Heavy asteroid hull 'Pedia typo

Describe your experience with the latest version of FreeOrion to help us improve it.

Moderator: Oberlus

Forum rules
Always mention the exact version of FreeOrion you are testing.

When reporting an issue regarding the AI, if possible provide the relevant AI log file and a save game file that demonstrates the issue.
Post Reply
Message
Author
ThinkSome
Dyson Forest
Posts: 245
Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2020 11:13 pm

Heavy asteroid hull 'Pedia typo

#1 Post by ThinkSome »

The Pedia says they have 3 internal slots, but designer only shows 2.

Shouldn't heavy asteroid hulls have many more internal slots, being constructed from a gigantic asteroid?

User avatar
LienRag
Space Dragon
Posts: 329
Joined: Fri May 17, 2019 5:03 pm

Re: Heavy asteroid hull 'Pedia typo

#2 Post by LienRag »

Indeed, they should.
They're expensive and slow, at least they should have internal slots.

Ophiuchus
Programmer
Posts: 1913
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2014 10:01 am
Location: Wall IV

Re: Heavy asteroid hull 'Pedia typo

#3 Post by Ophiuchus »

The asteroid hulls/techs has about the following role: cheap in production but needs base investment, high structure, a lot of external slots, slow, takes a while to get started (research, location, and buildings).

In the dark past hulls had more internal slots and a "design rhythm/structure".
I think it was two external slot for each internal slot. The heavy asteroids were double the normal size and had actually four internal slots.

If only tweaking the heavy asteroid hull one should propose a change and argue why the balance is good.

Else some of the recent changes (4 bouts, fuel efficiency, heavy bombers) would lent themselves to more internal slots as there is some need to add extra fuel parts and there is some payoff for having excess launch bays.

We do not really have a line where external slots are the bandwidth problem. Like about two internal slots per external slot. In that case the limiting factor would be external slots to mount weapons, launch bays, and armour.
The roles they would be very good would be: heavy bomber carriers, multi-bout launching carriers,striker carriers, troop ships, long range attack vessels (with fuel tech), hidden vessels (no problem to spend an internal slot on ).
The main problems I see: very strong cohesion between the hull line and the weapon line (fighters), very volatile reach depending on fuel tech
The asteroid hull fluff would lent it well to such a high internal vs external slot ratio.

As volume increases a lot stronger (r^3) than surface area (r^2) in a compact object, we could also make this more pronounced with the heavier hulls (e.g. small 1ext1int, normal 2ext,3int, heavy asteroid 4ext9int- asteroid swarm and scattered asteroid do not have to follow this pattern).
Any code or patches in anything posted here is released under the CC and GPL licences in use for the FO project.

Look, ma... four combat bouts!

wobbly
Dyson Forest
Posts: 212
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: Heavy asteroid hull 'Pedia typo

#4 Post by wobbly »

Another question is how often you want to see improved engine couplings on them. The more slots you give me the more likely I am to make them not slow. 3 internals is enough for fuel/speed and a shield which used to make them quite strong.

User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 3351
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: Heavy asteroid hull 'Pedia typo

#5 Post by Oberlus »

Ophiuchus wrote: Tue Nov 10, 2020 8:20 am As volume increases a lot stronger (r^3) than surface area (r^2) in a compact object, we could also make this more pronounced with the heavier hulls (e.g. small 1ext1int, normal 2ext,3int, heavy asteroid 4ext9int- asteroid swarm and scattered asteroid do not have to follow this pattern).
My own fluff/excuse for keeping asteroid hulls relatively low in internal/external ratio is that they need that much mass in their structure to not collapse due to own gravity. You get a sturdy and cheap vessel, but with relatively huge external and partition walls that occupy most of the internal space.

I don't mind making (radical) changes in current hull lines for current tech tree, but for themed tech tree I already had some directive (nothing written in stone) that doesn't include making asteroids the best hull line for carriers (that is reserved for Cyber and late-game Bio):

- Bio are very good at stealth (mostly from the hulls, also from parts and fleet effects), with internal/external ratio around 1:2. Begins with quite small hulls and gets relatively big hulls end game. Medium speed, low fuel but with fast fuel regeneration, good hull regeneration, hull growth, low structure at the start (so relatively expensive) high when grown up (cheaper if they survive long enough). End-game hulls are Sentient (fleet stealth) and, hopefully, an evolution of the Sentient into a much bigger hull without fleet effects but with great combat capabilities (high structure and plenty of slots).
- Cyber are the masters of fighters, and so will have relatively high I/E slot ratio (between 1:1 and 1:2). Medium hull sizes, speed, fuel and stealth (with good ship parts for stealth), good regeneration and expensive. End-game hull is the Logistics Facilitator, to boost after-combat fleet repair.
- Crys are the masters of structure, with variety of sizes (from tens of meters to tens of kilometers) and good stealth capabilities. Slow and relatively cheap. Weapons of this theme do not abuse internal slots (no shields, no fighters, no stealth parts), and slot distribution between 1:2 (stealthier hulls) and 1:3 (sturdier hulls) is good for those weapons with engines and fuel parts. But they can really use shields (from Energy) and fighters (from Cyber), specially later on with the bigger asteroid hulls. End-game hull is the scattered hull with fleet shielding.
- Energy are the masters of speed, fuel and shields, with small hulls at start and bigger ones later, low I/E slot ratio, bad for stealth, expensive structure. End-game hull is the solar hull, quite big, fast and with fleet refuelling and anti-stealth.
- Mech have medium to huge hulls, relatively slow, around 1:2 I/E slot ratio, they could use missiles from their own weapons. This would be the most versatile hulls in terms of availability of slots and ship parts for most varied ship roles but at the price of not being cheap in any particular role (not specialized). End-game hull is a humongous "moon-like" with a fleet effect speed effect (self-gravitational pull, minimum fleet speed is that of the Moon ship).

Ophiuchus
Programmer
Posts: 1913
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2014 10:01 am
Location: Wall IV

Re: Heavy asteroid hull 'Pedia typo

#6 Post by Ophiuchus »

Oberlus wrote: Tue Nov 10, 2020 9:47 am I don't mind making (radical) changes in current hull lines for current tech tree, but for themed tech tree I already had some directive (nothing written in stone) that doesn't include making asteroids the best hull line for carriers (that is reserved for Cyber and late-game Bio):
I do not see anything with I:E ratio like 2:1 in your sketches. I think you (or we) should explore that. Could start getting experience with asteroids.
Any code or patches in anything posted here is released under the CC and GPL licences in use for the FO project.

Look, ma... four combat bouts!

User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 3351
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: Heavy asteroid hull 'Pedia typo

#7 Post by Oberlus »

Ophiuchus wrote: Tue Nov 10, 2020 10:28 am
Oberlus wrote: Tue Nov 10, 2020 9:47 am I don't mind making (radical) changes in current hull lines for current tech tree, but for themed tech tree I already had some directive (nothing written in stone) that doesn't include making asteroids the best hull line for carriers (that is reserved for Cyber and late-game Bio):
I do not see anything with I:E ratio like 2:1 in your sketches. I think you (or we) should explore that. Could start getting experience with asteroids.
I've I posted a sketch for hull proposals, I forgot about it.
I'm talking about the excel that I have on the shelf.

And yes, we have to explore and discuss extensively. Not right the moment for me.

Edit: oh, I get it, you mean what I wrote just above :oops:
Well, a 2N internal N external slot ship would be quite crappy IMO. Say you put on it 2N heavy bomber hangars, and N launch bays. End of the design. If you want to add some armor/flak/arc/cannon you get 2 empty internal slots for each discarded launch bays (to use for speed, fuel, shield or stealth). Which means that it becomes seldom interesting to go for more than one launch bay substituted by other stuff. I know in the past you've defended having more fighter storage than launch capacity, for multi-bout fighter launching. I still thing that is a bad (sometimes terrible) idea because you only allow your enemy to survive for longer and to require less anti-fighter defenses (half the flaks can do the trick), so only in really specific and bizarre situations you can get a benefit from not being able to launch all your fighters in a single bout.
So, I still think that more than one internal slot per external slot is not worth it except for certain small hulls (such as the organic 2 external 3 internal hull).
Anyways, the ratios I commented are not fixed for all hulls in a line, some hulls can divert from average values of their hull line.

ThinkSome
Dyson Forest
Posts: 245
Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2020 11:13 pm

Re: Heavy asteroid hull 'Pedia typo

#8 Post by ThinkSome »

Oberlus wrote: Tue Nov 10, 2020 9:47 am My own fluff/excuse for keeping asteroid hulls relatively low in internal/external ratio is that they need that much mass in their structure to not collapse due to own gravity. You get a sturdy and cheap vessel, but with relatively huge external and partition walls that occupy most of the internal space.
Yeah... this isn't really a problem until objects start getting >100km in radius. At which point you ask yourself "why can I put fighters only in 4 caves (scatttered)?"

User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 3351
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: Heavy asteroid hull 'Pedia typo

#9 Post by Oberlus »

ThinkSome wrote: Tue Nov 10, 2020 12:12 pm
Oberlus wrote: Tue Nov 10, 2020 9:47 am My own fluff/excuse for keeping asteroid hulls relatively low in internal/external ratio is that they need that much mass in their structure to not collapse due to own gravity. You get a sturdy and cheap vessel, but with relatively huge external and partition walls that occupy most of the internal space.
Yeah... this isn't really a problem until objects start getting >100km in radius. At which point you ask yourself "why can I put fighters only in 4 caves (scatttered)?"
Yeah... this isn't really a problem since we don't really have such things in the game. Scattered hull isn't a planet. Plus it might have lots of stuff to control all those roaming asteroids in the swarm.

Imagine that a normal asteroid hull is the size of a big ship (hundreds of meters), a heavy asteroid is twice that, and the scattered is twice that (so still less than a km³ in volume).

Anyways, I'm not interested in another argument about realism (or, better said, personal expectations). Adding hulls with more than 25 slots is not going to happen, it's unnecessary and brings in nothing new to the game.

ThinkSome
Dyson Forest
Posts: 245
Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2020 11:13 pm

Re: Heavy asteroid hull 'Pedia typo

#10 Post by ThinkSome »

Oberlus wrote: Tue Nov 10, 2020 12:18 pm Anyways, I'm not interested in another argument about realism (or, better said, personal expectations). Adding hulls with more than 25 slots is not going to happen, it's unnecessary and brings in nothing new to the game.
I agree, it'd become tedius. But having 10 internal slots is not a lot to demand. Trade some of those external ones for internal ones. Make a fluff about how it's hard to mount things on an asteroid surface, having to extend support structure from deep below.

User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 3351
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: Heavy asteroid hull 'Pedia typo

#11 Post by Oberlus »

Well, maybe eight external slots... ten seems too many. But yes, there will be hulls with more than four internal slots.

Ophiuchus
Programmer
Posts: 1913
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2014 10:01 am
Location: Wall IV

Re: Heavy asteroid hull 'Pedia typo

#12 Post by Ophiuchus »

wobbly wrote: Tue Nov 10, 2020 9:10 am Another question is how often you want to see improved engine couplings on them. The more slots you give me the more likely I am to make them not slow. 3 internals is enough for fuel/speed and a shield which used to make them quite strong.
Yes, good point. Giving them simply 3 internals now would probably give the heavy asteroid a purpose now. Heavy asteroids should be certainly better than robotic hulls. Or make it 4int/4ext.

With many internals could put all the gadgets in there. But gadgets are expensive in terms of research and production.
Other ships are naturally as fast as an asteroid+best engines.
With best fuel tech and worst efficiency, a fuel tank adds 1.2 fuel per slot. Even adding 9 tanks does not give you superior reach compared to lighter vessels (endosymbiotic should have 14 fuel with 3 tanks and 3 external slots, 100 speed, 20 extra stealth at 28PP).
Oberlus wrote: Tue Nov 10, 2020 11:47 am Well, a 2N internal N external slot ship would be quite crappy IMO
Dont think crappy a good term here. I think your are correct that you would not have so hard tradeoffs when doing a ship design (heavy bombers seem to be the most sensible combat option), I was more thinking on the lines, well you can always fill up with fuel tanks.

So lets see 3 external and five internal which has use for extra gadgets, two launch bays, four heavy bomber hangars (or interceptor hangars), armor part and a shield. Or three launch bays, three bomber hangars, an engine, a stealth part. I do think having another internal slot could be good for both designs.

Other designs: Two launch bays, an arc disruptor, two bomber hangars, three fuel tanks (deuterium fuel 3); Laser, Arc Disruptor, a crystal armor, a shield, an engine, three fuel tanks.
Any code or patches in anything posted here is released under the CC and GPL licences in use for the FO project.

Look, ma... four combat bouts!

Ophiuchus
Programmer
Posts: 1913
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2014 10:01 am
Location: Wall IV

Re: Heavy asteroid hull 'Pedia typo

#13 Post by Ophiuchus »

Any objections to keeping normal asteroids and making heavy asteroids 5int:3ext ?

Fluffwise normal asteroids should become rather 3int:3ext, but that is just a boring bomber carrier. 2int:4ext is much more interesting.
Any code or patches in anything posted here is released under the CC and GPL licences in use for the FO project.

Look, ma... four combat bouts!

ThinkSome
Dyson Forest
Posts: 245
Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2020 11:13 pm

Re: Heavy asteroid hull 'Pedia typo

#14 Post by ThinkSome »

I think that heavy should have at least 1 more external and 2 more internal slots. Also to be renamed "Large asteroid hull"? It should naturally have [much] more HP and perhaps be 45-60PP?

Maybe 6:4 for large ? And 4:3 for normal? Then 10:6 or 12:7 for scattered?

Why would it being "a boring bomber carrier" be boring? There's already hulls that are "boring armor/weapon hulls", like the energy hull line. Large structure/HP of asteroids also affords you to disregard armor platting and arm them to the teeth with one engine part and the rest full of fuel for pushing behind enemy lines.

Post Reply