Suggestion Non-warp ships

sounds like a good idea to me... but maybe make it another tech-string? the better these engines the faster in combat... but they wouldnt have to be as huge as the warp capable engines...

I might use those, but I often build high speed defenders that I then use to pick off strays. Or I form all the defenders in a system into a fleet and take out the enemy fleet. Maybe they should make a new 'Defender' hull type.

maybe what would be better would be some sort of Planetary defense technology, maybe different for each race, which is stationary over a planet and attacks any hostile ships, it could be a planetary tile option (maybe it is based on the planet, or the tile is a conduit/transport mechanism to the defense platform). it could make things interesting and look cool... imagine.... the Terrans could have a 'Starwars' type defense platform, the Alterian could have some dark energy based guardian in orbit, the Yor could have a nanobot cloud designed to damage hostile hulls..etc....

I don't like this idea:



But I do like the idea of having monitor/defender-type hulls. I admit that I am generally satisfied with what's available to me now, though.

If you think about it, ships like that would have no space limitations. They'd basically be able to be starbases in orbit. The only reason that hull sizes are limited in the other ships is because of conflicts with the hyperdrive... special technology is required to create larger scale warships.

I'm all for orbital defense stations, but that's a pretty huge feature.

Personally, I'd be satisfied with some kind of adjustment that lessens (Or even removes, though that'd probably be too much) maintenance costs for ships in orbit around planets. That would allow you to have a standing military without throttling your economy, but if you tried to actually go invade another empire with those ships your economy would have to be prepared for the additional burden.

To paraphrase one of the technology blurbs in the game:

Space is big... really big.

Even in the realively modest confines of a solar system, a non-hyperdrive ship is going to have a hard time delivering its impressive package of weaponry if it is in orbit around Earth and an enemy ship pops in out of hyperspace, say, at just halfway between the orbits of Earth and Mars. That non-hyperdrive ship could start steaming its way to the offending ship and would get there at sub-light speeds in about, oh, 3 months or so. The Terran captain decides that would be futile so it's best to stick close to the planet and and defend from there. The attacking ship then vanishes just to reappear moments later at Earth's doorstep, at about the orbit of the moon on the opposite side of planet as our intrepid defendor ship. Hmmmm... thinks the captain, should we start working our way around the planet to put ourselves between the attackers and Earth? Why not. Full steam ahead. We'll be there in less than an hour, two hours, tops. I'm sure the enemy will be there waiting for us, unless they are in a hurry to invade our planet or something crazy like that.

The only problem i have with this is that I often build defender type ships at my shipyard planets and then fly 'em to lesser developed worlds.. I can learn to adapt tho

I do like the idea of an orbital ship or defence stations, or even some planetary based weapons in mid or late game  

Yes, and the tech blurb is paraphrasing someone else:



-- Douglas Adams, may he rest in peace.

I do think that a reduced cost for ships in orbit is a must and logical since supplying parts and wear and tear are likley to work out cheaper in orbit around one of your planets.

I should point out though that these ships would only provide defense directly around the planet thus preventing invasion e.g. if an enemy ship pops out of hyperspace some distance for obit it wouldn't be intercepted until it closes with the planet, they have to enter orbit to invade.

I'm also assuming that a ship cannot bend space too near a centre of gravity Hence stargates weren't built in orbit around planets or on planets. That would mean a ship was unable to use it's hyperdrive to enter orbit around a planet.

In any case a transport would have to be in orbit for some hours or days to use any invasion tactics and to drop all it's troops and equipment and co-ordinate the invasion, so any defending ships would have time to reach them in orbit without needing hyperdrive and so would have to be delt with by the warships in the fleet first.

If a warship turns up without transports so what? it can't invade the planet anyway.

Yes that's certainly a tactical choice I do that sometimes too, but why not save the space/cost on a design for planets with ship yards.

I also like the idea of just having a techline for orbital defense hulls, maybe small, medium and Large. These could be kited out like a ship but without the engines, might be an alternative.

Reminds me of a great great game Ascendancy. You could build ships with no engines, and if you ever accidentally launched them into space you would have to scrap them as you could no go anywhere or make it back to a starbase to upgrade.

