306 replies to this topic

[evilbobthebob]

Land defenders still have infinite streams of troops, but they are the lowest-level upgrade of those troops so vs later upgraded units they are generally ineffective. This is mostly because we cannot hope to simulate bringing the entire resources of a planet to bear in an invasion, so we have to improvise.

[Pellean]

Land defenders still have infinite streams of troops, but they are the lowest-level upgrade of those troops so vs later upgraded units they are generally ineffective. This is mostly because we cannot hope to simulate bringing the entire resources of a planet to bear in an invasion, so we have to improvise.

I feel like that's the way it should be: there is no way to literally destroy all military forces on a world- instead you have to neutralize them by destroying the infrastructure that allows them to participate in the battle.
On that note, is there a way to remove the spawn limit for planetary structures? Since they are, in effect, representing the entire planet's resources, I don't see why they can only support so much at one time. This would force the attacker into a much more aggressive role, because every minute he delays would allow more reinforcements to reach the defender.

[Hanti]

Land defenders still have infinite streams of troops, but they are the lowest-level upgrade of those troops so vs later upgraded units they are generally ineffective. This is mostly because we cannot hope to simulate bringing the entire resources of a planet to bear in an invasion, so we have to improvise.

Land units level upgrade like space upgrade for ships?

[Phoenix Rising]

Actually, I've been thinking about switching the station complements to infinite respawns as well.

On that note, is there a way to remove the spawn limit for planetary structures?

You could set it to a really high number, but you'd have to turn off Spawn_Garrison_On_Load.

[Ghostrider]

Actually, I've been thinking about switching the station complements to infinite respawns as well.

Second that. Space structures always seem surprisingly devoid of fighter defense - especially as structres spawn base units without upgrades - meaning they are always vape-bait.

Perhaps structures need to spawn Mark II or Mark III variants to compensate for the fact that structures are fixed to a single timeframe, so Imperial stations are TIE Fighters or TIE Fighterx2s and the rebels get something a little better than a Mark I Headhunter.

If we are going to fix strucutures to a single time era, why 18BBY when everything they launch is automatically obsolete in all other campaigns.

It would be better to set space stations with mid GCW era complements and then TO/OSH campaigns are not spawning fighters that are so old they belong in a museum.

Ok having GCW era complements in the 18BBY campaigns is a bit odd, but you can justify this by saying space station fighter crews are better coordinated. This is better than having Skyhook, TO and OSH space structures spawning complements that have been obsolete for 30 years or more.

In fact one could always set complement level depending on the size of the starbase.
Golan II and Golan III are more modern that Golan I's and should have better complements as Golan III's tend to only appear late in the timeline, and should have complement to match.

[Hanti]

Actually, I've been thinking about switching the station complements to infinite respawns as well.

Second that. Space structures always seem surprisingly devoid of fighter defense - especially as structres spawn base units without upgrades - meaning they are always vape-bait.

(...)

I don't second that. I like the idea of finite resources: ships, fighters, troops and a war of attrition. If garrisons have infinite pools, then one need to bring overwhelming power to subdue them. Where is the place for skill or tactic?

[P.O._210877]

It would be better to set space stations with mid GCW era complements and then TO/OSH campaigns are not spawning fighters that are so old they belong in a museum.

Or make campaign specific stations?

Edited by P.O._210877, 21 February 2012 - 09:38 PM.

[Pellean]

Actually, I've been thinking about switching the station complements to infinite respawns as well.

Second that. Space structures always seem surprisingly devoid of fighter defense - especially as structres spawn base units without upgrades - meaning they are always vape-bait.

(...)

I don't second that. I like the idea of finite resources: ships, fighters, troops and a war of attrition. If garrisons have infinite pools, then one need to bring overwhelming power to subdue them. Where is the place for skill or tactic?

@PR It doesn't seem as right to me for space as it does for land, as you can already have a fleet of unlimited size defending the world as opposed to the max of ten units on land. Still, I suppose space reinforcements could be considered part of the planet's militia as opposed to the Imp/NR Navy, with the space stations serving as rallying points.
@Ghostrider This is an idea I've been toying with ever since the carrier issue was debated prior to 1.1: Is it possible/canonically acceptable to increase the cost of fighter and transport upgrades and have them be retroactive? This would address the carrier upgrade vs. fighter upgrade issue by making complements depend on fighter technology, the relative uselessness of starbase complements, and (assuming the same code can be used for land) the bombing run equity issue. I know that vintage ships are part of the flavor of the game, and while I enjoy the diversity of capital ships as new technology is developed, I have found that having 3-7 stacks of the same fighter annoying and less interesting. Since fighter/bomber/transport upgrades represent refits more than actual redesign anyway, this policy makes sense to me. I'm not even sure if this is possible, but it's an idea to consider.
@Hanti I see your point, but it may actually make space battles more interesting by providing tactical nuance: e.g. you must take out specific enemy targets as opposed to a pure war of attrition. You would still have the fleet battles, and it will be (I assume) only station fighter complements that will be "unlimited." This way would nudge the odds slightly more in the defender's favor, but not overly so. As of now, an attacking force will presumably have enough firepower that its commander thinks his odds of winning are better than even, thereby unbalancing the roles a bit.

