Some thoughts from a new player

General Stars in Shadow Discussion Forum
Wyvern
Posts: 26
Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2017 3:27 pm

Some thoughts from a new player

Postby Wyvern » Tue Jul 11, 2017 5:43 pm

Hey there! I've been following the art for this game for a while; I avoided the steam early access version (though if you ever need beta testers for a mac version, sign me up!), and somehow only just now noticed that it'd been released, so I bought a copy and ran a few playthroughs.

Overall quite satisfied with the purchase; it's a fun game. Some specific thoughts and feedback, numbered to hopefully make it easier if anyone wants to respond to specific points. (Note that while some of these - like number one - are (in my not-so-humble opinion) serious issues that should be fixed, others are more subjective balance questions that should be considered with at least one proverbial grain of salt.)

1: Stellar Surge Beam sound is really painfully loud compared to other in-game sound effects - I have to take my headphones off any time these things fire. Also, volume multiplications for multiple weapons firing needs a cap; you can get similarly painful sound effect volume out of having an entire fleet fire normal weapons simultaneously. (I have, after the fact, found that I can crank game volume down below the one-pip mark by telling Windows to reduce volume for the application as a whole. I also rather feel this is a hack that shouldn't be needed; I'm guessing the game was never tested with earbud headphones that don't have a separate volume control?)

2: I had a bug pop up complaining about some sort of lua error - apologies here, I clicked the 'submit save' button but failed to wait for it to complete, nor did I copy the text out. But I can tell you what lead to it: My ships had just arrived at a Gremak-controlled star system with both Gremak and Orthrin (who I was friendly with but not allied with) fleets present. I got a notification that the Orthrin fleet was being attacked by the Gremak and I could intervene if I wanted; I proceeded to ignore that notification after a trial-and-error discovery that, if I helped the Orthrin out, that would prevent me from attacking any of the Gremak planets that turn. Instead, I attacked one of the Gremak planets directly, and in the process, eliminated the entire Gremak fleet. This left the original notification orphaned - the game still claimed that the Orthrin were under attack, but there was no Gremak fleet left to attack them; I presume this is what caused the lua error when I hit end-of-turn. On the plus side, the game recovered just fine; as the error box suggested, I was able to hit end of turn again and keep going without problems; -very- nice coding there - I know how hard doing error recovery can be.

3: There should be better communication over the question of who gets to invade when you assist or are assisted by an allied fleet in attacking a planet. As far as I can tell (though I've only had opportunity to test this a few times) the game just quietly defaults to your ally getting first chance to invade. I'm not sure what the right solution here is, given that joint ownership of a planet isn't (and probably shouldn't be) a thing, but at the very least the game should explain whatever decision is made.

4: It would be very nice if systems that are protected by warp inhibitors (both allied and enemy) would have some sort of identifiable icon on the map; it can be hard to keep track of otherwise. In addition, the refit-all-of-type button is -really- dangerous for variant stations with warp inhibitors installed; for example, if you have two variations on fleet bases (one with WIs and one without), and then get a new shield tech you want to install... well, let's just say it can go badly. Perhaps it would be better if Warp Inhibitors were their own orbital platform type ala warp gates, rather than a system that may or may not be installed on regular orbital platforms?

5: I was very disappointed to discover that you can not, in fact, put plasma torpedos into the 'torpedo' weapon slots on Yoral ships. ...Not that doing so is actually a good idea compared to, say, antimatter torpedos. In fact, I don't think I've ever used plasma torpedos - I've always had something better by the time I got that tech. But still.

