Any word on the naval or orbital stuff?

Not just in atmosphere, the only weapon less realistic than plasma is neutrino gun. But throwing frozen nuclear explosion at each-other is awesome enough that we should forgive it. (Neutrino gun is an inherently stupid weapon OTOH, though it may make for an interesting communication device.)

Even if multi-weapons ships look great, it does make a worse gameplay. Either you have effective multi-role, which is bad as explained by others, or you have visually great but near-useless weapons, which will make new players into thinking that those ships are effective at those roles, and not escort them correctly. In both cases something we want to avoid.
If your battleship has useless AA-guns, new players may think that they don't need to give them that much AA escort and end up losing their battleship against air, which would be pretty frustrating.
Note that I'm talking about multi-role that has no reason to be bundled together. For example, AA on a battleship. In some cases, a ship may have several different weapons, like, (just as an example) an escort ship with both anti-torpedo and anti-missile defence, or even with a flak AA.

Agree.

Disagree. As I tried to show it depends on the situation. Sometimes the small boats are the optimal option, sometimes it may be better to build larger multi-role ships. I'll try to explain the reason again at the end of this post.

Depends on how many multi-role ships there will be and how well they are documented (tooltips, etc). Neutrino mentioned somewhere Uber aims to implement something about 100 Units, which results probably in >20 units per layer. Therefore I don't see any reason why this should remove too much clarity. SupCom also had multi-role ships (think of the UEF T2 Cruiser) and it wasn't that bad in case of clarity. It however rendered the frigate useless, but I'll explain how this could be avoided.

You talk about the visuals, but I think you're aiming for the diversity of naval units.
How far do these ships affect the ability to read the game? When we see something we use 4 factors to identify this object: size, color, shape and contrast. Uber already chose to have high contrast environment. The color is defined by the player. So size and shape. Since these ships should be bigger than small boats, therefore you can easily identify whats a ship and whats a boat. Moreover the larger the object, the better you can determine its shape.
These small boats may be more difficult to identify, especially if there come 100 of them.

FAF made wrecks of ships reclaimable, so why not PA. If there will be underwater structures like in TA, with submersible engineers it seems just logical to me.

Why small single role boats may sometimes not be the best option
It basically comes down to the question: How much do I know about my enemy?
Single role boats fill one role perfectly, while having no other capabilities. They are cheap but therefore fragile.
Multi role ships have different capabilities, but are don't fill them as good as the single role boats. The are more expensive, but have more hitpoints.

Case one:
You don't know very much about your enemy (no air superiority, shortly after invading a planet, ...), but you want/need to build a fleet.

Possible scenario with single-role boats:
Since you don't know what threats your fleet will face you build boats of different types. Some AA, Torpedo, Tactical Missile, perhaps Artillery, maybe a "battleship". Some subs and you're done. This costs some amount of money, lets call it amount X.
Your enemy spends half of X on building only subs. Now your fleet faces his subs. You probably lose, because 2/3 of your fleet isn't capable of fighting subs and just watches their destruction.
If your enemy builds gunships or torpedo-bombers, it'd be even worse. Perhaps about 1/4 of your fleet is capable of fighting air, you surely lose your ships (if you don't send air, but this would affect both scenarios so it cancels out).
Funny thing: You lose most battles when you don't know the enemy units and try to prepare even for (nearly) all types of units, although you spend the double amount of resources.

Same scenario with multi-role ships:
You try to cover (nearly) all threats. Optimal fleet would be a even distribution between: AA+Torpedo, Torpedo+Cannon, Cannon+AA. Costs again the amount X, so you have only half the amount of ships compared to the boats earlier.
Your enemy spends half of X to build subs or torpedo boats or gunships or ...
You win.
The reason:
It's math. 2/3 of your fleet are capable of fighting the enemy units. The DPS of each weapon of a ship should be slightly below it's counterpart on the boats. You have only half the amount of ships, but each have nearly the double amount of hitpoints of a boat.
So the ships have a little less DPS than the boats, but double the hitpoints.
They even would win if they only had half of the DPS. Because the DPS decreases with every boat/sub/aircraft that is destroyed. Since ships have more hitpoints than boats their DPS would decrease slower.
You'd win (nearly) every battle if you distribute them even, but remember: you spend double the resources, so this is the outcome you expect. You'd even win if your enemy builds multi-role ships too, because you spend the double amount. Regardless what distribution he chooses.

