Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
PittTheElder
Feb 13, 2012

Yes, it's like a lava lamp.



Also I want to clarify a question I posed earlier; has anyone else noticed that Planet Build Speed seems to have no effect on Building build times? Districts do seem to be correctly affected.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Zurai
Feb 13, 2012


QuarkJets posted:

My original point was that Stellaris and EU4 have comparable levels of combat abstraction. I took your point to be a direct contestation when you said this:


Did your point change from that position at some point? Because that's what I've been consistently posting about. Maybe you misunderstood what "abstraction" means in the context of simulation?

I am done with this derail but you've been totally cool and civil to debate with and I feel this is a genuine question, so I'm going to answer just for clarification purposes. You're right that my entry into this topic was a direct and dramatic refutation of your assertion about Stellaris combat abstraction vs other Paradox games, but honestly I regret that post both because it was needlessly confrontational without supplying any measure of discussable points, and also because it was pretty irrelevant to my actual position on the matter which was being discussed. My point and position in all of this is that Stellaris's ship design and combat mechanics don't mesh well with the degree of influence the player has over combat results, and IMO either the player needs to be given more agency in the way ships fight in combat OR the ship design and combat mechanics need to be stripped down or reworked to better support the lack of control.

Shadowlyger
Nov 5, 2009

FREE
HONG
KONG



I thought it was specifically called out as a pathing issue. If the combat really is abstracted and the ships are just a graphical representation, then the actual position of the ships shouldn't matter to what they're doing, right? Or am I just not understanding what "abstracted" means in this context?

AAAAA! Real Muenster
Jul 12, 2008

My QB is also named Bort



Zurai posted:

Stellaris's ship design and combat mechanics don't mesh well with the degree of influence the player has over combat results, and IMO either the player needs to be given more agency in the way ships fight in combat OR the ship design and combat mechanics need to be stripped down or reworked to better support the lack of control.
Since I have been a big part of this derail I just wanted to say that this is my big sticking point, too. Based on what I understand about the combat, what we as player see is what is going on and is not a visual representation ("abstraction") of what is actually going on in the "background", therefore either more player agency or more (read: less visual) abstraction is necessary.

ShadowHawk
Jun 25, 2000

The company has no assets of any significant value.


Gadzuko posted:

I'm fairly sure cross empire migration isn't modeled at all, unless migration treaties provide a growth bonus. There's no such thing as real pop migration any more. You just lose growth from emigration and gain it from immigration, but actual pops don't move from one place to another. As far as I know migration treaties just increase the variety of pops available. The immigration system has been... dare I say... abstracted
The way migration treaties work is that they make both partners eligible migration targets. Pops that have migration disallowed still won't move. You won't lose pops, but you might lose growth if you have a lot of push due to overcrowding.

They're most relevant if your partner has a bunch of new colonies (which give them migration push), or in the late game when they're overcrowded, or if you want their pop types in your empire (such as for habitability)

The point of empire-wide migration pull bonuses is that they prevent you from losing pops (because your planets pull exceeds push) and that when pops do leave a planet they're more likely to land on yours.

Zodack
Aug 3, 2014


AAAAA! Real Muenster posted:

Yeah I would love some actual news about the game and I apologize for my role in the derail - I just want the combat to be less of a shitshow. I honestly will probably speak with my wallet about the next DLC just like I did with EU4 because, as I am sure we can all agree, the base game needs serious love, so before I'll spend any money on the game again I'll wait for an announcement that they are going to look into the jank before I spend more more money.

lmao at Stux getting probated after I called him out for being an rear end in a top hat and he decided to continue to be an rear end in a top hat rather than keeping it about the discussion rather than about the posters in the discussion,

For what it's worth, as a new player to Stellaris and a new player to Grand Strategy in general, I would not have purchased or played the game without System View + 3D models of ships. The menus for land battles are fine because this is a space-based game, but without the ability to see my ships do cool things or look at planets I would be hard out.

I probably haven't played the game enough yet or worked on the ship designer / tactics enough yet for that to become an issue, but I immediately got what you were saying and agree that just by function of seeing a representation of your unit you have the urge to want to give it orders.

It made me recall a scientific study where participants were far more likely to spend virtual currency or a currency "stand-in" than they were to spend a $20 bill. Seeing a thing for whatever reason gives it more value.

