Author Topic: From Chris: A Revised Revised Ship Triangle (With Extensions)  (Read 4263 times)

Offline Cinth

  • Core Member Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,527
  • Resident Zombie
Re: From Chris: A Revised Revised Ship Triangle (With Extensions)
« Reply #15 on: September 21, 2016, 05:33:56 PM »
Hm! Very interesting. Depending on where the units fall here I might suggest inverting the triangle...

I respectfully disagree.  Wouldn't make much sense for siege units to be good against infantry. ;)

Mechanically, Siege is likely to be a decent anti structure unit also (Not to the point Bombers are).  Some Siege units might even get some AoE.


Looks good!

Also, while Leviathans sound cool, they also imply size, which is sizist against the Hunter-Killer. I'd go with "Superweapons".

But that's part of what makes H/Ks so terrifying. They have Leaviathian power packed into a Capital Ship size frame!

There is going to be a LOT of power variance in the Leviathan category.
Quote from: keith.lamothe
Opened your save. My computer wept. Switched to the ST planet and ship icons filled my screen, so I zoomed out. Game told me that it _was_ totally zoomed out. You could seriously walk from one end of the inner grav well to the other without getting your feet cold.

Offline TheHive

  • Newbie Mark II
  • *
  • Posts: 10
Re: From Chris: A Revised Revised Ship Triangle (With Extensions)
« Reply #16 on: September 21, 2016, 06:04:52 PM »
Okay, so this?  This still has specialists getting a bonus against siege, and tac-sup getting a bonus against specialists, which in the end might be good.  It just renames black ops to specialists and removes anything from having a bonus against leviathan.



The problem with this, as I understand it is that Demolition > Siege. Demolition and Siege both are good against capital ships, and lose to Tactical Superiority, but Demolition is also good against structures. Demolition also probably would have better defense against structures than Siege. Also, Demolition isn't weak to Specialists while Siege is.

Essentially, Demolition has one weakness and two strengths, while siege has two weaknesses and one strength. Siege kind of seems like Demolition's little brother no-one likes.

More abstract things like "long-range" are harder to factor in, as are extent of multipliers (all that could be figured out later). Still, the note kind of implies that Demolition normally is weaker than Siege, which could balance it out, but I feel like the Siege category and Demolition category from this build aren't really distinct besides "we want them to be."

While this sort of goes against the Leviathan isolation idea, having Siege be good against Leviathans gives it a unique role (although its possible that that is done is a less "damage multiplier" type way but instead longer range+kiting or something makes them strong).

Offline Cinth

  • Core Member Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,527
  • Resident Zombie
Re: From Chris: A Revised Revised Ship Triangle (With Extensions)
« Reply #17 on: September 21, 2016, 06:25:45 PM »
The problem with this, as I understand it is that Demolition > Siege. Demolition and Siege both are good against capital ships, and lose to Tactical Superiority, but Demolition is also good against structures. Demolition also probably would have better defense against structures than Siege. Also, Demolition isn't weak to Specialists while Siege is.

Essentially, Demolition has one weakness and two strengths, while siege has two weaknesses and one strength. Siege kind of seems like Demolition's little brother no-one likes.

More abstract things like "long-range" are harder to factor in, as are extent of multipliers (all that could be figured out later). Still, the note kind of implies that Demolition normally is weaker than Siege, which could balance it out, but I feel like the Siege category and Demolition category from this build aren't really distinct besides "we want them to be."

While this sort of goes against the Leviathan isolation idea, having Siege be good against Leviathans gives it a unique role (although its possible that that is done is a less "damage multiplier" type way but instead longer range+kiting or something makes them strong).


Stats aside, making the Siege and Demo units different is a design issue.  But let's take that and make an example out of it?

Lets Compare the Z Electric Bomber and the Z Bombardment Ship.

The Z Bomber is a Demo ship.  That's easy enough.  Now lets look at the Zombard.  It's a long ranged unit that's great at tearing stuff up.  That's a Siege unit.  Yeah, they can do the same sorts of things and are countered by the same sorts of things, but the Siege unit should be better at fighting counters than the Demo.  If the Demos are like bees (sting once and die), the Siege units can be wasp (full of fight until the end). 
Quote from: keith.lamothe
Opened your save. My computer wept. Switched to the ST planet and ship icons filled my screen, so I zoomed out. Game told me that it _was_ totally zoomed out. You could seriously walk from one end of the inner grav well to the other without getting your feet cold.

Offline Vyndicu

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 319
Re: From Chris: A Revised Revised Ship Triangle (With Extensions)
« Reply #18 on: September 21, 2016, 07:01:01 PM »
Where do the neinzul if any form of them come back (especially stuff like NCC/Enclave carrier, neinzul railgun) fall on this current triangle? All into Specialist? That would be difficult to work with if you ever plan to turn neinzul into a full fledge player race if tactical superiority will always win.

I supposed you could always give neinzul enough capital ships to make up for that.



What about units that has some indirect bonus against specific Leviathan classes? Otherwise we might be tempted to field ONLY tactical superiority (against demolition) and Leviathan for everything else! All while pretending capital ship and siege don't exist as a build-able option.

Example: units that are immune to reclamation damage against botnet golem? armor rotter against armored golem? etc... While one on one they will lose badly but with enough of them you lose less.

Perhaps a third triangle build around countering Leviathan class to a lesser degree than the core triangle?

Offline kasnavada

  • Hero Member Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 911
Re: From Chris: A Revised Revised Ship Triangle (With Extensions)
« Reply #19 on: September 21, 2016, 07:06:55 PM »
Errrr... I'm going to be the bitching guy, again. Sorry if I hurt feelings here.

Starships / capital ship / whatever the name being their own category makes no sense to me. It's not because it's bigger that it's role have to be to kill small stuff... and that's it. And, that category will be feeling very, very empty after a short while. There is not going to be a billion ways to kill fighters.

It's probably going to sound dumb, but the concept of the triangle is good, just... this category should be called "Anti-air" or something. It's sooooo limiting to have them as starships only. And my opinion is that starships should be whatever they want, demolition, specialists... They're going to be all over the place anyway. I don't care if they're copy-paste of fighters with "kill fighters" bonus only, like them being faster... but there's a limit to what can be done for triangling stuff. The usual is cavalry / archery / infantry. That comes back to them being blitzers.


I'm also concerned about Demolition bomber having the same arrow toward Siege, because it DOES make them strictly superior to anything in the siege territory. Given the choice, as a player, I know I will need something that takes care of every category, including structures. Given the choice, I'd take some tac-sup, some demolition, and "cap ships".

But if I do so what's above, there is a distinct lack of roles for other things in the triangle... let's move the arrow back to "killing big stuff".

Last, specialists.
Arrows there are also annoying me from a conceptual point of view. Specialist may or not have a counter depending on what they are, but tying their strengths & weakness to a category... does not feel right to me. Actually, I think that in practice, the designs there will ignore the arrows in practice. My opinions is therefore: let's remove them.

So... that would change the triangle to... the image in copy.


PS: If there is an acronym you want the explanation to, the answer probably is: Anti-Space Superiority. 'Cause, as I envision it, it's the stuff that'll rush you first as you try to take a planet.
PS2: now that I see the graph in addition to cavalry / infantry / archer above, maybe the arrows in the triangle needs reversing. And blitz kill big stuff. ::)
« Last Edit: September 21, 2016, 07:23:29 PM by kasnavada »

Offline Cinth

  • Core Member Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,527
  • Resident Zombie
Re: From Chris: A Revised Revised Ship Triangle (With Extensions)
« Reply #20 on: September 21, 2016, 07:33:01 PM »
Where do the neinzul if any form of them come back (especially stuff like NCC/Enclave carrier, neinzul railgun) fall on this current triangle? All into Specialist? That would be difficult to work with if you ever plan to turn neinzul into a full fledge player race if tactical superiority will always win.

I supposed you could always give neinzul enough capital ships to make up for that.

Neinzul is still on the drawing board, but I have an interesting concept to work off of there.  They will fit into whatever the "finalized" unit triangle is though.

Quote
What about units that has some indirect bonus against specific Leviathan classes? Otherwise we might be tempted to field ONLY tactical superiority (against demolition) and Leviathan for everything else! All while pretending capital ship and siege don't exist as a build-able option.

Example: units that are immune to reclamation damage against botnet golem? armor rotter against armored golem? etc... While one on one they will lose badly but with enough of them you lose less.

Perhaps a third triangle build around countering Leviathan class to a lesser degree than the core triangle?

