my custom ships wipe the AI's plate clean - everytime

[Bartje]

Yes that would be a nice improvement, longer lasers, but weaker.

Perhaps they could be beam like?? Instead of pulsed.

[taltamir]

ORIGINAL: Bartje

Yes that would be a nice improvement, longer lasers, but weaker.

Perhaps they could be beam like?? Instead of pulsed.

Agreed, a continuous beam comprised of all the "beam weapons" on each ship that deals a set DPS... calculated as often as the shields are (I think it is 10 times per second). so deal meh damage at range with lasers, but if you close in its devastating missile barrage. Whether you attempt to close in or stay away is determined by your respective missile armament, if your missile loud-out is better, close in, if not, stay away.

IRL, pulsed lasers do have better efficiency than continuous lasers, but they are pulsed many times per second (thats existing tech btw), so fast that to a human they would appear as a continuous beam.

Take lasik lasers (from wikipedia):

Currently, manufactured Excimer lasers use an eye tracking system that follows the patient's eye position up to 4,000 times per second, redirecting laser pulses for precise placement within the treatment zone. Typical pulses are around 1 millijoule (mJ) of pulse energy in 10 to 20 nanoseconds.

to quote the source for that claim

3. The laser system of claim 1, wherein said solid state laser is a 40 Watt Nd:YAG laser, said first beam is a short pulse at 10 kHz repetition rates, and wherein said fourth beam has an average power of greater than about 1 Watt.

This means that the is fired 10,000 times per second, aka every 0.0001 seconds and each one of those lasts for 0.00000001 to 0.00000002 seconds.

In the terms used in the game, the ultimate laser fires a pulse every 0.7 seconds... while excimer lasers fies a pulse every 0.0001 seconds.
To a human, this would appear as a continuous beam if it were in the visible spectrum. or maybe not be visible at all.

However, regardless of what the IRL condition is... the current depiction is cool enough... its major problem is a one of balance where a whole class of weapons is effectively useless... the changes I suggested there are based on balancing and minimizing the changes necessary to the game... not trying to be as true to IRL as possible.

it might backfire to give lasers longer range with torpedoes becoming useless, so i guess the safest change is to make them equal range.

[Bartje]

So in essence it would only be a matter of adjusting the combat properties of lasers
 

I wonder how the combat engine would take this alteration, It makes quite a difference in gameplay terms but hopefully technically (GPU, CPU etc..) it doesn't drain (much) more then the current laser system.

[Shark7]

Imagine this...

You have 20 species, each that developed in isolation and on its own. Each developed along its own line, specializing in one tech or another along the way....

Does it not make sense that their ship design philosophy would also be unique?

The Boskara...aggressive insectiod species. Does it not make sense that they would prefer up close, personal and vicious fighting? What if Boskaran ships specialized in short range fighting, with heavy laser batters and heavy shields and armor. This is their design philiosphy.

Humans on the other hand prefer standoff combat using maneuver and employing feints and ruses. Their ships would utilize heavy torpedo batteries as well as ECM, and additional targeting modules with a few lasers for times when you just can't stay at range.

See where this is going. You can set the templates through a design philosophy that stays with the species through its designs. And get templates that allow the AI to fully utilize its building capacity. These might have to be defined by the developer, so that each ship utilizes its space to maximum effect.

Another Way to Handle It...

Hardpoints: I know not every one likes them (heck I don't like them) but it does make it possible to allow the AI to fully utilize its design capacity, prevent the player from building invincible ships, and allow the AI and players to stick to the species design philosophy. Taking the examples above:

Base Deign for an escort...

4 Beam HPs
2 Torpedo HPs
4 Armor HPs
2 Shield HPs
1 ECM HP
1 Command Module HP
1 Computer HP
Hab, Eninges, and Reactor are unlimited.

