This member has provided no bio about themself...
Yeah I know that saying "it's more probable to have Dreadnaughts than Battleships" was completely meaningless, since I have my own mental image of what defines a Honeworld Dreadnaught and you don't see into my head. But to me these aren't the same.
In short my version of Dreadnaught is a pure combat heavy hitter, it doesn't even have hangar, it's very narrowly focused on the task of melting big pieces of metal that are painted in enemy colors. Like a really mean big Battlecruiser crossed with the Progenitor Dreadnaught.
While Battleship could be more self-sufficient, universal, perhaps even modular or with limited building capabilities or special abilities. I can imagine only allowing one in the unitcaps. Like something you would imagine a Flagship to be, if you didn't already know that Homeworld Flagships are just oversized slow Shipyard-carriers.
Now I don't claim at all this is historically accurate, in-line with the Earth naval classifications. This is what these terms represent to me in the context of the Homeworld game.
Dreadnaughts are pretty straightforward to balance. I still haven't figured out a safe way to introduce Battleships though. With this and all the rest of what I just said in mind, this is why I said "Dreadnaughts are more likely to be added than Battleships."
On the topic of why I didn't provide any further explanation, nobody knows...
Dreadnaughts are more likely to be added than Battleships.
This comment has been posted in a private group.
I've made a Battleship concept a couple months ago: Youtube.com
I simply tried to produce something that doesn't just look like a scaled-up Battlecruiser. This one was meant to be a "double decker" design. It still sort of does look like a BC.
That all said Battleships and Dreadnaughts are tricky. Even Battlecruisers are a bit OP, Battleships would be even more problematic. What would be their damage, their armor, their cost and their speed?
What's the ballance between them popping one BC after another, jumping to an enemy Mothership and melting it in a single salvo and between the cost so high it's not worth building and speed so slow it's irritating to even move the thing. Where's that sweetspot between them being good enough, but not gamecrashingly OP. And what drawback are too much. And would such ship simply bring more benefits than ruin the game?
One idea that was flying around in my devgroup was that Battleships couldn't hyperspace, or couldn't hyperspace on it's own. So while they would be really strong, you could see the ship and its support fleet closing in on you on sublight. (-In that case it would have to have more or less the speed of a Battlecruiser.)
Another thing are arrays of damageable weapons.
Or that simply owning the Battleship would cost you a certain amount of RU per minute.
The bottom line: it is possible. But I won't have it, unless/untill I figure out how not to make it gamebreakingly OP.
Anyway back then, if you found my part of criticism of the Battlecarrier insensitive, then sorry.
I have a very thick skin about this myself and I'm used to argue about this stuff. A lot. Especially in my dev group, where I told people not to hold back. BTW there's a guy who doesn't like the turrets either.
But if my Cruiser is going to turn to be "problematic" or offensive for the general public, I'll face the angry mob.
I'm willing to risk it. :)
If I wanted to be subtly arrogant, I'd ask whether this Cruiser is less Vaygr than Vortex is Hiigaran.
But I don't understand how I'm being arrogant. By presuming I do have a grasp on understanding the aesthetics? If so then yes, I do claim that.
I could get what you're trying to say, but that starting possition of yours confuses me. What I don't get is that you had 5 turrets on a Vaygr Capital (primary non-combat) ship, possibly of bigger mass than this Cruiser, and yet you're trying to suggest that 2 on mine are way too much?
You had four kinetic turrets on a ship that was presented as "yet unspecified race", but I'm the one breaking the racial themes?
Is the whole point warning me "not to make the same mistake"?
Also if you do personally prefer more "realism" and breaking of stereotypes, what's is your problem with two perfectly Vaygr turrets on a perfectly Vaygr ship then?
This will be more confusing than anything, since it's just a concept and I personally don't count them as canon (while other modders often do), but what about this then:
That's one damn big official Vaygr Battlecruiser...
OK, this doesn't "look" Vaygr (even though it is). :) But my point is that simply because there isn't a BC with turrets, it doesn't mean there can't be. It's not a problem problem if it feels right.
-There isn't any Battleship, but people make them for their mods. And the funny thing is their problem is completelly the opposite, they're just scaled-up Battlecruisers, they're not different enough! :D
-Hell, people made the Vortex, by these standards you can say anything goes...
Well I think I was one of them, if you're reffering to the Battlecarrier's nose Ion turret. You were defending it as a Taiidan herritage.
It's not that the Vaygr cannot have Kinetic weapons. For them to look right they just have to hug the ship's body really closely. Sort of melt into the ship's general shape.
even the Vaygr Infiltrator Frigate.
The Vaygr Kinetic turrets are hiding somewhat, while on the Hiigaran ships they are in a plain view in the open right in the middle on an extruded platform. Just take a look at it from that perspective.
You could say that Vaygr rarely have more than 2 turrets. But this Cruiser does only have two and they are incased in and around the middle structure.
While your Battlecarrier had 4 Kinetic turrets sitting on the highest points of the hull and one Ion Turret at the front. It's not something you can compare.
But sure, if a crashing criticism comes my way, I consider myself warned. :) But I think I know my races well enough and can defend my possition.
...and honestly I'll do it my way anyway.
As someone from your team said, "you can't please everyone".
Oh yeah, SOASE could use that, on some ships it's quite noticeable.
This one is meant to be a standard frontline combat ship.
Other Cruisers with different roles are likely to appear eventually, like the long range one you suggest, but first I need a basic unit to fill the class.
Just like you have a standard Destroyer, a standard Battlecruiser and then the variations (like the Artillery Destroyers or the Missile Battlecruiser the old R.E.A.R.M. had), this is the standard unit. The first of its class and the benchmark similar ships would be meassured against.
Something about Cruisers:
It's a new BC prerequisity, you have to research this ship to unlock research for Battlecruisers.
Both BCs and Cruisers are now in a unitcap simply called "Cruisers". They share the same slot, but I have to modify that a little so there can be more Cruisers than BCs.
BCs are currently a little bit too powerful, they nulify Destroyers, Frigates, they are worth several times more than what you pay for them, kind of break the game. So Cruisers are there to delay them a little.
The Vaygr one has 190 000 HP, 3347 DPS and 81 speed. So it can almost be beaten by two Destroyers. And if you have two Cruisers, they can beat one Battlecruiser.
It sits nicely in the middle (slightly on the BC side), balancing the game.
The Vaygr and Hiigaran Cruisers are slightly different. The Vaygr one has a hangar, but doesn't have any modules (you can research an innate hyperdrive for them though, a one with no AoE for nearby ships). Hiigaran doesn't have any hangar, but has two module slots. Hiigaran is a bit faster in sublight.
They both have the same DPS, but the Vaygr has 190K health, while the Hiigaran has 180K. The Hiigaran still kills the Vaygr two seconds before the last Vaygr missiles reaches it to finish it, because the Ion cannon is instantaneous, while the missiles have a "lag" between targeting and inflicting damage.
Here is a size comparison:
Modding SOASE is also cool.