![]() ![]() I fail to see how they have a cost in terms of complexity. Point being, is the system opens up a ton of new, interesting options. They could be used as a "sacrificial fleet" to take out the shields while the next fleet takes out the undefended ships. The other side is going to need time shooting at their shield modules rather than the ships themselves, and that's assuming they aren't suffering casualties in the interim. With modules being damaged or destroyed though, even the biggest ship is eventually going to need repairs to keep it capable.Ĥ) Not really. With module damage, the lasers damage could be precise, the missile could be say 7 against primary target, and 2 damage against all adjacent modules.ģ) Yes, but that's not exactly a complex form of attrition, is it? Especially if there's a healing mechanic in play. We would prefer to implement boarding for instance that will allow to take advantage of your opponent’s ships to compensate your own losses.ġ) Yes, I'm never going to argue against more gameplay options.Ģ) Not really? A laser doing 10 damage to a ship and a missile to 10 damage to a ship have the exact same effect. ![]() For ships destroyed during a battle however, we don’t want to go for that, as it can have huge consequences on the economy. Salvaging should become more efficient as the game progresses.įor damaged ship, we have this kind of mechanics. To make smaller ships useful until endgame, salvaging mechanics should allow part of them to be resurrected after a battle without having to rebuild the whole fleet in a planet. Smaller ships are destroyed much more easily. A larger ship is usually a better investment than a fleet of small ships, because it can soak up a lot of damage and then be repaired. Smaller ships should be salvageable, which means a part of them would 'resurrect' after a battle. We don’t want however to fall down on the opposite issue where making small ships is always optimal in terms of efficiency / industry costs. We increased the size difference compared to Endless Space: we’re, for now, on 1 / 3 / 6 instead of 1 / 2 / 4. the relations between the smallest class and the largest one should be much greater. The price difference should be greater - small ships should be cheaper and mass-produceable.įleets should be able to have more ships of smaller size. 4-to-1 relation in ship size does not cut it. So, if you focus on large ships only, you’ll limit your options.ĮS1 has a small number of ship slots in the fleet. On one hand we have some module restrictions tied to the role of a ship (and some roles exist only for a specific size) and on the other hand, we have the battle plan that can have prerequisites based on role. The use of battle plan and ship roles will help with that part. Modules should be optimal when interacting with other modules of the same size, but have penalties when interacting with other size. There is this thing in ES1 that smaller ships becomes worthless in late game, the player usually banks on larger ships. So I isolated more specific comments and answered them separately. Sorry I missed your post Brazilian_Joe here are the answers! Overall what you’re suggesting is interesting but it doesn’t fit with the direction we’re currently taking with the battle. If your adding in the complexity, might as well get the most bang for the buck you can in terms of options, custom modules, abilities that play off of it, etc. Ultimately if this system is going to be implemented, than I think it should be implemented aggressively. I somewhat worry about this system in that same vein. I think one of the big issues in ES1 combat was that their was a large amount of complexity in how weapons did damage.but little payoff in terms of the strategic choices that complexity provided. There are obviously things that adding module damage can give you.but they have a cost in terms of complexity, and I'm not sold that its worth it. A damaged ship is still weaker in that it can take less punishment, even if its offense is not reduced.Ĥ) Destroying shields on tanky ships - Doesn't that make tanky ships less reliable? Does that actual add to the strategy if I can't rely on the ships to do their "job"? There's a ton of options module damage opens up.ġ) Delicate but High power weapons - There is already a fair amount of weapon differentiation, is this really an option we want to add to the pile?Ģ) Splash Damage - Can do this with just HP on ships.ģ) Attrition for Stronger Ships - HP can still offer this. ![]() It allows for the possibility of delicate-but-high-power weapons, it allows for the possibility of splash damage, it allows for attrition for stronger ships, it allows for aggressive patterns to destroy the shield modules of tanky ships. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |