Aurora 4x
C# Aurora => General Discussion => Topic started by: Stormtrooper on February 03, 2021, 09:44:03 AM
-
So far the Invaders weren't that scary... Except this time they brought over a dozen ships with dozens of 24 dmg lasers and a few 54 dmg... My missiles couldn't get through because the fleet was large enough to have many gauss cannons (plus those lasers being used for anti-missile stuff while not busy firing at my ships too) and laser firefight would've ended in a distaster so I tried to escape.
Except the only ships that made it out of the system were my laser assault ships, simply because they were faster than Invaders.
Is it how it has to be? Does it mean that unless the difference in speed is small enough at a distance short enough for it to mean anything, all of slower-than-enemy ships are meant to die no matter what if you lack the capability to win and decide to flee?
-
Yes.
Welcome to the fate of Infantry through the ages, if you can't win and run away you get cut down by the cavalry. If the enemy has enough firepower that you cannot win a fight and enough speed you can't run away then there is no way you are going to survive its that simple.
-
So far the Invaders weren't that scary... Except this time they brought over a dozen ships with dozens of 24 dmg lasers and a few 54 dmg... My missiles couldn't get through because the fleet was large enough to have many gauss cannons (plus those lasers being used for anti-missile stuff while not busy firing at my ships too) and laser firefight would've ended in a distaster so I tried to escape.
Except the only ships that made it out of the system were my laser assault ships, simply because they were faster than Invaders.
Is it how it has to be? Does it mean that unless the difference in speed is small enough at a distance short enough for it to mean anything, all of slower-than-enemy ships are meant to die no matter what if you lack the capability to win and decide to flee?
One issue at the moment is that AI probably don't suffer weapons failures so they can effectively fire at you indefinitely. Otherwise there could be a chance to escape through attrition to some extent... they are out of ammunition and would have to retreat too... but I don't think the AI ever suffer from this.
I do think that Steve would like for MSP to effect AI at some point but it currently don't... only fuel is in issue for the AI.
The only real defence you have when fighting a technologically superior opponent is stealth, so you must use fighters or FAC to engage them and keep your carriers and support ships hidden from their sensors.
-
I wouldn't view it as that simple, because stuff like hiding, splitting forces to deceive enemy and reduce casualties, using terrain features (not applicable for spaceships but I very aplicable for infantry running away from cavalry).
I tried turning off shields and sensors to reduce detection range or splitting forces, but even if I could deceive enemy to change course it'd still run after ships I cared the most aka missile cruisers. Nothing worked.
-
So far the Invaders weren't that scary... Except this time they brought over a dozen ships with dozens of 24 dmg lasers and a few 54 dmg... My missiles couldn't get through because the fleet was large enough to have many gauss cannons (plus those lasers being used for anti-missile stuff while not busy firing at my ships too) and laser firefight would've ended in a distaster so I tried to escape.
Except the only ships that made it out of the system were my laser assault ships, simply because they were faster than Invaders.
Is it how it has to be? Does it mean that unless the difference in speed is small enough at a distance short enough for it to mean anything, all of slower-than-enemy ships are meant to die no matter what if you lack the capability to win and decide to flee?
One issue at the moment is that AI probably don't suffer weapons failures so they can effectively fire at you indefinitely. Otherwise there could be a chance to escape through attrition to some extent... they are out of ammunition and would have to retreat too... but I don't think the AI ever suffer from this.
I do think that Steve would like for MSP to effect AI at some point but it currently don't... only fuel is in issue for the AI.
The only real defence you have when fighting a technologically superior opponent is stealth, so you must use fighters or FAC to engage them and keep your carriers and support ships hidden from their sensors.
I doubt 1% chance of failure with each shot for literally hundreds of lasers they had would make any difference. I don't see why he'd bother with it, it is really insignificant. I don't see how I'd have survived if for every 100 shots one wouldn't land.
-
I wouldn't view it as that simple, because stuff like hiding, splitting forces to deceive enemy and reduce casualties, using terrain features (not applicable for spaceships but I very aplicable for infantry running away from cavalry).
I tried turning off shields and sensors to reduce detection range or splitting forces, but even if I could deceive enemy to change course it'd still run after ships I cared the most aka missile cruisers. Nothing worked.
The only thing you can do is use carriers... they can stay far out of the enemy sensors and you can design your fighters to be faster than the enemy (at least most of the time). That or simply overcharge your engines to such a degree you can outrun them, those are the only real choices.
I would like a hyper-drive mechanics in the game so that we could potentially fleet from hostile situations... something that is impossible to track while engaged... you should only get to know the trajectory not the destination in the system. Could be a system even using a different type of fuel or something and only for military designs. Should take long enough to engage that you can't just instantly jump from a threat and large enough to not fit on really small ships.
-
So far the Invaders weren't that scary... Except this time they brought over a dozen ships with dozens of 24 dmg lasers and a few 54 dmg... My missiles couldn't get through because the fleet was large enough to have many gauss cannons (plus those lasers being used for anti-missile stuff while not busy firing at my ships too) and laser firefight would've ended in a distaster so I tried to escape.
Except the only ships that made it out of the system were my laser assault ships, simply because they were faster than Invaders.
Is it how it has to be? Does it mean that unless the difference in speed is small enough at a distance short enough for it to mean anything, all of slower-than-enemy ships are meant to die no matter what if you lack the capability to win and decide to flee?
One issue at the moment is that AI probably don't suffer weapons failures so they can effectively fire at you indefinitely. Otherwise there could be a chance to escape through attrition to some extent... they are out of ammunition and would have to retreat too... but I don't think the AI ever suffer from this.
I do think that Steve would like for MSP to effect AI at some point but it currently don't... only fuel is in issue for the AI.
The only real defence you have when fighting a technologically superior opponent is stealth, so you must use fighters or FAC to engage them and keep your carriers and support ships hidden from their sensors.
I doubt 1% chance of failure with each shot for literally hundreds of lasers they had would make any difference. I don't see why he'd bother with it, it is really insignificant. I don't see how I'd have survived if for every 100 shots one wouldn't land.
Not in this specific case... I don't think it would be designed for extremely unmatched occasions... ;)
On the other hand... if you have enough beam weapons on your ships the AI would need to try and stay at a distance where their chances to hit are much lower and they do much less damage, then it would matter allot.
It have many other implication as AI ships would suffer maintenace failures in the same way player ships are, currently they don't.
-
I wouldn't view it as that simple, because stuff like hiding, splitting forces to deceive enemy and reduce casualties, using terrain features (not applicable for spaceships but I very aplicable for infantry running away from cavalry).