AAAAA! Real Muenster
Jul 12, 2008

My QB is also named Bort



Zodack posted:

For what it's worth, as a new player to Stellaris and a new player to Grand Strategy in general, I would not have purchased or played the game without System View + 3D models of ships. The menus for land battles are fine because this is a space-based game, but without the ability to see my ships do cool things or look at planets I would be hard out.

I probably haven't played the game enough yet or worked on the ship designer / tactics enough yet for that to become an issue, but I immediately got what you were saying and agree that just by function of seeing a representation of your unit you have the urge to want to give it orders.

It made me recall a scientific study where participants were far more likely to spend virtual currency or a currency "stand-in" than they were to spend a $20 bill. Seeing a thing for whatever reason gives it more value.
Well thank you, its actually worth a lot to me. With how Stux was insulting my intelligence and belittling me I honestly worried if I was really badly misinterpreting something with how the combat works, but the study you are quoting is how I feel about it - if I can see this tangible ship, that I designed, rather than an "x" that represents a generic infantry unit in a 2d box like in EU4, I desire greater control. Regardless of the arguments for and against or whatever about "abstraction", I can say that without a doubt I can tell that my ships' behaviour/flight paths in combat make a difference in their performance in combat. Thus when said ships act stupidly, I wish there was something I could do about it. Like PittTheElder said, and I trust his judgement, it may not *fully* represent what is going on, but, it definitely factors in. If it factors in, I want to have a say in it, and so on yada yada I'm going to drop it now.

QuarkJets
Sep 8, 2008

It's a handshake in progress


I too enjoy having the system view and combat playing out in 3D, it's cool as hell and I don't think that it detracts from the experience at all.

Ship design and combat both deserve attention, though. Clearly. Combat computers are a nice touch but really not enough, even if the range assignments in mixed fleets were respected. Hopefully this is on the schedule of Big Expansions

Nuclearmonkee
Jun 10, 2009




If combat computers actually did things like make your ships kite then fighters and missiles would be less poo poo late game

Yami Fenrir
Jan 25, 2015

Is it I that is insane... or the rest of the world?

ShadowHawk posted:

The way migration treaties work is that they make both partners eligible migration targets. Pops that have migration disallowed still won't move. You won't lose pops, but you might lose growth if you have a lot of push due to overcrowding.

They're most relevant if your partner has a bunch of new colonies (which give them migration push), or in the late game when they're overcrowded, or if you want their pop types in your empire (such as for habitability)

The point of empire-wide migration pull bonuses is that they prevent you from losing pops (because your planets pull exceeds push) and that when pops do leave a planet they're more likely to land on yours.

Well, that's kind of meh.

At least you immediately get to colonize with their pops, i guess.

Also re: planet build speed, are you sure it doesn't work? I feel like it does. I may not be the best judge of it, though, as i tend to just queue up whatever building necessary and then ignore the planet. It's rare to have to build a lot of buildings anyhow, the bigger issue are the stupid city districts for ecumenopolis'.

Splicer
Oct 16, 2006

from hell's heart I stab at thee

Zurai posted:

My point and position in all of this is that Stellaris's ship design and combat mechanics don't mesh well with the degree of influence the player has over combat results, and IMO either the player needs to be given more agency in the way ships fight in combat OR the ship design and combat mechanics need to be stripped down or reworked to better support the lack of control.
Just wanted to third this.

Zodack posted:

For what it's worth, as a new player to Stellaris and a new player to Grand Strategy in general, I would not have purchased or played the game without System View + 3D models of ships. The menus for land battles are fine because this is a space-based game, but without the ability to see my ships do cool things or look at planets I would be hard out.

I probably haven't played the game enough yet or worked on the ship designer / tactics enough yet for that to become an issue, but I immediately got what you were saying and agree that just by function of seeing a representation of your unit you have the urge to want to give it orders.

It made me recall a scientific study where participants were far more likely to spend virtual currency or a currency "stand-in" than they were to spend a $20 bill. Seeing a thing for whatever reason gives it more value.
And second this. I like seeing my ships shoot about doing things, but it makes them doing stuff I don't want them to do all the more frustrating.

(Also better matching player agency would allow for cooler weapons)

Splicer fucked around with this message at 11:44 on Dec 31, 2019

Yami Fenrir
Jan 25, 2015

Is it I that is insane... or the rest of the world?

Okay, I did some testing on Planet Build Speed.

It does work.

Sort of?

My starting point for an Alloy Foundry was 240 time units.

Then I got the +50% build speed technology.

