1.0.9.8 "Fleet Template" Update

[Galaxy227]

OH. MY. GOD.

It is finally here ladies and gentlemen. I haven't touched Distant Worlds 2 since the day it launched because I found the inability to mix multiple hull types in fleet templates so extraordinarily stupid for a game encouraging ship design as much as Distant Worlds 2 does... But now finally we can, at least according to the list of changes on Steam. In addition, the list mentions "There are also now upgrade paths for ship designs," which I find especially interesting, considering there was nothing like this in DW:U.

I still might refrain from playing though, because the other major issue I had with the game at launch was the inability to queue orders for individual ships and fleets, something that was present in DW:U and absolutely necessary for full-manual play. Hopefully in the coming months this will be addressed, considering the DW2 roadmap posted last September outlined a plan to "Improve quality of life for manual players further," which included:

• Ship and fleet order queueing
• More detailed fleet template management by ship hull

Obviously this update only addresses the latter bullet point, but I am still more than pleased to hear things are finally coming along for us manual players. Again, I think I'll hold out a bit longer and wait to play until we have queues back. I just thought I would discuss the new update (currently a beta, but planned to release within the next week or two), because it is deserving of its own post.

Finally, I understand development is a messy, ugly, terrifying process, and I want to extend my full respect and patience to the DW2 team. Sure, I purchased the game nearly a year ago at this point, but I think I would've thrown money at this game years before it ever released simply because I am such a huge fan of what it tries to achieve conceptually. Keep up the good work Elliot and Erik!

[FlipsTheSlayer]

I'm currently waiting for queues as well, though I did end up getting excited a couple months ago and trying out the game. It's very fun and very promising, with loads of features I wish were in DWU. Ended up stopping my campaign after discovering Mordechai's XL mod (which requires a new campaign to use) but I'm right on the cusp of going back, especially after this recent update. Gonna hold out for a few more weeks just in case the next update adds fleet queueing. Might not be that lucky but here's hoping

[76mm]

Thanks for posting this, I hadn't seen it on Steam. This is an important change for me, so I'll take a look!

[maggiecow]

• Ship and fleet order queueing

I mean, play however you like but it feels like you're not taking advantage of the AI if you're having to micro to this extent. I won't say no if it gets implemented but I don't think I ever even used this in the original game.

Edit: oh yeah, big thumbs up to the fleet template change. Long overdue. You basically decide the game from the fleet template screen.

And while we're talking about QOL improvements, is the Galactopedia and/or Map searchable yet? The ship designer can be pretty obtuse when it comes to components and finding specific planets on the map is (was. hopefully) a PITA. I haven't played since, checks Steam..., middle of August.

[AKicebear]

And while we're talking about QOL improvements, is the Galactopedia and/or Map searchable yet? The ship designer can be pretty obtuse when it comes to components and finding specific planets on the map is (was. hopefully) a PITA. I haven't played since, checks Steam..., middle of August.

No, not searchable yet. It would also be nice if there were links within the UI, and between articles - quick jump from one to another on related topics.

Regarding order queues - also not a priority for me, as I think a "next idle ship/character" button that visually indicates would resolve that and improve the UI - 2 birds with one stone. I would know exactly when a manual ship is suddenly idle, and can issue orders then also. Personally I find it useful to play explorers on manual until the third or fourth warp drive - forces me to look at the galaxy and system maps more closely.

But I understand why someone would want the queue, if their play habit centered around it before. I probably sound the same with my incessant "next idle" button requests.

[Joram]

This might finally pull me off my Dwarf Fortress obsession.

[StormingKiwi]

• Ship and fleet order queueing

I mean, play however you like but it feels like you're not taking advantage of the AI if you're having to micro to this extent. I won't say no if it gets implemented but I don't think I ever even used this in the original game.

The problems with using the global queue are:
First in, first out, with no way of adjusting it, so reordering it is a PITA.
Inefficient allocation of ships to tasks. E.g. ships at far end of galaxy allocated to a task when there is a nearby ship that would complete its already allocated task, the task in question and the task after that before the ship actually assigned gets to the tasks location.

[AKicebear]

The problems with using the global queue are:
First in, first out, with no way of adjusting it, so reordering it is a PITA.
Inefficient allocation of ships to tasks. E.g. ships at far end of galaxy allocated to a task when there is a nearby ship that would complete its already allocated task, the task in question and the task after that before the ship actually assigned gets to the tasks location.

I agree with 2), but is it really first in, first out?

I use the global order queue when I'm lazy, but I find it more interesting to use it instead as a guide for targets I may want to set - and then do so manually with my various fleets.

