We can haz new blueprintz?

Maybe a few new ship classes?

Ok, so now that I've discovered it would be a huge amount of effort to add in new blueprints for every faction myself, I thought I'd try to sell Stardock and my fellow gamers on the idea that some new blueprints might be good additions to Crusade. Here's what I was thinking of, just a few ideas based on my gameplay experience:

1) Cargo-hull combat variants: because of the way combat works, you don't have to waste military hulls on combat support ships and carriers. Auxilliary Carriers and Auxilliary Support Ships are useful in battle, and cheaper than their hit-point-having counterparts.

2) SWACs, aka 'sensor barges,' aka 'electronic scouts' aka 'scouts'*: these ships are mostly or all sensors. I usually have one based on a Cargo hull (my standard SWAC), and one based on a Huge hull (the fabled 'Eye of Sauron'). They are very important, especially on large maps where situational awareness is especially vital.

3) Fleet Scouts and Auxilliary Fleet Scouts: why does every ship have to have sensors on it? A Medium- or Cargo Hull can carry more sensors, and can stack with the fleet, increasing its sensor range and saving valuable volume for weapons on the rest of the ships in the fleet.

4) Sloops (aka cutters, aka fast frigates): especially on large maps, speed is important. I typically have a small cadre of sloops, which are about twice as fast as normal ships. These do 'cavalry' jobs, like intercepting intruders and running around behind enemy lines blowing up asteroid bases. Because Tiny hulls are generally useless, these are usually Small- or Medium hulled.

Also, in general, all warship blueprints need more engines (I'd argue, fewer sensors and life support, too). There is no use for a speed 6 ship on an Insane map! It is basically a weak starbase.

 

* A SWAC is a scout; a 'physical scout' just moves faster farther and has less sensor range, but they both do the same job: locating objects in space.

11,719 views 9 replies
Reply #1 Top

If I may add a suggestion, all of the warship blueprints need a complete overhaul for just one sole reason; Ship Roles.

Specifically, that the present blueprints are quite obviously a legacy from GC2. They're calibrated to update the default designs with the latest Techs that the player has researched, which worked well enough in the old game when targeting was based on the number of weapons each ship was carrying... but in GC3, that means AI ships can't take advantage of Ship Roles like players can.

The Escort-Capital fleet composition is just the most basic of examples. For my part, I've designed entire lines of custom warships over all four types of Ship Roles for the Terrans, which is why a single fleet of my custom ships - properly assembled - can knock down multiple enemy fleets before dying, if ever (It also means I can't play any other faction than Terrans because I can't bear to go back to the default designs, unless I buckle down to replicate my designs for the other factions, and that's hard work).

The AI needs blueprints tailored to each Role, and to know how to put them together in an effective 'combined arms' fleet composition. I can put up some examples of my designs later today, if it'll help.

Reply #2 Top

Quoting Ascaloth, reply 1

If I may add a suggestion, all of the warship blueprints need a complete overhaul for just one sole reason; Ship Roles.

I considered adding this:

5) Wild Weasels (escorts): ships intended to draw fire away from the main force.

 

Another common problem with the blueprints is speed. The AI doesn't use enough engines!

Reply #3 Top

Quoting Ascaloth, reply 1

The Escort-Capital fleet composition is just the most basic of examples. For my part, I've designed entire lines of custom warships over all four types of Ship Roles for the Terrans, which is why a single fleet of my custom ships - properly assembled - can knock down multiple enemy fleets before dying, if ever (It also means I can't play any other faction than Terrans because I can't bear to go back to the default designs, unless I buckle down to replicate my designs for the other factions, and that's hard work).

Maybe a tool to 'replicate' your designs to all factions may be of use.

Let me know what needs to be done and I'll see what I can do.

 

 

Reply #4 Top

Quoting treborblue, reply 3

Maybe a tool to 'replicate' your designs to all factions may be of use.

Let me know what needs to be done and I'll see what I can do.

