Some mild complaining

I see that I can't edit the first post, there are some horrible grammatical/spelling errors in there (as well as not using my correct nickname). I counted on being able to edit my post, which I usually do to correct some obvious mistakes. Sorry about that!

Eh, I'm not a native english speaker, does that get me off the hook?

Yes, that does get you off the hook for grammar. I'd hate to have to post to a forum in German or French, much less in languages I don't know at all!

1. Upgrading being cheaper only makes sense for ships in orbit, IMO. Otherwise, I'd think you'd have to fly the parts out to the ship, so it should be pretty expensive.

2. Agreed.

3. No ships fire from the grave. Each ship gets a chance per turn. Just because your side seems to fire first, doesn't mean it does. It's simultaneous per turn.

4. NNNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Good gaming!

4. Stardock is onto you....

I like your suggestion about point 1 CornhuskerMac, upgrading in deep space is a bit silly and would probably be very expensive. Actually I wouldn't mind not being able to upgrade at all if a ship isn't in orbit IF upgrading IN orbit would be reasonably priced.

I usually use one light fighter on each planet to guard for invasions/pirates/vengenance fighters etc. and I would like to be able to keep them up-to-date by upgrading all my fighters.


Point 3: I know that in the calculations ships fire simultaniously. I think this was implemented to counter the cheesy tactic of using interceptor cargoships loaded with engines and weapons. But I still think it would be nicer to be able to have the shoot first option for two reasons:
1. tactical decisions: evasive maneouvres or try to attack first?
2. fun: being able with a superior fleet to wipe out an enemy fleet, never giving them the chance to respond.

Point two could be made less harsh maybe by incorporating rules for different hull sizes for instance. So that large battleships have trouble targeting nimble fighters, so that it is very difficult to kill an enemy fleet in one strike, making the interceptor cargoships an unattractive option. You would be able then to kill a fleet in one strike only if you have small fighters, or if you have light but fast targeting weapons on your battleship. This would make one-strikes possible but hard to get and in general making ship battles a little more interesting perhaps.

Of course, the fun of this depends also on what one could consider realistic space-combat. This is just my version, it's probable that future space-wars are nothing like WWII naval battles/Starwars at all and so utterly boring (and soundless) that future Galactic Civilizations play Galciv for the highest score to settle Galactic disputes.

There is a more sinister problem with fleet combat. Once weapons technology reaches it's pinnacle and you have 10 supreme dreadnaughts in a fleet and attack one lone 90% dead crappy frigate, you WILL loose one of your nice ships. I really hate this aspect of the game. It kinda makes fleets irrelevant don't you think?

Well, point #3 from the OP was originally that way when they game released. They changed it when it was pointed out that when ships got into range for weapons, both should be in range for weapons. Perhaps an ultra-tech that adds an item you could put on ships (for a lot of space) that gives your ships first strike capabilities?

Well, point #3 from the OP was originally that way when they game released. They changed it when it was pointed out that when ships got into range for weapons, both should be in range for weapons. Perhaps an ultra-tech that adds an item you could put on ships (for a lot of space) that gives your ships first strike capabilities?

I dont think first strike is the answer. It is reasonable that a ship can fire at it's attackers. But what is not reasonable is the fact that fleet sieze and ship quality can be completely dissregarded in combat where high end weapons are involved.

It is in my view, a fact that high end weapons are so powerful, that ship hit points, fleet sieze and ship defences can easily be of absolutely no consequence in battles.

It is in my view, a fact that high end weapons are so powerful, that ship hit points, fleet sieze and ship defences can easily be of absolutely no consequence in battles.

Well I'm not totally going to argue with this, but one method of combating that is having higher level ships. It's fun to have a couple mid sized ships running around with 60ish health as well as good armor.

Once weapons technology reaches it's pinnacle and you have 10 supreme dreadnaughts in a fleet and attack one lone 90% dead crappy frigate, you WILL loose one of your nice ships.

Yeah, I was talking about scratching the new paint on my ships, but this is even worse and really annoying. This is a difficult matter to solve I think. I would like to be able to strike first because that makes more sense to me, but I can understand the argument that if one side is able to fire than so is the other.

