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

[Fishman]

Well, one catch is that you should never, ever, design any escorts, frigates, or destroyers, and probably should avoid cruisers. Remember, the pirate thing. Although I can't think of a good USE for the 200-point escorts that you're proposing. One of the kickers is that ships benefit strongly from economies of scale at the lower sizes. A ship can only use ONE of any of the essential add-on systems, but the smaller the ship, the greater the proportion of space is consumed by it. As such, building anything other than an extremely specialized craft specifically cut down to fit within those limits is all but impossible, and such a thing will never be a general-purpose ship of any worth. It's when you start getting into the 400-point range that you have room to design something that isn't crap. I had a 400-point escort that was probably the best damn ship in the game, in terms of cost, and the fact that it was impossible to kill.

[taltamir]

ORIGINAL: Fishman

Well, one catch is that you should never, ever, design any escorts, frigates, or destroyers, and probably should avoid cruisers. Remember, the pirate thing. Although I can't think of a good USE for the 200-point escorts that you're proposing. One of the kickers is that ships benefit strongly from economies of scale at the lower sizes. A ship can only use ONE of any of the essential add-on systems, but the smaller the ship, the greater the proportion of space is consumed by it. As such, building anything other than an extremely specialized craft specifically cut down to fit within those limits is all but impossible, and such a thing will never be a general-purpose ship of any worth. It's when you start getting into the 400-point range that you have room to design something that isn't crap. I had a 400-point escort that was probably the best damn ship in the game, in terms of cost, and the fact that it was impossible to kill.

This is why I suggest that certain systems should take a percentage of the ship... hyperdrive, bridge, lifesupport, and hub should all be a percentage of the chassis size, with higher levels of those tech shrinking that percentage figure down.

Also, I see no harm in adjusting the tech values... if the AI insists on building size 500 capital ships... well, make tech 5 construction give size 500.

[Fishman]

ORIGINAL: taltamir

This is why I suggest that certain systems should take a percentage of the ship... hyperdrive, bridge, lifesupport, and hub should all be a percentage of the chassis size, with higher levels of those tech shrinking that percentage figure down.

Life support and habitation already *ARE* a percentage of hull size. The bigger your hull, the more components of those you need, so you're not getting away with anything there. However, hyperdrive size is a very significant factor. For a small 200-point ship, the hyperdrive is 10% of your ship.

The other important factor in ships that creates a minimum size is "minimum effectiveness". A system needs to be a minimum size in order to be worth even having. Weapons is particularly sensitive to this. A ship, on average, needs to be able to do at least 50-60% damage to its target within about 5 seconds. Otherwise you never kill anything, because that's how long it takes your target to run away from you. At the same time, it needs enough shielding to be able to SURVIVE this against a much bigger target. Finally, it needs enough engines to be faster than that thing! With all these requirements, it becomes clear that dinky quickly becomes inadequate for creating a mission-capable ship that the AI can actually use without you babysitting: I can create a 150-point dogfighter, but then I have to babysit it and pilot manually so it doesn't get fragged.

[taltamir]

well... this goes to who you are fighting... an escort fighting an escort will do fine.

But sure, minimum size is a requirement for certain systems... don't have them on ships below a certain size class. escorts for example should not be carting around troop pods

[Fishman]

ORIGINAL: taltamir

well... this goes to who you are fighting... an escort fighting an escort will do fine.

You're the defender. You don't get to choose who you're fighting. You have to win anyway, no matter what it is. Haven't you seen how much easier it is to attack? Because you CHOOSE what to fight when you attack. Escorts don't have that luxury. They have to defend, and they have to win, because defending without winning is purposeless.

Just the same, you shouldn't build escorts anymore anyway, because, you know, the pirate thing.

[Gertjan]

What was wrong with the rock/paper/scissors style of Galciv2?

[taltamir]

ORIGINAL: Gertjan

What was wrong with the rock/paper/scissors style of Galciv2?

eh, its kinda obnoxious i think...

Also, galciv did NOT have a rock paper scissors setup... missiles did not lose to lasers and defeat mass drivers... rather, missiles were blocked by countermeasure A, lasers by countermeasure B, and so on. thats not rock paper scissors.

finally, what does rock paper scissors have to do with the AI designing ships without proper regards to their size?