 

Much appreciated! Okay, in that case, I'll take this opportunity to share my examples of what I've been talking about in this thread. Feel free to download these designs, and see for yourself;

Medium

Capital

Nagato
Nevada
Warspite

Escort

Izumo
Chester
Hawkins

Guardian

Fubuki
Fletcher
Opportune

 

Cargo

Carriers

Akagi
Enterprise
Implacable

Fleet Defense Support

Ashizuri
Sacramento
Unicorn

 

Large

Capital

Yamato
Iowa
Vanguard

Escort

Takao
Ticonderoga
Norfolk

Guardian

Yukikaze
Kidd
Daring

Support (Carriers)

Taiho
Midway
Audacious

 

Huge

Capital

Dreadnought

Escort

Aegis

Guardian

Zumwalt

Support (Carriers)

Nimitz

 

No, these are not all of the designs I've come up with; I have others for utility ships, but I chose these to illustrate my point about Ship Roles. Yes, my version of Dreadnought is based on the Ship Design Contest winner - give me a break, that was too cool to not use. Yes, only Nimitz and Zumwalt are truly my own designs, and the rest are just default designs with components tacked on to my specifications; again, the point is not unique ship designs, it's all about how ships can be designed to cater to their respective Ship Roles.


If anyone has questions on why I built my ships the way I did, feel free to ask.

Reply #5 Top

Quoting Ascaloth, reply 4

I'll take this opportunity to share my examples of what I've been talking about in this thread

Since the thread wasn't being used for what it was meant to do anyway, I just thought I'd slip in that that is a nice set of ship names. At first I thought you had just high-graded a history of 20th Century seapower. However, in most cases, the ships come in neat sets: 'last battleships,' 'broad-fronted crusiers,' 'armored carriers,' etc. My one criticism: while it is a perfectly fine name for a ship or a class of ships, there is no Aegis class in service, nor has there been at any time in the 20th Century. The Aegis air defense system has been installed on numerous ships, including the Ticonderoga-, Burke-, and Kongo-classes, and coming soon to a Chinese destroyer near you, but it is a system, not a ship. It is irrelevant, though... still a good name for a ship...

Reply #6 Top

Quoting General, reply 5

My one criticism: while it is a perfectly fine name for a ship or a class of ships, there is no Aegis class in service, nor has there been at any time in the 20th Century. The Aegis air defense system has been installed on numerous ships, including the Ticonderoga-, Burke-, and Kongo-classes, and coming soon to a Chinese destroyer near you, but it is a system, not a ship.

Yes, I'm aware of that. And it's not for lack of effort in research, for what it's worth. It's just that cruisers kind of... stop being a thing after the Ticonderoga-class. The closest equivalent I could find was the Kirov-class, and that's not part of the three most-influential navies I used for the basis of my ship name sets.

So I decided fuck it, let's go with Aegis after the BMD system. Doesn't hurt it comes with a badass Latin motto I could use in the description, too.  :D

Reply #7 Top

Quoting Ascaloth, reply 6

It's just that cruisers kind of... stop being a thing after the Ticonderoga-class.

Actually, the Ticonderoga is an anomaly, the classification 'cruiser' is retained primarily for tradition, and because the ship carries the group air defense commander. The Ticonderogas were built on destroyer hulls; the last large surface combatants produced were the Soviet Raketny Kreyser types, culminating in the Kirov class.

I would have used Kongo... it is a) almost the size of a Ticonderoga, b) Japanese

Reply #8 Top

Quoting General, reply 7

Actually, the Ticonderoga is an anomaly, the classification 'cruiser' is retained primarily for tradition, and because the ship carries the group air defense commander. The Ticonderogas were built on destroyer hulls; the last large surface combatants produced were the Soviet Raketny Kreyser types, culminating in the Kirov class.


I would have used Kongo... it is a) almost the size of a Ticonderoga, B) Japanese

I know the Tic was built on a Spruance hull, but my thinking was 'fuck it, whatever, I'll go along with it'. My name choices weren't intended to be entirely reflective of actual naval history; it's as much Rule of Cool as anything.  :-"

 

As for Kongo, I did consider it. Problem was I'd then have to justify to myself why I'd designated Kongo as a Huge when the Tic is only a Large. Also, I already used that name; I actually have three more Medium designs, fitted with sublight engines and designated as Interceptors. They were Kongo, Saratoga and Invincible respectively, after the WWII battlecruisers.

Reply #9 Top

Quoting Ascaloth, reply 8

Kongo, Saratoga and Invincible respectively, after the WWII battlecruisers

WWI... by the time you get to WWII, two are carriers and one is a battleship. Sorry, anal-retentive!

Quoting Ascaloth, reply 8

'fuck it, whatever, I'll go along with it'.

I wholeheartedly agree. Just name them what you want, and don't sweat it. Enjoy the game and all that! :)