From Chris: A Revised Revised Ship Triangle (With Extensions)

[x4000]

Sweet!

This thread is a great example of what I mean in that an idea has a short leash but is allowed to wander. Now I feel this issue, in my eyes at least, is pretty clear where before it all started I was so confused I had no idea how to tackle it.

The current chart is great. It is not perfect (both demolition and specialists are hit upon two of the three triangle ships. For demolition that is ok but poor specialists are really going to be finicky) but I would consider it a vast improvement over what we started with.

This sums up my own feelings pretty perfectly, too.

[x4000]

Okay, I've actually updated the document to include all this stuff now.

[Aeson]

2. Bombers have been moved out of the core triangle, because frankly you're not bombing stuff that moves.

I don't particularly care what the anti-capital ship role is called, but I think "bomber" is more appropriate than "siege;" there's plenty of historical examples of bombers being used to make bombing attacks against mobile targets using traditional unguided bombs, and there's plenty of historical examples of bombers designed to use traditional unguided bombs to attack mobile targets. Siege equipment, by contrast, is a category of equipment which is almost exclusively intended for use against immobile targets such as fortifications, and often suffers from a severe lack of mobility and significant issues hitting anything mobile due to the cumbersome nature of the weapons.

[Chthon]

Wait! Siege? We have catapults now? What about trebuchets? Will we anchor them on a planet? Do they have enough force to escape the planetary pull? Will we be able to launch anomalous objects into the sun?

[Vyndicu]

Wait! Siege? We have catapults now? What about trebuchets? Will we anchor them on a planet? Do they have enough force to escape the planetary pull? Will we be able to launch anomalous objects into the sun?

There is always the magnetic railgun version of siege!

http://science.howstuffworks.com/rail-gun1.htm

[Chthon]

Wait! Siege? We have catapults now? What about trebuchets? Will we anchor them on a planet? Do they have enough force to escape the planetary pull? Will we be able to launch anomalous objects into the sun?

There is always the magnetic railgun version of siege!

http://science.howstuffworks.com/rail-gun1.htm

Bah, you can't go medieval with that and yell, "Into the giant fiery orb with ye!" :/

[Vyndicu]

Wait! Siege? We have catapults now? What about trebuchets? Will we anchor them on a planet? Do they have enough force to escape the planetary pull? Will we be able to launch anomalous objects into the sun?

There is always the magnetic railgun version of siege!

http://science.howstuffworks.com/rail-gun1.htm

Bah, you can't go medieval with that and yell, "Into the giant fiery orb with ye!" :/

Just think of it as a modern crossbow using magnetic energy.

Beside using medieval analog weapons in space isn't practical as you think to be honest with you.

Most medieval siege weapons are designed to hit a stationary target fairly close up.

Nevermind the problem most medieval siege weapons would have with recoil plus other issues. The Russia tested-fire an essentially "rifle" in space and it shake the entire space station.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salyut_3#On-board_gun

I won't go too much into other reason why medieval siege weapons won't work in space like air drag and gravity giving you the projectile arc you want.

I totally get what you are saying. I just happened to be a space tech nerd.

[Diazo]

Unfortunately I missed this thread when it was created and realize the discussion has moved on, but having read through it I do have one thought.

Basically, why is Specialist it's own hull type?

(Following unit names/abilities from AI War Classic, not as used in the Design Doc.)

The Parasite? That should be a Tac-Sup hull that trades it's damage for the Parasite ability.

The Flagship (basic starship) would be a Capital Ship hull that again gives up some damage for the munitions boost ability.

Zenith Bombardment (maybe not actually a Specialist) is a Siege Hull with a long-range, slow ROF shot.

There is already the split hull/attack type in place for Captial Ships/turrets, just extend this so that "specialist" ships have a Base Hull Type and then an 'attack' of whatever their specialist ability is?

D.

[Draco18s]

Basically, why is Specialist it's own hull type?

It's not a hull type, it's a role.  "Fighter" not "Adamantine Plate Mail"

[Diazo]

Well, using Hull Type is perhaps a carry over from AIWC, but I though it made my point.

In short, the role chart on the first page is already acknowledged as something that is more of a guideline then a set in stone requirement with the split attack/defense roles that capital ships and turrets are going to have.

So take that a step farther, 'specialist' is not a valid defensive (hull type) role, only an offensive role.

So something like a Swallower would be a Capital Ship defensively, but offensively would be a Specilist and probably would not even have an Impact (attack) stat as it's actual attack is swallowing smaller ships.

(I am aware swallowers have been removed, I'm illustrating my point.)

D.

[Cyborg]

Well, using Hull Type is perhaps a carry over from AIWC, but I though it made my point.

In short, the role chart on the first page is already acknowledged as something that is more of a guideline then a set in stone requirement with the split attack/defense roles that capital ships and turrets are going to have.

So take that a step farther, 'specialist' is not a valid defensive (hull type) role, only an offensive role.

So something like a Swallower would be a Capital Ship defensively, but offensively would be a Specilist and probably would not even have an Impact (attack) stat as it's actual attack is swallowing smaller ships.

(I am aware swallowers have been removed, I'm illustrating my point.)

D.

Welcome back.

[Diazo]

Welcome back.

Thank you.

Things are finally settling down after everything that's happened recently (my second daughter joining us, my older daughter starting preschool, moving to a bigger house, just life really) and I am going to actually have gametime on my computer again when I booted up AIWC to play a game and saw the AIW2 news.

I'm going to contribute what I can, I'm catching up on all the other threads right now, but haven't found something else yet that I felt I could contribute to.

One thing I haven't seen yet is a thread on is early/mid/late game differences. This would perhaps be the biggest thing I was to discuss, but I'm not sure development is at a point where that discussion can happen.

Yikes, just checked my profile, over 2 years since I've been active here. 

D.

[Cinth]

Glad you're sticking around D.  I'm sure you'll be a great help in getting stuff balanced.

If there is something you feel is worth talking about, start a thread.  Get the conversation started.  It can only really help things in the long term

[Cyborg]

Welcome back.

Thank you.

Things are finally settling down after everything that's happened recently (my second daughter joining us, my older daughter starting preschool, moving to a bigger house, just life really) and I am going to actually have gametime on my computer again when I booted up AIWC to play a game and saw the AIW2 news.

I'm going to contribute what I can, I'm catching up on all the other threads right now, but haven't found something else yet that I felt I could contribute to.

One thing I haven't seen yet is a thread on is early/mid/late game differences. This would perhaps be the biggest thing I was to discuss, but I'm not sure development is at a point where that discussion can happen.

Yikes, just checked my profile, over 2 years since I've been active here. 

D.

Do you have all the expansions for classic? You may not remember, but we played multiplayer before with Spikey. It would be fun to try one of the newer campaigns.

[Diazo]

@Cinth Plan to stick around as long as I can.

I'll certainly comment where I think it's meaningful, why I made my first comment here where I'm using my AIWC experience to directly make my point. It's been a couple years so I'd like to get a game or two back under my belt before I get too detailed.

@Cyborg I've got up to Destroyer of Worlds which I'm pretty sure is the last expansion. (?)

As for getting a game going I'm not going to put myself out there for it yet, my schedule may have eased up so I have playtime, but I don't have anything resembling a schedule and my playtime is all over the place. (And usually short notice.)

D.