Arbitrary Fleet Restrictions

Discussion of the space strategy game where you design ships, issue orders to your fleet, then play hands-off battles against human or AI designed enemies.
Aeson
Supreme Robot
Supreme Robot
Posts: 178
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 3:11 am

Re: Arbitrary Fleet Restrictions

Postby Aeson » Fri Oct 26, 2012 11:15 pm

I don't believe that I've ever seen a Guidance Scrambler or Missile Revenge Scrambler miss its target. I've certainly seen them fail to affect the target, but miss? I don't think so. I think the main advantage of a Fast Missile over a Multiple Warhead Missile when large numbers of Guidance Scramblers or Revenge Scramblers are present is more that the missile spends less time on the field because it runs out to its maximum fuel range faster, and thus delays the launch of the next missile less than a scrambled Multiple Warhead Missile.

I would tend to agree that Fast Missiles seem to perform better against heavy point defenses than Multiple Warhead Missiles do, but I don't use the Point Defense Scanner, which says that point defenses mounted on a ship carrying the Point Defense Scanner have a higher chance of targeting live warheads than they have of targeting decoys. If it is the case that this works, then I would expect that Multiple Warhead Missiles would again become a superior option to Fast Missiles, because if point defenses intercept three out of every four warheads deployed by a missile (all the missiles in the game that have decoys do three decoys and a live warhead for a total of four point defense-eligible targets, right?) and the point defenses are more likely to hit live warheads than decoy munitions, then having one weak warhead get through regularly is better than having one strong warhead get through intermittently.

Also, in your computation of the average damage dealt by multiple warhead missiles, you forgot to include one case: that none of the warheads hit. In a point defense-rich environment, it's entirely within reason that all warheads from any given missile will be intercepted.

So, let's do an example:
Assuming that we do not have a PD Scanner and point defenses have even chances of intercepting any given warhead in a group of submunitions (3 decoys and a live warhead for FMs, 4 live warheads for MWMs). Let's next assume that we have one guidance scrambler (GS), and it has a 50% chance of successfully scrambling the missile, and can target three of the four munitions from fast missiles or all four munitions from other missiles, regardless of missile speed, before the missile impacts on the armor or shields of the cruiser (somewhat unreasonable, yes, but we have to make some assumptions). Let us also assume that, were the GS not present, our missiles would always hit (very unreasonable unless we include painters).
Cases:
1. FM - here we have three cases where the GS hits the live warhead and one where it does not. Since our GS is only 50% effective, we have 1.5/4 cases in which the GS successfully defends the cruiser. FMs do 30 damage per successful hit, so average damage is 18.75 (5 out of every eight launches produces a successful hit).
2. MWM - here, all four submunitions are hit by the guidance scrambler. We have the following sixteen equally possible cases: all four missiles hit (one chance), all four missiles miss (one chance), three missiles hit (four chances), three missiles miss (four chances), and two missiles hit (six chances). Damage for each of the cases listed is: 44, 0, 33, 11, 22. Average damage is (0*1+4*11+6*22+4*33+1*44)/16 = 22, which is better than the Fast Missile.

Looking at the cruiser missile comparison thread (viewtopic.php?f=19&t=4646&p=28566), we find that (1) MWMs cannot achieve their maximum theoretical DPS while FMs can, and that (2) MWMs have approximately double the recovery time of FMs. Facts (1) and (2) lead us to the conclusion that, despite MWMs having a higher damage per launch, FMs are more likely to deal a higher damage per second since when a GS succeeds the FMs will launch another missile sooner than MWMs will.

I'm not sure, though, how this ends up applying to the average damage for the MWM - do secondary munitions detonate when any of them hits (which would result in one out of five cases where MWMs take the full recovery time, as compared to three out of eight for FMs), or is it if any of them miss, the MWM needs to spend the full recovery time?
User avatar
Bullethead
Type III Robot
Type III Robot
Posts: 98
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2012 2:23 pm
Location: Lousy Anna's Armpit

Re: Arbitrary Fleet Restrictions

Postby Bullethead » Fri Oct 26, 2012 11:49 pm

GATC wrote:SO!
If your enemy use an 'all ships have scramblers' strategy, prefer FM.
If they don't, prefer MWM