[StormingKiwi]

The problems with using the global queue are:
First in, first out, with no way of adjusting it, so reordering it is a PITA.
Inefficient allocation of ships to tasks. E.g. ships at far end of galaxy allocated to a task when there is a nearby ship that would complete its already allocated task, the task in question and the task after that before the ship actually assigned gets to the tasks location.

I agree with 2), but is it really first in, first out?

I use the global order queue when I'm lazy, but I find it more interesting to use it instead as a guide for targets I may want to set - and then do so manually with my various fleets.

If I queue up multiple mining stations to be built, I have never noticed the construction order to be anything but the order I queued them up in. The one I ordered first gets constructed first, etc.

I have never noticed any other sorting and would expect that the high-level list is sorted in the order the orders were added, with any other difference in the order that fleets/ships are assigned to complete items of the list due to a validity check. e.g. Target A cannot be targeted because it is out of range or too strong.

Then again, 10 is still sequenced between 1 and 2, so anything could be possible.

[maggiecow]

• Ship and fleet order queueing

I mean, play however you like but it feels like you're not taking advantage of the AI if you're having to micro to this extent. I won't say no if it gets implemented but I don't think I ever even used this in the original game.

The problems with using the global queue are:
First in, first out, with no way of adjusting it, so reordering it is a PITA.
Inefficient allocation of ships to tasks. E.g. ships at far end of galaxy allocated to a task when there is a nearby ship that would complete its already allocated task, the task in question and the task after that before the ship actually assigned gets to the tasks location.

What is this "global queue" of which you speak? Just so I understand the exact issue.

I don't see how you can handle ORDERS in any way BUT FIFO because of the nature of linear time. It's pretty easy to cancel an order and reassign it anew, but, if I understand you correctly, you want the game AI to predict which ship nearest the goal destination will achieve that goal first, sorta ignoring the potential for pirate/monster attacks never mind what enemy AI gets up to. Doesn't seem practical but I feel like I'm not really understanding your issue so apologies if I'm over-simplifying.

[maggiecow]

This might finally pull me off my Dwarf Fortress obsession.

Browsing the patch notes over the past few (8) months I thought the same but it didn't happen and it doesn't look like it will any time soon judging from the problems that remain unaddressed.

Oh, this is also the explanation for the glacial pace of my replies. Just not enough going on here to interest me in the game right now. I'm sure an expansion will be along soon. Lol.

[StormingKiwi]

I mean, play however you like but it feels like you're not taking advantage of the AI if you're having to micro to this extent. I won't say no if it gets implemented but I don't think I ever even used this in the original game.

The problems with using the global queue are:
First in, first out, with no way of adjusting it, so reordering it is a PITA.
Inefficient allocation of ships to tasks. E.g. ships at far end of galaxy allocated to a task when there is a nearby ship that would complete its already allocated task, the task in question and the task after that before the ship actually assigned gets to the tasks location.

What is this "global queue" of which you speak? Just so I understand the exact issue.

I don't see how you can handle ORDERS in any way BUT FIFO because of the nature of linear time. It's pretty easy to cancel an order and reassign it anew, but, if I understand you correctly, you want the game AI to predict which ship nearest the goal destination will achieve that goal first, sorta ignoring the potential for pirate/monster attacks never mind what enemy AI gets up to. Doesn't seem practical but I feel like I'm not really understanding your issue so apologies if I'm over-simplifying.

The global queue = see construction ships and resources. You can assign a queue of 100 mining stations and 100 research bases etc., and your 10 construction ships will work through the list.

These are two separate issues. This is why they were each in their own line.

It's the REORDERING that is the problem. If I have a list of 10 attack orders, the only way to move number 10 to number 1 is to cancel 1 through 9, then reassign them afterwards. It is reasonable to want to change strategic priorities on the fly.
Yes, it's easy to cancel "an order" and reassign "an order", in order to move what was in position 2 to 1 and vice versa. If you are only putting two missions on that queue, then you are not using it to its full potential.

Inefficient allocation of ships to tasks: Yes, time is an important resource. My post was in response to one asking why would you want to avoid using the ship and fleet order queueing. My answer is to avoid unproductive time wasted travelling.
It's funny you mention "hostile attacks" - because the main place people notice this is when a fleet they need has its ships scattered everywhere because the AI has assigned a fleet construction order to any available shipyard, or realise an important fleet is impotent because a damaged ship was replaced with one across the galaxy. In the first example, it is more sensible to construct the whole fleet by clogging up one shipyard for relatively less time. In the second example, it is more sensible to leave the ship's position in the fleet vacant until the original ship is repaired.

