Suggested improvements to Ship Design and Fleet Management

[dostillevi]

Yeah I'm warming up to the idea of using name as an intermediate solution, but I'd still like to see the limited automatic upgrade capability applied to ships with specialized roles, while the generic automatic upgrade that adds and removes components should still exist somehow for players who don't want to manage their own designs. I feel like this would be easier to handle with roles, but I could see it also being done with names and an additional automation selection option (automation, limited automation, manual), on the ship type screen.

Even so, the name itself and other attributes like creation date and version should be stored in separate strings for either method to work well.

[dostillevi]

I think I understand what you're trying to achieve, but roles are generally tactical at unit level. You may find exceptions in the naming of real-world examples (e.g. strategic nuclear submarines), but in most scenarios you would have say, an air defence destroyer, or a frigate, or a missile cruiser, or a battleship, that have loosely defined tactical roles. You may also have patrol craft to fulfil a wider scope of requirements, but again - by exception. Defining a "strategic role" for a ship is counter-intuitive to the way that most people would interpret strategy and tactics.

Fleet definitions on the other hand, can be strategic in scope.

I think this could be achieved by defining a fleet with a specific set of ships that contain the capabilities you want, like long-range, high speed but lightly armed patrol craft, or troop transports and accompanying ships with disabling weapons.

The issue with fleet definitions is that unfortunately, at the moment, player-defined custom ships have to be manually upgraded and we're limited in assigning specific ship types (e.g. fast destroyers) over just the best destroyers in a fleet - unless you want to constantly, manually update the design and re-define the fleet.

Could we not accomplish the same thing by allowing player-defined ships to co-exist (and, hopefully, be upgraded) with auto-generated designs, and allowing custom designs (and their upgraded designs) to be assigned to fleets, instead? There might be a need to improve the fleet tactics options as well, but it would save reinventing the wheel and adding another layer of confusing complexity.

I think the main difference between the real world and this game is that in the real world, every ship hull is fully customized to the role it's used in. You don't typically start with the same hull, and then change the engine and weapons to make one version that's a coastal patrol ship and another that's a deep ocean sub hunter - they'd have completely separate designs. We can't do that in this game, so the next best thing is to start with one hull (destroyer) and customize it for the specific strategic roles we want it to fulfill. It's not a perfect analogy to the real world, by design.

My reply and second idea about component bays gives a bit more flexibility to ship design too, so the concept of "fast destroyer" would disappear from the tech tree and be replaced with tech that increases the flexibility of components that can be installed on a given hull. Then, OOTB strategic roles for the destroyer hull would accomplish what the specialized hulls do now, and much more.

With all this in place, the ship type is basically a weight class and visual design - it's a hull that can accommodate any number of component configurations and server in many roles, but the overall capacity of the hull limits the total amount of components on it. A hull also might completely exclude some components, like a destroyer might never be able to mount a hanger component.

The challenge with player designed ship automation is that the automation can't understand what the strategic role of the ship is meant to be. A ship that is tactically designed to board, for example, needs boarding components, but that tactical role might be performed in two different strategic scopes with different requirements - one ship might be for system use only and used for defense (small fuel reserves, lower quality warp, more armor, more guns/boarding, maybe more energy collection), and the other might be used for deep space or fleet engagements (larger fuel reserves, highest quality warp, no energy collection). The AI automation is never going to be smart enough to recognize player defined strategic roles and make smart upgrades accordingly. But what it could do is direct component upgrades, leaving more significant and less frequent changes to the player.

[MichaelJ007]

WRT to FLEET TEMPLATES
A template based on HULL + DESIGN NAME would work for me, if the template supported adding/removing line items. The game is already very good at string parsing, and the fleet retrofit is good at sticking to the specified designs. The part which has to be considered carefully is that if your fleet template were to include 10 StandOff destroyers and 10 CloseIn Destroyers, should you change the template from 10/10 to 15/5 or 12/8, the retrofit functionality should be able to do the appropriate balancing without getting confused, as well as if you were to expand the number of ships and order reinforcements.