Case two:
You know the units of the enemy.

This case is very simple. Since you know what units he has you can build just it's single- role counter and win. The boats DPS and hitpoints are optimally used, since none of them just awaits helplessly it's destruction.
The multi-role ships have less hitpoints and smaller DPS and can in worst case just use half of their DPS. Therefore they would not perform as good as the boats.

To conclude this means, that multi-role ship don't "steals roles that could have fit on other ships". While it is true, that they inherit the role of already existing ships, they are only a good option, if the single-role boats perform bad. It depends on the situation, whether multi- or single-role is the optimal solution, e.g. it depends whether you know your enemies units or not.

Well I wrote this:

2x100 AC = 200 AC for the gunships vs 100 AC for the AA-boat.
So exactly the same situation. The gunships cost twice as much as the boat. A Jester costs twice as much as the Shard.
And then you wrote

So therefore the answer would be: "this isn't exactly surprising."

Well they work perfectly in vacuum, so you could equip satellites with plasma-cannons. Plasma is just superheated gas which loses its electrons is therefore electrically charged. Accelerate it in an electric field and it'll burn anything it hits.
Actually there are plasma-engines for satellites already, this isn't science fiction. However their thrust is very small.

No the answer is that your example is biased

Main points of contention;

A] The fact that an AA unit is beaten by DOUBLE it's cost in Air units is NOT an excuse to give AA to other units.

B] The proportions used in AA firepower seem very off kilter, the idea that a weapon that has nothing to do with a Battleship's Role* should still be 50% as effective as a dedicated AA unit feels like too much.

C] Using only DPS as a measure of a weapons worth is shortsighted at best, things like Range, Rate of Fire, Damage per Shot, Shots per Salvo and AOE are all important factors that shouldn't be dismissed and play a huge part in balancing.

I think those need to be addressed before you can start making conclusions based on it.

*According to Wikipedia;

Mike

I haven't read everything in here (sorry!) but went a bit over the posts.


I think the core question is: what makes you use naval?

I obviously use naval in water situations, but that's the simpe answer. So what is my greatest annoyance?

when i have assembled a big fleet, battled my way through many islands and fought of many attacks, arrive at the main goal and then.....

out of range. AAAAAHHHH.

This happened to me in a FA campaign (one with the shitload of islands and the treatened princess or so).

Basically i had a formidable naval force and then, after massive amounts of shore bombarment and wiping every bit of air and land off the map, my awesome fleet grinds to a hault because my units need 10% more range.


What makes a ship different from a land unit then? size. ships have a massive size and can fit nuclear powerplants, hundreds of fighters and huge guns. Land units are limited by mass and mobility. ships are only limited by shallow water.


To me, Naval is like a moving building. You don't build a ship, you build cannons with armor and the ability to move. Water displacement is the only criterium for size, and that only affects how deep the water has to be for your ship.

Land and Air units are far more of a tactical thing. they sweep in, to the rescue. Naval units are a strategic thing: they move into range and harrass the enemy with shore bombardment, just outside their range.

There is also a clear weakness: a single hole in a ship potentially means a quick end.

Land units might have health, sea units might need something else. Torpedoes are effective against ships, but shells could just puncture one and not cause it to sink.

So yea. a fleet to me is a mobile base. A launch platform for attacks. Which is why it might not be a bad idea to feature factory-ships, with short-range unit cannons.

How to make it more interesting with less water? i would say a range of smaller boats with great range.