You'll run out of fighters before to long ;)  You're going to want Capitols and Siege units are likely to be some of the best non-Tac-Sup units.
Leviathans are going to require a combined arms approach in all likelihood.  Unless you play as the Spire.

Quote from: keith.lamothe
Opened your save. My computer wept. Switched to the ST planet and ship icons filled my screen, so I zoomed out. Game told me that it _was_ totally zoomed out. You could seriously walk from one end of the inner grav well to the other without getting your feet cold.

Offline x4000

  • Chris Park, Arcen Games Founder and Lead Designer
  • Administrator
  • Zenith Council Member Mark III
  • *****
  • Posts: 31,086
Re: From Chris: A Revised Revised Ship Triangle (With Extensions)
« Reply #21 on: September 21, 2016, 08:29:42 PM »
Quote
Essentially, Demolition has one weakness and two strengths, while siege has two weaknesses and one strength. Siege kind of seems like Demolition's little brother no-one likes.

The numbers would have to be shored up, but basically my intent was to make demolition superficially good against capital ships so that they have a bit of a role outside of just bombing structures.

But bombing structures is IMPORTANT, so letting demolition just have those alone (and not the capital ship bonus as well) would make more sense.  It would just declutter things in general, too.

Quote
More abstract things like "long-range" are harder to factor in, as are extent of multipliers (all that could be figured out later).


Agreed.  I had planned on that being the differentiating factor, but it just isn't something that can be easily grasped at a high level, which makes it pretty much a Bad Idea.

Quote
While this sort of goes against the Leviathan isolation idea, having Siege be good against Leviathans gives it a unique role (although its possible that that is done is a less "damage multiplier" type way but instead longer range+kiting or something makes them strong).

I'm so tempted to give them a role against leviathans in general, but I think that would make the leviathans less scary and potentially put too much weight on certain types of army composition when leviathans are around.  I want your general fleet mix to not be too dependent on a big baddie showing up, but instead based around the generalized battlefield.

Quote
Where do the neinzul if any form of them come back (especially stuff like NCC/Enclave carrier, neinzul railgun) fall on this current triangle? All into Specialist? That would be difficult to work with if you ever plan to turn neinzul into a full fledge player race if tactical superiority will always win.

I supposed you could always give neinzul enough capital ships to make up for that.

They also won't be part of what you can just unlock as part of the main human faction.  They MAY be their own faction that you can play after all, but either way you'd be able to get their stuff as a reward for interacting with them as a minor faction in certain ways.  So basically it becomes some of those "lower frequency but over-powered" ships that you can get through gameplay, and lose access to through gameplay, rather than a core staple like they used to be (possibility of playable Neinzul aside).

Quote
What about units that has some indirect bonus against specific Leviathan classes? Otherwise we might be tempted to field ONLY tactical superiority (against demolition) and Leviathan for everything else! All while pretending capital ship and siege don't exist as a build-able option.

Aheh.  To be clear, you won't really be having much in the way of leviathan class yourself.  If you do, it's something you found or bartered for (think golems).

Also, you'd never be tempted to field just any one unit, because of ship caps.

Quote
Example: units that are immune to reclamation damage against botnet golem? armor rotter against armored golem? etc... While one on one they will lose badly but with enough of them you lose less.

Those sorts of things are basically specialists inside whatever their larger role is.  So you might find that the armor rotter is very very good about some specific leviathan class ships... but mainly in terms of opening that up for the rest of the forces of yours to actually do damage.  That would likely be a specialist, but theoretically special abilities from any of the triangle areas could be used to skew things in special ways.

Basically that's looking at the design higher up, where we see "okay this one ship has a special ability that would be useful in this specific circumstance," which is a key part of AI War and not going anywhere.  That's a layer up, though, and is basically when someone goes "above and beyond their general role."  It's basically your accountant makes an awesome pizza, which is really irrelevant most of the time, but during pizza day at the office suddenly he's a hero.  But normally you think of him as the accountant, not the pizza-maker-guy.

That analogy was odd, but hopefully it makes sense. ;)

Quote
Errrr... I'm going to be the bitching guy, again. Sorry if I hurt feelings here.

You're not hurting my feelings by stating a contrary point of view, and a lot of people (including you) change my mind all the time.  Multiple times today, in fact.  That doesn't mean it's going to happen every time, though.

