|
Post by Sliprunner on Mar 5, 2016 22:10:50 GMT -6
Questions regarding the effectiveness of weapons in specific circumstances has been growing, Under normal circumstances this would be understandable save for the amount of answers slowly decreasing. This is coupled with the questionable effectiveness of some technologies within the weaponry branch. Zero-G loading mechanisms and the Targeting computers probably being the largest. The addition of the ever questionable nature of missiles and point defense means that a formal discussion on weaponry is required. With any luck we can actually come to reasonable answers on things. NOTE: THESE ARE JUST QUESTIONS I HAVE ON THESE TOPICS, FEEL FREE TO DISCUSS THE TOPIC AS YOU PLEASE (Just don't rant) First Topic- Energy Weapons (Laser, Particle, Neutron, Plasma) - What kind of role('s) should these weapons have?
- How effective should they be compared to other weapons? (Excluding missiles)
- Should Continuous and Pulse energy weapons be separate types? (Pulse in sense of having notable down times between firings)
- Should we change Lancer and Beam weapon types?
- Particle Weapons, Do we have any solid idea what they are/do as weapons?
- Neutron Weapons, Should these be altered?
- Plasma Weapons, Should these be altered?
- What kind of power drain should these weapons have?
- How should targeting computers effect these weapons? (Such as AI assisted gunnery)
Second Topic- Ballistic Weapons (Conventional, Gauss, Railgun)
- What kind of role('s) should these weapons have?
- How effective should they be compared to other weapons?
- Should we include "Carronade" weapons? (Weapons that sacrifice range for size)
- Should there be more distinct types of these systems? (High Velocity compared to Rapid Fire?)
- What kind of differences should these weapons have to make them distinct from each other?
- How should targeting computers effect these weapons?
Third Topic- Missile Weapons - What kind of role should they have?
- How effective should they be compared to other weapons?
- Should we have more diverse types of missiles? (Short range vs Long range)
- Should Missile bays have limited size? similar to turrets? (Aka- only X points max per missile bay on Y ship type)
- Should Missile system be more involved? To offset its capabilities compared to other weapons?
- How useful should missile armoring be?
- How effective should point defense screens be against them?
Fourth Topic- Misc - How effective should armoring be at defending a ship? (Not accounting composites/alloys)
- Should there be more options to enhance the defenses of a ship?
- What kind of endurance should shields have compared to armor?
- Should Shield Arrays and Emitters be more distinct from each other? (Aside from one having active regen and the other being more durable)
- How effective should point defense be against strikecraft swarms?
- Should Multi-barrel turrets have any sort of incentive to them? (Currently they cost the same as just buying separate turrets with that size barrel, saving only turret softcap)
- Should there be Platform counterparts to Siege, Missile boat and Carrier templates (Aka- platforms dedicated more to an offensive/support role at cost of defensive/suitability)
In regards to these discussions, please keep them more to whats fitting for GC, not for the meta of "Whats best". Balancing based off munchkin logic punishes everyone except the munchkins. Given the fact I have little understanding on lasers (as proven with earlier balance incidents) along with the fact I'm fairly biased on the missile standpoint; I'll be keeping mostly out of the discussions so long as they stay civilized. Specifically: Don't get bandwagons going, that tends to just make everything worse. Don't start complaining, actually give some input, I don't want to read a rant on Quadratic missiles, I want to read ideas for changes to missile bays.
ADMINISTRATION NOTE: please give input on what you think effective ranges should be for weapon types, We do at least want them to be balanced around existing on same battlefield. We're more concerned about balance here then reality.
-My own opinions on the topics- (in spoiler to separate it better)
My Range Opinions
| LONG RANGE
| MEDIUM RANGE
| SHORT RANGE
| LASERS
| 10,000 KM
| 5,000 KM
| 1,250 KM
| PARTICLE
| 6,000 KM
| 3,000 KM
| 750 KM
| PLASMA
| 80KM
| 40 KM
| 10 KM
| MISSILE
| 10,000 KM
| N/A
| 2,500 KM
| GAUSS | 4,000 KM
| 2,000 KM
| 500 KM
| RAILGUN | 5,000 KM
| 2,500 KM
| 625 KM
|
Note: this is NOT GC's current range chart, this is simply what I've figured was reasonable based on what I've seen/read/understood
-My own opinions on the topics- Energy Weapons I see lasers as a long range skirmishing weapon, Great against shields but so so against armor. I do think that Continuous and Pulse weapons should be different, due to the functionality differences. I do see that Particle weapons should probably be more related to an energy based "conventional" weapon, longer range then gauss and railgun, but generally weaker. Plasma weaponry I don't see much point to, its powerful but is extremely niche. Neutron weapons I don't understand what they even are, so I'm not even going to bother. Targeting computers I see giving only minor benefits for lasers and plasma, as most of the problems are from beam cohesion; for particle weapons I can see them bolstering range to a minor degree. I also don't see enough difference between lance and beam weapon types to keep them around, not unless someone has a good idea to make them distinct.
Ballistic Weapons I see Railguns and Gauss competing for the "Standard" weapons in navies, Gauss providing better anti-armor potential while Railguns provide better anti-shield potential. I'd be somewhat interested in Carronade designs being a valid option, as while a very crude concept it did allow much heavier weapons to be on a ship at the cost of effective range. I'd also be interested in seeing a distinct variation between rapid fire and high velocity weapons, such that one can provide decent alpha while the other offers sustained capabilities. Targeting computers I see as a major benefit, bolstering range or tracking capabilities, though not both, I see a ship's computer having to be dedicated for one or the other without assistance from a fire control ship.
Missile Weapons (Warning: contains shocking statements from me, given my bias)
Missile bays should probably be limited to a max size similar to turrets. This would mean you can't put all points into a single massive weapon battery like every single one of my current missile armed ships. I do see that there should probably be some sort of difference between Long range and Short range missiles, given the engine requirements for their different operating ranges. I would personally prefer to have missile batteries of X size, with missiles designed separately, though that creates its own headache that I'd much rather avoid. Missile armoring should have a notable effect against point defense though, as is it seems to be an all (A4) or nothing (A0) requirement to be of decent use. There should be some sort of guideline as to how effective each type of point defense is against missiles as well, to avoid situations of "one size fits all" point defense armaments.
Misc I. LOVE. ARMOR. Outside of that I don't see much point to changing anything for defenses currently, save that we should probably have guidelines for point defense effectiveness against strikecraft. I'd also prefer if there was some sort of cost savings to using a multi-barrel turret, currently it seems nothing benefits from multi-barrel turret designs. Technically speaking, fitting multiple barrels to a turret did end up with more efficient spacing due to space occupied behind each gun, meaning at 3 guns you had a "Square" footprint inside of a turret, I'd much rather there actually being some sort of use to multi-barrel systems other then saving on turret softcap. I'd also see some interest in having counterparts for platform designs.
|
|
|
Post by Chonicler on Mar 5, 2016 23:28:52 GMT -6
I currently do not have many opinions of note for the exact ranges of different weapons, but I think that, in general, the weapon types should be as such: Lasers: Long range Particle: Medium-Short range Plasma: Very short range Missile: Long range Gauss: Medium-Short Range Railguns: Medium Range I may add some more precise ranges later, but we shall see.
As for the topics, my general view is that everything should have things that it's distinctively weak against, not only to avoid being completely OP, but to provide incentive for more varied, strategic fleets. Quick note, I am rather long-winded in this area.
-Energy Weapons: I feel like lasers should be primarily useful against shields with limited usefulness against armor due to lasers, by their very definition, being quite pinpoint. I think lasers should be more useful against Shield Emitters than shield Arrays due to the constant drain, when compared to other weaponry, I think the main advantage of energy weapons should be their range and effectiveness against shields, more so than most other weapons, railguns would have slightly greater shield damaging power, but sacrifice range. I feel like continuous/pulse energy weapons would be a good addition, continuous would be more effective against shielding while pulse energy weapons should have greater armor damaging value, not much, but enough to make a difference. I feel like Lancers are a very specialized segment of the lasers, basically turning the laser into an "energy railgun," sacrificing range and accuracy for effectiveness against shielding. As for particle weapons, I feel like they are rather useless as most people don't know how they would even work in a fight, while their system damaging potential is useful, it would take a particle weapon focusing on one relatively small area on a ship for quite some time to do any real damage, time that is quite small in a battle situation. Same goes for the neutron beam, unless you know the enemy's ship well, or have very large neutron beams, they aren't going to be very useful, as the people you have to kill with them are usually in very specific spots in a battle, the best you can do is sweep a ship and hope you hit someone important. Plasma weaponry I feel like is the bane of armor, considering it literally melts it, as for changes, I feel like it should be extremely close range due to how effective it is against armor, it should be used at the expense of exposing yourself to the enemies fire. Plasma should have quite as much power drain during battle as other energy weapons as the plasma is usually stored, but energy weapons should have a significant drain on power usage, another sacrifice for getting the first hit. The AI assistance is rather useless in this field for the lasers as the beam travels so fast that it's virtually impossible to dodge, same with neutron and particle beams, the only advantage being more efficient sweeps of ships. As for Plasma, at that close of range, it's difficult to miss, making AI assistance rather nil.
-Ballistic Weapons: Railguns and Gauss weapons are the general fall back most of the time as early on they tend to be equally useful against shields and armor, rather medium damage, but still useful. As you advance, however, they should be more specific, railguns become significantly less effective against armor while increasing the effectiveness against shielding while Gauss does the opposite, loosing shield damage in favor of armor damage. In the beginning Railguns and Gauss weapons should be the middle ground when compared to other weapons, not the best, but definitely effective, easy to research for a modest output, in later stages when defenses become more resistant to "primitive" weaponry, they should be more specialized, resulting in far more tactical designs. I feel like the current equivalent of Cannonade weapons is the Spinal, sacrificing far larger weaponry for accuracy, especially at long distances, I also think that Cannonades should be a proper part of the DP system, however to implement, it might get tricky when you start asking how much range do you subtract for X points, etc. I feel like High Velocity and Rapid Fire would be a good addition, with High Velocity railguns being significantly more effective against shield arrays while Rapid Fire would be far more effective against shield Emitters. As for Gauss weapons, I think the High Velocity should be easier to avoid than rapid fire, basically requiring you to choose effectiveness against larger ships or smaller ships. As for the Varieties in weaponry, I've summarized what I think the varieties should be already. AI assistance should have a rather large increase in accuracy in smaller ballistic weaponry while only slightly helping larger guns due to how relatively easy it is to dodge large shells.
-Missile Weapons: Missiles should be the long-range equivalent of Plasma Weaponry, highly effective against hulls (Particularly with Nanoshells), but only minimal effectiveness against shields (I think Emitters should be better against missiles due to their being like a brick wall, the energy is mostly reflected back into space while arrays try to contain it all). As I already said, I think missiles should be the equivalent of long-range plasma weapons, sacrificing the relative surety of reaching the target for range, they should have less armor damaging potential that plasma, but more that Gauss weapons. I think that short and long range missiles are a good idea, Long range missiles sacrificing maneuverability for range, making them easier to hit, while Short range missiles sacrifice range for maneuverability, harder to hit, but not something to worry about at a distance. Yes, missiles should definitely have a limited size. I feel like it's rather difficult to add much variety to missiles, the only thing you can really due is get nano warheads or interceptor missiles, the main disadvantage missiles should have should be against shields. Missile armoring should sacrifice defense for maneuverability, non-armored missiles are the easiest to take down, but are also the hardest to hit: Gatling+. Lightly-armored missiles should be slightly harder to take down, but easiest to hit: Gatling=some, Autocanon+=most. Medium-armored missiles should be rather difficult to take down while quite a bit easier to hit, Autocanon+. Heavily-Armored Missiles should be the hardest to take down, but the easiest to hit: Autocanon=some, Canon=most.
-Misc: Armor should give good defense at the sacrifice of maneuverability, basically, the more armor you have, the harder it is to dodge, not just depending on ship size. Armor, in my opinion, should be most effective against Railguns and Lasers, while being quite vulnerable to Gauss, Missiles, and Plasma. One thing that has never been clarified to my knowledge is Turret Armor, Turret Armor should be something you should need to survive long in a fight, if your turret isn't protected, you won't be able to keep firing for long, they are hard to hit, yes, but one good hit and they're dead (Note, Turrets are not protected by Hull Armor, if they were, they'd be Spinal weapons or have VERY limited arcs). Speaking of which, I think there should be the option to have turrets "Sunken" into the ships armor, basically providing far more defense for the turret due to it being hard to hit, but sacrificing arc of fire, making your target options more limited for a certain direction. Shield Arrays should have the advantage of being able to survive a large amount of small attacks far more effectively than armor and Emitters, while emitters should have the advantage of being able to withstand far more powerful hits than either arrays or emitters. Shields should be most effective against Missiles, Gauss, and Plasma while being weak against Railguns and Lasers. Arrays should have a distinct advantage for smaller shells while emitters should have a distinct advantage for larger shells. For PD, it depends on the kinds, Gatling should be best against smaller strike craft while Autocanons and Canons are good against larger strike craft, sacrificing damage for firing speed. I think that Multi-Barreled turrets should be slightly cheaper, but have a smaller soft cap than regular turrets, again sacrificing size for quantity. Yes, I think there should be Platform equivalents to Siege, etc.
In a nutshell, this is what I think needs to be done with the combat system: The different aspects of combat need to be specialized to the degree that you can't just sit back with a shielded vessel with just Railguns and Missiles, you should be forced to combine different kinds of weapons to have effective ships. You should be forced to choose between having a ship that's good against smaller vessels or larger ones, the same goes for the kinds of weapons. What I would like to see the combat system become is one that has such a level of Tactical Design required, that no two ship designs are the same (case and point, IFFS vs Ra'Noth, very similar ship designs in terms of combat). Fleets should be comprised of vessels designed to target different kinds of ships, which results in more variety and in far most tactical options in actual combat.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Kyle Deshara on Mar 6, 2016 1:10:08 GMT -6
Alright, to chip in, I'll state how things currently ARE. Along with a bit of opinion within this. I'm also going to say I worked on this post going back and forth between parts as things came to mind, so expect it to be a mess. Also probably some reiteration. Working on a post for ages and ages turns it into a mess, who'd have thought?
Lasers are punished by the inverse-square law making them absolutely worthless against armor at long range (It's considered a standoff range weapon) but we skew the math to keep them from becoming cutting lasers capable of sawing something in half if they're used at close range in order to prevent them from being the MASTER-of-all-trades weapon in GC. ...I actually don't know what good lances are, that was something I didn't add...I'd assume it was something to take up the name of the Lancer weapons system that got its role usurped by lasers, making it fairly redundant. These have been flopping between considered OP and underpowered almost as badly as missiles until they settled in the niche that Lancers occupied...albeit vastly weaker due to actually having ranged capabilities, which if this weren't the case they'd instantly claim the role of "only weapon worth using" due to accuracy and range. (For note: Lancers were basically shorter range plasma weapons that were to shields what plasma was to armor). They are fairly weak against armor due to the beam inevitably spreading at longer ranges. Better fire control doesn't help too much with tracking considering it's already a speed of light weapon, only accurate predictions of the target's movements help further with that...and we dropped subspace guided tracking computers for being slightly on the OP side in terms of "almost never capable of missing" for all weapon systems. Any balance idea involving the raw power behind a laser should be taken with extraordinary care, they already have two unmatchable advantages that cannot be truly negated (Speed and accuracy) along with their nature alongside the nature of shields making them work as anti-shield. Standard ranges for lasers currently are I believe 3000km to about maybe 15000km.
Missiles are by and large the more reliable weapon of the two most destructive weapon systems, the other of which being plasma. They are considered to have a near 100% hit rate and are 'technically' longer range weapons than lasers, along with being able to mount large scale warheads that put even the largest existing railguns and lasers to shame in raw power. The main disadvantage faced by these is simple - Point defense. In GC, PD is not usable against shells due to the questionable result on balance such a thing would cause, but it is enormously effective against the guided weapons that have through history swung back and forth between indomitable and worthless. The addition of missile armor was an attempt to help offset the one-or-the-other balance faced by them by making choice in PD and missile-mounted defenses matter and having an effectiveness spectrum added...unfortunately this seems to have not carried over into the thread as well as I had hoped. Missiles gaining limits to a rack/bay's capacity probably would go a fair way towards balancing them out further than current...as for the point defense spectrum's description, go ahead and discuss this - currently only kinetic PD is even considered for the most part, and I think my description of it could use work anyway. Where lasers are a general standoff weapon of low power to offset having no other real disadvantage, missiles are intended as a heavy hitter at the same ranges - with their power of being the second heaviest weapon system balanced by having to deal with the confusing mess known as GC's point defense. These do not have an effective range, they can and will hit at any range (Including inter-orbital...albeit this is technically less effective simply by sheer virtue of travel time, regardless of chance to hit) if you do not have point defense.
Railguns and Gauss...I'll admit nothing is put in place for gauss 'officially' since it was re-added after most current definitions were placed. Railguns were always intended to be standard armament of the average navy within the thread for an exceptionally long time due to its versatility at all ranges and a majority of roles and as such have very little in the way of true downsides aside from accuracy falloff at longer ranges...albeit this isn't too terribly bad considering ships are fairly large, have lots of inertia, and take a fair bit of time to maneuver. It also is only dealing moderate damage compared to more specialized weapons against any given target. I can't really say much on gauss aside from it having the ability to load payloads, which probably could need more expansion anyway. Originally (Late v2 I believe?) Gauss WAS the rapid fire weapon system, there was disagreement however on this having any valid point since "Why take that when railguns are more powerful anyway?" and thus were silently dropped since that was an age where meta was everything. Zero-G loading was just meant to make guns fire faster in the case of the really big weapons that have a loading cycle longer than the charging cycle for their rails, and targeting computers just serve to increase the effective range by making them more likely to hit maneuvering targets. By how much...this is where nothing was ever truly decided. Originally for GC v3 when we set actual numbers up to have a figure of what to think, we went off the muzzle velocity of 15km/s to assume the effective range was about 1200km in an age of frigates and lightly armored destroyers...this would obviously only go up with less agile/larger targets entering the scene since then. I'm not sure conventional weapons are worth discussing considering their effective range is exceptionally short (Except in rare circumstances with terrifying muzzle velocity for gunpowder weapons...*Shudder*) and they cannot carry enough boom or kinetic power to offset this downside.
Plasma is indeed a very niche weapon. This niche weapon is also able to effortlessly put holes in even the most heavily armored craft in GC considering you're flinging a star at someone. This is the only weapon in GC that operates purely on Rule of Cool due to being a staple of the genre and being a holdover from even the earliest days of GC...albeit it has been rebalanced since then to actually have a role of its own. This weapon is catastrophically powerful against hulls...but virtually a tickle weapon against shields. It has been balanced accordingly to be the only weapon in GC that has an actual maximum range which I believe is currently defined as 80km, which is absolutely considered brawler or knife fight range in our setting's terms. Plasma projectors are able to slice gashes that may or may not cut through the entire hull of a target, whereas blasters put sizable craters in them...don't ask me to math this, its unlikely it'd work in reality the way it does here, and I DID say its our one weapon that 'completely' breaks from reality (Rule of cool).
Shields are currently objectively stronger than armor in raw power it can take, the advantage of armor lying in how it doesn't just die from shooting at any point of it unlike a shield...I do want to diversify shields further however, but I'm not entirely sure on HOW to do that...its always been GC's style to rely primarily on shields, the only reason armor is relevant to this day is because I personally didn't like how ships instantly dropped dead when shields fell a long time ago, I wanted it to at least matter a bit. It HAS grown in effectiveness into a proper defense system over time, but that's mostly to make it worth the points people have dumped into it. Regardless, shields being the stronger barrier is just the way that fits with the thread. We've given armor advantages primarily through integral fields currently to allow it to not instantly die to increasingly powerful weapons.
More options for defense...would be interesting actually. Initially, integral fields were integral 'shields' in the days of GCv1, and they served as a third solid barrier in exceptionally rare circumstances that they were used. This time around, I wanted something to buff up hulls to not collapse under fire (And as an IC excuse for why kinetics aren't blowing holes in us as badly as they would IRL).
As for multi-barrel actually being USEFUL...I dont have to say again that I want this to be a thing, I've said it plenty of times by now.
[Edit]: I'm going to say it now, I purposely avoided a pure rock-paper-scissors balance style. I do 'not' like that form of balancing.
ANOTHER EDIT - MY INPUT
As for...proper input on my part I mostly agree with what you've said, slip. A lot of it does match what the intended function is...and the suggested range ballpark sounds about right for all of what we currently have IC.
- Energy Weapons - Lasers already have the skirmishing role down fairly well, however I'm not entirely sure how we would pose a difference between beam and pulse aside from making pulse a moderately closer range beam weapon with its damage dealing skewed in favor of armor damage instead of shield...at least somewhat that is. Lasers probably are EFFECTIVE out past 20,000km given what you're using them against are shields typically, not the hull. The only time it stops being effective against shields is when the beam coherency spreads enough that the beam is larger than the target.
Plasma could...POSSIBLY be buffed considering its range is static entirely and requires being so obscenely close that it's generally viewed as not worth it due to the requirement that you're so close the enemy cant miss you. I imagine making it actually do a little shield damage instead of virtually nonexistent damage to shields would help with making it slightly less niche than the anti-hull weapon from hell (That or...actually y'know, make it have range upgrades...).
Neutron beams are a weapon that we've generally had issues balancing due to the fact that NOBODY wants to make their ships easy to completely de-crew in a few minutes, along with the fact that we would likely have at least something in the way of shielding against neutrons. This is something I've heard go back and forth rapidly in discussions - It's either blocked by the radiation shielding all the time or it's cooking crews so fast that you might as well make it standard issue on ships. I've tried defining a midground but that has proven to be rather difficult.
