Wyndstar:
My point, typically, in bringing up the highest difficulty level is that if there is something the AI can't do there, it can't do it anywhere, so it is a hole at every level.
The problem with your approach is that while your statement here may or may not be true the converse certainly is not - while something a high level AI can't do
may be indicative of a system wide problem, solving the same problem at the highest level solves only that level and could result in negative repercussions at the lower levels.
Thus, I think that AI behavior
throughout all levels should be given equal weight and priority. An AI donig stupid things that a novice player finds annoying won't be solved by increasing the difficulty level - because he still hasn't acquired enough skills to advance. He'll just continually be annoyed at stupid AI behavior.
Similarly, the "bonuses fix the AI" philosophy is largely something you see in things like Civ or MOO. The whole thrust of GalCIv2 is that the AI isn't needing these bonuses to compete evenly. If you want to fix things by giving the AI bonuses, then why make a decent AI to begin with? Just give tougher AIs more and more bonuses like most other titles do!
I think that ship design is one of those things that's mechanically fixable on such a simple system and something that deserves good AI management. Certainly, the AI in Alpha Centauri made decent units, even if it didn't usually utilize them to any good effect.
As for the AI adapting better - no it doesn't. Invincible ships stump the AI at Tough, even when you give it enough time to react (and even enough econ and manufacture). Giving the AI manufacturing, economy, and research bonuses enough to overwhelm me with numbers doesn't make it better, any more than giving it bonuses makes it a better AI overall. It makes for a tougher challenge, yes, but if I just wanted that, I'd up the difficulty, obviously.
It sounds, then, like you never really liked the combat system this game offered. While it was simple, I did like it.
You're right. I wasn't all that satisfied with the system to begin with. As DA shows, it seems like the devs weren't all that happy with it either. What's the point of having Tiny and Small hulls in the game when you obsolete them almost from the start of serious warfare?
The DA system makes them more valuable marginally, but I feel that it doesn't go far enough, and mind you, the DA change DID institute major and game-changing rule changes. I'm simply going farther along the same path and trying to think of rules that may bring about what the devs have always wanted.
Medium to Huge Hulls already have great niches in the game. Large may be a bit marginalized once Huge is available, but by and large, it's a good tempo shift in a key part of military strategy.
Smalls and Tinies are largely left in the cold. Even many patrol and garrison duties are better done with Mediums.
Giving these hulls unique advantages (like being able to deplete Capital Ship defenses) gives them longevity and relevance throughout the game. It also introduces a simple but profound wrinkle in the simplistic and monotonous RPS scheme. It would be nice to be able to do something other than a Retrofit Shuffle in military strategy every once in a while.
There is no depth in the RPS system, and it makes a joke of the ship size variables.
pahis:Your ships failed you because you failed to realize that Defense Ships are always a creature of their times. Attack ships are, too, but less so. Particular designs must be custom-fit to deal with the situation they're meant to be deployed in. In other words, they're a dynamic build philosophy.
You may have been better served, for instance, with even less attack and even more defense.
Rataan:Even prepatch, Defenses could come into their own at the Medium Hull stage. Certainly this was true in DL. Now they do so more readily. Regardless of how many unrelated truisms you post, my points are still valid.
As to your Korath, I'm a little curious about the game situation, tech wise. What's their ships, weapons, miniturization level, and Logistics? Military resources will also count.
Now you say that your best ship has defense 30 only, and that doesn't strike me as a significant "tech lead," especially if you also mean that you've devoted a small amount of effort into getting defensive techs.
Despite not being invincible even when you could've arranged for it, such Defensive Ships are still very useful for you, and you're well advised to build at least one or two such ships for patrol and escort duties, whatever else you decide to do. They'd also win in fleet vs. fleet battles, but I'd recommend, in that situation, to field in one Attack Only ship with the rest Defense. This allows you to more quickly bring their Fleet Attack down to the point where your Defense Ships are invincible, allowing you a more assured win in exchange for the loss of a cheaper ship (which you were likely to lose anyway, even if it was Defense oriented).
Mixing Defense Ships and Attack Ships in variable amounts gives you a surprising amount of power in dealing with enemy AI ship designs.
As I've said before, you only think that Defense is useful when you're already winning, because you haven't succesfully used it for winning when you're on the ropes. It doesn't mean that it can't be done. It simply means that you haven't done it yet. Arguably, the same charge can be made against Hyperion Dreadnaught and Attack-Only ships as well - that they only win you the game when you've already won anyway.