Hot posts in thread: ISG Dev Diary #2: Ship Design

gja102, you are wrong about Endless Legend, it started with 1 model, but you could make as many 'designs' of that model as you wanted, it had infinite design slots available. You could equip that unit type with armor, or without armor, or different weapons and create a new design for each style. If you had just enough special minerals available to make a single strong unit of that type you could create a new design to do so for just 1, then make an iron design. You had as many design slots available as you could dream up. This game only has 5, lol, you are totally wearing the rose colored glasses that i mentioned about, you cant see the bad decision that this is. Mark is very much correct in his analysis of this, its just artificial and lame, and i can see right through it, it makes no sense, its a ton of other bad things I could go on and on.

 

Please stop attributing emotion where none exists. The truth or falsity of my position is for others to decide based on whether they find my arguments compelling, but attacking the poster rather than the argument does your stance no favors at all.

 

Dude, calm down, and stop mistaking your opinions for facts.

Saying the same thing over and over again won't make it true.

You've chosen not to engage with the perfectly reasonable explanations and examples given to you. Fine, that's your right. But repeatedly calling anything you disagree with "stupid and illogical" doesn't really further your arguments, and it's not really the best use of a discussion forum imho.

 

I have no problem with abstraction, its vitally necessary for any game. I have a problem with pointless abstraction for the sake of abstraction where it simply isn't necessary, logical or desirable. Taken to extremes we end up with a game like Star Ruler 2 which has some admittedly brilliant arbitrary abstracted mechanics, none of which make the player feel connected or immersed to the genre in the slightest. And SR2 really suffers because of those disconnected abstracted mechanics as Space Sector's own reviews clearly showed. And the reviews were spot on IMO.

All of the "explanations" I have heard on this thread for limiting ship designs to 5 slots have frankly reeked of desperate mental acrobatics to explain an indefensibly illogical game mechanic which has the sole purpose of artificially forcing "hard decisions" no matter what the cost to logic or credibility. There are far better ways such as the "variants" idea proposed by ChrisKonstantine a few posts ago which still results in hard decisions but actually makes sense too.

Also saying that "other games do it" in no way makes it good game design. I think we can all agree that yes there are many other 4x games out there which have very limited design slots and other arbitrary game rules which make little to no sense and almost all of them ended up either mediocre or far, far worse. That's really the problem.....

Choices are good. Clever game mechanics are good. Hard decisions are good. But there is no cosmic law stating that game abstractions have to be stupid and illogical, they can and should also make sense in the context of the game universe.

 

Except no, that there have already been explanations for why these WOULD make sense in the context of the game. It's an abstraction of the fact that mass production is a thing, and that ship designers have to make decisions about which role each ship will play. Hell, the Evil Empire off of Stars Wars Films got by with just one capital ship design.

I don't know why you are happily accepting other abstractions, but are outraged at this particular one.

You're also wrong to say that limited unit types have zero connection to the game genre - plenty of 4x games do this, even space ones, such as the original Galactic Civilizations.

Ever played the sci-fi turn-based 4x Endless Legend? It had turn based minimap battles too, so in many ways is pretty similar to MOO2 / Space Sector. Endless Legend gave the player ONE customizable unit slot at game start (with a handful more slowly unlocked by tech and diplomacy). It worked really well and the game was very well received. So your blunt statements that this is "retarded" and won't work in a strategy game are just plain wrong.

 

I wouldn't have stated it in such blunt terms but yes I basically agree. I can see why they did it - to force difficult choices and decisions, a good thing in any strategy game - but if those decisions are completely illogical and have zero connection to either reality or the game genre then they end up being nothing but pointless abstract meta-game fluff.

People (especially strategy gamers) are not stupid and they will easily recognize artificially forced "gameplay" for exactly what it is, artificial and forced. Please give us meaningful choices that ALSO make at least some token degree of sense in the context of the game. Good gameplay mechanics do NOT have to be stupid, unintuitive and illogical, they can also make sense.

 

Hmmm, that so many people are arguing about this game design decision, that fact alone indicates this is a bad game design idea.

Designers aren't perfect and some of their ideas can be blatantly bad, so we don't need to defend them like a mom with rose colored glasses looks at their terrible kid as the best little boy in the world. 5 ship designs is just stupid as all hell retarded.

 

Below is my typical approach to ship design
--- Support roles:
- Small patrol craft for dealing with localized threats
+ usually 1 or sometimes 2 designs of this craft depending on technologies available (often the same as the main combat screen vessels)
- Light carrier / Escort carrier type of craft if going with the fighter theme for protecting smaller freighter fleets (if such a thing exists)
+ 1 design constantly updated, maybe a few variations of different fghter loadouts if applicable
- Freighters of various sizes and purposes
+ usually 1 design, some games make it necessary to specialize these (like DW, SE4 or even SOTS)
- Scout / Spy craft initially for exploration, later for covert operations and intelligence
+ usually 1 design initially for exploration, later redesigned for spying
- Colony ship(s)
+ usually 1 design

--- Main combat roles:
- Screen vessels of various sizes and armament variations (Smaller, faster vessels providing an anti missile / fighter screen)
+ typically only a single design constantly kept updated to latest technologies
- Support / Escort craft for the fleet's core vessels (Large combat craft to combat smaller threats and to support the fleet during larger battles)
+ usually 1-2 variations for different purposes, used in a mixed fashion
- Core / Mission craft (Large, often purpose built vessels to achieve specific mission objectives)
+ usually several variations based on tech / game diversity (3+ / larger ship class)

So assuming the following 7 classes, this would be my usual minimum design counts at any one point:
1-2 Freighter (Regular, Troop Transport?)
1 Colony Ship
2 Frigate (Scout + Screen)
1 Destroyer (Screen)
2-3 Cruiser (Direct Fleet Support, Indirect Fleet Support, Escort Carrier?)
3-4 Battleship (Direct Fire, Indirect Fire, Ground Assault, Carrier?)
3-4 Dreadnought (Direct Fire, Indirect Fire, Ground Assault, Carrier?)

I would need at least one ship of every role to not feel boxed in, so 1 of:
Freighter,
Troop Transport,
Colony Ship,
Scout/Exploration Ship,
Fleet Escort (Screen),
Direct Fire Support,
Direct Fire Core,
Indirect Fire Support,
Indirect Fire Core,
Ground Assault,
Carrier

 

Yes I do realize that, I never intended it to be a definitive blueprint for fleet formation, just a gentle reminder that even a humble pre-space wet-navy fleet can be surprisingly complex and contain an awful lot more than just 5 different ship classes.

I'd be quite happy with your compromise idea of variants the way you've presented it. It seems to address and satisfy most, if not all of my concerns in this area quite well. I think it would work nicely and be quite an interesting and innovative mechanic while at the same time making complete sense in the context of the setting. I'd be interested to hear what one of the devs think about it.

 

I never practiced x designs per hull type way of thinking in MoO 1 and 2. If my main ship building world could build size a titan in 3-4 turns then I'd build titan, if not then battleship, cruiser or destroyer, whichever fits the psychological limit. If an unguarded star system is about to be attacked then I'd build the biggest thing I can in a single turn. Even if it means missile frigates, technique works wonders in early and midgame.

I end up building only "one" design, usually space superiority with a tint of support like bombs of PD. Specialized supports usually don't work only in very specific conditions. But I end up using multiple iterations of "one" design, depending on how fast I lose or refit ships it can be up to 5 generations on the field (not necessarily of the same hull size). MoO 1 limit of 6 designs seamed limiting a bit because you'd use one slot for scout, one for colony ship and there was no way to refit ships. If there was I'd probably never have had a need to scrap ships in order to free up a design slot.

 

Good stuff Mark, really good stuff.
Looking at this though, can be a bit misleading in the context we are discussing but gave me an idea. Variants.
If a sub menu were introduced in the allotted design slots, each slot would be able to hold a number of variants, about 3-5 should do. The only restriction would be that the variants be of the same hull type.
This would effectively multiply the number of designs that could be in play at the same time but only if a player chose to take advantage of it.
On the development side it should not be difficult to implement.

This solution could appeal to more players and their particular play styles while also incorporating other facets discussed here such as production costs of prototypes versus line production.

 

Yes, a great analogy in fact.......
http://i.imgur.com/awVKTLr.jpg
You'll notice that there are more than 5 classes of ship in only the first 3 rows.

Bottom line: Could I get away with only 5 ship classes? Sure. I could probably play the game with only 1 or 2 if I really had to. But it wouldn't make any sense and the more restrictive the classes, the less credible it all becomes requiring greater and greater suspension-of-disbelief mental gymnastics to explain it away.

You and I might be more than happy with 5 classes. In that case that's all we should ever use and we'd both be very happy campers. But another player might feel the need for 10 classes to fully realize their specific strategy and enjoy the game their way.

Why not let players play and enjoy the game the way they want without imposing arbitrary and illogical metagame restrictions which are purely there to provide artificially forced "gameplay"? I have nothing against fun or gameplay choices that force difficult decisions, I just think that it should ALSO make some degree of sense.

 

I can't say what it would be like for a space faring empire but I can give some insight in how it works for the U.S. Navy, (which should be a good analogy).

A new class of ship (see Zumwalt destroyer as an example) is an experience that is closely reflected in post no. 42
It is a huge effort in design and the first prototype is really expensive. If a prototype is accepted and commissioned as a class then subsequent builds tend to come down in cost, (provided that enough of them are built). However, in some cases costs actually escalate as components are added to a class of vessel during the production run.(see Perry class FFGs)
This however does not take into account a few things.
Is it war time or peace time?
Presently, while technically at war, the U.S. Navy is approaching new classes of vessels from the philosophical standpoint that it is peacetime. This means that we are getting very expensive designs and classes that are attempting to max out the mission profiles that these ships are capable of executing. (do it all vessels or rather do as much as possible). Very high tech, high cost and few in numbers.

If the situation was similar to WWII, (wartime) you would see more mission specific designs that would be less expensive and greater in number.

Then there is the issue of upgrades. As new technology becomes available it is very likely that vessels will be upgraded as part of their phased maintenance. This mitigates the need for new designs and classes somewhat as a class of vessel will have very different capabilities over it's lifetime. Upgrades are performed far more often then advertised by the way.

Another issue that plays a major role is Dry Docks.
Floating Dry-docks come in different sizes and capabilities while Graving Docks are similar but harder to produce. The key here, is that if you are building a 95k ton behemoth, only a small percentage of your docks can be used. No need to self limit designs as the actual capability of building vessels is going to be dictated by how many docks you have and the tonnage that each of these is capable of handling. (I am not taking into account the human factor here)

Now I will be honest here, this was exciting at the height of the Cold war when I was a young man but there is no way that I wish to re-live any of this in a game.

With that in mind, that we are talking about a game and not a conceptual approach of what it would "really be like" to design and build space (war) ships, this needs to be abstracted and balanced to both fit in the game and satisfy the player.

So I ask any of you here, have you really needed that many designs in MOO2 or games like it? Maybe it's just my playing style but I usually got away with a single design in each hull type throughout the game. As technology progressed I discarded my 1st generation designs for the 2nd and so on, I was never in a situation that I needed multiple designs for each hull type at the same time.

Perhaps a solid compromise here would benefit the game, something not very restrictive but also not limitless , maybe with a qualifier depending on if it is peacetime or war.

Once that compromise is reached, there are many ways to justify it which would be based on reality.

 

Definitely. Prototyping is an example of a good gameplay trade-off which makes perfect sense for all the reasons you mentioned. Its Immersive, completely logical, fun and STILL forces you to make hard gameplay decisions. Win, win.

On the other hand, the idea that an entire spacefaring empire (or any type of empire) is hard-limited to only 5 designs makes zero sense no matter how many mental acrobatics or contortions you twist yourself in to try and explain it. It does force you to make tradeoffs and difficult game decisions but undermines itself because the reason for those decisions is completely illogical and counter intuitive. And make no mistake, that's what your players will continually be thinking while playing.