[Ellestar]

ORIGINAL: lordxorn

GalCiv 2 AI designed the latest ships.

GalCiv ship design is so stupid it may as well not exist. So of course AI has no problems with it.

[Bartje]

 
I think that the most realistic "physics" / "natural" setup is the way it is now.
 
 
What does need to be better:
 
Effective and Efficient are words that imply a relationship to a certain goal that is to be achieved.
 
In order for a design to be effective & efficient it needs to fufill whatever it is supposed to do in the best way possible (as available at shipdesign time)
 
 
This implies that there are no "global combat rules" because combat design actually depends on global strategy.
 
 
Is a race's strategy to use speed and guile to outmaneuver their opponent and hit them where it hurts while no one's guarding the cookie jar?
 
Then speed is essential.
 
 
 
Is your purpose to destroy your opponent in a stand up straight sluggfest?
 
Then you need superior firepower and preferably staying power.
 
 
 
Is your purpose to hold the line?
 
Then you need very superior staying power over the enemies offensive capacities.
 
 
 
Ergo:
 
what would be "natural" to the Distant Worlds Universe is the concept of design philosophies.
 
How do Empires hope to defeat their opponents?
 
 
- Through (direct) grand decisive battles? (big battleships!)  
 
- Through a (indirect) battle of attrition? (more carrier like? / submarine like? or through staying power)
 
- Through destroying his economy (raiding, pillaging, looting and being gone by the time he shows up; again submarine warfare like)
 
- Is the emphasis on Artillery (superior and concentrated firepower) or is the army like a liquid killing machine and requires punch as well as speed?
 
 
 
Meaning:
 
Currently torpedoes rule, they have no real downside.
 
This needs to altered, perhaps torpedoes should be easier to miss on mobile objects such as ships?????
 
Concentrate enough of them (think a fleet of torpedo ships) and you'll be a killer but for those limited (strikegroup, not fleet) fast & furious strikes you'll probably want lasers then.
 
 
 
What it comes down to:
 
There needs to be a design philosophy for the AI based on what it wants to achieve (strategy) and how it sees warfare (perspective).
 
 
Communist Bugs don't care about life, for example. An endless war of attrition is fine to them; they don't care.
 
 
 
Historically:
 
What's the difference between the Japanese navy and the American navy in WW2???
 
What's the difference between the German Army & the Allied as well as Communist army??
 
They all had different philosophies and designs to achieve different goals for the overarching goal of defeating the enemy.
 
 
A Design Philosophy thus:
 
Incorporates the strengths and weaknesses of given nation, its experience in previous wars as well as perceived weaknesses in the enemy
 
 
 
Contemporary:
 
A prime example is the difference in NATO members on the development of Aircraft.
 
The USA focusses on stealth tech
 
The EU focusses on stealth detection (quite advanced and effective too, by the way!!)
 
 
 
 
The question then becomes:
 
Now that we know this, what can we do with it?????
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

[taltamir]

This implies that there are no "global combat rules" because combat design actually depends on global strategy.

no it does not. you are mincing words. Effective means "kill the other guy and don't die".
Efficient means "more performance per unit of limited resources"... which can be more performance per size, energy usage, or monetary cost.
It has nothing to do with "global strategy"... it has to do with "in a fight between two ships, who will die and who will live".

Is a race's strategy to use speed and guile to outmaneuver their opponent and hit them where it hurts while no one's guarding the cookie jar?
Then speed is essential.

Is your purpose to destroy your opponent in a stand up straight sluggfest?
Then you need superior firepower and preferably staying power.

Is your purpose to hold the line?
Then you need very superior staying power over the enemies offensive capacities.

Those are fundamental truth's of reality not "racial preferences". All of which, btw, have been conceived by humans and should be possible for every sentient being to conceive since they are so simple.
It is virtually impossible (mind bogglingly low probability) for them all to be equally effective. Rather, some tactics are clearly better then others.

now, you COULD spend an inordinate amount of time trying to force those to be balanced. Then assign racial preferences... but unless and until you actually do so assigning them as racial preferences will result in some races having sucky AI and some having good AI...
There are only three possibilities:
1. You make an optimal design, have all AI use it.
2. You give AI "preferences", as a result some will clearly be better than others because some preferences suck and some don't (example, lasers vs torpedoes currently)
3. You give AI "preferences" AND you spend lots of time and effort "balancing" the various strategies to be equal... you will never be perfectly balanced but you might get close... however that is lots of work for the developers, and frankly the idea strikes me stupid. IRL guns are not "balanced" with tanks or swords, and they shouldn't be... certain things are just better and that is fine.

Historically:

What's the difference between the Japanese navy and the American navy in WW2???

What's the difference between the German Army & the Allied as well as Communist army??

They all had different philosophies and designs to achieve different goals for the overarching goal of defeating the enemy.

The fact that different factions have had different design philosophy doesn't somehow make them all balanced or equal. As I have previously said, it is natural to use different design philosophy (especially in a particular time period), but ineffective philosophies resulted in failure and death, and were then abandoned...
You COULD make the AI alternate its design philosophies... it has been suggested that the AI try certain things, if they result in much failure it will make a new set of designs with a different philosophy, rinse and repeat...
1. this doesn't work as well in a game which has lots of abstraction and fairly simple combat.
2. this is tons and tons of work to implement.

A Design Philosophy thus:

Incorporates the strengths and weaknesses of given nation, its experience in previous wars as well as perceived weaknesses in the enemy

The AI is dumb enough without intentionally dumbing down certain aspects of certain factions as a "racial philosophy"... if the AI Was routinely kicking ass then a way to nerf it would be to implement such a scheme. But we are not there and I doubt we ever will be.

[Fishman]

Historically:

What's the difference between the Japanese navy and the American navy in WW2???

What's the difference between the German Army & the Allied as well as Communist army??

They LOST. Whatever they did, it was wrong. The key here is that whatever they decide to do, these are people's guesses of how they should accomplish the objective of WINNING. Many of these ideas will turn out to be wrong.

[taltamir]

ORIGINAL: Fishman

Historically:

What's the difference between the Japanese navy and the American navy in WW2???

What's the difference between the German Army & the Allied as well as Communist army??

They LOST. Whatever they did, it was wrong. The key here is that whatever they decide to do, these are people's guesses of how they should accomplish the objective of WINNING. Many of these ideas will turn out to be wrong.

exactly... speaking of, I have actually played in (very rare) games in which the AI was so good that in lower difficulty settings it was programmed to intentionally make bad decisions, and the exact nature of those decisions depended on which race / faction / etc it played. hopefully this will one day be the case here in which case such "racial preferences" will be a great solution to nerfing it....
maybe include it already as a "very easy" option once the difficulty slider is implemented.

[Bartje]

 
That does not diminish the fact that strategy should be the foundation of its design philosophy.

This game deserves more than the - build a battleship as powerful as possible and win model.


It should for example be conceivable to use a faster fleet to destroy an enemy's forces locally, achieving (temporary) local superiority even though ship by ship they aren't superior. (sort of Guerillia warfare; weak, fast & many vs superior but overwhelmed)


Another example would be the use of certain ships with tremendous staying power (shielding) to serve as decoys and target while the DPS ships stay back. (artillery & shield)


And then there is the "Ship of the Line", just head right into battle like a tank sort of ship. (Tank / Ship of the Line)


Finally there is also a carrier type of ship that doesn't engage itself but lends smaller yet effective forces to the fight that don't hyperspace themselves. (harassment & attrition) 



Which strategy is better?

With the current AI / equipment setup, tanking, by far. As almost every ship is serving as lone tank. Slap the best weapon on and your set.


A requirement for these (relatively simple) strategies to work is a somewhat more intelligent planning AI as well as ships that work together in formations. (know your combat role!) 

If the AI starts using effective strategies, the player will need to cope. It won't be better ship = win, it will be better situational strategies = win.

I desire the latter, not the former.


But in the end, the strategy that should be followed depends on the situation, the enemy and more importantly your own empire.

Empire's shoudnt arbitrarily be forced in any direction, but it makes sense to use advantages and disadvantages. Especially if they are of your own making. (empire history)

This is a fundamental truth. [:D]

(Do what works best; lets try to make that situational and diverse in DW, not simply a matter of biggest gun, best armor, best ship)



If a race is predisposed to certain tech, there's a good chance it will be able to use them effectively in a strategy --> Unique navies & strategies.

Just like real life.

Or is it, [;)]

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: taltamir

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

Let me just keep it simple then and answer this question, as it is the only one I feel needs to be answered.

Because I prefer not to have 20 cookie cutter races, and 20 cookie cutter navies made up of identical ships.

I want diversity and uniqueness. Just like I want each race to be different, I want each race's ships to be different. I also want each ship roles/chassis to be different from each other.

[Wicky]

Well what Taltamir wants to say is, because 480 capacity vs the 140 of the Megatron means +342,8% increase, while the Megatron 1.5 regen vs 1.3regen means a 15,3% better regeneration.
And that's why he always wants us to use the Deucalios (?) Shield.

Strange, I have already seen the name of this shield a hundred times, but I still haven't learned if it is spelled Deucalios or Deucalitos !

However, the AI tends to send all it's forces when under attack, and that means couple of enemy ships will be arriving at a basis of each minute to attack.
It does make a difference when your shield is down from 14k to 8k when the next enemy wave arrives, and a simple math will prove that Megatron Z4 is better when you have to fight for 30 minutes.

[Nibelung44]

DW is still some light years from the complexity and interest of the SE4 and SE5 ship designs possibilities... where modders are able to script that this race prefer to use these components or these ships roles, etc. (Kzinti like carriers, Borgs like big badass heavy warships, the Empire too, while the Rebs like fast ships, these organics horrors have bio weapons, the WH40K navy like to board the enemy, etc. & whatever .. this was possible to give each race a real inclination in SE)

But with time, if Eliott works hard, he can achieve that too...

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: Nibelung44

DW is still some light years from the complexity and interest of the SE4 and SE5 ship designs possibilities... where modders are able to script that this race prefer to use these components or these ships roles, etc. (Kzinti like carriers, Borgs like big badass heavy warships, the Empire too, while the Rebs like fast ships, these organics horrors have bio weapons, the WH40K navy like to board the enemy, etc. & whatever .. this was possible to give each race a real inclination in SE)

But with time, if Eliott works hard, he can achieve that too...

Yeah, it's just a matter of coding and time (mostly time). All these additions are the 'Cadillac Option', stuff that can be added after all bugs have been exterminated. I'm just hoping Elliot is using a can of industrial strength RAID so we can get the Cadillac goodies sooner rather than later. [;)]

[Fishman]

ORIGINAL: Bartje

This game deserves more than the - build a battleship as powerful as possible and win model.

It should for example be conceivable to use a faster fleet to destroy an enemy's forces locally, achieving (temporary) local superiority even though ship by ship they aren't superior. (sort of Guerillia warfare; weak, fast & many vs superior but overwhelmed)

The more complicated you make the model, the harder it is going to be for the AI to get a handle on it, the more compelled you are to micromanage it, and the more annoying it gets. DW has a ridiculous number of ships operating in real-time on the entire map at once. You DON'T want to create a system where it becomes absolutely necessary to micromanage every ship just so it doesn't get stupidly destroyed.

ORIGINAL: Bartje

With the current AI / equipment setup, tanking, by far. As almost every ship is serving as lone tank. Slap the best weapon on and your set.

There is no AI that is going to be able to do complex tactics. If you make it so even the basic design of ships promotes the need to run them using complex tactics, the game will turn frustrating very fast as your ships run off and get stupidly killed the moment you aren't looking. The game really NEEDS a lightweight mechanic to be playable, since this is not Sins and you cannot sit around babysitting your fleet. If the complexity of the designs you can create exceeds what the AI can handle, the game falls apart.

[Bartje]

I'm not saying it needs to be much more complex.

Individual ships would need very little additions; it's mainly group / fleet behavior.

The introduction of fleet formations as well as pitched battles / intercepts.

The whole idea is that AI will manage on its own; your ships shoudn't be stupidly killed the minute you stop paying attention.


The extra layer we're talking about would require AI additions, yes. I'm not convinced they would be radical, overly complex or CPU breaking in the least however.

[Fishman]

I suspect you've never actually tried to do anything like this. There is no game in existence that actually can do such a thing, because for an AI to get units to behave in a tactically sensible manner and not stupidly get themselves killed is something that remains an unrealized goal. No game has such a thing.