6: The options to increase ship/tech costs for slower games are interesting, but suffer from some flaws; I cranked this setting up to the max after deciding I didn't want to hear another Stellar Surge Beam, and my observations include:
  • In the first few turns, the AI gears up way faster than I can - I saw a Gremak imperial fleet with a light cruiser when I was still in the process of researching my -first- technology; if they had pushed aggressively (thankfully they didn't) there's no way I would have been able to fend them off. I suggest replacing the starting free space station you get with your homeworld with a larger, combat-capable variant (excluding humans, of course, but they've got their free heavy cruiser so that's okay). Yes, you wouldn't have the tech to replicate that base until later on - but presumably by the time you're building at least your second or third colony you can afford some kind of combat fleet.
  • Costs on transports vs. armor vs. dedicated troop transports go weird; it's cheaper to build transports & troops separately - until you get the tech that reduces ship construction costs, at which point building dedicated troop transports is faster (but still costs more minerals).
  • I'd like an additional option to slow down mid to late game research; I'm actually pretty happy with the normal game's early tech progression, it just gets too fast by late game when you start to have multiple planets dedicated to research. Could we have an option that increases tech costs in some non-linear fashion? I'm not entire sure what would feel right here, though; maybe something like "research costs over 300 scale up to cost*cost/300", maybe something like "research costs = base cost * 1.1^(total number of prerequisite technologies in the tree)", maybe something else entirely.

7: When outfitting ships, components within a category appear to be sorted alphabetically. This is vaguely okay-ish for weapons, where there isn't always a clear 'better' choice, but it's significantly counter-intuitive for shields, armor, and reactors. I suggest substituting a fixed ordering based on tech level, so that more advanced options will always be higher on the list. Perhaps base it off of cost to research the relevant technology, with alphabetical order used as a tiebreaker? That's at least more open to adding new weapons and systems than giving them all pre-calculated index integers, and more general than scaling based on values that vary by type (average damage for weapons, energy output for generators, etc.)
As an aside, this is somewhat helped by the 'hide obsolete techs' option - but sometimes you want obsolete techs, most generally shields (if you're low on power) or reactors (if you've got way too much power and want to save a bit on construction costs).

8: Trade negotiations are frustratingly asymmetric; for example, the AI can call you up and ask you to help them out with food for a few turns, but you can't do the same if you're running a temporary shortfall.

9: It's quite frustrating to make contact with a new race, spend the diplomatic credit to establish an embassy and a trade agreement, and then have them declare war on you literally the next turn. Could we perhaps have some sort of grace period on expenditures where, if the AI declares war, you get a (partial) refund? (Until then, this is one situation where I'm perfectly happy to abuse the undo button.)

10: I should not have to manually control the entire battle in order for a scout ship with a PD laser to destroy an unarmed and unshielded outpost.

11: Keyboard shortcuts are good, and need to be both available and obvious. For example, numbering the options when in a diplomatic negotiation.

12: Speaking of diplomatic negotiations, there are three or four different ways to exit that screen - and one of those ways is dangerously close to the "declare war" button. I haven't mis-clicked on it yet, but please tell me there's at least a confirmation dialog for that option?

13: The Stellar Surge Beam tech vs. Primary Siege tech; you unlock these at the same time, they cost the same amount to research, and there doesn't seem to be much reason to go for Primary Siege ever*, let alone first. I suggest increasing the cost to research Stellar Surge Beam by 1.5x to 2x or making it require Primary Siege, and maybe also increasing its power requirements so that mounting one (or two on a Dread Star) actually requires some tradeoffs in ship design rather than just being the natural use of all siege hardpoints.
*Footnote: There's one exception here; if you're playing the Orthrin, there's some definite value in Primary Siege equipped gunboats.

14: Ship mobility is oddly fixed; I was very surprised to find no in-combat engine technologies. Perhaps an advanced engine type that lets you convert excess power into more speed? (Yes, you can add engines - but those take up system slots that are probably better spent on heavier shielding.)

15: Acquiring an alliance with the Phidi is an exceptional force-multiplier; it seems to be vastly cheaper to hire mercenary ships than it is to build your own, and in some cases they (like the various pirate fleets) come with more advanced technologies than you would otherwise have access to. I'm not sure if this is actually a problem or not, as getting an alliance is expensive, and then you have to have trade agreements with other empires to have access to mercenaries. Still, in several games I've played, that alliance has proven very useful.

User avatar
Arioch
Posts: 1403
Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2015 12:56 am
Location: San Jose, California
Contact:

Re: Some thoughts from a new player

Postby Arioch » Wed Jul 12, 2017 1:05 am

Wyvern wrote:Hey there! I've been following the art for this game for a while; I avoided the steam early access version (though if you ever need beta testers for a mac version, sign me up!), and somehow only just now noticed that it'd been released, so I bought a copy and ran a few playthroughs.