A note however: particle weapons I believe I remember someone suggesting it be a long range beam weapon that serves as a lower range counterpart to the laser to deal with hull instead of shields. ...And another repeat - There are no real differences between lances and standard lasers currently, I am FAIRLY SURE lances were just added to keep 'lancers' in the thread in name alone.
Targeting computers, as I said, probably can't help much with a laser due to it already being light speed and the most accurate weapon in the thread...and plasma you're fighting so close that it probably doesn't change much anyway.
We never really defined power drain for anything that isn't shields and FTL...and shields take something in the ballpark of "yes" gigawatts per second just by being on. Laser power drain however...I would think that matches the power we give them, the effect of using lasers in bulk would likely be shields being a bit weaker on a starship since you are diverting power from them...then again, we don't have THAT much power dumped into our laser weapons.
- Ballistic weapons - Railguns and Gauss are and have always been intended as the standard equipment on ships, this has been true for several years at this point and I don't see any good reason to change it given they serve a versatile role. Right now the main issue faced by them however is that nobody knows their effective range...which is understandable given people don't know how fast their ships can maneuver either really. That's fairly hard to figure out, but I'd think 4000km and 5000km for gauss and railgun respectively is close enough to accurate on the long range side of things given that's a sizable travel time. It's certainly long enough for lighter ships to avoid, capital ships can probably be hit even 'further' out though. Muzzle velocity does technically effect range but we'll probably leave that out of the mess for now since that will just confuse everyone even more.
If you want rapid fire, I'd probably give the role back to Gauss again since...that IS what gauss was originally added for.
I'm not sure carronades are worth investing effort in unless it's as a super-gauss gun that's lobbing really big explosives at people due to the loss of kinetic energy and muzzle velocity required to drop its range down. Targeting computers for ballistics DEFINITELY should have an effect however, mostly in accuracy along with making them able to predict enemy evasive actions at longer ranges to allow effective range to go up slightly...perhaps by say...500 to 1000 more km?
Effectiveness-wise...this is supposed to be standard issue, it's not GREAT at anything, but it's DECENT at everything.
- Missile Weapons - Missiles definitely need a balance pass, this has been said endlessly (and spawned COUNTLESS rants from aumn about quadratic missiles to the point there is a warning in the original post of this thread directed at him). Currently however, putting a maximum capacity on a missile bay/rack seems to actually have some of the most interesting possibilities to balance it out without completely changing the way missiles work entirely. The question for that lies in "Do we want a DP cap" or "Do we want a tube cap". The latter lets people still mount some scarily massive missiles on capital ships that are able to afford them, whereas the former is perhaps more balanced in that you're actually choosing between a few big missiles and a lot of small missiles. ...Missile armor should probably NOT count against the cap in the case of DP though since armor is something that already cuts down how many missiles you can mount as is due to being a multiplier added AFTER tubes and warheads are dealt with.
Missiles are and should REMAIN a very heavy hitter weapon considering they do have to deal with the painful thing known as point defense that historically has made them very unlikely to hit their targets under most circumstances unless used in bulk (Which leads to bulk PD being used too).
Missile armor should be effective...definitely covered again since it's not working as planned, but it was intended to make people need a variety of PD systems in order to blanket their ships against the terror of armored missiles and swarm missiles.
Short range/long range distinction actually could be interesting, we would NEED solid numbers in that case. 5000km for short range (Since that's in upper kinetics range) with...possibly undefined range for long range missiles, considering they don't need to burn forever along their route to target. I'm not sure how to make missiles a more "involved" system however, I'd LOVE to see someone pose an idea about that.
Point defense likely should remain rather effective...perhaps a bit LESS effective but that'd make the problem with missile boats being excessively powerful rear its head again anyway - this is a binary balance situation right now, if it's only marginally effective, missiles would need to be low power but that makes lighter missile loads completely unappealing to everyone and if highly effective...missiles rightly 'murder' anyone who doesn't have it since nobody would use them in the first place if it can't deal a fair damage amount for its cost. This has been an issue I've been trying to tackle since the earliest days of PD even being part of the thread. Possible solutions are easily over-complicated, and nobody wants even more complicated systems to deal with.
- Misc - Armoring should be fairly effective, not as powerful as shields however since armor has its own quirk to it that makes it actually far more powerful than people give it credit for - damage is localized on armor, not spread though the entire structure like you'd find in games. That alone makes shields already have to be stronger to really 'compete' with armor in effectiveness to start with, along with GC's history saying that we should be relying mostly on shields to begin with. They have enough downsides, they NEED to be powerful to have a point to them - shields DEVOUR your power reserves and any impact to any point of the shield will be registered as a drain on the whole of it.
Originally emitters were meant to serve more literally as energy armor in that they developed localized fields on their own power reserve instead of a single field like an array, however, people complained that this was too niche in usefulness and eventually I nixed it and developed them into the deflector shields they serve as today. Here's a question I pose to everyone else, do you want me to return emitters to their original purpose of localized defense barrier?
Against strike craft swarms...Its really hard to say what the effectiveness SHOULD be considering for the last few years, a single PD turret spelled death for a carrier because it'd murder the entire swarm easily. I'd say that low caliber PD should probably only be effective against drones (Tiny strikecraft), with autocannons and cannons delegated for the rest (I can see it now...Hal mounting flak 8.8s on his hulls to shoot down incoming heavy bombers), and dual purpose guns...are obviously intended to be used against large strike craft, if you use them against even medium you're going to have a bad day.
Multi-barrel DEFINITELY needs an incentive. IIRC we had an idea of cost discounts to weapons in multibarrel turrets while easing up slightly on their current "per turret" DP limit to take a few (2 or 3) DP from max gun size per added barrel, mostly to the benefit of larger ships and guns of course.
Platforms with multiple focuses...actually probably would be useful considering we've actually seen them in action and have noticed that so far they're really suffering in terms of what they can do due to the only design incentive being "make gun platform or missile platform", making other templates for Defense Platforms would make versatile planetary defense more viable outside of starforts.