For the Boskaran they get the following bonuses:

6 Additional Beam HPs (total of 10)
6 Additional Armor HPs (total of 10)
2 Additional Shield HPs (total of 4)

Humans get the following Bonuses:

4 Torpedo HPs (total of 6)
1 ECM HP (total of 2)
1 Computer HP (total of 2)

By using a HP system, you can balance the designs while not making them exactly the same. You can also define a number of HPs per type (IE Escort, Frigate, etc) making the types different from each other. As I said, I usually don't support hardpoints, but it could be the best solution, especially in a single player game like DW where you don't have another players designs to have to compete with. Unfortunately with the AI being limited (as all AIs are), then you have to level the playing field by maknig the player use the same rules.

[alexalexuk]

im finding that playing this game is now turning into a clickfest,

i now know my ships can now kill everything and anything in the galaxy, the game has turned into a "its only a matter of time before i win" type of game; aboslutly no challenge with the AI and its type of ships that are against mine.

I could probably start a "harder" game, but the truth is, as soon as i build my custom ships, ill wipe all the AI's ships out of the ballpark sooner or later.

[taltamir]

Imagine this...

You have 20 species, each that developed in isolation and on its own. Each developed along its own line, specializing in one tech or another along the way....

Does it not make sense that their ship design philosophy would also be unique?

Physics is physics... so no it does not make sense that their ship designs would be unique. Disparate societies on earth managed to reach the same conclusions in construction, weaponry, etc... How? because the basics physical properties of reality favor certain things.

[alexalexuk]

a solution - following on from shark7's idea

the AI could think like this: (speaking from the AI's point of view here)


- ill build my first escort ship... max size 200, ill put 30% of the space into weapons, 25% engines, 45% "other ie hab's sensors etc"
- ill build a whole load of escort ships
- im now at war with a human player
- oh crap, im loosing lots of ships i should switch design
- ill redesign my "escort ships" into a "escort ships vs human player"
- "escort ship vs human player mk 1" - 60% of space into weapons, 20% engines, 20% other.
- ill build a fleet of these and attack/defend with them
- oh crap my mk1 ships are crappy, ive just lots all of them in battle!, i need to redesign!
- "escort ship vs human player mk 2" - 20% of space into weapons, 60% engines, 20% other.
- ill build a couple of fleets
- great! my mk 2 ships are doing better now, ill form more fleets to push the human back!
- the battle goes well, im meeting the stupid human fleets with my fleets, things are going good but could be better!
- ....a little time goes by......
- ill redesign my escort ships to make em perfect, im still loosing too many now, i think the human has redesigned his ships!
- "escort ship vs human player mk 3" - 25% of space into weapons, 55% engines, 20% other.
- ill build a couple of fleets
- things look even better now with mk3 vs mk2, that human has no chance!
- and the cycle continues.

The AI then rotates through a couple of behavours like:

Option 1:

The AI would then have "ship types" for each individual race that its at war with, this would get very messy as you would face ships that "easy" since they are designed for another "war" - BUT - this could be a desperate option for the AI if its facing a certain overwhelming defeat and has to focus on protecting itself from one opponent

Option 2:

It designs and builds ships that balances the ship loadouts depending on which enemy ships its facing. For example its at war with 3 races, it will design ships that will be able to match odds with all of them, if it cant, it will switch to option 1 to focus on the enemy race thats conquering planets / beating it in fleet combat etc..


opinions?

[Fishman]

I think there's a simpler, more direct approach to ship design:
1. Randomly load thousands of simulated ships with parts.
2. Have them fight to the death in simulated battles until only a few remain.
3. Randomly duplicate the surviving ships, slightly varying their part compositions until there are again thousands of ships.
4. Repeat step 2.

Eventually, the perfect design should emerge.

[taltamir]

ORIGINAL: Fishman

I think there's a simpler, more direct approach to ship design:
1. Randomly load thousands of simulated ships with parts.
2. Have them fight to the death in simulated battles until only a few remain.
3. Randomly duplicate the surviving ships, slightly varying their part compositions until there are again thousands of ships.
4. Repeat step 2.

