|
On May 25 2016 05:10 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2016 04:27 Plansix wrote:On May 25 2016 04:10 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Or you know, you can just drop 5 magna-melta warheads and save the Emperor's time and money. Like I wrote beforehand, if you can spend all that time and energy in altering the course of a suitable asteriod, you can spend a fraction of that energy just pointing the weapons on your spaceship that can travel between the stars in the appropriate direction. I think you vastly over estimate the amount of energy and effort required to make something go super fast in space and slam into a planet. Its already going super fast around the sun and gravity does most of it. You just got to give it some constant thrust in the right direction to get it into a intercept orbit. Lots of asteroids have ice on them, which is basically fuel if you mastered faster than light travel. The amount of effort required is less than dropping the nukes, since the rocks are free. And you don't need to get near the planet. And blowing up the rock isn't a great solution either, since that just makes smaller rocks. Yes, but my think is this. Space faring civilisation. Both of you have master FTL travel. First you have to find an asteroid. Then you have to attach suitable engines and control systems, if you have them available on your spaceships. Then you have to wait a certain amount of time before the asteriod hits the offending planet. Lets say it doesn't take a lot of energy. It will certainly take effort. Alternatively, this FTL space civilisation with the power and technology to move asteriods can point its weapons at the offending planet, with exactly the same effect, but saving time and effort and most importantly the attention of the player. Why would warships have the expertise to do attach engine and control systems on an asteriod anyways? Having to use science ships would be an interesting game mechanic but I digress. What it would take is unneccessarily complicated game mechanics or immersion breaking game mechanics to throw an asteriod around. Which is why games usually shy away from such, unless it is literally clicking a button and the effect occurs. Which actually i would be happy about, since it would have exactly the same effect as just asking your fleet to bombard a planet. Edit: The setting is Stellaris. I don't care about other settings. If it is hard sci fi, then we can't travel FTL anyways. In the Stellaris setting, throwing asteriods around don't make much sense. You can already bombard and destroy planetary forcefields. You can already bombard and accidently kill pops and buildings and tiles. Why can't you just do it purposefully? It's just wierd and feels like one of many missing features. But that is one of the root problems with space games, that they treat space like a vast nothing with nothing worth fighting over expect a resource blip. Or planets that you can bombard until the end of time, never running out of bombs. But in reality, any solar system would have numerous areas that would be worth controlling, from asteroid belts to space stations do any number of things, including just refine water(it is easier to refine water from space ice in space than lift it off a planet)
Of course I am not expecting that level of details, but adding terrain features is how other Paradox games keep the battles from becoming blob vs blob. Having an asteroid belt that could be used for long range bombardment if controlled by a fleet is interesting if planets are able to fight back against fleets. Treating space ships as these self contained perfect problem solvers sort of limits the games depth. And not thinking about this stuff sort of robs the game of texture. Of course, translating that into the game's resources is another challenge.
Also, any warship’s crew could fit an asteroid with an engine and simple control system. How to move a big object is space is literally the job description of any pilot or space engineer. Forget moving asteroids, if they had a damaged ship that lost its drive, they would need to find a way to repair move it.
|
The biggest problem with asteroids is still the time needed. You click bombard. Ships move to asteroid, 1 game minute, rig something up, 30s, send it on its way and it hits 2 min later. You just added 3:30 to the action of bombarding things.
Something that would be interesting would be a preliminary bombardment before declaring war. The detection of those asteroids being on the way in being the declaration of war. That way you lose no time inside of the war and have a bigger advantage for declaring war. To balance it it would change the planet environment making it uninhabitable for 5 years, remove all improvements, create debris on random places and of course kill everybody on it if it actually hits.
|
I don't think they need to go that crazy. Well they could and that would be cool. I just want there to be more character to each system. I want to be thinking about "well I want those minerals in that system and that really good planet, but I need to defend that belt. If an enemy posts up shop there, they will be able to bomb me into paste." Right now, they are sort of characterless voids.
|
On May 25 2016 06:25 Plansix wrote: I don't think they need to go that crazy. Well they could and that would be cool. I just want there to be more character to each system. I want to be thinking about "well I want those minerals in that system and that really good planet, but I need to defend that belt. If an enemy posts up shop there, they will be able to bomb me into paste." Right now, they are sort of characterless voids. I still don't get it.
Player A sets up in an asteroid field and starts to throw rocks Player B moves to his planet to defend.
If fleet A > fleet B he is better of fighting at the planet and then bombing because defending against asteroids is easy if B > A he will simply drive him from the asteroid field, or if that is dangerous because of the asteroid field it becomes a stalemate. if A=B its a stalemate.
What is gained here in mechanics and enjoyment of the game? The fact that a smaller fleet can keep a bigger one occupied? The threat of ordinary bombing does that just as well.
Asteroid fields, nebula's ect could have combat effects to spice things up, I can get behind that but what does the whole asteroid throwing add? I dont see it.
|
I just used it as an example. But personally, I don’t like that fleets can operate in enemy space so cheaply and bombarding endlessly is at no additional cost. I think they should rip through energy if they are going to bomb a planet. The logistics of sending ships and crew across the vastness of space with enough ordnance to level a planet just seems to easy to plan, without enough consideration. And not costing a lot. Even in Civ 5, I still need to some thought into how I am going to break a city. So space rocks are cheaper, because you don't have to send bombs across space and time.
But that might be to much. But I just want more texture out of the systems in general. To look at them and think “I can set up shop here and defend easily”. The same goes for invasions.
|
On May 25 2016 07:08 Plansix wrote: I just used it as an example. But personally, I don’t like that fleets can operate in enemy space so cheaply and bombarding endlessly is at no additional cost. I think they should rip through energy if they are going to bomb a planet. The logistics of sending ships and crew across the vastness of space with enough ordnance to level a planet just seems to easy to plan, without enough consideration. And not costing a lot. Even in Civ 5, I still need to some thought into how I am going to break a city. So space rocks are cheaper, because you don't have to send bombs across space and time.
But that might be to much. But I just want more texture out of the systems in general. To look at them and think “I can set up shop here and defend easily”. The same goes for invasions. The cost of operating a fleet is the increase in energy from paying full upkeep. Unlike in orbit where you pay less then half. You can argue costs are to low but I've seen plenty of people already complain that their fleets cant leave orbit without going bankrupt.
And the logistics? I'm sorry but a set of bombs capable of leveling a continent can probably fit in the janitors storage locker. Not to mention stable reactors + energy weapons = nigh unlimited ammo.
And the damage you do during a bombardment is hilariously low in game. Count the number of days your throwing bombs and then consider how much damage an interstellar fleet could do in those days.
ps I don't remember having to refuel my guns during a siege in Civ 5. I just shoot at the city from outside its range every turn until its dead and then walk a token infantry unit in.
|
well to play devil's advocate spaceships are a lot smaller targets and weaponry is arguably optimized for space combat rather than orbital bombardment covering some huge amount of surface area. weaponry is designed to destroy a small, hardened target vs a ginormous relativelly soft one. i do think its a little silly you can shoot missiles like 60 units but have to get into orbit of a planet to hit it.
|
On May 25 2016 07:16 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2016 07:08 Plansix wrote: I just used it as an example. But personally, I don’t like that fleets can operate in enemy space so cheaply and bombarding endlessly is at no additional cost. I think they should rip through energy if they are going to bomb a planet. The logistics of sending ships and crew across the vastness of space with enough ordnance to level a planet just seems to easy to plan, without enough consideration. And not costing a lot. Even in Civ 5, I still need to some thought into how I am going to break a city. So space rocks are cheaper, because you don't have to send bombs across space and time.
But that might be to much. But I just want more texture out of the systems in general. To look at them and think “I can set up shop here and defend easily”. The same goes for invasions. The cost of operating a fleet is the increase in energy from paying full upkeep. Unlike in orbit where you pay less then half. You can argue costs are to low but I've seen plenty of people already complain that their fleets cant leave orbit without going bankrupt. And the logistics? I'm sorry but a set of bombs capable of leveling a continent can probably fit in the janitors storage locker. Not to mention stable reactors + energy weapons = nigh unlimited ammo. And the damage you do during a bombardment is hilariously low in game. Count the number of days your throwing bombs and then consider how much damage an interstellar fleet could do in those days. ps I don't remember having to refuel my guns during a siege in Civ 5. I just shoot at the city from outside its range every turn until its dead and then walk a token infantry unit in. Yes, and as I have stated previously, I find the sci-fi future of self sufficient space ships that can operate endlessly in space and have unlimited ammo to be super boring and removes a lot of the texture of space travel. I don’t need to manually reload my ships, but the concepts of cutting off a fleet from supplies is more interesting, even of that just increases their operating costs. Right now, space combat is blob vs blob, which is fine. But I want more.
Also planets not being able to shoot at ships is just fucking weird. It was weird in MoO2 and its weird here. A planet is just a really big space ship, but it only orbits the sun. That thing should be shooting at a fleet the instant it arrives in system.
|
I agree that the combat lacks depth. A result of choosing for map based fights in real time. Sins of a Solar Empire suffers from similar problems tho at least there ability micro adds some spice to it.
I don't see how to easily fix it tho (aside from ability micro) because of the lack of precision fleet control combined with their size. If you were to add an asteroid field on the system map you can't really camp out in it with the current control scheme.
