Suggest - Features and Improvements

A forum for chatting about in-development game features.

Moderator: luciderous

User avatar
Mal
Posts: 29
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2016 3:50 am
Location: Washington, DC

Re: Suggest - Features and Improvements

Postby Mal » Thu Nov 17, 2016 12:36 am

SmaugTheDragon wrote:What I would like to see is a way to rename ships/fleets, if I build a capital ship that costs 30 turns worth of production on a hive world and all of my minerals then I should be able to give her a fitting name.


Currently, you can give a ship a unique name by refitting the ship and changing the name during the refit process. You need to change something on the ship for the refit to work. It's an odd workaround for sure.
Nicht kleckern, sondern klotzen!

*Please remember all posts are made by a malevolent, autocratic despot whose rule is marked by unjust severity and arbitrary behavior. Your experiences may vary.

User avatar
Arioch
Posts: 1198
Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2015 12:56 am
Location: San Jose, California
Contact:

Re: Suggest - Features and Improvements

Postby Arioch » Thu Nov 17, 2016 12:40 am

I think we'll be able to add individual ship naming as part of the refit changes, but naming fleets would require a fleet persistence that we don't yet have.

Chasm wrote:Any way to have captured ships be a ship by ship basis. If I capture 1 warship with tech I don't have, and 1 colony ship, why wouldn't I be able to determine what happens to each ship separately?

We'll try to add more functionality in that regard as we revisit combat and boarding (in the context of Human boarding specials), but the rough answer to that kind of "why wouldn't I" question is usually "because we'd have to add a whole new UI to let you."

Chasm
Posts: 565
Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2016 9:14 pm

Re: Suggest - Features and Improvements

Postby Chasm » Fri Nov 18, 2016 10:17 pm

Perhaps then allow a player to break a ship down for tech from the ships roster? ie I claim them all, but can then have the ship broken down for tech after the fact?

bjg
Posts: 619
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2016 10:55 pm

Re: Suggest - Features and Improvements

Postby bjg » Sun Nov 20, 2016 4:03 pm

It might make sense to replace one of "Light 2x" of Gremak's Destroyer with "Turret" (and probably introduce Light Scout based on Destroyer hull).
Give all torpedoes the long range for Gremak (after researching the "Viper Dynamics").

Chasm
Posts: 565
Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2016 9:14 pm

Re: Suggest - Features and Improvements

Postby Chasm » Sun Nov 20, 2016 11:48 pm

Human heavy cruiser to a speed of 12 (like every other heavy cruiser) up from its current speed of 7.

User avatar
sven
Site Admin
Posts: 1518
Joined: Sat Jan 31, 2015 10:24 pm
Location: British Columbia, Canada
Contact:

Re: Suggest - Features and Improvements

Postby sven » Mon Nov 21, 2016 1:38 am

Chasm wrote:Human heavy cruiser to a speed of 12 (like every other heavy cruiser) up from its current speed of 7.


It's worth noting that in its current ship config file, the Human 'Heavy Cruiser' is actually classed as a 'Battlecruiser', in terms of its armor and shield strengths, the nominal name of the ship notwithstanding. This is working as intended -- human 'Heavy Crusiers' are supposed to be notably tougher and stronger than just about any other 'heavy cruiser' in the game.

Increasing the base speed to 12 would make the human CA outstanding in terms of it's speed-relative-to-armor; a significant perk for the human fleet.

That said, I think that for the Humans to have a high-speed yet heavily armored 'Heavy Cruiser' in their fleet is an appopriate perk given the race's lore. So I'm going to include this change in the next patch. That's not to say that this particular balance change is anything like 'final', but my hunch is that it's a shift in a roughly correct direction.

Chasm
Posts: 565
Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2016 9:14 pm

Re: Suggest - Features and Improvements

Postby Chasm » Mon Nov 21, 2016 9:33 am

It is justifiable IMO, if for no other reason then compared to the other battlecruisers it is gun light and hull light. Its closest in game comparison from what I have seen would be the gremak command cruiser, but with the human ship not having the assault shuttle bay but getting slightly more hull and armor. And the yoral heavy cruiser is just as heavily armed (if not more) and retains a speed of 12.

User avatar
SmaugTheDragon
Posts: 47
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2016 12:18 pm

Re: Suggest - Features and Improvements

Postby SmaugTheDragon » Thu Nov 24, 2016 6:09 pm

I would like to see a way to tell my ships to stop firing at moving ships during enemy turn, would make capturing civilian ships easier (can't often get to them before they explode).

bjg
Posts: 619
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2016 10:55 pm

Re: Suggest - Features and Improvements

Postby bjg » Thu Nov 24, 2016 8:50 pm

I'd like to use spacebar to end turn during tactical combat. Is there a reason not to?

