Liir-Zuul BCs used for fleet endurance calculation

[Elouda]

I noticed this in an MP game I'm playing - the L-Z player noted that when he was using Barrage BCs with endurance 1, the fleet endurance would remain extremely low (2-4) even when adding two Supply DNs. When the carriers were empty, the fleet endurance value would be notably higher than when they were loaded with BCs.

I did a bunch of tests and my conclusion seems to be that they do indeed seem to be accounted for in the fleet endurance calculation. Is this intentional? I was under the impression that riders of all sizes were not accounted for when calculating fleet endurance - so is this a bug or has something been changed?

I do not know if this same situation applies for the Tarkasian Hunters or the Liir-Zuul BBs, but I will try to find out. Would be nice to know if this is intentional behaviour though.

EDIT: I've confirmed this is also the case for Liir-Zuul BBs. Have yet to test Hunters.

The easiest way to reproduce it is to have a BC carrier fleet with no BCs loaded, and then load it full of minimum endurance BCs (Barrage works very well). The overall fleet endurance should drop significantly.

[wingren013]

I think they have a partial effect on fleet endurance but their effect on endurance after combat is the same as a normal cruiser.

[Elouda]

Well, as I said, they clearly do seem to have an effect on fleet endurance.

What I'm curious about is if this is intended behavior or a bug?

[Hawawaa]

Intended. Hell the Barrage BS can never have enough supply (I do remember the BC Barrage is kinda in the same boat but not as painful). Its something you have to deal with. Any rider can fall into this problem if your not designing them with good supply and energy. If its a little over the carrier will take the hit and its not that bad. If you really over the fleet feels it.

[Elouda]

Intended. Hell the Barrage BS can never have enough supply (I do remember the BC Barrage is kinda in the same boat but not as painful). Its something you have to deal with. Any rider can fall into this problem if your not designing them with good supply and energy. If its a little over the carrier will take the hit and its not that bad. If you really over the fleet feels it.

What about when this happens with riders that aren't over their limits? Should the fleet endurance still take a hit?

And I've only noticed this for BC and BB, not for regular BRs of any race, hence why I'm wondering why the difference.

[wingren013]

Of course its intentional. In what world does it make any amount of sense that the people on the carrier vessel eat and use supplies and such but the Rider crews don't consume anything? They don't just sit in rider chatting the entire voyage. They are part of the normal crew and whatever supplies they have are shared with said crew. The only differences are that the riders crew are assigned to the rider not the ship and that the rider and carrier have different ammunition stores.

Think of it this way: carrier has X supplies and Y of them are munitions (the amount of additional supplies consumed each turn of combat if the entire duration of the fleets mission had combat ) the rider has A supplies and all of them are munitions. The rider and carrier share X+A-Y-B the fleet has a pool of V supplies and W munitions the rider and carrier share these with the rest of the fleet. Essentially the rider only carries munitions and must consume supplies each turn to support its crew. The supply pool in the design screen only matters for endurance calculations for after combat.

[Elouda]

Of course its intentional. In what world does it make any amount of sense that the people on the carrier vessel eat and use supplies and such but the Rider crews don't consume anything? They don't just sit in rider chatting the entire voyage. They are part of the normal crew and whatever supplies they have are shared with said crew. The only differences are that the riders crew are assigned to the rider not the ship and that the rider and carrier have different ammunition stores.

Think of it this way: carrier has X supplies and Y of them are munitions (the amount of additional supplies consumed each turn of combat if the entire duration of the fleets mission had combat ) the rider has A supplies and all of them are munitions. The rider and carrier share X+A-Y-B the fleet has a pool of V supplies and W munitions the rider and carrier share these with the rest of the fleet. Essentially the rider only carries munitions and must consume supplies each turn to support its crew. The supply pool in the design screen only matters for endurance calculations for after combat.

Wow, ease off a little.

The question is valid, because like I said, the BRs do NOT behave this way. So there is a clear inconsistency here - this might be intentional, but it might also mean that one or the other is working incorrectly.

Their supply pool number and usage on design screen (from which their endurance derives from) clearly affect more than the post combat endurance calculations, since they affect fleet endurance overall even for non-combat tasks. While I agree having their supply usage added to combat supply usage makes sense, Im not sure if the second bit does.

[wingren013]

Sorry if I came off as angry. The internet doesn't do a good job of conveying tone. Also I am fairly sure that BRs do affect endurance calculations its just so small that it only matters when you're really close to the line.