Stellaris Dev Diary #41 - Heinlein patch (part 2)

[Uncle_Joe]

Yes but those nuclear powered subs (and advance starships) don't carry unlimited ammo, spare parts, crew, etc.

Every combat force in history (land, sea, air, and eventually space) needs a logistical tail...there is no reason to think that starships will be immune to that need. And rather than having bean counting for ammo loadouts, an abstracted penalty (however enforced) at least encourages players to follow a logical path of conquest.

 

[Wouter445]

Yeah, why would nations spend tons and tons of money building bigger and larger ships just to be countered by fast moving vessels with destructive short range power and be forced to build escort vessels to fill various specialised roles. Oh wait, it's called the evolution of naval warfare 1890-1945.

yea Navy is like space right.........

when a race build a 600.000+- tonnage space ship do you think they let a tiny spaceship of 1300 tonnage craft even have the fire power to even damage the hull?.

 

[Merrivale]

yea Navy is like space right.........

when a race build a 600.000+- tonnage space ship do you think they let a tiny spaceship of 1300 tonnage craft even have the fire power to even damage the hull?.

Ship combat is ship combat, whether on the sea or in space. You are still dealing with a vessel built to operate in the environment and destroy other vessels in the same environment. The reason they "let" a tiny ship have fire power to damage the hull is basic physics: the bigger the ship the more power you need to move it. The more armor you put on that big ship, the more power you need to move it. At some point, you just don't have enough power to move that big ship as fast or as nimbly (how about turning that great big ship on a dime?) as a small ship with the same technology, even in the vacuum of space. And you really don't need a huge weapon to do an enormous amount of damage, we have plenty of small weapons here today that will easily fit on a small device, like say, an airplane, that would absolutely wreck any modern battleship. That's why we don't really have modern battleships, so in a sense, the game itself is a bit of an anachronism. Big battleships were proven obsolete in WWII and have never made a comeback as ship-to-ship weapons.

 

[alxgvr]

What if some weapons need special resources to shoot? Tachyon lances maybe. Every shot will consume some amount of resources. I think something like that was in Victoria 2 (coal and iron). So you will not use your best ships everythere. You will keep them in reserve for some realy important battle.

Or implement limited ammo for every ship. In that case you will need to return for reload after big battle, or build supply ships. So you will not be able just to build big fleet and conquer whole galaxy. You will plan you war carefully.

Or some weapons cost special resources to build. If you put tachyon lances on your ship in fleet designer - you will pay base cost + special resource unit. Like in Civilization games. From tactical point of view - if your enemy has such weapons on his ships - you can capture star systems to cut supply of these resources. Like Hitler tried to capture Caucasus to cut USSR from oil

 

[physics1915]

Might I suggest removing collision between ships? You can sort of determine your order of battle by the choice of computer for each ship, but the most unrealistic (and frustrating) thing I've noticed in combat is the fleet trying to sort itself out at the start, corvettes and cruisers trying to get out ahead to attack the enemy (assuming they're set up for that), but being blocked by battleships in front of them. Allowing custom formations would go a huge way in solving this problem, but still wouldn't allow for tactics like the battleships first engaging the enemy, then cruisers and corvettes moving in to provide cover as their attack craft move within range. If you try to do this with the current system (not that you have a choice, since ship placement is currently semi-random), there will be a bottleneck when the screening craft try to get out in front, your entire formation will fall apart, and, when the fleets finally engage, it will just be a disorganized swarm. Given the vastness and 3-dimensional nature of space, there's absolutely no logical reason for this frustrating mechanic.

 

[Paul Aldo]

yea Navy is like space right.........

when a race build a 600.000+- tonnage space ship do you think they let a tiny spaceship of 1300 tonnage craft even have the fire power to even damage the hull?.

Not really, but when compared to such a gigantic ship and its huge guns, the tiny ship has crazy evasion. And that battleship is hardly a plain block, there must be some weakness here and there, and corvettes/fighters could easily attack that particular point and deal critical damage.

Huge ship also has a huge disadvantage, they're sitting ducks, so are only useful if they are packed with equally huge weapons to crush structures. Though I kinda disagree with op: You could, say, pack a gigantic ship with crazy amount of small weapons, to counter corvettes and smaller ships. But these things could get wrecked by another battleship that is equipped with big artillery-like weapons, so the latter battleship seems to be the only logical build.

 

[Wouter445]

Ship combat is ship combat, whether on the sea or in space. You are still dealing with a vessel built to operate in the environment and destroy other vessels in the same environment. The reason they "let" a tiny ship have fire power to damage the hull is basic physics: the bigger the ship the more power you need to move it. The more armor you put on that big ship, the more power you need to move it. At some point, you just don't have enough power to move that big ship as fast or as nimbly (how about turning that great big ship on a dime?) as a small ship with the same technology, even in the vacuum of space. And you really don't need a huge weapon to do an enormous amount of damage, we have plenty of small weapons here today that will easily fit on a small device, like say, an airplane, that would absolutely wreck any modern battleship. That's why we don't really have modern battleships, so in a sense, the game itself is a bit of an anachronism. Big battleships were proven obsolete in WWII and have never made a comeback as ship-to-ship weapons.

Space is absolute not the same as Navy or air combat:

physics:
in space mass don't really matter when a object is in motion it stay's in motion till a countered by a outside force. even a cube would be just as maneuverable as a F16.
a tiny Engine can easy push forward a massive object so long the engine is on, and you have the time.

now back to tiny ships, tiny ships would have not meters thick armor and are very easy to destroy by a large ship carry 1000's of turrets.

 

[Axelius]

yea Navy is like space right.........

when a race build a 600.000+- tonnage space ship do you think they let a tiny spaceship of 1300 tonnage craft even have the fire power to even damage the hull?.

Well, yes. By all accounts if we would be talking REAL space combat by all predictions it would be more akin to sub combat than anything else, since the ability to send a projectile with enough kinetic energy to shatter pretty much anything is far easier than building something that would be able to take such a hit. And that's not even taking nuclear weapons into account.

Thankfully, this game is not hard sci-fi. It is space opera. And like pretty much all space opera it boils down to emulating the last era of large scale naval warfare, ie WWII. I for one don't complain, as I want my pew-pew lasers in space.

 

[Wouter445]

Not really, but when compared to such a gigantic ship and its huge guns, the tiny ship has crazy evasion. And that battleship is hardly a plain block, there must be some weakness here and there, and corvettes/fighters could easily attack that particular point and deal critical damage.

Huge ship also has a huge disadvantage, they're sitting ducks, so are only useful if they are packed with equally huge weapons to crush structures. Though I kinda disagree with op: You could, say, pack a gigantic ship with crazy amount of small weapons, to counter corvettes and smaller ships. But these things could get wrecked by another battleship that is equipped with big artillery-like weapons, so the latter battleship seems to be the only logical build.

where do people get this idea from??? really it's odd.
why do you think carriers have miniguns? they shot down missiles and aircrafts

in the future Small lasers would be like miniguns shotting thousands of lasers rounds your "Maneuverability" would do s****

 

[mangalore]

where do people get this idea from??? really it's odd.
why do you think carriers have miniguns? they shot down missiles and aircrafts

in the future Small lasers would be like miniguns shotting thousands of lasers rounds your "Maneuverability" would do s****

Corvettes are however the smallest ocean going vessels (sometimes called light frigates) and SciFi spacefaring vessels. They are highly maneuverable while sporting active defenses.

That's why ww ships had middle artillery and in some engagements of that war it proved very inadequate to quickly dispatch a destroyer on a torpedo run.

Space is absolute not the same as Navy or air combat:

physics:
in space mass don't really matter when a object is in motion it stay's in motion till a countered by a outside force. even a cube would be just as maneuverable as a F16.
a tiny Engine can easy push forward a massive object so long the engine is on, and you have the time.

now back to tiny ships, tiny ships would have not meters thick armor and are very easy to destroy by a large ship carry 1000's of turrets.

