One type of ship per fleet

Hey guys got a question should the devs make it to where you can only pick 1 type of ship per fleet so it forces fleet diversity on a player instead of spaming only 1 ship type per fleet

good luck with necrons!

but thats just the most obvious example
its a bad idea

Well i think primarily because the new potential for customization present in having the option to bring whatever you want is more exciting than just doing what they did in the old game.

There's also the problem of certain fleets being unbalanced in general during the beta and requiring specific fleet setups to work at all which makes limited fleet options less than optimal.

What i think could be fun would be to have presets that can be set on custom rounds where restricted ship types are selected. This could lead to matches where you could challenge yourself by having for example no battleships and thus have new strategies revolving around those restrictions.

@blinkingsea said in One type of ship per fleet:

ok why is it a bad idea

Necrons literally don't have enough ship types to form a fleet under this setup. As just the first issue.

One type of each ship won’t work with certain fleets, but like how they have done escorts (1 cruiser gets you 4 IIRC) should be the same for other ships.

So cruisers should be the mainstay of a fleet, I would like something like this

If you take a cruiser it unlocks battleships and battle cruisers, so no dual battleship fleets, this represents there rarity.

Alternatively you can restrict ships based on the points of the game, akin to how TT does it.

600pts: light cruisers, escorts, 0-2 cruisers 0-1 battlecruisers.

And up it’s from there, however they address spam it does need addressing.

"One type of unit per army" in RTS translates as "I can not resist name_unit it's so OP please do something because I cannot save myself". This is a last resort. In most cases, completely unnecessary.

For example, the quartet Dark Eldar battleships annihilate all a banal forehead-to-forehead shootout. What, obviously, should not happen. Well, you know, they are considered a bit fragile and prefer hit-run?

Of course, you can go nuclear and "one type of ship per fleet". can, remove the stance 100% increase DPS. Or you can or reduce survival. Or increase the price. There are many options for customization, except "remove THIS from game, or at least make it as rare as possible".

No. I think that the restrictions on fleet composition should be organic, rather than forced. If you say "you can only take one battleship", it is a non choice. Either battleships are so good that one is mandatory, or battleships are so bad that no one takes one. But either way, you don't have any meaningful choices. It also hides greater issues of balance. If battleships are undercosted but you only get one, you are going to really be punished for not building around yours, or taking a less good one.

I think the capture points already punish you for taking all battleships anyways, and aoe weapons punish only escorts. There is an incentive to have a vaired fleet. I just worry that the balance in general is not quite good enough to ensure that people do take a bunch of different ships, instead of "6 avengers face off against 4 falling moons".

I do think that the game has some serious problems with the upgrade system, which encourage spamming the same fleets: if I have an ability that only functions for ships with torpedoes, or ramming spurs, or only macro weapons, or only dreadnoughts, there is a huge incentive to build one dimensional, boring lists. I would like to see them removed. Period. Flagship upgrades are a bit interesting, because it encourages you to pick a big flagship, but fleet wide upgrades are terrible.

If all torpedoes were good, you could use a couple torpedo ships to either cut off an enemy trying to maneuver and force him to turn, or you could use it to split a formation so that your pair of avengers can drive through the middle, firing broadsides on either side.

But if only the torpedoes that have the short burn torpedoes upgrade are good, that's going to be a problem. Either no torpedoes are good (now), or only the torpedoes that you invested an upgrade in are good. And the ones that you invested an upgrade in could easily be TOO good.

Is that going to result in cool lists, where a retribution makes a hole for 2 avengers, while a defiant and a couple swords pick off isolated escorts on the flanks?

Or is it going to result in someone saying "torpedoes are terrible" and taking 0 torpedoes and 6 avengers? Or the other case "torpedoes are okay, but if you have short burn torpedoes they are very good, so I am taking nothing but dauntless mark II's". I don't want that. I want you to say "torpedoes are useful for this specific purpose, so I am taking enough torpedoes to fill that purpose, but not every ship in my fleet is designed to get the most value out of short burn torpedoes".

last edited by timmietimmins

Absolutely not, let people play how they want.

The only restriction possible is one that avoid fleets consisting of only BBs which have 0 sense lorewise.
Something like 50% of fleet minimum in line cruisers (any kind from light to grand) and remaining points in escorts + BBs

@takt or you could just blow out the decks/engines of the four shieldless 9000k range BBs. a chaos lance fleet has a 18% crit chance per second(!) with their lances alone using lock-on.

with proper screening, it's an easy win for most fleets. people struggle, because they don't know how to deal with them / have bad builds.

@beernchips: BB-heavy builds are already pretty bad outside of 2vs2. maybe orks and nids (haven't played both much) can get away with something, but the low turn-rate and the increased crit-rate in general makes BBs very vulnerable.

@timmietimmins aoe weapons punish only low mobility ships. there is zero chance to catch an escort swarm with nova-templates, if the other player is not overwhelmed by his build.

you will never force somebody to break up his formation with 8 torpedos, without making 32 or more torpedos extremly overpowered.

fleet building is about synergy. if you want to go torpedo heavy, you also want to go with ordnance to protect your torpedos against fighters and turrets. if you go with ordnance and torpedos, you also want to go with ramming spurs to go all-in on hull damage. in the end, you will probably end-up with dictators and a MWJ retribution, because they have the best synergy going for a torp-heavy playstyle.

it would be necessary to redesign the game from the ground-up to change this (introducing clearly defined ship roles like support, healer, tank, damage-dealer etc.)

a good selection of skills and upgrades makes it possible to play a fleet with different builds that are comparable in power. in the best case, you avoid hard-counters between different builds.

atm I have the impression that probably 50-75% of all ships are kind of a trap choice, because they underperform compared to similar ships in the same roster or their playstyle is just not working with their faction (navy lance-builds for example). it would be nice if a lot of the generic upgrades would get replaced by stuff that buffs neglected ships / playstyles.

last edited by Fosil

@fosil I was actually referring to dispersed lightning arc, scarab swarm, and the thing where tyranids do aoe damage to stuff when their shields are up within 4500. Stuff that is area of effect but not template.

I definitely think that it is possible to balance torpedoes, as long as there are good responses to escorts getting in close with torpedoes, like lightning strikes or stasis bombs to prevent mass torpedo spam from minimum arming distance on specialized ships with high turn rates. Or just large arming distance.

The thing is, as long as torpedoes are tough enough and slow enough, they can demand you get out of the way. That's easy. And as long as they demand you get out of the way, you can in fact pre spread to mitigate damage. If there is only one battleship at mid range with 32 torpedoes, most of those torpedoes are not going to hit anything, and you just wasted a ton of points.

That's the balancing factor. Overinvest in torpedoes? your opponent can just spread out and beat you because he didn't pay for 32 torpedoes that mostly drifted off into empty space. There is a natural balancing mechanic to torpedoes: the opposing fleet density, which is the entire idea behind torpedoes. You use them to break up the enemy formation.

I do agree, a lot of the ships feel tough to justify. I have trouble imagining why anyone would want any of the imperial cruisers. Light cruisers? sure? Grand cruisers? sure. regular cruisers? why aren't you going bigger or smaller? It's not like a gothic/lunar/tyrant are faster than an avenger, or turn faster than an avenger. Or cost much less than an avenger.

I do think lances are somewhat useful on imperials. They do a LOT of dps once shields are down, and the dauntless light specifically is a real bully. I don't know that there is a lot of value in mixed ships (due to difficulty in getting a good target).

But the short range lances? That armor reduction can be a huge deal. at 9k in reload stance, (I don't like planning for 4.5k engagement with light ships because it's tough to micro and there are some real hard counters from stuff like orks, nids, and the like), A dauntless is getting 2.8 lance dps after 25 armor reduction, and that's equivalent to about 14 dps of macros, against a 67 armor ship, with 60% miss chance due to being beyond 4.5k range. (that is, 14 dps after considering the reload bonus).

Against hard targets like the kroot battle ball, it gets even more dramatic, with A dauntless light's lance ALONE, putting out the equivalent of about 27.4 dps at 9k range.

That's a LOT of dps. It just requires a lot of micro, as you have to make sure you have a good target, and the firing arcs can be punishing. But armor is a big deal in this game. And I don't think armor piercing macro ammunition is practical, because it has such bad matchups against eldar, orks, and nids (either because you can't, or don't want to, get within boarding range).

last edited by timmietimmins

@fosil I feel that more specificity is needed. Fleet building is about synergy. True. but is it about synergy between different classes of ships, or the same classes of ships? is the best ship to pair with 4 avengers. Is it anotherr avenger? or is it a retribution or a defiant or a dauntless?

That's the difference between good synergy and bad synergy.

I think the game has a ton of good synergy. Torpeodes, if they worked, would force a fleet to spread out. Broadside batteries and carriers love spread out fleets.

Lances shred armor but are not good at all against shields.

I feel that carriers are very good, but as you hit "lots" of carriers, I think the player with less carriers and more meat has an advantage over the guy with more carrier power. I also feel like location is extremely important for carriers, as is spotting and forcing the enemy to spread out.

I really like the capture points, as they make escort versus escort battle really relevant, but of course, if you have nothing but escorts, you better win on caps because I don't think you are winning a lot of battles with larger cruiser fleets.

The only synergies I worry about are templates (templates get better the more you have, and are REALLY hard to balance in 1v1 vs 2v2), nova cannons (which are templates, of course), and boarding (boarding is kind of a joke until it hits critical mass and it becomes an existential threat). But most of the fleets spamming all the same ship are due to raw balance issues, rather than simply avengers being better the more you have of them. that's not happening. It's just that the 4th avenger, even when you have 3 of them, is still better than the alternatives.

last edited by timmietimmins

@fosil said in One type of ship per fleet:

@takt or you could just blow out the decks/engines of the four shieldless 9000k range BBs. a chaos lance fleet has a 18% crit chance per second(!) with their lances alone using lock-on.

The situation is more difficult than "pressing lock-it to win". Start with the fact that the dark eldars fully hold initiative, thanks to the speed and stealth they can easily attack from any direction they want. For example, from side of the engines or even in the forehead ... as they usually do. Which would be fatal for a ship built on an broadside.

In turn, chaos can counter certain measures, such as escorts ... which is oftopic. Since the topic question sounds like "Do we need hard cap?".

last edited by TAKT

reload doesnt help lances

Ima keep it real wit u chief...I'm gunna need a tl:dr on all that.

@timmietimmins you May want to consolidate and concentrate your posts. A short tldr would help at the end, and there isn’t really a reason to post consecutively.

@timmietimmins atm torpedos are pretty much worthless, because braced ships are more or less a hard-counter them. if we assume that this is fixed in the next version, I prefer torps as skillshots to carpet torpedoing.

the general counter to carpet torpedoing in the first game was to tighten formations, not to spread out. having the most turret checks in the smallest space. I don't know what will work best in the 2nd game after they fixed braced, but I can guarantee you that, if one single torpedo cruiser is dangerous enough to make me scatter a formation, a full list of them will be extremely good.

your example of relatively more missing torpedos with more launchers uses imo the false assumption, that a player doesn't aim each launcher individually (carpet torpedoing vs skillshot). an isolated battleship at mid-range is the best possible case for a torpedo run.

you want navy cruisers for their torpedoes and ramming spurs. if you don't build around that, you don't want to take them imo at all.

like other said, reload does nothing for lances and afaik the range bracket starts at 80% hit chance at 4500k down to 60% hit(!) chance at 9000k. more importantly, the damage reduction does not reduce crit-chance. lances are a lot less valuable compared to the first game. I am pretty sure with the current skills and ship prices, you won't see a competitive navy lance build.

I wrote all I wanted to say about fleet building and synergy before. in one sentence again: with the current ship roles, specializing for a specific built is always the best choice.

a 4BB dark eldar built lacks initiative on the macro level. they have to attack a defended position (you park your fleet at an equidistant spot between the three closest grouped cap-points) and they have to go all-in if spotted, because they have no protection against hull damage/crits. that means too, that they cannot skirmish easily. they have to use reload to win the damage/crit race and they have to get close to do the damage. taking out the deck and engines takes a DA BB out of the fight. you don't focus fire till its dead, you change target after the deck is gone (a fast long range fleet can just concentrate on the engines while kiting). that is one big reason why I think going with more ships that have on paper less dps, will work better for dark eldar builds.

they are against most fleets able to deny any engagement, but they can't use that to any advantage in the capping game, because they have only a few ships with barely any map control. they are extremely bad in hunting escorts, because they lack in scanning and they cannot kill spotted escorts easily without taking hull damage. that they are slower than an all-ahead escort is another problem.

about ship facing: have you heard about high-energy turns, or just moving your ships in a wide circle all the time, so that you have no weakest side or how about baiting them into attacking from a specific direction with your facing etc. ship facing is really a non-issue for most fleets.

last edited by Fosil