I would probably overhaul the controls so you can allow for things like flanks and disengage movements to create a move fluid battlefield where you can then add in more 'terrain' effects.
The lack of planet defense is indeed a bummer but in general defense is terrible. Station firepower/hitpoints are non-existent past the early game and even a small raiding fleet of a few corvettes will run over any station defense.
(and MoO2 had planet based defense (missiles/Fighers/Guns, even a stellar converter at the end) tho they only worked if your planet was directly attacked (a range issue no doubt).
|
My biggest beef with space 4X games.
We mastered space travel across the void by bending space and time. But for some reason, we didn’t figure out how to shoot shit from our planets at ships coming to kill us. The place best equipped to hold the most weaponry and upkeep it, but we only designed weapons that can shoot at point blank range.
Oh MoO2, your shadow is large and deep.
|
On May 25 2016 07:46 Plansix wrote: My biggest beef with space 4X games.
We mastered space travel across the void by bending space and time. But for some reason, we didn’t figure out how to shoot shit from our planets at ships coming to kill us. The place best equipped to hold the most weaponry and upkeep it, but we only designed weapons that can shoot at point blank range.
Oh MoO2, your shadow is large and deep.
Shooting a laser of multiple AU's? I can see that being beyond a space faring civilization. Missiles are your only real option for ranges like that and then your likely running into large amounts of PD.
|
On May 25 2016 07:53 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2016 07:46 Plansix wrote: My biggest beef with space 4X games.
We mastered space travel across the void by bending space and time. But for some reason, we didn’t figure out how to shoot shit from our planets at ships coming to kill us. The place best equipped to hold the most weaponry and upkeep it, but we only designed weapons that can shoot at point blank range.
Oh MoO2, your shadow is large and deep.
Shooting a laser of multiple AU's? I can see that being beyond a space faring civilization. Missiles are your only real option for ranges like that and then your likely running into large amounts of PD. No, your main option is some kind of slug that you fire at relativistic speeds using your bend time/space technology that destroys things with kinetic energy.
|
On May 25 2016 09:13 Lachrymose wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2016 07:53 Gorsameth wrote:On May 25 2016 07:46 Plansix wrote: My biggest beef with space 4X games.
We mastered space travel across the void by bending space and time. But for some reason, we didn’t figure out how to shoot shit from our planets at ships coming to kill us. The place best equipped to hold the most weaponry and upkeep it, but we only designed weapons that can shoot at point blank range.
Oh MoO2, your shadow is large and deep.
Shooting a laser of multiple AU's? I can see that being beyond a space faring civilization. Missiles are your only real option for ranges like that and then your likely running into large amounts of PD. No, your main option is some kind of slug that you fire at relativistic speeds using your bend time/space technology that destroys things with kinetic energy. Warpdrive doesnt work in the gravity well. Not an option. Jump drive doesnt work in the gravity well Hyperlane drive doesnt work in system
|
Use a giant coilgun to fire a giant slug at really yuuuuge speeds. Or strap a bomb to a hyperdrive.
Depends if we can get an explosion the size of a solar system, that would be pretty cool
|
I love Stellaris and I don't really think combat itself is a big problem even though it is a little shallow. What IS a big problem, imo, is the amount of decisions that aren't really decisions when it comes to empire building. Pretty much all of infrastructure development comes down to, 'should I build a mining/research station or upgrade my buildings now or a little later', which sucks bigtime. There should be bigger trade-offs attached to choosing what to do with the 'perks' the systems you control provide, like building a mining station might potentially block you from developing a colony (but then the mining station itself is something you can develop and upgrade into something big to compensate for that); or a research station around a black hole could potentially unleash some minor cataclysm, or whatever etc. When they mentioned the crisis system I was really hoping Paradox would at least try to recreate a line between safe but less effective exploitation of whatever resources and a more aggressive but dangerous way to do stuff -- to the point where entire planets and star systems could be rendered useless in favor of big short-term returns.
I also really dislike how... crowded the whole galaxy feels, which is partly a result of the weak and boring non-decision development system, I think. Colonizable planets are too common, resource nodes are too common, strategic resources are while a nice touch, somewhat bland because the bonuses are realistically too limited in how they can be used (for example the ship buffs are a great idea but having like 5 units of a strategic resource in the entire galaxy really limits its usefulness, much better to have each node provide several units of the resource at once and make the benefit empire-wide but a little weaker, thus encouraging trade of the said resources). I would love to play galaxies that are 1000+ star in size, but have the number of planets you see in like a 400 or even smaller galaxy, same for resource nodes (albeit beefed up in power). That would make exploration more important, territory control more of a thing and stuff like wormhole drives less overpowered (as you wouldn't be able to just go basically across two empires out of a single WH station).