(In a 80 000 credit battle, I was able to deploy 26 MWM against 25 FM with ship equivalent to your design)


I'd think that the short range of scramblers would argue against using tanks. Because scramblers barely reach outside a cruiser's shield, you'd need enough tanks to cover your entire front and some excess on both sides. Otherwise, missiles coming from anywhere except dead ahead would go by out of the tanks' reach. And the more tanks you have, the less offense you have.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
-Bullethead
Nihil iniquius quam aequitatem nimis intendere
In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there are bacteria
User avatar
Bullethead
Type III Robot
Type III Robot
Posts: 98
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2012 2:23 pm
Location: Lousy Anna's Armpit

Re: Arbitrary Fleet Restrictions

Postby Bullethead » Sat Oct 27, 2012 12:15 am

Aeson wrote:Looking at the cruiser missile comparison thread (viewtopic.php?f=19&t=4646&p=28566), we find that (1) MWMs cannot achieve their maximum theoretical DPS while FMs can, and that (2) MWMs have approximately double the recovery time of FMs. Facts (1) and (2) lead us to the conclusion that, despite MWMs having a higher damage per launch, FMs are more likely to deal a higher damage per second since when a GS succeeds the FMs will launch another missile sooner than MWMs will.

I'm not sure, though, how this ends up applying to the average damage for the MWM - do secondary munitions detonate when any of them hits (which would result in one out of five cases where MWMs take the full recovery time, as compared to three out of eight for FMs), or is it if any of them miss, the MWM needs to spend the full recovery time?


From what I can tell, scrambled MWM warheads spiral off into the void while the unscrambled ones hit, and the launcher has to wait for the misses to die before firing again. Thus, scrambling even 1 MWM warhead reduces the MWM rate of fire the same as if all had missed.

There's also the issue that point defense and scramblers become more effective in the interval between the target's shield going down and internal damage destroying the defenses. This is because when the shield is up, the defenses reach only an RCH beyond it, so have a very short window to engage before the missile hits the shield. But when the shield is down, the defenses function all the way in to the ship itself, thus having a considerably larger engagement window. In both cases, the faster a missile flies, the more likely it is to cross the engagement window while the defenses are recharging. If the missile is slow enough, however, it might get shot at twice before reaching the ship if the 1st shot misses or doesn't get all the warheads.

This is a very marked effect. While you can argue that the MWM is about as effective in knocking down shields as the FM, the FM is definitely superior at going further and doing real damage to the ship. In my tests of dueling MWM and FM fleets (all ships having 1 scrambler), a number of FM ships lost their shields but then took little if any further damage.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
-Bullethead
Nihil iniquius quam aequitatem nimis intendere
In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there are bacteria
User avatar
Archduke Astro
Positech Staff
Positech Staff
Posts: 1654
Joined: Sun Aug 30, 2009 10:09 pm
Location: Building The Future.

Re: Arbitrary Fleet Restrictions

Postby Archduke Astro » Sat Oct 27, 2012 1:09 am

Bullethead wrote:There's also the issue that point defense and scramblers become more effective in the interval between the target's shield going down and internal damage destroying the defenses. This is because when the shield is up, the defenses reach only an RCH beyond it, so have a very short window to engage before the missile hits the shield. But when the shield is down, the defenses function all the way in to the ship itself, thus having a considerably larger engagement window. In both cases, the faster a missile flies, the more likely it is to cross the engagement window while the defenses are recharging. If the missile is slow enough, however, it might get shot at twice before reaching the ship if the 1st shot misses or doesn't get all the warheads.

Emphasis mine. Bullethead, that paragraph of yours shines a light upon a significant tactical opportunity (if one can finesse it finely enough). Of additional relevance is that while a point defense system can fire repeatedly at the same inbound missile, a guidance scrambler makes only a single attempt upon any given missile. And what with the way many players tend to heavily rely upon scramblers in lieu of the rather-inaccurate PD systems, then perhaps...