I don't think so.
Because in my example the AA-boat costs 100 AC, has 400 HP and 2 DPS. The "upgrade" of battleship without AA to battleship with AA also costs 100 AC, but you only get half the DPS and no additional HP. Moreover the AA-boat also includes beside it's gun a hull, engine and probably radar.
So in the end its:
Half DPS AA-gun costs the same as full DPS AA-Gun + HP + Mobility (+ Radar).

I didn't complain about the fact the AA-boat loses against two gunships (= double cost). What I complain about is the situation, that a battleship is destroyed by two gunships while escorted by an AA-boat. It's beaten by units with 1/5 of its costs and this could be avoided by adding light AA to the battleship (which is usually a very bad decision in terms of economy, see above).

Yes and No.
Of course Range and AoE etc. are factors to be considered. Also guided missile versus unguided bullets makes a difference.
But as I stated above, the AA on the battleships has already very many disadvantages compared to the AA-boat. It is already a economically bad decision in many situations.
Making it even worse by cutting the range or whatever drastically therefore doesn't seem fair. I'd expect these future robots being able to build the same AA of the boat on the battleship for much cheaper than the whole boat. We don't want the AA of the battleship that powerful, so we increase the price and half the DPS (or perhaps range instead of DPS?). The wish to decrease its effectiveness further doesn't seem to be based on economical or balancing thoughts, but rather because of personal opinion.

That is true. But how much battleships do you find without AA, how much with AA (Of course counting since WW 2, there where no heavier-than-air aircrafts before)?
Does it therefore make sense to call such a ship without AA battleship? Or artillery ship?

Of course my example is somehow biased. Of course I will imagine a situation which propagates my "ideas". But to be fair I always drew 2 situations. One where multi-role was better, one where single-role more effective.
While also the stats and numbers may be biased, I tried to find somehow plausible numbers. And the boats and gunships data I used isn't that far away from the SupCom stats, as I mentioned in the posts before. My second post didn't even contain numbers.

"Plasma weapons" is almost always used for weapons throwing plasmoids around. Which awesome but impractical, as detailed here.
The engine you are talking about is in fact a ion engine, which is not quite the same thing (a few electrons are ripped from the atom with electricity, but it turns it into ions and not plasma). Engines using plasma are indeed possible, however, as would be most nuclear rockets.
The same principle could be weaponized, but then it's not what is commonly called "plasma weapons". It's either a short range particle beam or, more probably, a plasma blowtorch (superheated gas tend to expand very very fast, but at point-blank range it would still hurt). In fact, plasma cutters are actually used in the industry to cut metal plates.

That said, railguns (or better, coilguns) would feel better for naval guns and artillery IMHO. Massive, solid projectiles feel better for indirect fire than near-immaterial frozen explosion. Plasma guns should be kept for short-range direct-fire weapons.


Now, about multi-role ships, I still fail to see their interest. If you don't know what to expect, then scout. If you don't manage to scout, use multiple escort ships. It's more expensive, but it's your fault to not be able to scout properly. Because expensive units that can have multiple, unrelated roles (like artillery and AA) are bad for gameplay.

Because that's just numberbaiting. Giving a unit lots of HP and big guns for low cost doesn't accomplish anything. It just says you like something so it should be overpowered.

Basing naval and land units on different numerical scales is a disaster waiting to happen. There are plenty of other ways to make each theater unique, while still allowing excellent interaction between the two.

Bad balance doesn't make a good point. Also, don't argue with numbers. It really doesn't help if you use them wrong. Instead, stick to basic principles. Generally, you pay more to get more, or you take higher risks to get more. The simplest way to get the most bang for your buck is to put money directly into the desired role, and not splurge on extras.

For example I could have a destroyer with a lousy, 100 metal radar. I'm paying for that on every destroyer. I'm better off scrapping the radar, and building a single boat with a superior, 500 metal radar. It could even be the same radar, it's not like radar coverage stacks or anything. After 5 destroyers I'm already paid off. That's a big deal for a game based on large scale battles.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I'm not against the idea of a multirole ship, as in a ship with a singular and highly flexible gun. Think of a Starcraft Marine, or the 40K Chaos Obliterator. Notice how this is different from a ship that has 5 different kinds of guns for every situation. The former pays a premium to be effective against any single threat, while the latter has its damage multiplied against every new threat.