Eventually, the perfect design should emerge.

nice... the power of the PC is that it literally CAN throw a million monkeys on a million typing machines...

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: taltamir

Imagine this...

You have 20 species, each that developed in isolation and on its own. Each developed along its own line, specializing in one tech or another along the way....

Does it not make sense that their ship design philosophy would also be unique?

Physics is physics... so no it does not make sense that their ship designs would be unique. Disparate societies on earth managed to reach the same conclusions in construction, weaponry, etc... How? because the basics physical properties of reality favor certain things.

Physics are a constant, sentient species are not. You can take two similar groups of humans, present them with a problem, and get two different solutions....now imagine that on a galactic scale with two groups that are not similar. The physics on 2 planets are identical, but how 2 different species tackle the problems are more likely to be different than not.

In other words, 2 separate, unique paths to the same answer. This is why I say hardpoints...you'll get essentially the same answer, with quite a bit of variation on how they got there and the over-all design of the final product.

[Munchies]

ORIGINAL: Shark7

Imagine this...

You have 20 species, each that developed in isolation and on its own. Each developed along its own line, specializing in one tech or another along the way....

Does it not make sense that their ship design philosophy would also be unique?

The Boskara...aggressive insectiod species. Does it not make sense that they would prefer up close, personal and vicious fighting? What if Boskaran ships specialized in short range fighting, with heavy laser batters and heavy shields and armor. This is their design philiosphy.

Humans on the other hand prefer standoff combat using maneuver and employing feints and ruses. Their ships would utilize heavy torpedo batteries as well as ECM, and additional targeting modules with a few lasers for times when you just can't stay at range.

See where this is going. You can set the templates through a design philosophy that stays with the species through its designs. And get templates that allow the AI to fully utilize its building capacity. These might have to be defined by the developer, so that each ship utilizes its space to maximum effect.

Another Way to Handle It...

Hardpoints: I know not every one likes them (heck I don't like them) but it does make it possible to allow the AI to fully utilize its design capacity, prevent the player from building invincible ships, and allow the AI and players to stick to the species design philosophy. Taking the examples above:

Base Deign for an escort...

4 Beam HPs
2 Torpedo HPs
4 Armor HPs
2 Shield HPs
1 ECM HP
1 Command Module HP
1 Computer HP
Hab, Eninges, and Reactor are unlimited.

For the Boskaran they get the following bonuses:

6 Additional Beam HPs (total of 10)
6 Additional Armor HPs (total of 10)
2 Additional Shield HPs (total of 4)

Humans get the following Bonuses:

4 Torpedo HPs (total of 6)
1 ECM HP (total of 2)
1 Computer HP (total of 2)

By using a HP system, you can balance the designs while not making them exactly the same. You can also define a number of HPs per type (IE Escort, Frigate, etc) making the types different from each other. As I said, I usually don't support hardpoints, but it could be the best solution, especially in a single player game like DW where you don't have another players designs to have to compete with. Unfortunately with the AI being limited (as all AIs are), then you have to level the playing field by maknig the player use the same rules.

I am not in favor of hardpoints either, but this is one solution that might work. and is worth looking at.

As far as physics is physics goes. He is not talking about 2 different cultures of the same species (humans on earth). How about a crustacean that lives on ocean worlds, under water, with tremendous pressure and an insect that lives on volcanic worlds with little pressure and atmosphere? Yes, chances are their ships would be different.
But who knows lol.

[taltamir]

ORIGINAL: Shark7

ORIGINAL: taltamir

Imagine this...

You have 20 species, each that developed in isolation and on its own. Each developed along its own line, specializing in one tech or another along the way....

Does it not make sense that their ship design philosophy would also be unique?

Physics is physics... so no it does not make sense that their ship designs would be unique. Disparate societies on earth managed to reach the same conclusions in construction, weaponry, etc... How? because the basics physical properties of reality favor certain things.

