Ships & Carriers & Frigates

[Renown]

One of the things I've noticed, that I will fix when I get time, is the amount of Carriers in the game and their value. Frigates, and other ships ... well they don't last long period. Their firepower isn't an issue (not in most cases, though in some it needs to be upgraded and their supply value reconsidered) but really their shields need to be edited.

 

Ships like the Nebulon-B Frigate, or the Dreadnaught should all have fighters. The ISD's/Mon Cals/Capital ships should all have a lot MORE fighters.

 

Estimated Shields

 

N-B Frigate - 6000

Dreadnaught - 8-9000 (with more hull points too)

ISD - 24-30000

 

Estimated Fighters

ISD - 10-12 squads (room for approximately 80 fighters of varied class)

N-B Frigate - (2-4 squads, I'm thinking four) (Room for 24 fighters)

Dreadnaught - 1-2 squads (Room for 12)

 

Etc etc etc.

 

Depending on the feedback from this post I'll post my other estimated values.

 

I've already tried the above values (and higher for some), which have resulted in longer battles, yet also gives more weight to the fighters (more of them compensates for the shield values, and yet the vessels themselves don't have higher firepower = fairly balanced).

 

Yet obviously this makes the ships without fighters (that really should have them) quite weak. Ships that traditionally had very few fighters would get a corresponding shield/armor/antimatter/weapon upgrade.

 

All in all, I'm taking a look at all the values and "Star Warsizing" it. Though when it come's to editing meshes, I hate it, and would like some assistance with the ship models that don't already have hangers.

 

This is all for my personal entertainment ( I do everything for myself ultimately, I find game designed based off of research of other people's desires to be shortsighted in the long run - oh yeah, I have my reasons) though I'm posting it here to enlighten everyone of my views.

 

Thoughts?

[Snowba11]

I like the idea however the amounts of squads should be the lower end of them estimations.

 

Also the one big problem I can see straight away with this would be the increase of lag especially on bigger games as there would be so many more fighter squadrons throughout the galaxy. And for me the biggest killer is the lag in later large games.

[Renown]

Fighters seem to only be a small portion of the lag. Most likely due to their model's being extremely undefined.

[Lavo]

Fighters seem to only be a small portion of the lag. Most likely due to their model's being extremely undefined.

Fighters are a massive contributor to late game lag; one of if not the largest reasons. The only reason they are not such in SoGE because they are not present in large numbers. This is the main reason there are less fighters versus more.

[Renown]

I've run multiple scenarios on my computer, testing a number of different variables from no fighters to tons of fighters.

 

The biggest single lag factor I've found is in refineries and trade stations, (the graphics made no difference).

 

I attribute this to their having waypoints, paths, and the like. Fighters on the other hand don't they just idle around the mothercraft until an enemy is in range and then it's simple they go straight at it and attack.

 

Perhaps it's a factor if you get battles with more than 200 squads (about the most I've gotten in one battle in my tests have been around 130-140 squads with no lag) but that right there is a massive fleet anyways.

 

Lag in these games come from one of two things ultimately, graphical considerations related to polygons, lightning and the like. Or from programmed 'ticks' (the computer checking each tick for the waypoints of trade ships, fleets on route to sectors, etc etc).

 

In my experience, it is usually always whatever is being counted every tick that is the cause of most in-game lag. (Exceptions would be for games like Total War, where I up the amount of troops due to every tick they get checked for multiple variables, and when in combat they have even more - think of their combat animations for anyone who knows what I'm talking about).

 

The problem is not the fleets, it's the expansion of the empires, as soon as they get a lot of trade/refineries set up, you've got massive amounts of ships on waypoints to and fro everywhere.

 

Compound it with the amount of logistical spots you get with the SoGE and I think there's an explanation for late-game lag.

 

Now, to test this , you can do one of two things.

 

Run a map from galaxy forge with spawned ships, or do the editing I did and remove the trade/refineries.

 

Now, as a solution, remove the refineries/trade stations. (Unless you can selectively limit them to One per Planet (with an increase in effectiveness), because the real issue is with places like Coruscant, where I had an enemy AI build something like 20 trade stations... excessive, especially since that income doesn't even come close to the planet's natural taxes.) That's 20 x (how ever many trade stations they had in other areas) x the route's they had to travel on, ending up with lots of computing process power being taken for a minuscule part of the game.