Thanks for buying, and for taking the time to provide detailed feedback.

Wyvern wrote:1: Stellar Surge Beam sound is really painfully loud compared to other in-game sound effects - I have to take my headphones off any time these things fire. Also, volume multiplications for multiple weapons firing needs a cap; you can get similarly painful sound effect volume out of having an entire fleet fire normal weapons simultaneously. (I have, after the fact, found that I can crank game volume down below the one-pip mark by telling Windows to reduce volume for the application as a whole. I also rather feel this is a hack that shouldn't be needed; I'm guessing the game was never tested with earbud headphones that don't have a separate volume control?)

I hadn't noticed that the SSB is particularly loud, and this is the first time I've heard this particular complaint. I'll check it out.

Wyvern wrote:3: There should be better communication over the question of who gets to invade when you assist or are assisted by an allied fleet in attacking a planet. As far as I can tell (though I've only had opportunity to test this a few times) the game just quietly defaults to your ally getting first chance to invade. I'm not sure what the right solution here is, given that joint ownership of a planet isn't (and probably shouldn't be) a thing, but at the very least the game should explain whatever decision is made.

This is a mechanism that doesn't work very well in the current implementation, but we have specific plans to improve it.

Wyvern wrote:4: It would be very nice if systems that are protected by warp inhibitors (both allied and enemy) would have some sort of identifiable icon on the map; it can be hard to keep track of otherwise.

Good idea.

Wyvern wrote:In addition, the refit-all-of-type button is -really- dangerous for variant stations with warp inhibitors installed; for example, if you have two variations on fleet bases (one with WIs and one without), and then get a new shield tech you want to install... well, let's just say it can go badly. Perhaps it would be better if Warp Inhibitors were their own orbital platform type ala warp gates, rather than a system that may or may not be installed on regular orbital platforms?

You can create a new design for your variant station and give it a new name. Mass refit will only affect ships or stations of the same named design.

Wyvern wrote:5: I was very disappointed to discover that you can not, in fact, put plasma torpedos into the 'torpedo' weapon slots on Yoral ships. ...Not that doing so is actually a good idea compared to, say, antimatter torpedos. In fact, I don't think I've ever used plasma torpedos - I've always had something better by the time I got that tech. But still.

There's no such weapon in the game as a "plasma torpedo." I assume you mean the Pulson launcher, and I agree that the wording of the "Energy Torpedoes" tech needs to be changed to avoid confusion, but the Pulson launcher is a heavy weapon more similar to a cannon, whereas the "Torpedo" hardpoint represents a rack or tube for firing physical torpedoes.

I also think all of the weapon options need to be better balanced against each other.

Wyvern wrote:[list][*]In the first few turns, the AI gears up way faster than I can - I saw a Gremak imperial fleet with a light cruiser when I was still in the process of researching my -first- technology; if they had pushed aggressively (thankfully they didn't) there's no way I would have been able to fend them off.

The different factions have asymmetric starts (some, including the Gremak, start with light cruiser tech), so dramatically scaling up the tech costs will produce uneven results.

I think that higher-end techs should be more expensive even on the normal setting. I think it's too easy to get to the endgame techs.

Wyvern wrote:8: Trade negotiations are frustratingly asymmetric; for example, the AI can call you up and ask you to help them out with food for a few turns, but you can't do the same if you're running a temporary shortfall.

9: It's quite frustrating to make contact with a new race, spend the diplomatic credit to establish an embassy and a trade agreement, and then have them declare war on you literally the next turn. Could we perhaps have some sort of grace period on expenditures where, if the AI declares war, you get a (partial) refund? (Until then, this is one situation where I'm perfectly happy to abuse the undo button.)

I agree that the diplomatic system could benefit from more complexity.

Wyvern wrote:10: I should not have to manually control the entire battle in order for a scout ship with a PD laser to destroy an unarmed and unshielded outpost.