WRT to HULL CUSTOMISATION
I like the concept used in some games where each hull would consist of a set of modules (NOSE, BODY, TAIL) which would allow you make up a custom combination. E.g., if you wanted a Hammerhead+Carrier+Fast vs Command+Broadside+Maneuvrable layout. The carrier module would have extra hangar bays, and the broadside module would give you extra large turret hardpoints. A Command module might allow for more sensor bays, while a hammerhead module would allow for more forward facing turret hardpoints.

Not sure whether aiming for all of that is worth it, as the game at the moment does have a lot of options for bays.

[Kielm]

...
the next best thing is to start with one hull (destroyer) and customize it for the specific strategic roles we want it to fulfill.
...
component bays gives a bit more flexibility to ship design too, so the concept of "fast destroyer" would disappear from the tech tree and be replaced with tech that increases the flexibility of components that can be installed on a given hull. Then, OOTB strategic roles for the destroyer hull would accomplish what the specialized hulls do now, and much more.

With all this in place, the ship type is basically a weight class and visual design - it's a hull that can accommodate any number of component configurations and server in many roles, but the overall capacity of the hull limits the total amount of components on it.
...
The challenge with player designed ship automation is that the automation can't understand what the strategic role of the ship is meant to be. A ship that is tactically designed to board, for example, needs boarding components, but that tactical role might be performed in two different strategic scopes with different requirements - one ship might be for system use only and used for defense (small fuel reserves, lower quality warp, more armor, more guns/boarding, maybe more energy collection), and the other might be used for deep space or fleet engagements (larger fuel reserves, highest quality warp, no energy collection). The AI automation is never going to be smart enough to recognize player defined strategic roles and make smart upgrades accordingly. But what it could do is direct component upgrades, leaving more significant and less frequent changes to the player.

Okay, what you're proposing is a system very much akin to Distant Worlds: Universe. Empty hull sizes (but improvable, with research) that can be filled with stuff, provided the ship's role requirements (engines, weapons, construction equipment etc) are met for the ship. Possibly with the addition of 'bays'. Variants could be designed for different tactics or environments, I think I'm with you so far.


So, here's what I would like to be able to do:

• Have player-made designs persist when new technology is created (and even auto-upgraded).
• Have a simple mechanism to include that variant (and it's upgraded 'children') in fleets

That would allow me (and you), in combination with fleet & ship tactics, to create a system patrol ship variant (with more armor, less fuel etc as you say), with a short engagement range, preferring close combat etc, and park it somewhere to do it's job. Or a long-range variant of the same hull with slightly different components, in a different fleet with different tactics.

What I'm struggling with, is this concept of a 'strategic role' for a ship. If you mean just 'ship role' then great. DW:U handled it just like that, simply recording the name, ship role (e.g. frigate) and adding Mk2 etc to upgraded versions. You could have multiple, slightly different variants if you wanted. If you want the ship designer from DW:U back then fair enough; 'Bays' seems like a compromise between what we have now and what DW:U let you add (i.e. pretty much anything), I don't honestly know if I'd prefer that.


Excluding the ship designer changes, a lot of this could be accomplished with some improvements to the way designs & variants are handled, upgraded and included in fleets. I think that would be a safe addition, but I'm unsure about going back to the old ship designer.


FWIW Automation can definitely understand the ship role, as DW:U did, but it's not good at identifying what's different about variants and upgrading them, which means - like DW:U - ship upgrading for these variants would likely be an entirely manual process. Moving to a "fill an empty hull with stuff or bays" approach is also plagued with automation problems, which DW:U suffered with greatly; the ships worked, but weren't particularly good. Reading between the lines; this approach would mean players would be required to learn how to design (and, repeatedly upgrade, because automation can't) ships as per DW:U. It's not quick, is a very manual process and can be off-putting. The AI can do a simple pass at upgrading components that have upgrades, but that needs to be done every time a component research finishes, and won't include new components, or new types of components.


