torfbolt

Join Date 04/2006

Engine/life support redesign idea

I'd like to suggest two changes to both engines and life support:

1. Both engines and life support modules should scale more with hull size, both in mass and in cost. Presently, you simply get a whole lot more "Bang for the buck" by using the largest hulls possible. I don't see any problem in scaling the mass of engines/life support directly with the hull's mass capacity, before miniaturisation modifier. This would make small and tiny hulls much more viable options in late game, where currently the only small ships that are viable in endgame are those packed in carrier modules on your huge hulls.

2. Fix engine stacking. At the moment, you can design ships to reach frankly ridiculous speeds in late game, with high enough engine tech/engine miniaturisation on the bigger hull types. The AI doesn't exploit engines the way a human player easily can, with 50+ movement fleets zooming around the galaxy and eliminating the military of large AI empires in just a few turns. I can see two solutions to this: First, and easiest, would be to make engines one-per-ship, and give them increased movement values, cost, and space requirements (maybe scale movement exponentially with tech level instead of linearly?). The second option that I can see, that would work with the current values for movement values and cost, is to reduce the effect of engine stacking to the square root, as was done for sensors. Either option would probably work, and would definitely make the AIs less of a pushover in late game.

Advanced Search

Watch this post

Do not email me updates for this post Email me updates for this post

Successfully updated karma reason!

I will be the one guy here to disagrees. Late game..after you get Stellar folders and Doom rays, engine stacking helps expedite the end of the game. I love both engine stacking and life support stacking. However I know some folks like to crawl. We shall see what Crusade brings....

Successfully updated karma reason!

Well, engine stacking (and 50+ movement) I feel is necessary for late game in the bigger galaxy sizes. I couldnt imagine trying to zip across the biggest map size with even 15-20 speed let alone lower than 15.. I mean, if values were adjusted so you could still achieve a 50+ speed without stacking engines, I would be good with that, since the AI would be more likely to keep up as well.

So perhaps adding more research that allows you to eventually achieve 50+ speed ships with one engine, but takes a very long time to research. Thus less likely to occur on small maps, the AI will build ships that actually can keep up, and engine stacking would be gone. Id be good with this, personally.

Successfully updated karma reason!

erischild

Join Date 01/2012

+136

The answer to the AI not stacking engines is to re-train the AI, not to remove the mechanic. Calling a certain level of speed "frankly ridiculous" is a subjective opinion, and not one shared by all. There are definitely different ways of addressing this issue. We'll see what happens, but I really enjoy the high speed ships cruising across giant galaxies. Somehow or another, I feel that should be a consideration as well.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting ,

quoting post

I'd like to suggest two changes to both engines and life support:

1. Both engines and life support modules should scale more with hull size, both in mass and in cost. Presently, you simply get a whole lot more "Bang for the buck" by using the largest hulls possible. I don't see any problem in scaling the mass of engines/life support directly with the hull's mass capacity, before miniaturisation modifier. This would make small and tiny hulls much more viable options in late game, where currently the only small ships that are viable in endgame are those packed in carrier modules on your huge hulls.

They actually allready do (more or less)! Look at the ShipComponents.xml

<ShipComponent>
    <InternalName>HyperDrive</InternalName>
    [...]
    <Stats>
      <EffectType>MovesCapMass</EffectType>
      <Target>
        <TargetType>Ship</TargetType>
      </Target>
      <BonusType>Flat</BonusType>
      <ValueType>Special</ValueType>
      <SpecialValue>
        <Special>HullMassScaleMod</Special>
        <ValueParam>8</ValueParam>
        <ValueParam>0.05</ValueParam>
      </SpecialValue>
    </Stats>
    [...]
</ShipComponent>

You can mod this... just wanted to point this out

But in general I agree with you. Currently only large and huge hulls are only viable. The jump from medium to large is so big, medium isn't worth taking a second look. SD ought to take a look on their hul size stats in my humble opinion.

Quoting ,

quoting post

I'm with erischild on this.

If the AI not using it is the problem, then the AI should be fixed. Making the AI use more engines is not particulary hard by modding. Something I see a problem in however is, that the AI also needs to research the hull size techs. This is a problem of balance though, because not all specialization techs are equally useful.

I would like to see many engines stay and the underlying problem to be addressed directly.

Successfully updated karma reason!

100% agree, I think late game distances should be handled by other mechanics like Stargates, Wormholes,..

Late game is incredibly broken, you can get your fleet deep into enemy territory and invade many planets within 1-2 turns.

Especially large and huge ships should be slow, I think it should be a strategic decision where to place them.

Successfully updated karma reason!

GalCivius

Join Date 11/2010

+12

Well, today large warships can be relatively fast too. Not as fast as speedboats surely, but carrier/cruisers/battleships are/were quite fast. Maybe agility/tactical speed should play a larger role for smaller ships though.

I agree with the OP insofar that small and even medium hulls are relatively weak once you are at large or even huge.

I also like to see some more variation in hull sizes, though that seems to be quite a change so dunno if that is realistic for GC 3.

Successfully updated karma reason!