You can auto-combat, but I agree that the turn-by-turn way this is implemented is unsatisfying.

Wyvern wrote:14: Ship mobility is oddly fixed; I was very surprised to find no in-combat engine technologies. Perhaps an advanced engine type that lets you convert excess power into more speed? (Yes, you can add engines - but those take up system slots that are probably better spent on heavier shielding.)

This was an oversight; certain techs claimed to increase tactical speed, but the effects were never implemented. It will be remedied at some point.

Wyvern
Posts: 26
Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2017 3:27 pm

Re: Some thoughts from a new player

Postby Wyvern » Wed Jul 12, 2017 1:43 am

Arioch wrote:
Wyvern wrote:10: I should not have to manually control the entire battle in order for a scout ship with a PD laser to destroy an unarmed and unshielded outpost.
You can auto-combat, but I agree that the turn-by-turn way this is implemented is unsatisfying.
I tried. The scoutship automatically retreated.

Arioch wrote:You can create a new design for your variant station and give it a new name. Mass refit will only affect ships or stations of the same named design.
Good info! I did not know this; I'll have to give it a try.

Also, thanks for the reply - this is one thing I find neat about small indie games like SiS or Starsector; you can toss out some feedback and get an actual response.

And now for the list I should've included to start with, of stuff I specifically find awesome:

The dual-cost mechanic of metals and industry for building ships is great; it's neat to have mining planets - I don't recall seeing actual dedicated mining colonies be a thing since Pax Imperia (where you had to strip-mine everywhere because resources were limited). And it works nicely as a mechanism for limiting production so you can't just have every colony building death stars.
For that matter, the whole colony management stuff is well done overall; simplified, certainly, but the few decisions there are are meaningful ones (unlike in MOO2 where there was a ton of complexity but for the most part you just wanted to build everything you could everywhere.)

I also like the influence system - as you say, there's room for improvement here, but it's still -very- nice to be able to make actual strategic decisions instead of just asking everyone for every treaty and rolling the dice for who happens to accept.

And last but certainly not least, the art's great; as I mentioned, that's what originally attracted my attention to the game. Looking forward to seeing new races, too; I know you've announced the Tinkers, and I'll absolutely be buying that DLC when it comes out.

zolobolo
Posts: 1544
Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2016 3:49 pm

Re: Some thoughts from a new player

Postby zolobolo » Wed Jul 12, 2017 7:39 am

Arioch wrote:I think that higher-end techs should be more expensive even on the normal setting. I think it's too easy to get to the endgame techs.


I you sure about this?
Have the opposite experience... never once did I see end-game tech except for the doom star which I have produced myself a couple of times only for fun as the game had been won way before that and have played all the default galaxy sizes

Wish to see the AI building doom stars and stargates but I think that at least the later id does not know how to use
Whenever I play against Ashdar Imperials, they never seem to utilize their ancient gate (always traveling for a long time to my systems instead of amassing at their home world and striking from there).

User avatar
Arioch
Posts: 1403
Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2015 12:56 am
Location: San Jose, California
Contact:

Re: Some thoughts from a new player

Postby Arioch » Wed Jul 12, 2017 6:12 pm

zolobolo wrote:
Arioch wrote:I think that higher-end techs should be more expensive even on the normal setting. I think it's too easy to get to the endgame techs.


I you sure about this?
Have the opposite experience... never once did I see end-game tech except for the doom star which I have produced myself a couple of times only for fun as the game had been won way before that and have played all the default galaxy sizes

Wish to see the AI building doom stars and stargates but I think that at least the later id does not know how to use
Whenever I play against Ashdar Imperials, they never seem to utilize their ancient gate (always traveling for a long time to my systems instead of amassing at their home world and striking from there).

I think this is more of an AI issue rather than a tech cost issue.

nweismuller
Posts: 424
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2015 2:33 am

Re: Some thoughts from a new player

Postby nweismuller » Thu Jul 13, 2017 10:56 am

Speaking of AI issues, it would be nice to see the AI build a market every now and again. Even the Phidi, who I know start with the technology, never seem to have any markets but the single starting market on Tendao when I play. (Meanwhile, they build factories everywhere, in a manner their metal production couldn't possibly support... and I've frequently seen a fair number of mines on metal-poor worlds, which I think there's basically no excuse for, given how lousy mine production is on metals-poor worlds.)