I tried turning off shields and sensors to reduce detection range or splitting forces, but even if I could deceive enemy to change course it'd still run after ships I cared the most aka missile cruisers. Nothing worked.
The only thing you can do is use carriers... they can stay far out of the enemy sensors and you can design your fighters to be faster than the enemy (at least most of the time). That or simply overcharge your engines to such a degree you can outrun them, those are the only real choices.
I would like a hyper-drive mechanics in the game so that we could potentially fleet from hostile situations... something that is impossible to track while engaged... you should only get to know the trajectory not the destination in the system. Could be a system even using a different type of fuel or something and only for military designs. Should take long enough to engage that you can't just instantly jump from a threat and large enough to not fit on really small ships.
If you would like to know how Hyperdrives/Engine Overcharge worked last time and why it got removed, dig a little around in the forum :)
-
If you would like to know how Hyperdrives/Engine Overcharge worked last time and why it got removed, dig a little around in the forum :)
I know how that worked and I would like something completely different for a different reason, there have been many discussions here over the years for some form of mechanic to escape uneven encounters. It is really difficult to balance them with too much or too little to work well, I know this. I still would like some such mechanic.
It work pretty well in a game like say Distant Worlds, fights still happen. Sure it is a very different game but they also share allot of similarities.
-
- What about a Jump Range Mechanic? Maybe have it be a function of squadron jump distance? Perhaps a "Short Jump Drive" which is like a regular drive, but smaller and single ship only, where instead of Squadron Size and Squadron Jump Radius it's just "Assault Radius" and "Retreat Radius" with one being effectively the same as Squadron Jump Radius sans the squadron and the other being unique to the Short Jump Drive in that it can be used to jump through a Jump Point from farther away?
-
If you would like to know how Hyperdrives/Engine Overcharge worked last time and why it got removed, dig a little around in the forum :)
I know how that worked and I would like something completely different for a different reason, there have been many discussions here over the years for some form of mechanic to escape uneven encounters. It is really difficult to balance them with too much or too little to work well, I know this. I still would like some such mechanic.
It work pretty well in a game like say Distant Worlds, fights still happen. Sure it is a very different game but they also share allot of similarities.
Personally I hate the "jump in and out" bullsmeg that plagues DW battles. If you want to be able to retreat, you should earn that opportunity by scouting ahead and not committing! And conversely, if your enemy successfully denies you that opportunity, they should be rewarded for it.
The issue with a speed based model in a terrain free environment is what Stormtrooper was getting at; if you are faster you can always get away and if you are slower you never can. If acceleration was a thing, things might be more interesting (see Honorverse battles and, in particular, the aftermath of First Hancock as well as the opening moves of Fourth? Grayson).
EDIT: for reference, 1st Hancock was in Short Victorious War and 4th Grayson was in Flag in Exile.
-
If you would like to know how Hyperdrives/Engine Overcharge worked last time and why it got removed, dig a little around in the forum :)
I know how that worked and I would like something completely different for a different reason, there have been many discussions here over the years for some form of mechanic to escape uneven encounters. It is really difficult to balance them with too much or too little to work well, I know this. I still would like some such mechanic.
It work pretty well in a game like say Distant Worlds, fights still happen. Sure it is a very different game but they also share allot of similarities.
Personally I hate the "jump in and out" bullsmeg that plagues DW battles. If you want to be able to retreat, you should earn that opportunity by scouting ahead and not committing! And conversely, if your enemy successfully denies you that opportunity, they should be rewarded for it.
The issue with a speed based model in a terrain free environment is what Stormtrooper was getting at; if you are faster you can always get away and if you are slower you never can. If acceleration was a thing, things might be more interesting (see Honorverse battles and, in particular, the aftermath of First Hancock as well as the opening moves of Fourth? Grayson).
EDIT: for reference, 1st Hancock was in Short Victorious War and 4th Grayson was in Flag in Exile.
I can respect that view although I don't agree with it. I think you could just ignore it and perhaps make it optional as I do think it could be a love hate thing.
I think it add depth... scouting is still as important but it reduce the immediate effect of technology and the rather analogue nature of speed in engagements.
-
If you would like to know how Hyperdrives/Engine Overcharge worked last time and why it got removed, dig a little around in the forum :)
I know how that worked and I would like something completely different for a different reason, there have been many discussions here over the years for some form of mechanic to escape uneven encounters. It is really difficult to balance them with too much or too little to work well, I know this. I still would like some such mechanic.
It work pretty well in a game like say Distant Worlds, fights still happen. Sure it is a very different game but they also share allot of similarities.
Personally I hate the "jump in and out" bullsmeg that plagues DW battles. If you want to be able to retreat, you should earn that opportunity by scouting ahead and not committing! And conversely, if your enemy successfully denies you that opportunity, they should be rewarded for it.
The issue with a speed based model in a terrain free environment is what Stormtrooper was getting at; if you are faster you can always get away and if you are slower you never can. If acceleration was a thing, things might be more interesting (see Honorverse battles and, in particular, the aftermath of First Hancock as well as the opening moves of Fourth? Grayson).
EDIT: for reference, 1st Hancock was in Short Victorious War and 4th Grayson was in Flag in Exile.
I can respect that view although I don't agree with it. I think you could just ignore it and perhaps make it optional as I do think it could be a love hate thing.
I think it add depth... scouting is still as important but it reduce the immediate effect of technology and the rather analogue nature of speed in engagements.
That's the thing. The jump out capability in DW (and Stellaris, for that matter) is a cushion for when you screwed up. It REDUCES depth, because the effects of your accomplishments/enemy mistakes are mitigated.
-
- What about a Jump Range Mechanic? Maybe have it be a function of squadron jump distance? Perhaps a "Short Jump Drive" which is like a regular drive, but smaller and single ship only, where instead of Squadron Size and Squadron Jump Radius it's just "Assault Radius" and "Retreat Radius" with one being effectively the same as Squadron Jump Radius sans the squadron and the other being unique to the Short Jump Drive in that it can be used to jump through a Jump Point from farther away?
Well, the distance would need to be big enough to matter... so, long enough to escape enemy active scanning range most of the time.
I could also see it as a function of the jump drives so you jump a squadron that way. The distance should be quite far but you should be able to sett the distance (and vector) and then it will be somewhat random distance and vector based on that, each squadron in a fleet could potentially end up in different places. You would essentially open up a micro wormhole and instantly travel to a point perhaps a few hundred million to a billion or two km away, depending on technology. It might start a 50 million km at low tech and go up from there to a few billion at the highest tech. Time to initiate the jum could be a function of technilogy and size of the ships jumping. Larger ship and it takes longer time.
You should be effected by jump shock as normal as well.