That is not to mention the terribly superfluous or inappropriate assignment of fleets to missions I created a thread for. Which reminds me, I haven't opened that one in a few days.

[maggiecow]

The global queue = see construction ships and resources. You can assign a queue of 100 mining stations and 100 research bases etc., and your 10 construction ships will work through the list.

Well, you made me open the game for the first time in months. I see what you're saying but they could fix this in two ways. (a) Have the AI, on the fly, reassess every construction job and assign the nearest free, or soon to be free, ship, or (b) limit the number of jobs, because this seems like an outlier problem.

With dozens of construction ships and a potential hundred jobs (I'm taking your figure, I didn't realise it was that many) I don't know if (a) is feasible or not. I mean, sure, if it's possible then do that. I suspect there'd be no perfect algorithm though, especially in the early game when you can happen upon a fresh system and each newly surveyed planet is "better" than what's in your existing queue, so do your existing ships drop what they're doing and prioritise those or just work off whoever is closest? I mean, distance is a important (due to the linear nature of time) but if you look at a year or a decade of time, maybe moving to build a more distant mine will generate more resources.

And what about moving those resources? Do you prioritise mines closer to your bases?

Feels like an ideal system is going to be so smart it'll want to be playing a better game than DW2.

Can't say it wouldn't make sense to automatically run a quick job to re-prioritise who is assigned to open jobs each time you add a new one, rather than running it on the fly. I think including ships that are still on an existing job is a bit much though. The AI isn't psychic.

These are two separate issues. This is why they were each in their own line.

It's the REORDERING that is the problem. If I have a list of 10 attack orders, the only way to move number 10 to number 1 is to cancel 1 through 9, then reassign them afterwards. It is reasonable to want to change strategic priorities on the fly.
Yes, it's easy to cancel "an order" and reassign "an order", in order to move what was in position 2 to 1 and vice versa. If you are only putting two missions on that queue, then you are not using it to its full potential.

Inefficient allocation of ships to tasks: Yes, time is an important resource. My post was in response to one asking why would you want to avoid using the ship and fleet order queueing. My answer is to avoid unproductive time wasted travelling.
It's funny you mention "hostile attacks" - because the main place people notice this is when a fleet they need has its ships scattered everywhere because the AI has assigned a fleet construction order to any available shipyard, or realise an important fleet is impotent because a damaged ship was replaced with one across the galaxy. In the first example, it is more sensible to construct the whole fleet by clogging up one shipyard for relatively less time. In the second example, it is more sensible to leave the ship's position in the fleet vacant until the original ship is repaired.

That is not to mention the terribly superfluous or inappropriate assignment of fleets to missions I created a thread for. Which reminds me, I haven't opened that one in a few days.

I'm straight up lost here. There's fleet order queuing now? Where are attack orders listed? How do you queue fleet orders? Why would you even queue up ten attack orders for a fleet? I'm looking through my old game but can't see it.

I was following you on the building mines and research bases but didn't realise the game now let you queue 10 attack orders. How pointless.

(EDIT: found it. On the military tab, enemy targets. Damn. You play this game very differently to me. And I refer you to my original comment. You are making SO MUCH work for yourself. Design your fleets right and you shouldn't (and I mean SHOULDN'T, for the sake of your own sanity) need to micro like that. But, again, if that's how you want to play, you do you, but the game is designed around using the AI to do the heavy-lifting.)

I agree with you on the scattered fleets and how having one fill-in ship at the other side of the galaxy will totally FU your fleet orders. I tend to only reinforce fleets manually when they're due a retrofit and will be having some downtime, but even then getting landed with some slow, low-gen-tech captured ship as a fill-in messes up so much, not least re-fueling.

EDIT2: the game is easy, or at least it was last time I looked. I can't imagine the strain of micro-ing hundreds of fleets, stressfully juggling target priorities against an AI that plays like he wants to go back to his sandpit. 99% of players are optimising their, generally small, fleets, setting orders and particularly engagement ranges etc. and leaving the bulk of attack and defence to the AI while perhaps running a couple of invasion fleets. It's a lot simpler that way, and the game is built around it. Engagement range and disengagement rules to baby your fleet away from damage make it a lot more fun. Each to their own though.

[StormingKiwi]

The global queue = see construction ships and resources. You can assign a queue of 100 mining stations and 100 research bases etc., and your 10 construction ships will work through the list.

Well, you made me open the game for the first time in months.

This post you've replied to is explaining to you what the global queue is. It has been part of DW2 since release.

I see you are still lost.

The Global Queue allows you to say "I want to build a mining station here, here and here"
Then, automated construction ships pick up missions automatically.

As opposed to saying "I want this ship to achieve this", you say "I want this to happen", and leave the how to for the program to figure out.

Hope that explains for you.

It doesn't matter how short or long that queue is. It doesn't matter if it has 500 items or 5. The problem is that there is no ability to reorder the queue, so you are incentivised to keep it short enough for you to manage - which defeats the point.

Consider instead Steams wishlist. I can reorder that by dragging and dropping as well as typing a number into a textbox.

Ship allocation - this is a known class of mathematics problems.
"The AI is not psychic" - No it is not, and it does not need to be, just mathematically minded.
Construction time is a function of construction size/time and construction size. Travel time back to a spaceport (for resources) and to the new construction site is also a function of ship speed and distance.
It is an easy summation to calculate the time taken for each ship for each job.

The fundamental issue is that if the automation is naiively allocating the next available ship to the next job on the list, then a human player can do the allocation better (which is why normal manual ship order queuing is important - if the automation is going to screw things up because it is hopelessly naiive in its approach, then the human might as well take over).

Construction ships and bases to be constructed are the same as scattered fleets.

These are two separate issues. This is why they were each in their own line.

It's the REORDERING that is the problem. If I have a list of 10 attack orders, the only way to move number 10 to number 1 is to cancel 1 through 9, then reassign them afterwards. It is reasonable to want to change strategic priorities on the fly.
Yes, it's easy to cancel "an order" and reassign "an order", in order to move what was in position 2 to 1 and vice versa. If you are only putting two missions on that queue, then you are not using it to its full potential.

Inefficient allocation of ships to tasks: Yes, time is an important resource. My post was in response to one asking why would you want to avoid using the ship and fleet order queueing. My answer is to avoid unproductive time wasted travelling.
It's funny you mention "hostile attacks" - because the main place people notice this is when a fleet they need has its ships scattered everywhere because the AI has assigned a fleet construction order to any available shipyard, or realise an important fleet is impotent because a damaged ship was replaced with one across the galaxy. In the first example, it is more sensible to construct the whole fleet by clogging up one shipyard for relatively less time. In the second example, it is more sensible to leave the ship's position in the fleet vacant until the original ship is repaired.

That is not to mention the terribly superfluous or inappropriate assignment of fleets to missions I created a thread for. Which reminds me, I haven't opened that one in a few days.

I'm straight up lost here. There's fleet order queuing now? Where are attack orders listed? How do you queue fleet orders? Why would you even queue up ten attack orders for a fleet? I'm looking through my old game but can't see it.

I was following you on the building mines and research bases but didn't realise the game now let you queue 10 attack orders. How pointless.

I agree with you on the scattered fleets and how having one fill-in ship at the other side of the galaxy will totally FU your fleet orders. I tend to only reinforce fleets manually when they're due a retrofit and will be having some downtime, but even then getting landed with some slow, low-gen-tech captured ship as a fill-in messes up so much, not least re-fueling.

The game allows you to say "I want these 10 targets destroyed" by any fleet, and it should do the assignment not completely incompetently, not as you indicate, I want Fleet A to attack these 10 targets one after the other.

To find this, it's in the control panel under the military tab.

If you need help finding the control panel, use the manual, in-game tours, galactopedia, Scott's Guide etc.

[StormingKiwi]

Ah you edited.

Judging by the number of players and the number of people saying "I play Full Manual" or "Where is the actual game if the automation plays it for you?", I am pretty sceptical about the 99% claim.

I agree the automation should work. For players to rely on the automationas a tool, it has to make decent decisions. It does not. You probably don't pay any attention to most of the game. That's fine, you play your way.

My post explained why some players want better tools. Personally, I would prefer the existing tools worked better.

You only just learned of a fundamental part of the UI for any player actively playing the game instead of watching a movie. I'll take your suggestions about how I should and should not play accordingly.

[maggiecow]

Ah you edited.

Judging by the number of players and the number of people saying "I play Full Manual" or "Where is the actual game if the automation plays it for you?", I am pretty sceptical about the 99% claim.

I agree the automation should work. For players to rely on the automationas a tool, it has to make decent decisions. It does not. You probably don't pay any attention to most of the game. That's fine, you play your way.

My post explained why some players want better tools. Personally, I would prefer the existing tools worked better.

You only just learned of a fundamental part of the UI for any player actively playing the game instead of watching a movie. I'll take your suggestions about how I should and should not play accordingly.

I feel you're being pretty snippy for someone who would otherwise just be shouting into the void without me taking an interest.

I learned to play DW without automation and used it for chorework late game once I had the fundamentals down. I started playing DW2 without automation quite early on because the automation was badly broken. Now it's mostly fine.