Wyvern
Posts: 26
Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2017 3:27 pm

Re: Some thoughts from a new player

Postby Wyvern » Tue Jul 18, 2017 12:30 am

Ran a few more games; have a few more thoughts.

A: The map builder for sparse maps could use a bit more work - it's very easy for sections of the galaxy to end up inaccessible without significant research into range-boosting technologies - in my most recent game, for example, the Yoral empire ended up in a cut-off section of around six stars that could not be accessed without max-level ship range increases. I'm okay with a sparse map having places where you need the first level of range tech (and maybe putting range boosts on your warships) to get around, but I think it'd be a good idea to make sure that, at that tech level, there's at least one valid path between any two stars.
- A1: You don't currently have to research lower level range techs before higher level ones. That feels a bit odd to me.
- A2: I do, however, quite like sparse maps overall; there's a lot more sense that your empire has actual borders and contact points with other empires; compare to dense maps where it's not just possible but likely that your opponents could launch attacks against any system in your empire. (On the other hand, in a sparse map, you have to have those contact points garrisoned, because there's no way any reinforcements will be getting there in time to matter. Unless you've got star gates. Hm - something that's a lesser form of star gate would be nice; perhaps a higher fleet speed when going between systems you have colonies in as a pre-star-gate tech?)

B: On the topic of travel, I'd actually be interested in an alternative play mode where the star lanes were actual things you had to concern yourself with, and you could only send ships along such lines, rather than directly to wherever. I don't much expect this to happen; it'd be a lot of work for not a huge lot of payoff. Still, it'd be interesting to have a game where you had to engage the enemy directly on their borders.

C: Which leads me to planetary defenses. I've basically stopped bothering to research or build these. Ground defenses are okayish, mostly because they don't cost metal; but they don't seem to be very effective. Space stations are, as far as I can tell, a waste of metal that could've been better spent on ships with heavy mounts.
A few suggestions here, then:
- C1: Make some low-research-cost missile modification technologies; things like "armored" or "decoys" or "evasive" (...but probably not all of those) that make missiles harder to intercept, but come at the cost of requiring more munition capacity per shot. For actual missile ships this would be a (hopefully) interesting tradeoff; for planetary defenses, it would be a straight upgrade.
- C2a: Give the military space stations a 50% discount on metal costs - and some heavier weapon slots; the small station should have at least a pair of heavy weapon slots, while the large station should have at least three heavy and one siege.
- C2b: Or, alternatively, give space stations the same "unlimited ammunition" trait that planetary defenses have - or maybe just allow researching a station class module "munitions microfactory".

As an aside: does anyone have any good examples of a place where building a defensive space station or two was definitely the right call?

User avatar
Arioch
Posts: 1403
Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2015 12:56 am
Location: San Jose, California
Contact:

Re: Some thoughts from a new player

Postby Arioch » Tue Jul 18, 2017 12:48 am

Wyvern wrote:A: The map builder for sparse maps could use a bit more work - it's very easy for sections of the galaxy to end up inaccessible without significant research into range-boosting technologies - in my most recent game, for example, the Yoral empire ended up in a cut-off section of around six stars that could not be accessed without max-level ship range increases. I'm okay with a sparse map having places where you need the first level of range tech (and maybe putting range boosts on your warships) to get around, but I think it'd be a good idea to make sure that, at that tech level, there's at least one valid path between any two stars.

I admit that I haven't played much in this mode, but I'll check it out.

Wyvern wrote:B: On the topic of travel, I'd actually be interested in an alternative play mode where the star lanes were actual things you had to concern yourself with, and you could only send ships along such lines, rather than directly to wherever. I don't much expect this to happen; it'd be a lot of work for not a huge lot of payoff. Still, it'd be interesting to have a game where you had to engage the enemy directly on their borders.

