Wishes for Moo2 Mod?
Jukka Mikkonen
tool.
NOW would be the perfect time for you, as the possible player of that
mod, to state what needs most urgent attention.
Some planned mods include :
- Planet defense will be LOT easier. Ground installations have both
better HP and they are more dangerous compared to ships.
- Some techs that were nearly obsolete at the time of their invention
will be moved earlier in the tech tree, such as Artemis System Net and
Recyclotron.
- Some automatic techs to balance different races, such as Auto
Factories, Missile Bases and Research Labs.
- Better balance in weapon damage vs. shielded ships. Overall less
damage for weapons so that defensives will play a role again.
- Altered build costs and maintenance costs for a majority of the
buildings. For example, research buildings take very little to build but
cost a lot of BC per turn, defenses take long to build but cost a
little, and factories take a lot to build and cost a lot. This is to
allow for those Ultra-Poor research planets to get on the ball within a
reasonable time, and make building everything everywhere impractical.
- Research will be slowed down so that each new tech gets at least some
useful time until becoming obsolete.
- A lot more restrictions on ship specials to weed off those 'superior'
designs. Also, a much better balance between specials.
I'm propably forgetting a few, but please feel free to add to this list.
Jukka Mikkonen : www.hut.fi/~jmikkone
Dirk Dreidoppel
By all means make the Antarans harder. Let them come with every ship class
even early in the game, let them come with larger fleets, maybe let them
invade and occupy new planets, allowing them to build an empire for
themselves. The way they're now is ridiculous.
If possible upgrade the powers of the Starbases, or even make them
customizable like ships. It can't be that a Fortress can be wiped out as
easily as it is. These should at least weigh up 5 full power deathstars.
Vince
> Some planned mods include :
>
> - Planet defense will be LOT easier. Ground installations have both
> better HP and they are more dangerous compared to ships.
because in the end you will just need to build a bigger fleet to take
a planet.
> - Some techs that were nearly obsolete at the time of their invention
> will be moved earlier in the tech tree, such as Artemis System Net and
> Recyclotron.
Yes this idea is good.
> - Some automatic techs to balance different races, such as Auto
> Factories, Missile Bases and Research Labs.
I don't know what you mean exactly here. Do you mean some races will
have certain techs right from turn 1 other than the usual?
> - Better balance in weapon damage vs. shielded ships. Overall less
> damage for weapons so that defensives will play a role again.
I don't have a problem here but the one thing I think should be done
is raising up Maulers and SCs(100% hit weapons) a way higher on the
tech tree. That way weapons like Zeon missles and advanced torpedoes
might actually be research and miniaturized instead of just opting to
research a little more to get the maulers and SCs.
> - Altered build costs and maintenance costs for a majority of the
> buildings. For example, research buildings take very little to build but
> cost a lot of BC per turn, defenses take long to build but cost a
> little, and factories take a lot to build and cost a lot. This is to
> allow for those Ultra-Poor research planets to get on the ball within a
> reasonable time, and make building everything everywhere impractical.
> - Research will be slowed down so that each new tech gets at least some
> useful time until becoming obsolete.
Yes this would somewhat remove the painstaking task of refitting ships
so often.
> - A lot more restrictions on ship specials to weed off those 'superior'
> designs. Also, a much better balance between specials.
Not sure about this idea, if anyone can design a 'superior' ship then
why is this a disadvantage to anyone?
>
> I'm propably forgetting a few, but please feel free to add to this list.
>
> Jukka Mikkonen : www.hut.fi/~jmikkone
Vince
Jukka Mikkonen
> By all means make the Antarans harder. Let them come with every ship class
> even early in the game, let them come with larger fleets, maybe let them
> invade and occupy new planets, allowing them to build an empire for
> themselves. The way they're now is ridiculous.
I can only change Antarean weapons and their armor (Xentronium), but
yes, even with those, they can be made a LOT tougher. Not invincible
though, as someone, sooner or later, is going to conquer Orion anyway,
and we don't want anyone to receive such ubertechs, do we? I can't make
them build up their own empire, that'd be cool though.
Besides, as I see it now, early Antaran attacks are a serious threat
unless you're playing a UniTol or similar fast-expanding race. My mod's
basic idea is to discourage blitzing.
> If possible upgrade the powers of the Starbases, or even make them
> customizable like ships. It can't be that a Fortress can be wiped out as
> easily as it is. These should at least weigh up 5 full power deathstars.
