Weapon balance for the future

[Fishman]

ORIGINAL: Krippakrull

1. Make ECM work better against seekers than guns. Since there are two components supposedly communating with (I just assume they are networked somehow since targetting comps work for missiles as well, if not, there's no way you could or would protect and harden the electronics in a missile as well as the ones in a space ship anyway) each other there are more options for electronic warfare to work. If done right, that's probably all that has to be done to missiles.

Realistically, any kind of sensor obfuscation works more in favor of missiles: To shoot someone with a lazor, you need to know his location, velocity, and acceleration to very precise detail. Even the slightest error in measurement will result in a miss by many kilometers. A missile, on the other hand, merely needs to know the general location of your opponent: It can adjust its course as it gets closer or receives better data, and can continue trying to hit its target as long as it still possesses enough delta-V to correct for a miss. Both systems utilize computer sensors that are equally subject to electronic interference, because, honestly, try hitting a target thousands of kilometers away with anything BY HAND. Yeah, right!

[taltamir]

ORIGINAL: Fishman

ORIGINAL: Krippakrull

1. Make ECM work better against seekers than guns. Since there are two components supposedly communating with (I just assume they are networked somehow since targetting comps work for missiles as well, if not, there's no way you could or would protect and harden the electronics in a missile as well as the ones in a space ship anyway) each other there are more options for electronic warfare to work. If done right, that's probably all that has to be done to missiles.

Realistically, any kind of sensor obfuscation works more in favor of missiles: To shoot someone with a lazor, you need to know his location, velocity, and acceleration to very precise detail. Even the slightest error in measurement will result in a miss by many kilometers. A missile, on the other hand, merely needs to know the general location of your opponent: It can adjust its course as it gets closer or receives better data, and can continue trying to hit its target as long as it still possesses enough delta-V to correct for a miss. Both systems utilize computer sensors that are equally subject to electronic interference, because, honestly, try hitting a target thousands of kilometers away with anything BY HAND. Yeah, right!

But since a missile takes hours to travel what light does in seconds, you have hours to aim and shoot the other guy. If he is capable of keeping your sensors blind for the entire duration, they he is capable of doing the same to your missiles, causing them to be unable to target lock

[Fishman]

ORIGINAL: taltamir

But since a missile takes hours to travel what light does in seconds, you have hours to aim and shoot the other guy.

If you're firing at a target that it takes "seconds" for light to reach, you can't hit it with a lazor, period.

ORIGINAL: taltamir

If he is capable of keeping your sensors blind for the entire duration, they he is capable of doing the same to your missiles, causing them to be unable to target lock

Missiles can only be jammed effectively during terminal attack. Until that point, it doesn't matter if you're off target by a few thousand kilometers, the missile can correct this once it is in range. Indeed, your opponent may not even be able to see the missiles: They are small, cold, and not necessarily producing any thrust, if you launched them from your ship. Also, "blinding" the target isn't necessary: In order to confound aim with a lazor, you only need to create a small uncertainty. Even a 1% margin of error in reading a target's velocity or position results in a wide miss at even close ranges, whereas a missile could attempt to correct for this with new data.

[Dadekster]

Not sure what all this stuff about shooting across light years is about. When I watch a battle I can only zoom out so far before my ships turn into little colored triangles at which point all the cool effects go bye bye. I know the fighting is still going on, but to me it's a moot point whether they are shooting across the whole system or 50' from the enemies space port's hangar doors at that point if I can't see it. That reminds me, is there any way we can see more or keep the same detail (shield strength/weapon effects) when we are zoomed out some more? You don't have to go very far before you lose all that detail/information which sort of sucks because you lose grasp of your tactical options other than manuever. The way things are now not matter what we are discussing as far as weapons balancing and additions it all still comes down to knife fighting distances. If we can increase the distance we can zoom out maybe to a quarter of the system viewable a lot of this stuff we are throwing at the wall might make more sense.

As far as fighters, I wouldn't want to see them modeling in a game of this scale down to individual ships. I'd like them to be akin to missles except they come back when done and are representing by say squadrons. That way a carrier design would carry X amount of squadrons, launch them like missles and the go buzzing around either shooting down enemy missles, torps or other fighter squadrons and then go back if not destroyed. They'd be just like troops as in you'd build them planetside and pick them up there. If it's possible be nice to have fuel modeled (very short range) for them that way you can launch them maybe from deep space onto targets but that might be a bit much. Like others I expect something like this a ways down the road since there are other more important things to do. But carriers and fighters would be fun to add to the mix of options to work with.

[Bartje]

I am completely with you Dadekster you've voiced my thoughts completely!
 
It may not be plausible but it sure as hell would be fun and adds another layer of strategy, depth and variety to the game.
 
The Galactopedia can be used to make it sound plausible using some "sensible" technobabble.
 
Gameplay is more important than realism, gameplay is why people will buy the game.
 
Immersion is part of gameplay, it deepens one's enjoyment of the game. (drawing you in, so to say)
 
 
The biggest obstacle to more weapons is not the fact that the player needs to deal with it;
 
The fact that ship designs would be more varied etc..
 
It is the obstacle that the AI represents. This is something only Erik / Developers truly know.
 
How hard would it be to program the AI with some sense of strategy / awareness of Player ship strengths as well as overal weapon capabilities & strenghts. ??
 
Obviously (just) two weapons are easier to handle for the AI and developers but I feel it would truly expand gameplay to add aditional weapons.
 
 

[Gertjan]

Please no more depth to this game. I like it just the way it is (although some things could be tweaked still perhaps) and the AI might not be able to handle it properly. In addition I agree with this statement:
 

  The game is a helluva lot more fun when you leave reality at the door and just enjoy it, instead of trying to justify it with real world physics. So if people want to add in mass drivers, or rail guns, or fighters, let them...they should enjoy the game, not analyze it.

[Rustyallan]

I think I'd like to see what we have already get balanced first. Then get the autodesign templates/formulas improved. Then add new weapons. Of course, if anything is going to be added, now would be the time to plan for it as well since they will affect the end balancing.

As for the fighter/missile debate...

A missile is launched and never expected to return. A fighter is launched and expected to be recovered. If a fighter is manned, assume there is sufficient anti-squish to allow them to maneuver. If it is unmanned, assume there is advanced AI or some sort of FTL communication between it and the controllers. I mean, we have homing bolts of energy already.

Fighters would be another element to enjoy if added, but I can certainly understand the arguments against them IRL. There's another thread already regarding fighters and their possible future inclusion. (Which I'll admit I have not been following.) I don't see them as part of the current weapons balance as they are simply another ship-type and not a weapon in and of themselves. I'll pop over there and throw in any further thoughts on fighters/parasite vessels.

Now for the distances involved. Have any of you seen any battles that have weapons traversing the system? At most, the distance between ships is the diameter of a planet. So we're talking about maybe half a light-second as far as the game is concerned? (That's a battle in an area the diameter of Jupiter or 3/4 the distance between Earth and the moon.) Maybe late-game battles are bigger, out to a full light-second. Discussing anything over a larger distance is interesting, but pointless as far as this game is concerned. (unless they add system-range weapons sometime.) Note that even your ships hyper between planets.

That half-light second is still lag though, and with ECM throwing off your targeting, missing with a beam weapon at range is easy. We're not even talking light-speed beam weapons as many of them are *not*. (I don't care that the game says they're all laser powered, they have different speeds!) Torpedoes would have the range advantage there as they are homing, giving them a greater effective range, no matter the difference in actual range. My only qualm is that beams should have better range against stationary targets like bases, but this is about gameplay and I'm not sure how that could be worked into the game engine anyway.

I still stand with giving same-level beam and torpedo weapons DPS/size parity at the max range of the beam weapon. I'm torn on whether torpedoes or beams should get better DPS closer in though. I'd like to see torpedo size increased. We're launching this massive homing bolt of energy (how much mass does a bolt of energy have? nm, I don't wanna know.) so it should take a lot more room than a simple beam weapon.

Beam weapon consistency. I've scene two different types of beam weapons, short and long-range. Why are they lumped together as "beam" in the autodesigns. They are clearly different items since SR beams cycle faster and travel faster than LR beams. Considering that, I'm not even sure which to balance torpedoes against?

Right now, torpedoes are so much better, LR vs SR beams hasn't entered the discussion, but I'm sure it will once torpedoes aren't the automatic choice by anyone who runs the numbers.

Maybe give LR beams near distance parity with torpedoes and SR beams the DPS/size advantage at max SR beam range?

Remind me not to post just after waking up... I may have rambled a bit. [:-] But although some of the recent posts were thoughtful, informative, and interesting, they were also heated and circular. So I figured I'd chime in again as well. [:D]

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: Rustyallan

I think I'd like to see what we have already get balanced first. Then get the autodesign templates/formulas improved. Then add new weapons. Of course, if anything is going to be added, now would be the time to plan for it as well since they will affect the end balancing.

As for the fighter/missile debate...

A missile is launched and never expected to return. A fighter is launched and expected to be recovered. If a fighter is manned, assume there is sufficient anti-squish to allow them to maneuver. If it is unmanned, assume there is advanced AI or some sort of FTL communication between it and the controllers. I mean, we have homing bolts of energy already.

Fighters would be another element to enjoy if added, but I can certainly understand the arguments against them IRL. There's another thread already regarding fighters and their possible future inclusion. (Which I'll admit I have not been following.) I don't see them as part of the current weapons balance as they are simply another ship-type and not a weapon in and of themselves. I'll pop over there and throw in any further thoughts on fighters/parasite vessels.

Now for the distances involved. Have any of you seen any battles that have weapons traversing the system? At most, the distance between ships is the diameter of a planet. So we're talking about maybe half a light-second as far as the game is concerned? (That's a battle in an area the diameter of Jupiter or 3/4 the distance between Earth and the moon.) Maybe late-game battles are bigger, out to a full light-second. Discussing anything over a larger distance is interesting, but pointless as far as this game is concerned. (unless they add system-range weapons sometime.) Note that even your ships hyper between planets.

That half-light second is still lag though, and with ECM throwing off your targeting, missing with a beam weapon at range is easy. We're not even talking light-speed beam weapons as many of them are *not*. (I don't care that the game says they're all laser powered, they have different speeds!) Torpedoes would have the range advantage there as they are homing, giving them a greater effective range, no matter the difference in actual range. My only qualm is that beams should have better range against stationary targets like bases, but this is about gameplay and I'm not sure how that could be worked into the game engine anyway.

I still stand with giving same-level beam and torpedo weapons DPS/size parity at the max range of the beam weapon. I'm torn on whether torpedoes or beams should get better DPS closer in though. I'd like to see torpedo size increased. We're launching this massive homing bolt of energy (how much mass does a bolt of energy have? nm, I don't wanna know.) so it should take a lot more room than a simple beam weapon.

Beam weapon consistency. I've scene two different types of beam weapons, short and long-range. Why are they lumped together as "beam" in the autodesigns. They are clearly different items since SR beams cycle faster and travel faster than LR beams. Considering that, I'm not even sure which to balance torpedoes against?

Right now, torpedoes are so much better, LR vs SR beams hasn't entered the discussion, but I'm sure it will once torpedoes aren't the automatic choice by anyone who runs the numbers.

Maybe give LR beams near distance parity with torpedoes and SR beams the DPS/size advantage at max SR beam range?

Remind me not to post just after waking up... I may have rambled a bit. [:-] But although some of the recent posts were thoughtful, informative, and interesting, they were also heated and circular. So I figured I'd chime in again as well. [:D]

If you really throw in real world physics, well...I think some of the background dialog from Mass Effect 2 actually says it best...

IF you fire this weapon you are going to ruin somebody's day, somewhere and sometime. Newton's laws confirm this...if you fire a weapon in space it keeps going until it hits something. Better in this case to forget the laws of physics, or you'd have laser beams going from one edge of the map to the other and only stopping if they manage to hit something in between.

If real physics were at play, the Sluken and Zenox could get into a battle, and end up destroying one of my freighters half a galaxy away...realistic, but not fun.

[Dadekster]

Which is why Han Solo could never go into hyperspace without first having his POS computer, which never worked when it needed too, first calculate the coordinates for jumping into hyperspace. [;)]

[Bartje]

It would be neat to see though

[Fishman]

ORIGINAL: Shark7

If real physics were at play, the Sluken and Zenox could get into a battle, and end up destroying one of my freighters half a galaxy away...realistic, but not fun.

The odds of that happening would be astronomically unlikely and it would take 40000 years, so given that the game begins sometime in....2450, the stray bullets should show up sometime in 40000, in a grim future where there is only war.

[Dadekster]

Don't forget Hello Kitty!! That has to be in the future...it just has to be!! I was gonna put mine next to my DeathOrayDestructor3000XL

[Fishman]

[taltamir]

ORIGINAL: Fishman

ORIGINAL: Shark7

If real physics were at play, the Sluken and Zenox could get into a battle, and end up destroying one of my freighters half a galaxy away...realistic, but not fun.

The odds of that happening would be astronomically unlikely and it would take 40000 years, so given that the game begins sometime in....2450, the stray bullets should show up sometime in 40000, in a grim future where there is only war.

true... but if they get into a fight inside the same SYSTEM, then they would be hitting a bunch of targets within that system...

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: Fishman

ORIGINAL: Shark7

If real physics were at play, the Sluken and Zenox could get into a battle, and end up destroying one of my freighters half a galaxy away...realistic, but not fun.

The odds of that happening would be astronomically unlikely and it would take 40000 years, so given that the game begins sometime in....2450, the stray bullets should show up sometime in 40000, in a grim future where there is only war.

True, but its also true that it will eventually hit something, somewhere, and sometime. [;)]

[Rustyallan]

ORIGINAL: Shark7

ORIGINAL: Fishman

ORIGINAL: Shark7

If real physics were at play, the Sluken and Zenox could get into a battle, and end up destroying one of my freighters half a galaxy away...realistic, but not fun.

The odds of that happening would be astronomically unlikely and it would take 40000 years, so given that the game begins sometime in....2450, the stray bullets should show up sometime in 40000, in a grim future where there is only war.

True, but its also true that it will eventually hit something, somewhere, and sometime. [;)]

40k years later, taking out some two-bit dictator. The rebel forces claim it's a miracle from the heavens since there was a flash of light that left a crater where the dictator had been...

[Fishman]

As far as they're concerned, it *IS* a miracle from the heavens.

[gargoil]

ORIGINAL: Shark7

ORIGINAL: Fishman

ORIGINAL: Shark7

If real physics were at play, the Sluken and Zenox could get into a battle, and end up destroying one of my freighters half a galaxy away...realistic, but not fun.

The odds of that happening would be astronomically unlikely and it would take 40000 years, so given that the game begins sometime in....2450, the stray bullets should show up sometime in 40000, in a grim future where there is only war.

True, but its also true that it will eventually hit something, somewhere, and sometime. [;)]

Does anyone here realize that zipping through our solar system alone at this very second are are countless trillions and trillions particles, all traveling a 1000s of km an hour? Every one of them could destroy a spacecraft?

[taltamir]

ORIGINAL: Gargoil

ORIGINAL: Shark7

ORIGINAL: Fishman

The odds of that happening would be astronomically unlikely and it would take 40000 years, so given that the game begins sometime in....2450, the stray bullets should show up sometime in 40000, in a grim future where there is only war.

True, but its also true that it will eventually hit something, somewhere, and sometime. [;)]

Does anyone here realize that zipping through our solar system alone at this very second are are countless trillions and trillions particles, all traveling a 1000s of km an hour? Every one of them could destroy a spacecraft?

an unarmored and unshielded spacecraft ;p.
And most are actually far to small to destroy a craft, they will just go in one side and come out the other leaving a tiny hole that needs patching.

[Rustyallan]

Does anyone here realize that zipping through our solar system alone at this very second are are countless trillions and trillions particles, all traveling a 1000s of km an hour? Every one of them could destroy a spacecraft?

Yep. Lots and lots of ancient stray bullets out there. Which is what shields are to deflect... and point defense would be used for the larger pieces when not taking on missiles and torpedoes.