There was also plant build devices such as planet shields and weapons. Moduals for ships that teleported you back to the homeworld etc.

I remember ascendency, I really enjoyed it at the time although it wasn't actually that hard to beat and all the races played more or less the same it was still great for it's time.

Actually maybe that's what made me think of the idea.

So having looked at all the suggestions and taking into account ease of implementation I think the best solution would be to give all ships a default movement of 0, make the hulls all cheaper and give them more space, then adjust the cost and space for engines to suit.

Ships without engines would still have thrusters and be usable in orbit to prevent invasions since transport ship would have to spend some time in orbit to invade, but would tend to be better armed than other ships at the same technology level and hull size, since they have more room for weapons and defences. This gives the defender a bit of a home field advantage.

I also agree ships in obit should have greatly reduced maintenance costs across the board, after all part of this cost must be keeping them supplied. That way you can mass a lot of ships for invasion, but only have to deal with the high upkeep cost when their in action, you can also mass more ships for defence at less cost. This makes war costly as it should be.

This should be fairly straight forward to implement and would require mostly just data changes, and a small code change so that maintenance costs in orbit are only a fraction of the normal costs.

Would anyone else like to see that implemented in TA?

What do the devs think?

Consider, though, just how powerful one of those ships would be in it's defensive role. You can circle a planet in a few hours if you're using a low enough orbit, and the races of GalCiv obviously have some kind of superluminal sensor that lets them see incoming ships from a distance, so you would have forewarning.

Consider then that the hull size limitations that most ships have to deal with are the fault of the hyperdrive technology... larger ships break apart in warp fields unless properly compensated for. A ship that does not enter hyperspace is then free to be as big as you want it to be... the size of the ship is not a significant issue except in terms of thrusting.

Now, you'd want to put a reasonable cap on the size of them. For one, being able to thrust the ship around is an excellent defensive measure... a good random walk can make it very hard to target and hit you with weapons that travel at light speed or slower. A ship that can't accelerate fast (like starbases) would be following a completely ballistic path, making it rather easy to smash a rock into you from any old arbitrary distance. You know where they'll be.

That isn't simulated in the game, though (or maybe it's the reason starbases are so limited in hit points...). However, you've got to admit that defensive orbiting stations loaded with your latest military tech (and without needing pesky engines and life support!) would be able to provide a significant barrier to any would be invader... more so than orbiting fleets would!

I like econundrum's solution, which is pretty elegant. The downside comes in the form of the updates needed for the AI... they'd need to learn to put engines on all their warships. It'd also mean a significant speed increase across the board, once higher level engines are unlocked. If engines are mandatory, and you just happen to have warp drives... thats 3 movement right there, without even considering the +speed abilities that are built in by default now. Then again... Frogboy's been talking about revamping the AI anyways, so maybe this is just the time!

By the current game rules, a default movement of zero equals a movement of 1, as everyone has an inherent +10% movement speed as of TA beta 4.

The Arceans would have genuinely speed 0 ships, though.

The easiest way to do this would be to allow a one-off module with -2 speed, zero space and some low negative cost....

Well, in some games I usally use a Huge or large class vessel for my monitor class. no engines or life support. 1/3 for weapons and 2/3 for defenses. Then just have it squat ontop of key worlds. but they are expensive because of the hull and weapons. No matter how you slice it orbiting weapons platform should be expensive think of the maintainance of them or the nano bots that would be expesive in deleopment and the communication array to keep them in control. if you dont control control them I shudder to think of the galactic plag that could start.

Duh

That's an easy fix. Just don't apply the speed ability unless a ship has engines!

Under that, Arceans in the game start would only get the speed that they stick on their ships manually, while other races would get +1 or +2 bonuses to their first engine.

@Duh

I see no reason that orbiting defense stations would be MORE expensive. The maintainence would be less... your planets are right beside you, you don't need to worry about going out of the safety of a gravity well. I have no idea what you're talking about with nanobots and communications, though... communications are no big issue (and would be even LESS pronounced on an orbiting station that doesn't need to communicate superluminally) and orbiting defense stations would probably be manned by a crew anyways.

And... you don't control them, and you get a galactic plague? What? The only problem you'd get from not controlling them is a navigational hazard.