The closest equivalent in TotalA would be the scout boat, or even the Jethro. While these units were primarily anti air, I'm sure at some point you got a guilty pleasure out of using them against everything.

A multirole ship could end up being unique to ocean units. After all, ocean has the most opposing game layers to contend with- air, space, ground, water, and underwater. The fannon explanation is easily tied to the unique properties of water. In this case, the weapon simply requires water as a coolant or as a hydrogen fuel for the weapon. Thus it is unsuitable to use elsewhere.

Pet hate: is how ships are scaled. A ship is a massive vessel compared to its land couter parts - i understand why its done but i hope that their size is scaled back to much.
Its firepower should perhaps be scaled to the size of the ship (or vis versa).

I remember that in game balance TA was good, in that the time and resources/economy it took to build ships and helped balance their power.

And should not beam weapons be mounted (any type at all)? - or is naval warfare forever based on projectile combat?

What are peoples ideas for orbital platforms and how it should be balanced? - if this is in another thread please post.

And then someone bombs your radar frigate, and suddenly you're left blind. The reason ships perform all roles, is because it allows them to be really big. You only need three main ships in your fleet along with a bunch of tiny support runners.

I don't think anyone would be in favor of a fleet of battleships with multi-role weaponry if you're supposed to make 50 at a time. But if your main battleship is so big that your entire fleet only has 3, it's more useful to make it do everything.

And I think that naval would be both more memorable and more interesting if at least a part of your fleet contains such multi-purpose giants. Supported with lots of smaller vessels. Which would be single-purpose, of course.

I would just like to say that I have serious doubts that any "huge ship" style navy could be controlled well, though I only have previous games results to go on. And besides, are huge ungainly long floating turret platforms with no turning ability and abysmal acceleration/braking really the best naval combatants?

Depends on what you use them for. As a platform for bombing the **** out of a coastal base, carrying resource generation systems, troop production facilities, support material, repairing damaged ships, floating rader, etc?

Probably.

To engage an enemy fleet? You probably want some smaller ships as support.

Your source may wrong. The physicians statements are more or less correct, but according to wikipedia Andrei Sakharov developed a plasma cannon which keeps its plasma compressed through pinch effect (take a look at the second picture). If you wish I could try to explain you the physical background.

Beside the fact, that I don't know why coilguns are better than railguns I agree.

As my scenario in second wall of text showed, escort ships likely fail to protect your boats. I didn't even used numbers what DPS/HP/etc, so the result should be independent of balancing.
Blaming the player for bad reconnaissance is easy and to some degree even true, but ... well did you have air-superiority every match you played? Because without aircraft (or satellites) scouting may be difficult to impossible.

If you tell me why, I might accept this statement it or bring a counter-argument.

Yes. I don't want to have some ship which somehow renders the rest useless.

Railguns are actually better in this case. Coilguns require quite a bit of space (above a certain size, Coilguns become better) .

Anyway, i would be against huge naval platforms outside of Water planets.

Naval should be bigger than regular units, yes. They should have a vastly improved range, yes. Pitting a land force against a naval force is suicide. Pitting an air force against a naval force should be a viable tactic. The one exception to the land situation would be arty and missiles.

Can i propose anti-naval turrets? or at least, arty pieces that function as such?

@bobucles
It'd be nice if you at least once would mark whom you quoted, so I'd be easier to track.

So you tell me I shouldn't use numbers, but use numbers yourself. Interesting.
But fine I see that my "bad balance" (I still don't know which unit) isn't so popular, so I'll try to stick to abstract values as I did in my second post.
Because of you radar and destroyer example, I agree with pluisjen and want to point out, that the reason you'll be blind very fast is, that the radar boat has less HP than the 5 destroyers. Loosing radar may not be dangerous since radar doesn't counter anything, but replace the radar in your setting with AA or depth charges. The boat is destroyed quickly and your destroyer are rendered helpless.