Customization is out, sorry, but I was planning on making a starbase the
size of a Titan, Battlestation could outclass a Doomstar by some notches
and a Star Fortress, albeit taking an eternity to build, would equal
several Doomstars in volume and endure quite a punishment. Moronic AI
filling the slots up doesn't matter that much anymore. :)
Although if you make starbases TOO strong, they'll have another serious
problem : raid attackers. Thousands of Hit Points won't help if you have
just burnt electronics and scrapped weapons.
Jukka Mikkonen
Jukka Mikkonen
> > - Planet defense will be LOT easier. Ground installations have both
> > better HP and they are more dangerous compared to ships.
> Sounds like a good idea but all this may do is drag out a game longer
> because in the end you will just need to build a bigger fleet to take
> a planet.
Taking a planet will require a few extra ships, that's granted. You'll
also NEED to use bombs to bring planets down, as your beam weapons will
be nearly or even completely useless against planetary shields.
One objective is to slow down the snowball effect - once your enemy
reaches a certain critical size, you'll always lose unless he's a
complete moron. Now it'll require a bit more to become the dominant
power in the galaxy b/c even planets can have at least SOME say on the
subject.
> > - Some automatic techs to balance different races, such as Auto
> > Factories, Missile Bases and Research Labs.
> I don't know what you mean exactly here. Do you mean some races will
> have certain techs right from turn 1 other than the usual?
Ahh, what I meant was that there is a fairly small group of technologies
that everyone just MUST research or be forever left behind. Some of
these will be given right from the start, for everyone. Now even those
Feudal governments stand a chance in early research competition since
they too have Research labs with 5 RP automatic output. Similarly for
Cybernetic, Poor HW and -1 production suiciders, since they have at
least Auto Factory to help. 50+ lost turns early is way too much to be
caught up later on, no matter how deserved by 'wrong' pick choise.
Others may include stuff like Heavy Armor and Reinforced Hulls (do you
really have to be an Einstein to slab an extra layer of metal onto your
ships?) and some planetary defenses like Missile Base/Fighter Garrison,
to discourage overly strong blitzkrieging strategies. This'll also give
more room for reorganizing the tech tree and to make Creative a non-must
for Advanced Starts.
> I don't have a problem here but the one thing I think should be done
> is raising up Maulers and SCs(100% hit weapons) a way higher on the
> tech tree. That way weapons like Zeon missles and advanced torpedoes
> might actually be research and miniaturized instead of just opting to
> research a little more to get the maulers and SCs.
Yup, this is certainly one of my goals. I'll reorganize techs so that
torpedoes come into play faster, early on as missiles that can't be shot
down, later evolving into true killers, rivaling even beam weapons.
I bet you're familiar with the shield paradox : Early on, an advanced AF
Mass Driver takes a while to even penetrate lowsy Class I shield. Later
on, a lowsy Disruptor is all you need to cut through your enemy's
state-of-the-art Class X shield like it didn't even exist - since you'll
have a dozen of them.
Designers apparently forgot that as you move on, not only do your
weapons get smaller and score higher damages, your ships will also be
larger in general and you'll hit far more often. So, a fourth-power
increase there. Shields only increase in thickness with better classes
and with ship size. Second power only. Ouch.
The design is too broken for me to fix it completely, but I can narrow
the gap a bit by keeping weapon damage increases at bay both in direct
damage and indirectly by requiring astronomical RP costs for top-end
weapons and targeting computers, while keeping shield tech's RP costs
low.
I've done my research for quite some time, and found out that the other,
unwanted balance changes that come out of this approach are nowhere near
as major..
> > - A lot more restrictions on ship specials to weed off those 'superior'
> > designs. Also, a much better balance between specials.
> Not sure about this idea, if anyone can design a 'superior' ship then
> why is this a disadvantage to anyone?
You're forgetting about the AI that does worse than a complete moron at
utilizing ship space. Besides, I find Battle Pod-High Energy
Focus-Structural Analyzer-Achilles Targeting Unit combo disgustingly
overpowered, not to mention Time Warp Facilitator-Phasing Cloak-Hyper-X
Capacitors, Multi-Phased Shield-Shield Capacitor or my old favourite, a
DoomStar with Heavy Armor-Reinforced Hull-Damper Field-Auto-Repair Unit.
:)
Thanks for your comments.
Jukka Mikkonen
Sean
>problem : raid attackers. Thousands of Hit Points won't help if you have
>just burnt electronics and scrapped weapons.
