Suggestion: fewer ships, so that each is more valuable and empire is more manageable

from Sins Forums
One suggestion I would like to make, though I suspect it may not be popular with a lot of people is, is to make ships even more expensive, so that each ship will be more valuable to the player. The main reason why I think this would be good is that it makes battles and the organizing of one's empire generally somewhat more manageable. The scope of the game is huge, but that does not mean that each fleet needs to be as large as it is. The same scope can be had by significantly shrinking the fleet sizes (by making ships more expensive and perhaps making them take longer to build). Though this will not of course impress people who have a fetish for seeing lots of ships on their screen at once.

It has been pointed out elsewhere it is often very difficult to select a specific ship or few from a large battle. This is often because there are 50 ships per side and many of them are clumped together. If the fleets were much smaller it would be much easier to move away that frigate or cruiser that is taking a beating (or to better position a few flak frigates near areas that need defence against bombers for instance).

On a larger scale, I think that making the ships more expensive and more valuable will make organizing one's empire much more manageable. With less ships in one's empire, players will have to less frequently: add new ships to different groups, listen to as many messages about ships being built or arriving at a planet, and check ship's health before sending it into battle.

Of course if you did take this route other balancing would need to be done as well. And again, it would not impress people who have a fetish for seeing lots of ships at once. But in terms of the strategic significance, I think that implementing the proposed suggestion would only bring about positive results. The balancing between ships will become much more apparent when there are less of them and people can get a better sense of how to measure up an enemy's fleet against their own. I would challenge someone to give a good reason why having the game with more ships makes for a better strategy game.

For an example, Consider the RTS game Company of Heroes. It has few units per side (and I don't mean types of units but number of units) and works very well. Would making it so that you could have twice as many units per side make it a better game? I would think not. It was a good choice to make units expensive and valuable. I think that there are even better reasons to do the same with Sins (given its great scale).

-By the way I am actually really quite good at keeping track of a lot of things at once in a game (better than most), so I am not just venting a frustration I have over my lack of ability.   

The game has great promise.
6,431 views 17 replies
Reply #1 from Sins Forums Top
I see what you mean, and the game will also have something like that with the Vasari.

TEC: Lots of ships, but not as strong as the Advent and Vasari
Advent: Not sure if they are gonna have a huge fleet.
Vasari: Has strong but few ships.

So sins have both
Reply #2 from Sins Forums Top
That is an idea I could go along with, it also plays into placing more defencive mesures on the planet giving less clutter to the gavwell..

this is an idea I could go for
ObjectDock - Access shortcuts and frequently used applications from an animated dock.
Reply #3 from Sins Forums Top
The game engines strength is the epic battles that can have hundreds of ships.I say more ships but with meaningfull formations control.
Reply #4 from Sins Forums Top
Just because the game engine allows for "epic battles" does not mean that they should be added. The question I raise is precisely why more ships should be thought of as better. What does "epic battle" mean anyway? What if they made the game so that instead of building individual ships you build huge fleets with each click of the button (like Rome or Medieval total war)? Would that make it so that the battles are even more "epic"? Since you usually have to zoom out so that ships are represented by symbols anyway, why not just pretend that each symbol stands for a million ships? All the more "epic"!   
If by "epic" you just mean a really important battle (in a larger war) then that is always relative to the size of the other battles one has. Going with this sense of the expression a battle might be called "epic" because my largest fleet is fighting the enemies largest fleet and a lot weighs on the outcome of the battle. The importance of the battle (it's "epic-ness") is not a function of how many ships are involved but with its size relative to other battles in the game and with what's at stake.
The game already has massive scale in terms of involving whole solar systems and nice level of detail and such. This is its real strength. However, its being on such a massive scale means that manageability of one's empire (including military) is at issue. There is no gain in having lots of ships, but there is loss.
I do not think that the suggestion of adding formations is a good one. They rarely work very well in games. And besides as soon as you admit that all the great many ships need to be put in formations so you can control them as one unit then you already admit that it is somewhat difficult to manage or that you wouldn't mind replacing each ship with a million ships (your capital ships could be like the fighter squadrons if you like) -which is just absurd in my opinion.
If they were to keep the number of ships what would be better than formations are tactical governors (like planetary governors in GalCiv2). But I think it is all the better to just reduce the number of ships (by making them more expensive and placing a lower unit cap).

-Sorry if I sound especially hostile  
Reply #5 from Sins Forums Top
The game has not got the tactical options or the individual unit eye candy to match the likes of COH or a better comparison would be Nexus to warrent smaller scale battles.What we need is better higher level fleet controls in the game.
Reply #6 from Sins Forums Top
I agree that the game should not by any means go down to the scale of Nexus (which is a cool game in itself), but I think it could go a lot closer to COH. I find that much of the eye candy in COH is wasted since I never zoom in close anyway. But I think this is somewhat confusing the issue. I am not claiming that Sins needs more micromanagement in its tactical combat, but that it should make the battles and empire to be easier to manage by reducing the number of ships.
I am in some agreement that if too much attention and micromanagement is required for combat then the battles will require too much attention which is already widely spread in Sins. But what I am suggesting will not likely increase the ammount of attention required on battles, but will actually make it easier to manage the battles (so I don't have so much trouble trying to pick out that one ship out of the group of 30 clumped together). It also makes the rest of the empire easier to manage.
If the claim is that by reducing the number of ships, then combat will require more micromanagement, then I think that you would be implicitly admitting that as the battles stand right now that you have little control over how they are reconciled. If the fear is that battles with large numbers of ships are more forgiving of tactical errors (perhaps due to innatention) then this can be remedied by increasing the relative hitpoints of each ship (remembering that there will be significantly less ships) so that they will not get destroyed extremely quickly by the perilous positioning.
Again, the benefit of decreasing ships is not just for combat purposes but for reducing the mundane micromanagement of one's empire.
It should also be remembered that AI can always control each individual ship whereas a human player has to control its fleet of frigates and cruisers as a mass. Not that the AI couldn't be programmed to act more like a human player.

-Thanks for your thoughts on this
Reply #7 from Sins Forums Top
Problem with reducing the number of ships is that in small maps, you'd end up with waaaay to few units. While in large maps you end up with lots more, at least it balances out because you need to use them in more places.
Reply #8 from Sins Forums Top
It has been pointed out elsewhere it is often very difficult to select a specific ship or few from a large battle. This is often because there are 50 ships per side and many of them are clumped together. If the fleets were much smaller it would be much easier to move away that frigate or cruiser that is taking a beating (or to better position a few flak frigates near areas that need defence against bombers for instance).


This is the only part a really agree with and it can be solved in easier ways. Not to mention that doing this is micro-intensive no matter if you have 100 ships or 10 ships.

I would challenge someone to give a good reason why having the game with more ships makes for a better strategy game.


There are simply some things I can do with 100 ships I just can't do with 10 or 20 or even 50. Currently, 100 ships is about two solid fleets. I like having 2 or 3 main fleets of 50-ish. There is more than just the feeling of commanding a space armada, having so many ship I can manually move, I can better position my fleet for advantages. Some need more ships under my control than just the handful you seem to recommend.
Reply #9 from Sins Forums Top
Problem with reducing the number of ships is that in small maps, you'd end up with waaaay to few units. While in large maps you end up with lots more, at least it balances out because you need to use them in more places.


I don't see how you would have waaay too few units. Too few for what? Remember that your opponent would also have fewer units as well.

There are simply some things I can do with 100 ships I just can't do with 10 or 20 or even 50. Currently, 100 ships is about two solid fleets. I like having 2 or 3 main fleets of 50-ish. There is more than just the feeling of commanding a space armada, having so many ship I can manually move, I can better position my fleet for advantages. Some need more ships under my control than just the handful you seem to recommend.


What is the smallest number of frigates you usually use in any sort of attack group (not talking about scouts or colony ships)? How many combat ships at a time do you move to a specific place in a grav well? I doubt many people actually take the time to move each individual attack frigate to a specific place. If you think that it is often necessary to do that then the game is in the end unmanageable because the battles require way too much micro-management (while trying to run other apsects of your empire). If you want to be able to carefully position ships, isn't it better to be able to carefully move fewer units (knowing the enemy has fewer units as well)? In normal RTS games I run out of numbers to assign to groups; in this game with its bigger scale it becomes a bigger nightmare.

I am not suggesting that fleets be reduced down to five ships or the like. I haven't even suggested any sort of number. I would suggest something along the lines of reducing the number of ships to whatever the minimum useful ammount is. I have been trying to make a case that it is much lower than is presently in the game. One of the key things here is not so much whether you could use more strategy to control many ships as opposed to a few, but whether the massive scope of the game even realistically allows players to be able to strategically use many ships to any great extent. It is a cost-benefit analysis between losing tactical options to having fewer ships to being able to better control your battles and manage your empire. My point is that the cost of having fewer ships to control is greatly outweighed by the benefits of a more manageable empire and battle.

Also, I do not see how picking a ship out of 10 requires just as much micromanagement as picking one out of 30. The ten I can easily see and quickly identify the ship that needs to be moved. Also, if I have a fleet of 30 frigates then there will be a bunch of ships (lets say 3) that I need to identify move from danger (or whatever).

And again it is not just about combat but empire management generally. Messages stating a ship has arrived somewhere mean very little when it is one of 50 ships as opposed to one of 10. Mundane micromanagement can be reduced.

Reply #10 from Sins Forums Top


I don't see how you would have waaay too few units. Too few for what? Remember that your opponent would also have fewer units as well.


Because as you reduce the number of units, you reduce the number of ways it can be broken down. All of a sudden, you can't, for example, break off a couple of frigates just to watch your flanks by picketing an empty system, because each frigate is a much larger part of your fleet.
Reply #11 from Sins Forums Top
In multiplayer i can see some value to this. Some people will have difficulty controlling multiple groups of 100's of ships on the map at the same time. However If we nerf the number of ships more tactical options will be needed (Fleet Formations. Rock, Paper, Sissors. Precise movement control etc.).

I think right now it is intended that 2 fleets should be able to fight it out just using the AI without the player having to intervene. Thus the player shouldnt have to worry about managing 100's of ships at a time. This AI obviously still needs work, but its getting there slowly, but surely. We haven't seen the Vasari, or Advent fleets in action yet, or really know what they are capable of. I get the feeling that "less is more" with the Vasari, but anything about them right now is pure speculation until IC releases more info on them. Same with the Advent.

I like the way the current system is set up. Your fleet size's depend on how many planets you own (and what type of planets). Perhaps what the OP suggests could be implemented as an option. Chose a small, medium, or large (current limits) unit limit before you begin the game.
Reply #12 from Sins Forums Top
I don't know if I like this idea.Right now I'm finding it hard to get enough ships to attack a well defended planet and have ships to defend my own planet.You said opponets will have the same number of ships but what happens if your fighting 2-3 plus pirate attacks.Just my thoughts.
Reply #13 from Sins Forums Top

It has been pointed out elsewhere it is often very difficult to select a specific ship or few from a large battle. This is often because there are 50 ships per side and many of them are clumped together. If the fleets were much smaller it would be much easier to move away that frigate or cruiser that is taking a beating (or to better position a few flak frigates near areas that need defence against bombers for instance).


This is the only part a really agree with and it can be solved in easier ways. Not to mention that doing this is micro-intensive no matter if you have 100 ships or 10 ships.

I would challenge someone to give a good reason why having the game with more ships makes for a better strategy game.


There are simply some things I can do with 100 ships I just can't do with 10 or 20 or even 50. Currently, 100 ships is about two solid fleets. I like having 2 or 3 main fleets of 50-ish. There is more than just the feeling of commanding a space armada, having so many ship I can manually move, I can better position my fleet for advantages. Some need more ships under my control than just the handful you seem to recommend.


Agreed. I liken it to the following: if you were asked to review a movie or game or whatever, and the scale is "1 to 2" (or "Thumbs Up vs. Thumbs Down"), how much meaning can you really assign to this? How about if the scale is 1 to 5? Maybe there are lots of good things, but if there are enough bad things you still have to rate it down. But without a finer-grain control, you can't make this clear.

That's why I prefer a scale of 1 to 100. That movie with a sucky plot but some spots of amazing actorship by the star could get a 59 instead of a vague "2 out of 5 stars".

Also, FWIW, I've beaten the game with 10 Hard AIs using only capital ships. When you only have 2 or 3 fleets of 10 ships each, I think the game already allows for the play style that the OP wants, no?

If you don't believe me that you can totally live without frigates... next game, research to the Capital Ship Factory ASAP (OK, maybe build some cobalts early-game just to keep your hide alive vs. rushes). Then build an Akkan. Then build a Dunov. Then take your flagship, if you have one, with these two capships and start taking nearby sectors. As your fleet capacity increases, round out your fleet with a Sova and a Marza. Once you have enough capacity to build more than 5 ships, I usually build a second Dunov and a second Sova -- the Dunov for additional shield regens, and the Sova for more fighters. Keep building up this way, and maybe get a second or third Kol, until you have a fleet of 10 ships. This fleet, assuming the levels are fairly high by now, should be able to conquer any single planet you come across. Then you can start up on a second fleet of ships and start conquering two sectors at the same time, or just have one defense and one offense fleet.

Just because your strategy involves building 100 ships doesn't mean that should be nerfed. I'm sure it's a viable strategy to rush with Kodiaks and Hoshikos, but my strategy with capships seems to work. Just imagine if your entire fleet were Cobalts, or Arcovas - you could have 500 ships. What a waste!
Reply #14 from Sins Forums Top
Just start a game on low resources!!!
Reply #15 from Sins Forums Top

Just start a game on low resources!!!


Doesn't that only effect starting resources?
Reply #16 from Sins Forums Top
Errrr, I am not sure now. I thought it also had an effect on total metal and crystal in the asteroids.
Reply #17 from Sins Forums Top
Actually, I always play on low resources and the info for setting it when you create a new game just says that it indeed only affects the starting ammount of resources. But I may agree with you that my concerns may be resolved if the option was available to reduce the rate by which you obtain resources (and to reduce the pirate fleet numbers respectively). I am sure other issues of balance would need to be adjusted, but it would allow players to use lots of ships or to only have a few.

Anyhow, in response to the claim:

That's why I prefer a scale of 1 to 100. That movie with a sucky plot but some spots of amazing actorship by the star could get a 59 instead of a vague "2 out of 5 stars".


I agree that if you you have smaller incraments by which to construct fleets (ie more ships rather than less) then your decisions about how to position them can be more finely grained. But the point I already raised was that there are downsides to having such small incraments as well. Suppose that right now the game was scaled up so that each ship was 50 times cheaper so that you had fifty times more ships. Do you actually benefit from that? I would say that in principle if we had unlimited attention and ability to issue ship commands then we would absolutely have a benefit from doing this. BUT!!! We are not so constituted as to be able to issue 10 very different commands to different ships in different sectors in one second and do not have a good enough memory to keep track of every whether every "ship has arrived" message is significant. Consider what happens if you have five times more messages than you do now saying "Ship constructed". Some of those may be especially important to you and the more messages you get the more annyoing it is to sift through them and the more attention they will require. Or Consider what happens after a battle, how are you going to quickly pick out which ships should be brought to a repair station and which should remain in place to defend against another possible attack. IF you have fifty times more ships to look through then a lot of attention is wasted which could have been directed elsewhere. Furthermore, consider the little boxes next to each planet in the galactic manager (or whatever it is called). When there gets to be so many, it becomes a little absurd. I can quickly count how many ships I have at a particular gravwell much more readily if there are, let's say, less than twenty in comparison to someone with around 70. Because of time and attention contraints the way they are, with fewer ships players can actually make better tactical decisions and respond to information better.
Again the point is not that there is nothing gained from having more ships, but rather that what is gained outweighed by what is lost (a more manageable empire with less mundane reports and actions required of you).