Physics are a constant, sentient species are not. You can take two similar groups of humans, present them with a problem, and get two different solutions....now imagine that on a galactic scale with two groups that are not similar. The physics on 2 planets are identical, but how 2 different species tackle the problems are more likely to be different than not.

In other words, 2 separate, unique paths to the same answer. This is why I say hardpoints...you'll get essentially the same answer, with quite a bit of variation on how they got there and the over-all design of the final product.

A society is made up of more then 2 people. Ask 2 different humans a question that was never asked before and you will mostly likely get two different answers...
and then one of them builds a bridge that collapses and the other builds a bridge that lasts...
Or one of them builds a bridge for half the cost and materials that is just as strong... And we are not talking peacetime stuff here, but weapons...
on earth you had plenty of "crossbows are dishonorable, real warrior use swords" (which later became guns are dishonorable)... or "guns are awesome, sword are awesome, lets combine the two to make gunblade" (attempted a variety of times in various isolated cultures... was a colossal failure every time) as well as other various notions and theories. The thing is, the laws of reality are the ultimate impartial judge of who is right... As long as they are really sentient and not just caricatures, then they would have come up with a whole variety of approaches and solutions... and when they test them on the field of battle some result in death and others in victory.

ORIGINAL: Munchies
As far as physics is physics goes. He is not talking about 2 different cultures of the same species (humans on earth). How about a crustacean that lives on ocean worlds, under water, with tremendous pressure and an insect that lives on volcanic worlds with little pressure and atmosphere? Yes, chances are their ships would be different.
But who knows lol.

Last I checked, humans live in a temperate continental planet, on the surface of the continents. Not in the hard vacuum of space.
Humans are wholly unsuited for space, 0-G, etc... but we use our brains to figure out what does work out there... and when we make mistakes out space vehicles explode in fiery death.

That crustacian species might have very different notions of what works on their native environment and might have some special weapons and combat techniques for fighting at the bottom of the ocean. But as soon as they go out into the cold depths of space they must work in the same environment as anyone else. The thing is, with physics there is none of this Saturday morning special "we are all right in the end in our own unique way"... someone is right, and someone is wrong. And I am not keen on the AI using "wrong" assumptions about space combat resulting in its horrid demise. (aka, some race's hardpoint setups would create clearly superior designs)
Nor am I keen on the idea of have special physics where somehow it is all equally effective in the end. (constant fiddling with the hardpoint setups to make them all somehow artificially balanced)

I assure you modern human armies do not go about saying "mmm, our experience as hairless apes is that being big and strong like a gorilla is better... so we are going to build the biggest weapons we can without regards to efficiency or actual performance"... Our "you fail physics forever" movie makers and cartoonist often come up with ridiculously over-sized tanks or *shudder* giant mecha; but armies do not use those because, quite frankly, they suck. Although there have been ATTEMPTS by armies to use things like that, they always resulted in utter failure.

[Munchies]

uhh.. ok. whatever you say.
[&o]

Devs, I make a request to make all the different species' ships to look and act exactly like all others. After all, our past has shown that there is only one way to make a spaceship. [:D]

[taltamir]

ORIGINAL: Munchies

uhh.. ok. whatever you say.
[&o]

Devs, I make a request to make all the different species' ships to look and act exactly like all others. After all, our past has shown that there is only one way to make a spaceship. [:D]

They already are all the same, AI ship design makes ships with the same component... a different graphic though.. and that is perfectly fine.
Anyways, you can build a non ideal bridge and it will not necessarily fall down. but the game mechanic result of small differentiation is that some races will design superior ships. And the result of large differentiation is that some ships will be completely useless unless there is a long and drawn out juggling act of balancing that will never quite get it right but aim to make them all the same.

[Shark7]

With hard points, you will get some balance, but mostly you will get unique, and you will get the AI able to compete with the player designs, thus adding challenge. Honestly there is no such thing as 'balance' in any game. The player will always out think the AI, and even with all things being completely identical, one player can out think another player.

In DW, hard points would add in some design caps that would help keep the AI more on par with the player. Some weaker, some stronger, but at least there wouldn't be one completely dominant design due to the player being able to build without limits.

Like I said, personally I hate hard points, but I can see a reason to use them.

[taltamir]

But why in the world do you need unique set of hardpoints for every alien race is my question.

A cruiser can be said to be 4 torpedoes and 10 lasers for all races... making cruisers such that:
Race A: 10 torpedoes and 0 lasers
Race B: 5 torpedoes and 5 lasers
Race C: 0 torpedoes and 10 lasers

you will get a situation where race A produces the best ships, followed by race B, followed by race C.
Or giving race A 10 weapon hard points and 5 shield hard points, and race B 5 weapon hard points and 10 shields hard points. again, will result in one or the other having superior ships... (I haven't done the math to know which it is in that example actually ) and if you are playing the race with the clearly inferior design you are going to wonder why your race is so dumb that it cannot even copy the basic ratio principles from the race that is kicking its ass.

If you must implement hard points, then make them by ship class and the same for all races... just say that it is the mathematically proven best way to build a ship with a ratio of 2:1:4 of weapons:shields:engines. (or better yet, actually do the math and run simulations ).
I am not as opposed to the idea of hard points as I am to the idea of "different races have different approaches to ship design" which forces certain races to use clearly sub part ship designs (more lasers, less torpedoes) because of some fridge logic.

Frankly I think that ships should come in predetermined sizes... there are 8 construction techs... with tech 1 limiting you to size 200, tech 2 to size 330, and so on...
So have ships come in 8 sizes... size 1 is 0-200 space, size 2 is 200-330 space, and so on.

And component should be % of total size based... that is, you decide if you want between 20 and 40% of the space to be dedicated to engines for example (and you are capped at specific sizes)... between 0 and 50% for shields, etc... naturally you cannot increase one without decreasing the other. This gives the impression that you are actually designing a ship as an engineering project rather then assembling one from legos.
Or maybe have weapons as components but engines and shields as a single unit that is a size Dependant on your ship. life support should be automatically calculated to be an exact amount needed for your ship's size (and higher tech level decrease that size giving you more size for other stuff) so you don't actually have to bother with those components.

the end result is identical to component system for a player (a component system where there are 8 ship size categories which you do not select, but are automatically assigned based on the final size of your ship). But it makes it really simple to make the AI design stuff (just preset a ratio of various equipment). Essentially you are using a component system, where each component is of very small size...

But even with a component system that is as right now you can approximate it with the AI... designing a new ship? set a target size of 330, ~30% of it should be engines... that is 99 space... add engines until you pass 99, see which was closer and keep that (aka, if the engine component is size 7, 14 units of it are size 98, 15 units are size 105. 98 is closer to 99 then 105 is, use 14 engine components. Continue that way down the path of components... finally reach weapons... Add weapons until there is no more room (aka, as close to 330 while still under it), congrats on your newly AI designed ship...

The reason the AI has problems right now is:

1. Sizes are not properly categorized... Each construction tech should unlock a new ship size category, which should be specified and used up (ex: tech 2 construction yard unlocks size 330 ships)... currently an AI designed capital ship is about size 700... they should always match the maximum current size of a certain tech level

2. Components are not correctly prioritized. the last reactor tech is inferior to the one before it, the shaktur firestorm torpedoes are inferior to other torpedoes, super weapons are inferior to all other weapons, lasers are inferior to torpedoes unless you have very high end lasers compared to very low end torpedoes, the ultimate shields megatron Z4 plain suck... etc.
this is the #1 reason why the AI is having trouble right now, it is the major goal for 1.05, and it is fixable without switching over to hardpoint system... the current component system will work fine if the components are correctly prioritized.

3. The least important, but still an important factor... the AI puts too few shields and weapons on a ship... a size 700-900 ship needs a good 200 or so space dedicated to shields (aka, 30 shields on a capital ship). this is only about 20-30%. it currently puts a little under 10% of the ship's size into shields.