I don't want to nitpick but your chosen use of terminology is strange to me; if we're talking about similar ships with different capabilities but a mostly similar hull then we're talking about variants that may be operating in different environments e.g:

• My strategy is to dominate x region of space and deny the enemy's use of it through the use of locally placed system patrol ships
• The ship tactics will be to close in quickly, using close-range weapons and heavy armor to outlast the enemy
• I will use a variant of a heavy destroyer with less fuel tanks, more energy collection, more engines and no long-range weapons to operate in this environment

[dostillevi]

So, here's what I would like to be able to do:

• Have player-made designs persist when new technology is created (and even auto-upgraded).
• Have a simple mechanism to include that variant (and it's upgraded 'children') in fleets

That would allow me (and you), in combination with fleet & ship tactics, to create a system patrol ship variant (with more armor, less fuel etc as you say), with a short engagement range, preferring close combat etc, and park it somewhere to do it's job. Or a long-range variant of the same hull with slightly different components, in a different fleet with different tactics.

Thank you for summing it up so well. I'd love to see exactly that, I'm just very wordy

What I'm struggling with, is this concept of a 'strategic role' for a ship. If you mean just 'ship role' then great. DW:U handled it just like that, simply recording the name, ship role (e.g. frigate) and adding Mk2 etc to upgraded versions. You could have multiple, slightly different variants if you wanted. If you want the ship designer from DW:U back then fair enough; 'Bays' seems like a compromise between what we have now and what DW:U let you add (i.e. pretty much anything), I don't honestly know if I'd prefer that.

Ah I see, I was trying to use Strategic Roles as a way to contrast with the roles that are already in the game - roles that tell the ship how to behave when in combat, such as "picket". Strategic might not have been the best word, but I didn't really have a good term for it. In the example I gave before, the role (tactical role) of the boarding ship would be to board, while the strategic role would be the context within which it's doing the boarding (in the context of defending one system, or in a large, long range fleet, for example). I did like the old DW:U ship designer, so I am indeed trying to find a middle ground that also makes sense within the context of 3d models and having that model at least somewhat reflect the capabilities of the ship.

Excluding the ship designer changes, a lot of this could be accomplished with some improvements to the way designs & variants are handled, upgraded and included in fleets. I think that would be a safe addition, but I'm unsure about going back to the old ship designer.

Agreed, I don't think the old way has a place in DW 2.

FWIW Automation can definitely understand the ship role, as DW:U did, but it's not good at identifying what's different about variants and upgrading them, which means - like DW:U - ship upgrading for these variants would likely be an entirely manual process. Moving to a "fill an empty hull with stuff or bays" approach is also plagued with automation problems, which DW:U suffered with greatly; the ships worked, but weren't particularly good. Reading between the lines; this approach would mean players would be required to learn how to design (and, repeatedly upgrade, because automation can't) ships as per DW:U. It's not quick, is a very manual process and can be off-putting. The AI can do a simple pass at upgrading components that have upgrades, but that needs to be done every time a component research finishes, and won't include new components, or new types of components.

Yeah I was trying to find a middle ground, where components that are direct upgrades of older components are part of limited automatic upgrades, but other changes like changing the type of weapon would require the player's intervention. You've pretty much nailed what I think is possible. I did have another crazy idea... more on that later...

I don't want to nitpick but your chosen use of terminology is strange to me; if we're talking about similar ships with different capabilities but a mostly similar hull then we're talking about variants that may be operating in different environments e.g:

• My strategy is to dominate x region of space and deny the enemy's use of it through the use of locally placed system patrol ships
• The ship tactics will be to close in quickly, using close-range weapons and heavy armor to outlast the enemy
• I will use a variant of a heavy destroyer with less fuel tanks, more energy collection, more engines and no long-range weapons to operate in this environment

Yup I'm fine with variants. That works well too.

Ok so here's my crazy idea.. what if there was a multiplayer component to the game. This wouldn't be traditional multiplayer, but it would be a detailed compendium of statistics. It would be designed to hoover up information about player designed ships, player designed fleets, and a lot of the behaviors that a player would do manually with those ships and fleets, and it would tie all that information together and track the performance of those things and the overall success of players using different designs and strategies. Then, and here's the cool part, since the AI uses the same capabilities that the player has access to, the AI could adopt some of those successful ship and fleet designs and behaviors into it's own logic in individual single player games, and the recommended ship and fleet designs available to players could be informed by this repository as well. Or if you wanted to keep it simple, players could simply browse and vote for designs and strategies they liked. With regard to upgrade paths, the repository would track those as well, and use the aggregate experiences of the player base to intelligently build ship upgrade paths for player designed variants, without any direct design input from devs.