"We've analyzed their attack strategy, and their is a danger. Shall I have your personal ship standing by?" ;)
.
•• Positech Global Moderator & Forum Sheriff ••
GSB "Combined-Arms Combat" Advocate & Analyst
Enemy of Forum Lulz | Defender of Faction Diversity

∞∆……CURATOR OF CREATIVE CONCEPTS for GSB's Friendly Community Mod Squad……∆∞
Aeson
Supreme Robot
Supreme Robot
Posts: 178
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 3:11 am

Re: Arbitrary Fleet Restrictions

Postby Aeson » Sat Oct 27, 2012 1:29 am

So, from a bit of testing of MWM cruisers against FM cruisers (essentially the same design, except for switching FMs for MWMs and adding a larger crew compartment, and when I added the point defense scanners I dropped an armor plate. Both designs had one Guidance Scrambler, which on the MWM Cruiser was eventually switched out for high-speed point defense, and eventually I traded a MWM battery for a second point defense option. Both fleets had default orders), I have drawn two conclusions:
1. Never use normal point defense weapons in place of guidance scramblers, and probably don't bother using normal point defenses even in addition to guidance scramblers.
2. Point Defense Scanners seem like a good investment when faced with large volumes of missile fire in which decoys are present.

As for point (1): standard point defense weapons routinely failed to kill incoming missiles, and also did not reduce the incoming fire density (in fact, when engaging from ranges greater than missile speed times reload period, they increased the incoming fire density by removing missiles from the field more rapidly, which caused them a fair amount of trouble). I never saw a point defense weapon miss an incoming missile, but I did see it fail to kill the missile. Possibly this is due to the point defense weapon I choose to test (high-speed point defense, for its slightly higher rate of fire, since the only apparent indications of PD effectiveness in the design screen are rate of fire and range) - are the others any better, in anyone's experience? Guidance Scramblers, however, routinely scrambled the incoming missile fire more frequently than point defense weapons killed it.

High-speed point defense seems to be a beam weapon of several seconds duration, so it doesn't really have a chance to fire significantly more times against a single target than a guidance scrambler can (I did not look at the other two point defense options, so they might be different), especially when the missile in question is the Cruiser Fast Missile.

As for point (2): Point Defense Scanners led to my Guidance Scramblers firing on live warheads significantly more often than normal, and ignoring about three quarters of the incoming missile fire (which were all decoys). The Mark II version performed slightly better than the Mark I version, but I'm not prepared to say that the superiority was such that you should only use the Mark II Point Defense Scanner. It didn't much matter for point defense weapons since the point defense weapons failed to kill incoming missile fire much more frequently than guidance scramblers failed to scramble missiles, and when they did kill an incoming missile it would be replaced much sooner than the scrambled missile would have been, which just made the job of point defense harder.

As for why FMs seem better than MWMs in a missile fleet versus missile fleet engagement, I would say that FMs seem to be more able to focus fire, since there are fewer valid targets within weapon range, and more importantly they seem to have a higher density of missiles airborne at any given time (which is important for swamping point defenses).

@Archduke: "Evacuate? In my moment of triumph? I think you overestimate their *kaboom*"
User avatar
Bullethead
Type III Robot
Type III Robot
Posts: 98
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2012 2:23 pm
Location: Lousy Anna's Armpit

Re: Arbitrary Fleet Restrictions

Postby Bullethead » Sat Oct 27, 2012 3:09 am

@Aeson:
Very interesting results. Thanks for posting.

BTW, I think your PD "failures to kill" were really "failures to hit". The game draws beam misses as beams that stop right on the target but do no damage. When shooting at big ships, the missing beams appear to go straight through the shield and hit the target. When shooting at fighters, the beams appear dead on but no little green "Hull -4" or whatever floats up. So I think that when PD beams stop at a missile but the missile keeps coming, that's a miss.

@ Archduke:
Please expound upon this significant tactical opportunity. On the face of it, it would seem that you could increase your survivability against missile-heavy fleets by going without shields, but surely you've got something more subtle in mind :)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
-Bullethead
Nihil iniquius quam aequitatem nimis intendere
In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there are bacteria
User avatar
GATC
Supreme Robot
Supreme Robot
Posts: 295
Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2010 5:10 am
Location: France

Re: Arbitrary Fleet Restrictions

Postby GATC » Sat Oct 27, 2012 9:38 am

Traking speed of PD
3.0 for MKI
3.2 for Hi-speed and Automated
=> If they follow the same rules than standard weapons, they only have 45% chance of hit.



