Minor Annoyance
Deity
Damn, I didn't even know subs wouldn't defend a stack either. I've been guarding transports with stealth destroyers and attack subs, aka nothing!
Er, how do you figure that? Battleships don't carry any units, and they aren't invisible. And they generally are the strongest unit on a square, which means they'd get picked to defend first. I think you are confusing the term "empty" with "capable of carrying units, but not". Any ship that doesn't currently have units on it, whether it can carry them or not, would be considered to defend before a ship that does have units on it. So Battleships would defend before Transports, loaded or unloaded. And if Stealth Destroyers were made to defend stacks, then they also would defend ahead of Transports.
It's an issue of cost analysis. If you lose a healthy missile cruiser with other units on it, you've lost a lot more than losing an unhealthy missile cruiser that's empty. Choosing the best defender regardless of cargo sounds like a great plan until you consider the consequences of losing. I mean, consider the following: You've got a fully loaded Transport with 4 Modern Armor on it that has the Combat I promotion. And you've got an unloaded Transport with no promotions. You get attacked by a Battleship. Which Transport would you rather have defend?
Anyone with an ounce of sense is going to choose the unloaded Transport, despite the fact it has less strength - because it doesn't matter which you use, you're going to lose anyway (almost certainly, based on probability).
I'm not saying that they've made the right choice, but I can certainly see why they chose it.
Let's just assume that I can implement it properly.
Out of curiosity, in what way does the argument for Steath Destroyers differ from the argument from Subs (and please, don't bring "in real life" examples into play)?
No, it doesn't affect the problem in the slightest. The problem is not "Destroyers upgrade to Stealth Destroyers", the problem is people assume Steath Destroyers will defend their stack.
Bh
Well, there's still some other things I'm considering. Stealth units, for one. I can understand that if all you've got on a square is a Stealth Destroyer, for example, then allowing the enemy to attack it makes the whole "Stealth" concept moot. On the other hand, if you've got a Stealth Destroyer on the same square as a loaded Transport, wouldn't it make sense for the Stealth Destroyer to defend the Transport (ie, be used to defend instead of the Transport)? I can't see any realistic or game play reason to suggest the Stealth Destroyer should just sit back and calmly watch the Transport get sunk.
Bh
Also in one of games where MC defended but was wounded VERY badly I did this. Made a new MC and loaded it with missiles. and put it with severely wounded empty MC. I then but a barb battleship next to it. Fully healthy loaded MC had over 50% chance to win. Empty severely wounded MC had less than 0.1% chance to win. Barb battleship attacks and empty wounded MC defends.
I havent done this test but I am will to bet if I made game with severely wounded empty MC and fully healthy loaded MC and then barb destroyer. Which would make the fully loaded MC WELL OVER 50% chance to win and severely wounded empty MC still well UNDER 50% chance to win the empty MC would STILL defend
...
For the life of me though I cant understand at all why a empty transport would be picked over a fully loaded Missile cruiser even if the MC has a high chance to win and transport has high chance to lose. Nor do I understand why a player would prefer a empty transport with high chance to lose over MC with high chance to win.
The "Stealth" ability only concerns not being able to see the ship on Radar. It does not make the ship invisible to the human eye.
The Radar will be clear if the SD is alone. It will show activity if a transport is around. It will show the same activity if the transport is escorted by a SD. THey will not know what they are attacking until within visible range.
So if an enemy ship/sub approaches to attack a transport which is escorted by a stealth destroyer - they will see that ship also.
So yes - the stealth destroyer should defend.
and at the very least, even if the enemy ship is sunk, the enemy's headquarters will know that something's up in that square because their ship went off the air.
Can someone point me to the post in this thread where Bhruic tells us how he fixed the Executive Spam problem?
No, you are confusing cause and effect. Too many executives is the effect. The cause is the AI not having the money to spread its corporation. It's possible to minimize the effect (which is what I've tried to do), but as long as the cause is there, the problem remains.
...
Leaving aside the debate over how important corporations are, I think it's pretty important that the AI can spread its corporations. As long as it has the imperative to do so, but not the means, there's going to be a problem. If you're advocating removing the imperative, that's fine. But at that point one might as well argue to remove corporations in general. You're welcome to do that, but it's certainly not something I'd do in a patch.
..
I'd like to fix it. But it's not a simple fix.
the last paragraph i quoted wasn't directly under the first two in your original post. i moved it to more directly show you why this player prefers what you don't understand anybody having a preference for . i think i play much more conservatively than you on battles like the ones we're discussing. to me "well over 50% chance to win" isn't high. on an expensive troop i need to have when i get where i'm going, 80% odds for some distraction on the way aren't high. this is my perspective here, i admit that i'm a wuss, and i'm a terrible warmonger. just showing you one of the other sides.
i look at "fully loaded MC WELL OVER 50% chance to win" in your example and what i think is "X hammers spent on the MC + 4xY hammers spent on missiles + time to travel where i am = i ain't gonna risk this thing on any battles that aren't 99.9% in my favor." i have a plan for that boat, and i brought other boats along to do other jobs. this particular loaded MC in my inflexible little mind is supposed to go drop exploding thingies on stuff, and if it dies defending in a battle where i could have lost just an empty MC, that's a much bigger hit i've taken. keeping it alive to do the job is my priority #1. i miiiiiight pause to kill a trireme for 1 exp maaaaybe, but i'm telling you, i am ultra-cautious *giggle*. you would lose your mind laughing at how bad i am at wars and how overprepared i have to be to win one
i first noticed the "transports don't defend" rule when my privateers were out harassing caravels. when caravel escorts died then the galleons they were protecting had higher odds and i was not a happy camper, and realized what was going on. but i do think it's the best way to design it, really. i'd rather lose an empty ship than one carrying something, as a general rule. and if that someday makes me lose a really expensive ship defending a transport has just a warrior onboard for some stupid reason, well, knowing me that probably is gonna happen, but oh well.
actually tho, this is all a way of getting around one of the warlords changes. in vanilla you could see what troops were on board enemy ships. now you can't, you can't even tell if there's anything on them. but with this rule in place, as long as you're at war (or have enough privateers to do it peacefully!) and have enough ships to kill all escort ships, then targeting a stack of enemy ships that include a transport or 3 will let you know as the escorts whittle down whether there are troops on the ships. i mean, if it's a caravel and a galleon and the caravel's defending vs. your privateer, dead give-away there's something on the galleon. not that it helps you, but hey, at least you know part of what you're not supposed to know any more.
It just doesnt make sense to me that best escorts in modern era seem to be unloaded transports. And this due to fact that they take priorty over loaded MC's to defend when they shouldn't.
And yeah if in situations when attacked and no matter which unit in stack is picked battle is most likely to be lost OF COURSE I would want the unit with least to lose to be picked. BUT thats not how game works. SOmetimes on lad when your stack gets womped by say modern armor or some VASTLY superior unit and in your stack is level 40 maceman with a great general attached and other unit is a plain level 1 warrior. Yeah I would prefer the warrior get picked but in the game thats not how it works. That maceman is toast and it just something you have to live with.
And wierd things like that DO happen in naval combat. For example:
If there is a logic to any of the above I am afraid I just dont see it at all. And I think a lot of that if not ALL of that can be avoided if sea combat runs just like land combat where best defender period defends.
I mean yeah its sucky if a Combat1 transport with 4 modern armor defends and loses and units are lost but at least I can understand and see why that combat 1 transport was picked to defend over an unpromoted empty one.
For the life of me though I cant understand at all why a empty transport would be picked over a fully loaded Missle cruiser even if the MC has a high chance to win and transport has high chance to lose. Nor do I understand why a player would prefer a empty transport with high chance to lose over MC with high chance to win.
But seriously if any of my assumptions are off base or insulting I am deeply sorry.
One would be to change stealth destroyers so that they can STILL perfom the functions of regualr destroyers. Meaning make them defend stacks and make them able to detect subs. The downside means fiddling with the combat system so the game knows WHEN they should be stealthy and when they shouldnt.
Another would be to allow regular destroyers to still be made. This solution would allow a unit that can be made to still perfom the "escort" functions and to me at least has less chance of unforseen complications than fiddling with a stealth destroyers "stealthyness" might.
And game play wise you would no more expect the stealth destroyer to perfome the escort destroyer's functions anymore than game play wise you would expect an explorer to perform a swordsman's functions even if "real life" arguments could be made on how they should.
All three soltions solve the problem which is not that stealth destroyers cant defend stacks or defend subs but just that since they cant when they come into play an "ideal" modern sub hunting escort surface ship is no longer available. All three solutions have upsides and downsides.
And again I sincerely hope I havent been sounding like I am whining or criticizing you. I think what you have been doing for us is wonderful and am just trying to be helpful and if I sounded like I was doing ANYTHING other than that I am very very sorry
The BEST way to protect those MC's or ANY stack of ships you want to make sure NEVER get into fights is to keep a ton of empty transports in any stack you want protected. That encourages you to guard MC's with transports when it should be to me at least the other way around.
Man, I really love you![...] It's the fact they have a unit on a square, and that unit is a military one, and it's not defending that square. It breaks player expectations.[...]