[Lavo]

I'm afraid I must disagree that fighters are minor; testing I've done has shown that fighters are indeed an issue. Then again, for me, it is common for my late game basic fleets to have 75+ squadrons as is. In addition, there was a time where SoGE had more fighters, even before I owned Sins, but it was reduced to it's current state due to lag. Furthermore, adding in more fighters would require a re-balancing of every single ship, regardless of fighters, which is simply something I am not willing to do at this time.

 

I'm also not surprised in trade ships being an issue; this is something well known among the Sins modding community, something I tried to decrease by giving them a filler mesh. It will be far easier to reduce the numbers of these ships in Diplomacy, as there are more cargo ship techs. I'm trying to figure out how to make one single trade/refinery powered up to being able to act as efficiently as five and ten (the current number spawned by ports and refineries, respectfully).

 

Once I get around to implementing true Ion weaponry/hardpoints, I'd be far more willing to look into changing fighter squadron numbers, in part due to the fact that frigates will be done from the ground up, and all cruisers/capitals will be re-balanced.

 

Edit: Also, trade income can be invaluable if you set up your trade routes right and make use of trade income planet bonuses. I've had games where my trade income eclipsed my tax income. That AI you are talking about was actually fairly smart, assuming he had a good trade route chain, it's a tactic I myself have employed.

[Renown]

Well, thats an issue. Different results, must be our computers then.

 

Don't get me wrong, fleet size is an issue - I notice lag with lots of ships, just not lots of fighters.

 

Test case 1 - I just ran an example with capital ships spawning massive amount of fighters (but having very few ships and alternative/stations etc). no lag. (400 squadrons of fighters)

 

Test case 2 - same amount of fighter squadrons, from 10 times as many ships. Noticeable lag.

 

Frankly, this game is weird. In that the entire universe is 'one scene'. I'd prefer personally if the planetary view was a different view - a la Sword of the Stars. (The universe is 'one aspect' but battle's held in another, albeit it is a turn-based game, but I like those) here, everything is calculated on the top/front and leads me to believe that's actual the biggest cause of lag. They really should have used different scenes, would have allowed more for content per scene, though yes that means loading screens/windows somewhere. Obviously outside of our control.

 

 

If fighter's have been an issue in your testing, I hypothesize that it's because of the number of carrier's you must have had for that many fighters. Not the fighter's themselves.

 

Part of the problem with this is we don't really have an easy way to test it, we are fudging and doing best guesses with forge or actual games with AI and thus everything else involved.

[Lavo]

Part of the problem with this is we don't really have an easy way to test it, we are fudging and doing best guesses with forge or actual games with AI and thus everything else involved.

Indeed. Even with the dev exe it's hard to figure out what's doing what at times.

[Renown]

also, I'm comfortable with not having the exact amount of fighter squadron's per ship though I'd like to try having fighters for at least those frigates with internal hangars (as opposed to external, for which there are a lot in SW's, like the Carrack, which I don't know how we'd emulate).

 

Perhaps the solution is to really try and emulate actual fleet combat. They'd usually send what, like 1/3-1/2 of their fighter's out, and kept reserve forces in the hangar.

 

So give more ships the 'instant build' for the carriers.. so as to always have fighters in space when carriers are about. If it leads to too much constant fighter warfare, just change the delay after activation?

 

As to reworking the frigates/capital ships, how are you going to do it?

 

I came up with a couple of possibilities.

 

Take the shield type's (the Star Wars wiki is good for this info) and attribute all the shield types with a value and then match them up ship per ship.

 

Take the attributed value of how powerful a vessel is, to another using a base like an ISD.

 

Set the values of that ship to something (really doesn't matter) and then vary the other ships shields, hulls, and weapons based off of how many it would take to destroy that ship.

 

I.e. 20 Nebulon B frigates equal a Star Destroyer, so divide the SD's stats by 20 and you got yourself a frigate. (not certain about this in terms of stats, cost yes, power not sure.)

 

Most importantly though, more so than the actual statistics is how the battle 'plays' out, a nebulon b frigate was not instantly destroyed by a volley from an ISD as they are in SoGE.

[Lavo]

also, I'm comfortable with not having the exact amount of fighter squadron's per ship though I'd like to try having fighters for at least those frigates with internal hangars (as opposed to external, for which there are a lot in SW's, like the Carrack, which I don't know how we'd emulate).

You're also forgetting not all ships had their full compliment all the time, like the Sacheen for example.

 

Perhaps the solution is to really try and emulate actual fleet combat. They'd usually send what, like 1/3-1/2 of their fighter's out, and kept reserve forces in the hangar.

That can be emulated by simply not "maxing" fighter squads. Like the VSD II would have only 1 squadron, it's second acting as a fictional reserve.

 

So give more ships the 'instant build' for the carriers.. so as to always have fighters in space when carriers are about. If it leads to too much constant fighter warfare, just change the delay after activation?

But that would nerf the ability so bloody hard.

 

As to reworking the frigates/capital ships, how are you going to do it?

For cruisers/capitals, reworking the weapons. For frigates? Not sure exactly. I know they are broken as heck, but I'm not sure what to do with 'em exactly. Though this will change with the introduction of Ion weaponry most likely.

 

Take the attributed value of how powerful a vessel is, to another using a base like an ISD.

Not all ships have the same shield regeneration, among other values, so this wouldn't entirely work. If ships are of a similar class, like say the ISD vs Nebula/Rejuvinator SD, it could work, though see the next point.

 

Set the values of that ship to something (really doesn't matter) and then vary the other ships shields, hulls, and weapons based off of how many it would take to destroy that ship.

That wouldn't work. This is a far too linear and rock-paper-scissors approach, one both EJ and I detest. If this was done, one of the key outlooks/points of the mod would be gone.

 

Most importantly though, more so than the actual statistics is how the battle 'plays' out, a nebulon b frigate was not instantly destroyed by a volley from an ISD as they are in SoGE.

This is impossible. An ISD cannot one-shot kill a Nebulon-B, you might think it can, but I can tell you for a fact this is not possible based off of the statistics pre-research, and from how I've seen battles play out. Sure they don't last long, but it isn't instant.

 

The Nebulon-B was not a powerful frigate, an ISD should be able to take out quickly. If you put up 20 Nebulon-Bs against an ISD you have a very good shot at winning, as your damage output notable exceeds the ISD's.

[Snowba11]

So how easy would it be to limit every planet to only one trade port/refinery station ?

 

I like the idea of upgrading it via research or would it be posible to do like you would a space station ? ie just buy levels for your station/port.

[Lavo]

So how easy would it be to limit every planet to only one trade port/refinery station ?

Impossible, and would also be a penalty for those who are simply good at managing economies.

[sloosecannon]

So how easy would it be to limit every planet to only one trade port/refinery station ?

Impossible, and would also be a penalty for those who are simply good at managing economies.

Erm, not quite impossible... more specifically it's impractical... you could set the log slot usage unreasonably high so you can only get one... but that's not really a good solution

[Snowba11]

Ok so instead of limiting the amount of stations what about the refinery ships ? Can we limit or even remove them all together ? While still letting the stations carry on with their normal function ?

[Renown]

i think they could be removed and perhaps their role could be kept to the golan station?

 

That could work for trade, but I don't know if you can fake the refinery.

 

I see far less Golan stations out there from the AI, and player's are unable to afford to abuse them too.

[Lavo]

Erm, not quite impossible... more specifically it's impractical... you could set the log slot usage unreasonably high so you can only get one... but that's not really a good solution

Would also ensure that smaller planets cannot use them.

 

Ok so instead of limiting the amount of stations what about the refinery ships ? Can we limit or even remove them all together ? While still letting the stations carry on with their normal function ?

As I said; I'm trying to figure out how to limit the trade/refinery ships, mainly as this is the core issue, not the ports themselves. I'm not sure if you can entirely remove them from the game, I think you can, but this would screw with several abilities in addition to other things.

 

i think they could be removed and perhaps their role could be kept to the golan station? ... I see far less Golan stations out there from the AI, and player's are unable to afford to abuse them too.

I'm sorry but I'm simply not willing to do this; making multiple trade ports is NOT abuse, it's simply good ingame empire management. This sort of "abuse" is possible even in regular Sins and Sins Plus, the AI however responds better to NU's potential for whatever reason. You cannot "fake" refineries, though if you could I'd try to combine trade ports and refineries, but also increase their logistical count, but this is sadly impossible.