|
|
|
Post by Pierre Bezukhov on Mar 6, 2016 1:27:21 GMT -6
I currently do not have many opinions of note for the exact ranges of different weapons, but I think that, in general, the weapon types should be as such: Lasers: Long range Particle: Medium-Short range Plasma: Very short range Missile: Long range Gauss: Medium-Short Range Railguns: Medium Range I may add some more precise ranges later, but we shall see. As for the topics, my general view is that everything should have things that it's distinctively weak against, not only to avoid being completely OP, but to provide incentive for more varied, strategic fleets. Quick note, I am rather long-winded in this area. -Energy Weapons: I feel like lasers should be primarily useful against shields with limited usefulness against armor due to lasers, by their very definition, being quite pinpoint. I think lasers should be more useful against Shield Emitters than shield Arrays due to the constant drain, when compared to other weaponry, I think the main advantage of energy weapons should be their range and effectiveness against shields, more so than most other weapons, railguns would have slightly greater shield damaging power, but sacrifice range. I feel like continuous/pulse energy weapons would be a good addition, continuous would be more effective against shielding while pulse energy weapons should have greater armor damaging value, not much, but enough to make a difference. I feel like Lancers are a very specialized segment of the lasers, basically turning the laser into an "energy railgun," sacrificing range and accuracy for effectiveness against shielding. As for particle weapons, I feel like they are rather useless as most people don't know how they would even work in a fight, while their system damaging potential is useful, it would take a particle weapon focusing on one relatively small area on a ship for quite some time to do any real damage, time that is quite small in a battle situation. Same goes for the neutron beam, unless you know the enemy's ship well, or have very large neutron beams, they aren't going to be very useful, as the people you have to kill with them are usually in very specific spots in a battle, the best you can do is sweep a ship and hope you hit someone important. Plasma weaponry I feel like is the bane of armor, considering it literally melts it, as for changes, I feel like it should be extremely close range due to how effective it is against armor, it should be used at the expense of exposing yourself to the enemies fire. Plasma should have quite as much power drain during battle as other energy weapons as the plasma is usually stored, but energy weapons should have a significant drain on power usage, another sacrifice for getting the first hit. The AI assistance is rather useless in this field for the lasers as the beam travels so fast that it's virtually impossible to dodge, same with neutron and particle beams, the only advantage being more efficient sweeps of ships. As for Plasma, at that close of range, it's difficult to miss, making AI assistance rather nil. -Ballistic Weapons: Railguns and Gauss weapons are the general fall back most of the time as early on they tend to be equally useful against shields and armor, rather medium damage, but still useful. As you advance, however, they should be more specific, railguns become significantly less effective against armor while increasing the effectiveness against shielding while Gauss does the opposite, loosing shield damage in favor of armor damage. In the beginning Railguns and Gauss weapons should be the middle ground when compared to other weapons, not the best, but definitely effective, easy to research for a modest output, in later stages when defenses become more resistant to "primitive" weaponry, they should be more specialized, resulting in far more tactical designs. I feel like the current equivalent of Cannonade weapons is the Spinal, sacrificing far larger weaponry for accuracy, especially at long distances, I also think that Cannonades should be a proper part of the DP system, however to implement, it might get tricky when you start asking how much range do you subtract for X points, etc. I feel like High Velocity and Rapid Fire would be a good addition, with High Velocity railguns being significantly more effective against shield arrays while Rapid Fire would be far more effective against shield Emitters. As for Gauss weapons, I think the High Velocity should be easier to avoid than rapid fire, basically requiring you to choose effectiveness against larger ships or smaller ships. As for the Varieties in weaponry, I've summarized what I think the varieties should be already. AI assistance should have a rather large increase in accuracy in smaller ballistic weaponry while only slightly helping larger guns due to how relatively easy it is to dodge large shells. -Missile Weapons: Missiles should be the long-range equivalent of Plasma Weaponry, highly effective against hulls (Particularly with Nanoshells), but only minimal effectiveness against shields (I think Emitters should be better against missiles due to their being like a brick wall, the energy is mostly reflected back into space while arrays try to contain it all). As I already said, I think missiles should be the equivalent of long-range plasma weapons, sacrificing the relative surety of reaching the target for range, they should have less armor damaging potential that plasma, but more that Gauss weapons. I think that short and long range missiles are a good idea, Long range missiles sacrificing maneuverability for range, making them easier to hit, while Short range missiles sacrifice range for maneuverability, harder to hit, but not something to worry about at a distance. Yes, missiles should definitely have a limited size. I feel like it's rather difficult to add much variety to missiles, the only thing you can really due is get nano warheads or interceptor missiles, the main disadvantage missiles should have should be against shields. Missile armoring should sacrifice defense for maneuverability, non-armored missiles are the easiest to take down, but are also the hardest to hit: Gatling+. Lightly-armored missiles should be slightly harder to take down, but easiest to hit: Gatling=some, Autocanon+=most. Medium-armored missiles should be rather difficult to take down while quite a bit easier to hit, Autocanon+. Heavily-Armored Missiles should be the hardest to take down, but the easiest to hit: Autocanon=some, Canon=most. -Misc: Armor should give good defense at the sacrifice of maneuverability, basically, the more armor you have, the harder it is to dodge, not just depending on ship size. Armor, in my opinion, should be most effective against Railguns and Lasers, while being quite vulnerable to Gauss, Missiles, and Plasma. One thing that has never been clarified to my knowledge is Turret Armor, Turret Armor should be something you should need to survive long in a fight, if your turret isn't protected, you won't be able to keep firing for long, they are hard to hit, yes, but one good hit and they're dead (Note, Turrets are not protected by Hull Armor, if they were, they'd be Spinal weapons or have VERY limited arcs). Speaking of which, I think there should be the option to have turrets "Sunken" into the ships armor, basically providing far more defense for the turret due to it being hard to hit, but sacrificing arc of fire, making your target options more limited for a certain direction. Shield Arrays should have the advantage of being able to survive a large amount of small attacks far more effectively than armor and Emitters, while emitters should have the advantage of being able to withstand far more powerful hits than either arrays or emitters. Shields should be most effective against Missiles, Gauss, and Plasma while being weak against Railguns and Lasers. Arrays should have a distinct advantage for smaller shells while emitters should have a distinct advantage for larger shells. For PD, it depends on the kinds, Gatling should be best against smaller strike craft while Autocanons and Canons are good against larger strike craft, sacrificing damage for firing speed. I think that Multi-Barreled turrets should be slightly cheaper, but have a smaller soft cap than regular turrets, again sacrificing size for quantity. Yes, I think there should be Platform equivalents to Siege, etc. In a nutshell, this is what I think needs to be done with the combat system: The different aspects of combat need to be specialized to the degree that you can't just sit back with a shielded vessel with just Railguns and Missiles, you should be forced to combine different kinds of weapons to have effective ships. You should be forced to choose between having a ship that's good against smaller vessels or larger ones, the same goes for the kinds of weapons. What I would like to see the combat system become is one that has such a level of Tactical Design required, that no two ship designs are the same (case and point, IFFS vs Ra'Noth, very similar ship designs in terms of combat). Fleets should be comprised of vessels designed to target different kinds of ships, which results in more variety and in far most tactical options in actual combat. You're allowed to have an opinion, even though its wrong. My input is coming tomorrow. EDIT: Here is my input! EDIT 2: Numbers on chart edited, ignore numbers in paragraph. Too lazy to change. -Energy Weapons- Energy weapons should all be excessively effective anti-shield weapons at long range. Their current balance is fine in my opinion. Their effectiveness against armour should vary based on range. At their longest range (~0.5-1 AU or beyond) their shield effects would still be pronounced, being able to take down shields faster than any other weapon at that range. As they get closer, likely into the range of railguns or other projectile weapons, their effectiveness against shields would go up exponentially due to more accurate light focusing (Lasers spread at range), and against armour it would be more effective. At plasma range or within, lasers would likely be their most effective against shields and armour. Shields being completely ruined by lasers, and armour melting away under prolonged attack. At no point though would any laser of any tier be more effective than projectile or plasma weapons against armour, but giving lasers a boost against armour is needed in my opinion. Particle weapons should be defined as a beam of charged particles. Very little mass, lots of energy. Effective against shields, and at plasma range possibly less effective against armour than an equivalent laser of the same tier but not completely useless. Their maximum effective range should likely be capped at around 0.1-0.4 AU. At any range they would be the most effective anti-shield weapon, but against armour beyond plasma range they'd be 100% useless. Due to energy requirements however of even mounting a small particle weapon, a vessel would need one large reactor per system and be unable to mount other weapon systems. Neutron weapons should be effective anti-crew at plasma-range only. Anything beyond and they lose effectiveness to kill crew fast enough to be useful. At plasma-range, neutron weapons should be able to both heat up and poison the crew of a vessel without causing any significant hull damage. Beyond and ship-based shielding would likely be able to take care of the spread out radiation. Basically this turns neutron weapons into plasma weapons that don't destroy a hull beyond salvagability. Targeting on these woulds should be extremely effective, because they're both using light speed and computers. Lasers should be able to accurately track and hit out to their longest effective range, and possibly beyond. -Projectile Weapons- Conventional and Railguns will be handled in the same section because they're basically just the same thing. They should be brute-force weapon systems that are effective against anything. Railguns should get a massive speed buff in my opinion, to counter the roaming blocks of armour we have flying around. This speed buff would likely be to 0.5% or slightly lower of light speed, which is a massive increase to around 1,500 km/s. I remember James running numbers on Chon's battlecruisers vs some of my siege vessels and it would have taken several DOZEN volleys in the same spot to break the armour. Firing 500cm slugs, this shouldn't have been something that happened in my opinion. This speed increase would also be coupled with a decrease in shell size, to make sure that our siege vessels aren't firing planet-killers right off the bat. Gauss weapons however would also be benefiting from a smaller speed increase, likely only to 0.2-0.3% of light speed, which is under 900 km/s. However what gauss weapons lacked in sheer power, they would make up for in being able to take on niche roles. All special slugs would be for gauss weapons, and any special abilities railguns have would be removed and put into gauss slugs. Carronades are not useful because we can just make a giant gun. All you have to do is dump a large amount of points into a gun and boom, you have a carronade. Targeting within range should be accurate due to computers and AI. Outside of range, accuracy should drop exponentially. Much like 'falloff' range in EVE, at range+falloff you would have a 50% chance to hit and that just keeps going down the further out you get. -Missiles and PD- Missiles and point defense, as they're balanced right now, are perfect. If this was an MMO or a game we likely wouldn't have a problem with it. The problem is you fuckers and your inability to roleplay out PD letting any missiles through. To get a single missile through a PD screen, you need several thousand fully-armoured missiles it seems. If anything, missiles should have warheads increased back to kilotons to compensate for barely getting any through GC's magic PD screens. However in regards to missiles, there should be two types. Unguided and guided. Unguided sacrifice computer systems to mount a larger warhead, and are typically used at close range where PD will be ineffective against them but enemy weapon systems will have a remarkably easy time hitting them. Guided will be vulnerable to PD, but be able to both redirect onto a different target and hopefully evade PD enough that some of the volley will hit. -Misc- Armour should be effective based on maneuvering, while shields will protect at full strength until they run out. What I mean is that armour wears away in battle and vessels can maneuver to face their untouched armour to the enemy, while shields will take damage equally no matter where you hit them but will protect at full strength weather they are at 100% or 1%. Shields should be less enduring than armour to compensate for this ability to defend at full strength until depletion, while an equal DP of armour would be able to take a larger hit flat-out but wears away until repaired at the end of a battle. Shield Arrays are balanced rather well right now in my opinion, and don't need much change. No incentive to multi-barrel turrets, its basically just a way to both get around the turret softcap and add an aesthetic choice. Counterparts to the templates listed are not needed, they are designed to fulfill niche roles and should say as such. =Range Chart (Maximum Effective Range (30% effectiveness, or 30% chance-to-hit))= -Energy Weapons- Lasers: 15 million km Particle Cannon: 5 million km Neutron Cannon: ~1,000km Plasma: ~1,000km -Projectile Weapons- Railguns: ~50,000km Gauss Cannons: ~20,000km Projectile: ~10,000km -Missiles- Unguided: ~1,000km Guided: ~1,000-150,000km
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2016 18:37:03 GMT -6
I'll edit this post with my input at some later moment. Plasma could...POSSIBLY be buffed considering its range is static entirely and requires being so obscenely close that it's generally viewed as not worth it due to the requirement that you're so close the enemy cant miss you. Strikecraft. =Range Chart (Maximum Effective Range (30% effectiveness, or 30% chance-to-hit))= -Energy Weapons- Lasers: 1.0 AU Particle Cannon: 0.4 AU Neutron Cannon: ~1,000km Plasma: ~1,000km -Projectile Weapons- Railguns: ~300,000km Gauss Cannons: ~100,000km Projectile: ~10,000km -Missiles- Unguided: ~1,000km Guided: ~50,000-150,000km Guided missiles having less range than railguns. What. You do realize that it would take a 1,500 km/s projectile 200 seconds to cross a light second? That is more than enough time for a warship to modify its motion vector and avoid it. Also, your suggested laser and pbeam ranges are just silly. I think this adequately sums up my feelings on the matter: You're allowed to have an opinion, even though its wrong.
|
|
|
Post by RedDwarfIV on Mar 9, 2016 19:35:20 GMT -6
Reading ProjectRho, it looks like Neutron Beams may actually be better for not killing crew than Proton Beams, that cause Bremsstrahlung radiation. Even if it can't penetrate far enough into a vessel to kill crew, it could easily wreck the e lectronics in things like turrets or sensor arrays.
Electron Beams do it too, and would make excellent anti-fighter/gunship/transport weapons. They're almost useless against larger craft that can carry the magnetic shielding needed for interplanetary travel though.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2016 22:30:04 GMT -6
First Topic- Energy Weapons (Laser, Particle, Neutron, Plasma)
* What kind of role('s) should these weapons have?
Laser: Long to medium range weapon system with a strength against shields. Particle: Long to medium range weapon systems with a strength against armor and ineffective against shields. Not as damaging as plasma weaponry.
Neutron/High Energy Radiation/Gamma: Long to medium range weapon systems with a strength against sub-systems and personnel. Ineffective against shields or armor. Effective against smaller targets by order of magnitude in comparison of weapon system versus target. Plasma: Short range weapon systems with a strength against armor. Not effective against shields.
* How effective should they be compared to other weapons? (Excluding missiles)
All weapons should be balanced and have strengths and weaknesses when compared to other systems.
* Should Continuous and Pulse energy weapons be separate types? (Pulse in sense of having notable down times between firings)
Writers discretion but my opinion is that larger weapons should be beam types and smaller weapons should be pulse types.
* Should we change Lancer and Beam weapon types?
I do not see the difference between normal laser based weapons and lancer types. Perhaps someone can describe the differences to me.
* Particle Weapons, Do we have any solid idea what they are/do as weapons?
I have read the description on the wiki. I do not agree with their purpose, namesake, or description based on the research I have done and what I had previously known.
* Neutron Weapons, Should these be altered?
No.
* Plasma Weapons, Should these be altered?
No.
* What kind of power drain should these weapons have?
It depends on the type of weapon and its size or relative power. It should not be cheap to use these weapons.
* How should targeting computers effect these weapons? (Such as AI assisted gunnery)
The should effect these weapons but not as much as their ballistic counterparts due to the speed of their damage application. Plasma weapons are an exception but the short range of these weapon systems limits even this.
Second Topic- Ballistic Weapons (Conventional, Gauss, Railgun)
* What kind of role('s) should these weapons have?
Conventional: Short to medium range low velocity weapon systems. These weapon systems should be able to fire HE. AP, EMP rounds without researching other technologies. SA (Special Ammunition) such as nanite shells should be available for research. These weapons should have a max explosive load or penetrating power based on their caliber. They should not be as underestimated as they are in the setting. They have a good ability to do damage. Rapid fire or increased velocity should be an option. They should have moderate reload times after magazine depletion. Gauss: Medium range medium velocity weapon systems. These weapon systems should be able to fire HE, AP, and SA rounds with research. Rapid fire or increased velocity should be an option. They should have faster reload times than railguns but a lower muzzle velocity. They should have short reload times after magazine depletion. Railguns: Medium to medium-long range weapon systems with high muzzle velocity. These weapons should pack a punch but have longer reload times. Due to the high muzzle velocity you can not fire an specialized rounds but they can be upgraded to carry electromagnetic charges that disrupt or interfere with shields. They should have moderate reload times between magazine depletion and a short weapon charge time between each shot.
* How effective should they be compared to other weapons?
All weapons should be balanced and have strengths and weaknesses when compared to other systems.
* Should we include "Carronade" weapons? (Weapons that sacrifice range for size)
No. E=MC^2. I do believe and support a bonus to spinal weapon's range through muzzle velocity increase. These weapons should be more powerful than their turret counterparts of similar size. The weapon system is integrated into the vessels or platform's power network through its hull.
* Should there be more distinct types of these systems? (High Velocity compared to Rapid Fire?)
On some. See my feedback on conventional and gauss weapon systems. You need to balance it with cost.
* What kind of differences should these weapons have to make them distinct from each other?
A short range variant of the gauss weapon such as the dust gun should be brought back into circulation. Other than that I like the current setup.
* How should targeting computers effect these weapons?
The should have a great deal of an effect: increasing effective range, accuracy, and tracking in general but there is a limit to how much any sub-system could improve the mechanical and transverse speed of a turret dependent on the size and mass of said turret. There are limit to tensile strength of the materials and what an engineer can do to improve the moving machine parts houses in a turret.
Third Topic- Missile Weapons
* What kind of role should they have?
Long range, heavy hitting weapon systems that take time to apply damage because of travel time and can be intercepted by point defenses.
* How effective should they be compared to other weapons?
They should have their strengths and weaknesses.
* Should we have more diverse types of missiles? (Short range vs Long range)
I don't think so. I would never use short range missiles personally. There is no benefit to unguided missile systems even if you increase the power in my opinion unless the damage increase was rather large. You could also impliment different explosive types. Missiles could have EMP, Neutron, Plasma and/or many other types of explosive properties. * Should Missile bays have limited size? similar to turrets? (Aka- only X points max per missile bay on Y ship type)
Yes but the limit should be considered before technology level. You are fitting more explosive power into a smaller missile when you improve missile technology.
* Should Missile system be more involved? To offset its capabilities compared to other weapons?
I do not think so. If you really wanted you could implement a maximum number of salvos based on DP spent.
* How useful should missile armoring be?
It should be very useful.
* How effective should point defense screens be against them?
They should be effective but not so much as a single point defense ship can shut down multiple missile ships. It should depend on upgrades to missiles and point defenses.
Fourth Topic- Misc
* How effective should armoring be at defending a ship? (Not accounting composites/alloys)
It should effective, as effective as shield systems depending on points invested and technologies developed.
* Should there be more options to enhance the defenses of a ship?
Yes. Remote assistance and nanite repair for armor. Armor and shield hardening to adapt to certain attacks for more power efficiency. Shield shifting and increased deflective planes for emitter style shields. Diverting power from other systems to increase defensive or offensive capability. * What kind of endurance should shields have compared to armor?
Similar endurance depending on the style of shield and the power generation and capacitor storage behind it.
* Should Shield Arrays and Emitters be more distinct from each other? (Aside from one having active regen and the other being more durable)
Yes. Arrays should bleed damage to armor into armor depending on the magnitude difference of attacker versus defender. Emitters should be area dependent. * How effective should point defense be against strike-craft swarms?
If the point defense types would be effective against strike-craft swarms then they should be effective. It depends on the type of point defenses and the size and speed of the strike-craft.
* Should Multi-barrel turrets have any sort of incentive to them? (Currently they cost the same as just buying separate turrets with that size barrel, saving only turret softcap) A slight advantage in points I would think but very slight. You are effective saving room and reducing the distance power needs to run. You are also consolidating sub-systems and more efficiently using space for loading and turret movement mechanisms on the ship. * Should there be Platform counterparts to Siege, Missile boat and Carrier templates (Aka- platforms dedicated more to an offensive/support role at cost of defensive/suitability) Yes.
|
|
|
Post by Sliprunner on Mar 13, 2016 15:13:48 GMT -6
As over a week has passed since this threads creation, I'm going over the input so far as putting a list of possible changes. Please do continue discussion...some people have yet to give input on this thread yet. I'm just going to cover mechanic changes directly. -Energy Weapons- No differences between pulse and continuous. (So nothing implemented) Removal of Lancers. -Ballistics- No Cannonades (so nothing implemented) No weapon variants (I.E: Rapid fire / High Velocity) (I may be misreading people's input however) -Missiles- Some sort of elaboration on missile types (Either Short vs Long or Unguided vs Guided...Possibly both?) A Limit to size of each missile "battery" (Much like turrets) -Misc- Actually accounting for turret armor Targeting upgrades for turreted weaponry (given agreement for both energy and ballistics having at least some benefits) Multibarrel incentives (augments cost/turret softcap) Platform variants of Siege / Missile boat / Carrier (Counter Siege Platform / Arsenal Platform / Hanger Platform respectively)Elaboration on the above in spoiler -Energy Weapons- Lancer system removed from DP system and tech tree
-Ballistics- NOTHING CHANGES
-Missiles- Missiles broken into 2 major types -Unguided missiles: Unguided / Short range, packs a decent warhead in place of the guidance system. (1.20 ton per point) (20% boost over guided) -Guided missiles: Guided / Long Range, has a reduced payload for long range guidance systems. (1 ton per point, current standard)
Missile batteries (a collection of tubes) may only have DP equal too 2x the ships turret size, this doesn't count missile armoring. -Cor: 6 / FF: 12 / DD: 18 / CL: 24 / BC: 36 / BB: 42 / DN: 48 --Missile boat template changed: adds 12 to max battery size (2x siege boat's bonus, in line with max battery size) -Additionally, free point in missiles removed, so no more 1 point missile systems.
-Misc- General category added for weapon systems, this contains modifications for armoring, multibarrel and targeting -Turret armor is 15cm per point, just like standard armor -Advanced Targeting systems cost 3 points, enhancing tracking of the turret depending on the technology mounted. -These features do NOT count against the total DP of the turret (they are additional costs)
-Multibarrel turrets have limited cost incentives to their design, reducing cost of weapons in turret but reducing turret softcap --Each additional barrel counts as a turret for softcap (aka 4 barrel turret counts as 4 turrets, so no turrets saved) --Each barrel after the first costs 3 points less, minimum 3 points. --Each barrel after the third reduces max turret size by 6. (Realism applies, past 3 barrels the turret begins to become to complicated, counteracting the advantage)
Platform Variants to be added -Counter Siege Platform, Reduced turreted weapon costs, improved turret size, increased defense costs. --Non-missile weapons become 1/2 price --Turret max size increased by 9 points --Armor/Shields/PD becomes 2x price --May not mount engines or FTL drives.
-Arsenal Platform, Reduced missile battery costs, improved missile battery size, increased defense costs. --Missile weapons become 1/2 price --Missile bay max size improved by 18 points --Armor/Shields/PD becomes 2x price --May not mount engines or FTL drives.
-Hanger Platform, Reduced strikecraft costs, Removed hanger softcap, increased defense costs. --Hanger support costs 2 and remains 2 --Hanger Softcap removed --Armor/Shields/PD becomes 2x price --May not mount engines or FTL drives.
|
|
|
Post by flightoficarus on Mar 14, 2016 21:04:14 GMT -6
-Energy Weapons- I don't think lasers should be as worthless against armor as they are currently. Admittedly, I don't want them to be as efficient as guns. Lasers should be primarily anti shield. To balance I was thinking lasers would be risky to use. They'd need really sensitive and precise sights to get accurate shots off at their ranges. Basically, they'd be easy to burn out by stray explosions or laser beams. Every time you fire a laser there's an inherent risk you'll get your laser knocked out by counter battery fire. That's where laser PD comes in and to a lesser extent dual purpose turrets. Keep lancers as a sort of super laser like Chon said. Just have them be less accurate and lower ranged. Also limit them to hulls above a certain size or limit them to spinal. Have a longer recharge between shots. Keep plasma weaponry as the bane of all armor as they are currently. No differences between pulse and continuous.
-Ballistics- No cannonades, seems kinda pointless. However, spinal weapons should have a higher muzzle velocity. Railguns hit harder than coilguns but have a longer reload time. Coilguns should be able to fire specialized rounds while railguns shouldn't.
-Shields- Shields should not be stronger than armor. Shields should drop fairly quickly. Armor/hull damage is for all intents and purposes permanent, but it should last a lot longer than shields. Shields should be a useful defense, yes, but by no means should it be the primary defense.
-Missiles- Limit the size of 'batteries'. Also add missile types.
|
|
|
Post by Sliprunner on Mar 15, 2016 14:07:02 GMT -6
Following updated inputs from people, potential changes updated to the following. Warning: horrible joke in spoiler Fixed Base Weapons: Any weapon may be made Fixed Base. If it is within the turret DP limit, the weapon costs 6DP less (Minimum 3) ARG ME MATEY! FIRE THE PORT BROADSIDE
THE FOLLOWING IS SUBJECT TO CHANGEEFFECTIVE RANGES | LONG RANGE | MID RANGE | SHORT RANGE | Lasers, Beam | 10,000KM | 5,000KM | 1,250KM | Lasers, Lance | 5,000KM | 2,500KM | 625KM | Particle, Beam | 6,000KM | 3,000KM | 750KM | Particle, Lance | 3,000KM | 1,500KM | 375KM | Plasma | 100KM | 50KM | 12.5KM | Missile | 10,000KM | N/A | 2,500KM | Gauss | 4,000KM | 2,000KM | 500KM | Railgun | 5,000KM | 2,500KM | 625KM |
This chart doesn't account for higher velocity gauss/railgun generations. -Energy Weapons- Lancer Technology altered to reflect a short(er) range/high power energy weapon system -Lancers power reduced to 30MW instead of 40MW base, For a 50% boost instead of 100% boost -Ballistics- NOTHING CHANGES (thoughts on sillies listed in spoilers) Cannonade Variants (15cm per DP, reduce range by half) (12DP railgun = 180cm) Modification: Advanced Feed Mechanisms (3DP, up to 50% fire rate boost, may be taken multiple times) Modification: Advanced Weapon Design (3DP, up to 25% range boost, may be taken multiple times)
-Missiles- Missile system changed as follows -Short Range Missiles (1DP per 1.25 Ton warhead) (Gen II: 1.5 Ton, Gen III: 1.75 Ton, Gen IV: 2 Ton, Gen V: 2.25 Ton) -Long Range Missiles (1DP per 1 Ton Warhead) (Gen II: 1.25 Ton, Gen III: 1.5 Ton, Gen IV: 1.75 Ton, Gen V: 2 Ton) -Sub Cost: Exotic Warheads (1/2 warhead costs, covers things such as EMP, Missile Deployed Mines, Sensor Missiles, Etc) -Limit to DP per missile system (Cost of Tubes + Warheads, not including armor costs), based off turret size --Cor: 6 / FF: 12 / DD: 18 / CL: 24 / BC: 36 / BB: 42 / DN: 48 --Missile Boat Template statement: Add 12 to max battery size --This is PER missile system, a ship may have multiple missile systems installed -The 1 Free point in missiles removed, making them a 2 point minimum weapon system. -Misc- General Category -Additional Turret Armor: 1DP per 2.5cm turret armor (bought per turret being hardened) --Turrets automatically gain 1.25cm of armor per point in hull armor --Turret armor doesn't count against a turret's DP limit -Advanced Targeting Systems: 30DP, provides advanced tracking to ships turrets depending on technology. Reduce cost by 5DP per size above Corvette, DN and larger mount free. --CnC(Fire Control) Template altered: May buy Fleet Targeting Systems, providing benefit of "Advanced Targeting Systems" to a ship, Costs 10DP per ship effected -Multibarrel turrets have limited cost incentives to their design, reducing cost of weapons in turret but reducing turret softcap --Each additional barrel counts as a turret for softcap (aka 4 barrel turret counts as 4 turrets, so no turrets saved) --Each barrel after the first costs 3 points less, minimum 3 points. Additional barrels do not count against turret DP limit. (IE: 12DP turret, 12DP 1st Barrel + 9DP 2nd Barrel + 6DP 3rd Barrel + 3DP 4th Barrel, Net savings: 18DP) ---Universal max limit of 4 barrels on turrets, Spinals have no limit. Spinals receive no cost reduction after 3 barrels. --Each barrel after the second reduces max turret size by 3, minimum 3 points. (IE: 1st Barrel = 12, 2nd = 9, 3rd = 6, 4th = 3) Platform Variants to be added -Counter Siege Platform, Reduced turreted weapon costs, improved turret size, increased defense costs. --Non-missile weapons become 1/2 price --Turret max size increased by 9 points --Armor/Shields/PD becomes 2x price --May not mount engines or FTL drives. -Arsenal Platform, Reduced missile battery costs, improved missile battery size, increased defense costs. --Missile weapons become 1/2 price --Missile bay max size improved by 18 points --Armor/Shields/PD becomes 2x price --May not mount engines or FTL drives. -Hanger Platform, Reduced strikecraft costs, Removed hanger softcap, increased defense costs. --Hanger support costs 2 and remains 2 --Hanger Softcap removed --Armor/Shields/PD becomes 2x price --May not mount engines or FTL drives.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2016 13:30:36 GMT -6
Slip:
I'd say that gauss and railgun ranges should be reduced by an order of magnitude
Flat 3DP cost for Advanced Feed Mechanisms and Advanced Weapon Design make the, more effective for larger weapons like, say, the sort one would mount on dreadnoughts, especially spinals.
Advanced Targeting Systems is slightly silly considering that I'm pretty sure targeting capability would be primarily based on your ability to detect enemies, compute their trajectories, and predict their maneuvers. Also, cost reduction per size above Corvette leading to it being free for dreadnoughts is really silly considering that you'd have to manage even more weapons: it should increase by 5 or 10DP per size above Corvette. Any cost reduction multipliers should come from computation techs.
|
|