Question about battling

There will be no algorithm, yes it's right. They're using insanely expensive equipment, I would hope they have lock-on equipment too.

You can "trick" the computer to atck the bigger hulls by putting less defenses on large hulls, this will make the computer atck the large hulls first since they want to take out the most powerful yet vulnurable ship available, so while they all focus on 1 ship, you can put lots of weapons on small ships. If you've ever fought pirates, I think you would learn that pretty fast, or lose most of your small medium fleets.


Monc34

Yeah, but I think you guys are missing the idea I threw out. What about giving tiny and small ships a manouverablility bonux that would alow a less manouverable ship to flat out miss a small more nimble ship. It just makes sense, why should every single shot be a hit.

I got the idea. It's extremely unlikely to happen, and I personally dislike it vehemently. This isn't the first (or second, third, possibly the eigth) time this has been thrown out.

It just makes sense,

Does it make sense that you can fit larger and better fire-control and predictive analysis computers on a bigger ship...?

Depends how you think of it.

Star Wars or Battlestar Galactica style involves people sitting in turrets or dogfighting with fixed direction weaponry. In this case, a small fighter is definitely more agile than a big capital ship.

If you think of targetting as all being done by the computer and every weapon as a 360 degree turret, then no, smaller ships shouldn't get much of a bonus (if at all).

Does it make sense that you can fit larger and better fire-control and predictive analysis computers on a bigger ship...?

Finally, a proper explanation for why there is a size mod on weapons...

Then why does a small ship with the same weapon hit just as offten and for the same amount of damage? Still does not make since to me.

The extra space required for larger hulls is for the wiring... yea... the wiring. Huge spools of it. Its like working inside a ball of yarn when you put 10 doom rays on a huge hull.

Ahhhh come on The only real reason it is that way is for game balance issues not for any 'logical' reasons. I really don't have a problem with it for game balance issues.

I like the game balance for battles just fine. It just means you have to learn to beat the game, and I enjoy that challenge. I have read lots of comments about how the combat system should work. Most of them seem to be "I wish GalCav 2 played like MOO3, or SE4, or whatever". It doesn't. It plays like GalCiv2, and you need to learn how to beat it.

I tried building ships like I built in SE4, and the game chewed them up. Battle success depends on choice of construction, which depends on map placement and situation and intelligence info and economic status and on and on. Just like in real life. It's not just cramming more "Zap Ray 3"s into the biggest hull and sending it out. I think that's where a lot of the dissatisfaction with the combat system comes from. I like it just fine the way it is.

tried building ships like I built in SE4, and the game chewed them up. Battle success depends on choice of construction, which depends on map placement and situation and intelligence info and economic status and on and on. Just like in real life. It's not just cramming more "Zap Ray 3"s into the biggest hull and sending it out. I think that's where a lot of the dissatisfaction with the combat system comes from. I like it just fine the way it is.

Not so from my experience. I build modestly armed and armored ships, usually carrying all three weapon types as well as being defended against all weapon types. My planets start cranking out these behemoths at a rate of one or two turns per ship. By the time my neighbors know what's happening my invasion forces are sitting down to a nice cup of joe amongst the smoldering debris of what was once my enemies armies, cities, and infrastructure.

Not so from my experience. I build modestly armed and armored ships, usually carrying all three weapon types as well as being defended against all weapon types. My planets start cranking out these behemoths at a rate of one or two turns per ship. By the time my neighbors know what's happening my invasion forces are sitting down to a nice cup of joe amongst the smoldering debris of what was once my enemies armies, cities, and infrastructure.

Well... doesn't the game do a roll for each weapon type on a ship?
So a ship with 3/3/3 weapons would roll 1-3, 1-3, 1-3 vs a ship with 9/0/0 just roll a 1-9?

If thats the case, then spreading out your weapons is worse because your giving the target 3 times to absorb your attack (because all defenses provide some kind of defense) vs just one time and having a much better chance of overwhelming their defenses anyway even if they roll well.

I could be wrong tho, I'm not sure how the game would figure out what type of shield to use if there are multiple defenses and such.

I could be wrong tho, I'm not sure how the game would figure out what type of shield to use if there are multiple defenses and such.

Nope, you're correct. If you have multiple attacks, they're rolled just as if it were separate single-type ships attacking in turn. The target rolls his defenses each time with the optimal one at full power and others at sqrt. If your opponent has just 1 point of defense and rolls 1 each time, the most you can do with three different weapons is 6, whereas with just one type you could do 8.

This is just another example of why we need carrier modules, that would allow big ships with maybe 2 small , or 4 tiny ships, since they would take forever to go from point A to point B on a galaxy larger than medium, since they would be full of weapons and no additional space for engines, this would help fight a more powerful enemy, make it cooler on the battle viwer    , and have a balanced fleet with a porpouse for making small and tiny ships after MID game.

