Ship roles discussion

OK, so I've been thinking about ship roles a fair bit. And tbh, I think they need to change. A lot.

 

The present system is basically an MMO dungeon group approach. You have tanks, DPS and support. The tank hopes to soak up all the damage, the DPS causes as much damage as possible and the support sits at the back buffing everyone. And that's what we have here - Escorts and Guardians are tanks, Interceptors, Assaults and Capitals are DPS, and Support covers everything else. The setup is determined through Threat, Fortitude and Value, with high Threat ships being DPS, high Fortitude ships being tanks, and high Value ships being support.

 

This is unimaginably gamey - far more so than the production wheel ever could be. It looks good on paper, but in practice it leaves something of a bad taste in the mouth; seeing my capital ships choosing to ignore the high-value targets to pound on a worthless escort ship sucks, and knowing that building a ship with no guns but a metric ton of defenses is a valid choice for a warship is ridiculous.

 

This is actually made worse by the player's ability to short-circuit the classification system. I can set a major gun platform to Support, safe in the knowledge that it will now be targeted last by almost all enemies. And, of course, carriers largely break the whole thing anyway, as the only thing which will target the carrier before it's fighters is interceptors - which, by default, are tiny ships that are unable to cause major damage alone, and must still burn through the tanks beforehand.

 

I think instead what we need is a system which relies on targeting more and doesn't encourage the creation of ships with nothing but defense on them. If I build an unarmed hulk of armour, then it should be the last target on anyone's list. And different weapon systems should lead to different target orders. Rapid-firing low-damage weapons are better against small targets. Big damage, slow-firing weapons ought to target big ships, where they can do the most damage. Presently, despite the significant differences between the different weapons in range, damage output and rate of fire, they have no impact on the ship's role.

 

I'd like to see the following:

 

* Split up ship classes by size. So tiny/small are fighters. Medium are ships of the line. And large/huge are capitals.

* Then further differentiate by weapon types. Kinetic armament makes for anti-fighter. Missile makes for anti-capital. And laser makes for anti-SOL.

* Any ship that has no weapons on it becomes a support ship and is targeted according to it's size once all armed ships of that class are dead.

 

So, this means we have 3 types of fighter - kinetic-armed interceptors, which kill other fighters for preference. Missile-armed bombers, which target capital ships. And laser-armed assault fighters, which try to kill enemy mid-ships. 3 types of Ship-of-the-line - kinetic-armed destroyers, missile-armed strike cruisers, and laser-armed escort hunters. And finally, 3 types of capital ship; kinetic-armed anti-fighter platforms, missile-armed battleships, and laser-armed anti-escort ships.

 

This would be much less gamey, since at no point do you choose your enemy's target for him. Instead, it's just target lists, with each ship targeting based on the optimal target for it's weapon.

58,916 views 21 replies
Reply #1 Top

+1 way better system than we currently have but does it really matter outside of multiplayer? AFAIK once the game is rolling the AI just builds a ton of capitals anyways with the odd race building max logistics of carriers. Never in my ~150 hours have i had the AI build any type of fleet you need to plan for, just full logistics of whatever their best capital they can build. No support no mix sizes and rolls to make it fun/tough to play against.

Obviously the gaming the system currently happens because the human player can cheese the AI. But in reality the human can just not play cheesy. I had to resort to not cheesing the planet wheel and not cheesing ship designs just so the game is kind of fun. Would be nice if there was a reason to construct complex fleets and fight against diverse fleets.

 

Reply #2 Top

Nice ideas but what if I add a single small weapon to a ship with massive armor?  It is no longer classified as support in your list.  And if you ignore one small weapon then what about two small weapons, etc.?  Humans will always game the system unless it is completely random in nature.

Reply #3 Top

It's possible to teach the AI to build fleets sensibly. 

Reply #4 Top

Quoting jju57, reply 2

Nice ideas but what if I add a single small weapon to a ship with massive armor?  It is no longer classified as support in your list.  And if you ignore one small weapon then what about two small weapons, etc.?  Humans will always game the system unless it is completely random in nature.

 

Then sure, that ship will becomes a target for ships which prefer that target type. It's not gonna impact on the other ship sizes tho. If I build one captial ship with masses of armour and a single tiny gun, then OK, it's now an armed capital rather than a support capital and will be targeted before support capitals... but it's not gonna distract anti-fighter ships or anti-mid-size ships, which will continue to demolish the enemy fleet.

 

One can even go further, and have ships prioritize based on threat, so that the largest threat in class is targeted first. That would make the super-tough capital ONLY be targeted before the unarmed ships, but not before the armed ones. It'd also make all-guns-no-defense ships into a weak choice, because your glass cannon would be target number 1 for all ships that go for that class.

Reply #5 Top

I like the idea of targeting based on threat.  That really would work out well.

Reply #6 Top

shouldent support roles be higher on the prioirity list?

personally i hink the healers/ buffers should be killed off first then dps then tanks

Reply #7 Top

Quoting naselus, reply 3

It's possible to teach the AI to build fleets sensibly. 

 

Is it possible via mods? Because i doubt it will ever be part of the game. GalCiv AI has always been like this and if it was something the devs wanted to add it would have been part of the core/vision of the game. It seems like the point of AI in this game is to be hard to beat/keep up with rather than fun to play against.

Reply #8 Top

Quoting androshalforc, reply 6

shouldent support roles be higher on the prioirity list?

personally i hink the healers/ buffers should be killed off first then dps then tanks

 

Arguable either way tbh. I'd suggest no, simply because it'd be beyond frustrating to constantly lose escorted ships to lone wolf attackers. If we're being realistic, then the escorting ships will move out and engage the enemy long before they're in effective range of support vessels - transports et al may well be within 1AU of the enemy, but are still far too far out to be actively targeted while there's a genuine threat in play.

 

Quoting goxwerd, reply 7

Is it possible via mods? Because i doubt it will ever be part of the game. GalCiv AI has always been like this and if it was something the devs wanted to add it would have been part of the core/vision of the game. It seems like the point of AI in this game is to be hard to beat/keep up with rather than fun to play against. 

 

I could teach it to use a system like this reasonably well via mods. I couldn't teach it to use the existing system by modding, though.

 

In truth, I'm not sure the guy who wrote the combat system is on speaking terms with the guy who wrote the AI; the AI has its own ship roles that don't have much to do with the combat system roles (bomber, for example, IS an AI role, but has no relation to combat) and that's how it picks its build queues and assembles fleets. These can be very easily set up in such a way that it builds a balanced selection of ships, and then mixes and matches them into fleets... which are completely and totally wrong for the present combat system.

Reply #9 Top

They just need an algorithm that targets ships based on ease of kill vs threat to me.   whichever is bigger is the ship that is attacked.  

The class roles are good.  Add a carrier role and limit support only to ships with no weapons and the roles work as they tell the ship how to behave in combat... rush in or stay back etc...

But as far as targeting goes the game should look at kill/be killed by ratios.


if I have a ship with 50 beam and 50 shield and a ship with 25 missiles and 25 point defense.   

If I am encountering a fleet that has a ship with say 150 beam and 5 shield on one ship   and 80 Shield 80 PD and 80 Armor but no weapons on the other ship...

My ships should ALWAYS attack the one that is both easier to kill and more threat.....

If the enemy fleet is 50 Beam with 25 PD and  50 beam with 25 Shield.    my fleet SHOULD target the ship with shields first.    Reason 1  it cannot stop the missles.  Reason B it cannot absorb all the beam....  it dies against both my ships.    The one with 25 PD  can absorb all the damage I do with Missiles for a bit... If my fleet attacked it first it would live longer and subject my ships to additional volleys from both combatants.

Same scenario...    80 beam 25 PD and 50beam 50 shield..      The 80beam ship can do more damage...  kill it faster so it cannot fire multiple times.

This should be a fairly easy algorithm to write into the game....

 

It would also allow for things like thrusters that improve miss and what not to actually matter.   Cause honestly   who actually uses thrusters currently? 

 

 

Reply #10 Top

Biggest problem currently is the escort ship as it can protect _attacking_ ships completely. There would be quite easy solution:

 

- Support: Doesn't shoot unless attacked directly (carriers and transports).

- Escort: Protects support, which can't be attacked before all escorts are killed. If no-one attacks escorts, these _won't_ participate to battle before all other friendly non-support/escort ships are dead.

- Assault: Like now. Starts closer, takes first hits, but won't protect anyone. Attacks assaults/guardians first.

- Capital:  Starts from behind like now. Other capitals first priority. Good for long range weapons, but needs defense also as assaults only take the first hits.

- Interceptor: Starts in front. Attacks support, but need to kill all escorts before doing it.

- Guardian: Stays behind with capitals. Attacks interceptors first, then assaults/capitals. Unlike escorts, these don't protect support.

