Are logistics pointless and other HP musings

kryo

Join Date 05/2003

+458

The question is, what sort of ships did the enemy have?

If they're weak enough that one ship of yours can take them all out without dying, or at worst, dying the same round it finishes them off, then by all means use the 'no mutual destruction' rule to your advantage.

Successfully updated karma reason!

We're pretty much even -- even with 5-6-7 PD systems installed, their clustering of blackhole eruptors is enough to fight to standoff.... If they attack first, I lose. If I attack first, I win.

Both our weapons are so powerful that defenses have become pretty pointless -- 1 shot and out unless one gets an extraordinarily lucky (or unlucky) roll. Both ships essentially destroy each other -- but the attacker survives because someone must 'survive' in the system.

I've noticed this especially defending starbases... I was sending a complete fleet to sit atop a starbase... I'd slowly get whittled down... Now - I'm losing less ships by just leaving an "unfleeted" stack. 1 vs. fleet -- I inevitably take out 1 or 2 ships anyway before getting destroyed- which seems to be less than in fleet vs. fleet action (it would seem on suicidal the enemy gets extra attacks or something? 10 ships vs. 2 -- I'm still losing 3-5 ships even when my first fleet salvo destroys the enemy).

Successfully updated karma reason!

kryo

Join Date 05/2003

+458

Actually the attacker only survives if the last surviving ship on each side is identical in 'toughness'. Otherwise, the stronger one survives.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Hi!

Are logistics pointless

For me and for DA that's true for most of the game. In early and mid game I don't research it, because my single defense-heavy ship can destroy whole fleets of my opponent(s), in late game with insane attack power it's again pointless, because single all-attack "suicidal" ships are best to misuse that "the ship with most attack survives" rule. Logistic benfits AIs because it makes me put more defenses on bigger hull. Oh yeah, and it lowers the costs for building starbases

.

BR, Iztok

Successfully updated karma reason!

Hi!

10 ships vs. 2 -- I'm still losing 3-5 ships even when my first fleet salvo destroys the enemy

Destroyed ships fire back before dying. Only Arceans (Super Warrior) have the "first strike" ability, but even they only in the first round of the battle.

BR, Iztok

Successfully updated karma reason!

treborblue

Join Date 03/2006

+17

I too have seen this. If the attack value of your single ship is greater than the opposing fleet defence + hit points, then you will either destroy most of his fleet or you be the victor. On the other hand if you fleet up your ships and attack the same fleet you will loose more ships.
In a five on one situation where you all fire at the same time ,surely only one ship from each side would be destroyed (given all things equal same attack defense hit points). It would take a certain ammount of time to retarget the other ships before you were detroyed.
With the present system the lone attacker can fire and target multiple ships(providing he has enough weaponry)and destroy multiple targets.

Successfully updated karma reason!

In a five on one situation where you all fire at the same time ,surely only one ship from each side would be destroyed (given all things equal same attack defense hit points). It would take a certain ammount of time to retarget the other ships before you were detroyed.

Hmmm. In current real world technology, a single Aegis-type cruiser/battle management system can track and engage with multiple types of weapons, from multiple weapons platforms (ships, etc), upwards of 70 simultaneous targets (possibly as many as a couple of hundred -- the Navy won't say for public consumption). I don't find the ability for 23rd century craft, with many threads of Precursor technology (you didn't think we were actually developing Warp Drive from scratch in 9 weeks, did you?) to engage every target in the threat envelope simultaneously to be unreasonable.

BTW, I agree that Logistics is a somewhat secondary development priority, but lets not forget that there are additional reasons needing SOME Logistics level fairly early.
1) You have to gain Basic Logistics in order to open the Life Support (i.e. range increase) branch of GalCiv Technology;
2) Your number of cheap star bases is determined by your logistics ability; beyond that number, the SB set up fees can get crippling if you haven't yet fully matured your money flow (I build LOTS of econ and influence SBs);
3) Seems like the log number is also used for something else that I cannot recall.

drrider

Successfully updated karma reason!

I really do think that's the issue (multiple attacks or lack thereof)...

I'm going amend my first statement to say "Logistics are pointless for LARGE or HUGE hulled ships" --- after some further experimenting, I found that survival rates for large or huge ships went up SUBSTANTIALLY when I left them out of fleets. I played 10 turn increments multiple times -- first "in fleet", then "without fleet" using the same ships. It wasn't even close... My losses via "in fleet" setups were nearly 5 times greater than by leaving the LARGE and HUGE ships outside a fleet. It came out near even with MEDIUM hulled ships and lower.

