GalCiv II: Size Matters

Part 1

Published on March 22, 2006 By Draginol In GalCiv Journals

When it comes to battles, size matters. To balance that, Galactic Civilizations II introduces the logistics concept.

The logistics concept was designed to prevent the age-old strategy game issue where each side just builds a single mongo fleet/army/whatever and wipes out everything in its path. The number of ships you can put into a fleet is hence limited by your logistics ability which you can research to improve. How many logistics a ship uses is based on hull size.

In Galactic Civilizations II v1.0 that was:

Tiny: 2 points of logistics
Small: 3
Medium: 4
Cargo: 5
Large: 5
Huge: 6

It was done this way to keep it simple for players. But here's the problem -- ship sizes. A tiny hulled ship has 16 space. A large hull has 55 space. That's over 3X as much space but the large only uses up 2.5X in logistics. Advantage: Large hulled ships. There are other factors involved too such as hit points and cost -- which are well balanced. But logistics are out of whack in our view.

So in v1.1, it's going to be this:

Tiny: 2
Small: 3
Medium: 4
Cargo: 4
Large: 7
Huge: 9

The various logistics techs will be pumped up too. The fact is, we want people to be able to build swarms of ships as a viable strategy. We also want people to be able to fixate on building huge capital ships as well. Now, the current system isn't horribly imbalanced by any means, the guy researching the larger hulls isn't able to put in time researching some mongo weapons.

If you go strictly by a spreadsheet, you can see plenty of imbalances depending on how you want to look at it and how nit-picky you want to be.

But I want to stress - the guy who's building huge ships had to go and research (or trade some equally valuable) technology to those huge hulls. They also had to put together the manufacturing capacity to create them and make the sacrifice of putting their marbles into a single ship rather than a bunch. In addition, there are various "round off" things that they have to deal with as well and many components, particularly defenses, take size into account when determining how much size they use.

Update:

After play testing during the evening and taking more into account things like starbase bonuses and the cost of getting those large hulled ships I made a minor tweak:

Tiny: 2
Small: 3
Medium: 4
Cargo: 5
Large: 6
Huge: 8

The Cargo hulls didn't need to come down because the new logistics abilities increase your logistics quite a bit. Before you would have 12 logistics after researching enhanced logistics. Now you'd have 15. You could hence fit 3 transports into a fleet at that stage versus 2 previously.

Comments (Page 3)

Frogboy

on Mar 23, 2006

Mascrinthus, no, I didn't "forget" that components size up on hull size. I mention it in the article:

Kalin

on Mar 23, 2006

But you are forgetting that the size of the ship components increases with the hull size. So huge hulls have LESS than twice as many components per unit of logistics compared to tiny hulls.

I'm sorry, have you TRIED this??? I know components scale up, but start up a game with full tech research (Battle of the Gods scenario), and put in the components, let's say... blackhole eruptors. Now, tell me how many you can fit on a tiny, versus how many you can fit on a huge...

Don't bother, I'll tell you:
On a tiny you can fit on 2 blackhole eruptor, or a total of 22 out of 32 space, each eruptor takes up 11 space.
On a huge, you can fit on 11 blackhole eruptor, for a total of 152 out of 160 space, each eruptor takes up 14 space.

Now, how many times the space is that again? I'll tell you, about 5 times. How in the world can you argue that it has less than twice the space? Yeah, it scales up, but not THAT much... (BTW, the reason the space is doubled is because of maxed miniturization).

Frankly, I don't even know why you are complaining about this, Brad added 20, yes TWENTY hull spaces to a huge, you should be thanking the man at least on this point alone. (it used to be 80, he made it 100... and you complain it's not enough? wow...)

Also when a huge capital ship engages a large fleet of light fighters, it may only target 1 fighter at a time. So no matter how much fire power it has it can only take out 1 fighter per round of fire. None of the fire power of the fleet of fighters is wasted attacking the capital ship. In real navy battles, capital ships can target multiple attacking fighters at the same time.

This is an inherent weakness with capital ships, yes. You can't shoot at a dozen ships a turn, if you could, capital ships would have no weakness. It's true that they can't kill everything in one shot, but they also don't DIE in one shot either. That's the whole trade off, or did you completely miss the point about it having 8 times the HP of a tiny? Besides, if every weapon fired once, defenses would be WAAAAY too powerful, because it will be impossible to overpower a ship with 25 defense.

And please, stop relating to the 'real world' for your facts. The thing is, each one of those 'blocks' in the game, is suppose to be a parsec, which is over 3 light years in diameter. The enemy could be anywhere in this area, it's perfectly logical to asume that it's just not possible to expect a mass driver, laser, or missile to shoot that far even if you have a lock. Besides, any realism went out the window a long time ago when planets orbit 8 light years away from a sun that's about 3 light years in diameter (the planets too for that matter, lol). It's a game, just play it and have fun. If you nit-pick at it, you'll never be able to sleep, not that this game ever lets me.