 

With this system:

- Lone attacker can't kill support easily, as has to kill the escort first (if there is one).

- Too many escort or too strong escorts are waste of resources as these won't help in the main battle.

- If support isn't too fragile, you can use guardians, but strong enough interceptors could get through to kill support.

- Support is the only class that doesn't need armor, but as they won't fight before attacked, having heavy weapons won't make sense.

- Assault would try to wipe guardians first to make hole for interceptors, but after guardians are dead stays in main battle.

 

 

Reply #11 Top

Quoting StarHut, reply 10

Biggest problem currently is the escort ship as it can protect _attacking_ ships completely. 

 

I tend to disagree. Nothing should allow us to dictate what the enemy shoots at in any way. That way is so gamey, and also makes for an easier to exploit system. An all-armour no-weapon hulk shouldn't be a valid option, ever.

 

It's a bit of a shame tbh. I kinda see what the devs were going for with the combat system, but in practice it just feels really contrived and doesn't make a lot of sense. It encourages producing the tank-DPS-support MMO dungeon team rather than well-balanced ships in themselves.

Reply #12 Top

This has been discussed a lot. To me the ship role should dictate what that ship targets, but not what targets it. Ships should be targeted based on their threat/fortitude/value scores, regardless of class.

That said, I did mod the battle behaviors so pretty much all ships target high threat/low fortitude ships first, then move on to defensive or support ships. It has its own issues, especially if you custom-assign roles that do not correspond to threat/fortitude/value scores; but overall I find it more satisfying then the default settings.

Reply #13 Top


Quoting naselus, reply 11

I tend to disagree. Nothing should allow us to dictate what the enemy shoots at in any way. That way is so gamey, and also makes for an easier to exploit system. An all-armour no-weapon hulk shouldn't be a valid option, ever.

Yep. The current system is confusing and stupid anyways. Why should you set roles for a ship when you are building it? If there is to be some tactical depth to the combat system with roles or whatever, it should be in the fleet management place instead.  



* Then further differentiate by weapon types. Kinetic armament makes for anti-fighter. Missile makes for anti-capital. And laser makes for anti-SOL.

I would like some more depth in the weapon systems where you have specialized lasers etc. for ship types. (or even new weapon types on the side for it) This design requires you to go wide with weapons instead of choosing one path. There can still be some flavor like that above though, small inherent bonuses are fine. Especially if they create a way for smaller ships to compete with big ones if you specialize right. (I would love for instance if the Yor were to create more "swarmy" fleets, instead of creating these crazy big ships and put all of them in a fleet) 

Reply #14 Top

Let's be honest here.  The only reason for different weapon types is to create uncertainty.  Empire A has beam so you have to have deflectors as defense.  Empire B has kinetic so you need armor.  Which do you build?  That's why they want to balance DPS for all weapon types.  Ship roles are the issue and I think the idea to target based on threat is probably the best one so far IMO.

Reply #15 Top

Quoting jju57, reply 14

Let's be honest here.  The only reason for different weapon types is to create uncertainty.  Empire A has beam so you have to have deflectors as defense.  Empire B has kinetic so you need armor.  Which do you build?  That's why they want to balance DPS for all weapon types.  Ship roles are the issue and I think the idea to target based on threat is probably the best one so far IMO.

 

Yeah, but it's a waste, especially when the different rates of fire etc exist. Matching DPS isn't the same as matching damage, and it does kinda push the weapons into different categories - missile alpha-strike lends itself to killing big ships, kinetic rate of fire helps kill lots of small ones. The fact is, this offers a good way of countering carriers (provided that they're balanced properly) and could lead to a tactical game with some genuine depth, rather than a very gamey mini-game.

Reply #16 Top

in GCII it made sense to focus on one weapon tree and max out that weapon tree.

 

In GCIII because of the tech ages and costs... as well as the way shipyards and starbases work, it is often advantageous to have all three types of weapons...


I think the game designers need to work on the focus's so that one TYPE of weapon is stronger, but then also change how those weapons are used...


as noted... Missles.. big bad long range ship killers

Beam...  mid range clean up...

Kinetic...   low damage/high rate of fire make it awesome against small craft...



Also... the ships need to be able to target more than one ship at a time.     If I have a huge ship with 20 DIFFERENT weapon pods... I should be able to hit 20 different ships at  the same time...

Or perhaps make the battle computer enhancement or something give ships that ability...

 




Reply #17 Top

Quoting Taslios, reply 16

Or perhaps make the battle computer enhancement or something give ships that ability...

