All right. I just loved the cinematic; but something that struct me: the "Crusade Fleet" was composed of a few huge behemot ships and plenty of support vessels around them. Something that rarely happens in my previous GalCiv games; as the game always played with this simple fact: bigger is better. Therefore, you ended up with a fleet of Cruisers at the end.
It's not as impressive, in my humble opinion, as a properly constructed (and somewhat realistic) fleet. It's always funnier to see smaller starships in operation buzzing around their bigger counterparts; akin to Destroyers and Frigates protecting their aircraft carriers. Which is why I would like to suggest to the developpers to.. well, add a layer of complexity to fleet design that would favor diversified fleets over monoclass ones. How? It's actually elegant:
Make starships deadlier as they get smaller.
Now listen. I am not promoting the idea of all-starfighters (or Corvettes) fleets. Nor am I saying that a starfighter alone should be more powerful than a starship of bigger size. It's all about cost-efficiency: the industrial production required to build 1 corvette could be better spent to build 4 starfighters, if ALL you are looking for is punch power. When it comes to Cost vs Cost, Starfighters are ALWAYS going to be superior to Corvette, who will ALWAYS be superior to Destroyers, etc...
But why build larger starships at all, then? Again, the solution is elegant:
Make certain component only available of ships of a certain class or bigger
Stuff like "Starfighter Hangar" should only be available for the biggest starships. "Anti-capital ships torpedoes" and "Flak Turrets" would be available only to Frigates. "Long-range Plasma Beam" only available to Destroyers, etc...
You will end up with starship classes with a specific mission, and it will make sense for you to make them work as a team. It will make sense for you to keep them in formation. It will make sense for your heavy weaponry to target the smallest ships first; as they are the one carrying the heaviest weaponry load.
Now, let's try to simulate, logically, what would a "comprehensive" fleet look like.
First of all, the punches: the Starfighter. They are the fastest and deadliest crafts. However, their weapons are short-range and have to expose themselves to reach their targets. There can be multiple kinds of Starfighter; from Interceptor to Bombers. A squadron of Starfighter carrying weapon X (torpedo, laser, etc..) is going to be the most cost/effective way of carrying destruction, no matter the potential hull size. Starfighters are, ultimately, short ranged. So you need a Carrier to move them around. This can be armed, in which case it becomes the equivalent of a Battlestar. But then, why have them carry offensive weapons if it would be cheaper to have the same weapons carried by smaller starships? Ultimately, however, a Carrier is obviously very vulnerable to Fighter strikes. Unless your contingent is specifically made up of Interceptors, you will suffer bad casualties from the opposition's fighters. This is why you need specific anti-fighter weaponry to screen against opposition attacks; like Flak Turrets or Mines. These do not fit on a Starfighter; so you need to have Frigates to deploy them around, as we have established the smaller crafts are the most effective way of carrying weaponries. Now, we have a very interesting fleet disposition. A Carrier sorrounded by Frigates who shield it against ennemy Fighters. Thing is, with the Frigate screen, nobody has the capacity to hurt the other side with its fighter. You need a certain amount of long-range weaponry capable of punching through the frigate screen to open the way for your starfighters without exposing themselves to the ennemy's starfighters. These can only be carried around by Destroyers and bigger ships. Obviously, you could load these up on the Carrier, but it's more cost-efficient to just build Destroyers. So we end up with: Starfighters (Bombers-Generic-Interceptor) Frigates (fighter screens) Destroyer (Frigate-punchers) Carriers
You end up with a naturally diversified fleet. It would make sense for your Destroyers to target the ennemy's Frigates first, instead of going all-in on the carrier.
I'm absolutly in favor of diversified ship types! But all you need then is some game mechanics to make sure your vessels behave like their role demands. A carrier consisting of nothing but fighter bays and maybe some flak guns has no business in the first attack wave. Its fighters, yes. But the fighters needs a base to retrun to when the battle is over.
Same for the other classes.
Well, this idea of shipdesign would probably require a tactical combat system akin to Gratuitous Space Battles; where you can give mission statement to your fleets and ship classes.
Like you said; there are some ships with little point for sending headfirst into battles; but they still need their anti-fighter screens. On the other hand, you probably want to send your heavy punch destroyers ahead to destroy the opposition's anti-fighter screen, but they need to be protected as well.
The point is to design a combat system where fleet balanced is considered to be important instead of going all in OMGSUPERCRUZERSSSSS
This
Like you, I eventually get to cap ships or nothing by the end. Some times, I'd build smaller ships just so the battle would look cool.
So much this as well. I'd love this.
I like it. You would need to change the combat system for something like this to work, but that is a small price to pay.
After seeing the video, I have the (maybe wrong) idea that we are getting carriers and spacefighters (and more) in game. I'd like to think that after working with Ironclad, they got some nice ideas about stuff for our GalCiv III fleets.