Edited by Pellean, 22 February 2012 - 05:23 AM.

[Phoenix Rising]

Space structures always seem surprisingly devoid of fighter defense - especially as structres spawn base units without upgrades - meaning they are always vape-bait.

There are Tech-Level-dependent complement upgrades for factional stations now. At least as long as you set the slider before launching - it won't increment through research.

If garrisons have infinite pools, then one need to bring overwhelming power to subdue them. Where is the place for skill or tactic?

It would only affect the Golans and XQ5 .

[Kitkun]

@Ghostrider This is an idea I've been toying with ever since the carrier issue was debated prior to 1.1: Is it possible/canonically acceptable to increase the cost of fighter and transport upgrades and have them be retroactive? This would address the carrier upgrade vs. fighter upgrade issue by making complements depend on fighter technology, the relative uselessness of starbase complements, and (assuming the same code can be used for land) the bombing run equity issue. I know that vintage ships are part of the flavor of the game, and while I enjoy the diversity of capital ships as new technology is developed, I have found that having 3-7 stacks of the same fighter annoying and less interesting. Since fighter/bomber/transport upgrades represent refits more than actual redesign anyway, this policy makes sense to me. I'm not even sure if this is possible, but it's an idea to consider.

You're saying to have fighter upgrades affect complements too, right? Maybe possible, but unless there's some easy way to script it, not at all feasible. At the very least, hundreds of variants for some ships would be required.

[Brashin]

Sorry if this is not the right place, but I've been wondering if I upgrade a carrier or ship that has a compliment of say Tie Fighters x5 (cant remember but basically 5th level of Tie fighter) yet I havent even researched the tie fighter x5 stand alone version to produce I would think they should be depended. So if I only researched a Tie fighter x4 then the carrier should only get tie fighter x4 rather than the x5 version until that research is completed. I know that must take a long time to code something like that or it might not even be possible, just thought I'd throw it out there though.

[Ghostrider]

Sorry if this is not the right place, but I've been wondering if I upgrade a carrier or ship that has a compliment of say Tie Fighters x5 (cant remember but basically 5th level of Tie fighter) yet I havent even researched the tie fighter x5 stand alone version to produce I would think they should be depended. So if I only researched a Tie fighter x4 then the carrier should only get tie fighter x4 rather than the x5 version until that research is completed. I know that must take a long time to code something like that or it might not even be possible, just thought I'd throw it out there though.

Upgrades are specifically linked to each branch.
You can completely ignore TIE Starfighter upgrades and leave production at the original obsolete fighter and dump all of your reaserch money into upgrading the Super VIII Bulk Cruiser. As the cruiser upgrades, so does the complement.
For example, the Super VIII Escort Carrier has:
3 TIE Fighter Squadrons
1 TIE Advanced x 3 Squadron;
1 TIE Advanced x1 Squadron;
1 TIE Targeter Squadron
6 Lambda T4a shuttles.

Upgrade to the Super VIII Escort Carrier Mark IV and it has a complement of:
1 TIE Fighter_x3 Squadron
1 TIE Interceptor_x2 Squadron
1 TIE Avenger_x2 Squadron
1 TIE Defender Squadron
1 TIE Bomber_x2 Squadron
1 TIE Scimitar Assault Bomber Squadron
6 Lambda T4c shuttles.

Yet you can only build TIE Starfighters until you upgrade your Fighter squadrons with a Research Station and a Level 1 Orbital Shipyard.
Research acts independently. You have to upgrade each branch separately.

Incidentally, the quickest way to get the TIE Bomber is to upgrade to the Venator Mark II, and the quickest way to get X-Wings is to Upgrade to the Valiant MC40a, which upgrades Z95 Headhunters to T65A X-wings.

You're saying to have fighter upgrades affect complements too, right? Maybe possible, but unless there's some easy way to script it, not at all feasible. At the very least, hundreds of variants for some ships would be required.

Not a chance. You have no idea on the number of variants out there.
Besides complement upgrades are non-linear. You can upgrade the carrier, and have the complement remain unchanged or jump 2 fighter upgrades in one go. It depends on the carrier and the type of fighter/bomber/transport being carried.

Edited by Ghostrider, 22 February 2012 - 06:57 PM.

[johnchm.10]

wait just a minute, every Valiant i have is only launching Z-95s and Y-wings. is that a 1.2 upgrade or something?

Edited by johnchm.10, 22 February 2012 - 07:58 PM.

[johnchm.10]

theyre upgraded ones too

[Pellean]

I'm not suggesting putting together a carrier variant for every possible combination of fighter upgrades. I was thinking more along the lines of having a single fighter unit for each line and having the technologies just apply modifiers to stats and enable weapons hardpoints that would be dormant on the original model, but present. This seems both more efficient than having individual units for each upgrade and would fix the complement-technology discontinuity. Again, I'm not sure how the technology code works in this game, but the conditional hardpoint function works in at least one other game that I've worked on. My suggestion was meant only as an exploratory comment to see if it could, in fact, be done.

[Hanti]

I'm not suggesting putting together a carrier variant for every possible combination of fighter upgrades. I was thinking more along the lines of having a single fighter unit for each line and having the technologies just apply modifiers to stats and enable weapons hardpoints that would be dormant on the original model, but present. This seems both more efficient than having individual units for each upgrade and would fix the complement-technology discontinuity. Again, I'm not sure how the technology code works in this game, but the conditional hardpoint function works in at least one other game that I've worked on. My suggestion was meant only as an exploratory comment to see if it could, in fact, be done.

I think it is possible to link upgrades of ships (carriers) to other ships (fighters) eg. you can't upgrade Venator to Mk2 until you've upgraded TIE Bombers first. It should be possible, but it's a lot of work.

[skie9173]

Could upgrades that affect a capital ship's compliment be linked to the upgrade of relevant fighter/bombers/transports? As an example, you wouldn't be able to research a Venator Mark II until you have unlocked TIE Bombers (and whatever other fighter/bombers would be normally available on the Venator Mark II.

This would encourage players to explore the tech tree more, while preventing sticky canon of ships having complements of fighters that haven't even been invented yet. I'm sure it would still take a significant amount of scripting but not as much as having variations of every capital ship with every level of fighter.

A variation could be that it doesn't effect all capital ships, just dedicated carrier classes like Venators or Quasar Fire Escort Carriers. This would mean that carrier compliments will always be better than multi-role vessels like Neb-Bs.

[Phoenix Rising]

I'm not suggesting putting together a carrier variant for every possible combination of fighter upgrades. I was thinking more along the lines of having a single fighter unit for each line and having the technologies just apply modifiers to stats and enable weapons hardpoints that would be dormant on the original model, but present.

I can't think of anything that would allow you to dynamically alter the hardpoints of a unit, unless it's some kind of scripting. You could do a Permanent Weapon Swap like the ZC disruptor, but that wouldn't be hardpoints. Alternatively, I guess you could set up an unlockable Rocket Attack with an improved armament, although it'd be a clunky way to do it.

Could upgrades that affect a capital ship's compliment be linked to the upgrade of relevant fighter/bombers/transports? As an example, you wouldn't be able to research a Venator Mark II until you have unlocked TIE Bombers (and whatever other fighter/bombers would be normally available on the Venator Mark II.

This would be more feasible from a scripting standpoint, but you'd run into the issue of some complement units not being in the tech tree at all.

[johnchm.10]

it may seem a bit overkill, but having better fighters would be a bit more realistic. and i think in order to have that work, and unless its impossible to code like this, we could use the "solve for X" method. ill elaborate
right now, youve got the fighter compliments locked in a certain manner. like the Valiant class. its packing a dozen Z95s and a dozen Y-wings. but they max out at AF2's and S4's, respectively. realistically, upgrading Fighters is less expensive, time consuming, and faster than upgrading the larger vessels. the method im thinking of would replace the code from "spawn 1 Z94AF2 squadron and 1 BTL-S4 squadron" (i forget the actual code, my bad) with spawn 1 C, E if C is not yet researched and 1 D", with C being a squadron of the latest model X-wing, D being a squadron of the latest model Y-wing, and E being the latest model Z-95 is the X-wings arent researched yet.
it would add a bit of realism i feel, as there were a number of decades old capital ships sporting modern fighters, and while the cap-ships would only get overhauled every decade or so (arbitrary number), the fighters would get upgraded every 4 or so years (again, arbitrary number.) like the Peregine during the Hand of Thrawn Duology. here we have a Dreadnaught from the Katana Fleet launched long before the Clone Wars, and it operated as the home base of Rogue Squadron, a squadron of modern X-wings. granted, that was the flagship of a Task force, but whos to say it couldnt happen to other ships. the fighters are still using the same supplies (spare parts are upgraded, i would assume), not really increasing the amount of pilots (maybe by a dozen in the case of the bombers), and the sizes of the fighters are pretty much the same when they get upgraded. and the ships do visit shipyards every so often, or if the situation demands it and get supplied while underway relatively regularly. there really isnt any practical reason that i am aware of to prohibit this, unless the engine wont allow it

[Phoenix Rising]

Hmm. I'm not sure how well one can script spawning. I'd bet that LUA would allow you to pop a unit into existence in tactical, but what you're talking about would basically involve rewriting the engine's complement spawn code from scratch, with no guarantee that it can be done as efficiently as it is now. Tying complements to research was my original idea (before I realized it was impossible to do with XML) and would still be my first choice, but it'd be a huge undertaking doing it this way, assuming it's even possible.