Quote
Starships / capital ship / whatever the name being their own category makes no sense to me. It's not because it's bigger that it's role have to be to kill small stuff... and that's it. And, that category will be feeling very, very empty after a short while. There is not going to be a billion ways to kill fighters.

We're talking about the most base level here, not getting into larger powers and so forth.  Usually capital ships are going to be some sort of force multiplier themselves, or have something else special about them.  Them not feeling epic is really not something I'm worried about.

Thinking about space movies, in particular Star Wars in this particular case, there's a lot of precedent for the bigger centerpiece ships having a more central role in general combat.  This will open up a lot of interesting things for us to do above and beyond their base abilities (refer to the accountant pizza guy above to see what I mean by that).

Quote
It's probably going to sound dumb, but the concept of the triangle is good, just... this category should be called "Anti-air" or something. It's sooooo limiting to have them as starships only.

It's really not limiting at all.  It makes perfect sense, since the starships would actually wreck a whole lot of things outside the core triangle.  I just realized that's not really reflected on the chart (fixed that in this post now).  But these things are expensive centerpieces, and have a much bigger role than just anti-air.  The tactical superiority role really is very superior, in that it takes some expensive hunks of junk from you or the enemy to counter them without taking heavy losses.

Quote
Last, specialists.
Arrows there are also annoying me from a conceptual point of view. Specialist may or not have a counter depending on what they are, but tying their strengths & weakness to a category... does not feel right to me. Actually, I think that in practice, the designs there will ignore the arrows in practice. My opinions is therefore: let's remove them.

I had been mulling the same thing, and you're right.  Those are too oddball to get any special bonuses or penalties.  Graph in this post is updated to show that.

Have ideas or bug reports for one of our games?  Mantis for Suggestions and Bug Reports. Thanks for helping to make our games better!

Offline chemical_art

  • Core Member Mark IV
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,946
  • Fabulous
Re: From Chris: A Revised Revised Ship Triangle (With Extensions)
« Reply #22 on: September 21, 2016, 10:18:36 PM »
Okay, so this?  This still has specialists getting a bonus against siege, and tac-sup getting a bonus against specialists, which in the end might be good.  It just renames black ops to specialists and removes anything from having a bonus against leviathan.



This chart I feel is a better explanation of the various combat triangles. Tac sup is strong against all but capital and leviathans. Siege as a class meant to counter capital ships. capital ships exist to counter tac sup.

There are a few nuances to the graph I might add. Both siege and specialist could have a dashed arrow toward levithian, for I could feel a few ships in both classes could counter that group. Zenith devastator as a siege unit and impulse emitter as a specialist unit. Do I expect those units exactly to fit into AIW2, no. (I will plead the devastator to make a comeback. It is my baby. I do know some babies must be killed though.) But I do think they are examples of how siege unit may always counter capital ships, but sometimes mix into the leviathan class as well.

Regarding structures as a design philosophy I imagine we are on the same page but for clarity I will say this: For their cost they are stronger in almost any category aside from movement compared to any ship (perhaps except a leviathan, but in that difference in power it is a moot point.) However, they all specialize in a different way to deal with any class [including leviathan]. They are jack of all trades as a structure but certainly not mediocre because of it.
Life is short. Have fun.

Offline kasnavada

  • Hero Member Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 911
Re: From Chris: A Revised Revised Ship Triangle (With Extensions)
« Reply #23 on: September 22, 2016, 01:42:19 AM »
Quote
    Starships / capital ship / whatever the name being their own category makes no sense to me. It's not because it's bigger that it's role have to be to kill small stuff... and that's it. And, that category will be feeling very, very empty after a short while. There is not going to be a billion ways to kill fighters.

We're talking about the most base level here, not getting into larger powers and so forth.  Usually capital ships are going to be some sort of force multiplier themselves, or have something else special about them.  Them not feeling epic is really not something I'm worried about.
Thinking about space movies, in particular Star Wars in this particular case, there's a lot of precedent for the bigger centerpiece ships having a more central role in general combat.  This will open up a lot of interesting things for us to do above and beyond their base abilities (refer to the accountant pizza guy above to see what I mean by that).