In GalCiv II i'd build smaller fighters to go along capital ships for easy extra power and laser fodder. But they weren't really needed so anything that improves it, like the dieas of the OP, is good to me.
I don't think the video is intended to be an exampled of gameplay.
Altough i really like the idea your aiming at i kinda see a problem with that, as CIWS weapon systems are nowadays used on a variety of warships not to mention the fact that most of them are equipped with missle type weapons. Not to mention the fact that most sci-fi features ships with hangers from frigates to dreadnoughts, thinking in that line i could see frigates with a single squadron on board and carriers with complete fighter, bomber, interceptor and transport wings.
Additionally you'd run into a problem in the lines of technological progress, a railgun won't forever stay dreadnought size it would eventually become handheld as you progress through technology it wouldn't be as powerfull but i would be there. So restriction would only work if you have different types of a certain weapon.
Say: Railgun 1 - huge in size and power only useable on dreadnoughts and battleships followed by Railgun 2, 3, 4, 5 etc. with each adding new components and/or bonuses. With say railgun 3 adding smaller railguns for frigates, destroyers and cruisers which are less powerfull while the big one gets a lot more powerfull because of these advancements. And railgun 4 adding gunship, fighter and maybe vehicle-based versions which are less powerfull again but do add a soldiering bonus during invasions and railgun 5 adding a soldiering bonus because of the infantry version.
Your idea would probably become a chance thing with a lot of fighters giving a large bonus in possible hits if the carrier is not escorted.
It would kinda give a rock-paper-scissors feel to your whole idea and judging from your complete post wasn't what you were aiming at.
I don't get it why this idea would give a rock-paper-scissors feel.
Regarding your argument with the evolution of weapon technology (decreases in size, increase in efficiency) - this is what ship designers are for and that's exactly what already happens in GalCiv 2 (and most other 4x games). Assigning roles to ship types is just an addtional element to get more influence on the battle and its outcome.
The sadly failed Lost Empire: Immortals attempted to address this issue with the creation of point defence, small, medium and large class weaponry. The PD guns were available on all hull classes except for the Patrol hull.
It was broken down like this:
Small weapons on Patrol (1), Frigate (2) and Destroyer (1)
Medium weapons on Frigate (1), Destroyer (2), Cruiser (2)
Large weapons on Cruiser (2) and Battleship (4)
The numbers represent how many weapon slots were available for each class. eg. the Cruiser could have 2 medium and 2 large weapons.
Large weapons had an accuracy penalty vs smaller ships. This way a horde of frigates could possibly take down a lone battleship but with serious casualties. Most of my fleets ran with Destroyers, Cruisers and Frigates with only my main invasion/strike force possessing battleships.
I don't mean the idea itself just the last thing i pointed out just like the OP.
The fact that it would become a complex form of rock-paper-scissor as frigate beats fighter; destroyer beats frigate etc. with a whole lot of chance trown in the mix which comes from the amouts of units per type.
In regard to your second point, i was only pointing out the fact that a certain component for a certain shiptype would mean that other shiptypes wouldn't able to fill a role (or not effectivly enough) and you would always need bring an entire fleet to hunt an enemy down, because of the shiptypes he's got. I'm not against the whole certain component for a certain shiptype idea but i feel that say another shipstype should be able to fill a certain role even if it's not as good as the other.
But for now we'll just have to wait and see until the alpha version what kind of warfare we can expect because i totally agree with the Op that we really need a diverse fleet and not a kind of deathstar nobody can beat me kind of ship.
Yeah, supreme huge ships that can take alot of damage and survive battles should cost ALOT! Small ships need to be really cost effective, espacially when they can operate in huge quantas.
I suggest making these small fighters hard to hit, and that you willl need your own fighters to fight enemy fighters most efficently (dogfighting).
I think we will see very impressive huge scale battle cinematics in GalCiv3.
All right; maybe a rock-paper-cissors type of fleet combat wouldn't be the best way to go. And I agree that miniaturization technology should eventually allow for smaller-scale ship modules; but then you end up with new high-tier supermodules that can only fit on the largest starships.
But I did not wanted to decide WHAT the starship missions should be. That should be to the players (and the AI) to decide, design and apply. Obviously, if you want to favour interceptors over flak frigates (based on the techs that you have researched so far), that's your call. But the most important concepts should remain:
When all other things being equal, smaller is better.
Most complex ship modules have a minimal size required to carry.
The point is to make large starships necessary to your fleet, but not the norm.
You could have the underlying game mechanics be a bit different for different civilizations, so that from a cost-effectiveness perspective, some species would naturally tend towards carriers & fighters, some would want to use as large ships as possible, some favor mixed fleets, etc.
Though of course, the more complex you make a system like this, the more game balance testing will probably cost...
I am not so sure about different bonuses for different species. However, I like you idea about diversifying weapon's properties.
For example; Flak Turrets (MD) could only be outfitted on Frigates or bigger ships. But their anti-fighter missile equivalent; SRMS, can be outfitted on a smaller corvette. Each offer different advantages.