The time to initiate a jump need to be at least like 20-60 minutes or so as to not be too abusive... if you are surprised you are not likely to escape before being attacked at least one time from a large missile strike or a long series of missiles strikes from rapid firing launchers. If you are caught in beam combat it will be a bad day... but in most situations you should be able to jump away from a threat if far enough away.
While the drives are spinning up your ships can't move at all.
There probably are many different issues with such an idea but it might have some merits. It is still expensive to cover all ships in a fleet with jump capable ships, so it is a pretty expensive overhead and you might not always use it either. You also would have to pay extra for this capability and it's range. So both expensive to research and build as well as taking extra space on the ship.
It should only be a function of military jump-drives and not commercials as they are not accurate enough. Covering a support force with such drives would thus be expensive. Every such jump could also be a high chance for a maintenance failure on the engine (also based on technology) which could make such jumps both expensive and limited in use.
On a different note this mechanic could also be used offensively by beam fleets to drop in very close to an enemy fleet by proper scouting and surprise them really good. Sure you are likely to end up millions of km from the enemy fleet, but still that can be quite scary. ;)
So it could be an asset for every beam fleet out there...
-
That's the thing. The jump out capability in DW (and Stellaris, for that matter) is a cushion for when you screwed up. It REDUCES depth, because the effects of your accomplishments/enemy mistakes are mitigated.
We just have to agree to disagree... I think that is the easiest way. ;)
-
- What about a Jump Range Mechanic? Maybe have it be a function of squadron jump distance? Perhaps a "Short Jump Drive" which is like a regular drive, but smaller and single ship only, where instead of Squadron Size and Squadron Jump Radius it's just "Assault Radius" and "Retreat Radius" with one being effectively the same as Squadron Jump Radius sans the squadron and the other being unique to the Short Jump Drive in that it can be used to jump through a Jump Point from farther away?
Well, the distance would need to be big enough to matter... so, long enough to escape enemy active scanning range most of the time.
I could also see it as a function of the jump drives so you jump a squadron that way. The distance should be quite far but you should be able to sett the distance (and vector) and then it will be somewhat random distance and vector based on that, each squadron in a fleet could potentially end up in different places. You would essentially open up a micro wormhole and instantly travel to a point perhaps a few hundred million to a billion or two km away, depending on technology. It might start a 50 million km at low tech and go up from there to a few billion at the highest tech. Time to initiate the jum could be a function of technilogy and size of the ships jumping. Larger ship and it takes longer time.
You should be effected by jump shock as normal as well.
The time to initiate a jump need to be at least like 20-60 minutes or so as to not be too abusive... if you are surprised you are not likely to escape before being attacked at least one time from a large missile strike or a long series of missiles strikes from rapid firing launchers. If you are caught in beam combat it will be a bad day... but in most situations you should be able to jump away from a threat if far enough away.
While the drives are spinning up your ships can't move at all.
There probably are many different issues with such an idea but it might have some merits. It is still expensive to cover all ships in a fleet with jump capable ships, so it is a pretty expensive overhead and you might not always use it either. You also would have to pay extra for this capability and it's range. So both expensive to research and build as well as taking extra space on the ship.
It should only be a function of military jump-drives and not commercials as they are not accurate enough. Covering a support force with such drives would thus be expensive. Every such jump could also be a high chance for a maintenance failure on the engine (also based on technology) which could make such jumps both expensive and limited in use.
On a different note this mechanic could also be used offensively by beam fleets to drop in very close to an enemy fleet by proper scouting and surprise them really good. Sure you are likely to end up millions of km from the enemy fleet, but still that can be quite scary. ;)
So it could be an asset for every beam fleet out there...
- I think in hindsight the term "Short-Jump Drive" is a bit of a crap name, rather they should be called "Long-Jump Drives" instead. :)
- I like the "spin-up" mechanic, but think it might be better to tie it to jump range rather than ship size. I also think that it should affect Jump Shock instead of being a separate "spin-up", with the delay a function of said Jump Shock. The "Assault" and "Escape" ranges would be separate fields and I think that by tying it to the "Assault" range only would be ideal. So an offensively orientated drive would make a worse drive if all you want is a retreat function due to having a long cool-down between when you jump in and when you can both start shooting & jump out.
- I do not like the idea of allowing squadron jumps with these, however, as I think that's a little to OP. The idea of these "Long-Jump Drives" is to be a smaller and more specialized form of the regular Jump Drive. They'd be smaller to allow you to fit them onto ships more easily, but you trade away the squadron jump ability for it. So you are more or less given the choice of maximizing mission tonnage by using the normal Jump Drives and their Squadron Jump feature, or using the new drives to gain the ability to jump away and/or jump deep into enemy territory, but needing to mount one on every ship you want to do it with.
- As well, I think a Commercial version would be good as well. The Commercial "Long-Jump Drive" would lack the "Assault" option, and instead would rely on a Standard Transits, but also have the "Escape" function as well. It's important to stress that both of these would be not only self-jump only, but also be much smaller than a standard Jump Drive of the same variant for any given tonnage. Lore-wise, the concept would be that the Long-Jump Drive propels the ship through the wormhole more powerfully, but cannot stabilize more than it's own space in return. Likewise the Long-Jump Drive takes long to shake off the effects of such a violent jump, but also retains a form of temporal imprint that allows it to return through the Jump Point it came out of from a greater distance. Jumping through a new Jump Point resets this "imprint" and the 'Escape' function essentially only works if you go out the way you came in.
-
In general the idea is good... but he opportunity cost of putting a jump-drive on every ship is simply too expensive unless you use very high tech. It would turn the mechanic a bit too niche.
-
In general the idea is good... but he opportunity cost of putting a jump-drive on every ship is simply too expensive unless you use very high tech. It would turn the mechanic a bit too niche.
- Even if those drives were say, half the size of a standard Jump Drive? That turns a Jump Efficiency of into a Jump Efficiency of 8 for the purposes of a Long-Jump Drive. If it's only 75% as big, that's still an effective Jump Efficiency of 6 at Jump Efficiency 4, a full two tech levels better. Unless you mean the actual mineral / wealth cost, but then it should cost you something. I'd envision it as a being 50% of the size, so every Jump Drive Efficiency tech counts double for the purposes of building a Long-Jump Drive. RP for the Drives themselves should cost the same as a Jump Drive of equal tech / size. The "Assault" & "Escape" functions, while different in their specifics would scale with the Squadron techs, and have size / RP costs that are roughly equivalent.
-
It might be a twofold cost... one is ship design become a bit less interesting as you get less room to put mission tonnage on them. If you use the squadron mechanic you still could use ships normally and build the jump ships separately and use them separately for different reason. I think this design would become a bit locket into the stereotype... sort of less dynamic.