Chasm
Posts: 565
Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2016 9:14 pm

Re: Suggest - Features and Improvements

Postby Chasm » Fri Nov 25, 2016 1:51 am

I will second the request for a hold fire order. Also, a reserve fire order for PD weapons would be nice.

zolobolo
Posts: 1210
Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2016 3:49 pm

Re: Suggest - Features and Improvements

Postby zolobolo » Fri Nov 25, 2016 7:49 pm

1. Visual effect when shield is hit (think this was already mentioned)
2. Visuals when weapon is disabled - glowing red scar on ship model where the weapon is mounted. This would also make beaten up ships visually recognizable
3. Experience for ships, or rather crew of ship. When they loose personnel, they should be restocked by rookies
4. Hero characters commanding ships (for sure mentioned before :) - these characters should die with the ships so battles are that more intensive. The player can try to pull out the ship anyhow and not loosing the character would make its presence always beneficial without risk. Don't care much about governors, the meat of the game lies in the tactical combat...
5. Make fighters and bombers more important. Currently they appear too late in the game (except when playing colonials) and the first tier interceptor is not useful. Make carriers available more early, have the AI use them, have more hangars on higher tier carriers, make bombers more powerful and have additional fighter class for only anti-fighter/bomber so there are 3 advanced classes: fighter, bomber, all-rounder (but not the best at either)
6. Specific, clear purpose for the science-lab and scanner modules of the ships. Currently, I do not see what they are actually used for. The later seems to be adding science but is that it? Thinking on events, that require these modules, or specific activities - like planets cannot be scanned without these...
7. Show fire arcs when weapon is selected - Currently only see these when I hover over an enemy with the weapon selected

Awaras
Posts: 47
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2015 8:32 am

Re: Suggest - Features and Improvements

Postby Awaras » Sat Nov 26, 2016 7:47 am

Currently, the icon for mineral rich worlds (which increases metal yield from mines) is a diamond, while the icon for precious metals (which give money generation bonuses) is a lump of metal or coal or something? Wouldn't it make more sense if the icons were reversed? Especially since the mineral rich diamond is very similar to the 'rare gems' one that also gives extra money.

zolobolo
Posts: 1210
Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2016 3:49 pm

Re: Suggest - Features and Improvements

Postby zolobolo » Sun Nov 27, 2016 7:59 am

Battalions to be used in invasions that are formed from population but are not population anymore.
These would be professional soldiers that require tech, population (less then 1M pop for 1 unit), minerals and time to produce but fight more effectively then militia:
Bonus: They are cheaper then tank battalions
Minus: They reduce the population somewhat and mostly fight slightly worse then tanks (some races could be better)

The great art style and differing factions lend them selves well for such armies - there could be also differences in their fighting value depending on the race from which they have been trained from, making for a lot of incentives to integrate "good fighter" races into an empire.

This would also diversify the races from the start... one of the races could start with the tech necessary to produce such battalions. while others would need to research it.

It could use the mechanic the marauder armies do - though I did not yet seem them in action, I have seen a screenshot from early game where battalions were fighting on both sides, so I guess the game mechanic would already allow for this...

zolobolo
Posts: 1210
Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2016 3:49 pm

Re: Suggest - Features and Improvements

Postby zolobolo » Sun Nov 27, 2016 9:24 pm

Idea for pirate activity: Raiding (trade lines)
Trade ships are too safe currently. Once a transport has been assigned, it will produce money/deliver food. Pirates could sake this up by periodically shooting down transports when in the territory of an empire, thus gradually reducing the trade pool after a while. The more transports they have shot down, the more powerful they could become... AI and player need to prioritise taking care of them

Raided star system could also be cut off from food supply as logically the ships cannot get to them

They would thus be a good counter-part of marauders who assault planets and abduct the population of colonies...

The trade system is such a cool solution here... so many hings can be done with it :)

User avatar
Arioch
Posts: 1198
Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2015 12:56 am
Location: San Jose, California
Contact:

Re: Suggest - Features and Improvements

Postby Arioch » Mon Nov 28, 2016 12:08 am

We are adding more specialty ground units as niches present themselves: Human Assault Marines (who have bonuses in ship to ship combat), and Pirate Raiders (who raid like Marauders but steal cash instead of slaves). I'd like to add more faction-specific options, like aquatic versions of tanks, and Phidi sales commandos (to give the Phidi an "active" trading option), but those will probably have to wait until post-release. There isn't really a current niche for a regular Infantry unit (Militia are strength 1, Tanks are strength 2, and not very expensive).

Pirates will have a more active raiding role on the map (like Marauders, before they inexplicably stopped raiding). The idea of having a commerce raiding mechanic involving the Trade Pool has been brought up several times (one could allocate both raiders to attack the enemy's pool and escorts to protect one's own pool), but I'm not that keen on it. I think a pool is a useful abstraction for boring commercial activity, but I don't think it's a good abstraction for potentially interesting action like commerce raiding; action that happens off-map doesn't make for very compelling gameplay. Case in point: almost every bad espionage system that has each side filling pools with generic spies which do battle off-screen, and all the player gets is a summary of the bad things that are happening to him despite his investment in spies. Yahoo.


Return to “Testing”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 7 guests