Tkins

Making Sins More Fleets Focused

▼

Making Sins More Fleets Focused

Developing ideas on making sins a game about multiple well rounded fleets rather than one big power fleet.

from Sins Forums

Hello All,

 

I've noticed a few people bring this subject up in different threads. Unfortunately I can't get the search to work in the forums so I don't know if there is a similar thread.

 

Down to business. There is a common problem in many RTS's where the best strategy is to ball all units together and steam roll over the enemy. Unfortunately this makes for a game less about strategic placement and more about who can build the biggest baddest fleet (ie produce the most units).  I would agree that having the most units should play an integral roll in strategy, but I would counter by saying it shouldn't be the end all is all that we see in most RTS's.

As Kruppe points out below "skill being equal(Napoleon vs Nepolen) would result in a who has most the most units."

 

So my question to all of you is: "How can we make Sins more focused on multiples smaller fleets rather than just 1 or 2 large fleets?"

 

Here are some of my suggestions from another thread. Please share your critiques of these ideas and any of your own suggestions. If possible keep them within modding limits of the game rather than a complete rehaul. If you feel that a complete rehaul is the only possible answer, well lets hear why!

 

 

Would doing the following help in creating more fleets scattered throughout an empire rather than one big fleet?

 

1. Make planets die faster but with mitigation so that more ships on one planet isn't as productive as few ships on many planets - Might be tough to implement but could work. If someone sends out one big fleet and has to wait a similar time to kill a planet, it would hopefully encourage people to attack with mutliple fleets across many planets.

 

2. Make ships jump slower - I'm worried about this because it could slow the game down when I feel the game is already a good pace, if not a bit slow.

 

3. Design maps around the stars rather than planets (I've done this in galaxy forge with some really fun results) - make everything in a star connected to one another. Only a couple planets per star (3 max). Many stars (5-10)

This one is the only one I've tested and I've had really good results. A typical map in sins may have tons of  jumps between homeworlds but everything boils down to a couple choke point planets. This focuses the battle on  one area which allows easy massing of fleets and encourages spamming large numbers.  

By having many stars and few planets for each, an attack can come to any of your worlds quite easily as there are  many points of entrance. By having solar systems completely connected it makes traveling easier within and if  you have a fleet stationed within the solar system it can jump to the needed locations quickly and efficiently.  Having just one fleet though, it can be very difficult to have to jump from your attack location all the way back to  a undefended star system.

Some issues I found originally was that jumping between stars was time consuming, so I've placed the stars  much closer to one another. In addition I've created some choke points by creating layers within a solar system,  but having most of the colonizables connected to one another and the star. This creates diversity in the game by  having choke points in strategic locations only, rather than everywhere on the map.**

 

4. Make the game more capital ship intensive (cheaper and slightly more available). I've seen people argue that caps will become overpowered if they are cheaper, but the neat thing with caps is that they have a maximum amount. As long as they aren't made unreasonably cheap, they will just become more prevalent as you can only build a certain amount of them. something like 2300 credits, 250 metal and 150 crystal as a minimum and 2600 credits, 300 metal, 200 crystal as a maximum.

https://forums.sinsofasolarempire.com/329761

 

**side note, only read if you have spare time as this is off topic: I do find it odd in sins that the game is quite linear in map design. A traditional strategy game like Age of Empires, Rise of Nations or Command and Conquer, attacks would come from one direction of the map (the opposite side) but could come from almost anywhere in that direction. The big fear with space strategy is that space is 3D and attacks could come from anywhere and make things really messy. Sins almost takes it too far in the opposite direction by placing everything around phase lanes. All attacks are coming from one or two directions with little freedom.

 

87,654 views 51 replies
Reply #26 from Sins Forums Top

i like #s 3&4, being mainly a first person shooter kinda guy i enjoy games such as soase and eaw/foc when i can get lots of big ships (since with sins i cheat and have huge armadas lol{in single player of course}) i dont really need #4 but its nice for ppl who like to play the game straight and honest but arent nesaceraly an rts/4x fan

Reply #27 from Sins Forums Top

Down to business. There is a common problem in many RTS's where the best strategy is to ball all units together and steam roll over the enemy. Unfortunately this makes for a game less about strategic placement and more about who can build the biggest baddest fleet (ie produce the most units).  I would agree that having the most units should play an integral roll in strategy, but I would counter by saying it shouldn't be the end all is all that we see in most RTS's.

Doesn't it make sense that if more units are available on one side than the other that since they'll have more total firepower that they would wipe out the opposing fleet while suffering disproportionately fewer losses?  Also, in this game it sometimes makes sense to keep fleets grouped together so that they can benefit from area-of-effect abilities (though that also makes them susceptible to area-of-effect attacks).

If you're having difficulty appreciating the strategic aspects of this, have you considered playing the game in online multiplayer?

 

TouchTasks - Access tasks with ease on Windows touchscreens.
Reply #28 from Sins Forums Top

Quoting Duloth, reply 6
Resolution: Make -anything- with weapons on it consume the same ship supply, and replace the existing static defenses with exceedingly slow-moving but still mobile versions.

That's a horrible idea.  Hangers and Turrets can't move to other gravity wells.  If they consumed fleet supply then no one would ever build them except in rare circumstances.

I really don't undestand what all of the complaints are about; the game is excellent as it stands now.  Most of the proposals in this thread are downright awful.  Making major changes would risk destroying the game's delicate chemistry.  Those types of changes are really best left for mods that can thrive or fail in the mod marketplace.

Reply #29 from Sins Forums Top

Quoting exarion, reply 16
currently the game comes down to discipline vessel/ skirmisher spam, with LRFs making the occasional appearance, but rare.

If you really think that it comes down to LRF spam with occasional LRMs, then I invite you to come play the game in online multiplayer (the real Sins game) and build a fleet full of mostly LRFs with a few LRMs and watch what happens.  Can you say "steamrolled"?

 

 

Reply #30 from Sins Forums Top

and build a fleet full of mostly LRFs with a few LRMs and watch what happens. Can you say "steamrolled"?

 

I hope you realise that LRM's and LRF's are the same thing.... LongRange--Misile/Frigat.

 

If you reread, you'll find that he is saying LIGHTFRIG spam, and considering thae amount of ppl that like to rush, he is right atleast to some degree.

 

Back on topic, I've been thinking about how to counter the superfleet. The only 2 solutions i can see is 1 set a cap on how many ships 1player can have in each gravwell 2 make more weapons / abillities that fire from gravwell to gravwell especialy planet bombardment - this could mean that a battle would take place in 2-3+ gravwell's as opsoed to the 2 superfleet engagement we have atm

 

P.S I still want Buracracy(HFoG) cost implemented for lage empires, would make the player under presure able to atleast have a chance of turning the table.

Reply #31 from Sins Forums Top

CenturionnJixra, unfortunately I think you completely missed the point of this thread and the actual issue being discussed :(.

 

"Doesn't it make sense that if more units are available on one side than the other that since they'll have more total firepower that they would wipe out the opposing fleet while suffering disproportionately fewer losses?"

 

If you read the line below what you quoted, and even the line in which you quoted, I do acknowledge that size of an army is very important. That was made quite clear.  The point of strategy, however, is to be able to defeat opponents with less resources. An effective and efficient strategy is one that uses the least amount of resources for the most amount of return.

 

In sins the way to do this is by having the most units in the same vicinity. The point of this thread is to change that so that things like placement, direction of attack, timing of attack, object of attack have more of an influence on gameplay.

 

For the record, I do play online and I find this problem is most prevalent online.  The computer AI will typically have a rather mixed fleet and in multiples (though I think the most I've seen is 2 or 3, I think it's dependent on the different locations it is being attacked). Online it is, although getting better with 1.1, typically 1 fleet with a focus on a very cheap and easily produced unit.

 

Side note, you and many others on these forums are champions of the online game. By champions I mean you promote it and encourage its play. I think that's great, but your approach of attacking people who want to change the game won't help you at all. With sales of 1/2 a million copies and an online base of maybe 1000, it tells you something: People prefer the single player game over the online game. Why is that? That's the question you might want to ask if you want to increase the multiplayer aspect of the game.

Reply #32 from Sins Forums Top

My thought about buracracy, isn't it already implemented? To have a larger fleet, you need to imporve your supply level, this will incure a income penalty, isn't this loss because of bureacracy?

 

Also, I like the idea of making planets more vurnable to make multipel fleets needed. ^^

Reply #33 from Sins Forums Top

My thought about buracracy, isn't it already implemented? To have a larger fleet, you need to imporve your supply level, this will incure a income penalty, isn't this loss because of bureacracy?

 

Not really, if you could go down in fleetsize aswell it would somewhat help. but as it is implemented now it is a 1time cost to build traning facillities for a set size of fleet. and has nothing to do with the size of your empire long term.

 

What im talking about is --->

As it is now - 2 empires with 10plantes face of is fair but in a 12 vs 8 planet war the player with 12 planets has a powerlevel in economics means he can just grind his opnent down no worries if he looses 10 ships for each 1 he kills(exatergeted to get a point across).

Implementing true burracracy would mean that the larger empire would pay more for each unit ( 12 meetings 2 conferences and lots of bribery= expensiv stuff) and would result in a minor power having the abillity to field competativ fleets for longer. making fleet looses still matter for the large econ = more focus on strategy = good imoand would still give an advantaged to the lage empire in relativ cost of reshearch and fleet logistics

Ask a us army quatermaster to get you 1 roll of toilet paper and he'll look at you funny and say 1 roll are you stupied, i can get you 10000 you nibvit. But it's gonna cost you a humvee. and will be deliverd in 3-6 months --- Ask the same of a quarter master from Luxenburg (army of 150 ppl to get into nato lol and 100 of them is a music corp lolol) and he'll say -> sure i got some at home bro, i live at the red door just around the coner help yourself. this is ofcause exreeme but my point stands

Reply #34 from Sins Forums Top

Rise of Nations implemented your "bureaucracy" quite well. Each aditional unit cost more than the last in relation to how many were currently being fielded of that type.

 

This, hands down, would be the best implementation to remove spam from the game. Research could then be done to lower this additional cost to give the same effect we have in the game now.

 

I don't know if it would help to encourage more fleets though, but still a great idea to implement.

Reply #35 from Sins Forums Top

I don't know if it would help to encourage more fleets though, but still a great idea to implement.

 

It wouldent directly, but it would increase the value of building and useing you fleets wisely and that is and thus increasing the skillcap of the game in a imo good way and i belive that is the true meaning of this post >_>

 

a bit more on topic, make ships sjields have more than 1 sector an make them able to become virtualy unkillable from 1 side  at the expense of the other/s (99%migitation on left side vs 0 on right) and have difrent ships have diffrent number of shieldsectors, 2 for frigs 3 for cruisers 4 for caps

Reply #36 from Sins Forums Top

I'd suggest 6 for caps - fore, aft, port, starboard, upper, and lower.

Reply #37 from Sins Forums Top

Sure but for easy use, im thinking 4 is max

 

 

       ^

       ^

<<< X >>>

       v

       v

 

clik on the side you want to power up, clik on the x to keep it even, right clik to enable autocast/deside

Adding upper/lower would make the interface for it much less user friendly

Reply #38 from Sins Forums Top

Quoting Kruppe, reply 8

Not really, if you could go down in fleetsize aswell it would somewhat help. but as it is implemented now it is a 1time cost to build traning facillities for a set size of fleet. and has nothing to do with the size of your empire long term.

 

I didn't mean the cost for the upgrade, but more the -xx% income penalty. Altough youre right that it doens't look at your empire's size but more to the level upgrade you have. (this could be explained that you expanded your buracracy at which you'll lose more income and that once installed it can't be decreased.)

 

But deducting from your example, we could implement that the building time will increase when your empire does.

On terms of balance, how far should we go? Are we trying to go overboard an make a eternal war by debuffing the "winning side"? I think not. ;)

Reply #39 from Sins Forums Top

Quoting Kruppe, reply 12
Sure but for easy use, im thinking 4 is max

 

 

       ^

       ^

<<< X >>>

       v

       v

 

clik on the side you want to power up, clik on the x to keep it even, right clik to enable autocast/deside

Adding upper/lower would make the interface for it much less user friendly

watch this:

       ^

       ^

<<< X >>>    <<< X >>>

       v

       v

just as user friendly, but make the X the ship icon.

Reply #40 from Sins Forums Top

well im not saying can't be done or impossible to manage... but more button = less user friendliness. If it was just for my personal enjoyment there would be 1000042 :) but alas the game is for everyone and  everyone sadly includes tards.

Reply #41 from Sins Forums Top

To keep micro to a minimum, the shield system addressed here should just be handled by the AI.  ie: if a ship is taking a lot of damage from one direction, up the mitigation there and lower it in the other areas.

This would also make flanking very important; as if an opponent's fleet is taking heavy damage from mainly the front, having a small group of your fleet loop to the side would cause greater damage b/c of the mitigation being lowered there.

Reply #42 from Sins Forums Top

On terms of balance, how far should we go? Are we trying to go overboard an make a eternal war by debuffing the "winning side"? I think not.

Nono ofc not, but as it stands a 12plant epire vs an 8planet empire will be a no contest, to get to 12 vs 8 from 10 vs 10 would imply that the greater empire is controlled by the better player... keeping their production on ~same lvl would mean that there is still a small chance for the under dog istead of the current... arghh lost my fleet /quit

Reply #43 from Sins Forums Top

This would also make flanking very important; as if an opponent's fleet is taking heavy damage from mainly the front, having a small group of your fleet loop to the side would cause greater damage b/c of the mitigation being lowered there.

 

This

Reply #44 from Stardock Forums Top

A simple way to make capital ships more effective is to increase their range and decrease the range of frigates and smaller ships.

Increase range also to ships in tight aegis-style task force formation, giving further benefit to maintaining fleet cohesion. You can make this even more challenging by requiring a certain number and type of ships, to take advantage of task force bonuses. To reflect the constant availability of repair and critical systems, if you will.

By simulating the naval aspect of capital ships, by giving them far superior range you create a natural base of fire from which to organically grow your projected power..as it stands now, clumps of long range missile boats are deadly (rightfully so) but silly in the SINS sense in that "clumps of super long range units go here" predictability.

Any small ship with great range encourages that ship to be a light-cruiser in naval aspect, when multiplied by the numbers SINS desires you to have creates unrealisticly overpowerful attack swarms. RL frigates and destroyers have crew requirements too, SINS treats them like heavy strike aircraft, can be made fast and cheap with little human cost. But sink a RL frigate, ouch.

Last vague point: make an even bigger class of ship! If I were the TEC getting my ass handed to me ever stinking game with my vacuum-packed rustoleum coated sky-junk buckets passing as ships-of-the-line I'd set the boffins on cramming two wave motion guns on a hull and space-paint. What better way to break a cruiser stalemate than with a stylish dreadnought?

More range extremes, nerf frigates and/or rename, give bonuses for task groups, create larger class of ship.

Everybody wins!

Reply #45 from Sins Forums Top

I think I've mentioned this before, but what about minimum ranges for ships?  It'd help to stop battle clumping as ships too close to another ship wouldn't be able to target.

Not sure how this works for realism (and it's probably a dumb suggestion anyway) but if someone can justify it for me, more power to you. lmao

Reply #46 from Sins Forums Top

Hmm I really like the bonus to taskforces, but implementing it to benefit from more than 1 superfleet seems hard.

 

- if more than 2 guradians. taskforce recives +10% shield regen - Still does not counter 1 fleet mentality

- if X% of fleet is gurdians, taskforce recives +10% shield regen - Still does not counter 1 fleet mentality

 

that siad, i still love the concept and would love to see stuff like this implemented, even better if someone could figure a way to make it more desireble to field multiple fleets.

Reply #47 from Sins Forums Top

So with the implementation of Entrenchment, do you guys find it's becoming more about bigger fleets?  With starbases and harder defenses, smaller fleets seem less efficient than one big fleet.

 

Any ideas how to alleviate this with higher defenses?

 

I've thought of making all repairs to hull cost credits and some metal/crystal. This way, raiding can still have an effect even if the building isn't destroyed.

Thoughts on that?

 

Reply #48 from Sins Forums Top

I've thought of making all repairs to hull cost credits and some metal/crystal. This way, raiding can still have an effect even if the building isn't destroyed.

Thoughts on that?

 

that's a pretty good idear tbh

/support

Reply #49 from Sins Forums Top

We're still not looking at what we CAN change to make it so... Things that will work: Open Maps... You say you can forge a map with multiple lanes into each planet, that's useful... If you have 1 large fleet defending 1 planet, and they have 2 small planet destroying fleets hitting two planets, you have to make a choice. Try to take out both in a limited time, or split up and take larger losses. To make it hit home, longer flight times means it'll be harder for them to react to multiple attacks, while you could up the damage on planet hitting ships to make the time to react shorter. Also, you'd have to reduce the defenses of a planet, so small fleets could still survive. If you up the costs on everything, and up the resource gain ammount, one destroyed planet would greatly reduce your productivity. I think these small adjustments to gameplay would encourage multiple planet raids, and therefore multiple defending fleets.

Reply #50 from Sins Forums Top

interesting thoughts SeconHanJay. I've tried the open maps and they work fairly well. I notice the AI actually does well with it too by splitting fleets to defend their separate planets and stars.

 

Another problem since entrenchment was released are star bases. They are so overwhelmingly strong you require very large fleets to overcome them. So I've made them cheaper and less powerful. That has helped a bit too. The AI seems to deal with them better as well as a medium mixed fleet can handle a starbase.

 

Any other suggestions?