. Too often the end result is that someone designs a spreadsheet or something that figures out down to two decimal places, the perfect loadout of weapons or whatever. |
Which is why I said "to some degree at least". A randomness factor should be included in all things -- and if possible the occasional appearance of murphy should be thrown in too. Especially in combat. Nothing crippling, but just a ship or two didn't jump out of hyperspace in formation and your carefully choreographed attack is thrown off slightly... but not too badly. Just enough to throw a touch of realism in. Preferably the lease well trained ship should be the guilty party (if you have ship XP).
What I propose to be public is more in the empire management area. When these are totally private then you have no idea why something did or didn't work. That is unacceptable. As you try to make changes (or if live recalc takes too long a preview button should trigger it on demand) you are shown how tax rate X will provide income Y and unhappiness Z... etc... There were a lot of times in MOO3 when you would move a slider around and have NO idea what the effect would be. MOO1/2 didn't have that problem, you could tweak a slider around on MOO1 and mircomanage anything you wanted to get the max production, or just set a setting on a bunch of planets and let the ships build when they wanted to... etc. What I think should be public are the migration formulas (if you have population migration) and the income and production and morale and stuff like that.
Combat, on the other hand, you should just know your percents to hit and all the other standard details and it's up to you to put that together in an effective package.
RH
_________________
Robert, the Earl of Huntingdon
Tarry here, my merry men, whilst I seek what adventure await in yonder greenwood; but look thou listen for my call, for I will blow my horn if I become hard-pressed.
Adapted from Sterling, pg. 45 |
|
| Back to top » |
|
|
specialist
Explorer
Joined: 06 Dec 2006
Posts: 12
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 15, 2006 5:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| AerionIstari wrote: |
| RobHuntingdon wrote: |
| AerionIstari wrote: |
| Having cargo ships traveling with an invasion fleet sets up additional tactical challenges both as attacker and as defenders. Do you go after the warships or the resupply ships? If you take out the resupply ships, you might stop the invasion in its tracks... but at the expense of having warships that live to fight another day. |
True... but if you are crash-building warships yourself (and/or playing for time to get some new research finished up and refitted onto your primary battle fleet) that might be enough to let you survive or even triumph in the end.
Then again I also don't like the idea of a bookkeeper. Nor should you ask the player to do math. Not that we can't do it -- most or all of us can -- but because it turns it from a game to a job. The formulas should be public (to some degree at least) but then the results should be calculated and displayed for you.
RH |
I agree about bookkeeping being bad. But I have mixed feelings about publishing formulas and results. Too often the end result is that someone designs a spreadsheet or something that figures out down to two decimal places, the perfect loadout of weapons or whatever. |
I don't think logistical problems have a "optimal" solution. You do need know how many reloads you need (rate of fire), and how much your fleet transports can haul. The number of transports required gets larger the further you are from your base. Also losses from raids and method you use to run convoys effects the required fleet supply ships. The speed of supply ships is also a factor, as well as the speed of your warships' advance. It might be possible to outrun your supply lines.
I suspect that having to plan your logistics will add some extra effort to an invasion.
The AI may have to have some extra code added to handle the concept.
Also, if you don't like logistics, you could always go with weapons that don't require it- that is no missles, or fighters. Of course defenders are likly to have them....
A surface missle base could be a nasty thing to fight against.... No reload problems for them. and tons of room to put launchers. Of course fire from surface may make things harder- but these should be FTL missles, so perhaps not much. And fighter bases too.... should be able to have a lot more fighters than a ship can. Similar to the land based vs. carrier based aircraft. A modern carrier has ~60 planes, but airbases (Spangdahlem,Keflavik) could put hundreds in the air.
Of course, Kevlavik can't move... and costs a ton to maintain. |
|
| Back to top » |
|
|
AerionIstari
Vanguard
Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Posts: 35
Location: Columbia, SC USA
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 15, 2006 6:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| RobHuntingdon wrote: |
| AerionIstari wrote: |
| RobHuntingdon wrote: |
| AerionIstari wrote: |
| Having cargo ships traveling with an invasion fleet sets up additional tactical challenges both as attacker and as defenders. Do you go after the warships or the resupply ships? If you take out the resupply ships, you might stop the invasion in its tracks... but at the expense of having warships that live to fight another day. |
True... but if you are crash-building warships yourself (and/or playing for time to get some new research finished up and refitted onto your primary battle fleet) that might be enough to let you survive or even triumph in the end.
Then again I also don't like the idea of a bookkeeper. Nor should you ask the player to do math. Not that we can't do it -- most or all of us can -- but because it turns it from a game to a job. The formulas should be public (to some degree at least) but then the results should be calculated and displayed for you.
RH |
I agree about bookkeeping being bad. But I have mixed feelings about publishing formulas and results. Too often the end result is that someone designs a spreadsheet or something that figures out down to two decimal places, the perfect loadout of weapons or whatever. |
Which is why I said "to some degree at least". A randomness factor should be included in all things -- and if possible the occasional appearance of murphy should be thrown in too. Especially in combat. Nothing crippling, but just a ship or two didn't jump out of hyperspace in formation and your carefully choreographed attack is thrown off slightly... but not too badly. Just enough to throw a touch of realism in. Preferably the lease well trained ship should be the guilty party (if you have ship XP).
What I propose to be public is more in the empire management area. When these are totally private then you have no idea why something did or didn't work. That is unacceptable. As you try to make changes (or if live recalc takes too long a preview button should trigger it on demand) you are shown how tax rate X will provide income Y and unhappiness Z... etc... There were a lot of times in MOO3 when you would move a slider around and have NO idea what the effect would be. MOO1/2 didn't have that problem, you could tweak a slider around on MOO1 and mircomanage anything you wanted to get the max production, or just set a setting on a bunch of planets and let the ships build when they wanted to... etc. What I think should be public are the migration formulas (if you have population migration) and the income and production and morale and stuff like that.
Combat, on the other hand, you should just know your percents to hit and all the other standard details and it's up to you to put that together in an effective package.
RH |
Yes, MOO3 was hugely more complex than it should have been and too difficult to figure out. It had some good features, but the complexity made it either mindless or frustrating depending on whether you let the AI Goverors run things or tried to run them yourself.
But on the plus side, ship design was really good and the fleet concept was well done. I never did like the RTS tactical combat, though. If I was any good at RTS, I'd play RTS games.
It sounds like we're on the same wavelength here. |
|
| Back to top » |
|
|
RobHuntingdon
Vanguard
Joined: 07 Aug 2004
Posts: 146
Location: Cincinnati, OH, USA
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 15, 2006 7:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| AerionIstari wrote: |
Yes, MOO3 was hugely more complex than it should have been and too difficult to figure out. It had some good features, but the complexity made it either mindless or frustrating depending on whether you let the AI Goverors run things or tried to run them yourself.
But on the plus side, ship design was really good and the fleet concept was well done. I never did like the RTS tactical combat, though. If I was any good at RTS, I'd play RTS games.
It sounds like we're on the same wavelength here. |
I don't like the horrible *implementation* of the RTS combat in MOO3. But I don't think the idea is invalid. Just needs some work -- OK a LOT of work -- to make it usable and more than eye candy. Do you remember good old Lords of the Realm 2? LotR2 was a classic example of how to mix RTS combat and TBS main-game into a well-integrated whole that was easy to use and FUN to play. Oh the AI sucks once you learn all the huge gaping holes in it and figure out how to expliot them, but even with that I *still* play the game on occasion. It's just a true classic that never goes completely out of favor with me.