Ummm, Star Wars is kinda of the center piece for "big ships are useless against small ones", to the point that the biggest space station ever doesn't even have flak cannons. Another HUGE design issue (ignoring the torpedo window install kill thingy). The most epic fights I had though would have been Freespace & Freespace 2. Both of which, incidentally, also figure into the "large ships can't hit small ones, we need to keep scores of fighters for safety". Sorry there, I'm not getting the same vibe.

Thing is, I keep rereading this comment from Pumpkin in my head during the entire night, and I think he's right.

Quote
I'm sorry, Chris. Every time you come up with a new role-space splitting, I don't understand it.
"Tactical superiority"? "Black ops"? What are those roles? What is their strength? What will be their average stats?
Could you, for example, rate with -, = and + the average stats (range, speed, damage, health) and give some emblematic perks for your proposed classes?
To which you answered...
Quote
That has no relevance to anything at all, for the most part.

Now, I may be out of place speaking for Pumpkin, but I think his point was to remove damage bonus to give more "natural" superiority to ships themselves. In order to make their base stats the triangle rather than relying the "damage multiplier" thingy. Coming back (again) to cavalry / infantry / archers...

Let's say infantry has a base 100.
Cavalry ships would have 75 damage, 75 hit points, 300 speed => They naturally lose to infantry if rushing in.
Archer units would have 300 range, 50 damage, 50 life and kite behaviour => Naturally win to infantry, get rushed by cavalry and die.
(nitpicker alert: numbers subject to be balanced)

=> By itself, ships that respect those guidelines by a rather large margin (possibly up to 25% ?) will fit in different roles, which is a triangle in itself.
=> How it works is very intuitive, and provides guidelines for modders.
=> Basically those could even be templates added to ships, "reducing / augmenting" the number of ships (could be a bad idea, Misery would probably hate me for this one if in the game).

PS: let's not bring in Mongols in here, mounted archery are superweapons.
PS2: probably other "triangles" could work.


PS3 : Anti-leviathan ? I thought the arrow to counter those made sense there. But it's true that basically a player will throw anything he can at it, if only in the hope that its non-specialized ships get shot instead of the ones that have the bonus against it.
« Last Edit: September 22, 2016, 01:45:25 AM by kasnavada »

Offline chemical_art

  • Core Member Mark IV
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,946
  • Fabulous
Re: From Chris: A Revised Revised Ship Triangle (With Extensions)
« Reply #24 on: September 22, 2016, 01:53:34 AM »
Quote
    Starships / capital ship / whatever the name being their own category makes no sense to me. It's not because it's bigger that it's role have to be to kill small stuff... and that's it. And, that category will be feeling very, very empty after a short while. There is not going to be a billion ways to kill fighters.

We're talking about the most base level here, not getting into larger powers and so forth.  Usually capital ships are going to be some sort of force multiplier themselves, or have something else special about them.  Them not feeling epic is really not something I'm worried about.
Thinking about space movies, in particular Star Wars in this particular case, there's a lot of precedent for the bigger centerpiece ships having a more central role in general combat.  This will open up a lot of interesting things for us to do above and beyond their base abilities (refer to the accountant pizza guy above to see what I mean by that).

Ummm, Star Wars is kinda of the center piece for "big ships are useless against small ones", to the point that the biggest space station ever doesn't even have flak cannons. Another HUGE design issue (ignoring the torpedo window install kill thingy). The most epic fights I had though would have been Freespace & Freespace 2. Both of which, incidentally, also figure into the "large ships can't hit small ones, we need to keep scores of fighters for safety". Sorry there, I'm not getting the same vibe.

Thing is, I keep rereading this comment from Pumpkin in my head during the entire night, and I think he's right.

Quote
I'm sorry, Chris. Every time you come up with a new role-space splitting, I don't understand it.
"Tactical superiority"? "Black ops"? What are those roles? What is their strength? What will be their average stats?
Could you, for example, rate with -, = and + the average stats (range, speed, damage, health) and give some emblematic perks for your proposed classes?
To which you answered...
Quote
That has no relevance to anything at all, for the most part.

Now, I may be out of place speaking for Pumpkin, but I think his point was to remove damage bonus to give more "natural" superiority to ships themselves. In order to make their base stats the triangle rather than relying the "damage multiplier" thingy. Coming back (again) to cavalry / infantry / archers...

