How do you all feel about having the option to build units without FTL capability that would be available system wide? (unlike a star base orbiting a single planet) Some extra space would be free on these builds for the player to exploit. Would this be of value to the game? Almost forgot, discount on the command points for these type of units seems logical
I like the idea. SOTS did something similar with their "System Defense Boats (SDB's)". Space saved on FTL drives/fuel tanks can go into weapons systems making for a significantly more powerful combat vessel of the same mass which is limited by being unable to interstellar travel. And yes there should be some sort of CP discount for SDB's. A natural progression of the idea is "Battleriders" (once again done quite well by SOTS). Basically you have a single, large, interstellar-capable carrier vessel which is able to hold several large combat-specialized non-starships, SDB's (or battleriders) in its cargo hold. This one ship can then travel to a system and release its battleriders to dominate the system. The downside is that if the mother ship is damaged or destroyed, the battleriders are stuck in that one system until they can be rescued.
Along with all of the proposition I've already made, I would like to wrap up with those few others ideas. Engines/Power Plants Warp drive(or whatever FTL tech), sublight engines and Power Plants should be separate systems with their own subsystems Mods could affect rotation (inertial dampers), long distance visibility (EMS stealth tech), power boost (ultracapacitor), etc... Having several smaller units of those devices or one big unit could be a racial perk or a tech specialization that would provide a set of evolving advantages/disadvantages, let's call it engineering doctrine. Engineering Doctrine cannot be change on the fly except for Super scientists race Certain type of advanced tech Any changes of doctrine would require a complete retool of Ship Building facilities, complete rehaul of ships and a boatload of cash. Stealing tech Doctrine specific tech cannot be used as is if you do not follow said doctrine, but could be use as bargaining chip with aliens that are following it. Having the ability to balance power could provide a strategic perk to certain battle by allowing to route power to shield, weapons, engines, etc...(in order to magnify their output) draining/overloading power systems Mines/planetary defense We could create mine layer ships special system that implement mines around planets or during battles with modifiers such as Fuse type: proximity, FROFO(friend or foe) switch, remote Damage type: Radiation, explosion, frag, EMP, blackhole(immobilizing victim, slowing those around), ondemand, Power output/size (number of modifiers?) Special types: Stealth (several stealth level?), daisy chained (if a ship hits one, all the other mine attached to it then follow the first one unto the ship), self-replicating We could offer the following possibilities Mining your own planet or installation according to a layout and managing the replenishment with cash or production depending on destroyed mines (could be automated) Create artificial obstacles or using natural one that would force ships to move to a certain spot, either to keep them at bay or to delay them. A construction ship could do the following Move asteroid in order to provide poor man's shielding. They could in turn be moved with tractor/pushing beam Lay down force field satellite Create "no man's land" zones that disables certain type of ship systems or outright creates damage EMP or radiation clouds that kills marines (cyber or bio) Nebula like zones that disables shields Corrosive cloud that damages armor etc... Lay down mines around a besieged planet to hinder counter-attack Drop asteroid on a planet All of the artificial obstacles mentioned above could be of course natural such as a planet within a nebula, that would be naturally disables shields, but it would probably be part of another dev diary
Bigmo, that is some serious thought and work you have posted, impressive with tremendous detail. Personally I prefer a somewhat more consolidated approach, not disagreeing with what you write but the level of sophistication in your posts, if implemented, would require the player to spend additional management time in just a single facet of the game. If the approach adds to the fun it should seriously be considered but carefully and with an eye on streamlining some mechanics.
They are merely suggestions to the team based on a lifetime of strategy gaming. They can use it as they see fit within the first release or in DLC. I want that project to be awesome! But you are right, the mechanics has to be streamlined and that will be part of the team challenge.
Is internal size of a ship a fixed number, or can you change it using technology/racial traits, to account for size creep seeing in navy? I.E. modern corvettes are the size of WW2 destroyers and modern destroyers are the size of WW2 cruisers.
When a game such as this focuses on a smaller number of ships, it becomes beneficial to have greater sophistication in ship design. The concern then becomes how well the AI can exploit the nuances available in ship building and design. If the AI does not pull this off well the game will suffer as humans will have no such problem. I also like for the choices available in ship building and design to matter. When playing SEV I often find myself puzzled and amused by how little effect my choices have regarding ship design. For me it is not enough to have choices just for the sake of it, these choices need to matter and should not allow for gamey exploits either.
Phantastic update. Many thanks for it. I really like the direction "as close as possible to MOO2" you are heading to. Let me please add some thoughts though: -ships with and cheaper ones without hyperjump capability would be great. This enable system bound defense boats or monitors. These ships could be able to move by a tug ship or by teleporter/ jump gates from system to system. -now a little bit unusual "freeform" idea: how about not restricting ships to "classes" but only by design points (DP)? For example I want to design a new ship type, a medium hit-and-run missile boat. It should be made of a hyperspace engine (4 DP) , a shield III (2 DP), 4 merculite missiles with 2 ammo each (8 DP), 2 point defense lasers (2 DP) and a cloaking device (5 DP). The DP sum of all these components is 4+2+8+2+5=21 DP. Lets assume 21 DP cost 42 industrial points or 420 credits. (if you want to buy it instead). Another example: I want to have an small, fast, heavy armored brawler which is operating close to the front and is able to bombard planets too if it is necessay. I decide to give it extra armor (2 DP) a shield III (2 DP) augmented engines (3 DP), 3 Fusion cannons (6 DP), ECM (2 DP) and 2 Fusion bombs (2 DP). The sum of all components is 17 DP or 17 industrial points/340 credits. No class restriction involved. Pure design. Instead of cramping additional equipment/weapons into a predefined ship class in order to "fill its hull up to the max", you can custom tailor it.
In a way, you already have quite a lot of freedom with ship design even within hull type limitations. Two concerns I see with removing hull considerations and using a "pure design approach" In the first case (this is minor), using this approach would require revision of whatever command point mechanic the developers are going to implement. This would entail more work in development in order to implement a dynamic model of command points as the player could theoretically create dozens of designs, each one of different value. The more serious issue is the effect on non-human factions. A design system that does away with hull types will be very well exploited by human players, AI factions however, will have greater difficulty in using this mechanic. Unless this issue is addressed we would have an even easier time rolling over the AI.
yep you are right, there are of course some points to consider. OTOH a freeform system would have the advantage to be unique selling point on the 4x market. (AFAIK no other game has such a system, they just have the usual frigate-destroyer-battleship hulls) It also would represent some Scifi themes better. For example a typical battleship of the Minbari has a totally different hull size than a typical battleship from the earth alliance...) To solve the problem of command points, you could just introduce some ship components which need command points if you integrate them into the blueprint, while others dont need it. So the player which have not enough command points on hand must solve a strategic puzzle for using the most effective design with the least needed amount of command points. To solve the AI problem is easy. Just use 20+ pre-designed ship hulls for each AI race.
I agree with you on command points but not so much so the AI problem. Even if you were to create 20+ predefined templates a human player could create more. Even more important is that a player could custom design as needed per situation, the AI would have no such luxury. I understand that this is not much different than what happens to the AI with hull types present in game but I feel that removing this restriction will only aid human players and in a single player game that is not ideal.
well, I dont know enough about the skill of the devs to develope an AI for such a system or even modern AIs in general, so I cannot give an educated reply on your comment, but last time I played MOO2 I felt that the AI races just used predefined blueprints, not differing much from each other. If 20+ predefined blueprints are not enough, make 100+ or let the AI use those from a player platform like steam workshops. Of course a human player can make in most cases more and is mostly always more creative but this lies in the complex nature of a 4x game.
Greetings JOM, I am no expert on AI but my understanding is that MOO2 AI races did not use predefined blueprints but rather a string of code. This string basically instructed AI races to build the largest hull available and load it with the most technologically advanced components. Sometimes this resulted in good designs and sometimes not so good but I can see why it would seem that the AI used predefined blueprints as all AI factions followed the same instructions. With that in mind, what I foresee then if hull classes are removed, is that the AI factions would continue to design ships as before, humans on the other hand would get pretty creative. The end result would favor human players and further weaken the AI. The suggestion itself though certainly has merit. I have experience in ship building and what you suggest actually happens in real life. (Google the new Japanese destroyers, they are the size of light carriers and feature a flight deck so are destroyers only in name, not size or capability) The only point I wish to make is that if this "freedom" were implemented in this or any other game the results would be un-predictable and require a fundementally different approach in designing the AI aspects that would be affected.
A different approach to AI progamming? Well thats possible, CK. Atm I know not many games which sports such a freeform construction system. Only a few space boardgames (Starmada, Galactic Evolution...) use it, but no computer games AFAIK. 99% of space games use the old formula "frigate-destroyer-cruiser-battleship" etc. But the reason I brought it up is that IMO such an more open approach is not only quite creative its also obvious in a space environment, with no traditional naval counterparts. So your example of the japanese destroyer which has in reality the size of a small carrier should be the rather the norm than the exception in space warfare against alien empires. It seems that either noone dares to think a little bit around-the-corner or that it is really a problem with AI programming I am not aware of. Independantly of this, dont get me wrong. I am a advocate of MOO2 and I also like its way to divide ships in the usual different classes. So if the devs decide to go this way (because of tradition or easier AI programming) I am also happy with it.
This is unit designer in C-Evo, free opensource game inspired by Civilization 2. First you choose unit type (land, sea or air) and then pick how many attack, defense and movement points you want and if which specials if any. Each pick has weight (design points it costs) and cost. Weight capacity is limited and can be relaxed a bit by some technologies like horseback riding and automobile. You are free to not use whole weight limit, much like in your proposal. MoO 2 AI ship design should not be a measuring stick, the AI was really dumb there. Each hull size had a template (probably the same as in non-tactical combat mode) where it would dedicate x1% for beams, x2% for missile, x3% for bombs and x4% for special weapons. Then it would pick best available beam/missile/bomb/special from some predefined list and call it a day. Funny that it worked best when AI had access to only some technologies so it couldn't clog designs with waste. At very least the same approach could work with your idea. AI could pick ship size by calculating how much DPs it can build in certain number of turns. If it needs ships immediately then that would be 1 turn, if it can spend some time on ship construction then 4 turn and if it is close to command point limit than 8+ turns. Command point cost could simply be k*log(DP) rounded up.
Glad you chimed in on this Ivan K as you have a great deal of expertise here. The question or concern I have with this is that it would advantage human players over the AI even more. From your perspective, can designing units in this manner (without hull classes) be done and not weaken the AI? It is obvious that a clever or dedicated player could really take advantage of such a system and I just do not see the AI being able to respond in kind no matter how cleverly it is coded. But, I am no expert on this so I would love to know how you feel as I may be seeing concerns where none exist.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