See for me RTS games I don't like because you have to try to handle combat AND production decisions all at once. It's too much to handle, you can't really do both effectively at the same time. Hotkeys help, you can hop back to a production center, spit out a bunch of "build more stuff orders" then hop back to your primary offensive group and it's not so bad, but it's never going to make it to great. It can't, the ideas just aren't compatible. So what you often end up doing is mass producing waves of units and just sending them off to fight (attack a location) and let the AI handle fighting them until they die off while you handle prepping the next wave... and as soon as another "squadron" is ready for combat you send it on it's way on the heels of the previous with the same orders. And it works, more or less, in these games... but it's a attrition-based warfare tactic that basically turns your soldiers into mindless cannon fodder. That's not something I like much. And it rarely works in the real world, and even when it does the cost in lives is utterly horrendous. See for example the "Great Motherland War" (WWII from the Soviet perspective) and just how many casualties they sustained before they finally began to roll back the germans. It worked but the cost was insane.
A TBS with RTS combat, on the other hand, I think is the ideal mix of the two styles. Time to think on your build orders and movement orders and everything else. Time to design effective units, time to think about when to commit units to the fight when they can do some worthwhile good. And then the RTS combat gives the RTS fanatics something to draw them into a REAL strategy game instead of the pathetic imitation they usually end up settling for. I think it's the best of both worlds and prefer it by far... IFF they are both well designed and implemented. Unfortunately that's a VERY tough row to hoe.
RH
_________________
Robert, the Earl of Huntingdon
Tarry here, my merry men, whilst I seek what adventure await in yonder greenwood; but look thou listen for my call, for I will blow my horn if I become hard-pressed.
Adapted from Sterling, pg. 45 |
|
| Back to top » |
|
|
AerionIstari
Vanguard
Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Posts: 35
Location: Columbia, SC USA
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 17, 2006 8:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
Robert, that's the best explanation I've ever read as to why RTS sucks (at least from my perspective).
It's been so long since I played Lords of the Realm, I can hardly remember the game. But I did spend many hours playing it. But if I recall, it had an RTS system that plays very similar to the way the Total War series plays now.
How do you play those old games? I can't get them to run on XP. Tried Colonization a while ago and it crashes. |
|
| Back to top » |
|
|
Warcaster
Explorer
Joined: 08 Apr 2005
Posts: 24
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 17, 2006 6:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
sweet ideas guys, good to see this game is still being developed.
_________________
Are you a Vampire or a Lycan
 |
|
| Back to top » |
|
|
RobHuntingdon
Vanguard
Joined: 07 Aug 2004
Posts: 146
Location: Cincinnati, OH, USA
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 18, 2006 2:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| AerionIstari wrote: |
Robert, that's the best explanation I've ever read as to why RTS sucks (at least from my perspective).
It's been so long since I played Lords of the Realm, I can hardly remember the game. But I did spend many hours playing it. But if I recall, it had an RTS system that plays very similar to the way the Total War series plays now.
How do you play those old games? I can't get them to run on XP. Tried Colonization a while ago and it crashes. |
I can't get LotR (the original) to work under XP but LotR2 works just fine in XP for me with no fancy tricks. I run it on an imaged copy of the CD with DAEMON tools and just run it from that.
I never did get a chance to play colonization. I heard it was a good game but never got a chance to try it.
It does help that LotR2 is such a simple combat model. That does make it a lot easier to do well. A space-empire building TBS with RTS combat is HARD to get right. Doesn't mean it couldn't be done, but a LOT of thought would have to go into it. SE-V gets a close but no cigar.
RH
_________________
Robert, the Earl of Huntingdon
Tarry here, my merry men, whilst I seek what adventure await in yonder greenwood; but look thou listen for my call, for I will blow my horn if I become hard-pressed.
Adapted from Sterling, pg. 45 |
|
| Back to top » |
|
|
Therlun
Vanguard
Joined: 07 Aug 2004
Posts: 137
Location: Germany
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 18, 2006 8:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| For old Dos games (like LotR 1 and Colonization) try Dosbox (http://dosbox.sourceforge.net/news.php?show_news=1). |
|
| Back to top » |
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
 |
|
|
 |
|