The problem is once you hit the endgame where single salvos generally kill -- you lose those big, beautiful large/huge ships in a fleet engagement. 1 vs. fleet -- you lose anyway, but you take 2 ships with you (initial attack + dying attack). 1 vs. 1 -- so long as you're on the attack, you never lose because SOMEONE has to survive... and that 'someone' actually escapes with their original HP going into the attack if the attack 'drained' them. In other words... you're better off going 1 on 1 vs. a powerful enemy dreadnought than against a frigate... if I'm at 68/155 HPs going in -- the enemy dreadnought technically drains all 68 HPs of mine in battle, but since I kill him, I exit the battle 'alive' without losing ANY HPs (in fact, since I get the XP bonus, I usually exit HEALTHIER than I went in). Againt a smaller vessel -- where damage isn't 'total' -- I might lose 10-15-20-etc points. I exit the battle with lower HPs than I went in.

I think this is clearly an exploit -- and one easily fixed. Simply eliminate the "someone must survive" rule. If I go one on one vs an enemy and we both have the firepower to kill each other a single salvo, we both die (assuming rolls come out that way).

Successfully updated karma reason!

I still think one on fleet attacks may be advantageous in a number of common endgame situations, even if mutual destruction is possible. If I can send in a single overpowered attack ship and it takes out half or more of an enemy fleet that is a better return than what I will get sending in an entire fleet against another fleet...This is especially true on Suicidal where the AI can build better endgame ships than I can (due to difficulty bonuses). With the singleton attack, I can trade one ship for more than one ship. Also, since I am not planning on the ships surviving, I don't actually use the really expensive endgame weapon, but step down one level and build much cheaper , disposable ships. With the fleet on fleet attack I will likely lose multiple ships for multiple ships with a degraded ratio compared to the kamikaze attack.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I still think one on fleet attacks may be advantageous in a number of common endgame situations, even if mutual destruction is possible. If I can send in a single overpowered attack ship and it takes out half or more of an enemy fleet that is a better return than what I will get sending in an entire fleet against another fleet...This is especially true on Suicidal where the AI can build better endgame ships than I can (due to difficulty bonuses). With the singleton attack, I can trade one ship for more than one ship. Also, since I am not planning on the ships surviving, I don't actually use the really expensive endgame weapon, but step down one level and build much cheaper , disposable ships. With the fleet on fleet attack I will likely lose multiple ships for multiple ships with a degraded ratio compared to the kamikaze attack.

Exactly. Your big ships are going die anyway in battle - so why not send them on kamikaze 1 vs. fleet attacks? You lose less of them.

I may be unusual in that I try to avoid wars until the 'endgame' (I only play conquest) -- but I really do think fleets (at least, fleets with big ships) are pretty pointless in my games.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I have noticed the single ship advantage even in DL, but mainly against single ships, not fleets.

I would usually seperate a ship from a fleet to attack a single ship, if i knew the single ship has enough firepower to destroy one of my ships if i was so stupid as to use a fleet.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I have noticed the single ship advantage even in DL, but mainly against single ships, not fleets.

Well, the combat system has been reworked between DL and DA: unless I have missed something, in DL, a ship can have only one target per round. In DA, a ship can have multiple targets if it has enough firepower.

Successfully updated karma reason!

treborblue

Join Date 03/2006

+17

Ok, another way around this problem is to pack your huge hulls with enough defence to absorb a large portion of the enemy`s attack.
I did this in my last game, attck value was about 80-100 but defence was 400-500 can`t remember exact figures.
Fleet theese together with your high logistics and you can with stand several rounds of attack with minimal loss.
If your apponent has the wrong defence you can take out large fleets with only one or two losses, plus you get the experence bonus.

On a nother note, if the size of the high powered weapons could only fit onto huge hulls and the power of the weapon was scaled up to compensate, you would end up with huge ships of the same power but capable of less shots per round (less weapons).
With enough defence on your captial ship to comabat smaller frigates only large fleets of medium ships or other capital ships could take you on.
Someone will probable do the numbers and prove me completeley wrong

Successfully updated karma reason!

Hi!

Ok, another way around this problem is to pack your huge hulls with enough defence to absorb a large portion of the enemy`s attack.

This has been tried, and works until AI fleets are below ~600 attack. However the fleet of 5 suicidal AI's huges with ultimate weapons packs ~4000 damage. No single ship of human player can get more than ~800 defenses (well, if he owns 3+ mil resources, but then the game's already won). Against 4000 attack is using defenses plain silly.

if the size of the high powered weapons could only fit onto huge hulls and the power of the weapon was scaled up to compensate, you would end up with huge ships of the same power but capable of less shots per round (less weapons).

Hush!!!!! That would kill the last small combat advantage Human player has over suicidal AI.

BR, Iztok

Successfully updated karma reason!

Referring back to one of the original questions about whether logistics is needed, it has already been said you need it for unlocking range, and of course hulls, also. But about the only other thing I research it for is to fleet up my transports. Early game when basic transports = 1000 troops and 5 logistic points, I will research up to tier 2 so I can fleet 3 transports together. Unless the AI has none or very little soldiering, I hate invading with one transport because you generally have to use something other than traditional warfare, and then if you win the population is very low. Later it doesnt matter as much, you can stack on multiple adv. troop mods, and I usually am the first to build the Quee-Jong Jin trade good thing, or however its spelled.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Simply eliminate the "someone must survive" rule.

This rule seems very gamey and counter intuitive to me. I would think it would be better to remove it.

If both your ships destroy each other in one shot, oops, oh well, better invest more in defenses next time. You both died. Suck it up and move on.

If the defenses aren't an adequate protection, then I think weapons are proportionally too powerful.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Bringing it back around to 'solving the issue' (and yes - I do think it's an issue that needs solving... it just doesn't 'feel right' that a HUGE or LARGE ship stands a much better chance of surviving and killing others when it's alone as opposed to being part of a large fleet).... I would propose 3 possible solutions:

1. nerf weapons... a LOT. I'm fine with the AI getting it's vast advantage on suicidal and whatnot, but I think weapons are just WAY too powerful all the way around in relation to HPs and Defensive capabilities.

2. Make the HP spread between ship classes much greater... rather than 14-37-77-155 (that's not the base, just going from memory with shrinkers, etc) -- something like 20-100-250-500.

3. I know, I know... take it to the Carriers dead horse thread... but adding fighter craft to HUGE/LARGE ship makes sense here (maybe a component rather than really carrying tiny or small 'real' ships). The idea being that the fighter craft work like planes on an aircraft carrier -- they strike while the ship stays out of range, the ship gets attacked when it's CAG messes up (wild goose chase, all destroyed, etc).

The bottom line is that HUGE and LARGE ships just don't 'feel' right in the way they work.

Successfully updated karma reason!

The problem in my opinion is this:

- A large / huge ship with lots of weapons should be able to engage multiple targets per round. This 'feels' right and was introduced with the 1.6 combat system IIRC.

- A fleet of ships should be more effective at engaging opposing forces than a single ship. This also 'feels' right.

However, as of now, these two points seem somewhat exclusive. Either a ship can only target a single enemy (making fleets more effective) OR a ship is able to target multiple enemies (making fleets a joke). I don't think weapons need to be nerfed. Instead, there should be a bonus for fighting in fleets and a malus for fighting against fleets. Maybe even for fleet vs. fleet engagements, work in the relation of logistic points used as some kind of modifier to attack / defense rolls or weapons.

This wouldn't change the current tech tree (don't forget that all mods that use modded weapons would have to be changed as well!) but could balance out the problem.

Successfully updated karma reason!

What if they introduced in the tech tree line of Logistics where your navy earns an increasing bonus while in a fleet. So instead of simply being able to add more ships in a fleet, they actually get a bonus also. So researching 4 or 5 levels of logistics would let you put 15 small ships in a fleet, BUT, even if you just grouped 2 or 3, they would have an advantage over another fleet of the same size if the enemy logistics was only at level 1 or 2.

Wasnt there something similar to that in the old MOO game, the cat-like species (Altarians?) had some sort of naval combat bonus?

Successfully updated karma reason!

A large / huge ship with lots of weapons should be able to engage multiple targets per round. This 'feels' right and was introduced with the 1.6 combat system IIRC.

I agree -- and I can't confirm this -- but the problem is that "attack multiple targets" seems to mean ANY 'multiple targets'. It doesn't make sense that a capital ship can engage (and late game -- engage generally means 'destroy') not only a squadron of small craft but ALSO another capital ship. A cap ship vs. a cap ship should be all it can handle... at least on the attack. I don't know that I have an opinion on random chance vs. hard-coding, but a capital ship (unlike GC, I would consider only LARGE and HUGE to be capital ships) should EITHER be able to engage a squadron of SMALL or TINY ships OR a single LARGE or HUGE ship... but not both (not sure where I'd slot MEDIUM ships).

A fleet of ships should be more effective at engaging opposing forces than a single ship. This also 'feels' right.