Now the planet says it will take 160 time units to build.

When I actually build an Alloy Foundry, it actually takes 180 time units to build.

I don't have any planetary modifiers that'd change that, so... I have no idea. At the very least it DOES lower the build time, I guess?

Gort
Aug 18, 2003


The one that really bugs me is how slow starbases are to build. By late game you're looking at a decade plus of build time before you've made anything that won't dissolve the moment a fleet looks at it.

It'd be cool if the amount of time to build a top-level starbase stayed pretty much the same throughout the game, so a starbase might take a year to build in the early game, but a star fortress still takes a year to build in the late game. It'd generally be nice to be able to speed up production of space structures by throwing resources at them as well. It feels bad to be constrained by arbitrary hard limits.

Zodack
Aug 3, 2014


Speaking of weird things, and this is another new player observation, but I found it incredibly weird that Colossi just... Don't have weapons other than the planet buster.

I was hyped for my giant death star ship until I realized it both needed an escort and also had a lower sublight speed than the rest of my armada

Zurai
Feb 13, 2012


Zodack posted:

I was hyped for my giant death star ship until I realized it both needed an escort and also had a lower sublight speed than the rest of my armada

To be fair, this was also true of the Death Star (both versions). Lack of escorts is what got the first one blown up; they didn't even launch multiple squadrons of TIE fighters, just the one that Vader lead, and only at his personal orders. The Death Stars do have tons of weapon emplacements but they were pretty ineffectual -- capital ships never got in range and they weren't able to really adequately engage fighters.

Stux
Nov 17, 2006

easy
breezy


Splicer posted:

Each unit has a position and facing on the battlefield (which I believe is 2d and the 3d stuff is just for fancy visualisation, but I could be wrong), which dictates what weapons are in range of what ships and what so forth. Were you unaware of this? It sounds like you were.

the post you quoted to ask this already answers this question for you and if you dont want to read it just dont engage with the post at all honestly.

AAAAA! Real Muenster posted:

Well thank you, its actually worth a lot to me. With how Stux was insulting my intelligence and belittling me I honestly worried if I was really badly misinterpreting something with how the combat works, but the study you are quoting is how I feel about it - if I can see this tangible ship, that I designed, rather than an "x" that represents a generic infantry unit in a 2d box like in EU4, I desire greater control. Regardless of the arguments for and against or whatever about "abstraction", I can say that without a doubt I can tell that my ships' behaviour/flight paths in combat make a difference in their performance in combat. Thus when said ships act stupidly, I wish there was something I could do about it. Like PittTheElder said, and I trust his judgement, it may not *fully* represent what is going on, but, it definitely factors in. If it factors in, I want to have a say in it, and so on yada yada I'm going to drop it now.

lets go with this and look at the logical end points, to satisfy you either the combat changes to be more involved and rts like, or they just display combat like in eu4. the former is not only extremely unlikely because its a paradox game, i dont think youve thought out the implications of that and how unmanagable it would make the game. how would multiplayer even work in the late game if you were expected to micro individual fights at the unit level? it would be unplayable.

the other option is they keep combat the same as it is now, but they remove the visualisation of it, so that way you dont get annoyed by seeing the AI do dumb stuff in 3d, because its doing dumb stuff in a UI instead. and this is assuming they do fix the issue with the computers not doing ranges properly and the combat is working as intended, even then im certain youd probably get annoyed with how the combat resolves in 3d because you still wont have full control and i dont think theyre going to be able to fix all the issues as some are basically the same bugs that exist in eu4. the thing is is that for stellaris 1 at least i dont think theyre going to remove the 3d visualisation, so when i said earlier just dont look at the 3d view, i wasnt being entirely flippant, its probably the only solution you will get to your issue. but also i think that if they were to remove the 3d view it would be a shame, because sometimes its nice to just watch a fleet fighting a giant space dragon or whatever, and i dont think that should just be removed from the game for a portion of the playerbase unable to just step back and realise hey this is just some cool visuals and i shouldnt really worry about it.

there is one thing you can do about the dumb ships and i said it a bunch of times, and i know its not exactly satisfying, but it is basically the answer in any paradox game at this point, and t hats to abuse the system so you dont have to think about it. if you swarm things with pure corvette fleets with 90% evasion and then jump in battleships with PD destroyers, that "solves" the combat. the targetting AI flips out and will keep trying to shoot the corvettes on the enemies side and youll win most battles without ever losing a single battleship. its not good, its not satisfying, but it does solve the combat for you and lets you focus more on the other systems in the game that do work properly until they get around to actually fixing the combat, because doing this has worked for a while now and at least up until the last time i played a few months ago. maybe theyve made it no longer viable in the last few patches but i doubt it.

