Sign up Calendar Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 1 of 5      1   2   3   4   Next   »
MrBadExample

Registered:
Posts: 12
Reply with quote  #1 
The available ships in Artemis are rather linear and very similar in many ways.
 
I would love to see the selection of ships updated so that each ships has much clearer pros and cons.
Right now, the current state of ships are fairly similar to the following.
While there are some variations in shield strengths and weapons, that is where the differences end.
At the moment, all ships are roughly the same size, all travel at nearly the same impulse speed, all travel at the same warp speed, accelerate the same, and scan the same.
 
I would love to push these differences further specifically (in no particular order)...
  • Make the smaller ships (scouts & destroyers) faster at Warp as well as at impluse.  Also decrease the impulse speed of the heavy ships even more.
  • Make the each ship's transition to and from impulse to warp take time (re-routing power).  Make that time take longer in the bigger ships.
  • Make energy costs for warp speed related to how massive your ship is.  Heavy ships must spend much more power to go the same speed as a lighter ship.
  • Reduce the turn speed of the Battleships and Dreadnought much more.
  • Decrease the reactor size of the smaller ships (i.e. scout) and give a bonus to the larger ships.
  • Give the Heavy ships more heavy armament and reduce their lighter/close in weapons.  These should be stand-off ships that pound the enemy from a distance.  Instead of the current Light Cruiser+1 layout
  • Restrict EMPs and Nukes to Missile Cruiser or larger ships.
  • Increase hull points based on ship size.
  • Restrict sensor range on a ship size/class basis.
Captain

Registered:
Posts: 1,026
Reply with quote  #2 
Ok. Lets work down the list. 

1. This is true but I figure you want to increase it even more. I think to much will break the game but it's possible.
2. I like this suggestion. Interesting effects if it takes longer to transition.
3. Already in the game. It's really annoying in fact. 
4. I would say no on this one. The battleship is supposed to be rather light with just a bunch of armaments strapped to the front. So it should be able to turn fast. The dreadnought is really slow. I would leave it.
5. I agree. I always thought that it was kinda ridiculous that all ships produced the same base amount of energy. 
6. Actually I think this is already in place. The missile cruiser is a long rage ship, the battleship is meant to be close range, and the dreadnought has a long range beam and more tubes. 
7. Interesting. Nukes are already restricted on scouts. i think a light cruiser is large enough to warrant some.
8. Agreed.
9. how?

__________________
Captain USN Liberator

"When I lost my rifle, the Army charged me 85 dollars. That is why in the Navy the Captain goes down with the ship."
ryleyra

Registered:
Posts: 2,985
Reply with quote  #3 
As the Light Cruiser has not always had EMP (back in versions of the game when it was the only ship) and has always had Nukes, I would rather remove EMP from the torpedo stores.

But why in the world would you want to make the weakest ships in the game even WEAKER?

I've always been disappointed with how overpowered the Battleship is. It is just as manueverable as the Light Cruiser, has twice the weapons, twice the shields, and loses nothing for all that bulk. It is less efficient than the Light Cruiser, but that's a new feature to 2.0. And I'm not sure it's sufficient.

The ships in this game aren't really balanced. There's the Battleship and the Dreadnought, and then there's the ships people play to make the game harder.

I have suggested making both accelleration and scan range (for non-Unlimited scan ranges) adjustable depending on hull type.
Captain

Registered:
Posts: 1,026
Reply with quote  #4 
Well here's what my opinion is. The battleship is better. In actual navies the scouts and battleships aren't balanced. Scouts have a couple of advantages in terms of turn rate and speed letting them be scouts and probably a smaller crew saving resources. The same deal with the light cruiser. They are smaller and easier to make and there crew size means you can deploy more of them. As for the battleship, the extra components and crew sizes mean build times are through the roof and that crews are larger. Long term this means that you have far less battleships despite there advantages. At least that's my take....
__________________
Captain USN Liberator

"When I lost my rifle, the Army charged me 85 dollars. That is why in the Navy the Captain goes down with the ship."
ryleyra

Registered:
Posts: 2,985
Reply with quote  #5 
A cruiser is designed for long range capacity and patrol. A scout is designed for speed and intelligence gathering. A battleship is shorter ranged, but larger and more powerful than a cruiser. A dreadnought is just another name for a modern battleship. (Dreadnoughts have totally replaced what we used to call battleships)

The specialties of a cruiser and to an extent a scout simply aren't relevant to a combat situation. The amount of cargo your ship can hold isn't as important in battle as how big your guns are. So the Battleships and Dreadnoughts are stronger. While in the past I may have had problems with that, over the years I've changed my mind, as Thom added efficiency and it got harder to keep updating the vesselData.

