Weapon balance for the future

[Bartje]

You refer to corruption or other problems?
 
I agree corruption needs to be looked at again.

[Dadekster]

We got a thread for that fella's let's not get distracted from the purpose of this thread [;)] lot of good ideas in here and don't want to see this derailed.

[Fishman]

ORIGINAL: Rustyallan

And the part in bold is bad? [:D]

Not to me, but other people may believe differently. Personally, I think they're delusional, but eh.

ORIGINAL: Rustyallan

Of course, any spaceport is easily bypassed when I invade.

That's because the only thing you'll ever face yourself is an AI spaceport. My latest CSP design featured over half a million firepower in waves, enabling it to instantly destroy anything that came within range while raining torpedo death upon anyone standing by, and because I intentionally kept the power of the reactors below that which was needed to simultaneously operate the waves, it would ripple-fire the waves, creating a continuous wave of CERTAIN 3D DOOM the moment anything entered wave range, as anything that came within range immediately took over 60K damage and died instantly. I know this because I had a thing that could withstand 60K damage, and it died instantly.

[taltamir]

ORIGINAL: Fishman

ORIGINAL: Rustyallan

But reality is all you need is to load your ship full of the longest-range torpedo you've got.

All LR torp loadouts have distinct weaknesses: They can only kill one thing at a time, because the weapon director will fire all weapons at a single target, the first thing that comes into range, and blow it to smithereens in a grossly excessive display of gratuitous carnage, and then you won't have anything to throw at anyone else for a good second or so. While this drawback is not significant on a ship, it's a major problem in a spaceport which renders an all-LR-torp spaceport largely ineffective at preventing enemy landings. You will want a mix of weapons, even though lazors are currently inferior as of 1.03/4, simply for close-range rapid-fire defense, as lazors are less prone to mass-waste because of their lower individual damage and range and and faster refire and projectile speed. At long range, two entire volleys of torps can go to waste on a target that will die in half of one, simply because it's not dead by the time you can fire again. Waves are also important, simply because they can mass-sweep many attackers, but their slow-reload renders them vulnerable. However, waves can destroy your merchant ships. You may or may not consider this a drawback. I don't. Worthless cowards deserve their deaths.

I don't know what game YOU are playing, but lasers are worthless on a spaceport, and due to energy fluctuations it will soon get a good alternating rhythem with torpedo fire where it annihilates everything in range. Lasers are not as effective because they deal less damage and have shorter range.
I have never seen my planets successfully invaded when under the protection of a torpedo spaceport.

[Fishman]

No, lasers are not as effective because they have shorter range, period. Lesser damage and poor efficiency is kind of a nonfactor on a spaceport, because you have no size constraints. However, their superior refire rate will give you something for close-in panic defense if something breaks through your torpedo net, because those weapons will be unfired and thus able to immediately lock and fire while your torp launchers are sidetracked.

On the other hand, Wave Armageddon works pretty well here, too, but you need an enormous number of them to get an instant death wave. Like a Colossal Space Port. Although haven't actually BUILT this design for real, it was a plop for testing, since at this point the game isn't really playable and I just plop a bunch of stuff down for laughs to see the carnage, like "1 CSP vs. 500 AI cruisers".

[Stardog]

Great Post Guys!

This game really needs this..!

Rustyallan maybe right about Hardpoints it might be the way to go.

How about different kinds of weapons

Torpedoes: Anti Shield (standard DW balls of energy that deplete shields)

Missiles: Anti Hull (can home on target but is generally useless against shielded targets. ) (maybe proximity explosion to damage shields?)

Beams: Both (standard DW laster thingies)

Projectiles / Mass-Drivers / Kinetic Cannons: Anti Hull, far longer range (the empty void.... / easily deflected by shields)
From Bartje's Post.........

Orbital Defense Bases/Star Bases: I tried to read all posts,If this is in here Forgive me. Most AI Bases Sux! So was thinking .? Could there be Heavy Weapon's for Bases only (Because Orbitals are so large).

Ship Blaster does like 4? points damage Range of 100?<(Sorry guys can't remember the right #'s) But Say a Heavy Star Base Blaster does X2 damage & X2 Range & Star base could have a given extra energy banks & coolant systems that would allow Base Blasters to fire at near the same recharge rate as ships?

The Star Base Only Torp's would work the same way. There might have to be a cap in the later weapons tech as you could have attack ranges of 1000 + & Damage rates of 100+ from only one weapon.