fake edit: loaded up my last save and quickly war decced a fallen empire, i only caught this at the end because this is end game and my corvettes alone were melting them before the BSes got into system, but you can see the basic idea working still here, their fleet is entirely caught up in a swarm of corvettes and my battleships are staying at their warp in point battering everything in range

Splicer
Oct 16, 2006

from hell's heart I stab at thee

Stux posted:

the post you quoted to ask this already answers this question for you and if you dont want to read it just dont engage with the post at all honestly.
OK so it really is that if the weapons are modeled as objects it's abstract and if they're not it's not? All right, weirdly specific definition you apparently thought everyone else already knew but whatever fires your rocket.

Also lol at saying people aren't reading your posts and then immediately following up with

Stux posted:

lets go with this and look at the logical end points, to satisfy you either the combat changes to be more involved and rts like, or they just display combat like in eu4.

Zodack
Aug 3, 2014


Zurai posted:

To be fair, this was also true of the Death Star (both versions). Lack of escorts is what got the first one blown up; they didn't even launch multiple squadrons of TIE fighters, just the one that Vader lead, and only at his personal orders. The Death Stars do have tons of weapon emplacements but they were pretty ineffectual -- capital ships never got in range and they weren't able to really adequately engage fighters.

Now you have me imagining a Stellaris combat of the Death Star scrambling all of its corvettes (TIEs) and how quickly that would chew through either of the Rebel Fleets. Home One is a Titan and I suppose the Nebulons are Battleships (Wookiepedia lists the exact Rebel fleet and it's too much to look at). The Death Star is listed as having "180,216 pilots and support crew" and the Death Star II with "thousands of TIE/ln starfighters" so I can only imagine that massive swarm of TIEs.

With Respect to the Colossus it makes sense why it would need an escort in Stellaris terms, because by that point in the game it couldn't and shouldn't be able to hold its own against a sizeable enemy fleet. I was just a bit surprised that in-universe the design decision was to build a giant, flying gun/shield generator and decide to not give it even point defenses.

Splicer
Oct 16, 2006

from hell's heart I stab at thee

Zodack posted:

Now you have me imagining a Stellaris combat of the Death Star scrambling all of its corvettes (TIEs) and how quickly that would chew through either of the Rebel Fleets. Home One is a Titan and I suppose the Nebulons are Battleships (Wookiepedia lists the exact Rebel fleet and it's too much to look at). The Death Star is listed as having "180,216 pilots and support crew" and the Death Star II with "thousands of TIE/ln starfighters" so I can only imagine that massive swarm of TIEs.

With Respect to the Colossus it makes sense why it would need an escort in Stellaris terms, because by that point in the game it couldn't and shouldn't be able to hold its own against a sizeable enemy fleet. I was just a bit surprised that in-universe the design decision was to build a giant, flying gun/shield generator and decide to not give it even point defenses.
Tie fighters are strike craft. Corvettes are at least the size of the millennium falcon. So by extension a Death Star emulating colossus would probably be covered in PD rather than guns.

Stux
Nov 17, 2006

easy
breezy


Splicer posted:

OK so it really is that if the weapons are modeled as objects it's abstract and if they're not it's not?

do you genuinely not understand the difference between physical modelling and what is effectively a very complex warhammer game?

i get you just dont want to read that much text, thats fine, how about you just answer this part that you also ignored, should be easy enough:

"do you understand that stellaris combat could function as it does currently with a 2d eu4 ui and nothing else? it could even function with nothing more than a print out of how the combat resolved at the end! and do you understand how other games where what is happening is dependant on physical game objects dynamically interacting in real time could not be reduced to that and still function? can we at least get to understanding that?"

quote:

Also lol at saying people aren't reading your posts and then immediately following up with

i mean they said "if I can see this tangible ship, that I designed, rather than an "x" that represents a generic infantry unit in a 2d box like in EU4, I desire greater control", im just extrapolating from it. if its in 3d and not in an eu4 type interface they want greater control, so the two real solutions are either greater control, or make it so that it is an x in a 2d box where you dont see a representation of it flying around and you can just assume your ship "design" is just like picking what type of artillery unit you want to use in eu4. i cant tell if you are struggling to understand the things you are replying to now or if you are just arguing in bad faith and that this point im pretty sure its the latter to be honest.