So your fleet composition and shape may be influenced by your weapon research focus. You add diversity based on what you will favour in your research.
Big vs Small is always become problem in 4x game. Specially in Gal Civ series where single Cruiser can kick several smaller starships single-handedly. So unless the Galactic Civilization 3 change their combat system radically, I guess it would be the same as always. One big starship can rule the space.
So rather than that, We can change the weapon system to melee, long range and heavy weapon.
Melee weapon is a direct attack against the enemy formation. You must put your ship directly in front of the enemy to strike. By doing that you put your ship into a dog fight situation, where you need to do a lot of maneuver. In here booster and evasion rate is important, so you are foolish to put a big cruiser into a dog fight situation against a fighter. They will be trapped and sitting duck and can only depend on their PD weapon.
Range Weapon is your standard anti ship weapon. It's weapon range is 2 - 3 block from the enemy. It is a standard fire exchange in ship vs ship weapon. So your ship will fire your weapon, and vice versa. You depend on shield and armor to protect your ship
The last type of weapon is Heavy Weapon / Artillery, volley weapon or MAP weapon if you like it (using SD Gundam G Generation term), is an AOE weapon that strike from afar. This weapon can strike several grids at once, make it very powerful, But it can only be equipped by big ships And to use it, the ship must not move prior to fire.
So with that weapon classification, you can make the ship classes into :
Small ships / fighter for melee, Medium ships like Frigate and Destroyer for range weapon and PD
Big ship like Cruiser to execute MAP weapon.
So with this type of system, sinking down a big ship with MAP weapon is important. You must protect your capital ships (for it's MAP weapon) with Frigate and Destroyer. and use your fighter to harass or flank the big ship for an exposed area. Small ships like fighter should not be exposed to range weapon as they are weak against that, so you need all element to handle the situation here.
With this, you don't need tactical map anymore.
I have never liked how components changed in size when the ship did, but the opportunity to have smaller ships last is good.
What about more diverse fleet wide boosts so we could have capital ships boosting a large group of corvettes and such?
The modules in GC2 already do limit what ships they can be put on as some can only be put on Medium/large and/or Huge hulls.I would like a bigger hull size called gigantic like you do with the map sizes if possible and a new type of hull for starbases ranging from tiny to Huge or even gigantic! But I dont want GC 3 being turned into another Sins with dedicated ship roles for certain sized ship hulls that would change it irrevocably.
Stardock have resisted Carriers many times - and that's what this is - a Carrier thread by another name.
Will they do it this time ..... I have no idea, we wait and see. No point pumping more carbon dioxide into the air going over Carriers - yet again - we'll see what we shall see.
We'll know one way or the other by The Spring I suspect.
So no Carrier module that allows X Tiny ships to not count Logistics wise in the fleet where that module is present?
As Zydor said, carriers were repeatedly shot down in all three GC2 iterations. It's not likely to change.
Although it would be hilarious if Stardock included carriers with the realistic downside of carriers: a successful surprise attack can kill off the carrier before it has a chance to launch any fighters at all.
A similar module might work though: a flagship module. It might double the logistics points of a fleet, but makes the ship a priority target. If the ship dies, the remaining fleet becomes disordered and only the ships that fit in the remaining logistics space can fight effectively.
Example: you have 50 logistics points. A flagship lets you have 100 points, but if the flagship is destroyed the fleet is reduced to only 50 points worth of ships that can fight, and any remainders are inactive targets. Their defenses work, but they can't fire back. As the active ships get destroyed the inactive ships will rejoin the battle.
Yhea, sure. Ignore entirely all my other propositions and just focus on the fact that I propose "carrier" as one of the ship class.
Why has stardock been resistant?
Given that carriers are central to your proposed design, that's not too unreasonable.
And the fighters that are the basis of your system, which would be pretty useless without a carrier. The differences between fighters, frigates, and capital ships is another form of rock/paper/scissors, and if you remove one from the system the other two are irretrievably broken.
Mainly that they don't do anything you can't do without them. There's nothing a fighter can do that a tiny hull couldn't, the push for carriers is mostly people that want to evade the logistics cap (see reply #19) or just on a mindless "lol carriers are cool" rant. If done correctly they could be a good addition, but combat in the previous two games simply didn't have a role for carriers to play, and adding them anyway would cause a lot more unnecessary balancing issues. It could be that Brad has something different planned this time around, but I wouldn't hold my breath; anoxia is a terrible way to die.
Except that my proposed design merely a representation of my core ideas, which are:
1- Smaller ships are better
2- Make bigger ships necessary to carry larger, more complex modules.
The example I gave was just a way to represent a logical proposition for why people would want to have a diversified fleet that aren't arbitrary (things like "give a combat bonus when you have a diversified fleet" would just be an asspull.) Do you want me to write a new example without the carrier for your precious minds to wrap around the core ideas?
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