I think you could make the mineral cost practically equally expensive with the squadron mechanic (more or less)... also those jump drives would become rather expensive to research as they would be much bigger and more expensive.
If you also add the maintenance cost of the engine breaking that also is a cost per use and a practical limit on the number of jumps you could do.
-
Personally I hate the "jump in and out" bullsmeg that plagues DW battles. If you want to be able to retreat, you should earn that opportunity by scouting ahead and not committing! And conversely, if your enemy successfully denies you that opportunity, they should be rewarded for it.
This. You win by being more prepared. Both in terms of fleet doctrine, tech and numbers, but also how you choose to use those things. If you rush headlong into the jaws of a stronger enemy, you get destroyed. If you can plan around being weaker than the enemy, you have a chance. Otherwise, the battle happens in the decades before as you prepare your fleets.
-
it's fine to say "you win by deserving to win. HOO AH" but all-or-nothing type battles make entire empires brittle as glass. especially considering the way aurora combat is super-snowball-y (that is absoultely a term with a precise definition) fleets dying to a man [sic] is a great way to take fifty hours you've put into a campaign and just throw it into the toilet.
the problem is that a retreat mechanic that passes the giggle test is frickin' hard to come by. i point you in the direction of federation and empire for a mechanic (from a pretty capable game designer) that is just immersion-breakingly awful but still absolutely essential to the game.
speaking to OPs original point: if you are fighting your battle at missile ranges and find yourself overmatched, at least in the Olden Days you could split your fleet and the AI would make some pretty peculiar pursuit decisions [not ragging on the script, managing such a situation isn't trivial for a human player] that might let you get some of your ships out of sensor range. at least, in situations like the one mooted, where your beam ships are faster than the enemy, you can create a situation where you have some real play in a situation which is broadly disastrous. a disaster where you have something to *do* is a lot better a gaming experience, anyhow.
-
Yeah I like the DW way of handling jumping. I would absolutely agree that if there was no way to counter jump retreats it would be a detriment, but DW has hyperdeny components that prevent exactly that. Knowing the enemy is all well and good but you can never know all the possible reinforcements. It doesn't reduce depth to allow the player to effectively create a plan of retreat.
This means that a smaller force might have to partially retreat or risk everything and try to focus down the capital ship with the hyperdeny and potentially save everything.
Empires shouldn't lose all their teeth in a single battle, they certainly didn't in real life.
If aurora ever allows some sort of in system hyper 2.0 electric boogaloo the game also needs to add interdiction components to counteract such jumps. Retreats should be costly and force you to make sacrifices in order to be able to save something. Right now the depth of retreating in aurora is basically if slower your dead, if faster good for you - there's no substance to that.
-
Yeah I like the DW way of handling jumping. I would absolutely agree that if there was no way to counter jump retreats it would be a detriment, but DW has hyperdeny components that prevent exactly that. Knowing the enemy is all well and good but you can never know all the possible reinforcements. It doesn't reduce depth to allow the player to effectively create a plan of retreat.
This means that a smaller force might have to partially retreat or risk everything and try to focus down the capital ship with the hyperdeny and potentially save everything.
I agree that DW is not as bad as, for example, Stellaris (where there is no depth to the retreat system at all, it just sort of happens). But, at least when I have played, I find myself in the situation of "jumps are frustrating" until I get hyperdeny, then hyperdeny goes on EVERYTHING and there are still no decisions to be made. The possibility of the mechanic being...ok...is there, but at least in vanilla I didn't feel like the balance was there.
Empires shouldn't lose all their teeth in a single battle, they certainly didn't in real life.
On the contrary, naval strategists were obsessed with single decisive engagements for decades. Battle of Tsushima was, to my understanding, lauded as the "goal" of naval combat. WWI in the Atlantic never went anywhere because both sides were trying to avoid that. And WWII had Midway.
If aurora ever allows some sort of in system hyper 2.0 electric boogaloo the game also needs to add interdiction components to counteract such jumps. Retreats should be costly and force you to make sacrifices in order to be able to save something. Right now the depth of retreating in aurora is basically if slower your dead, if faster good for you - there's no substance to that.
Agree that the current "slower==dead" scenario is not optimal. I've discussed elsewhere how acceleration curves could resolve this, but Newtonian Aurora is not currently on Steve's radar so....
-
Yeah I think if Steve managed to get the AI to play with weapon failures (and in particular got the AI to break off an engagement if it got too low on maintenance supplies) then that would at least mitigate the outright slaughter factor somewhat.
-
The one way suggested here I think would to some degree help and not be OP either as you still would have to have your fleet stand completely still in space for 20-60min (subject to balance) or so before you would jump. This means that if you choose to to engage in beam combat it would not be easy to then just change your mind and jump away. You also could not just jump away from a missile trike either. There also would be a limit to the number of jumps you could realistically do.
You probably would not need to have a mechanic where you trap the opponent this way as there are not any real way to jump away quickly like in DW.
The same mechanic could also help a beam fleet to surprise an enemy fleet at close range or jump past an enemy and block their escape route through a JP, even a slower beam fleet could do that to a faster enemy. It also would make more sense to spread a fleet out as it would be easier to use the jump ability to reinforce another part of the fleet, or use it to fool an enemy into a trap.
Scouting would still be super important so you know when you need to strategically use this jump ability.
I don't have a problem if one fleet is destroyed or if there is major battle or they are decisive. My main issue is that there is too much difference between a fleet being slower or faster, this is mainly a technology thing and it is not either strategic nor tactical. A faster fleet can generally make all the mistake in the world and not really worry all that much while a slower fleet can't make a single mistake.
I'm not against mistakes being bad but I just think that fleet speed have too much influence on what type of mistakes you can do.
There could be other better ideas out there which would fit better without disrupting the power balance too much.
-
On the contrary, naval strategists were obsessed with single decisive engagements for decades. Battle of Tsushima was, to my understanding, lauded as the "goal" of naval combat. WWI in the Atlantic never went anywhere because both sides were trying to avoid that. And WWII had Midway.
Yes... they were obsessed with them but in practice these occasions are the exception to the rule rather than the norm... I mean that they actually occur. I think that was the point made above. ;)
-
Well, you want to have an ability to take all your eggs in one basket and not be able to drop it with one careless move nevertheless, and obviously it's smth you want to yourselves, not for AI - you'll whine forever if nearly any AI fleet will have the same ability to run from your exellent ambushes and superior assault forces. You want it in the universe, where your enemies must move through the chain of narrow points to get to your core worlds, so you want to be careless and invincible simultaneously.
Well, where is The Fun in this case?