[Fishman]

You keep saying "The AI puts too few weapons, shields, armor, and engines on its ships"...but this cannot be true, because weapons, shields, armor, and engines (and reactors, which we KNOW he doesn't put enough of) are the primary components on a ship! Unless you're suggesting the AI is stuffing his warships with redundant noncombat systems, so that the ship has 12 hyperdrives taking up all his space, this cannot be true, as the size of a ship is a direct function of what is in it. I think it's more that the AI builds small ships filled with primitive junk, which makes his ships appear woefully underpowered. It also means he can turn them out like popcorn, however: The AI never seems to run out of them no matter how many I shoot down.

[taltamir]

ORIGINAL: Fishman

You keep saying "The AI puts too few weapons, shields, armor, and engines on its ships"...but this cannot be true, because weapons, shields, armor, and engines (and reactors, which we KNOW he doesn't put enough of) are the primary components on a ship! Unless you're suggesting the AI is stuffing his warships with redundant noncombat systems, so that the ship has 12 hyperdrives taking up all his space, this cannot be true, as the size of a ship is a direct function of what is in it. I think it's more that the AI builds small ships filled with primitive junk, which makes his ships appear woefully underpowered. It also means he can turn them out like popcorn, however: The AI never seems to run out of them no matter how many I shoot down.

Quote myself

1. Sizes are not properly categorized... Each construction tech should unlock a new ship size category, which should be specified and used up (ex: tech 2 construction yard unlocks size 330 ships)... currently an AI designed capital ship is about size 700... they should always match the maximum current size of a certain tech level

2. Components are not correctly prioritized. the last reactor tech is inferior to the one before it, the shaktur firestorm torpedoes are inferior to other torpedoes, super weapons are inferior to all other weapons, lasers are inferior to torpedoes unless you have very high end lasers compared to very low end torpedoes, the ultimate shields megatron Z4 plain suck... etc.
this is the #1 reason why the AI is having trouble right now, it is the major goal for 1.05, and it is fixable without switching over to hardpoint system... the current component system will work fine if the components are correctly prioritized.

3. The least important, but still an important factor... the AI puts too few shields and weapons on a ship... a size 700-900 ship needs a good 200 or so space dedicated to shields (aka, 30 shields on a capital ship). this is only about 20-30%. it currently puts a little under 10% of the ship's size into shields.

Max ship size by construction tech:
1: 200
2: 330
3: 500
4: 650
5: 850
6: 1100
7: 1500

Using all tech except Shaktur Firestorm, Megatron Z4, and Novacore NX-700. Enable AI ship autodesign:
result... capital ship, size 690 (requiring tech 5 building but not going up to the 850 size max).
Shields: 10 units, total space 80... 11.6% of the current ship size, 9.4% of the size it should aim for with a capital ship (since capital ship is size 5 ship, it should be 850 size.
Armor: 20 units, total space 20, 2.9% of design size, 2.4% of what it should aim for.
Weapons: 8 Plasma Thunderbolt MX, size 40. I would use more of these... 16 titan beam SR, size 96... 2 nuclear exterminators, size 14... 1 death ray, size 140... the death ray gives a big boost to its size, the size of the last capital ship it designed for me, before I had death rays, was 519 total... Anyways, total weapon sizes, 290 total, which 42% of current size and 34% of target size, it is actually a good percentage of the total space. but only because of the death ray. Even so, the weapon choices are terrible and the total ship size is too small.
Engines (not hyperdrive or vectoring thrusters): sprint speed, 35... engines used 13. total engine size is 104. 15.1% of ship size (690), 12.2% of target size (850).
If he used 20 engines his sprint speed would be 50 instead of 35. total size would be 160... which is 18.8% of target size... since we are being highly structured here, a target of 20% would be 170... which means 21 engines is closest, giving a sprint of 52.

