Tech Tree Suggestions

[Annimagus]

Something to help fill out the Defense tech trees:

  Improved Targeting Computers:  Golan Space Defense Platforms can target 2 / 3 ships at a time.

  Quad-Laser Batteries:  All levels of Golan Space Defense Platforms gain a battery of mid-range point-defense lasers.

  Shielded Stations:  All Golan Space Defense Platforms gain energy shields.  (should they just have these without requiring research?  Most combat-rated things in Star Wars do, barring TIE fighters...)

  Invasion Protocols / Planetary Shields:  Preparing for enemy invasions increases the likelihood of surviving them.  All planets take 5% / 10% / 15% reduced bombing damage from enemy ships.

 

[gerfand]

For the Empire:
-Faster Deployment

-5/10/15% fighter health
+5/10/15% faster "Fighter build rate"

[kucsidave]

What I'm going to say should be considered a longshot thing... (I imagine it to somewhere about 2.0 or so)
Customize-able tech tree.
What I am trying to say with this is if you play as Empire(which had plenty of spaceship classes) you could chose between the Lancers and the Tartan as an example.
Or if NR then between CR90 corellian corvettes or the corellian gunships.
(If it is even possible within the game's engine.) If you research one, it blocks out the other, so you will get a tech tree what you can set up.
This would be extra cool because the World devastators and the Preator IIs are too OP together. Not to mention it would give players a hard time to think which one would worth more, or which one fits with his/her playing-style better.

[Corey]

You can only do that with one thing per faction. The way it works is you have a tech require a certain faction ID, which then means you're essentially allowed to make one choice. It can be a choice with 2 options, or 8, but it can still only be one choice. Also, if you were to do something like that you're using a lot of memory for ships in redundant roles. It would essentially always have to be adding new ships to existing roles, rather than making it be choices between existing stuff (you need some options within the game beyond just one choice that then locks you in forever, after all; if you choice a tankier ship ie the Praetor at one point, it shouldn't mean you can never go for an offensive option at all, ala the World Devastator; people also would get upset if the unit rosters were limited to effectively 5 frigates, 3 cruisers and 3 capital ships, for example, even if it's a result of having the choice between 11/11/7 or something).  When developing playstyles, it's more important to try to nail that down between the factions, rather than diluting that by trying to make 2 hard-defined styles within the same faction, and then doing that 5 times. You're then working to define 10+ overall playstyles and it dilutes everything. With the memory usage it also limits the amount of actual content you can have. This is pretty important in Sins, which requires memory modification (LAA) to run mods in the first place; if you did that sort of branching and had even 1.5x the ship numbers within the same faction, you're sacrificng  a lot of overall diversity between factions, since you can't use those resources in game or development-wise for a full faction that can have their own very distinct playstyle options to get what amounts to a tiny amount of diversity within it.

To use a more direct example, if we give you the choice between the Nebulon-B and the Corona as the NR or the IPV/Tartan/Lancer for the IR, are those minor stat differences really a more interesting gameplay choice than what we'd get out of using that space for something like the Sh'ner and Fw'Sen, which while as ships provide some similar stats but as a delivery mechanism can provide for different playstyles within the context of what the Ssi-Ruuvi as a whole can offer (Entechment, etc)? Basically, when it comes to roles and ship types within those roles, the greater variation isn't in the minor stat differences within a faction (because you're ultimately going to be using those ships the same way), rather it's how those roles are emphasized within the faction.

[kucsidave]

Point taken.
You are 100% right.
It would just be... you know... Cool to build up my own empire (in a way)...
Well, there are dreams what have to stay dreams...

[MandaloreOrdo]

No idea if it's a good idea to post in a thread is old, but the topic fits, so...
While playing Ascendancy 0.95 lately the Remnant tech tree with its different "Leader Techs" began bugging me a bit, because it just seems so odd that Daala would just affect diplomacy or Thrawn only frigates. Essentially, i guess, these techs boil down to a "style choice" for the Remnant, so I think they should be either be more expensive or ideally split up in longer tech chains leading to a quite drastic gameplay change.
For example, for me Thrawn always was the "Elitist Leader", where everything had to be at maximum performance, even if it meant slower training whereas Daala would just take whatever she had and ram it frontally in the enemy. Fitting that in the tech tree isn't going to be easy due to the way it is split between civilian and military, but separate tech paths focusing on having individually stronger ships at the expense of building time/cost or weaker but cheaper ships could be very worthwile. Part of this is already in the mod, with faster building but less hull /regen, but new techs could be something like "Thorough Training: Ships of "subclass [Cruiser , etc]" build 10% slower but have 1o% increased stats" 2 Ranks. If that proves to powerful, maybe add increased supply/upkeep to the negatives of the tech. Another idea would be different abilities for ships, but I have no idea if thats even possible. Daala Doctrine : Ships gain the "ram" ability, but lose access to "evasive maneuvering: ability under thrawn doctrine that increases evasion chance or damage reduction, something like that. This should be reflected in the government section as well, Daala doctrine having techs focusing on quick/cheap structure production and high culture resistance and Thrawn more on culture spread / higher allegiance and more effective resource gathering. With those two as the extremes, Pellaeon would fit somewhere in between with a focus on diplomacy and defense.

[Corey]

If we were to do that, it would have to be through entirely mutually exclusive branches. There are several techs which allow you to emphasize certain parts at the expense of others already in the mod,but not to that extent. The point of those leader doctrine techs isn't to massively change the way you play the faction, it's to emphasize certain aspects in a tech that would almost certainly exist anyway, but to do it in a way that allows us to kick in some of the lore for those interested. For example, we could have what's currently the Daala Doctrine tech as something like "Imperial Purity" or something, but since one of the defining factors of Daala was her unification of the Remnant and her hatred of "warlordism," the tech which is built around that therefore got applied to her. Pellaeon's main efforts were at peace with other factions and accepting the Remnant's place in a new galactic order, so he gets represented by the that tech.

One of the purposes of the mod overall, which we talk about a lot, is to build different styles within each faction, and to have that stay within their own range; one of the reasons we deliberated so long on the Pentastar Alignment being in at all was in order to make sure it didn't come out as a reskinned Imperial Remnant. If we did different mutually exclusive leader branches within the Remnant, that means there has to be enough for five different playstyles within the Remnant, and done in away that doesn't intrude too much with the other factions (which therefore also means it limits the scope of those factions).

Keep in mind, also, what "Doctrine" is used to refer to. It's not a leader's entire political, military and culutral philosophy; it's usually attached to one aspect which defined their administration with respect to foreign affairs, which is what we've done here, save for Thrawn's (which is because it's currently actually a placeholder for two techs). The Monroe Doctrine was about European non-interference in American spheres of influence, but that's not the limit of Monroe's presidency or even foreign policy. The Bush Doctrine is about unilateral democratic regime change as a way to combat terrorism, but that still left room for him to fuck up in other areas too. The Truman Doctrine was about spending with respect to fighting communism. These can all have other implications, but in terms of Sins, these aren't really something that would extend beyond one or two techs either; diplomacy in that way in Sins just isn't super extensive.

[MandaloreOrdo]

wow that was a crazy fast answer, didn't really expect that 
Well, I tend to have a rather broad view of things like doctrines, but I definitley understand where you're coming from and why you're limiting the scope of styles for the Remnant. I guess what I'd really like to see is having those "style" choices a bit more effect than currently, but let's see what Ascendancy 1.0 brings. Throwing the Vindicator, Acclamator and Praetor out is a win for me anyway, because honestly, the Vindicator is rather weak as a cruiser - I'd take a Strike Cruiser any day over it -, the Allegiance just looks and feels much more "imperial" to me and the Acclamator, well I know its supposed to be a carrier, but with only one squadron at a time anything else with 1 squadron is about as good if not better.

Btw, tech tree balance hasn't really been a focus point yet, has it? The Remnant has zero techs that increase the defense of its ships whereas the Republic has individually stronger ships later but also quite beefy shield upgrade techs and I'm not sure the damage upgrades from the Remnant can keep up with that.. Adding hull upgrade techs for the Remnant doesn't seem to make much sense lorewise, so how is it intended to keep it balanced? By having a larger fleet through the brutally powerful command/fleet capacity upgrades? Or is the Allegiance going to be the defensive cornerstone that allows the ISD 2's to survive a fleet of Nebula/BAC's? The Praetor right now is so sluggish that it can barely keep up with ISD's.

[tlmiller]

IR gets fleet upgrades through research, will always be able to field larger fleets than the NR/EoTH (currently PA also gets them), and that's exactly what the IR was about.  Quantity over quality.  Yes, they did make some quality ships, but overall, they were all about throwing enough disposable ships at their enemies.

IMO, for the cost (super cheap), the Vindicator is one of the best ships in the game currently.  Nothing at it's price point can compete, which is the point.  It's not meant to be overly powerful, it's meant to be a good ship for cheap.  Praetor is, when compared to anything else anywhere near it, horrendously underpowered, although it's super beefy shields make it a decent damage sink (although would IMO make more sense to have it be lower hull/shields and much more powerful weapons).  Also the Acclamator gets 2 squadrons, 3 after their ability.  They're essentially useless in combat, but then, that's the same as all the "basic" carriers.

[MandaloreOrdo]

I should probably clarify: I don't think the Vindicator is a bad ship in itself, its just that a Strike Cruiser has almost double the amount of shields and a pretty powerful tech later for a relatively minor increase in cost, yet it is a frigate. It just really doesn't fit the Cruiser image for me. Not to mention that (IMO) both ships roles overlap and the Strike Cruiser scales better lategame. The Praetor itself is a damagesponge, that fulfills its role rather lackluster because of its slow speed and as far as I see it with partially not yet implemented ability icons, it also cannot taunt enemies to attack it, so most of the time it sits around doing nothing. I totally didn't see that the Acclamator had a ability right from the beginning to get one additional squadron so its fine as a carrier. I'm just wondering what the purpose of that ability is supposed to be instead of just giving it 3 squadrons right from the start.

[tlmiller]

Praetor has Bulwark ability, which is EXACTLY what it does.  Taunts enemies forcing them to attack it.  I actually avoid using it however due to how quickly they die when using the ability, since it has nothing that mitigates damage.  Although you must be playing a different game than I, since I've never seen it set around and do nothing, they bring a decent amount of firepower to a battle, even if it's not as much as the Phalanx or even the Syndic.  While I'll always take a WD over a Praetor, the Praetor is still an extremely effective ship to have a couple of in a fleet.

I'm only guessing, but since Asdroni, Quasar, and Escort Carrier all start with 2 fighters, then that's probably why the Acclamator starts with 2.

[MandaloreOrdo]

Ok I should really look more closely on seemingly empty ability slots, turns out the Praetor has a taunt     With sitting around I mean they always lag behind the rest of my capital ships and forcing me to maneuver them in a position where they jump first, thats why I really hope the Allegiance will be a tad faster.

[tlmiller]

Given that it's 1/2 the size, should be faster, although don't expect it to be a race car, it's still bigger than an ISD.

[Corey]

Btw, tech tree balance hasn't really been a focus point yet, has it? The Remnant has zero techs that increase the defense of its ships whereas the Republic has individually stronger ships later but also quite beefy shield upgrade techs and I'm not sure the damage upgrades from the Remnant can keep up with that.. Adding hull upgrade techs for the Remnant doesn't seem to make much sense lorewise, so how is it intended to keep it balanced? By having a larger fleet through the brutally powerful command/fleet capacity upgrades? Or is the Allegiance going to be the defensive cornerstone that allows the ISD 2's to survive a fleet of Nebula/BAC's? The Praetor right now is so sluggish that it can barely keep up with ISD's.

Most of the tech has not been balanced in terms of pure numbers yet, no. However our goal with balance is not faction x gets this and therefore faction y gets the exact same thing. The first 115 slots or so are being used to build up the more unique aspects for each faction, and then we'll use the rest to fill in any gaps each faction needs.

I actually avoid using it however due to how quickly they die when using the ability, since it has nothing that mitigates damage.

Irrelevant now, but for the five seconds they were on the same faction Praetor Bulwark + Altor Protect was some next level shit... As it is, Bulwark will be getting a defensive boost as well on the PA.

I'm only guessing, but since Asdroni, Quasar, and Escort Carrier all start with 2 fighters, then that's probably why the Acclamator starts with 2.

Pretty much this - the standard in the mod is 1 squad at a time for most ships that had fighters, 2 squads at a time for carriers. PA gets some increases, as do Ssi-Ruuvi ships. The Acclamator gets the option of having the third with some investment, but the investment part is somewhat important since the Acclamator is also theoretically the best carrier at direct combat, even if that isn't saying too much.