-
Well, you want to have an ability to take all your eggs in one basket and not be able to drop it with one careless move nevertheless, and obviously it's smth you want to yourselves, not for AI - you'll whine forever if nearly any AI fleet will have the same ability to run from your exellent ambushes and superior assault forces. You want it in the universe, where your enemies must move through the chain of narrow points to get to your core worlds, so you want to be careless and invincible simultaneously.
Well, where is The Fun in this case?
- Ok, this one made me laugh. A scathing indictment, but oh so often true. The AI already can do a sort of retreat and so can the player, by kemping bush I mean by camping the Jump Point and going back and forth really quickly. There was much whining to be had, and indeed rightfully so. I like the idea of building for tactical retreat, building for interdiction and such, so long as it costs the player & the AI something to have it.
-
Though I'd say the game might benefit from some tactical elasticity, i.e. pursuit might be in some degree harder, then retreat. To make it so I'd suggest to take into account relative vectors of velocities, so if you are moving towards missiles/mines or kinetic fire - you'll take more damage, and vice versa.
-
Well, you want to have an ability to take all your eggs in one basket and not be able to drop it with one careless move nevertheless, and obviously it's smth you want to yourselves, not for AI - you'll whine forever if nearly any AI fleet will have the same ability to run from your exellent ambushes and superior assault forces. You want it in the universe, where your enemies must move through the chain of narrow points to get to your core worlds, so you want to be careless and invincible simultaneously.
Well, where is The Fun in this case?
- Ok, this one made me laugh. A scathing indictment, but oh so often true. The AI already can do a sort of retreat and so can the player, by kemping bush I mean by camping the Jump Point and going back and forth really quickly. There was much whining to be had, and indeed rightfully so. I like the idea of building for tactical retreat, building for interdiction and such, so long as it costs the player & the AI something to have it.
Yes... it was really a mouthful... at least what we suggested could be used for setting up traps and surprise an opponent as well as doing tactical retreats. All this could be made possible despite the speed difference of ships in a more equal setting. It also would come at a cost.
The speed thing always give the easy way out for the one with higher speed... so, currently there always are one party that can take the easy way out and never have to drop the basket of eggs... you just have to be faster. ;)
I don't think that what was suggested would make combat either less interesting or dangerous in general, just more equal and tactical and even the odds a bit between higher and lower technology and make it a bit less snowbally. That was my intention...
I'm also always thinking in terms of multiple human controlled factions... so how well the AI handles it is less of a concern for me personally. I would be very glad and exited if the AI managed to escape a well thought out attack I planed against them, that is what I want to happen. Against the AI I really don't care because it already is easy to stay away from the AI even with slower ships through proper scouting.
-
If you would like to know how Hyperdrives/Engine Overcharge worked last time and why it got removed, dig a little around in the forum :)
I know how that worked and I would like something completely different for a different reason, there have been many discussions here over the years for some form of mechanic to escape uneven encounters. It is really difficult to balance them with too much or too little to work well, I know this. I still would like some such mechanic.
It work pretty well in a game like say Distant Worlds, fights still happen. Sure it is a very different game but they also share allot of similarities.
Personally I hate the "jump in and out" bullsmeg that plagues DW battles. If you want to be able to retreat, you should earn that opportunity by scouting ahead and not committing! And conversely, if your enemy successfully denies you that opportunity, they should be rewarded for it.
The issue with a speed based model in a terrain free environment is what Stormtrooper was getting at; if you are faster you can always get away and if you are slower you never can. If acceleration was a thing, things might be more interesting (see Honorverse battles and, in particular, the aftermath of First Hancock as well as the opening moves of Fourth? Grayson).
EDIT: for reference, 1st Hancock was in Short Victorious War and 4th Grayson was in Flag in Exile.
I can respect that view although I don't agree with it. I think you could just ignore it and perhaps make it optional as I do think it could be a love hate thing.
I think it add depth... scouting is still as important but it reduce the immediate effect of technology and the rather analogue nature of speed in engagements.
That's the thing. The jump out capability in DW (and Stellaris, for that matter) is a cushion for when you screwed up. It REDUCES depth, because the effects of your accomplishments/enemy mistakes are mitigated.
You haven't been blindsided with a fleet using HyperDeny in DW I would assume... That usually isn't until the late game though, early to mid-game hit and runs work well for both the player and AI. The jump out capability in DW allows for hit and run tactics that cannot be accomplished in Aurora, as jump blindness in game allows for a much more defensive gameplay without the need for counter-attacks to draw enemy ships back to defend their own territory, as well as being able to focus defenses on outer systems instead of needing defenses spread throughout the empire. Just my two cents though.
-
May as well make a radical suggestion (I have always wished for freespace 2 style strategic combat).
Basically that system (particularly in the blue planet mod) would facilitate the following: Ships from side A jump in to attack side B. If side B doesn't like the engagement, they jump away. There is then a recharge time where both sides are charging up their jump drives in their separate locations (in that particular universe 10-20 minutes), at which point side A can continue the pursuit. This had a couple of effects. First of all, if you are at an advantage and are on the attack, the enemy can to some extent jump around and avoid you for a while (while taking relatively little damage), or could potentially flee the system entirely. It would be possible to harry them (or insert a blockade in their path if they have a predictable destination and ships are available) but if one group was determined to flee, then assuming relatively similar-ish tech levels it could generally do so and reach its destination.
This had the natural effect of mainly concentrating fighting around jump points and key solar system locations that had to be defended (such as large space stations or populated planets). In other words fighting would still happen, but it would generally only occur if you could somehow force an unwilling defender to come out and attack you (or could catch them at a jump point).
This would more or less completely change how combat works so I think its probably pretty unlikely to ever happen, but I do think that the game of controlling your ship deployments could be pretty interesting. There were also references to the idea of undeployed ships having more value than ones in the field, because once a ship is deployed it is effectively committed for the next 10-20 minutes and if the enemy then chooses to attack somewhere important then that ship is unable to redeploy to deal with that without a delay. I think that concept would indeed occur and does lead to potentially interesting decision making regarding how you want to respond to a developing situation.
Additionally, this might significantly mitigate the difference between beam and missile ships in terms of range, because missile ships would have a sharply limited effective range, fundamental to the fact that if they fire from too far away then the enemy will just jump away and avoid the salvo entirely. The beam ships could also pursue missile ships and have a relatively easy time of closing to engagement range.
-
This is also similar to how things went in DW too to some extent. Fights in deep space was usually rare and those fight rarely was decisive as one side would usually just withdraw of the fight was not in their favour. Fights in DW also usually were slow enough that reinforcement could arrive in time, especially if the fight happened in your territory.