Someone/Alot of Folks said this AI Star Bases should defend Planet against Troop Ships & Bombardment first.! Right now its just to easy to invade the AI.


I hope they read these post!!

WM

[Pipewrench]

This has been a fantastic post and a great read. It makes my day peaking in every day or two. Congratulations to all for throwing out ideas.

For my 2 cents,

Torpedoes are overpowered and I do like some of the suggestions but what about adding a simple but ugly fuel hit for every volley fired. The torpedo's fired are now limited to fuel storage which would in-effect balance some things as the slower torpedo laden ship would have to watch inventory. It might force a player to create a beam ship just to cover the torpedo firing ships escape when it needs to reload. This also might limit the range of the torpedo ships as too much travel makes combat limited. Players now would have to bring refuelling ships on long distances and protect these treasures with all their might. Imagine 6 capital ships with tarp’s using 1/2 their fuel to get to an invasion point only to have the supply ship wiped out leaving them sitting ducks as fast beam ships dart in and out waiting for the last torpedo to strand them in space.

It believe it would change torpedo and beam thinking overnight and only require a simple tax on fuel per torpedo.

Just an idea...thoughts?

[taltamir]

this has several problems..
1. spaceports don't have to worry about fuel.
2. you could just put more fuel cells on your ships, and with late game reactors (very efficient) you will still have no fuel issues.
3. if you win the battle, having to go refuel afterwards is no big deal, you still won, the enemy is dead and you just need to refuel.

[Fishman]

ORIGINAL: pipewrench

Torpedoes are overpowered and I do like some of the suggestions but what about adding a simple but ugly fuel hit for every volley fired.

This alreay happens. Torpedoes consume energy. Energy is generated by fuel. Of course, increasing the energy cost of a torpedo launch won't change anything. It remains a point that a design based around range + speed cannot be beaten by anything that has inferiority in both. If you want to defeat a range+speed design, you need to beat either their range or their speed, or else you have already lost. No matter how much firepower you can pack into a ship otherwise, if you have neither range nor speed, the best outcome you can hope for is a stalemate.

[Pipewrench]

taltamir & Fishman thanks for the feedback and you both have exellent counters to my suggestion which I do appreciate.

What I am trying to get to is make the torpedo a limited weapon that needs replenishment much, much faster than a beam weapon. The only thing I could see is fuel as a tax that would be easy to code in comparison to lets say a new strategic resource that you would need to stockpile. Fishman you are correct as that already happens but what happens if you increase the usage for each volley fired and at the same time increase the size of the fuel cell needed in the ship. Torpedo ships would be now limited in range and firepower and be unable to match speed and turning power of the same size beam ship.

to your points Fishman,
1. I agree so if they want torpedo's they now must have fuel cells. I have not really thought out the fact that putting a platform above a gas planet would create permanent supply.
2. I agree again so what about limiting fuel inventory to a point where it would not tax a beam weapon heavy empire but would restrict a torpedo carrying empire to strategic assaults instead of a broad front.
3. If you won you won which is pretty simple and straightforward. What I was talking about is a way to create a targeted base of operations in a supply ship that could turn a battle instantly as denying supply to a stronger opponent would change the tactical situation. Putting torps on the supply ship would be the workaround and I am still thinking about that obvious route.

Thanks again for the feedback and keep throwing out things. Both of you have ideas I can agree with. I am just trying to think outside the box a little in the hopes there is an idea so easy to implement that could limit the torpedo's obvious advantage and keep the AI from shooting itself by creating too many options.

[Fishman]

ORIGINAL: pipewrench

1. I agree so if they want torpedo's they now must have fuel cells. I have not really thought out the fact that putting a platform above a gas planet would create permanent supply.

This isn't really a problem, since a thing which doesn't actually move isn't exactly a galactic menace.

ORIGINAL: pipewrench

2. I agree again so what about limiting fuel inventory to a point where it would not tax a beam weapon heavy empire but would restrict a torpedo carrying empire to strategic assaults instead of a broad front.

There's no practical way to "limit" fuel inventory, short of imposing more idiotic arbitrary limits on ship construction, as a player can always nail more fuel cells onto a ship. Even then, how far are you willing to jack up torp energy consumption? Let's say for the same DPS, a torpedo will eat up 4 times the fuel. What effect will this have? Pretty much none at all, since the average combat is not going to drain a decently fuelled ship even if you increase it to a factor of 10.