Finally, it has already been mentioned that a military starbase's bonuses favor fleets of many light fighters over fleets with a few capital ships.

... and once again, I would point you to my argument on that a while back. Military bases may be powerful, maybe too over powering even, but it can be just as powerful for huge ships as it can be for tiny ones, it all depends on how you use it.

IMO, I think your perception is a bit skewed at the moment, and the solution is to play more GC2. If you play the game, you will SEE that tiny ships doesn't stand a chance against large ones. It will be VERY obvious, just watch any balanced Altarian vs Dregin conflict. Immediately after the Altarians roll out dual battleships, the Dregins are completely screwed because they focus on smalls alot, it's all a matter of how long the Altarian takes to pump out transport at that point. On the other hand, if the Altarians never gets those battleships out, they will always, nearly 100% lose (unless someone else jumps in to help them). The presense of TWO large, will completely dominate the war, I've seen this exact situation at least 4 times (intelligent and better of course, I usually win way before they get large ships on any lower).

Von Uber

on Mar 23, 2006

The HP thing is being missed here, I have lost a lot of small ships due to the fact that I can't destroy large ships in one shot, whereas they gradually pick off mine shot by shot. This is especially the case if you are playing a 'stratergist' style game, or similar, where the tech difference is not great enough to give you a significant tech firepower advantage.

aeternali

on Mar 23, 2006

Couple of notes. After play testing it tonight I changed it to be:
2,3,4,6,8.
Also: you forgot the part that the logistics techs are going to go up significantly.

You will still be to have large ships in your fleet. You'll simply be able to fit more smaller ships in your fleets as well.
So in effect, Rather than having 12 logistics points after getting enhanced logistics you'll have 15.
Before: 2 large ships + 1 tiny = 12.
After: 2 large ships + 1 small = 15 No change.
Ex 2:
Before: 6 tiny ships.
After: 7 tiny ships.
Ex 3"
Before: 2 huge ships
After: 1 huge ship, 1 large ship.
Battle example:
Before: 2 huge ships vs. 6 tiny fighters. Don't even try to tell me that's fair. Those two huge ships would wipe out those tinies in an instance. It's absurd.
After: 1 huge ship, 1 large ship vs. 7 tiny. It's still going to be tough for the tiny ships.

No, i did not forget about the part where the logisical increases as i was not aware of them.

2 huge ships should win against 6 tiny fighters. Look at the cost to produce those two huge ships vs those 6 fighters.

I think that your new numbers are more of a compromise

aeternali

on Mar 23, 2006

What history are you referring to?

One of the most famous naval engagements in history was the battle of the Bismark vs. the Royal Navy in World War II.

You are not totally accurate here in your example so lets take a look at the details of that engagement as this was not an engagement of small ships vs a single large ship. It was a Hail Mary assault upon the Bismark.

The First engagement, Battle of the Denmark Strait, with the Bismark and Prinz Eugen was made with the Hood and the Prince of Wales in the early morning of 24 May 1941. Both sides opened up and on or about the 6th salvo Hood was hit in the magazine and sunk. Prince of Wales was forced to disengage.

26 May 1941, Swordfish torpedo attack was launched, this time from Ark Royal. Unfortunately, the aircraft mistakenly attacked the Sheffield! Swordfish struck once more that evening – this time with significant results: At least one hit was achieved on Bismarck's stern. The result was that one or more of its rudders were jammed to port.

During the morning of 27th May, a combined British force, led by King George V and Rodney, finally caught and engaged Bismarck. The British fleet made quick work of the crippled ship and it was soon a slowly sinking, blazing wreck.

At approximately 1039 hours, after the Bismark's main guns and fire control were taken out of action, it was at last sent to the bottom by combination of the torpedoes of H.M.S. Dorsetshire, and earlier German scuttling efforts.

The battle as you describe it was not an enagement of many small vessels against a single battleship. More than 100 vessels were seaching for it but in the end it was Brittish capital ships that did the bulk of the damage.

The destroyers were sent in after the main armament of the Bismark was already destroyed. Basically, the British wanted to sink her quickly and chose torpedos as they do damage below the waterline.

Hardly the battle of small ships vs large ships.

aeternali

on Mar 23, 2006

The HP's have not been overlooked. Big ships should have more hit points and more weapons. That is why they are built and the nature of real naval (space) warfare.

aeternali

on Mar 23, 2006

Hello Frogboy.

I think the Battle of Midway is a better example of the point you were trying to make with swarms of smaller ships attacking capital ships.

The US had 3 Carriers (with a crap load of fighters, 8 Cruisers, 17 Destroyers and an air base (with another crap load of fighters.)

The Japanese had 4 large Carriers, 2 small Carriers, 5 Battleships, 16 Cruisers, and 42 Destroyers.

The US lost 1 Carrier, 1 Destroyer and a bunch of fighers.

The Japenese lost 4 Carriers, and 2 Cruisers.

The point is though the US has around 200 fighters engaged in this battle. Entire squadrons were wiped out.

-------------------------------

Maybe better would be the Yamato.

On 6 April Yamato and her escorts, the light cruiser Yahagi and 8 destroyers, left port at Tokuyama. They were sighted on 7 April by American submarines as they exited the Inland Sea southwards. The U.S. Navy launched 386 aircraft to intercept the task force, and the planes engaged the ships starting at 12:30 that afternoon. Yamato took 8 bomb and 10 torpedo hits before, at about 14:23, she capsized to port and her aft magazines detonated. She sank while still some 200 km from Okinawa. Of her crew 2,475 were lost, and the 269 survivors were picked up by the escorting destroyers.

Either way though it is not 5 or 6 fighters that took them out but many.

alexwilber

on Mar 23, 2006

Well everyone is being very negative. I think this is an awesome change, I'm very pleased with it. Personally I've never bothered building tiny or small ships, because they're just hopelessly underpowered compared to the larger ships. I think that'll still be the case, but less so, and that's definitely a good thing! Go Brad!

Martimus

on Mar 23, 2006

I tried that strategy once too. Building a bunch of small ships in a fleet because they could get first strike. I found that I would lose half of them in each battle, while my other fleets of medium hulls would usually take no losses. Because of that, I decided to scrap that strategy.

Martimus

on Mar 23, 2006

Oh yeah, I wanted to say that I like the change too. It does not give much additional power to the smaller ships at all, but it gives them some with extra logistics. (Which I also felt was needed.)

aeternali

on Mar 23, 2006

I do not have a problem with the logistics increasing for more small and tiny ships to get in to a fleet and take on a fleet made up of primarily larger ships. I just don't think that those who use larger ships appreciate having fewer ships in their fleets.

I think that this is a change that is catering to a certain play style. Namely those who want to use smaller ships.

Either way i will simply mod or change it after the patch comes out.

ignuss

on Mar 23, 2006

Brad has already said twice (once to you specifically) that you will get more logistics with technology

Haasen

on Mar 23, 2006

Battles/combat in GC2 are so far removed from reality that you can't match up real world examples to what's going on in the game. a nano-ripper on a "fighter" is as powerful and shoots as far as a nano-ripper on a battleship yet for some reason the battleship version is larger. Makes no sense at all.

Combat in GC2 is just too simplified. Argue that it's balanced in game, not that it makes sense.

aeternali

on Mar 23, 2006

Here we go. I know the ships below are not fully optimized but large ships are supposed to be more general purpose ships and smaller ones more single purpose ships.

Attacking Battleship (huge)
2 Hyper Warp Drive MkIII
2 Positronic Torpedo MkII
2 Death Rays
2 Black Hole Generators
2 Zero Point Armor
1 Ultimate Adamantium
2 Aereon Missile Defense
2 Ultimate Invulnerability

Hit Points 48
Cost 1780
Maintenance 44
Speed 13

Beam 44
Missile 30
Gun 32

Shields 18
Point 20
Armor 27

Attacking Destroyer (medium)
2 Hyper Warp Drive MkIII
2 Doom Rays
2 Zero Point Armor
2 Aereon Missile Defense
2 Ultimate Invulnerability

Hit Points 16
Cost 1240
Maintenance 31
Speed 13

Beam 44
Missile 0
Gun 0

Shields 18
Point 20
Armor 20

Current Fleet 4 Battleships (4x6=24) and 1 Cruiser (24+4=28)
Total Fleet Cost 8360
Total HP 208

V1.1 Fleet 4 Battleships (3x8=24) and 1 Cruiser (24+4=28)
Total Fleet Cost 6580
Total HP 160

Defending Fighter (tiny)
3 Black Hole Generators
2 Hyper Warp Drive MkII

Hit Points 6
Cost 355
Maintenance 8
Speed 11

Beam 0
Missile 0
Gun 48

Shields 0
Point 0
Armor 0

Current Fleet 14 Fighters (14x2=24)
Total Fleet Cost 4970
Total HP 84

Current Attack Fleet is 4 Battleships + 1 Destroyer
Current Defending Fleet is 14 Fighters

Running this in the Jedi Fleet sim in win 20 out of 30 times. I think mainly because i am attacking

V1.1 Fleet is 3 Battleships + 1 Destroyer
V1.1 Defending Fleet is 14 Fighters

Running this in the Jedi Fleet sim in win 0 out of 30 times.

Roarck

on Mar 23, 2006

Well the thing is how does ship size compare to logistics?

Is it now always going to be better to go up the logistics tree first?

I'd think what you want is for a fleet of tinys at max logistics to be even with a fleet of huge with min. logistics. (Same weapon/def levels.)

So at start it would be going up one in logistics equals getting medium hulls. Anything else means there is a "best" choice in deciding between logistics and hulls.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!