I think it would be an interesting variant to add someday, though I agree it's not high on the priority list. Although starlanes sound interesting, in my own experience with starlane-based games is that they tend not to be very fun. The defensive bottlenecks are fine, but the system makes exploration and visibility of enemy territory very difficult. But, if nothing else, it could be useful for an Outsider mod. :D

Wyvern wrote:C: Which leads me to planetary defenses. I've basically stopped bothering to research or build these. Ground defenses are okayish, mostly because they don't cost metal; but they don't seem to be very effective. Space stations are, as far as I can tell, a waste of metal that could've been better spent on ships with heavy mounts.

The difficulty with fixed defenses is that the enemy must be obliging enough to attack them. Unless you have pretty good confidence that a specific planet is likely to be attacked, they will not be worth building no matter how cheap we make them. I very rarely build walls in Civilization for the same reason.

We are adding new station mechanics in the DLC (space habitats, asteroid bases and mobile re-deployable stations) that will hopefully make them a little bit more useful and interesting.

Wyvern
Posts: 26
Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2017 3:27 pm

Re: Some thoughts from a new player

Postby Wyvern » Tue Jul 18, 2017 1:27 am

Arioch wrote:
Wyvern wrote:C: Which leads me to planetary defenses. I've basically stopped bothering to research or build these. Ground defenses are okayish, mostly because they don't cost metal; but they don't seem to be very effective. Space stations are, as far as I can tell, a waste of metal that could've been better spent on ships with heavy mounts.

The difficulty with fixed defenses is that the enemy must be obliging enough to attack them. Unless you have pretty good confidence that a specific planet is likely to be attacked, they will not be worth building no matter how cheap we make them. I very rarely build walls in Civilization for the same reason.


There are a few cases where it's pretty easy to have that confidence*; the problem is that even in those cases, you're better off building ships than space stations - even if you discount the advantage of strategic mobility, the ships will be more effective in battle.

* Cases: You're on a sparse map and the system is obviously the only one your opponent can reach**. You have a colony that you know is in range of Gremak pirates. You have enough scanner technology to see the incoming war fleet and have some number of turns in which to try to re-route nearby warships and build whatever fixed defenses you can.
** Or your ally - one recent game the Phidi, of all people, decided to declare war and invade while my war fleet was busy ramping up to attack the Orthin elsewhere. I had the resources to buy a space station - I just didn't have any space station designs that were worth buying.

zolobolo
Posts: 1544
Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2016 3:49 pm

Re: Some thoughts from a new player

Postby zolobolo » Tue Jul 18, 2017 9:22 am

Wyvern wrote:I had the resources to buy a space station - I just didn't have any space station designs that were worth buying.


Have tried out different combinations of station defenses? Some ore very potent and worth investing in see example:

On my current game as Gremak we have Command Cruiser available as the highest level ship and Starbase as base:

Command Cruiser setup:
2 Strike Fighters
2 Vipers
2 Heavy Guns
2 Disruptors
4 PD
Hull: 170
Armor: 180
Shield: 240
Production cost: 662
Metal Cost: 549

Starbase setup:
16 Strike Fighters!
8 Fusion Missiles
8 Anti-Missiles
8 PD
Hull: 460
Armor: 480
Shield: 480
Production cost: 583
Metal Cost: 862

As you can see the star base actually costs less then the Command Cruiser production vise and only costs around +50% moire metal while boosting around X4 the firepower (those 16 Strike Fighters can cut through anything with a single run)

So the way I see it, they are worth it and pose a significant threat especially if you double them and or even combine with planetary defense which can easily bring you up to 2X16 + 14 Strike Fighters that can wipe out high tech -fleets, just need to remember to hold them back until their PD can be tied down with missile salvos

The only drawback of stationary defenses the way I see it is range, as they can be sniped from the distance with Railgun but the AI never seems to use this approach

Wyvern
Posts: 26
Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2017 3:27 pm

Re: Some thoughts from a new player

Postby Wyvern » Tue Jul 18, 2017 8:33 pm

Hm. I guess I may have been discounting the value of fighters; I just kindof assumed they'd fly into PD range and then die, as that's what tends to happen when the AI uses fighters against me. I think my next game should probably be as Ashdar colonials; give a fighter-centric approach a fair shot.