I've tested some alternative version of some weapons while modding, and I've see that a quick beam PD is much better than a long beam effect by allow other PD to try there chance against the same missile.
Xedilco are coming for you! http://positech.co.uk/forums/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=5506
User avatar
Bullethead
Type III Robot
Type III Robot
Posts: 98
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2012 2:23 pm
Location: Lousy Anna's Armpit

Re: Arbitrary Fleet Restrictions

Postby Bullethead » Sat Oct 27, 2012 2:29 pm

GATC wrote:Traking speed of PD
3.0 for MKI
3.2 for Hi-speed and Automated
=> If they follow the same rules than standard weapons, they only have 45% chance of hit.


Hmmm, what formula are you using for the to-hit chance? I can't make mine work with the above numbers. I'm using this formula from the thread linked above:

To Hit = (1-(S/T))*(0.5+((L/256)*0.5)) where
S = target speed, T = tracking speed, and L = length of target

Plugging in the above tracking speeds and the speeds of the FM and MWM to solve for L with a 0.45 chance to hit, I get nonsense.
For the FM (speed 0.32), L = 0, which is obviously wrong
For the MWM (speed 0.19), L = -11.264, which is also obviously wrong

So, what's the real length of the missile? Also, what's the tracking speed of the scrambler?

I've tested some alternative version of some weapons while modding, and I've see that a quick beam PD is much better than a long beam effect by allow other PD to try there chance against the same missile.


Here's an interesting tidbit. With cruisers, GS and PD are more effective at protecting the hull and armor than they are the shield. This is because their range barely gets outside the shield bubble. But frigates have significantly smaller shield bubbles while the improved PD has the same range as a cruiser's. Thus, frigate PDs do a better job protecting the shield than cruiser defenses.

So, when considering improving cruiser missile defense, it seems to me that the 1st priority would be a greatly increased range, say out to 500-600. Then the defenses would have a much higher chance of stopping missiles short of the shield, thereby greatly enhancing the ship's survivability against all other weapons in addition to missiles. Also, a longer range would allow the defenses in 1 ship to cover adjacent ships. Then you could have a small number of dedicated anti-missile support ships protecting a larger number of all-offense ships.

However, to take advantage of the longer range, the defense needs a fast weapon, either an instantaneous beam or an uber-fast missile or projectile. A high rate of fire would also be nice, to continue to protect the hull once the shields go down. This latter means there's still a need for essentially what we already have now.

So how about this? Take the frigate's Anti-Fighter Missile, turn it into a cruiser module, and tweak it so it will shoot at missiles. Then tweak its stats to fit the above mission. As a start (pending testing and refining), increase the speed to about 0.7, increase the rate of fire to say 600, and increase the minimum range out to about 200-250 so it has a substantial gap close to the ship. Now you have a long-range missile defense to protect the shield, which you can back up with existing close-in PD and GS. It might even be able to stop incoming missiles before they split off the decoys/MIRVs, and perhaps stop them soon enough that the enemy ship will still be recharging so can't fire again immediately.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
-Bullethead
Nihil iniquius quam aequitatem nimis intendere
In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there are bacteria
Aeson
Supreme Robot
Supreme Robot
Posts: 178
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 3:11 am

Re: Arbitrary Fleet Restrictions

Postby Aeson » Sat Oct 27, 2012 5:43 pm

Bullethead wrote:BTW, I think your PD "failures to kill" were really "failures to hit". The game draws beam misses as beams that stop right on the target but do no damage. When shooting at big ships, the missing beams appear to go straight through the shield and hit the target. When shooting at fighters, the beams appear dead on but no little green "Hull -4" or whatever floats up. So I think that when PD beams stop at a missile but the missile keeps coming, that's a miss.


When I see beams miss, I see the end of the beam sort of searching around near the target (the beam tracks around on the screen a little, as if 'seeking' the target it missed). The PD beam animation did not do this, so I assumed a hit and a failure to kill the missile. Whether or not that is correct, I don't know.