Let's say infantry has a base 100.
Cavalry ships would have 75 damage, 75 hit points, 300 speed => They naturally lose to infantry if rushing in.
Archer units would have 300 range, 50 damage, 50 life and kite behaviour => Naturally win to infantry, get rushed by cavalry and die.
(nitpicker alert: numbers subject to be balanced)

=> By itself, ships that respect those guidelines by a rather large margin (possibly up to 25% ?) will fit in different roles, which is a triangle in itself.
=> How it works is very intuitive, and provides guidelines for modders.
=> Basically those could even be templates added to ships, "reducing / augmenting" the number of ships (could be a bad idea, Misery would probably hate me for this one if in the game).

PS: let's not bring in Mongols in here, mounted archery are superweapons.
PS2: probably other "triangles" could work.


PS3 : Anti-leviathan ? I thought the arrow to counter those made sense there. But it's true that basically a player will throw anything he can at it, if only in the hope that its non-specialized ships get shot instead of the ones that have the bonus against it.

Please rephrase this in a more succinct way please. There are a lot of tangents and arbitrary numbers that distract from what you mean I feel.
Life is short. Have fun.

Offline Pumpkin

  • Hero Member Mark III
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,195
  • Neinzul Gardener Enclave
Re: From Chris: A Revised Revised Ship Triangle (With Extensions)
« Reply #25 on: September 22, 2016, 02:03:54 AM »
I'm out.
Please excuse my english: I'm not a native speaker. Don't hesitate to correct me.
Pumpkin>> Do I need another cure about paranoia on top of overexcitement?
Mal>> We play AI War, enthusiasm and paranoia are both required!

Offline chemical_art

  • Core Member Mark IV
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,946
  • Fabulous
Re: From Chris: A Revised Revised Ship Triangle (With Extensions)
« Reply #26 on: September 22, 2016, 02:07:22 AM »
I'm out.

Please, do not. I do not mean to be a cheerleader. But in previous endeviours with Arcen I always thought to myself "This is not for me" and I later regretted it. Everyone's input is valuable.
Life is short. Have fun.

Offline Cinth

  • Core Member Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,527
  • Resident Zombie
Re: From Chris: A Revised Revised Ship Triangle (With Extensions)
« Reply #27 on: September 22, 2016, 02:09:36 AM »
Let's say infantry has a base 100.
Cavalry ships would have 75 damage, 75 hit points, 300 speed => They naturally lose to infantry if rushing in.
Archer units would have 300 range, 50 damage, 50 life and kite behavior => Naturally win to infantry, get rushed by cavalry and die.
(nitpicker alert: numbers subject to be balanced)

Actually, Archer beats both.
Quote from: keith.lamothe
Opened your save. My computer wept. Switched to the ST planet and ship icons filled my screen, so I zoomed out. Game told me that it _was_ totally zoomed out. You could seriously walk from one end of the inner grav well to the other without getting your feet cold.

Offline chemical_art

  • Core Member Mark IV
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,946
  • Fabulous
Re: From Chris: A Revised Revised Ship Triangle (With Extensions)
« Reply #28 on: September 22, 2016, 02:13:13 AM »
Let's say infantry has a base 100.
Cavalry ships would have 75 damage, 75 hit points, 300 speed => They naturally lose to infantry if rushing in.
Archer units would have 300 range, 50 damage, 50 life and kite behavior => Naturally win to infantry, get rushed by cavalry and die.
(nitpicker alert: numbers subject to be balanced)

Actually, Archer beats both.

I really hate the archer term, for it is so vague.

95% of the time archers lose to cavalry.

Yet cavalry seem to be such a vague term that you would think archers beat them.

I would rather ditch both names entirely.
Life is short. Have fun.

Offline Cinth

  • Core Member Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,527
  • Resident Zombie
Re: From Chris: A Revised Revised Ship Triangle (With Extensions)
« Reply #29 on: September 22, 2016, 02:16:29 AM »
I really hate the archer term, for it is so vague.

95% of the time archers lose to cavalry.

Yet cavalry seem to be such a vague term that you would think archers beat them.

I would rather ditch both names entirely.

Names are rather important in his example. 

Names aren't as important for the "classes" right now as everyone makes them out to be.  Figuring out a natural progression to things is however.
Quote from: keith.lamothe
Opened your save. My computer wept. Switched to the ST planet and ship icons filled my screen, so I zoomed out. Game told me that it _was_ totally zoomed out. You could seriously walk from one end of the inner grav well to the other without getting your feet cold.