A lot of those things can actually be done via mods I guess and that's something I'll be looking at after the patch hits but yeah. The game is solid starting platform but definitely can become much more interesting with further polish and balancing.
|
France7248 Posts
So I only now realize that I can build a Frontier Outpost in the territory of my vassals. As soon as it is built, the system is available to survey: I can find new anomalies, and even if a planet was red before (type was known but unavailable to colonize since not in my territory), it becomes grey as if I never knew its type. It becomes red again after the survey because it's still not in my territory, even if the zone on the map is striped with my color and my vassal's. However, I can build stations (mining/research) and the production is mine, so it's very weird.
EDIT: And in the case the system becomes entirely in your territory after building the outpost, you have to survey everything, even to build stations... how the hell does that work
That said, it really sucks that I can't survey systems in my vassals' territories...
Also, from the very beginning of this game, I have a mission to find 6 artifacts (Precursors - The Cybrex) and there is no option to track the artifacts I didn't find. I got 3 very early, but I am still missing 3. I own 109 colonies, and my vassals got a total of 80~ colonies. I'm not sure if it's possible to know the total of systems, but it's obviously a lot more, and I still have no idea where are the last 3 artifacts ans if I need to survey a system to find them. What if they are somewhere in my vassal system, how would I know?
|
On May 25 2016 22:20 Yhamm wrote: So I only now realize that I can build a Frontier Outpost in the territory of my vassals. As soon as it is built, the system is available to survey: I can find new anomalies, and even if a planet was red before (type was known but unavailable to colonize since not in my territory), it becomes grey as if I never knew its type. It becomes red again after the survey because it's still not in my territory, even if the zone on the map is striped with my color and my vassal's. However, I can build stations (mining/research) and the production is mine, so it's very weird.
That said, it really sucks that I can't survey systems in my vassals' territories...
Also, from the very beginning of this game, I have a mission to find 6 artifacts (Precursors - The Cybrex) and there is no option to track the artifacts I didn't find. I got 3 very early, but I am still missing 3. I own 109 colonies, and my vassals got a total of 80~ colonies. I'm not sure if it's possible to know the total of systems, but it's obviously a lot more, and I still have no idea where are the last 3 artifacts ans if I need to survey a system to find them. What if they are somewhere in my vassal system, how would I know? Yeah its a problem I ran into aswell. The reason you cant survey vassal systems btw is that you already have the survey info from the first border range tech. It has a second function to give survey data from allies. If you never research that tech you can survey to your hearts content. its really stupid ><
|
Today: Premiere World-Devestating Weapon: Various kinds of nuclear weapons. Yield per: 0.1-100 Megatons Yield of global stockpile: ~5000 MT
Star Trek: Photon Torpedo Yield: 64 Megatons Typical UFP Ship holds 200 torps Total Yield: 12,800 MT
Throwing a Rock at Shit: 1 Ceres mass (biggest rock in asteroid belt): 900 exagrams = 9*10^20 kg Velocity necessary to equal Voyager torpedo load: less than a meter a second.
Of course the real point is that you need to impart massive energy in order to move such an object. The energy comes from your engines (and maybe tractor beam?) in one case, while it comes from your weapons tech in the other. Honestly, it seems to me that dragging an asteroid around would generally be pretty cumbersome (would take forever to get to target). Easier to show up and nuke the place from orbit.
Incidentally, this was one thing that always bothered me about the Death Star. A single Star Destroyer (orders of magnitude larger and more powerful than any Star Trek ship) could easily anihilate all life on a planet's surface just with indiscriminate bombardment. (which basically happens in KotOR). I guess blowing up the planet itself is just good shock and awe.
|
But you see, the asteroid already has all the energy stored it in. It is in orbit and is moving. All you need to do is alter that orbit to meet the planet, which requires a lot less energy because there is no resistance and the distances in space are huge.
It has been talked to death, but you are right that the energy levels are huge.
The death star is really dumb. Super weapons in sci-fi should shoot from beyond the system they are in to destroy a planet. That is what would make them super.
|
On May 26 2016 01:53 Plansix wrote: But you see, the asteroid already has all the energy stored it in. It is in orbit and is moving. All you need to do is alter that orbit to meet the planet, which requires a lot less energy because there is no resistance and the distances in space are huge.
It has been talked to death, but you are right that the energy levels are huge.
The death star is really dumb. Super weapons in sci-fi should shoot from beyond the system they are in to destroy a planet. That is what would make them super.
Time is the enormous factor in 'just shift its orbit to collide with the planet'. I don't want to bomb them 3 years from now. I want them dead by tomorrow.
|
|
|
|