Ok lets think on this Star striker1. In much of Sci fi they are automated. That means someone has to physically travel there. Its expensive or should be getting out of the gravity well of a planet. Since this game does not use transporters that is not an option. You have to maintain a ground crew and a maintance crew and a flight crew to get there (same as a large ship). Now my WAG is about 50% of the mainatance will need EVA. That is expensive both in training for the man or machine and in resources. A stardock would be nice but do you really want a malfunctioning defense satilite in your Stardock? As far a control. It really would make sense to spend money on espinoge if you could take control of an enemies automated defenses. But that just my thinking on that matter Starstrike

Maintaining a spacecraft or station in close orbit is going to be cheaper than maintaining one out of system, period. Under no circumstances would a nearby installation require more effort to keep going than a distant one, unless there was a significant difference in design (one that made the nearly stationary construct orbiting the planet MORE expensive than ships that require massive amounts of fuel for their reactors, as well as supply lines). The EVA requirements would be roughly the same, but a distant ship has both the expenses of supply lines and the supplies themselves to deal with, which would make things very expensive, very fast by comparison.

Gravity wells are a problem, but they are not that significant. Space elevators are well within the technology level of the game, and I'm inclined to think that the starports are precisely that. Space elevators make moving stuff skywards cheaper by several orders of magnitude. Regardless, supplies and maintainence going to an out of system vessel ALSO have to be pulled out of a gravity well, so they have to pay the same cost on TOP of their expensive supplies.

I see no reason why you need to leave your orbital defenses unmanned. For one, people are cheap, and constantly cycling out the crew wouldn't be particularily demanding on the high tech societies in question (where space TOURISM is a significant economic factor). More to the point, having your crew on the station means a faster reaction time to threats, a maintainence crew on standby, and helps to sidestep the problem that a system malfunction (or sabotage) would have on a remotely controlled station.

More to the point, remotely controlling the station would be a cost SAVING measure, not an expense! Without a crew, you don't need to supply the station as often or build life support.

While I love the Galciv series then of course there are some things that are bad, for me that is the planetary defence and invasion bit. In general I always found it simple to the point where it it just kinda sad.

In general I can imagaine the following revisions being made.

Allowing a weapon tech branch that allows planetary bombarment type weapons!

A defence building that gives the planet defence against ship attacks, both assisting orbiting ships and give a standalone defence against invasion.
(This can include orbital defence platforms, sattelite systems etc etc.)

The Invaders get to chose tactics... why dont the defenders??? I liked master of orions 3´s version (At least I think that was the game) where you get to chose tactic as defender. This also brings up the next issue. An invasion takes what.. a week? Way to short, and way to silly... would be more strategically interresting to allow the option that if the defender does a good job, then he can drag the war on for several turns.. especially if there are no ships in orbit to assist the ground troops (A unarmed transport maintaining air superiority... yeah right). Also depending on the size of the planet more ships should be required to maintain air superiority!

Also why does every citizen have to help in the defence and get exterminated for no reason? I always feel awefull playing a good civillization knowing that if I invade I condem EVERYONE on the planet just to make room for my soldiers! Instead I would like that you can conscript a set amount of each planets populance as soldiers and only those can fight and be used to invade with! (The invader should of course still be allowed to exterminate everyone if he wishes... afterall we do have evil guys out there!)

If people dont like dealing with this sort of micromanagdement, then just pick a "Let the AI fight" and you can move on with some other duties.

I guess I could go on... but this would be the core of what I really miss to make warfare more planet focused, and less ship centric.
The Galciv series should be mature enough by now to move away from the simple system currently in place!

The "My soldiers land and kill off your entire population" thing is an abstraction. You don't actually exterminate everyone on the planet, and a lot of the conquered just plain go off the grid.

Battles are resolved in a week because the game doesn't focus on military operations to the same extent that, for example, Master of Orion III does. It might be more realistic, but it might also add more micromanagement for little advantage.

Starstrike1 if you make it unmanned then it has to be programmed. And that programming has to be maintained by some type of link. If it is being maintained by some type of link on the planet it can be eavesdropped from space. It can also be hacked and that would be a bad thing in my humble opion.

Duh