>
>Jukka Mikkonen
Bazzillions of defending mrines -- can you adjust crewsize?
Also, make "Security Stations" one of those start-from-turn-one techs ... so
that ALL statiosn will have them (after all, how hard is it to set up a basic
anti-intrusion system with internal AP weapons,possibly even semiautonomous
ones ... ?).
-- Sean
[This post, and its content, are intended solely for this newsgroup and are
Copyright 2001. Forwarding or access by any other means is unauthorized without
the express prior written permission of the author.]
Jukka Mikkonen
> >problem : raid attackers. Thousands of Hit Points won't help if you have
> >just burnt electronics and scrapped weapons.
> >
> >Jukka Mikkonen
>
> Bazzillions of defending mrines -- can you adjust crewsize?
That can be done, but raid attacks do not count defending marines AFAIK.
I could be wrong, though, as I've mostly played Low-G -10 Ground Combat
races..
I suppose you'll agree that the marine count on starbases and up will
easily surpass any known ship.. I'll make it so, anyway.
> Also, make "Security Stations" one of those start-from-turn-one techs ... so
> that ALL statiosn will have them (after all, how hard is it to set up a basic
> anti-intrusion system with internal AP weapons,possibly even semiautonomous
> ones ... ?).
Thanks for reminding me of that one. Yes, Security Stations will be
turn-zero tech, for reasons you so well pointed out. I'll also make
their size relatively small so that they can be used reasonably.
Any others?
Jukka Mikkonen
Vince
>
> I bet you're familiar with the shield paradox : Early on, an advanced AF
> Mass Driver takes a while to even penetrate lowsy Class I shield. Later
> on, a lowsy Disruptor is all you need to cut through your enemy's
> state-of-the-art Class X shield like it didn't even exist - since you'll
> have a dozen of them.
Don't forget, early on in the game, you have crappy computers and this
*definitely* has an impact on this paradox. A Mass driver does 6
damage and the Class I shield only takes away 1 point BUT when you
have no computer or electronic computer, your mass drivers will miss
the target completely more often than you would like. Change mass
drivers to 100% hit weapons and you'll see that they won't be lousy
against Class I shields anymore. Conversely, once you get disruptors
you will most likely have cybertronic or better computers and a decent
hit probability too which compounds the paradox to an even greater
extent.
>
> Designers apparently forgot that as you move on, not only do your
> weapons get smaller and score higher damages, your ships will also be
> larger in general and you'll hit far more often. So, a fourth-power
> increase there. Shields only increase in thickness with better classes
> and with ship size. Second power only. Ouch.
>
Agree, IMO the only change you need to do here to even things up a bit
is the shield themselves. Make them step-up in bigger steps. Instead
of I,III,V,VII and X, try something like, hmmm, II, VI, X, XIV and XX
or maybe make these steps a bit bigger than that possibly. A lot to
think about here. You have to consider when certain weapons become
useless or very ineffective to balance this out right.
Lasers(weakest) should have a chance to do damage after the first
shield upgrade IMO. At Class 6(2nd upgrade) mass drivers totally
useless, fusion beam and nukes can still do some damage but not much.
At class XX, you have good protection against AMTorps to weaker
weapons with decent protection against disruptors and even particle
beams. However, these shields are still useless against SCs hence the
reason to put these weapons a high up on the tech tree along with the
100% for sure hit maulers.
Of course, I didn't take into account the effect of heavy mount
weapons but I think it'll work somewhat well with the ideas above.
Hard shields should be bumped up to give more than +3 to make it worth
while to get.
Vince
Sean
>is the shield themselves. Make them step-up in bigger steps. Instead
>of I,III,V,VII and X, try something like, hmmm, II, VI, X, XIV and XX
>or maybe make these steps a bit bigger than that possibly.
Instead, I would say, every time a new shield comes out, look at the
most-recently gained beam weapon(s) (of equal or lower tech), and make the new
shield reduce the damage of non-heavy beams of that type by about 75% or 80%.
Also, make the shield points have higher multipliers for point value, with a
steeper curve for increase ...
>Lasers(weakest) should have a chance to do damage after the first
>shield upgrade IMO.
Since lasers to 1-4 each, for an average damage (plotted on a bell curve, at
the peak of said curve) of 2.5 damage, the comparable shield should not prevent
more than 1 or 2 damage per hit.
>At Class 6(2nd upgrade) mass drivers totally
>useless, fusion beam and nukes can still do some damage but not much.