ORIGINAL: pipewrench

3. If you won you won which is pretty simple and straightforward. What I was talking about is a way to create a targeted base of operations in a supply ship that could turn a battle instantly as denying supply to a stronger opponent would change the tactical situation. Putting torps on the supply ship would be the workaround and I am still thinking about that obvious route.

Computers suck at complex logistics. Anything which makes life harder to the computer will make the game easier by far.

Really, DW is not intended to be a complex micromanagement simulator and should not be made to become one. The only thing needed for torpedoes to be less "gimme" is to make beams better: Either they take less space, they have much better accuracy, or they fire faster: Anything which makes the raw DPS of a short-range ship superior to that of the long-range equivalent will force a meaningful decision. That's really the goal here, isn't it? The issue at hand is that presently, one weapon choice is a dominant strategy. Make it not the clearly dominant strategy and alternative options emerge.

[Bartje]

An ammunition Collier / supply ship is nothing more than a refeuling point essentially.

If the computer understands refueling it could easily be made to understand reloading. (with a higher safety margin probably)


Aurora is the only "game" / "VB-spreadsheet" that has this functionality as far as I know but it would be great to see in DW as well.


This could for example show the distinct difference between ammunition based and energy based weapons (if introduced)

-Ammunition based weaponry relies on supply delivery of ammo. (collier ships)

-Energy based weaponry rely on fuel / energy and thus delivery of fuel. (refueling / tanker ships)


It would add strategy as well as racial / tech path distinction to the Universe.

Do you focus on ammunition or energy based weaponry?

---

Distinctions could be:


[left]- - - - - - - - -Ammuntion - - - - - - - Energy[/left][left] [/left][left]Fire-Rate             + (-)                       - (+)    :Rate of Fire is usually an ammunition based advantage; some weapon forms differ. (pules, rail gun etc..)[/left][left] [/left][left]req-ammo            +                             -        :Ammo requirement to fight[/left][left] [/left][left]req-fuel               -                             +        :Energy / fuel requirement to fight[/left][left] [/left][left]Range                 - (+)                        + (-)   :Range is usually an energy based advantage; though some weapons differ. (rail gun +, pulse laser (-))[/left][left] [/left][left]Speed                 -                             +        :Projectile / Beam Speed is (? usually?) an Energy based advantage.[/left][left] [/left][left]Damage              + (-)                          - (+)  :Overal Damage per second is usually a projectile based advantage. Some weapons differ. (rail gun +, pulse laser (-))[/left][left] [/left][left]Accuracy            - (+)                         + (-)   :Accuracy over vast distances is an Energy based advantage. Some weapons differ. (Missiles, guided ammunition +, pulse laser (-))[/left][left] [/left][left] [/left]

---

[left] [/left][left] [/left][left]How would the AI handle this?[/left][left] [/left][left]Well there would be several weapon types & strategies that the AI would have to incorporate in its ship design and strategic / tactical decisions.[/left][left] [/left][left]- An energy based combat vessel is by default (long) ranged and thus prefers to keep its distance.[/left][left] [/left][left]- A Projectile based combat vessel is by default medium ranged and prefers to close in because close distances vastly increase accuracy when using Projectile based weapons.[/left][left] [/left][left]- Guided Projectiles negate accuracy & range malus on guns.[/left][left] [/left][left]- Energy based warfare is fuel / power intensive. Fuel for maneuvering & fighting is limited. Refueling ships a nessesity. (tankers?)[/left][left] [/left][left]- Projectile based warfare is ammunition intensive. Ammunition must be supplied[/left][left] [/left][left]- Projectile storage is more efficient that fuel storage for weapons consumption.[/left][left] [/left][left] [/left][left]Thus this would allow us to conclude:[/left][left] [/left][left]Energy based weaponry is more Expensive but (usually) confers a range and accuracy advantage.[/left][left] [/left][left]Projectile based weaponry is cheap but (usually) confers a Rate of Fire and damage advantage.[/left][left] [/left][left] [/left][left]Which also implies that if Fighters are introduced:[/left][left] [/left][left]- Energy based bombers are very effective if they can keep range.   [/left][left] [/left][left]- Projectile based fighters / interceptors are very effecive because they have RoF & damage. (need to get close though)[/left][left] [/left][left]- Energy based point defense is not as effective as projectile based point defense versus many fighters / swarms of missiles. (Rate of Fire & medium range VS slow, accurate & high range)[/left][left] [/left]

---

[left] [/left][left] [/left][left]I'd love to see the combat system deepened somehow.[/left][left] [/left][left]Just giving an idea![/left]

[Stardog]

Sup Guy's! ,

Hey FISH - How's/What about a Set Load Time for the Torp's ?