Err... no it wouldn't be as maneuverable because the inertia would prevent rapid acceleration, change of orientation and thus change of its vector (the motion you build up is a static vector). It would _not_ be as maneuveable as a F-16

 

[Axelius]

Space is absolute not the same as Navy or air combat:

physics:
in space mass don't really matter when a object is in motion it stay's in motion till a countered by a outside force. even a cube would be just as maneuverable as a F16.
a tiny Engine can easy push forward a massive object so long the engine is on, and you have the time.

now back to tiny ships, tiny ships would have not meters thick armor and are very easy to destroy by a large ship carry 1000's of turrets.

Your physics is sorely lacking, since you're forgetting momentum. Yes, a tiny engine will be able to push a massive object, but it will not break a large object as fast. To maintain the same manueverability on a small vessel to a large vessel you need to maintain the same ratio of engine output to total mass, which, by all accounts would require larger engines.

where do people get this idea from??? really it's odd.
why do you think carriers have miniguns? they shot down missiles and aircrafts

in the future Small lasers would be like miniguns shotting thousands of lasers rounds your "Maneuverability" would do s****

And, pray tell, how would the lasers be able to detect and shoot down a small solid projectile moving at 0.99c? Not that it would be impossible, mind, but it would be easier to simply not be at the point where your adversary is predicting you're going to be. And the more manueverable your ship is, the smaller the target that it is, the easier that is to achieve.

And then again, this game is not realistic. It isn't hard sci fi, because as cool as a deep space combat game dealing with relativistic speeds would be, I don't think it is a good fit for a grand strategy game.

 

[Wouter445]

Well, yes. By all accounts if we would be talking REAL space combat by all predictions it would be more akin to sub combat than anything else, since the ability to send a projectile with enough kinetic energy to shatter pretty much anything is far easier than building something that would be able to take such a hit. And that's not even taking nuclear weapons into account.

Thankfully, this game is not hard sci-fi. It is space opera. And like pretty much all space opera it boils down to emulating the last era of large scale naval warfare, ie WWII. I for one don't complain, as I want my pew-pew lasers in space.

they can make awesome Sci-fi moves by addling more laser turrets give large ships more health. would make a cool warzone

 

[alxgvr]

Not shure why people discussing "real space combat". In real space nothing we see in this game will be possible. It is just a game. If devs would make real space simulator - you would not play it. Because "real space" is boring.

 

[Erei]

I know I'm probably the only one, but I use the gimped kinetic weapons, instead of the OP missile in the beginning/OP energy in late game. And I can't help but notice I will be nerfed further in the patch.
-Corvette have a dedicated torp slot, but as kinetic I'm the only one who doesn't have access to them easily. Energy have energetic torp, missiles have them obviously.
-short range weapon. Well, autocannon are among the shortest range weapon we have. How will they even compete ?

So far, all the screens I've seen for the revamp are using a full tech tree. I want to see from a lower tech point of view, because the late game when the tech tree is fully unlocked is about the time we end anyway because there is not much to do.


Finally, I'd like to be able to tell my ship their role. Like "brawler ship, artillery ship..." and they would try to follow the role they have. There is nothing more dumb than having kinetic artillery or tachyon lance ship being in melee because they kept closing the gap.

 

[Wouter445]

Your physics is sorely lacking, since you're forgetting momentum. Yes, a tiny engine will be able to push a massive object, but it will not break a large object as fast. To maintain the same manueverability on a small vessel to a large vessel you need to maintain the same ratio of engine output to total mass, which, by all accounts would require larger engines.

And, pray tell, how would the lasers be able to detect and shoot down a small solid projectile moving at 0.99c? Not that it would be impossible, mind, but it would be easier to simply not be at the point where your adversary is predicting you're going to be. And the more manueverable your ship is, the smaller the target that it is, the easier that is to achieve.

And then again, this game is not realistic. It isn't hard sci fi, because as cool as a deep space combat game dealing with relativistic speeds would be, I don't think it is a good fit for a grand strategy game.

true enough but nobody know what speeds space combat would be in the first place. so guessing about momentum is all based on guess work

And, pray tell, how would the lasers be able to detect and shoot down a small solid projectile moving at 0.99c? Not that it would be impossible, mind, but it would be easier to simply not be at the point where your adversary is predicting you're going to be. And the more manueverable your ship is, the smaller the target that it is, the easier that is to achieve.

And then again, this game is not realistic. It isn't hard sci fi, because as cool as a deep space combat game dealing with relativistic speeds would be, I don't think it is a good fit for a grand strategy game.

not really sure why you talking about shotting down "bullets" close to speed of light, but we talking about minilaser guns that shot down tiny spacecrafts like 1000 tonnage crafts.

 

[l4rim]

I have to say, that i dont like the idea of rolles for the different ship types and my reasoning is the following:
With roles you are going to loose the rolleplaying aspekt of the game. We already have the problem, that every race is diffrent in appearance but kind of plays the same if you have seen enough races.
How are you going to roleplay a Swarm race like in starcraft or an high tech but less ships style like the ancients in stargate if you have to play a "oh they have x, now i need to play y to destroy it" kind of game.
If you are going to balance it with counter roles you would have a more fair game, but it would be more boring too.

 

[mangalore]

where do people get this idea from??? really it's odd.
why do you think carriers have miniguns? they shot down missiles and aircrafts

in the future Small lasers would be like miniguns shotting thousands of lasers rounds your "Maneuverability" would do s****

true enough but nobody know what speeds space combat would be in the first place. so guessing about momentum is all based on guess work

It's not about speed but acceleration and thus the ability to maneuever which is directly tied to how quickly you can change the vector your ship moves in which would be pretty much dependent on how quickly you can turn the ship and what its ratio of mass vs. engine thrust is (the maneuverability would be dependent on mass vs. the maneuvering thrusters). A big, heavy ship will have at least problems with the former

 

[Paul Aldo]

where do people get this idea from??? really it's odd.
why do you think carriers have miniguns? they shot down missiles and aircrafts

in the future Small lasers would be like miniguns shotting thousands of lasers rounds your "Maneuverability" would do s****

Sure, but try that, the enemy will just order their fleet to stand still while their artillery are wrecking those small lasers battleship. It's viable, just isn't practical. And of course, this is all hypothetical.

Your physics is sorely lacking, since you're forgetting momentum. Yes, a tiny engine will be able to push a massive object, but it will not break a large object as fast. To maintain the same manueverability on a small vessel to a large vessel you need to maintain the same ratio of engine output to total mass, which, by all accounts would require larger engines.


And, pray tell, how would the lasers be able to detect and shoot down a small solid projectile moving at 0.99c? Not that it would be impossible, mind, but it would be easier to simply not be at the point where your adversary is predicting you're going to be. And the more manueverable your ship is, the smaller the target that it is, the easier that is to achieve.

And then again, this game is not realistic. It isn't hard sci fi, because as cool as a deep space combat game dealing with relativistic speeds would be, I don't think it is a good fit for a grand strategy game.

High speed sure, but 0.99c is just crazy, lol. Even 100 gr projectile accelerated to 0.2c would have relativistic kinetic energy more than an atomic bomb. And I agree that there should be some realistic aspects sacrificed for the sake of gameplay. For all we know the real life future space battle may be insanely unbalanced.

 

[GuildenSpur]

yea Navy is like space right.........

when a race build a 600.000+- tonnage space ship do you think they let a tiny spaceship of 1300 tonnage craft even have the fire power to even damage the hull?.

Yeah ask the Japanese and the Germans about the believe that big ships could never be sunk by a tiny craft, aircraft in this example, or subs and so on...
The aircraft was one of the factors these big armored ships were no longer invulnerable.
How do you think those big guns are going to track a fast moving target? They don't. That's why you have ship roles.

Wether it's Navy or space, big guns turn way slower than smaller guns, big ships are slower than small craft and so on. Still works the same in space.

 

[domein]

So battleships are good vs cruisers, that are good vs battleships?