Topic: Future Plans for DOE  (Read 1336 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Herr Burt

  • Guest
Future Plans for DOE
« on: March 22, 2003, 04:51:24 pm »

Reports for the Wargames are coming in.  Here is what I've decided to do so far.

1)  Cut back on the difficulty setting.  At the moment, it is set to medium.  (Commodore).  We'll back off and give Captain a try.  Be warned, however, this won't do what you think.  It doesn't much seem to affect how many ships you face.  Just how stupid they act.

2) Cut out some of the fleet missions.  More one-on-one overruns when facing the AI.

3) People are seeing way too many CVA's.  I moved line cruisers to the DD, CL, CA, DN slots.  Command, carrier, marine, and escort ships got moved to the other slots like War_Destroyer, New-HeavyCruiser, and Heavy_BattleCruiser.  (Escorts one slot less expensive; carrier, command, and marine ships one slot more expensive).  I've always believed the mission matcher hust trys to match your BPV, but it may be looking at these sub-slots as well.
  Which brings up the CVA's.    I classified them as Carrier so I could charge differently than I do for DN's.  However, Carrier used to be a catch-all slot for anything with fighters.  It is possible that this allows them to show up more often than they should regardless of what hull class you are flying.  <shrug> don't know.  Perhaps if I class CVA's as BB's they will show up less often.

4) I'm going to up the BPV of carriers to include their default fighter loadout.  This has been rejected via flames in the past, but I hope it will be accepted here.  No one flys empty carriers anyway, so their increase BPV should more accurately reflect their combat power to the mission matcher.  In addition, their increased BPV should (hopefully) mean they show up less often if you yourself are flying a non-carrier.  (That 170 point carrier that used to be a match for your 170 point cruiser will suddenly outpoint you by about 100 or so.)


-Herr Burt
 

Dizzy

  • Guest
Re: Future Plans for DOE
« Reply #1 on: March 22, 2003, 05:25:34 pm »
Quote:

  Perhaps if I class CVA's as BB's they will show up less often.

4) I'm going to up the BPV of carriers to include their default fighter loadout.  This has been rejected via flames in the past, but I hope it will be accepted here.  No one flys empty carriers anyway, so their increase BPV should more accurately reflect their combat power to the mission matcher.-Herr Burt
 




Good idea. I'm eager to see what happens when you change the carriers to BB's. I'm also eager to see how often they show up in the yards...

And good idea about the increased bpv of carriers.

NuclearWessels

  • Guest
Re: Future Plans for DOE
« Reply #2 on: March 22, 2003, 05:43:53 pm »
HB - I fired you an email and a PM about two different ideas for adjusting the mission balance

dave
 

Losiack

  • Guest
Re: Future Plans for DOE
« Reply #3 on: March 23, 2003, 08:16:09 am »
Quote:



4) I'm going to up the BPV of carriers to include their default fighter loadout.  This has been rejected via flames in the past, but I hope it will be accepted here.  No one flys empty carriers anyway, so their increase BPV should more accurately reflect their combat power to the mission matcher.  In addition, their increased BPV should (hopefully) mean they show up less often if you yourself are flying a non-carrier.  (That 170 point carrier that used to be a match for your 170 point cruiser will suddenly outpoint you by about 100 or so.)


-Herr Burt
 




I'm all for it!

Losiack