Bullethead wrote:Please expound upon this significant tactical opportunity. On the face of it, it would seem that you could increase your survivability against missile-heavy fleets by going without shields, but surely you've got something more subtle in mind


I think he means exactly what you've just said - without shields, your point defenses (of any type) have a better chance of intercepting missiles before they impact on the target, which means that an 'overwhelming' volume of incoming fire is greater without shields than with them. Moreover, since it isn't that hard to bring cruiser armor into the mid fifties or low sixties (highest armor penetration on a missile is on the Megaton Missile, and that has a penetration of 51), armor is a relatively easy way to make your cruisers ignore missile fire, even if you don't bother with point defenses. Your ships will be slow, and won't be as heavily armed as they would be without the armor, but it works (I can make a three plasma Federation Panther with about 53 average armor, nanobot repair system, and a guidance scrambler, and there are other cruisers which are much superior for this purpose).

To improve existing point defense weapons, I think what is needed is that the firing animation needs to be shorter and the rate of fire higher so that the weapons have a greater chance of firing multiple times before the missiles impact the hull or shields. Additional range would certainly help, but I don't know that it would be a particularly good idea to significantly improve the range, unless we added a special 'long-range point defense' that costs more to carry, and might have a minimum range to encourage you to take normal point defenses in addition to it.

As for your question about the sizes of missiles, the module file defines the length and width of the missile (look in "\Positech Games\Gratuitous Space Battles\data\modules" if using Windows, not sure for Macintosh or Linux systems, then find the file named (ship class)_(module name).txt, then look for the lines started by "missilelength" and "missilewidth" - I assume that length is the one that the game uses for targeting calculation purposes, and I think most or all of the missiles have "missilelenght = 4", but I'm not sure of that; example file name is "cruiser_dummy_missile.txt").

Plugging a size of 4 and a speed of 0.32 into the targeting equation, I get a 45.7% chance to hit, so the assumption that the length is what was used for the calculation seems reasonable. Another interesting thing to note is that the speed of the missile isn't actually going to make much of a difference in the hit chance - maximum hit chance is around 0.51 for a length 4 object, and the fastest missiles (even rockets) are only going to cut that down to about 38% (Firefly Rocket, 0.79 speed, fastest missile in the unmodded game) for a 3.2 tracking speed point defense weapon or about 37% for a 3.0 tracking speed point defense. Fast Missiles will be hit about 45% of the time, other missiles roughly 48% of the time (assuming the average speed of 'regular missiles' is 0.15 - some are slower, some are faster, but they are all around that fast), while standard rockets (0.48 speed) will be hit about 42% of the time. The difference is more in how many times the point defense weapon gets to fire than in how often it hits the inbound missile.
123stw
Supreme Robot
Supreme Robot
Posts: 968
Joined: Thu Jul 01, 2010 1:00 am

Re: Arbitrary Fleet Restrictions

Postby 123stw » Sun Nov 11, 2012 6:27 am

The reason why your MWM lose is because you put way too much armor on it. Too much armor == low missile density == rigged in favor of plasma. Use Tribe Utopia, no armor, drop your shield down to just 1 reflective, and all of a sudden you have double the MWM density, easily overloading your scramblers. Other than Tribe, MWM spammer also comes with armor tanks in front, which your plasma would take forever to kill without beams. MWM spammer can do this because the have the longest range.

For a better example, try kill challenge Tribe Pure MWM #4634858. Find it by hitting the A button to sort by attempt. If beating MWM spam is so easy it won't be sitting on 702 attempts and 29 wins.
Or, if Tribe and lure are too cheap for you, try #4615745, a nomad fleet that sits at 1425 attempts and 73 wins. Yes if you play them you would probably notice that missiles are better in large fights.

Theory-crafting means absolutely nothing unless you can prove your point in combat against fleets that other people build. If the solution is that simple it wouldn't take an average of 50 attempts to 1 win. The trick is in all the optimizations that your test did not consider.

Or if you prefer, you can also put up a plasma fleet and I would kill it. Posting fleets are the only way you can learn all the complexity in designing fleets. You can't "just spam 7 plasma and 1 scrambler" anymore without getting slaughtered by anything that attempts to move in, or missile spammers with tanks.

Why is speed important? Because Cruiser Lasers and Ion Cannon. If those 2 weapons don't exist then you probably never want to have fast ships.
Redd13
Type III Robot
Type III Robot
Posts: 96
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2012 1:19 pm

Re: Arbitrary Fleet Restrictions

Postby Redd13 » Sat Apr 20, 2013 9:33 pm

Bullethead wrote:In an effort to have more varied and interesting fights, to bring the rock-paper-scissors thing back into my GSB life, I am henceforth going to impose some arbitrary limits on how I design ships. I'm trying to keep these arbitrary limits "believable" in an underlying, non-gratuitous context of empires being run as going concerns, so nothing totally off-the-wall.

Here are some ideas I've had so far and their hoped-for impacts on battles. Feel free to comment or suggest your own.

1. Minimum Speed = 0.04
Any slower than this and the ship lacks sufficient thrust to leave the shipyard. So, ships must devote some slots to engines and the power and crew to supply them. NOTE: This is a requirement I've always had, but the minimum speed used to be 0.03.

2. No Dreadnought Parts in Cruisers
This means all cruisers worthy of the name require 2 slots of powerplants, cutting down on what else they can have. Also, no cruisers zipping around at ridiculous speeds using DN engines.

3. No EMP Cannon
This just hasn't been invented yet. If you want EMP, build frigates. Finally, a reason to do so.

4. Limited Guidance Scramblers
Guidance Scramblers are new technology not available to everybody, and they require lots of bulky, specialized electronics in the ship. So, for non-Parasites, they can only be mounted in dreadnoughts. If you don't have a dreadnought, you don't get any scramblers. Parasites can mount their Revenge Scramblers in cruisers because they don't have DNs. However, the RS has to tie into the brains of dedicated Aegis-type ships otherwise armed only with Cruiser Pulse Lasers, Flak Cannons, Tractor Beams, etc. This rule is to make missiles a viable alternative to plasma.

5. Limited Supercharged Tractor Beams
Only dreadnoughts have the hull strength to keep one of these from ripping out of the ship. So, if you don't have dreadnoughts, you'll have to make due with lesser versions. This help fighters be more effective.

Comments?


I saw this thread at the time of my Diary thread, but refrained from commenting at the time. I've been revisiting my self-challenges and putting some more thought into trying to make the fleets more unique and more 'gratuitous'. While I agree with some of these, let me finally add a few more. Note that in no way is this meant for competitive play. It's just for fun, not to win tournaments.

Use all the hulls
The designers have been kind enough to invent them, it's up to you to use them.Yes, even the sub standard ones. Rarely will an Admiral be able to pick and choose the ships under his command.
Use all the race specific equipment
By doing this, it automatically gives each race/fleet a slightly different flavour. Some of the race specific stuff is a bit...lacking, but force yourself to use it, even in just a token gesture way. If they aren't going to use them, why would the various races scientists bother to invent them?
If one hull carries a certain weapon, no other hull OR ship type in the fleet can
For example, if a Federation Buffalo hull carries all cruiser plasma, no other hull in the Federation fleet can use it. Note that this also means no designing a second Buffalo which uses mostly plasma with the odd beam. A fleet, while having a 'majority' vessel, will always have to deploy specialist vessels for certain roles, and it's inevitable that they'll find their way into an Admirals force aand have to be deployed in battle.

These things combined make for varied fleets with no falling back on spamming one hull/weapon.

No tanks
Tanks, whilst effective, are boring. Keeping armour to a maximum of 50, means more weapons can play a part without having to rely on tedious lucky hit grind. Honestly, who's going to build a ship whose sole role is to get hit??
No empty slots
"Thank you for the tour of the ship. What's this massive, cavernous space for?"
"This sir? This is.....erm......a contemplative space sir. For the good of the crew sir. Meditation and stuff sir. Yes. That's it."
"You've forgotten to put something in haven't you?"
"No, no, no.......yes"
Fill every slot, they're there for a reason so make use of them.
Minimum speed of 0.1
Higher than your idea of 0.04 and it's there for a reason. Faster ships make for more entertaining battles. Rather than watching two incredibly slow fleets drag their sorry arses into range before slugging away, have them charge into battle like they mean business. Contemplate giving every ship 'Keep Moving' orders as well, though that can add an extra level of variability to the battles, seeing the fleets circling each other is a lot more interesting than watching them line up and throw punches. Also, these ships are supposed to patrol an interstellar empire, which can't be done at a snails pace.

That's all I can think of for now.

I am aware that these arbitrary rules won't make for the most effective fleets in the online challenge arena, but then that's not the point.

Return to “Gratuitous Space Battles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 4 guests