Absolutely... I like "shared defenses" -- it makes sense that a HUGE ship with PD systems should be able to blanket the entire fleet.

The bottom line is that LARGE and HUGE ships are in sort of this no-mans land... the engagement of multiple targets helps on the attack, but then gets nerfed because on the flipside -- it SUFFERS from the multiple attacks of opposing LARGE/HUGE ships.

I still think they need a massive HP increase (with corresponding time/resource/production needs)... From Borg Cubes to Ancient Aurora class ships to Battlestars to etc -- the building of a really large capital ship should be a massive undertaking and we (and the AI) shouldn't just be able to assembly line replace them. They should also be extremely tough to destroy. Damaged and put out of action, sure -- but ultimately, they need better survivability. They're the backbone of a fleet (in the sense of the total forces as much as individual fleets) - but in the current usage, they're really just massive raiders. They sorta fill the role I would expect a MEDIUM hulled ship to fill... quick, isolated strikes, etc.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Shared defenses, like in WW-2 bomber formations, that would be one argument that would work as a justification for changing the current system. Another point is as follow:

In one-on-one situations, you can assume that each ship always manoeuvres so that the 'strongest' side faces the enemy. Superior numbers mean that one fleet can place its ships in a way that they exploit weak spots in the opposing ships.

Since GalCiv doesn't feature an elaborate combat system with internal damage, different armour values for different sides etc. these advantages would have to be translated into a bonus or malus or both.

I think the current system is a step in the right direction, allowing huge battleships to target a number of targets. It just needs a bit of work. (Maybe due to the problems and scope of implementing the graphical changes in 1.6 it didn't get tested for side-effects. Not bug-wise, but in terms of gameplay. The effect that fleets are counter-productive is surely not intended.

)

Successfully updated karma reason!

Ideas I like:

1. Allow mutual destruction. This just feels better.

2. Logistics provides a "tactical" bonus. Maybe it's just a first round thing: take logistics + ships in fleet + some number derived from the hull rating of the ships in the fleet + level of the highest level ship in the fleet or something. Whoever has the higher rating gets a universal defense bonus the first round equal to the difference. After that the battle resolves normally.

So sure, splitting your Dreadnaught into singletons and attacking one by one means that you only lose one ship per engagement, but you're doing less damage to the enemy because of their defense bonus. In addition, if you tweak it right it could make having multiple ship sizes in a fleet more useful: putting two Dreadnaughts in the fleet might be better in terms of the amount of firepower you can put out, but putting one dreadnaughts and a bunch of smaller cruisers and fighters as escorts could provide a higher first-round defense bonus that could help the Dreadnaught survive long enough to put its firepower in play and survive to gain experience. The only problem I see is that this sort of arrangement could lead to min-maxing, to people coming up with an "optimal" fleet arrangement that maxes out the bonus, but that's better than constantly sending singletons in because you're losing less ships in the process.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Well, the combat system has been reworked between DL and DA: unless I have missed something, in DL, a ship can have only one target per round. In DA, a ship can have multiple targets if it has enough firepower.

That has no relevance to single ship combat, it is the same problem in DL and DA.

If the defenses aren't an adequate protection, then I think weapons are proportionally too powerful.

bingo!!!! we have a winner

A fleet of ships should be more effective at engaging opposing forces than a single ship. This also 'feels' right.

Yes and look to the previous quote that i congratulated for the answer.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Hi!

splitting your Dreadnaught into singletons and attacking one by one means that you only lose one ship per engagement, but you're doing less damage to the enemy because of their defense bonus.

What will small defense bonus do against 800 points of attack from that single ship?

Not the logistic, the combat in DA is flawed: with low fleet attack a player can make virtually indestructible ships. But when opponent fields a fleet with more attack than that ship has defenses, situation turns so radically, that it makes no sense, and max attack becomes the rule of the day. To add insult to injury here's also that "strongest survives" rule that makes max-attack ships even more usefull.

Logistic made perfect sense in DL: more ships - more kills. Speaking of DL: the old combat system in DL was not perfect, but was waaaay less flawed than this "all-or-nothing" one we currently have in DA.

IMO what old DL defenses needed was less random roll for late-game defenses, to make complete destruction of a very expensive highly defended and 100% healthy ship less possible because of a single unlucky defense roll. Use the old DL combat model with just that change as a combat model in DA and I'd be (probably

) happy.

BR, Iztok

Successfully updated karma reason!

Yeah that definitely seems like a broken system. It is kind of a downer and makes me not as excited about getting to the late game since the combat is completely broken

I hope this is fixed soon.

Successfully updated karma reason!