There's no cosmic law stating that good game mechanics have to automatically be stupid, unintuitive and illogical. Mechanics can be both good for gameplay AND make perfect sense all at the same time as your prototyping example clearly shows.

 

I think it depends on the way the whole system is implemented. I am not against a limited amount of slots because it means that you can not do everything you want and have to think about strategies what blueprint you prefer for which tactical or strategic situation.

 

I disagree, I think that limited choices will make for more meaningful designs. You will have to think about how the different elements of your fleet will work together. You could just use generic designs, as you say, but without seeing the details, saying that you will be "forced" to is a little bit of an overreaction. It's perfectly plausible that you will be able to create a number of specialist ships that work in tandem.

If it's really important that people are provided an in-universe explanation for this abstraction, how about:

Explanation 1) Assembly Lines - Turns out zero-G assembly lines are cheap to run but incredibly inefficient to change once set up, so space navies are left with no choice but to use mass-produced models. Anyone trying to fashion a fleet out of hand-crafted, bespoke ships will get left behind in the arms race.

Explanation 2) Replaceable Parts - Turns out spaceships need a LOT of maintenance and spare parts. This means that hulls and weapons need to be standardized for logistics reasons. Anyone trying to fashion a fleet out of hand-crafted, bespoke ships will get left with a logistical nightmare when they try to resupply and repair.

(Random additional thought - it would be cool if the first "prototype" you build received an XP bonus to represent being given an elite crew (the same as the prototype bonus given to new units in Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri), and then the entire 'class' of subsequent ships were named after it.)

 

Its not just you. I get why they want to do it, limited slots means you have to make choices and tradeoffs. Trouble is those choices and tradeoffs end up being a purely abstract metagamey mechanic with no basis in logic or reality. Any space (or land-based) power would NEVER be restricted to only a tiny handful of designs, it makes zero sense.

In any strategy game, tradeoffs are good, being forced to make sacrifices is good, but please, please try to make sure that whatever those sacrifices are, they end up being logically consistent and make some sort of sense. Arbitrary game mechanics, purely for the sake of gameplay is NOT good design, sacrifices and tradeoffs do not have to be stupid and illogical, they can be both immersive AND good for gameplay, it just requires a little more thought.

If all we wanted was to play a purely abstract strategy game we'd all be playing chess, not pretending to be space admirals in a space game. That pretense absolutely requires some degree of logic, immersion and internal consistency. Not saying it should be the only criteria, but it should definitely be one of them right up there alongside fun and good gameplay.

 

Am I the only one who is bothered by the notion of limited number of ship design slots? Suddenly feel like it's the 90s again and we only have a few megabytes of RAM to work with.

Maybe it is just me, but I am not quite sold on the "we want to keep it simple, so you can only have N designs" idea. Why? Because I do not see how that would make ships more meaningful or designs for that matter. If anything, it would force me to use more generic designs in order to ensure that all my required roles fit into the available number of design slots. It would simply curb my creative freedom with nothing received in return.

That's not a win-win, that's someone's preferences shoved in my face and forced down my throat because of..

- please insert explanation here, thank you -

It was an interesting read though and I really like the approach you want to take with how the designs and models interact, even though I have the odd feeling that there is some weird connection between making ship designs accurately reflected in the models of the ships and having a limited number of ship design slots. Hope that is not the case though and I am really looking forward to some explanation of the whole thought behind that limitation.

 

I don't have an answer to that particular question but I don't think this change would benefit humans too much either. Beginners would be lost in options while skilled players could gain some advantage, depending how it is implemented. For instance if MoO 2 battleship is the biggest possible hull you could get for 4 command points then what are benefits of designing smaller 4 CP ships? Slightly smaller ones could slightly reduce cost wasted by otherwise empty space while significantly smaller designs beg the question of why not switch to 3 CP size. Few percents (5%) up and down don't mean much in turn based game.