Well, since damage is inflicted on a single ship, you can only hope to minimize damage. Unless you can build your single ships to withstand the attack of an entire military fleet, you will lose at least one.

The thing about large well defended ships is, you will lose less of them.

And if you keep up, you can lose fewer. Once a ship takes damage, move it out of the fleet and away from the fighting. Let the remaining undamaged ships take over and move in reinforcements.

And only arm them with enough offense to take out an enemies strongest ship (hopefully in a single shot), and put the rest into the appropriate defense. Any more offense will be wasted.

you have 10 supreme dreadnaughts in a fleet and attack one lone 90% dead crappy frigate,

FYI: Don't use fleets in that situation. When ships are one on one, and both ships would end up destroyed, the attacker will survive. One VS one is how I deal with those 187 attack merchant ships (and any other similar single battle situations). All I have to be able to do is hit for it's remaining HP. You don't even need Chaff .

FYI: Don't use fleets in that situation. When ships are one on one, and both ships would end up destroyed, the attacker will survive. One VS one is how I deal with those 187 attack merchant ships (and any other similar single battle situations). All I have to be able to do is hit for it's remaining HP. You don't even need Chaff .

Good trick.... still there has gotta be somthing wrong with the game if it is actually an advantage NOT to have a fleet.

I like it the way it is. The majority of the time, you certainly want your ships in a fleet. But it's nice to know fleets have a bit of an Achilles heel against that "Last Star Fighter" . After a fleet combat when you pull the damaged ship out, is a good time to go 1V1 hunting on the way to a planet for repairs. Maybe once per game I will lose a ship that way because of a lucky AI defense roll, but the extra experience gains, and the number of destroyed SBs and such, make it worth while.

I always found it a bit odd how only one ship per fleet can end up damaged. Might be a bit interesting if, after the last enemy is destroyed, a fleet adjustment was made. IE: The last targeted ship receives 50% of the damage it normally would have taken and the other 50% gets spread out amongst the other ships in the fleet. (collateral damage, multiple ship targeting, debri collision, Thalens on the windshield, etc..). um. rounded down

Thalens on the windshield, etc

lol

I always found it a bit odd how only one ship per fleet can end up damaged.

It is a bit weird, but to make this better the most obvious thing to me would be to incorporate ranges in the actual battle. That would mean that ships fire at ships close by and maneouvering would become more important. Even though this could make the battles alot more interesting visually, it might overcomplicate the rock-paper-scissors battlesystem.

It makes sense the way it is.

Take out the weakest of the most powerful ships first, so as to reduce the next volley.
So that means a single ship is targeted, destroyed, and then the next target is selected.

Since live ships get a shot off, it is better to destroy a single powerfull ship than it is to damage (but leave intact for another round) several ships.


And it is possible to destroy one or more ships in a round, and leave the next damaged for an easier destroy in the next round.

It is rather like researching a tech tree. You can reasearch as far ahead in a single branch as you have research points for, and the rest is carried over to the next tech. So you could research 2 3/4 techs in a single week, just as you could destroy 2 3/4 ships in a single round.

But it makes more sense to knock out 2 3/4 at once, than it does to chip away at 1/10 of 10 ships each time - if you get my drift.

But it makes more sense to knock out 2 3/4 at once, than it does to chip away at 1/10 of 10 ships each time - if you get my drift.

I don't disagree, from a game play perspective. And I was not talking about halving and spreading damage every round. Only the last one, to simulate the odd shots of fleet to fleet combat. I seriously doubt that in a dog-fight, the entire flight (formation) targets only one ship at a time.

If you have a large fleet, the spreading would have minimal effect. Whereas if you have a fleet of 3, it would be more noticable.

Don't get me wrong. I like how combat is done in the game as it is. I just think it would seem more realistic (logical) if some damage was spread around a little more. The way it is now, if you have an ubership and properly designed fodder ships, the uber ship will never take any damage, yet gain experience from the battle. Many times I have had a BB with only a few HP left from a previous battle but I include it in the next fleet because I know it is safe from harm due to the picket ships, and it's extra firepower assures fleet victory. It will also gain more HP, even tho damaged, as it levels up.