Anyways... this was actually a good-ish example because he had the super weapons to work with, and is programmed to use one.

Current sizes of ships are: Escort < Frigate < Destroyer < Cruiser < Capital Ship

My suggestion is to take the max sizes via tech and use those:
1: 200 = Escort
2: 330 = Frigate
3: 500 = Destroyer
4: 650 = Cruiser
5: 850 = BattleCruiser
6: 1100 = BattleShip
7: 1500 = Dreadnaught

Capital ship is a general term for the three biggest sizes.
The AI should design to maximize the size of the current tech. When doing so it should aim for percentages... example design:
Hyperdrive: always 1 unit, starts at size 12 and goes down to 8... size should depend on the size of the ship. the most primitive hyperdrive is 6% of the smallest of ships (escort, size 200) and the best is 4% of the size of that ship. Since the current size fits all, lets put it in the middle of current ship designs... thats destroyer, size 500... so it goes from 2.4% to 1.6% the size of a destroyer. So hyperdrive for an escort hyperdrive at the starting tech of 2.4% is size 4.8. And a Dreadnaught's is 36.
Shields: Add them component by component until you get closest to 20% of the ship size. For size 8 shields that is 21 shields on a battle cruiser, 37 or 38 on a dreadnaught.
Armor: I think a 1 to 1 ratio with shields is good, since this is 1/8 the size you get 2.5% of total ship size. Since armor allows individual addition (one unit size each), add them until armor and shields are exactly 22.5% (that is, if you got that 20% size shields being 37.5 shields, that means you can put 37 shields and an extra 5 amror pieces to accomodate that extra 5 space)
Engines: 20%
Vectoring: 5%
the total of the above is 49.9% btw. a bit lower in higher tech level hyperdrive... the other 50%? you put in the minimum amount of reactors, life support, sensors, computers, etc and fill every last remaining spot with weapons.

[Fishman]

From my own field experiments, a 700-ish size capship is a pretty decent size. While I have built 1500-size Super-Dreads before, they were never done as serious attempts to fight anything, but purely as masturbatory exercises in pompousness and grandiosity. Anything larger becomes increasingly impractical, as it costs a lot, can only be in one place at a time, and can only incinerate a single victim at a time. Except for amusement, there's really not much point in designing a ship so huge that it singlehandedly outguns the entire enemy fleet. But it's nice that DW will let you do it...because it's AWESOME!

[taltamir]

ORIGINAL: Fishman

From my own field experiments, a 700-ish size capship is a pretty decent size. While I have built 1500-size Super-Dreads before, they were never done as serious attempts to fight anything, but purely as masturbatory exercises in pompousness and grandiosity. Anything larger becomes increasingly impractical, as it costs a lot, can only be in one place at a time, and can only incinerate a single victim at a time. Except for amusement, there's really not much point in designing a ship so huge that it singlehandedly outguns the entire enemy fleet. But it's nice that DW will let you do it...because it's AWESOME!

the problem with size 700 is that you need the tech for size 850 to build it. And its only size 700 because of the death ray... my pre deathray capital ship was size 519
I agree that those huge sizes are not the most practical... and you should build a limited amount of those. but design should match their tech level.

In my last game I went with:
Capital: 30 shields + 30 armor + 30 torpedoes + 3 troop pods + 3 repair bots. enough engines for speed 50, turn rate 20
Cruiser: 20 shields + 20 armor + 20 torpedoes + 2 troop pods + 2 repair bots. enough engines for speed 60, turn rate 25
Capital: 10 shields + 10 armor + 10 torpedoes + 1 troop pods + 1 repair bots. enough engines for speed 70, turn rate 30

sizes are: 839, 658, 418 respectively. however, that was before I did such an in depth analysis of ship designs and sizes.

I think it would be perfectly fine to alter the max sizes as described above... The tech levels could give smaller sizes. AI ship builds COULD be set to never build anything larger then a cruiser even though the size categories are there IF the design is desired.