Right now their only porpouse is for planetary defense, at ANY point in the game.


Monc34

Right now their only porpouse is for planetary defense, at ANY point in the game.

I beg to differ with this comment. I happen to love my small and tiny fighters, I use them more than any other type of spacecraft in the game. With the techs I go after in the early game I can make my fighters quickly, create large fleets with my logistics and crush anyone who stands before me. I build different types for different purposes and they all serve me well. They work in my overall strategic scheme. My humble opinion of course.   

What galaxy settings you play at???
Scattered , Loose, Tight??

I play Loose and scattered a lot, it gives me a little more time to detecet enemy fleets, and react accordingly upgrading ships, and buying a last second defense line.

What I meant by that, is that those ships are slow. It would take a lot of small, or tiny ships with engines, to be able to do a blitzkrieg type of atack, since they wouldnt have a lot of weapons onboard. To go far fast you need more than 2 Engines, and that is wasted space on tiny and small ships. For offencive purposes you need medium ships, so the additional space can be used to compensate for the Engines. Of course if you play on tight clustered stars, they will be close so it is more usefull to use the tiny and small ships to atack and then conquer close planets.

However, if you play on loose or scattered like I do, and start playing on Large, Huge or Gigantic, youll notice a diference, and by the time you got enough ships to atack a close neighbor, wich will have more than 6 planets defended with the same amount or close to the amount of ships you are using to atack, prepare to be bitchslaped.   

Of course all this can be fixed with Medium Scale Building, so I recomend to at least start researching this tech when you think of atacking some neighbors, cuz if your plan fails, at least you can save yourself.

Just my humble opinion     



Monc34  

Currently my games are in the small galaxy, research normal, 3 opponents, the rest random. Typically, my game lasts between 2 and 3 years and I normally wipe them out before they even become a threat. I do not research anything I do not need. However, I have found that extending the game out to 4 or 5 years will give me more points in the MV, but the two games I let play out longer I used the same tactics and they worked well. I am sure as I up the difficulty and map sizes my strat will change. Until then, I will love my small and tiny ships.   

The speed of tiny ships is their only downfall. I don't use them much myself, but have seen advantages. In a battle where I had one huge ship with 6 Doomrays against an AI fleet of 15 tinys, my ship took one shot, killed a ship, then his took 15 shots at my 1. Next turn same thing, my 1 shot, kill a ship, his 14 shots, and so on.

While I had him outclassed in weapons and defense, I could see where this could be affective. A tiny ship will hold 1 doomray, 1 ultimate defense, 2 mkIII hyperwarps, and still have space for an ultimate life support if you need it. A fleet of 15 would allow you to get a shot from each of your 15 doomrays every turn, where as a loaded up huge would still only get 1 shot per turn.

I haven't tried it yet myself, but seems a fleet like this would be more effective against a single capital ship than against a similar fleet of small ships. Also, I don't fully understand fleet stats in battle, so I may be way off base.

No, you are correct, it is like that in fleet battles, and it is also correct that speed is the "only" problem, thats where the discussion for carrier came in on the first place. You got to understand that by the time I got hyperwarp MK3, Ill have conquered more than 1 civ, so Ill be using lots of frigates(thats medium hull), cheap, enough space for weapons and engines. For the range I build more than 3 starbases fully armed, never waste space for Range Modules on ships unless it just takes 3-4. Yet, the numerical number of those fleets is hard to ignore, its just that if I build small ships, Ill use them for defense not offence, and keep them close to my low popultaion planets.


Monc34

While I had him outclassed in weapons and defense, I could see where this could be affective. A tiny ship will hold 1 doomray, 1 ultimate defense, 2 mkIII hyperwarps, and still have space for an ultimate life support if you need it. A fleet of 15 would allow you to get a shot from each of your 15 doomrays every turn, where as a loaded up huge would still only get 1 shot per turn.

It depends on how much damage each of those 15 (14, 13, 12...) shots does, though. Given enough protection and anything less than maximum armament on each of the ships, a Massive hull can easily withstand 12+ small enemies chipping away at it. 15 Doom Rays? Probably not, but I rarely see the AI max out a weapons branch (at least at Intelligent or below, which is all I've played yet). I've seen one of my battlships go up against a mixed fleet of 15 small, med, and large ships and walk away with more than half its hitpoints left. It could only fire once per turn, but it took out one enemy per turn, so after a few turns the AI never had a chance even with favorable rolls.

For whatever reason, the AI seems to favor smaller ships. If they do research Massive hulls, they generally only put crap weapons on them (Mass Drivers II on a Massive hull, for one amusing example).

Its the same deal as posted earlier and confirmed by Kryo though...

If you have 15 ships shooting 1 doom ray each, you won't do the same damage as one ship with 15 doom rays because the target's armor can absorb part of every individual shot.. in other words, the target's armor also aborbs 15x more damage from the cumulative attack of the tiny ships.