Ya, but realistically, that seems to me like some very complicated programming.

It is much easier to sit around thinking how it could be 'better' or more 'realistic', it is quite another to actually implement it in the game.

You don't disagree "from a gameplay perspective" - but that is how we should be thinking when we are asking the devs to make changes in the gameplay.

And the dev team is very small; they only have so much time. They do deserve days off now and then (much as it seems that they can and do work 24 hours a day as it is).

Personally, I think the combat system has been reworked to the point that it is pretty fair to both sides. Now it seems like the users are just flip-flopping between how it used to be and how it is now, besides asking for evermore refining to the point of obsurdity.

2. Starbases should become very powerful when I take the time to upgrade them 50 times. They're big, so with common sense you should be able to put big guns etc. on them. They're weakness should be that they can't move.

Seems everyone has hit on the other subjects mentioned in the O.P., I thought I would hit on this one.

The argument can go both ways on this one in my opinion. The fact that a starbase does not move and remains motionless in space is a very big factor on why they are so easily countered. We all know trying to shoot a rabbit is much harder than trying to put a bullet into a pumpkin. Add size and distance to this simple equation and it makes matters much worse. Trying to shoot a rabbit at 300 yards versus trying to shoot a sky scraper at 300 yards.

Now, doing significant damage to a rabbit is much easier than dealing a fatal blow to a sky scraper. The starbase should be able to take quite a bit of punishment, and yes their weapons should dish out quite a bit of damage as well but remember, not all weapons on a space station will come to bare on the same target at the same time being that the monstrosity has to protect itself through a 360 degree arc.

I personally believe starbases are represented fairly well in the game and do as they are intended. If the starbase is well protected by an up to date support fleet, you shouldn't have any problems.

Remember, all it really took to destroy the Death Star in "A New Hope" was a single X-Wing fighter. (Yeah I know it had much support, but in the end, 1 droid + 1 man + 1 X-Wing + 1 torpedo = 1 climatic ending to the movie.)

1 droid + 1 man + 1 X-Wing + 1 torpedo = 1 climatic ending to the movie.

I honestly don't remember weather being an issue!

(Yeah I know it had much support, but in the end, 1 droid + 1 man + 1 X-Wing + 1 torpedo = 1 climatic ending to the movie.)

You forgot one factor...


May the Force be with you.

Without that...

I personally believe starbases are represented fairly well in the game and do as they are intended.

I agree with that statement. I don't think they were ever meant to be anything more than support units. We already have enough options for ships, so the combat is pretty much covered. To allow a starbase to fire upon enemy ships doesn't really matter to me or my game play style. If they could attack/defend, that would be great. Since they really can't, I can live with that. If a given starbase is that important to me then it's my job to make sure it's properly defended. I almost never protect my starbases with fleets, save for the small handful located in the "hot zones" of the galaxy. If I lose one that was important to me then it was my fault for leaving it vulnerable.

I honestly don't remember weather being an issue!

I am not sure where you are going with that statement but I will be happy to indulge the theory. Weather in space?

motion

+

size

+

distance

=

I personally believe starbases are represented fairly well

I did not include weather as a factor. Although if you really wanted to get technical you could add gravitational forces from nearby planets and stars, or radiological anomalies, wormholes, pulsars, black holes... I am sure the list could go on and on.

May the Force be with you. Without that...

No idea where to go with that one! Got me there!  

climatic

They're picking on your spelling.

My whole beef with this is how accuracy *seems* to be a standard random odds roll that is the same across the board. I think there should be things that change the odds.

-If a ship is faster, it is harder to hit
-If a ship is smaller, it is harder to hit
-Advanced computing should allow for better targeting systems, and more accurate shots
-There should be a branch off of this, instead of going right into miniaturization, that works on targeting systems
-It'd also be nice to have targeting jammers

I'm sorry, I know that there are rolls for offense or whatever that supposedly calculate how critical a hit a shot is, but... just because my tiny ship with mostly all engines doesn't have any defense on it, does not mean it should be killed by every friggin shot. I'm a potato moving at warp speed, that's gonna take some Globe Trotter Algebra to target me.

And... i don't think that would be *too* difficult to implement, as all the core components mechanically already exist.