If you really want to stay true to the military definition of the classes, though, there are a few tweaks that could still be made:

1) Cruisers and possibly Scouts should have more Max Energy than the other classes. Efficiency already limits the range of the Dreadnought and Battleship, but Cruisers should also be able to carry more fuel. (That is their purpose, after all)

2) Scouts should have a greater scan range.

3) In prolonged missions like the War Server, perhaps Cruisers and Scouts can move faster than other ships, allowing them to cross an occupied sector to get to their destination sector. If the War Server is made continuous, or you are forced to move only to sectors adjacent to your current sector instead of any sector, Cruisers and Scouts could cross more sectors without refueling. (Their current efficiency would probably ensure this as it stands right now)
Captain

Registered:
Posts: 1,026
Reply with quote  #6 
I think with a larger ship you would have bigger reactors and hence more energy. You would use it faster than the other ships but have much more to start with.
__________________
Captain USN Liberator

"When I lost my rifle, the Army charged me 85 dollars. That is why in the Navy the Captain goes down with the ship."
ryleyra

Registered:
Posts: 2,985
Reply with quote  #7 
Well, a reactor is useless without fuel. You can power down the ship and regenerate energy, but ultimately you are limited to the amount of energy you are provided, and have to go to a base to recharge. You can be given extra capacity to increase the amount of energy you carry, and even use an anomaly to overcharge your fuel supply. (To the point where the ship can run out of control and explode)

Basically, while there's enough leeway in the game to afford any type of gameplay, Battleships should stick close to the bases, where there is readily available energy. They can go out to the front lines and meet the incoming invasion, or wait for the enemy to come to them. Cruisers should be able to strike out across the sector, crisscrossing from one side of the map to another to deal with the more immediate threats. A Cruiser can afford to hit Warp 3 or 4 more often, since it won't use as much energy going that fast. Expanding the game to the size of the War Server should emphasize those differences.

I'd even go so far to say that if Cruisers are given additional Max Energy, the point at which they overload should still remain the same. They can hold more fuel, but can't shove any more of it through the reactor without it going critical.

ryleyra

Registered:
Posts: 2,985
Reply with quote  #8 
I'll add that in Googling info on cruisers, I came up with an interesting comment. One post I found said that basically the point of a cruiser is that "it was the smallest destroyer-type warship that could operate independently". As destroyers have become more robust with modern technology, the cruiser's original purpose has been supplanted by the destroyer.

Modern cruisers are invariably missile cruisers (as are destroyers) so there you go. I consider the Light Cruiser and the neutral Destroyer to be essentially the same ship.
Captain

Registered:
Posts: 1,026
Reply with quote  #9 
Hmm. If thats the case then the should have enough energy to operate independently, and so should thee larger ships. 
__________________
Captain USN Liberator

"When I lost my rifle, the Army charged me 85 dollars. That is why in the Navy the Captain goes down with the ship."
Arrew

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 2,737
Reply with quote  #10 
Energy? Depends on how the ships reactor works?

If it is a quantum flux reactor, which I described in the FTL post, they have infinite power. Just takes time to collect... Which seem to be the case in the game.
Nighthawk

Registered:
Posts: 141
Reply with quote  #11 
it would be better if the scouts had some kind of de-buff weapon, such as comm jammers, cloak detectors or missile decoys.
and dreadnoughts had some kind of attack craft, like fighters or boarding shuttles.

that way you have a ship which is more based on disruption than aggression, and another that's more based on fleet logistics than direct engagement.

light cruiser, missile cruiser and battleship would fill the blanks.... the first being the average attacker, the second one more based on area-targetting and the third one more based on defense.
Impaler

Registered:
Posts: 131
Reply with quote  #12 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ryleyra
A cruiser is designed for long range capacity and patrol. A scout is designed for speed and intelligence gathering. A battleship is shorter ranged, but larger and more powerful than a cruiser. A dreadnought is just another name for a modern battleship. (Dreadnoughts have totally replaced what we used to call battleships)


The distinction between the Battleship and Dreadnaught was that the Battleship had a mix of short and long ranged weaponry, while the Dreadnaught had only long range guns.  This made the Dreadnaught superior to the Battleship in the typical long stand-off poundings but meant the Dreadnaught was nearly defenseless against smaller torpedo boats (equivalent to our fighters perhaps).  This was not much of a weakness though because the Battleship while it might shoot at the Torpedo Boat was not going to be able to defend itself effectively and needed just as much Destroyer (Torpedo Boat Destroyer) protection anyways.

Also the existence of a ship with Battleship sized guns but weak armor (and better maneuverability/acceleration) was called the Battle Cruiser.

Contrary to what StarWars would have us believe large ships are NOT slower then small ones, this is the false application of aircraft-carrier combat dynamics in which the small 'things' are frying through air rather then the water.  A larger ships is actually more energy efficient and can reach higher speeds because it's friction with the water relative to it's mass is lower and it can hold more engines.  A large ship TURNS a lot slower, and accelerates slower but top speed is excellent and endurance (like the Cruiser idea mentioned earlier) would be much higher.  Now her in Artemis we might want to have one kind of scaling for impulse and another for warp, as fighting is done at Impulse I could see big ships having poor impulse speeds on top of poor turn rates, but I would not give them poor warp on top of that.

Arrew

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 2,737
Reply with quote  #13 
Warp would not conform to standard ideas of speed and acceleration. Because the space is warped. It more depend on the size and power of the warp effect and as such engines.

Just my two cents. [wink]
Captain

Registered:
Posts: 1,026
Reply with quote  #14 
I am with Impaler here. I always imagined that larger ships would have three or four reactors because they had more bulk meaning they could produce far more energy. AS for the rest most authors i reaad applyed those physics to space, although the artemis universe could work differently. 
__________________
Captain USN Liberator

"When I lost my rifle, the Army charged me 85 dollars. That is why in the Navy the Captain goes down with the ship."
ryleyra

Registered:
Posts: 2,985
Reply with quote  #15 
Which is the reason I don't have a problem with the Battleship being as manueverable as the Cruiser. Warships are designed to stay in formation. However, Battleships take more power to stay in formation, and thus use up fuel at a faster rate. It may even be more efficient, in terms of fuel use in ratio to mass, but it is still having to move more mass.

I don't care what kind of reactor you use, you have to have fuel. Perpetual motion is a myth. Atomic and quantum reactors may have effectively infinite fuel, because they generate huge amounts of energy from small amounts of matter, but they take time to transform it into energy. So if you exhaust your reserves, you have to wait for them to regenerate.

All a warship on the ocean has to do is turn a screw to propel itself through the water. Rocket fuel is used in the air and in space, because the medium is not as dense as water, and thus can't be as efficiently linked to the rotation of the engine. In space, you have to have thrust, which means you have to run SOMETHING through the engine, whether it is superheated oxygen, pellets of atomic material, or ionized particles or plasma.

Warp drive, while theoretical, at least gets us back to the idea of using power to drive a ship through the "medium" of space, not just by applying thrust. But again, this is likely to use more power than can be created through a conventional reactor. Which is why the assumption is that matter/antimatter annihilation would be required to generate that much energy. A form of battery might be used (it could be argued that the matter/antimatter concept IS a battery, since antimatter does not exist in nature) but the battery would still be quickly discharged by a Jump or under full Warp.

As it stands in the game, Light Cruisers already have greater range than Battleships, because they have lower efficiency. A Battleship will simply run itself out of fuel faster doing the same things. My concern is whether or not that greater range is in keeping with traditional advantages of the cruiser in the past, and whether that should be due to a further decrease in efficiency for the Battleship, or a greater fuel capacity for the Light Cruiser.
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.