Splicer
Oct 16, 2006

from hell's heart I stab at thee

Stux posted:

do you genuinely not understand the difference between physical modelling and what is effectively a very complex warhammer game?

i get you just dont want to read that much text, thats fine, how about you just answer this part that you also ignored, should be easy enough:

"do you understand that stellaris combat could function as it does currently with a 2d eu4 ui and nothing else? it could even function with nothing more than a print out of how the combat resolved at the end! and do you understand how other games where what is happening is dependant on physical game objects dynamically interacting in real time could not be reduced to that and still function? can we at least get to understanding that?"


i mean they said "if I can see this tangible ship, that I designed, rather than an "x" that represents a generic infantry unit in a 2d box like in EU4, I desire greater control", im just extrapolating from it. if its in 3d and not in an eu4 type interface they want greater control, so the two real solutions are either greater control, or make it so that it is an x in a 2d box where you dont see a representation of it flying around and you can just assume your ship "design" is just like picking what type of artillery unit you want to use in eu4. i cant tell if you are struggling to understand the things you are replying to now or if you are just arguing in bad faith and that this point im pretty sure its the latter to be honest.
You kept talking about the word "abstract" and getting madder and madder and madder that people didn't understand what you meant by "abstract" while everyone else is explicitly stating that abstraction is a continuum and after three pages you finally gave your definition of "abstract" and it was the incredibly specific binary definition of "are damaging objects modelled"

but I'm the guy with communication issues.

Stux
Nov 17, 2006

easy
breezy


Splicer posted:

You kept talking about the word "abstract" and getting madder and madder and madder that people didn't understand what you meant by "abstract" while everyone else is explicitly stating that abstraction is a continuum and after three pages you finally gave your definition of "abstract" and it was the incredibly specific binary definition of "are damaging objects modelled"

but I'm the guy with communication issues.

yea the incredibly specific definition of "what the word abstract means", more fool me for using a word that describes what im saying and expecting other people to understand what a word means?

if you dont want to engage in discussion and just want to sit there trolling then thats your choice but dont be surprised when people get sick of your gimmick and run out of patience because you dont have an argument and are more interested in poo poo posting than discussing mechanics.

you also still refused to answer that very simple question, which really is the nail in the coffin for your bad faith arguing tbh.

Aethernet
Jan 28, 2009

This is the Captain...

Our glorious political masters have, in their wisdom, decided to form an alliance with a rag-tag bunch of freedom fighters right when the Federation has us at a tactical disadvantage. Unsurprisingly, this has resulted in the Feds firing on our vessels...

Damn you Huxley!



Grimey Drawer

gentlemen, you can't fight in here

this is the spacewar thread

Splicer
Oct 16, 2006

from hell's heart I stab at thee

Stux posted:

you also still refused to answer that very simple question, which really is the nail in the coffin for your bad faith arguing tbh.
I have never played EUIV so I can't comment on the similarity

Stux posted:

yea the incredibly specific definition of "what the word abstract means", more fool me for using a word that describes what im saying and expecting other people to understand what a word means?

Splicer posted:

abstraction is a continuum

Stux posted:

if you dont want to engage in discussion and just want to sit there trolling then thats your choice but dont be surprised when people get sick of your gimmick and run out of patience because you dont have an argument and are more interested in poo poo posting than discussing mechanics.
If there is one thing that can be said about me, it's that I hate talking about mechanics

Zurai
Feb 13, 2012


Stux posted:

lets go with this and look at the logical end points, to satisfy you either the combat changes to be more involved and rts like, or they just display combat like in eu4.

False dichotomy.

Just as an example of a solution which is neither, giving the player the ability to set formations in the fleet designer and give individual ship designs target priorities and combat behaviors (all of which the game actually respects and uses, unlike the current combat computers which are basically worthless except for the explicit buffs) would increase player agency and make ship and fleet design integrate much better into the combat without either turning Stellaris into an RTS or reducing it to EU4 levels of combat interface. Being able to explicitly tell your PD destroyers to screen your cruisers and battleships, your battleships to hang back and maintain range, being able to have a design full of penetrating weapons that you can tell to target full health capital ships as a priority, etc etc, would all be a huge improvement to the feel of the combat and NONE of it has to be done real time. It's all stuff that can be done at the ship design or fleet management stage.

Stux
Nov 17, 2006

easy
breezy


Splicer posted:

I have never played EUIV so I can't comment on the similarity

what about the entire rest of it which has nothing to do with eu4 which was being used as an example and had a completely game agnostic one directly after lol

how do you expect anyone to believe you are being serious and trying to discuss something in good faith when you are being so transparently troll. honestly its a wonder the mods havnt cracked down on your gimmick already.

Stux
Nov 17, 2006

easy
breezy


Zurai posted:

False dichotomy.

Just as an example of a solution which is neither, giving the player the ability to set formations in the fleet designer and give individual ship designs target priorities and combat behaviors (all of which the game actually respects and uses, unlike the current combat computers which are basically worthless except for the explicit buffs) would increase player agency and make ship and fleet design integrate much better into the combat without either turning Stellaris into an RTS or reducing it to EU4 levels of combat interface. Being able to explicitly tell your PD destroyers to screen your cruisers and battleships, your battleships to hang back and maintain range, being able to have a design full of penetrating weapons that you can tell to target full health capital ships as a priority, etc etc, would all be a huge improvement to the feel of the combat and NONE of it has to be done real time. It's all stuff that can be done at the ship design or fleet management stage.

thats not greater control thats what the game has now but with it actually functioning and not being broken like it currently is.

its also literally the first thing i said about all of this

Stux posted:

keep battles how they are just make the ship ai options work better

so why are you arguing, just because you didnt know what the word abstract meant or something?

also honestly saying its a false dichotomy? bit of a straw man dont you think

Zurai
Feb 13, 2012


Stux posted:

thats not greater control thats what the game has now but with it actually functioning and not being broken like it currently is.

The first and third things I listed are not something which is possible in the game as it currently exists on 12-31-2019. Maybe you're from the future, I don't know, but right now you can't give target priorities to your ships or tell your ships to maintain a certain range and formation around other ships in the fleet. Not you can't do it because ship computer AI is dumb, you can't do it as in there actually isn't any way to do it in game.

Stux
Nov 17, 2006

easy
breezy


Zurai posted:

The first and third things I listed are not something which is possible in the game as it currently exists on 12-31-2019. Maybe you're from the future, I don't know, but right now you can't give target priorities to your ships or tell your ships to maintain a certain range and formation around other ships in the fleet. Not you can't do it because ship computer AI is dumb, you can't do it as in there actually isn't any way to do it in game.

the range stuff is supposed to be handled by the ship computer options but dont work. the target priorities are supposed to be decided by what weapon systems and sizes you fit but dont work. both of these things are why corvette swarms are so good because the computers wont keep at range from t he tiny ships buzzing around, and the target priorities have some weird weighting to "200 corvettes 2 metres away" that makes them flip out most of the time.

Staltran
Jan 3, 2013



Fallen Rib

Splicer posted:

Tie fighters are strike craft. Corvettes are at least the size of the millennium falcon. So by extension a Death Star emulating colossus would probably be covered in PD rather than guns.

The Death Star had a huge amount of turbolasers and much less actual pd though? A bunch of strike craft though, had Tarkin not refused to order them to launch.

Zurai
Feb 13, 2012


Stux posted:

the range stuff is supposed to be handled by the ship computer options

Neither of the things you just quoted had anything to do with range to enemies. For a destroyer screen I'm talking about having your destroyers stay like 30 or 40 units in front of your battleships (regardless of the range of the destroyers to the enemy) and between your battleships and the enemy. PD destroyers shouldn't even have enemy ships on their priority list except maybe dead last just in case they get caught out alone without any other ship types.

quote:

the target priorities are supposed to be decided by what weapon systems and sizes you fit but dont work.

Yes, and that means that small weapons are supposed to, by the current design, prioritize smaller targets. But what if I want to make dedicated anti-capital corvettes and want them to prioritize targeting the battleships with their small weapons? That isn't something the current design supports, even conceptually, but is a role which could theoretically be designed for right now.

Zurai fucked around with this message at 19:45 on Dec 31, 2019

QuarkJets
Sep 8, 2008

It's a handshake in progress


Zodack posted:

Now you have me imagining a Stellaris combat of the Death Star scrambling all of its corvettes (TIEs) and how quickly that would chew through either of the Rebel Fleets. Home One is a Titan and I suppose the Nebulons are Battleships (Wookiepedia lists the exact Rebel fleet and it's too much to look at). The Death Star is listed as having "180,216 pilots and support crew" and the Death Star II with "thousands of TIE/ln starfighters" so I can only imagine that massive swarm of TIEs.

With Respect to the Colossus it makes sense why it would need an escort in Stellaris terms, because by that point in the game it couldn't and shouldn't be able to hold its own against a sizeable enemy fleet. I was just a bit surprised that in-universe the design decision was to build a giant, flying gun/shield generator and decide to not give it even point defenses.

Tie fighters are strike craft, the small ship at the start of A New Hope was a corvette.

That said the colossus should totally be able to slot some hangars

Stux
Nov 17, 2006

easy
breezy


Zurai posted:

Neither of the things you just quoted had anything to do with range to enemies. For a destroyer screen I'm talking about having your destroyers stay like 30 or 40 units in front of your battleships (regardless of the range of the destroyers to the enemy) and between your battleships and the enemy. PD destroyers shouldn't even have enemy ships on their priority list except maybe dead last just in case they get caught out alone without any other ship types.

yes thats what the picket computer is supposed to do but it doesnt, if you had picket destroyers and artillery battleships and the computers worked as they should the destroyers would sit around 50 units out from the battleships and prioritise interception. both the computers and weapon based targetting do not work as intended.

quote:

Yes, and that means that small weapons are supposed to, by the current design, prioritize smaller targets. But what if I want to make dedicated anti-capital corvettes and want them to target the battleships with their small weapons? That isn't something the current design supports, even conceptually.

ironically current corvettes will do that, however the intent i believe in that instance is the use of torpedo corvettes, which at one point were so good at it you could just never build battleships or actually anything other than corvettes and be fine. theyre not as effective anymore but are still viable as long as the enemy doesnt have the amount of PD required to deal with it. this is also why there isnt a destroyer torpedo/missile hull, because it was assumed it would be too strong.

Zodack
Aug 3, 2014


QuarkJets posted:

Tie fighters are strike craft, the small ship at the start of A New Hope was a corvette.

That said the colossus should totally be able to slot some hangars

Splicer posted:

Tie fighters are strike craft. Corvettes are at least the size of the millennium falcon. So by extension a Death Star emulating colossus would probably be covered in PD rather than guns.

See, this is what I mean by "new player": I forgot Strike Craft even existed and by thinking in Stellaris terms the smallest thing my brain could think of was Corvette... even though the Tantive IV is literally a Corellian Corvette

Gyshall
Feb 24, 2009

Had a couple of drinks.
Saw a couple of things.


gas

Aethernet
Jan 28, 2009

This is the Captain...

Our glorious political masters have, in their wisdom, decided to form an alliance with a rag-tag bunch of freedom fighters right when the Federation has us at a tactical disadvantage. Unsurprisingly, this has resulted in the Feds firing on our vessels...

Damn you Huxley!



Grimey Drawer

Stux posted:

how do you expect anyone to believe you are being serious and trying to discuss something in good faith when you are being so transparently troll. honestly its a wonder the mods havnt cracked down on your gimmick already.

Splicer has been wasting his life posting in this thread for literal years with a gimmick of making Funny Posts on this, notoriously unfunny website Something Awful. Your gimmick is posting walls of text when people disagree with your definition of things and attempting backseat modding.

One of these gimmicks is preferable to the other.

QuarkJets
Sep 8, 2008

It's a handshake in progress



I think the strategic resources are a cool thing but it's weird that zro is always in like exactly 1 system at most

Yami Fenrir
Jan 25, 2015

Is it I that is insane... or the rest of the world?

I see Zro more than I see Living Metal tbh.

I wish i saw Living Metal more cuz it's infinitely more useful, imo.

720 days per megastructure, anyone?

You can get it even lower, technically. Possibly down to a year or less, even.

Stux
Nov 17, 2006

easy
breezy


Aethernet posted:

Splicer has been wasting his life posting in this thread for literal years with a gimmick of making Funny Posts on this, notoriously unfunny website Something Awful. Your gimmick is posting walls of text when people disagree with your definition of things and attempting backseat modding.

One of these gimmicks is preferable to the other.

did i say you could speak to me

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Splicer
Oct 16, 2006

from hell's heart I stab at thee

Aethernet posted:

Splicer has been wasting his life posting in this thread for literal years
I mean thanks for the rest of the post but this was a hell of a truth bomb to start the new year with

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply