Battlehammer just too powertul!!

from Stardock Forums
I have noticed that the battlehammer and the Frigate has
about the same attack/defense ratio while battlehammer
is considerabely cheaper to construct, has several times more hitpoints and requires considerably less upkeep cost.

I understand battlehammers are primarily designed for a defensive role, hence they are a bit slower, but as long as they move reasonably quickly and always far enough to be able to attack enemy planets and sectors (witchalready relatively early in the game always is the case) there simply is no purpose in building those expensive attacking ships like frigates or battlecruisers.

Add to this the +2 movement to ALL ships! (not 20% as stated) provided by the gravity accelerators and the result is that theese so-called almost immobile defenders becomes such offensive killermachines there is nothing to stop them.

To make things even worse, the A.I still considers overexpensive, yet weak, frigates and battlecruisers a
better choise to build even if I takes roughly 10 battlecruisers to fend of even one intruding battlehammer. (not to mention the upkeepcost of those
10 battlecruisers that is almost 10 times more than
the upkeepcost of one battlehammer that will ruin the A.I player compleatly.

I think something should seriously be done to actually make a defending ship a defending ship and not something that can be used mindlessly in offensive combat. Small tweaks are not enough. Cutting HP:s for theese overpowered ships in half is not enough. Something radigal must be done in order to fix the imbalance.

Some solutions

1) Ships of defensive nature (defender, battleaxe, battlehammers etc....should always have attacking value of 1!)

2) Ships of defensive nature (defender, battleaxe, battlehammer etc...should newer be allowed to leave the
sector they were built in)

3) Ships of defensive nature (defender, battleaxe, battlehammer etc...shuold ALWAYS have movement of 1 or
even ZERO, beeing immobile. Stuck were they are.

4) (the worst solution)
If nothing else, then at least make the A.I undestand to discard those useless battlecruisers and frigates in favor of the battlehammer witch won't destroy their economy but will improve their armys strenght big time.

1,775 views 33 replies
Reply #1 from Stardock Forums Top
I agree with your assessment, but not with any of your solutions. In my opinion, the best fix would be to make stuff that's +20% to speed actually give a percentage bonus, rather than a straight +2. In order to keep speeds relatively high, ships like the frigate and scout should start with a little bit more speed.

Then, true speed (T), should be related to base speed (S) and percentage bonus (B) by the following formula: T = (S + 1) * (B + 1) - 1.

The S+1 is to account for some ships that have a base speed of 0, and the -1 at the end then subtracts that out. If you had a Battle Hammer, with a speed of 0 and a bonus of +80%, you would end up with T = .8, which would probably be rounded up to 1. But if you had a ship with a speed of 4, the true speed would be T=8.

This way, the speed of ships would actually matter. As things stand, there's almost no difference between a fast ship and a slow ship (a difference of 2 movement points doesn't matter that much when your ships can move 6 or 8 spaces per turn).

The AI should also be made to understand that frigates and battlecruisers are good for attack, but battle axes and battle hammers are better for defense.

Some tweaks to +speed bonuses would probably be necessary too, like speed technologies would have to give more than a +10% improvement, and the speed bonuses would have to cost less advantage points, but it'd probably be worthwhile, since ship speed is almost a non-factor right now.
Reply #2 from Stardock Forums Top
Here's another idea: if a defending ship has a higher base speed (= more mobility), then it can become the attacker if that is more advantageous in combat. I think this is a fair and logical way to reward ship speed improvements.

I'm not sure how much this would hurt BattleHammers, but it couldn't help them considering that they are slow ships.

Also, I agree that speed improvements should be +% improvemnts instead of simple increases to distance. That way, a battlehamer with +20% would still only move 1 square/turn and would be more difficult to use as attackers.
Sins of a Solar Empire: Rebellion
Reply #3 from Stardock Forums Top
Estyles,

I like your proposed solution. I hope stardock will hear us.

thongor,

As I see it now, the BIG funkiller here is the gravity accelerator tradegood, that gives too much advantage to supposed-to-be, slow ships.
Reply #4 from Stardock Forums Top
Well, I don't find it is a fun killer.

And the speed attribute isn't really a percentage. When you gain Speed +10, it adds +1 move. Why? I think it is because the game movement was simplified, from when each minor square was really 10 squares of movement. If you pay attention to the game, sometimes the AI still moves in 10ths of positioning.

Would you prefer to have the percent notation removed?

Remember, this is a single player game. So there is absolutely zero chance you are going to go up against a human that is using Battle Hammers against you. If you find something cheesy in the game, just don't do it. I like Battle Hammers, and would prefer to not end up defending all my worlds with Dreadnaughts and Battle Ships. And if Battle Hammers get nerfed so they can only move 1, and have their stats changed, that is what you will have to do.. as you will not be able to use them for anything but orbital target practice otherwise.
Reply #5 from Stardock Forums Top
The AI attacks me with battle hammers and battleaxes all the time. Not in large quantities, but it *does* use them.

~SDC~
Reply #6 from Stardock Forums Top
The movement issue is a moot point if the ship was just balanced appropriately to its cost. The Battlehammer's problem is that it does it all for such a low cost with the only real disadvantages being range and speed. Those disadvantages alone might pay for the load of extra hit points and decent maintanence cost to keep this ship cheaply priced if not for the fact that this is not like the other ships of the midgame in regard to they all have very lopsided attack vs. defense numbers.

In a world of specialized but generally cheap ships, the Battlehammer gives one a nice attack and defense for the low cost of a specialized ship. The quickest (and IMHO most reasonable) remedy is just to make this ship cost like 500 production so that it is more cost effective to build a fleet of specialized ships that know their jobs, but at the same time keep the ship in the game as it is intended for those who want a fleet of all around capable (but hard to make) ships.
Reply #7 from Stardock Forums Top
I agree that the Hammer is overpowered, but I'm not sure how to fix it. I just won a game on Genius/large galaxy before the capital ship era even arrived thanks to Hammers + speed/range boosters (Gravity Accelerators are a must :p )

They really weren't meant to be an offensive force, IMO....maybe they should be given a slight defensive boost and a large offensive nerfing. Instead of 5/4, maybe 1/6 or 1/7? Still a great defender, not such a great attacker.

Reply #8 from Stardock Forums Top
Star pilot,

Carefully read trough what I wrote in the first place.
I NEWER tried to say defensive ships should not be allowed to be used for defensive purposes, I only said theese ships should
solely be defensive ships, not extreamly cheap offensive ships.

The speed atribute SHOULD most defineatly be a % instead of a certin moves/turn for all ships, simply because it unbalances things too much as I tried to explain in the first post in this chain, and not just a little bit either, as it makes slow ships very much quicker than they are supposed to be.
I also tried to explain that the A.I currently DO NOT understand the power of battlehammers so comits suicide by building large quanities of alternative ships with high build/upkeep cost + less hitpoints etc...

Of course I could restain myself from building battlehammers...in the same way I have phorbithed myself from building multiple-starbases in the same sector or building starbases with insane attack bonuses in enemy-sectors etc... but by playing with theese self-imposed rules upon oneself makes the game just as fun as playing chess against oneself. (well...actually there are people finding this amusing) - I am just not one of them.

In my oppinnion,
If a product, in this case a game, is broken, then it is the designers and not the players job to fix it as someone (don't remember who) so well said at Civilization III:s discussionboard some year ago.

The stats inbalance between the battlehammer and the frigate (when taking into consideration the battlehammers way too quick movement) are such that this can, whitout hesitation, bee seen as a broken concept and thus something needing to be fixed.
Reply #9 from Stardock Forums Top
You know, I'm not a top of the line player or anything by far. But I have already had several games where I had to build Frigates and Battle Cruisers over Battle Hammers so that I might be able to reach out and 'touch' a target. So it does happen. That difference in range can come into play, depending on the particulars of the game.
Reply #10 from Stardock Forums Top
Elkku, the speed bonuses *used to* provide percentages, and the result was that most ships never gained any speed increase until the very late game. I mean, a constructor adds .1 parsec per 10% under the old system, and a survey ship .3.

Going back to that would be a step backwards. Perhaps there's another way to get the desired result without re-nerfing the movement bonuses.

~SDC~
Reply #11 from Stardock Forums Top
The underlying problem is that the difference between base movement speeds (and ranges) is quickly swamped by the benefits of various techs (and those luverly accelerators :) ). IMHO this is not nearly as important for speed as it is for range.

Perhaps, then, ships with 0 speed (and/or range) should simply be exempt from boosts? Or at least get them at half the rate normal ships do. Ships with only 1 speed/range should also receive their boosts at a reduced rate, but not as punishing at the rate for 0 rated ships. That way, ships that are supposed to be defensive stay that way, but offensive ships behave as they currently do. It would make ships much less generic, and replacement/upgrade paths much less straightforward than they currently are (I mean, does *anyone* build rangers?)

~SDC~
Reply #12 from Stardock Forums Top
Most of my games don't last to Rangers. But give me time... ;)
Reply #13 from Stardock Forums Top
Have to say that the battlehammer is my favorite ship in the game until dreadnoughts come into play. They are great. Excellent maintaince to (attack+def)*HP ratio. Super buys, really.

To be honest, I don't know if that's a really good metric. Heck, tell you what. Since I'm such a swell guy I'll give it a whirl right now!

Ok, I ran the numbers, and let's modify the formula a touch and make it ((attack+def)^2)*HP since, well, you know attack and def are pretty important.

And what do we get?

starfighter 45
Battlecruiser 192
Corvette 300
defender 320
Frigate 364.5
battleaxe 653
battleship 676
battlehammer 1458
dreadnought 1666
avatar 2645
overlord 4915
exclabur 75000

(higher numbers are better).

And what do you know. This is actually how I would rate the ships. Note that the battlehammer (and the dreadnought) are really a lot better than the stuff before them.

Hmm ... just thought of something. How about if we take the ratio of the stuff before and after to see how big the change is?

and here is what you get

starfighter
Battlecruiser 4.266666667
Corvette 1.5625
defender 1.066666667
Frigate 1.1390625
battleaxe 1.792409694
battleship 1.034693878
battlehammer 2.156804734
dreadnought 1.143118427
avatar 1.587
overlord 1.858298677
exclabur 15.25878906

Other than the woeful starfighter and battlecruiser (which really, really, stinks it should be made better, perhaps lower maintainance) everything falls into line, except for the battlehammer to battleship ratio.

Anyway, don't know if this is right, but it's darn interesting.
Reply #14 from Stardock Forums Top
I believe a part of the probelm is the way combat works.

Put simply there isn't really much difference between an offensive or defensive ship since both the attacker and defender will use both their offensive and defensive attributes during any combat (assuming the defender survives past the first round).
Reply #15 from Stardock Forums Top
Phaedyme,

I understand your concern. I would hate it if the constructors and freighters would be stuck troughout the game with a 1 movement/turn. That would be afwul.

One possibility would be to give theese ships +1 initial speed. (ships supposed to be much quicker like
corvettes and starfighters should have sigcifically higer starting speed so that a % bonus would reallt affect them. Also, this speedbonus could be say +25% instead of just +10%

(heck, then even a star-fighters might become useful..since they would be able to sneak into enemy territory and destroy trade routes...he he...)
:)
Reply #16 from Stardock Forums Top
Battlehammers and dreadnoughts seem overpowered to me. And the AI doesnt use either of them very effectively (but especially not battlehammers).

olaf
Reply #17 from Stardock Forums Top
I think the best way to balance the BattleHammer would be to beef up the BattleCruiser and the Frigate. Battlehammers don't seem so overpowered once Dreadnaughts become available. The Battlecruisers definately need help.
Reply #19 from Stardock Forums Top
I like the simple solution of just reducing the attack rating of a battleaxe. Never did understand why a suppossedly defensive ship have such offense. Reduce to 2 or 3. OR reduce to 1 and increase defense to 5 or 6.

Paul.

~SDC~
Reply #20 from Stardock Forums Top
I happen to LOVE battlehammers. In fact, I used to send a fleet of them to take on more powerful ships. Of course, I'd make a ton of them, due to their then cheap price tag.

Until I came across this thread, I didn't know that they were that powerful or that they were supposed to only be defensive in nature. FYI, I'm more familiar with the OS/2 version of GalCiv then the current one.
Reply #21 from Stardock Forums Top
#13 Excellent analysis, Huz. I had reached the same conclusions, though on much less empirical grounds.

#17 I agree with Hab. For such an expensive tech discovery, BC's are disappointing. They are viable combat vessels only with the support of HP bonuses from shipyards, the War Party, etc. Stand-alone, they are too easily lost to maintain an offensive. Should their stats be improved to increase HP's (and perhaps speed & range to clearly distinguish them from BH's & FF's), they would be more valuable.

As things stand, Huzurdaddi's figures show no ship to really be practical until BattleAxes. Once those are unlocked, the building of a Fleet becomes a wise investment. Preceding ships are really useful just for surveying and commerce-raiding (or TR/Freighter escort).

~SDC~
Reply #22 from Stardock Forums Top
I quickly discovered that the Battlehammer was the most cost effective ship to build.

The AI clearly doesn't see much value in the Battlehammer. The AI favors Corvettes, Frigates, Battleships, and Dreadnaughts.

With some Battlehammers, and a starbase(s) with good military capabilities, your home system becomes unconquerable by the stupid AI. (But the AI is very effective at destroying all of your trade routes.)
Reply #23 from Stardock Forums Top
If you nerf defensive ships attack capability you reduce your ability to intercept a combat transport that's in your system. I think defensive ships should be used for whatever you want. If anything, I would suggest either increasing the cost or modifying the stats but I definately would not want to have completely specialized combat ships.

~SDC~
Reply #24 from Stardock Forums Top
All that is required is to reduce their HPs slightly and potentially increase the battle ships HPs slightly.

This would also clean up Huz's list.
Reply #25 from Stardock Forums Top
KiloOhm, Combat transports don't invade defended systems. They still have 0 att (Unless that increased Transport attack UP issue comes up). If you want to take out the transport, use high attack ships.