Fights in space were usually against raiding forces so were mainly smaller skirmishers.
Large battles was mainly around space stations and population centres.
In Aurora you still need to patrol systems and protect your outlying colonies so battles should still happen because of it.
As it would take time for the engines to create the micro wormhole and jump there still are chances for a few strikes or close range combat to occur which can be devastating. But it should generally be less of an all or nothing affair most of the time if you are caught in a compromising situation and you are slower. In the current version you are usually alright as long as you are faster.
-
This is also similar to how things went in DW too to some extent. Fights in deep space was usually rare and those fight rarely was decisive as one side would usually just withdraw of the fight was not in their favour. Fights in DW also usually were slow enough that reinforcement could arrive in time, especially if the fight happened in your territory.
Fights in space were usually against raiding forces so were mainly smaller skirmishers.
Large battles was mainly around space stations and population centres.
In Aurora you still need to patrol systems and protect your outlying colonies so battles should still happen because of it.
As it would take time for the engines to create the micro wormhole and jump there still are chances for a few strikes or close range combat to occur which can be devastating. But it should generally be less of an all or nothing affair most of the time if you are caught in a compromising situation and you are slower. In the current version you are usually alright as long as you are faster.
This. While not necessarily a bad thing, it does create a one track mind in terms of ship design and military doctrine.
Speed wins battles (of similar tech) and subsequently keeps those outer colonies from ever being in danger of assault, as an enemy can never reach them without fighting their way through your fleet in deep space, where the fleet with speed advantage dictates the terms of engagement.
The jump point vs some form of hyperdrive also creates major chokepoints allowing for defensive forces to concentrate on a few key jump points where they will have a significant advantage (entrenchment doctrine/mass assault doctrine when attacking) vs requiring a network of long range deep space satellites to detect and predict where and when enemy fleets will be dropping out of warp and having to spread defending forces out throughout the empire to be able to defend all your colonies while also sending counter-assaults into enemy territory to draw some of their attacking forces back out of your territory (allowing for blitzkrieg and mobile warfare doctrines as well as decentralized command, or auftragstaktik).
Again, it is not a 'bad vs good' argument, as both DW and Aurora are fantastic games, each with their own flaws and each with their own areas that shine. Ultimately it comes down to personal preference, for this instance it is whether you prefer choke point warfare or mobile warfare. In real life both situations can and do occur, mainly due to terrain and environmental conditions, and as both hyperdrives and jump points are both sci-fi, the creator of such sci-fi universe decides dictates the methods of transport, and the civilizations there-in would simply adapt doctrine accordingly.
-
I think Aurora will be just too much micro-heavy with all those gizmo AND fully wide theater, though it might be much more interesting to have some mechanics for small raiding forces capable of infiltrating or spawning through mutiny, coupled with some form of patrol standing orders.
-
Very true, the current game is already micro-intensive. Adding in a full theater of war would make the game almost if not completely unbearable, unless fleets (both player and NPR) had significantly improved AI, which is simply not feasible. Adding a component (that would be very expensive and only jump the ship it is on) that allowed for a ship to jump back through the last jump point it came through would, in combination with the current jump drive mechanic that allows for squadron jumps being up to 4m km away from the exiting jump point, allow for a hit and run mechanic or better yet a method of choke point breakthrough.
Currently, at least by mid-game, if a jump point is well defended then the only tactical solution is to throw fleets at it that are significantly larger and hope they survive the jump blindness with enough ships remaining to defeat the defenders (which is mass assault doctrine at it's finest, que Soviet national anthem). This does, however, act as a good method of keeping losing empires in a war from being insta-snowballed.
-
I may be in the minority, but I do like the current model. It makes sense to me that a stronger and faster fleet will always kill the enemy, under the current model. And I don't have an interest in having even MORE micro than what we have right now.
In Aurora, if you are truly outmatched then jump point defense is currently your only choice, and I like it. Cold space is not a fair place at all... If you are inferior you die, and you can blame yourself for not being able to develop faster earlier on ;D
Regarding retreat mechanics.... personally I think they are cop outs. I can understand that a lot of people think it would make the game more interesting but...
Even if I were to concede that point, then you'd have the problem of making a mechanics that does NOT increase micro management and stays relevant and balanced. Not an easy thing.
As others said, the DW universe retreat mechanic is not good. And anyway, as soon as you get hyperdeny, EVERY fleet and base will have hyperdeny, so the possibility to retreat disappears forever. So anything component based would not work, as once you have a counter you'd mount the counter on EVERY ship you have, and so would your enemy.
-
I may be in the minority, but I do like the current model. It makes sense to me that a stronger and faster fleet will always kill the enemy, under the current model. And I don't have an interest in having even MORE micro than what we have right now.
In Aurora, if you are truly outmatched then jump point defense is currently your only choice, and I like it. Cold space is not a fair place at all... If you are inferior you die, and you can blame yourself for not being able to develop faster earlier on ;D
Regarding retreat mechanics.... personally I think they are cop outs. I can understand that a lot of people think it would make the game more interesting but...
Even if I were to concede that point, then you'd have the problem of making a mechanics that does NOT increase micro management and stays relevant and balanced. Not an easy thing.
As others said, the DW universe retreat mechanic is not good. And anyway, as soon as you get hyperdeny, EVERY fleet and base will have hyperdeny, so the possibility to retreat disappears forever. So anything component based would not work, as once you have a counter you'd mount the counter on EVERY ship you have, and so would your enemy.
As a whole I completely agree. The only thing that annoys me is there being no counter to choke point defense. This is hardly a problem against NPRs, as their jump point defenses are mediocre at best, but having multiple player races displays the almost broken nature of jump points vs hyperdrives. Maybe a device that could create new jump points (for a ridiculous expense) would solve the problem?
The problem that I have (which isn't a big deal for most people, so don't take it the wrong way please) is that a technologically superior race (within reason) can send a fleet that is twice the size of a defending fleet that is technologically inferior (again within reason) and be defeated consistently. There is no counter to jump point defense except having several times the defending forces fleet size. Technological advantages help little (unless there is such a disparity that the superior force literally cannot be defeated, such as all end game tech fleet vs a conventional start fleet defending a jump point).
Unlike real life combat, with static jump points you cannot simply attack from a different direction, or "go around" or flank an enemy, you must plow through as there is no other tactic or strategy. This is especially apparent with dead end systems, as they can be defended almost indefinitely with a significantly smaller force of technologically inferior ships.
-
I may be in the minority, but I do like the current model. It makes sense to me that a stronger and faster fleet will always kill the enemy, under the current model. And I don't have an interest in having even MORE micro than what we have right now.
