Squadron/Single-Ship Production Design/Balance Brainstorming

Any strike-craft, including fighters and corvettes. Or if you have a good reason to talk about frigates possibly getting squadron production, but that’s a bit far-fetched to me haha

HW1 factions really can’t have squadron-grouping because of the Support Frigates. That is unless they can re-script the way the latch docking works, or unless the squadron can be broken back down into individual ships during external docking maneuvers. Either way means a lot of scripting I presume. But I’d kinda like to see the ability to toggle between squads and individual ships because it could mean the ability to individual-control HW2 strike craft for the first time.

Really I don’t think the squad/not-squad build differential between the factions has any flavor of race diversification. You just have pilots who don’t know how to work together (at current, until formations begin to work) and pilots who don’t know how not to work together, lol.

Of course some races only having squad build and some only having individual build is a balance issue too. I can’t really get around the fact that all losses for HW1 races have to be replaced, but HW2 strike craft can sustain up to 80% losses and recover them at no cost. That’s a big deal, and it’s why I think strike craft have to be standardized, regardless of whether it makes the races more diverse or not.

1 Like

I’m thinking this could be possible if it is possible for a single ship to leave a squadron as stated in the developer thread.

Wait wait wait here!

Could someone please explain to me why we need to give HW1 races squadrons? Can’t we just, I don’t know, remove squadrons from HW2 races?

You feelin’ me?

I’m coming down firm on the side that HW2 should keep their replenish, HW1 keep their single build. If either side becomes the other, support frigates are going to throw the balance all out of whack.

And I don’t think anyone is giving much thought to what this would do to HW2 vettes. HW2 vettes were designed to orbit and fire, ours strafe and fire forward. Breaking up and single forming HW2 vettes will probably not work right. Probably not as bad as ours flying around in circles waving at the target, but still I bet there is an adverse effect to a pulsar vette wall. Are we going to have the HW2 players constantly have to rebuild little 3 unit deltas or 4 unit walls every time a single one goes down? Or will a wall of Laser vettes just break up into 2 big walls orbiting a target? How will they know who to pair up with?

1 Like

Not really. HW2 vettes could be made to work fine and flock without being squadrons.
That said, the mere fact that they’re balanced around squadrons is all the reason you really need to keep them.
HW1 can be balanced around not needing the replenish.
Each way can have its benefits and drawbacks.

I’m yeah, pretty firmly against this whole breaking up and forming squads from single units thing, especially if it changes how HW2s works.
I’m also really against it because it’s not the problem. The problem is the unit behavior and control you have over them, not that they don’t stay in a pretty shape while doing the wrong thing.

1 Like

I agree. I hope they either keep them separate, or come up with something else

Honestly, this whole topic seems to be about making HW1 play more like HW2. I can’t say I’m a big fan.

I guess since we’re stuck with the merged MP, it’s somewhat reasonable balance-wise (in a very minor way), but it doesn’t address gameplay mechanics. I’d rather they focus on something more significant.

[quote=“innociv, post:16, topic:218060”]
HW1 can be balanced around not needing the replenish.Each way can have its benefits and drawbacks.
[/quote]I don’t know. I really don’t know. It doesn’t seem possible to me to properly balance any system where one set of strike craft need to have every individual casualty replaced no matter what, and another set of strike craft where between 100% and 20% of the individual casualties need to be replaced, completely at random. And I really fail to see why anyone should try to balance squads against individual builds, when it seems to me that we’re creating such a phony sense of tactical diversity, because, at the end of the day, all four factions are fielding fighters and corvettes. Why shouldn’t a fighter be a fighter be a fighter, and the same with a vette? I mean of course there are different kinds of fighters and corvettes, that are meant to accomplish different types of tasks based on stats and weapon loadouts. That, to me, is what should determine the tactical utility of a strike ship, not whether it’s arbitrarily-perma-grouped to a half-dozen buddies or not. There’s no in-universe rationale for this distinction, nor can there be.

I will note that BitVenom has also talked about knowing about and dealing with other issues in the future, I’m fairly confident ship behavior is included in that. Maybe that would be a better priority, but right now this is what they’re testing.

Also, remember that

So you could still keep single-ship production for HW1 and squadron production for HW2.

The biggest change would be using squadrons as a way to create formations that get around the problems they had previously trying to put formations in. That combined with future ship behavior changes should give some good ship control to the players.

Mainly this specific thread is for pros and cons of single-ship and squadron building for the HW1 and HW2 races, though. It seems like many so far would prefer it stay single-ship for HW1 and squadron for HW2, but there are also some with arguments for otherwise.

Funny thing to me is I don’t see any HW1 guys I know arguing for squads for HW1, and no HW2 guys arguing for single ship for HW2. I say leave the builds, and the replenishes as they are. It appears as there are a few pointing to the other side saying “they need to change”. You take replenish away from HW2 and HW1 is going to own them.

1 Like

I think this all is happening because GBX didn’t understand what people meant by saying they wanted formations working.

They read what people said and didn’t understand what they really meant, that the issue was in behavior and not that “ships don’t stay in a pretty shape”.


So now they’re spending all this time on this “dynamic squadron” thing that’s likely going to make no one happy unless it can somehow not require a bunch of extra commands and to just work as well as strike groups, and the behavior issues will still be there.

1 Like

No, we want that also, make no mistake. look at the thread I posted asking what people liked about HW1 formations. Effectiveness, Management, and Visual were all things that people liked.

But in HW1 that’s not how it worked. I just watched a video on it to make sure for myself.
Ships would break formation in attack. Like when you did an aggressive claw they swept over stuff, they broke out of formation considerably though they still overall stayed together. The difference was they wouldn’t randomly break off all over the place thousands of meters away from one another. I think even walls would break up a bit until given a movement order where they’d then reform tightly again?
Now sphere, yeah, had really special behavior where they’d rigidly stay in place, but squads aren’t needed for that. the only reason that doesn’t happen in formations now is because of their “AttackRun” behavior.

You guys are misunderstanding that these ships don’t break formations because they’re not in squads, or because every HW1 formations programming(except sphere) had some special programming that kept them in place. They do it because of their attack behavior telling them to get wildly out of the position they were at.

If I just changed ships to a facing attack style and to not chase, and put them in wall formation, they’d stay in that wall formation.

Ok, the first thing you need to get out of your head is any fighter formation larger than 9 craft. Even 9 craft was rather inefficient, but some people still used them. I understand you may be confused watching videos or seeing post from SP campaign players talking about large formations of fighters. They didn’t exist in HW1 MP. At least not after the noob using them played a few games and was given a reality check. They are a none factor, forget about them.

Fighter formations in HW1 didn’t look much different that they do in HW2. The standard, default, most commonly used fighter setup was 5 craft in a claw and multiple claws.

Yes, the larger the formation the more they would break up. But again, this is due to attack behavior and not some magical pathing code that makes ships stay in a shape.

You also have to think of things in the context of fixing things on this engine. Squadrons aren’t going to do the things you want.

Yep, starting to understand that. Folks at relic news were pointing out on day one that the physic engine also played into how craft moved, not just how they shoot. Maybe there are some flight paths and behavior changes that can simulate, but I’m not to hopeful at this point. But the visual IS a big deal, and a surface deal breaker for many. It would probably be better to get them back at least looking like HW1 formations and them not be as effective then it would be to not get them back at all at this point.

I’m personally less concerned about fighter formations and more concerned about frigate and corvette walls.

I thought this as well, but it seems ships obey physics fine in “DogFight” AttackStyle like I showed in that video.

It seems AttackRun among others that are actually used by the strike craft just puts things on rails instead.

So the Engine has this physics support, and it’s working over the netcode, it just isn’t being used because of a few issues that need fixed when this behavior is used.

So you think you can reproduce Newtonian motion?

I already did. You must have missed it. I think most people did. Forums have been more active lately(which is a good thing)

Even though individual units will break off, they regroup. Tbh I think it works better than HW1s(And HW2s) except for a few issues that I pointed out and gave suggestions on how to fix.