I showed, that you can spend twice the amount and still loose, if you need to cover many threats. If you only face one threat or intend to attack some defined target it's better to use single-role boats without extras.

I'd rather have different guns instead of one which can hit (nearly) any target. Because the ship with different guns sometimes only could use about half of its overall ED (= Effective Damage*), while the other always uses it's full ED. But a ship which can face 5 different threats isn't my intention, I think 1 main-purpose and max. 2 sub-purposes should be enough. Better 1 main-purpose and 1 sub-purpose.

* I define ED as a unit which wighted combines DPS, Range, etc.

baryon, another issue I have with your arguments is they don't account for the scale. Forces consisting of 2 ships will not be the norm. Also note how you chose to use a small AA ship, what if you chose a bigger one? your example doesn't use equal forces on both sides so why not? Your example is arbitrary, biased(even according to you) and not even a comment on overall balance, your example even falls apart if you add a gunship or 2.

Mike

Yeah. So what? If mobile radar is so critical, build another radar. If anything, it's adding to the game. The opponent gains an opportunity to sacrifice some units, so he can exploit a weak point in your fleet. You can pay more to get redundant ships, thus limiting this weakness, or put it directly into maximum damage. That choice is not possible when hybrid systems are loaded onto every unit, because the system can not be targeted without sinking the entire fleet.

The worst case scenario without radar, is that you still have basic vision, underwater vision, scouting vessels, aircraft, and any other form of intel gathering. Losing a major radar hurts, but it isn't game breaking, and it's definitely something that a standard ship can do without.

The constant comments about scale make me think there's some sort of disconnect between ships and SHIPS that both sides are talking about. Anything filling up less than an entire screen, is not big enough to need to be a multipurpose vessel. But naval games get more interesting if a handful of ships are that big, with the other 95% being small fries which people are arguing should only have 1 purpose (and I agree with them entirely)

You can scale it up. Four battleships, four AA-boats and 8 gunships gives you still the same result. You could also add some subs or torpedo boats, but since they can't fight gunships they'd don't change much except for being destroyed or just watch.

Firstly my unequal distribution on forces is intended, since I wanted to show, that a cheap attacking force may destroy much more expensive ships, if you have to use a dedicated counter-unit.
Instead I used even costs in both options. I chose the cost of the battleships and AA-boat in a way, that the option 1 cost the same as option 2. Using a large/stronger/more expensive AA-boat or even 2 small AA-boats wouldn't make the results easily comparable.

- arbitrary: Regarding numbers I didn't used a dice to determine these numbers. If you could specify what numbers seems arbitrary and implausible to you, I'd try to explain why I chose them. Also this example isn't dependent on exactly these numbers, they have some margin of error which doesn't change the result to much.
Regarding scenario I didn't wanted to come up with something abstract, so I chose this specific scenario. But it's possible to make it more abstract, so it isn't arbitrary anymore.
- biased: I wrote somehow biased because I had to make a choice which of the many possible scenarios I use. And of course I didn't use a scenario where the outcome didn't change, because it's boring and doesn't contains the effects I'd like to show. Being not biased would either mean describe all possible scenarios (bad) or using a abstract approach, which I somehow did in my second post.
- overall balance: one AA-boat destroys one gunship; four gunships destroy one battleship. Whats so wrong with that?
- more gunships: my example still works. battleship with AA can destroy up to 3 gunships without being destroyed. 4 or more gunships will destroy it, however it still performs better than the AA-boat because it destroys 2 out of 4 gunships before it sinks while the AA-boat only destroys 0 out of 4. Changing stats (well, if not by 200% or so) doesn't change too much.

Sorry if my sentence was unclear, but wasn't talking about the radar-boat in this context, but of a AA- or depth-charge-boat.

It's actually a common thing you see in RTS games. If you have two units that can each target one type of enemy, and your enemy brings two units that can each target both of your units, he will practically always win.

That's the problem with dedicated anti-ground and anti-air ships. Someone who brings all air, or all ship, will always defeat you.

But it's a more generic problem than just what is mentioned here.