In Aurora, if you are truly outmatched then jump point defense is currently your only choice, and I like it. Cold space is not a fair place at all... If you are inferior you die, and you can blame yourself for not being able to develop faster earlier on ;D
Regarding retreat mechanics.... personally I think they are cop outs. I can understand that a lot of people think it would make the game more interesting but...
Even if I were to concede that point, then you'd have the problem of making a mechanics that does NOT increase micro management and stays relevant and balanced. Not an easy thing.
As others said, the DW universe retreat mechanic is not good. And anyway, as soon as you get hyperdeny, EVERY fleet and base will have hyperdeny, so the possibility to retreat disappears forever. So anything component based would not work, as once you have a counter you'd mount the counter on EVERY ship you have, and so would your enemy.
As a whole I completely agree. The only thing that annoys me is there being no counter to choke point defense. This is hardly a problem against NPRs, as their jump point defenses are mediocre at best, but having multiple player races displays the almost broken nature of jump points vs hyperdrives. Maybe a device that could create new jump points (for a ridiculous expense) would solve the problem?
The problem that I have (which isn't a big deal for most people, so don't take it the wrong way please) is that a technologically superior race (within reason) can send a fleet that is twice the size of a defending fleet that is technologically inferior (again within reason) and be defeated consistently. There is no counter to jump point defense except having several times the defending forces fleet size. Technological advantages help little (unless there is such a disparity that the superior force literally cannot be defeated, such as all end game tech fleet vs a conventional start fleet defending a jump point).
Unlike real life combat, with static jump points you cannot simply attack from a different direction, or "go around" or flank an enemy, you must plow through as there is no other tactic or strategy. This is especially apparent with dead end systems, as they can be defended almost indefinitely with a significantly smaller force of technologically inferior ships.
This isn't necessarily true. The key is to use squadron jumps and jump drives with large jump ranges (at least 500k km). That puts the attacker well outside of decisive beam range, so the majority of attackers can avoid being destroyed in the 10-30 second before they recover from the jump. Of course, this does require being at least slightly faster than the defending ships.
-
An easier solution would be to allow FAF missiles to function in game, as at least the fire and forget missiles could be used to jump in, launch all FAF missiles from the blind ship, who cares if it dies as you would at least be able to get a massive salvo or two off before being blown to bits.
I did consider using squadron jumps to give a little distance but that again works poorly against play controlled races, as I was playing both races and simply spread the defending ships around the jump point. It finally became feasible once I got the attacking race's squadron range up past 1m km but that still required 2:1 attacking ships (1-2 tech levels more advanced than the defending ships). To recreate, just split the fleet up (or use offsets) so that the smaller fleets are 60k-500k km apart or so (depending on tech levels of course).
This becomes a problem as the war progresses, as the attacker is effectively bled dry OR the attacker would simply go on defensive as well, leading to a cold war arms race that dwarfs the US-USSR arms race. This gives the inferior defending race time to catch up (as they only have to spend between half or a third as much on there fleets as the attacking fleets to stay competitive, leaving the extra resources for faster research).
-
As a whole I completely agree. The only thing that annoys me is there being no counter to choke point defense. This is hardly a problem against NPRs, as their jump point defenses are mediocre at best, but having multiple player races displays the almost broken nature of jump points vs hyperdrives. Maybe a device that could create new jump points (for a ridiculous expense) would solve the problem?
The problem that I have (which isn't a big deal for most people, so don't take it the wrong way please) is that a technologically superior race (within reason) can send a fleet that is twice the size of a defending fleet that is technologically inferior (again within reason) and be defeated consistently. There is no counter to jump point defense except having several times the defending forces fleet size. Technological advantages help little (unless there is such a disparity that the superior force literally cannot be defeated, such as all end game tech fleet vs a conventional start fleet defending a jump point).
Unlike real life combat, with static jump points you cannot simply attack from a different direction, or "go around" or flank an enemy, you must plow through as there is no other tactic or strategy. This is especially apparent with dead end systems, as they can be defended almost indefinitely with a significantly smaller force of technologically inferior ships.
As others have mentioned, executing a squadron jump with appropriately teched-up jump drives is the way to beat a JP defense. I would say that while the current naval battle system is weighted entirely too much towards JP battles, they are a necessary mechanic in Aurora as they are really the major way a defender gains any tangible advantage over an attacker (the other possibility being to fight from orbit within STO range but this of course is a strategic defeat as the enemy will ransack your undefended colonies and lay siege).
There was an excellent suggestion made in the last big thread on this topic to tweak squadron jumps so that smaller ships gain a larger jump radius and larger ships emerge more tightly around a JP, which would preserve the importance of JPs as defensive choke points but allow for light raiding forces to be deployed which the defender must intercept with QRFs, adding a mobile component to warfare. I would favor this as it is quite simple and intuitive compared to many other ideas and adds a new dimension to warfare.
Another option would be to tweak the default JP network generation to have a higher concentration of loops. Currently it caries significantly but often the JP network is more like a tree than a network, which means there are often only 1-2 routes into enemy territory. A more interconnected galaxy with 3-6 routes to an enemy sector would mean the defender must spread out between several points while the attacker can concentrate, allowing a successful though costly JP assault to be somewhat less difficult to pull off. This would essentially be a simplification of the hyperdrive idea some have suggested in that it adds more routes of attack which can be exploited, but again without adding a complex new mechanic to the game.
Of course, the elephant in the room is that NPRs likely cannot deal with either of these things very well...game AIs in general struggle to handle multiple fronts and mobile/patrol warfare even in major releases from large studios (looking at you, Paradox...), so certainly if the AI in Aurora were to handle such things it would be a miracle on the part of Steve. The present system works for the AI which is an understated benefit, and my impression is that Steve intends the spoilers to do most of the work as far as changing things up from what would otherwise be an endless sequence of JP assaults.
I did consider using squadron jumps to give a little distance but that again works poorly against play controlled races, as I was playing both races and simply spread the defending ships around the jump point. It finally became feasible once I got the attacking race's squadron range up past 1m km but that still required 2:1 attacking ships (1-2 tech levels more advanced than the defending ships). To recreate, just split the fleet up (or use offsets) so that the smaller fleets are 60k-500k km apart or so (depending on tech levels of course).
For PvP campaigns I think it becomes necessary to establish house rules in any case, as the game is too exploitable by players otherwise. For example a house rule of JP defenses being only located at the JP rather than in a defensive net may be necessary. This may seem quite restrictive but can be necessary and actually can design space for more interesting strategies and ship designs purpose-built for this kind of JP defense. Others who regularly play PvP I'm sure can share many examples of house rules they impose to keep the game varied and interesting - no box launcher spam being a common one, I think.