Your problem is you're trying to play the game wrong. I'm not watching a movie, I'm commanding an empire using trained subordinates. You want to micro everything instead of learning how to use the automation. Seriously, it would solve most of your problems without actually addressing any of the stuff you want, because you want the wrong stuff.

Anyway, it doesn't feel like there's much constructive discussion to be had about this. You want tools to facilitate your bad decisions instead of learning the game as it actually is, and likely WILL BE going forward. You can learn to play the game or continue to be frustrated.

Peace out, honey!

[StormingKiwi]

Ah you edited.

Judging by the number of players and the number of people saying "I play Full Manual" or "Where is the actual game if the automation plays it for you?", I am pretty sceptical about the 99% claim.

I agree the automation should work. For players to rely on the automationas a tool, it has to make decent decisions. It does not. You probably don't pay any attention to most of the game. That's fine, you play your way.

My post explained why some players want better tools. Personally, I would prefer the existing tools worked better.

You only just learned of a fundamental part of the UI for any player actively playing the game instead of watching a movie. I'll take your suggestions about how I should and should not play accordingly.

I feel you're being pretty snippy for someone who would otherwise just be shouting into the void without me taking an interest.

I learned to play DW without automation and used it for chorework late game once I had the fundamentals down. I started playing DW2 without automation quite early on because the automation was badly broken. Now it's mostly fine.

Your problem is you're trying to play the game wrong. I'm not watching a movie, I'm commanding an empire using trained subordinates. You want to micro everything instead of learning how to use the automation. Seriously, it would solve most of your problems without actually addressing any of the stuff you want, because you want the wrong stuff.

Anyway, it doesn't feel like there's much constructive discussion to be had about this. You want tools to facilitate your bad decisions instead of learning the game as it actually is, and likely WILL BE going forward. You can learn to play the game or continue to be frustrated.

Peace out, honey!

Ahh, you managed to turn the arrogant, yet stubbornly ignorant jerk persona up a notch.

I have been a vocal advocate for improving delegated task automation gameplay.

There has been a bug since the release version where fleets will make suicidal attacks against targets that the automation (trained subordinates) settings indicates they should not make. E.g. On 1.5x overmatch policy, a 600 strength fleet attacks a 2000 strength target and gets wiped. Repeatedly. The automated ship construction builds ships to reinforce, those are destroyed too. The empire uses cash and resources and achieves nothing.

Now what is "my bad decision" of setting the attack policy to suggest, exactly? Is it actively paying attention to whether my "trained subordinates" are achieving their objectives? Or do you have some other suggestion of the "right" passive playstyle?

When the automation does function incompetently, yes, players do want to perform the task with some basic degree of competence.

Sure, you are not playing the game wrong. You haven't "played" in over 6 months. When you did "play", you weren't interacting with the game, and you were not paying attention to the game. I don't see how this constitutes a verb with such an active connotation as playing or why you would have bothered purchasing the game when you can just close your eyes and imagine.

Was "my bad decision" that I did not do as you used to do and set my computer up to play Distant Worlds 2 by itself while I do something else somewhere else?

Funnily enough, I am not frustrated. I have taken the time to learn which automation functions competently and can be trusted, and which automation does not and cannot, and use them accordingly.

However, you and I do agree, there is nothing constructive to be had here. You seem assured you have mastered everything about the topic you queried and yet have only demonstrated knowledge below entry-level. Your learning is complete. As the question you asked has been adequately answered, I will move onto more valuable and worthwhile conversations.

Enjoy your next session of Distant Worlds 2.

[Erik Rutins]

Ahh, you managed to turn the arrogant, yet stubbornly ignorant jerk persona up a notch.

<snip>

Sure, you are not playing the game wrong. You haven't "played" in over 6 months. When you did "play", you weren't interacting with the game, and you were not paying attention to the game. I don't see how this constitutes a verb with such an active connotation as playing or why you would have bothered purchasing the game when you can just close your eyes and imagine.

<snip>

However, you and I do agree, there is nothing constructive to be had here. You seem assured you have mastered everything about the topic you queried and yet have only demonstrated knowledge below entry-level. Your learning is complete. As the question you asked has been adequately answered, I will move onto more valuable and worthwhile conversations.

Ok, in case it wasn't clear enough from the last thread, personal insults and belittling other community members is against the forum rules. You can disagree without getting personal and you can keep things civil.

Yes, many playstyle choices are valid and allowed in DW2, from fully automated to fully manual and those choices will result in very different feedback.

Consider this an official warning.

Regards,

- Erik