The economics of carriers seem way out of whack.

I think this really needs some balancing love - feedback & suggestions welcome!

from GalCiv3 Forums

Please skip past the images below if you are already aware of the fighter balance discussion to see my suggestion/code.

 

 

I was just checking out the differences between the various Fighter types, having unlocked them fairly late in the game, and noticed that the higher tech 'guardian' and 'interceptor' fighter types are vastly outclassed by the standard AssaultFighter:

(note, this is a save from 1.01, so carrier modules still carried 3 fighters rather than 2 that 1.02 gives, that doesn't affect the rest of this post much though) 

 

As you can see, the standard Assault Fighter is.. well, it's a bit better. Mostly it's better because it is on a Small hull, compared to a Tiny hull. 

 

In the ShipClassDefs code it looks like the assault fighter should be Tiny:

 

Code: xml
  3. <ShipClass>
  4. <InternalName>TerranAssaultFighter</InternalName>
  5. <DisplayName>TerranAssaultFighter_Class_Name</DisplayName>
  6. <Description>TerranAssaultFighter_Dec</Description>
  7. <ThumbnailOverride>Temp_Terran_Knight_Alpha_01.png</ThumbnailOverride>
  8. <ShipHullType>Tiny</ShipHullType>
  9. <ShipRule>Balanced</ShipRule>
  10. <ShipDesign>Terran_Knight_01T</ShipDesign>
  11. <AIShipClass>Interceptor</AIShipClass>
  12. <StrategicIcon>Knight</StrategicIcon>
  13. <BlueprintDef>AssaultFighterBlueprint</BlueprintDef>
  14. </ShipClass>

The Terran_Knight_01T is a tiny hull, after all. 

But it refers to the BlueprintDef AssaultFighterBlueprint, which tells the game to use a small hull:

 

Code: xml
  3. <ShipBlueprint>
  4. <InternalName>AssaultFighterBlueprint</InternalName>
  5. <ShipHullType>Small</ShipHullType>
  6. <Role>Assault</Role>
  7. <CanBeBuilt>false</CanBeBuilt>
  8. <RequiredComponentType>BeamWeapon</RequiredComponentType>
  9. <RequiredComponentType>MissileWeapon</RequiredComponentType>
  10. <RequiredComponentType>KineticWeapon</RequiredComponentType>
  11. <ComponentType>Armor</ComponentType>
  12. <ComponentType>PointDefense</ComponentType>
  13. <ComponentType>Shields</ComponentType>
  14. <ComponentType>SublightDrive</ComponentType>
  15. <ComponentType>BeamWeapon</ComponentType>
  16. <ComponentType>MissileWeapon</ComponentType>
  17. <ComponentType>KineticWeapon</ComponentType>
  18. <FillerComponentType>BeamWeapon</FillerComponentType>
  19. <FillerComponentType>KineticWeapon</FillerComponentType>
  20. <FillerComponentType>MissileWeapon</FillerComponentType>
  21. </ShipBlueprint>

And indeed, as you can see in combat, the TerranKnight tiny hull is stretched out to be a Small:

 

Small TerranKnights above, vs the Tiny TerranGuardians below. This works the same for all races, not just Terran.

 

Of course, the modules which carry these ships have different costs:

In my current game, an AssaultFighter module costs 49 capacity, 68 manufacturing cost, and 0.8 maintenance.

By conparison, the high-tech GuardianFighter module costs 31.5 mass, 48 manufacturing, and 0.6 maintenance. 

 

(note: I took +15% maintenance as a handicap trait, normal values are 0.75 and 0.5)

 

So the GuardianFighters save you about 1/3 of the capacity requirement and cost.

 

Still, that isn't a whole lot... this is an approximation of the the Guardian drone's value:

 

 

So, each Guardian module provides a decent bit of gunnery firepower (4-24 dependent on tech level) on two 25-35hp Tiny hulls, which would cost ~150 build capacity to produce from shipyards; it would cost 3.8/turn to maintain these two fighters as independently built ships. At max tech, these vessels would be worth 180 build capacity each.

(Note, with the lower-mass kinetics coming in 1.02, this Guardian will be able to field point defense and shields)

 

Here's my recreation of the SuperKnight AssaultFighter:

 

Vastly more firepower than the guardian or interceptor (dependent on tech, this one will always have one 'good' weapon you've researched; you might have neglected guns or beams), with room for all defenses to shield its 50-75HP hull. Building two of these would cost me more than 750 manufacturing, and require 9 credits/turn maintenance.

 

 


Not pictured, an Interceptor module creates the DroneFighter blueprint which gives 6-96 firepower on a tiny hull... not bad tbh. An Interceptor can outdamage an Assaultfighter if you have a lot of beam tech, but still only has half the hitpoints and 1 anti-beam defense component.

 

In any event, this is what I pay for the vessel that delivers these wonderful little killers:

 

 

Let's say I switch out some stuff to get the 2 assault carrier modules in, I'm paying ~250 manufacturing and ticking away 2 credits per turn to field 1500 manufacturing (4x375) worth of ships. Rather than pay 17 upkeep, it's 2.

So what if this ship gets blown up in the first fight it's in? Then it's paid for itself 6x over.

But what if those Assault ships manage to stop all the enemies, at the cost of their own lives? Then next turn the carrier will have generated another 1500 manufacturing capacity to replace its charges.

 

Not to mention, the cargo hull costs 5 fleet logistics; the 4 small fighters it fields would cost 12.

 

Summary:

 

Carrier modules destabilise the economy and research progression in a few ways

  • AssaultFighters are stronger than their higher-tech counterparts - ranging from 'considerably' to 'wtfbbq' levels of stronger
  • Fighters being recreated for free each turn produces a huge amount of manufacturing capacity out of thin air
  • Carrier modules save lots of maintenance cost.
  • Fighters are considerably more potent in battle than regular ships of equal size due to not needing to carry life support or drive modules. 
That last one is really the whole point of fighters. I happen to like being able to throw lots of little ships at a big one to overwhelm it, but the capacity cost of building 12 drives and life support spread over as many ships is prohibitive in that regard; fighters solve this problem.
 
I believe the point of carriers is to A) project power beyond the range of the small craft being fielded, and B) bringing more ships to the fight beyond the logistical capacity of your fleet to field independent vessels.
 
I do not believe that these advantages should be compounded by fighters being exceptionally cheaper to use than other ships.
 
 

None of these are game-breaking, but they certainly incentivise me to use fighters whenever possible over, say, using Huge hulls filled with actual weapons. 

 

 

Suggestions:

 

Ordered from easy/quick to fix to harder/requires-balancing-thought 

 

  1. Carrier module maintenance should be raised to ~2.5/turn. 
  2. Perhaps carrier modules should be more expensive in manufacturing cost - right now building a carrier module costs less than 1/2 the manufacturing of 1 of the fighters it fields. This should be weighed against other possible balance remedies.
  3. There should be a 'bomber' fighter type, which uses missile tech.
  4. Fighters should not instantly replenish after battle; either require a cooldown (say, 5 turns?) to re-build, or perhaps more interestingly: require the carrier visit a shipyard or military starbase for re-supply.
  5. Assault fighters should be tiny. In addition, there should be a Small fighter, perhaps in the place of the currently defunct EscortFighter, coming in at higher tech.

 

While carrier modules to manufacture 'free' meatshields (hullshields?) in the form of fighters, I don't think replenishing them should cost manufacturing. A) it would be impractical to implement, and B) it would be annoying for players. I don't want to make fighters less fun, just a little less economically alluring. 

 

 

Code required for suggestions above:

 
I don't wanna raise the patching workload unduly, so if the above suggestions seem reasonable the code to make them happen is going to be in a reply post below momentarily.
 
 
42,492 views 12 replies
Reply #1 from Stardock Forums Top

I have to agree carriers do seem a little OP currently, especially sicne the AI doesn't take the presence of fighters into account when pickign its battles.  I would agree that your points #2 & #4-- higher build cost for the unit itself, and longer CD on rebuilding fighters would help to balance this.

Reply #2 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

n't affect the rest of this post much though) 

 

 
 
Fighters should not instantly replenish after battle; either require a cooldown (say, 5 turns?) to re-build, or perhaps more interestingly: require the carrier visit a shipyard or military starbase for re-supply.

 

A sound and in-depth analysis which I generally agree with, but please God don't make us keep dragging carriers back and forth to a shipyard/military starbase. This would be bad enough on a small map, but on the really big ones it'd be unbearable micromanagement.

Multiplicity - Control multiple PCs using one keyboard and mouse
Reply #3 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

the 3 main problems with the auto spawn fighters are the hull size, the price and the automatic upgrades. you can't possibly fit the same amount of weapons/defenses you get on the fighters in the 50/70 hull space taken up by the carrier module, so the module is not just MUCH cheaper but also provides a lot more defense and firepower compared to a "battlehip" of the same size that uses actual weapons and defenses rather than fighters/drones.

the auto upgrades are just as bad. research medium hulls, carriers and transportation spec, build the hyperion shrinker with some adjacency boosters, build medium size ships with 2 carrier modules and some engine/life support, use the dirt cheap ~250 production design for the rest of the game since the fighters automatically use whatever crazy weapon and defense tech you research.

i don't think the respawn is that bad. it could use a cooldown (1 turn near shipyards, 2 turns in deep space, 3 turns in enemy territory or something along that line)

 

i guess the most natural solution to all of those problems would be that you actually have to pick a fighter design when adding a carrier module to a ship. the ship will always use the design it was originally built with and the production and maintenance cost of the fighters is added to the module cost. no more auto upgrades - if you want better fighters, refit the carrier design and retrofit the carrier. or scrap the old carriers and build new ones - just like every other warship in the game.

would probably also solve the "too much production on manufacturing worlds" problem. if you actually had to pay the production cost of each fighter once, you could easily get into the 10'000's with late game miniaturization techs. the carriers would still be the best ships overall, but you'd actually have to pay for that power, not get it at a ridiculous 70 production per carrier module.

Reply #4 from Stardock Forums Top

How can we add our own Assult fighter and Drones to the modules?  Would love to see my Vipers coming out of my Galactica carrier.  

Reply #5 from GalCiv3 Forums Top
The code:
 
1: Carrier module maintenance should be raised to ~2.5/turn. 

In ShipComponentDefs.XML 

change  <InternalName>AssaultCarrier Module</InternalName>, DroneCarrierModule, GuardianCarriermodule, and EscortcarrierModule:

 

Code: xml
  3. &lt;EffectType&gt;Maintenance&lt;/EffectType&gt;
  4. &lt;Target&gt;
  5. &lt;TargetType&gt;Ship&lt;/TargetType&gt;
  6. &lt;/Target&gt;
  7. &lt;BonusType&gt;Flat&lt;/BonusType&gt;
  8. &lt;Value&gt;0.5&lt;/Value&gt;
  9. &lt;/Stats&gt;

 

the 0.5 value to 2.5.  and the 0.75 value on EscortCarrierModule to 3.5.

 

 

2: Perhaps carrier modules should be more expensive in manufacturing cost 

As above; 


Code: xml
  1. </span>
  3. &lt;Stats&gt;
  4. &lt;EffectType&gt;ManufacturingCost&lt;/EffectType&gt;
  5. &lt;Scope&gt;Queue&lt;/Scope&gt;
  6. &lt;Target&gt;
  7. &lt;TargetType&gt;Ship&lt;/TargetType&gt;
  8. &lt;/Target&gt;
  9. &lt;BonusType&gt;Flat&lt;/BonusType&gt;
  10. &lt;Value&gt;68&lt;/Value&gt;
  11. &lt;/Stats&gt;
  13. <span style="font-size: x-small;">

The 48 value of guardian and drone/interceptor to ~150; the 68 value of Escort to, say, 250.


 

 

3: There should be a 'bomber' fighter type, which uses missile tech.


To ShipComponentDefs.XML add the following:

Code: xml
  3.   &lt;ShipComponent&gt;
  4.     &lt;InternalName&gt;BomberCarrierModule&lt;/InternalName&gt;
  5.     &lt;DisplayName&gt;BomberCarrierModule_Name&lt;/DisplayName&gt;
  6.     &lt;Description&gt;BomberCarrierModule_Dec&lt;/Description&gt;
  7.     &lt;ArtDefine&gt;Carrier_Module_01&lt;/ArtDefine&gt;
  8.     &lt;Category&gt;Modules&lt;/Category&gt;
  9.     &lt;Type&gt;BomberCarrierModule&lt;/Type&gt;
  10.     &lt;PlacementType&gt;Module&lt;/PlacementType&gt;
  11.     &lt;Stats&gt;
  12.       &lt;EffectType&gt;Threat&lt;/EffectType&gt;
  13.       &lt;Target&gt;
  14.         &lt;TargetType&gt;Ship&lt;/TargetType&gt;
  15.       &lt;/Target&gt;
  16.       &lt;BonusType&gt;Flat&lt;/BonusType&gt;
  17.       &lt;Value&gt;6&lt;/Value&gt;
  18.     &lt;/Stats&gt;
  19.     &lt;Stats&gt;
  20.       &lt;EffectType&gt;Value&lt;/EffectType&gt;
  21.       &lt;Target&gt;
  22.         &lt;TargetType&gt;Ship&lt;/TargetType&gt;
  23.       &lt;/Target&gt;
  24.       &lt;BonusType&gt;Flat&lt;/BonusType&gt;
  25.       &lt;Value&gt;10&lt;/Value&gt;
  26.     &lt;/Stats&gt;
  27.     &lt;Stats&gt;
  28.       &lt;EffectType&gt;ManufacturingCost&lt;/EffectType&gt;
  29.       &lt;Scope&gt;Queue&lt;/Scope&gt;
  30.       &lt;Target&gt;
  31.         &lt;TargetType&gt;Ship&lt;/TargetType&gt;
  32.       &lt;/Target&gt;
  33.       &lt;BonusType&gt;Flat&lt;/BonusType&gt;
  34.       &lt;Value&gt;48&lt;/Value&gt;
  35.     &lt;/Stats&gt;
  36.     &lt;Stats&gt;
  37.       &lt;EffectType&gt;SupportMass&lt;/EffectType&gt;
  38.       &lt;Target&gt;
  39.         &lt;TargetType&gt;Ship&lt;/TargetType&gt;
  40.       &lt;/Target&gt;
  41.       &lt;BonusType&gt;Flat&lt;/BonusType&gt;
  42.       &lt;Value&gt;45&lt;/Value&gt;
  43.     &lt;/Stats&gt;
  44.     &lt;Stats&gt;
  45.       &lt;EffectType&gt;BomberFightersCap&lt;/EffectType&gt;
  46.       &lt;Target&gt;
  47.         &lt;TargetType&gt;Ship&lt;/TargetType&gt;
  48.       &lt;/Target&gt;
  49.       &lt;BonusType&gt;Flat&lt;/BonusType&gt;
  50.       &lt;Value&gt;2&lt;/Value&gt;
  51.     &lt;/Stats&gt;
  52.     &lt;Stats&gt;
  53.       &lt;EffectType&gt;Maintenance&lt;/EffectType&gt;
  54.       &lt;Target&gt;
  55.         &lt;TargetType&gt;Ship&lt;/TargetType&gt;
  56.       &lt;/Target&gt;
  57.       &lt;BonusType&gt;Flat&lt;/BonusType&gt;
  58.       &lt;Value&gt;0.5&lt;/Value&gt;
  59.     &lt;/Stats&gt;
  60.     &lt;Prerequ&gt;
  61.       &lt;Techs&gt;
  62.         &lt;Option&gt;CarrierFocus3&lt;/Option&gt;
  63.       &lt;/Techs&gt;
  64.     &lt;/Prerequ&gt;
  65.   &lt;/ShipComponent&gt;

To ShipClassDefs.XML add the following:


Code: xml
  3.  &lt;ShipClass&gt;
  4.  
  5.     &lt;InternalName&gt;***DroneBomber&lt;/InternalName&gt;
  6.  
  7.     &lt;DisplayName&gt;***DroneBomber_Class_Name&lt;/DisplayName&gt;
  8.  
  9.     &lt;Description&gt;***DroneBomber_Dec&lt;/Description&gt;
  10.  
  11.     &lt;ThumbnailOverride&gt;Temp_***_Bomber_01.png&lt;/ThumbnailOverride&gt;
  12.  
  13.     &lt;ShipHullType&gt;Tiny&lt;/ShipHullType&gt;
  14.  
  15.     &lt;ShipRule&gt;FavorMissile&lt;/ShipRule&gt;
  16.  
  17.     &lt;ShipDesign&gt;***_Drone_Bomber_01T&lt;/ShipDesign&gt;
  18.  
  19.     &lt;AIShipClass&gt;Bomber&lt;/AIShipClass&gt;
  20.  
  21.     &lt;StrategicIcon&gt;Bomber&lt;/StrategicIcon&gt;
  22.  
  23.     &lt;BlueprintDef&gt;DroneBomberBlueprint&lt;/BlueprintDef&gt;
  24.  
  26.   &lt;/ShipClass&gt;

 

*** here stands for each of the Faction names. Thankfully each does have a Bomber_01T type ship ready for the role.

 

 

 

To ShipBlueprintDefs.XML add the following

Code: xml
  3. &lt;ShipBlueprint&gt;
  5. &lt;InternalName&gt;DroneBomberBlueprint&lt;/InternalName&gt;
  7. &lt;ShipHullType&gt;Tiny&lt;/ShipHullType&gt;
  9. &lt;Role&gt;Guardian&lt;/Role&gt;
  11. &lt;CanBeBuilt&gt;false&lt;/CanBeBuilt&gt;
  13. &lt;RequiredComponentType&gt;MissileWeapon&lt;/RequiredComponentType&gt;
  15. &lt;RequiredComponentType&gt;MissileWeapon&lt;/RequiredComponentType&gt;
  17. &lt;ComponentType&gt;PointDefense&lt;/ComponentType&gt;
  19. &lt;ComponentType&gt;Shields&lt;/ComponentType&gt;
  21. &lt;ComponentType&gt;Armor&lt;/ComponentType&gt;
  23. &lt;ComponentType&gt;MissileWeapon&lt;/ComponentType&gt;
  25. &lt;AllRequiredMustFit&gt;true&lt;/AllRequiredMustFit&gt;
  27. &lt;/ShipBlueprint&gt;
  29. <p lang="en-US">

 

To FactionShipStyleSetDefs.XML change the following:

 

Code: xml
  3. &lt;InitialAssaultFighter&gt;***AssaultFighter&lt;/InitialAssaultFighter&gt;
  4. &lt;InitialInterceptorFighter&gt;***DroneInterceptor&lt;/InitialInterceptorFighter&gt;
  5. &lt;InitialEscortFighter&gt;***AssaultFighter&lt;/InitialEscortFighter&gt;
  6. &lt;InitialGuardianFighter&gt;***GuardianFighter&lt;/InitialGuardianFighter&gt;
  8. <p lang="en-US">

 

append to that the final line

 

Code: xml
  4. &lt;InitialAssaultFighter&gt;***AssaultFighter&lt;/InitialAssaultFighter&gt;
  5. &lt;InitialInterceptorFighter&gt;***DroneInterceptor&lt;/InitialInterceptorFighter&gt;
  6. &lt;InitialEscortFighter&gt;***AssaultFighter&lt;/InitialEscortFighter&gt;
  7. &lt;InitialGuardianFighter&gt;***GuardianFighter&lt;/InitialGuardianFighter&gt;
  8. &lt;InitialDroneBomber&gt;***DroneBomber&lt;/InitialDroneBomber&gt;
  10. <p lang="en-US">

 

With again *** standing for each of the faction names.

Sadly, I haven't looked at descriptive text coding and research coding yet, but hopefully someone could jump in to say what would have to be added in there there for there to be a third choice for CarrierFocus3 tech to point it in the right direction.

 

4: Fighters should not instantly replenish after battle; either require a cooldown (say, 5 turns?) to re-build, or perhaps more interestingly: require the carrier visit a shipyard or military starbase for re-supply.

 

OK.... I actually have no idea how to do this, sorry. 

 

5: Assault fighters should be tiny. In addition, there should be a Small fighter, perhaps in the place of the currently defunct EscortFighter, coming in at higher tech.


Part 1 is easy:

 

In ShipBlueprintDefs.XML change the following:


Code: xml
  1. </span>
  3.  
  5.  
  7. &lt;ShipBlueprint&gt;
  8. &lt;InternalName&gt;AssaultFighterBlueprint&lt;/InternalName&gt;
  9. &lt;ShipHullType&gt;Small&lt;/ShipHullType&gt;
  10. &lt;Role&gt;Assault&lt;/Role&gt;
  11. &lt;CanBeBuilt&gt;false&lt;/CanBeBuilt&gt;
  12. &lt;RequiredComponentType&gt;BeamWeapon&lt;/RequiredComponentType&gt;
  13. &lt;RequiredComponentType&gt;MissileWeapon&lt;/RequiredComponentType&gt;
  14. &lt;RequiredComponentType&gt;KineticWeapon&lt;/RequiredComponentType&gt;
  15. &lt;ComponentType&gt;Armor&lt;/ComponentType&gt;
  16. &lt;ComponentType&gt;PointDefense&lt;/ComponentType&gt;
  17. &lt;ComponentType&gt;Shields&lt;/ComponentType&gt;
  18. &lt;ComponentType&gt;SublightDrive&lt;/ComponentType&gt;
  19. &lt;ComponentType&gt;BeamWeapon&lt;/ComponentType&gt;
  20. &lt;ComponentType&gt;MissileWeapon&lt;/ComponentType&gt;
  21. &lt;ComponentType&gt;KineticWeapon&lt;/ComponentType&gt;
  22. &lt;FillerComponentType&gt;BeamWeapon&lt;/FillerComponentType&gt;
  23. &lt;FillerComponentType&gt;KineticWeapon&lt;/FillerComponentType&gt;
  24. &lt;FillerComponentType&gt;MissileWeapon&lt;/FillerComponentType&gt;
  25. &lt;/ShipBlueprint&gt;

 

<ShipHullType>Small</ShipHullType> to <ShipHullType>Tiny</ShipHullType>

fin.

 

 

Additionally - to keep Small fighters as an option, but later in the tech-tree and more expensive - add the following to ShipBlueprintDefs.XML:

 

Code: xml
  3. &lt;ShipBlueprint&gt;
  4. &lt;InternalName&gt;HeavyFighterBlueprint&lt;/InternalName&gt;
  5. &lt;ShipHullType&gt;Small&lt;/ShipHullType&gt;
  6. &lt;Role&gt;Assault&lt;/Role&gt;
  7. &lt;CanBeBuilt&gt;false&lt;/CanBeBuilt&gt;
  8. &lt;RequiredComponentType&gt;BeamWeapon&lt;/RequiredComponentType&gt;
  9. &lt;RequiredComponentType&gt;MissileWeapon&lt;/RequiredComponentType&gt;
  10. &lt;RequiredComponentType&gt;KineticWeapon&lt;/RequiredComponentType&gt;
  11. &lt;RequiredComponentType&gt;Armor&lt;/RequiredComponentType&gt;
  12. &lt;RequiredComponentType&gt;PointDefense&lt;/RequiredComponentType&gt;
  13. &lt;RequiredComponentType&gt;Shields&lt;/RequiredComponentType&gt;
  14. &lt;RequiredComponentType&gt;SublightDrive&lt;/RequiredComponentType&gt;
  15. &lt;FillerComponentType&gt;BeamWeapon&lt;/FillerComponentType&gt;
  16. &lt;FillerComponentType&gt;KineticWeapon&lt;/FillerComponentType&gt;
  17. &lt;FillerComponentType&gt;MissileWeapon&lt;/FillerComponentType&gt;
  19. &lt;AllRequiredMustFit&gt;true&lt;/AllRequiredMustFit&gt;
  20. &lt;/ShipBlueprint&gt;

 

In ShipClassDefs.XML add the following:

 

Code: xml
  3. &lt;ShipClass&gt;
  4. &lt;InternalName&gt;***HeavyFighter&lt;/InternalName&gt;
  5. &lt;DisplayName&gt;***HeavyFighter_Class_Name&lt;/DisplayName&gt;
  6. &lt;Description&gt;***HeavyFighter_Dec&lt;/Description&gt;
  7. &lt;ThumbnailOverride&gt;***_Fury_01.png&lt;/ThumbnailOverride&gt;
  8. &lt;ShipHullType&gt;Small&lt;/ShipHullType&gt;
  9. &lt;ShipRule&gt;Balanced&lt;/ShipRule&gt;
  10. &lt;ShipDesign&gt;***_Fury_01T&lt;/ShipDesign&gt;
  11. &lt;AIShipClass&gt;Assault&lt;/AIShipClass&gt;
  12. &lt;StrategicIcon&gt;Fury&lt;/StrategicIcon&gt;
  13. &lt;BlueprintDef&gt;HeavyFighterBlueprint&lt;/BlueprintDef&gt;
  14. &lt;/ShipClass&gt;

 

As usual, *** is for all the races. 

Except terran. Terran don't have a Fury_01T, for reasons passing understanding, they have Terran_Fury_02T

 

 

To FactionShipStyleSetDefs.XML change the following:

 

Code: xml
  3. &lt;InitialAssaultFighter&gt;***AssaultFighter&lt;/InitialAssaultFighter&gt;
  4. &lt;InitialInterceptorFighter&gt;***DroneInterceptor&lt;/InitialInterceptorFighter&gt;
  5. &lt;InitialEscortFighter&gt;***AssaultFighter&lt;/InitialEscortFighter&gt;
  6. &lt;InitialGuardianFighter&gt;***GuardianFighter&lt;/InitialGuardianFighter&gt;
  8. <p lang="en-US">

 

to 

 

Code: xml
  3. &lt;InitialAssaultFighter&gt;***AssaultFighter&lt;/InitialAssaultFighter&gt;
  4. &lt;InitialInterceptorFighter&gt;***DroneInterceptor&lt;/InitialInterceptorFighter&gt;
  5. &lt;InitialEscortFighter&gt;***HeavyFighter&lt;/InitialEscortFighter&gt;
  6. &lt;InitialGuardianFighter&gt;***GuardianFighter&lt;/InitialGuardianFighter&gt;

Again... *** for each race.
 
 
 
In ShipComponentDefs.XML you wouldn't actually have to change anything, but to reflect the difference in power between the Tiny and Small fighters, I would change the following to AssaultCarrierModule and EscortCarrierModule:
 
Code: xml
  3. &lt;ShipComponent&gt;
  4. &lt;InternalName&gt;EscortCarrierModule&lt;/InternalName&gt;
  5. &lt;DisplayName&gt;EscortCarrierModule_Name&lt;/DisplayName&gt;
  6. &lt;Description&gt;EscortCarrierModule_Dec&lt;/Description&gt;
  7. &lt;ArtDefine&gt;Carrier_Module_01&lt;/ArtDefine&gt;
  8. &lt;Category&gt;Modules&lt;/Category&gt;
  9. &lt;Type&gt;AssaultCarrierModule&lt;/Type&gt;
  10. &lt;PlacementType&gt;Module&lt;/PlacementType&gt;
  11. &lt;Stats&gt;
  12. &lt;EffectType&gt;Threat&lt;/EffectType&gt;
  13. &lt;Target&gt;
  14. &lt;TargetType&gt;Ship&lt;/TargetType&gt;
  15. &lt;/Target&gt;
  16. &lt;BonusType&gt;Flat&lt;/BonusType&gt;
  17. &lt;Value&gt;6&lt;/Value&gt;
  18. &lt;/Stats&gt;
  19. &lt;Stats&gt;
  20. &lt;EffectType&gt;Value&lt;/EffectType&gt;
  21. &lt;Target&gt;
  22. &lt;TargetType&gt;Ship&lt;/TargetType&gt;
  23. &lt;/Target&gt;
  24. &lt;BonusType&gt;Flat&lt;/BonusType&gt;
  25. &lt;Value&gt;10&lt;/Value&gt;
  26. &lt;/Stats&gt;
  27. &lt;Stats&gt;
  28. &lt;EffectType&gt;ManufacturingCost&lt;/EffectType&gt;
  29. &lt;Scope&gt;Queue&lt;/Scope&gt;
  30. &lt;Target&gt;
  31. &lt;TargetType&gt;Ship&lt;/TargetType&gt;
  32. &lt;/Target&gt;
  33. &lt;BonusType&gt;Flat&lt;/BonusType&gt;
  34. &lt;Value&gt;68&lt;/Value&gt;
  35. &lt;/Stats&gt;
  36. &lt;Stats&gt;
  37. &lt;EffectType&gt;SupportMass&lt;/EffectType&gt;
  38. &lt;Target&gt;
  39. &lt;TargetType&gt;Ship&lt;/TargetType&gt;
  40. &lt;/Target&gt;
  41. &lt;BonusType&gt;Flat&lt;/BonusType&gt;
  42. &lt;Value&gt;70&lt;/Value&gt;
  43. &lt;/Stats&gt;
  44. &lt;Stats&gt;
  45. &lt;EffectType&gt;EscortFightersCap&lt;/EffectType&gt;
  46. &lt;Target&gt;
  47. &lt;TargetType&gt;Ship&lt;/TargetType&gt;
  48. &lt;/Target&gt;
  49. &lt;BonusType&gt;Flat&lt;/BonusType&gt;
  50. &lt;Value&gt;3&lt;/Value&gt;
  51. &lt;/Stats&gt;
  52. &lt;Stats&gt;
  53. &lt;EffectType&gt;Maintenance&lt;/EffectType&gt;
  54. &lt;Target&gt;
  55. &lt;TargetType&gt;Ship&lt;/TargetType&gt;
  56. &lt;/Target&gt;
  57. &lt;BonusType&gt;Flat&lt;/BonusType&gt;
  58. &lt;Value&gt;0.75&lt;/Value&gt;
  59. &lt;/Stats&gt;
  60. &lt;Prerequ&gt;
  61. &lt;Techs&gt;
  62. &lt;Option&gt;HighCapacityCarriers&lt;/Option&gt;
  63. &lt;/Techs&gt;
  64. &lt;/Prerequ&gt;
  65. &lt;/ShipComponent&gt;
  67.  
 
Threat from 6 to 9; value from 10 to 15; ManufacturingCost from 68 to 350 (see suggestion 2); supportmass at 70 is ok, maybe bump it a little; EscortFightersCap down from 3 to 2, to reflect that it's not carrying more fighters with its high capacity, but bigger fighters.

Bring AssaultCarrierModule in line with Guardian and Interceptor (and Bomber?).

 

Again, I haven't looked at the tech tree and descriptions and stuff, but I would then rename the HighCapacityCarriers tech to Heavy Fighter Carriers.

Reply #6 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Hey TurielD, great post! I agree with pretty much all of your points, and have in fact modded my game to do almost everything you've suggested - increased maintenance/manufacturing costs, and assaults made into tiny missile bombers (and switched them with interceptors, so that now interceptors are the base fighter and carrier focus unlocks either "bombers" or kinetic Guardians). I also changed the high capacity carrier module into a one-per-ship module that increases the number of fighters carried, regardless of type.

I have not yet re-added a small fighter, but using the EscortFighter for that is a good idea.

In regards to replenishment, I have found(in GalCiv3GlobalDefs.xml)

<FighterRepairTurnRate>3</FighterRepairTurnRate>
        <FighterRepairPotency>3</FighterRepairPotency>

but I haven't tried altering those parameters yet to test their effects.

Again, good job, I'll be following this thread.

EDIT: Ninja'd! Check the highlighted part - maybe it'll help you.

Reply #7 from Sins Forums Top

i guess the most natural solution to all of those problems would be that you actually have to pick a fighter design when adding a carrier module to a ship. the ship will always use the design it was originally built with and the production and maintenance cost of the fighters is added to the module cost. no more auto upgrades - if you want better fighters, refit the carrier design and retrofit the carrier. or scrap the old carriers and build new ones - just like every other warship in the game.

 

This still wouldn't go far enough, but it would be a good start.  The carrier design is fundamentally flawed, in that carrier modules benefit from the same improvements their fighters do.  You could stick with those same medium carriers all game, but only because the AI doesn't abuse the horribly overpowered mechanics of carriers.  Someone with newer medium carriers would have twice as many carrier modules, or five times as many, maybe ten, depending on how hard they've cheesed the hyperion shrinker, etc.  They'd have the same fighters, but they'd have gobs of them.

 

Carriers gain power exponentially, existing carriers would actually be a more balanced thing to have against the enemy fleet, even though they're getting free upgrades.  The carrier module needs exempted from the shrinking aspects to ever be balanced in any fashion.

Reply #8 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Would make more sense to me to have all carrier modules use tiny ships only, have a mass = mass of 2 tiny ships, and increase in mass based on your +capacity. In other words, as your capacity bonuses go up, the size of your tiny ships go up too, making the carrier module go up in mass as well.

Reply #9 from Sins Forums Top

I also would recommend making carrier modules have the tech-neutral "mass" rather than "support mass" which can be reduced via the Transport Specialization that you can pick up right after Interstellar Travel. Getting a 30% mass reduction makes carrier modules even more brokenly good.

Reply #10 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Quoting Sansloi37, reply 6

Hey TurielD, great post! I agree with pretty much all of your points, and have in fact modded my game to do almost everything you've suggested - increased maintenance/manufacturing costs, and assaults made into tiny missile bombers (and switched them with interceptors, so that now interceptors are the base fighter and carrier focus unlocks either "bombers" or kinetic Guardians). I also changed the high capacity carrier module into a one-per-ship module that increases the number of fighters carried, regardless of type.

I have not yet re-added a small fighter, but using the EscortFighter for that is a good idea.

In regards to replenishment, I have found(in GalCiv3GlobalDefs.xml)

<FighterRepairTurnRate>3</FighterRepairTurnRate>
        <FighterRepairPotency>3</FighterRepairPotency>

but I haven't tried altering those parameters yet to test their effects.

Again, good job, I'll be following this thread.

EDIT: Ninja'd! Check the highlighted part - maybe it'll help you.

 

Aah thanks for finding that Sonsloi! I dunno how that works exactly, but I'll test it when I get the chance :)

 

Quoting Lavo_2, reply 9

I also would recommend making carrier modules have the tech-neutral "mass" rather than "support mass" which can be reduced via the Transport Specialization that you can pick up right after Interstellar Travel. Getting a 30% mass reduction makes carrier modules even more brokenly good.

 

I already consider the 30% reduction an no-brainer for constructors; that it helps carriers is an unnecessary bonus indeed. 

Reply #11 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

I think a simple solution here is to just have the mass and cost/maint for the modules be tripled (or something - 5x?).  Also the assault vs. other fighters I would consider a bug of some flavor and should simply be corrected.

I think the rebuilding of the fighters should be left alone for a "long-term fix".  It adds micro which can be good for a full design, but for a quick fix I'd just leave it alone and make the module cost high maintenance to compensate.

Reply #12 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Perhaps there just needs to be a new designation of ship, for lack of a better phrase, "the carrier killer", as opposed to assault, escort, etc.   Maybe even give them some bonuses, but I am thinking some ships loaded with thrusters and "carrier torpedoes" (just made that up) might solve this.

The main idea of lowering the abilities of the carrier fighters does seem to be the best idea I have seen so far.

Just my 1c.