I like this idea

Reply #18 Top

So I've been thinking on this.

 

We have 3 basic role stats - Value, Threat and Fortitude.

We have 3 basic weapon sets - missiles, kinetics and lasers.

And we have 3 basic behaviour sets - attacker, defender and support. Attackers rush, defenders stay close to their defense targets, and supports hang back.

 

 

So what if we just bring the threes together? We have short-range brawlers determined by weapon range, long-range artillery ships determined by missiles, and mid-ships that should form the line. These can map perfectly onto the relative range of weapons.

 

In this thinking, we remove Value and Fortitude from most components and give them to Missiles and Lasers respectively. Missile ships will always be Support - they'll hang back and nuke enemy Capitals. Interceptors and Assaults will target enemy Supports, closing rapidly. And escorts and guardians will attempt to kill enemy Assaults and Interceptors as they close in. And Capitals will try to take out escorts and guardians.

Reply #19 Top

Quoting naselus, reply 18

So what if we just bring the threes together? We have short-range brawlers determined by weapon range, long-range artillery ships determined by missiles, and mid-ships that should form the line. These can map perfectly onto the relative range of weapons.

It is an interesting idea, but it seems odd that ship role would take nothing but weapon type into consideration. Defenses, engines, carrier modules, etc. seem like they should have a significant role in combat role. It would also create some pretty severe noob traps (I wanted my transport to be able to defend itself a little, so I stuck some guns on it. Oops, now it's rushing to the front lines!)

That said, pretty sure that you have the ability to control the threat/fortitude/value scores in the xml, so make a mod and let us test it out.

Reply #20 Top

Quoting peregrine23, reply 19

It is an interesting idea, but it seems odd that ship role would take nothing but weapon type into consideration. Defenses, engines, carrier modules, etc. seem like they should have a significant role in combat role. It would also create some pretty severe noob traps (I wanted my transport to be able to defend itself a little, so I stuck some guns on it. Oops, now it's rushing to the front lines!)


That said, pretty sure that you have the ability to control the threat/fortitude/value scores in the xml, so make a mod and let us test it out.

 

Way ahead of you, I've written it into my next build and am testing now.

Reply #21 Top

I am not really familiar with how ship roles work, but the more I play, the less I get it. Agree with OP, that dungeon-like tank/DD/healer sheme looks a little bit strange. The higher the fortitude, the lower target priority should be. I have also noticed some other strange things about ships in combat:

1. Ships don't take weapon range in consideration at all. It would be logical for missile-only-armed ships to stop as soon as enemy is in range.

2. "Assault" ships are considered as high threat/low fortitude targets but they start in closer line and collect all the first shots.

3. "Interceptors" are even funnier: they are small, almost unprotected, start even closer and getting one-shot in every battle.

4. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that ship size and speed (thrusters) contribute nothing into chance to be hit.

5. The whole threat/fortirude/value system doesn't make sense at all. As OP already mentioned, why should any ship should attack heavily armored escort?

6. I don't understand why you have to completely rebuild the ship if you want to change its role.

How I see it:

HP amount and defence contribute into fortitude.

Weapons, weapon augments and fleet augments contribute into threat.

Value = threat/fortitude. Value can be modified in battle by chance to hit and augments (like the one that improves lasers against shields).

Ship roles:

The fleet starts in formation and holds it at least until the enemy fleet is engaged (first shots are made)

"Assault": starts in 1st line. Stops when any enemy is in range of all weapons. Prioritizes target with the highest value. Main purpose: soak damage.

"Interceptor": starts in 2nd line. As soon as enemy fleet is engaged (by assault or any other ship), charges into the highest value target. Main purpose: agile and fast glass cannons.

"Capital": starts in 2nd line. Tries to stay out of enemy's range if unarmed, otherwise chooses the nearby highest value target and doesn't switch until the target is destroyed. Ignores small/tiny ships if larger targets present. Main purpose: destroying large enemy ships, providing support for the fleet.

"Support"/"Fire support": start in 3rd line. Tries to stay out of enemy's range if unarmed, otherwise moves forward until at least one weapon can shoot at the enemy. Chooses the highest value target. Main purpose: staying out of close fight, providing fire/augment support for the fleet.

"Defender": starts in 3rd line. Always stays near the capitals and supports. Prioritizes targets trying to attack capital/supports. Shoots at highest value target otherwise. Purpose: protecting vulnerable ships against interceptors.

Of course, this still works as dungeon system, but at least it makes more sense (I hope so) and makes distance more important.