Class !, IV, VIII, X!!, and XV! would seem workable (that's 1, 4, 8, 12, and
16). Linear progression; with Hardened Shields, you'd get a net of 4, 7, 11,
15, and 19 per shield in damage-reduction.
Given a decent pool of damage-absorption behind that screen of outright
reduction, increasing dramatically at each level, and shields become more and
more viable as time goes on.
>At class XX, you have good protection against AMTorps to weaker
>weapons with decent protection against disruptors and even particle
>beams. However, these shields are still useless against SCs hence the
>reason to put these weapons a high up on the tech tree along with the
>100% for sure hit maulers.
Yep. Hardened Class XX shields would stop 23 damage per shot -- even heavy
disruptors would be hit by those (losing >1/3 of their damage per strike).
>Of course, I didn't take into account the effect of heavy mount
>weapons but I think it'll work somewhat well with the ideas above.
Shields aside, I'd rather two normals than one heavy mount -- for the very
reason that more shots fired means more shots -connecting- ... especially with
poorer computers.
Plus nonheavies can shoot down fighters and missiles. 8)
>Hard shields should be bumped up to give more than +3 to make it worth
>while to get.
Perhaps +4 or +5 ... ?
And they ARE still worthwhile to get, because you retain your shields in
Nebulae, your shields are immune to shield-piercing (like those damned Antaran
beams, or SP-mod phasors), and you retain at least the damage REDUCTION factor
even when that shield facing is depleted (very useful against enveloping
weapons when you have 1 or more shield facings down ...).
Switch625
news:20011101180149...@mb-mr.aol.com...
One other thing: Hard Shields block transporter beams after shield
collapse. The only way around that is to destroy the shield generator on
the target ship.
--
"God give me strength to face a fact though it slay me." - Thomas Huxley
Wim Dekker
"Vince" <vinc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:af6a84c4.0111...@posting.google.com...
I've done that once with another Moo2 Mod. The game tends to crashes a
lot once you or one of the other races uses shields above class X.
Jukka Mikkonen
> most-recently gained beam weapon(s) (of equal or lower tech), and make the new
> shield reduce the damage of non-heavy beams of that type by about 75% or 80%.
Yup, that'd be one of the earliest ideas I had too. But you're
forgetting that there should be a possibility to concentrate more on
defense or offense, while this approach would FORCE you to research
both. More on this later.
> Also, make the shield points have higher multipliers for point value, with a
> steeper curve for increase ...
You mean the magic number (currently at value 5) that states that a
shield facet has MAGIC_NUMBER * SHIP_SIZE * SHIELD_CLASS Hit Points? If
such a number was possible to be found and altered, that'd solve the
whole problem. It doesn't (it was defined with a #define statement in
source code) and that makes us to search for alternative routes at it
since we can't get the source code.
> >Lasers(weakest) should have a chance to do damage after the first
> >shield upgrade IMO.
IMO, every weapon should have quite broad range of shields they can
damage. While lasers against class V shield really should spell doom for
the laser-user, I don't fancy the idea that they can't even scratch it.
> Class !, IV, VIII, X!!, and XV! would seem workable (that's 1, 4, 8, 12, and
> 16). Linear progression; with Hardened Shields, you'd get a net of 4, 7, 11,
> 15, and 19 per shield in damage-reduction.
Leaving shields with a strenght difference of 10+ is bound to make
balancing them against weapons a nightmare. I'll clarify later.
> Yep. Hardened Class XX shields would stop 23 damage per shot -- even heavy
> disruptors would be hit by those (losing >1/3 of their damage per strike).
But, using this approach, the only way you could ever bring down these
shields would REQUIRE you having at least disruptors. Not a very safe
assumption, IMHO.
> >Hard shields should be bumped up to give more than +3 to make it worth
> >while to get.
Alas, this is also impossible. Hard Shields provide other functions,
though.
Now, some logic. Jump to CONCLUSIONS if you're not inclined.
We have to keep in mind the factors that cause the Shield Paradox. Our
possibilities at it are somewhat limited, so some reality assumptions
will have to go to obtain better balancing. I won't go through the whole
nine yards of maths involved, as it's quite complicated and already
discussed at MOO3 discussion boards, but I'll point out the worst
pitfalls. (www.moo3.com)
So you want more hit points for shields? Just use Class XXX shields,
that'll triple their HP? No way, you'd also exclude every weapon below
Maulers pretty much completely, and besides, we'd really need at least
ten times as much HP for Class X shields anyway. Wrong way #1.
Make better computers available sooner? Who would rush for Cybetronic
Computers, then? Wrong way #2.
Increase both shield ratings and weapon damages to match? Nope, it'd
only make things worse. Wrong way #3.
Better tech is nice, but we all know how degenerate the game gets with
too wildly growing tech. No reason to stop until AF Disruptors. Now, if
Graviton Beams were much more effective compared to them, would rushing
for AF Disruptors be the only viable choise anymore?
On top of the shield paradox, there are a few other balance changes I
want to incorporate. These are :
-Further distinction between normal, Pd and Hv weapons and their roles.
-Making sure that no sane person would opt for beam weapons to attack
planets.
-Greatly lenghtening the battle durations so that x20 missiles and
torpedoes become tactically useful. (This'll make Auto-Repair Units and
Cybernetic pick a lot stronger, but they'll get theirs at higher pick
cost and later research.)
-Making sure that planetary defenses will stand up on their own a bit
better.
-Shields should be able to withstand at least one full blast from a ship
of same size and tech, at all times. (Not completely attainable,
though.)
CONCLUSIONS :
No clearcut solutions exist to make the gap between increasing weapon
damage vs. shield strength more manageable, so a multitude of separate
patches is needed. Some facts I've found so far :
-Weapon damages must be kept higher overall so that the damage-reducing
effect of shields gets smaller and thus allows for 'imbalanced' tech
levels to conduct meaningful battle with quality vs. quantity idea. To
counterbalance this, weapons must be made larger.
-For further distinction between Pd, normal and Hv versions, add a
constant value to both min and max damages and make Pd mod reduce size
better and Hv increase it more. Pd will easily be stopped by shields but
dish out a LOT more damage vs unshielded targets while Hv would do just
the opposite.
-Barrier shield should be able to block all beam weapons no matter what,
maybe except for Stellar Converters and the like. This sets an upper
limit for beam weapon damages. This is also mutually exlusive with
fighters gaining an edge with beam weapons, but that can be balanced by
adjusting their hangar size vs. tech research placement in the tech
tree.
-Increasing ship HP while reducing overall damage done by them will make
battles quite a bit longer.
-As long as fixed planetary installments have more space for weapons
than corresponding ships, they'll do more damage, ie. be more dangerous.
With increased HP, the balance can be tilted to favour the defender even
more.
Jukka Mikkonen
Sean
>forgetting that there should be a possibility to concentrate more on
>defense or offense, while this approach would FORCE you to research
>both. More on this later.
No, not really.
To have BOTH the shield -and- the weapon, you'e about plit yoru research in two
-- two different fields to research.
OR, you could have lesser weaponry ... but better shields: simply put more of
your RP / effort intot he defensive tech.
>> Yep. Hardened Class XX shields would stop 23 damage per shot -- even heavy
>> disruptors would be hit by those (losing >1/3 of their damage per strike).
>
>But, using this approach, the only way you could ever bring down these
>shields would REQUIRE you having at least disruptors. Not a very safe
>assumption, IMHO.
Disruptors, maulers, heavy, high-energy-focus phasors or plasma cannons;
there're already multiple options.
And, considering a Class XX shield would be the BEST shield in the entire game
... I think it's reasonable to require either big, heavy-mount weapons -and-
the High Energy Focus, -or- some of the better beam weapons in the game, to
penetrate it.
>So you want more hit points for shields? Just use Class XXX shields,
>that'll triple their HP? No way, you'd also exclude every weapon below
>Maulers pretty much completely, and besides, we'd really need at least
>ten times as much HP for Class X shields anyway. Wrong way #1.
Class XXX wouldn't exclude death rays (if you're so fortunate), nor Disruptors
(base damage is 40 -- minus 30 for Class XXX is still 10 per strike!).
Possibly heavy, high-energy-focus modified Plasma Cannons.
Jukka Mikkonen
>
> >Yup, that'd be one of the earliest ideas I had too. But you're
> >forgetting that there should be a possibility to concentrate more on
> >defense or offense, while this approach would FORCE you to research
> >both. More on this later.
>
> No, not really.
>
> To have BOTH the shield -and- the weapon, you'e about plit yoru research in two
> -- two different fields to research.
My point excactly. And yours was.. ?
I just pointed out that you should be ABLE to concentrate more on either
offense or defense without making you fall completely behind overall.
That's also why you need to be able to do more than just scratch the
paint off from Class V shield with those lasers.
* * * *
I conducted a test run with a new trial database, where all beam weapon
damages were first halved and then boosted with a constant damage of 4,
but halved in size (ships were half as large as well). Bombs, missiles
and torps got double damages but no size alterations. Mass Drivers at 7
damage each were WAY too powerful (I won the whole game with them plus
Nuclear Bombs) mainly because I had also increased the RP costs for
later techs. Oops. :)
The new ruleset certainly made attacking planets a lot harder.. I mainly
battled 3,000-HP Zortrium-Armored Battlestations with Missile Base
support, and not before I researched Auto-Repair Units were I able to
bring those down without own losses. It still took 3 Battleships (all
with leaders on board) to conquer them. Not bad afterall. Their class
III shields with only 60pt damage absorption seemed rather pathetic in
comparison, though.
I also tested how easy it'd be to raid those battlestations. I had
Psilons, so my tech compensated a bit (my +55 against enemy's +55, +75
with Security Stations), but the results were still disheartening. By
the second raid (my 10 marines vs. Battlestation's 240!), all the
equipment in the hull were destroyed and only weapons remained.
Apparently the only way to keep raiding at bay is to keep starbase
electronic's HP's at astronomical levels.. :(
Another interesting note I made was that electronic's HP doesn't
increase with armor upgrades. Therefore it was quite funny to have a
battleship with 480 external armor points but only 4 for computer &
shield and only 8 for the drive. Losing external armor meant almost
instant BOOM. :)
An interesting thought I had.. Since I'm going to have dramatic HP
increases with lesser damages for weapons, Cybernetic would be way too
powerful compared to others. So, how about letting everyone have
Auto-Repair Units right from the start or researchable very early
anyway? That'd balance out things quite a bit and lessen the need for
thousands of HP's..
Jukka Mikkonen
Sean
>> >Yup, that'd be one of the earliest ideas I had too. But you're
>> >forgetting that there should be a possibility to concentrate more on
>> >defense or offense, while this approach would FORCE you to research
>> >both. More on this later.
>>
>> No, not really.
>>
>> To have BOTH the shield -and- the weapon, you'e about plit yoru research in
>two
>> -- two different fields to research.
>
>My point excactly. And yours was.. ?
>
>I just pointed out that you should be ABLE to concentrate more on either
>offense or defense without making you fall completely behind overall.
>That's also why you need to be able to do more than just scratch the
>paint off from Class V shield with those lasers.
Um. If you focus on defense, and I focus on offense, we'll both be staring at
each other forever, simple enough. Were I able to, I'd CODE it so that any
weapon did at least ONE point through the shield-reduction rates, period. But
that's an EXE change, not just an LBX change.
>
>An interesting thought I had.. Since I'm going to have dramatic HP
>increases with lesser damages for weapons, Cybernetic would be way too
>powerful compared to others. So, how about letting everyone have
>Auto-Repair Units right from the start or researchable very early
>anyway? That'd balance out things quite a bit and lessen the need for
>thousands of HP's..
>
>Jukka Mikkonen
Against -humans-, Cybernetic and Autorepair are about -worthless- right now,
anyway; human opponents focus fire on single ships until they blow -- you never
get a -chance- to repair anything.
Jukka Mikkonen
Sean wrote:
> Against -humans-, Cybernetic and Autorepair are about -worthless- right now,
> anyway; human opponents focus fire on single ships until they blow -- you never
> get a -chance- to repair anything.
Yep, but isn't that mainly because you're usually ABLE to blow up ships
in just one or at max two rounds? If even a sizeable fleet (say, 3
battleships) took a while to beat down an enemy battleship, repairing
would make sense, right?
As it is now, the battles degenerate way too easily into my single titan
wiping out 5-6 enemy titans before they even get to return fire.. I
can't fully change this, but I can at least try to make it a bit more
extreme case, not just everyday happenstance.
Yet another idea.. How about REDUCING the size ratio between different
ships? That way you wouldn't be so inclined to always build the biggest
ships available, since your profits per BC spent would be astronomically
higher in smaller ships.. Too bad I can't change the command point
requirements for ships, though. :(
Jukka Mikkonen
Sean
>in just one or at max two rounds? If even a sizeable fleet (say, 3
>battleships) took a while to beat down an enemy battleship, repairing
>would make sense, right?
Right; IOW, there might not be a need to up the price of Cybernetic or
Autorepair, since it would finally HAVE the value that originally got their
assigned costs.