Any particular advice for making effective use of fighters? I see the comment on using missile salvos as decoys; that's definitely a good idea.

zolobolo
Posts: 1544
Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2016 3:49 pm

Re: Some thoughts from a new player

Postby zolobolo » Wed Jul 19, 2017 11:51 am

Wyvern wrote:Hm. I guess I may have been discounting the value of fighters; I just kindof assumed they'd fly into PD range and then die, as that's what tends to happen when the AI uses fighters against me. I think my next game should probably be as Ashdar colonials; give a fighter-centric approach a fair shot.

Any particular advice for making effective use of fighters? I see the comment on using missile salvos as decoys; that's definitely a good idea.


Glad you like the concept :)

There are a few things that can be done with small craft (shuttle, fighter, bomber and Strike Fighter) - one of my favorite aspect of this game (I didn't see any other 4X so far that lets you have so much fun with them)

While it is true that the basic fighter (tier 1) as vulnerable to PD, it is also not meant for anti-ship operation so here are a couple of point to get you started:

1. Use tier 1 small craft aka: fighter against incoming missiles, torpedoes and other small crafts. Due to their speed, firepower and range, they function as an excellent PD in early game especially if you play with Colonials
2. If the enemy does not use missile weapons, you can send them in as a fighter screen before releasing your valuable torpedoes so that they tie down PD, just make sure not to send them too early else they will be taken down and in the next turn also your torpedoes/missiles :(
3. Once you research bombers you can deliver some real pain against enemy ships no matter the size. Use bomber runs in numbers to take out even capital ships in a single strike and make sure to research the tech that allows re-targeting: this will allow your bombers to strike one craft after another if they are near by and (when timed right) can sweep clear a couple of vessels in a single turn! Consequently: if the AI manages to pull together a couple of carriers you better head for the hills, else those bomber wings will smash even your most advanced capital ships if they happen to be underway without proper escort.
4. Note that fighters use your most advanced laser weapon and bombers your most advanced torpedoes so if you rely on these tactics, make sure to research these tech and not neglect them even when not using torpedoes and lasers directly on the larger vessels
5. Once you reach Strike Fighter you are golden: these babies outright replace both fighters and bombers and use your most advanced weapon of both. They currently cost less then bombers which I think is not optimal balance-wise but as is, it makes for a no-brainer
6. In case of defending star bases and planetary defense, range is king so be sure to use: Railgun, bombers/Strike Fighters or missiles to be able to support your defending fleet
7. Use shuttles to board enemy ships from a distance

Saving your squadrons for the right moment is key and always consider what delivers the best punch: your missiles or your squadrons to decide which is the distraction and which one delivers the payload

Hope you will have fun with them :)

Wyvern
Posts: 26
Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2017 3:27 pm

Re: Some thoughts from a new player

Postby Wyvern » Wed Jul 19, 2017 6:52 pm

I've played a little bit as Ashdar Colonials now, and (luckily?) got into an early war with the Gremak. With the Colonials getting discounts on certain techs, I actually had strike fighters before my first carrier finished building - though I also had a chunk of early combat where I had to spam light cruisers with lasers because that was all I had the tech for.

And, while I don't have missile ships yet, I've been able to make a fairly effective 'decoy' out of just moving a ship forwards; that gets the enemy AI to fire medium weapons at them, which means those guns aren't firing at my fighters. Conversely, when fighting against fixed defenses with enemy fighters, I prioritize all medium-mount weapons fire on taking down the enemy fighters, which generally results in them not getting to attack at all.

Conclusion: Fighters are currently potent, but fragile; making effective use of them involves finding ways to make the AI shoot at better-defended targets, or simply deploying them in overwhelming numbers. Conversely, countering fighters is fairly straightforward: kill off the fighters ASAP, and their host carriers become singularly non-threatening.

zolobolo
Posts: 1544
Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2016 3:49 pm

Re: Some thoughts from a new player

Postby zolobolo » Wed Jul 19, 2017 8:14 pm

Wyvern wrote:I've played a little bit as Ashdar Colonials now, and (luckily?) got into an early war with the Gremak. With the Colonials getting discounts on certain techs, I actually had strike fighters before my first carrier finished building - though I also had a chunk of early combat where I had to spam light cruisers with lasers because that was all I had the tech for.

Yes, Strike Fighter tech does come too early, wish it would be pushed back a bit
Generally though I would rather prefer all three tiers having their own tactical use like in case of the first two: interceptors and bombers as with these the player needs to make a decision during ship design which one to chose and thus which tactical purpose the vessel should serve.


Wyvern wrote:And, while I don't have missile ships yet, I've been able to make a fairly effective 'decoy' out of just moving a ship forwards; that gets the enemy AI to fire medium weapons at them, which means those guns aren't firing at my fighters. Conversely, when fighting against fixed defenses with enemy fighters, I prioritize all medium-mount weapons fire on taking down the enemy fighters, which generally results in them not getting to attack at all.

This seems like an AI thing, you have played the computer :) Didn't ntice yet if the AI targets the closest vessel or the one that it is most effective against. Later seems logical but the first is probably the case otherwise other strange behaviour would follow (ships attacking the back of the player fleet while torn to shreds by the first line of ships)

Generally if anything I would just tell the AI to hold back its small crafts if it is epxecting heavy losses and no gain and vice-versa: if the AI calculates that your small crafts are a larger danger, it should hold its fire for some of its PD weapons (how many should depend on the ratio of player small craft potential damage vs all other potential on the field)

Wyvern wrote:Conclusion: Fighters are currently potent, but fragile; making effective use of them involves finding ways to make the AI shoot at better-defended targets, or simply deploying them in overwhelming numbers. Conversely, countering fighters is fairly straightforward: kill off the fighters ASAP, and their host carriers become singularly non-threatening.

While this is true, should the AI bring 2-3 carriers onto the field, killing of all those fighters becomes quite difficult withouth specialised ships which will not be able to put up a fight against a battleship :)

User avatar
Arioch
Posts: 1403
Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2015 12:56 am
Location: San Jose, California
Contact:

Re: Some thoughts from a new player

Postby Arioch » Sun Jul 23, 2017 11:41 pm

Arioch wrote:
Wyvern wrote:A: The map builder for sparse maps could use a bit more work - it's very easy for sections of the galaxy to end up inaccessible without significant research into range-boosting technologies - in my most recent game, for example, the Yoral empire ended up in a cut-off section of around six stars that could not be accessed without max-level ship range increases. I'm okay with a sparse map having places where you need the first level of range tech (and maybe putting range boosts on your warships) to get around, but I think it'd be a good idea to make sure that, at that tech level, there's at least one valid path between any two stars.

I admit that I haven't played much in this mode, but I'll check it out.

I played around with the Sparse map mode a bit more, and I think it's in a decent place. RNG can sometimes cause a pocket of stars to be isolated, but I that's acceptable (plenty of times in Civilization I had to restart because I ended up alone on an island with a non-seafaring civ), and it would take a lot of effort to try to prevent.

zolobolo wrote:
Wyvern wrote:I've played a little bit as Ashdar Colonials now, and (luckily?) got into an early war with the Gremak. With the Colonials getting discounts on certain techs, I actually had strike fighters before my first carrier finished building - though I also had a chunk of early combat where I had to spam light cruisers with lasers because that was all I had the tech for.

Yes, Strike Fighter tech does come too early, wish it would be pushed back a bit
Generally though I would rather prefer all three tiers having their own tactical use like in case of the first two: interceptors and bombers as with these the player needs to make a decision during ship design which one to chose and thus which tactical purpose the vessel should serve.

In the current test build I added Antimatter back in as a prerequisite for Strike Fighters. We also have some long-planned fighter changes that will improve fighter survivability and make all three types a little bit more contemporary and less a case of replacements. And hopefully we can get Starfighters implemented soon. :D

We also gave the Ashdar Colonials' fighter squadrons an extra fighter per hangar, so that should finally give the short dinos something to get happy about.


Return to “General Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests