many ships or fewer ships?

For what's not in 'Top Priority Game Design'. Post your ideas, visions, suggestions for the game, rules, modifications, etc.

Moderator: Oberlus

Message
Author
User avatar
Prokonsul Piotrus
Space Kraken
Posts: 154
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 9:20 pm
Location: Poland, Europe, Earth, Sol

#91 Post by Prokonsul Piotrus »

I have never ever found a game with a cap and said - Oh, that design cap is such a good idea.

Brrrr. There are many perfectly good things for limiting things, starting with economy (players can't aford more then x ships/y tonnage per system because of maintenance/limited minerals/etc,), going through technology (fluff drive tech sais that more then x ships in a given sector = KABOOM) and ending with several other things mentioned already.

Now, everybody, please repeat after me 100 times: CAPS ARE EVIL. I HATE CAPS. CAPS ARE NOT PLAYER FRIENDLY. CAPS ARE EVIL

Please join your nearest Anti-Cap recruiting office. We are bound to have a nice demonstration soon :>
Image

User avatar
utilae
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 2175
Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2003 12:37 am
Location: Auckland, New Zealand

#92 Post by utilae »

Prokonsul Piotrus wrote: I have never ever found a game with a cap and said - Oh, that design cap is such a good idea.

Brrrr. There are many perfectly good things for limiting things, starting with economy (players can't aford more then x ships/y tonnage per system because of maintenance/limited minerals/etc,), going through technology (fluff drive tech sais that more then x ships in a given sector = KABOOM) and ending with several other things mentioned already.

Now, everybody, please repeat after me 100 times: CAPS ARE EVIL. I HATE CAPS. CAPS ARE NOT PLAYER FRIENDLY. CAPS ARE EVIL
One of the main reasons for a cap in FreeOrion would be to keep the number of ships down in a battle, so that players can manage the amount of ships better.

I like the idea of having an expense for managing your empire based on the size of your empire. This would indirectly effect the economic system that makes ships expensive, so that being bigger doesn't necesarily mean that you can afford ships easily. A ships that costs $1000 for a small player and is considered by the player expensive is still considered expensive to the player with an empire twice the size, because the bigger empire has to pay a large expense for keeping there large empire together, to avoid the collapse of the empire (like what happened to the romans).

eg
Elite Ship-Cost=$1000
Cheap Ship-Cost=$500

Player A (Size=1)
Income=$5000
Bought Elite Ship=$1000
Bought Cheap Ship=$500
Emprie Size Expense=$1500Xsize=$1500
-----------------------------
Leftover=$2000

Player B (Size=2)
Income=$10000
Bought Elite Ship=$1000
Bought Cheap Ship=$500
Emprie Size Expense=$1500Xsize=$3000
-----------------------------
Leftover=$5500

That's the basic idea, would need a ton of balancing though.

noelte
Juggernaut
Posts: 872
Joined: Fri Dec 26, 2003 12:42 pm
Location: Germany, Berlin

#93 Post by noelte »

Geoff the Medio wrote:My interpretation of this idea is that the bigger empire would be the one with 100 times as many ships, not the small empire. If battles are limited for both empires to the same number, then the numerical odds end up being 1:1, giving the small empire a chance to win.
No, you didn't get the point. Sakkra fleet with 10000 ships against my highly advanced 100 ship fleet. cap set to 100. so, even if my empire is small the sakkra (huge empire) wouldn't stand a chance. More worth, i also could try to take sakkra planets one by one.... something like klackon against psilon.

Hard caps remove balancing battles between a scientific and a productive race.
Press any key to continue or any other key to cancel.
Can COWs fly?

User avatar
Geoff the Medio
Programming, Design, Admin
Posts: 12802
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 1:33 am
Location: Munich

#94 Post by Geoff the Medio »

noelte wrote:No, you didn't get the point.
I got the point, but was presenting a different way to look at hard caps to fleet size in battles and the effect on balance: the situation of equal tech levels, but different production capacities between two empires.

Also, your objection is based on the assumption that 1 low-tech small ship is worth the same amount as 1 high-tech big ship. This need not be the case. Perhaps your 100 high-tech big ships are each worth 100 fleet-points, and the Sakkra's 10000 low-tech small ships are each worth 1 fleet-point. Both fleets have the same 10000 fleet-points of ships, so would both be allowed in a fleet-point limiting system that allows the other fleet.

Hard caps need not disrupt the balancing between different strategies if the cap is described in a way that takes that balancing into account.

noelte
Juggernaut
Posts: 872
Joined: Fri Dec 26, 2003 12:42 pm
Location: Germany, Berlin

#95 Post by noelte »

Ok, but your example was the obvious one :-) i didn't read anything about fleet-points ;-)

But i still think hard caps are worse. If someone is superior to someone else, he should be able to throw all his power into the battle.
Press any key to continue or any other key to cancel.
Can COWs fly?

Bastian-Bux
Creative Contributor
Posts: 215
Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2003 6:32 am
Location: Kassel / Germany

#96 Post by Bastian-Bux »

Noelte, you are to young in FO to remember one of the first discussions we had: how to avoid the snowball effect, or to at least slow it down.

Setting relative caps (with fleet-points, be it via flagg-ships, number of planets, whatoever) allows to decelerate the snowball effect.

Setting hard caps (only 16 ships, and not more) does destroy any strategy, as it allows only one strategy: the 16 biggest, baddest ships win.

PS: no need to search for the discussion. It was in the very first forum we had :).

User avatar
utilae
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 2175
Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2003 12:37 am
Location: Auckland, New Zealand

#97 Post by utilae »

Bastian-Bux wrote:Noelte, you are to young in FO to remember one of the first discussions we had: how to avoid the snowball effect, or to at least slow it down.

Setting relative caps (with fleet-points, be it via flagg-ships, number of planets, whatoever) allows to decelerate the snowball effect.

Setting hard caps (only 16 ships, and not more) does destroy any strategy, as it allows only one strategy: the 16 biggest, baddest ships win.

PS: no need to search for the discussion. It was in the very first forum we had :).
So, basically it's down to dynamic caps (eg fleet points) and economic controls (eg ships are really expensive, and the 'management of empire' expense is much bigger for larger empires than smaller ones, keeping ship costs constant regardless of empire size)

iamrobk
Space Dragon
Posts: 289
Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2003 12:27 pm

#98 Post by iamrobk »

Geoff the Medio brings up an interesting point. A cap would effectively mean that a small empire could bring the same amount of ships to battle as a large one, which really unbalances the game. If the small empire has great tactics, they can easily destroy all the fleets of the larger empire, one at a time. Eh, that just doesn't work.
I think that utilae has really grasped my initial idea well. Because of course, a large empire is going to have a lot more expenses than a smaller one. Therefore, the ship costs automatically get balanced out, really.

User avatar
Geoff the Medio
Programming, Design, Admin
Posts: 12802
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 1:33 am
Location: Munich

#99 Post by Geoff the Medio »

iamrobk wrote:Geoff the Medio brings up an interesting point. A cap would effectively mean that a small empire could bring the same amount of ships to battle as a large one, which really unbalances the game.
To me, this would make the game more balanced, not less. It gives the small empire a chance to fight back. If the big empire can have all its fleet be bigger, then the small empire has no way to fight back. With caps, the big empire has to fight smart (tactically or strategically), and not just rely on overwhemling numbers in battle to win.

Note that the bigger empire still has an advantage, in that it can have full strength fleets at more locations, with more backup fleets, and has more reinforcements for any lots ships in a fleet.
If the small empire has great tactics, they can easily destroy all the fleets of the larger empire, one at a time. Eh, that just doesn't work.
If a small empire has good enough tactics that one or three of their fleets are able to destroy dozens or hundreds of enemy fleets, then they deserve to win. I somewhat doubt "great tactics" alone would be sufficient to "destroy all the fleets" of any empire, however.

User avatar
utilae
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 2175
Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2003 12:37 am
Location: Auckland, New Zealand

#100 Post by utilae »

Geoff the Medio wrote: To me, this would make the game more balanced, not less. It gives the small empire a chance to fight back. If the big empire can have all its fleet be bigger, then the small empire has no way to fight back. With caps, the big empire has to fight smart (tactically or strategically), and not just rely on overwhemling numbers in battle to win.

Note that the bigger empire still has an advantage, in that it can have full strength fleets at more locations, with more backup fleets, and has more reinforcements for any lots ships in a fleet.
This is correct. The big empire effectiveley has to break its massive fleet up into reinforcements ready to arrive next turn. The small empire gets an advantage in that it only has to deal with the big empires massive fleet in lesser groups of reinforcements.

guiguibaah
Creative Contributor
Posts: 441
Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2003 1:00 am

Other advantage

#101 Post by guiguibaah »

... The other difference...

The larger empire can produce and churn out ships faster than the smaller one. So even if there is a hard cap of 100 ships, and the small empire only looses 10 while the large one looses 50, it may only take the large empire 10 turns to replace those 50 ships, while the small empire could only produce 2 ships in 10 turns.

So in another 10 turns time, it's 100 ships vs 92.
And another 10 turns, it's 100 vs 84...
... etc.. etc...
There are three kinds of people in this world - those who can count, and those who can't.

solartrix
Space Floater
Posts: 46
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2004 3:57 am
Location: San Francisco

#102 Post by solartrix »

If you want to give the smaller empire a fighting chance not to get run over, you just make the starbases less expensive to build and/or maintain compared to an equally matched fleet of starships.

The big empire can bring on the massive warfleet, but the little empire with its flotilla of starbases still has a fighting chance. Until the big empire over-runs them with their better weapons technology, and I don't know what you're going to do to rig that.

The smaller empire will have to make some good allies to keep from getting anihlated. Which sort of makes in a dangerous galaxy...

Done. Next topic, please. 8)

Bastian-Bux
Creative Contributor
Posts: 215
Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2003 6:32 am
Location: Kassel / Germany

#103 Post by Bastian-Bux »

Solartrix: defense is the slow way to defeat. Your idea falls for the same reason as an uncapped approach: snowball effect of economical power.

Yes, your small empire can hold off a much larger fleet. BUT: the large empire can do the same, with much less effort. So the small empire has no chance to go active and its only a matter of time when its subjugated.

If you have relative caps, there is a slight chance that the smaller empire might hold ground and even reverse the process. Just by cunning of the player AND luck.

And yes, Luck Skywalker is appropirately named ;).

noelte
Juggernaut
Posts: 872
Joined: Fri Dec 26, 2003 12:42 pm
Location: Germany, Berlin

#104 Post by noelte »

At first i agreed to this.
If you want to give the smaller empire a fighting chance not to get run over, you just make the starbases less expensive to build and/or maintain compared to an equally matched fleet of starships.
Than i read this
Yes, your small empire can hold off a much larger fleet. BUT: the large empire can do the same, with much less effort. So the small empire has no chance to go active and its only a matter of time when its subjugated.
and i have to agree too.

I think that's the problem. I really looking forward to see the solution. Maybe fleet-points are a first step, even if i don't know how we will measure a fleets fleet-points.
Press any key to continue or any other key to cancel.
Can COWs fly?

Bastian-Bux
Creative Contributor
Posts: 215
Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2003 6:32 am
Location: Kassel / Germany

#105 Post by Bastian-Bux »

Well, we have severall suggestions:

- Each ship = 1 point -> easiest way, actually its the hard cap

- Each displacement ton = 1 point -> bigger ships "cost" more points

- Each credit a ship costs = 1 point -> bigger and more modern ships "cost" more points

- Each modul build into a ship has a point cost -> allows for finetuning, like making colony moduls expensive in credits but woth nothing in fleet points.

- solely dependent on the graphical representation of the ship -> big, high res ships would "cost" more points, not a game design question but more to restrict graphic ressource problems

I'm sure we will find some more. I myself like the modul idea most, as it is the most flexible one. Though going for displacement (=size) or better for the cost in credits (=size AND technology) would maybe suffice as well.

Post Reply