-
As others have mentioned, executing a squadron jump with appropriately teched-up jump drives is the way to beat a JP defense.
Yeah, technically true, practically... I used it once. And since then I knew it was the last time and I'd rather suck up damage than ever use it again. Why? Micromanagement related with it. The game doesn't track whether your fleet is capable of squadron jump "globally" (for example 1:3 ratio of jump capable and not jump capable ships with squadron size of 3), you need to manually split your fleet into squadrons of 3 (for example), give each of the new "fleet" an order and then struggle to combine them back together while doing combat with all those "micro fleets". Never again am I going through so many clicks, setups and fleet window scrolling.
Another option would be to tweak the default JP network generation to have a higher concentration of loops.
Yes please. ;D
-
Another option would be to tweak the default JP network generation to have a higher concentration of loops.
Yes please. ;D
Can't we already do that?
-
Yeah, technically true, practically... I used it once. And since then I knew it was the last time and I'd rather suck up damage than ever use it again. Why? Micromanagement related with it. The game doesn't track whether your fleet is capable of squadron jump "globally" (for example 1:3 ratio of jump capable and not jump capable ships with squadron size of 3), you need to manually split your fleet into squadrons of 3 (for example), give each of the new "fleet" an order and then struggle to combine them back together while doing combat with all those "micro fleets". Never again am I going through so many clicks, setups and fleet window scrolling.
One solution is to research better JP squadron size which you should do anyways as it improves the ratio of jump tonnage to weapons tonnage. With base squad size 3 you need one jump ship per two full combat ships, and jump ships are usually poorly armed at best. If you had say squad size 8 then the ratio is one and seven which gives you much better firepower.
That said the micro is quite annoying and while there seem to be a few different orders to use (involving subfleets) I've yet to actually figure out how to make them work well. That said, the micro does have a benefit as splitting your fleet into several groups which squad-jump at different positions makes it easier to evade pursuit until your weapons come online as the enemy can only chase so many of your subfleets.
Another option would be to tweak the default JP network generation to have a higher concentration of loops.
Yes please. ;D
Can't we already do that?
Only for Random Stars games, as Stormtrooper has pointed out in past threads on the subject with great, um, emphasis. :P
-
One solution is to research better JP squadron size which you should do anyways as it improves the ratio of jump tonnage to weapons tonnage. With base squad size 3 you need one jump ship per two full combat ships, and jump ships are usually poorly armed at best. If you had say squad size 8 then the ratio is one and seven which gives you much better firepower.
That's why I consider coming back to squadron jumps at some point, but only once I'll be in a very late game, with related research maxed or at least almost maxed out.
Your argument about splitting your forces is good though, except if my fleets are slower and the enemy decides to fight rather than retreat I'm screwed anyways and if my fleets are faster or the enemy does retreat I don't need my forces splitted at all.
-
Your argument about splitting your forces is good though, except if my fleets are slower and the enemy decides to fight rather than retreat I'm screwed anyways and if my fleets are faster or the enemy does retreat I don't need my forces splitted at all.
It has more to to with limiting your losses during that first 10-30 second period before your weapons come online. If your fleet jumps in rather near the edge of enemy weapons range and flees in opposite directions for 30 seconds, the enemy fleet can't chase all of your subfleets and has to pick probably one or two to follow. Even if your fleet is slower, this means some or even most of your ships open the range while one subfleet gets chased down. If your ships are faster, this still matters just because opening the range isn't instant - if you have faster ships but jump in at 400,000 km where your enemies have 500,000 km range on their lasers, you've got to open 100,000 km of range in <30 sec which requires a speed advantage in excess of 3000 km/s.
A successful JP assault against an enemy at even tech is either going to be about overwhelming them with massive numerical superiority (certainly possible against NPRs that don't defend well) or else accepting a small fraction of losses in order to get your forces in-system to inflict a large total loss on the enemy. Of course there are other tactics to minimize those losses but you're still accepting that someone is going to get shot at really hard for 30 seconds before you kill everything else in the system as retribution.
-
I keep thinking that building ginormous commercial engined battering rams might be a decent idea. Give them a ludicrous amount of armor and box launchers, basically no engine. Standard transit a pile of them in. Eat death for a while. Then blow everything straight to hell.
Ships are expensive, lack strategic mobility, and will take losses. But you don't need to research and build military jump drives, which are obscenely expensive. I wonder if the math works out?
I also wonder about parasite transit rules. If a carrier transits, do its fighters suffer jump shock?
-
but you're still accepting that someone is going to get shot at really hard for 30 seconds before you kill everything else in the system as retribution.
And that's something I've definitely accept if it means not having to bother with so much clicking and dragging.
-
How do you tweak jp loop generation? That would be the easiest solution and I would love it.
Although Stormtrooper's point on AI ability (or lack there of) to handle multiple fronts is very true and something I had not thought of until he mentioned it. Having the ability to tweak loop generation for multiplayer games only would solve the problem I was having earlier though. Is that an option in new game creation?
Edit: Nuclearslurpee's point, my bad.
-
but you're still accepting that someone is going to get shot at really hard for 30 seconds before you kill everything else in the system as retribution.
And that's something I've definitely accept if it means not having to bother with so much clicking and dragging.
Keep in mind that a squadron jump takes 10-30 seconds to recover from, but a normal standard transit or using a jump gate takes 120 to 180 seconds to recover from
How do you tweak jp loop generation? That would be the easiest solution and I would love it.
Although Stormtrooper's point on AI ability (or lack there of) to handle multiple fronts is very true and something I had not thought of until he mentioned it. Having the ability to tweak loop generation for multiplayer games only would solve the problem I was having earlier though. Is that an option in new game creation?
Edit: Nuclearslurpee's point, my bad.
I think to increase JP loop generation, you need to increase the "Local System Generation Chance" and possibly decrease "Local System Generation Spread". I am not certain about this though.
-
I would probably most happy if Steve incorporated his Aurora 2 ideas into Aurora C# at some point, that would be awesome... :)
-
Something that would aid retreating and raiding likewise would be making squadron transit distance apply to departure and arrival systems.
Example 1: your group of 3 stealth raiders have Max Squadron Jump Radius - 250k and use a squadron transit order the ships will transit at 250k km distance away from the jump point and arrive 250k km distance away from the jump point potential avoiding pickets on both side of the jump point.
Example 2: your fleet is retreating from enemy reinforcements after a minor fleet battle you have Max Squadron Jump Radius - 500k transit and enough jump ships for your force while the enemy does not, your battered force transition to the next system 500k km away from the jump point and arrive 500k km away for a total of 1 million KM and potential prepping an ambush of your pursers or regrouping with reinforcements.