In the Game it's a recharge rate I think .? But maybe there could be a reload time as well? &/Or If not maybe Jack-Up the Recharge rate for Torp's.?

I still say there should be Ship based weapon's & Base based weapon's.

Like the other Dude said this is a great post ACE'S - UP to RUSTY for starting this one!!!!

Hey I like BART'S idea of Ammo Weapons! Bring on the Super ArGuss Rail Guns!!!! LOL


WM

[Bartje]

The Keeper of Sol

Sol has long been guarded by its Defense station dubbed "the Keeper" by locals.

It was built not long after Humanity settled the system and has been vigilently kept up to date ever since.


The station was involved in some of worst fighting of the Kiadan conflict during which a massive armada of Kiadan missile cruisers attempted to seize Sol, the system of Humanities origin.

The Genesis war was decided in that battle;

The conflict had first started over a dispute between the Securan Matriarchy and the Terran Union concerning ownership of pre-shaktur war human technology.  



The Kiadan fleet drops out hyperspace in line formation, prepared to launch a lightning strike at the station guarding Sol-3 from afar.



Alarms sound within the Keeper.

Officers and crews report to battle stations, the stations com crews warn civilian traffic that a battle is about to take place.


Silence.


The Kiadan fleets holds formation and moves to enter range.



Men calm themselves and steel their spirits for battle.



The Order is given!

The Kiadan ships each unleash a tremendous volley of missiles at the station.


The missiles swirm towards their target.

These are not the ancient outdated missiles still seen on some of the obsolete terran commercial freighters.

They dance amongst the stars in a dazzeling pirrouete of impending death and destruction.



The stations point defense guns come to life.

Neatly the high speed gattling guns start tracking their dancing targets, firing as soon as they enter range.

A volley of point defense fire errupts from the first battery, followed by the second and soon the third.



The missiles, cleverly programmed dart apart away from the interlocking fields of fire heading to opposite sides of the station before converging in an orgy of fire, vacuum and death.



The defenders do not sit idle however.

The stations Laser Lenses have been focussed at the lead cruiser, holding fire in an effort to lure them further into range.

Soon, there will be no retreat.



....




***Record Sealed due to Political Tension with Kiada Prime ****



[:'(]

[taltamir]

the only way to implement what you say is to add a new category called ammo, where bases will build torpedo ammo, ships will carry a limited amount of ammo, and when they run out they cannot fire torpedoes anymore until they get more ammo, it has to be separate than the fuel and only a very small amount available for it to work.
But it will be a PITA to implement and to manage. it is better to adjust the useful properties of beam weapons, such as DPS, range, and size to make them more competitive.

[Bartje]

It's the same as fuel in essence.

It should use a copy of those mechanics.

With the difference that its needed to fire guns instead of lasers.



I'd love it.

You? [:D]

[Astorax]

Umm nah. I actually like to micromanage a bit but having to worry about fuel AND ammo is getting beyond the macro experience this game is purported to be all about.

That sounds like a good idea for a mod, however.

[Bartje]

Yes but that's the point Astorax; You woudn't have to worry about it.
&nbsp;
You build supply ships for fuel & collier ships for ammo.
&nbsp;
The automation takes care of everything.
&nbsp;
&nbsp;
I woudn't know how to mod this in right now unfortunately.
&nbsp;
Would you like it without micro worries ?
&nbsp;
[:)]

[Astorax]

But that is the point, Bartje.&nbsp; This idea would add another layer of micro no matter how you implemented it just because you would *have* to make sure you had enough fuel and/or ammo ships and that yes, indeed, they DID go resupply before your big invasion.&nbsp; If this was done, I would feel obligated to check these things every single time before an invasion and I'm sure many others would too. &nbsp;

[Bartje]

Oh ok too bad.


But what about fuel right now? Weapons use fuel right now too and moving costs fuel as well. (this part of the mechanism(s) is already in place as far as I know)


Don't you already check fuel levels?

I don't usually.

The Automation takes really good care of it for me so far.


I guess I don't really understand why you would have to check fuel and / or ammunition but to each his own I suppose.

I'm glad you like the idea though !  [:)]