Missiles

[Sleeping_Dragon]

Some more anaylasis. Increasing the rack sizes in LRMs, GMs, and NMs saves internal slots, that can be a fairly big 'less quanitative effect'. SRMs may be more unbalanced then the rest since there's no slot saved by increasing rack size. With some tweaks to the LRMs, GMs, and NMs they may be brought into line easier then the SRMs... maybe decrease the range of the SRM4 by 1 (or increase the range of the SRM8) combined with some other tweaks, or give the SRM8 a +5 to-hit modifier (or -5 to the SRM4).

just throwing out ideas and observations....

[Thorgrim]

Yick! Don't like giving same rack type different characteristics.
Look at how BT works (though it's far from perfectly balanced). True there are no true recycle times in the boardgame; all weapons recycle in the same fixed amount of time, so an LRM20 *does* deal double damage that of an LRM10 (in simple terms, not getting into missile tables). Range is the same for all racks, and no different "weapon mods" for different racks. Heat is lower for bigger racks, tonnage is fairly proporcional (except for roundings), and slots proportional except for the IS 20 and Clan racks; same happens in IS SRMs except slots that are not proporcional at all.

Notice that by decreasing recycle time, you're increasing heat/sec. The more you decrease recycle time, the bigger burden will be placed on the heat reg, and so the fewer racks you'll be able to fire. A Devastator with all LRMs recycling in 15 secs would create 7.93C/sec!!! Way over the 5.28 it can dissipate (currently produces 5.54).
Not sure about decreasing heat for the LRMs either. A Devastator right now will go to 119C if it fires all racks. A devastating volley, which should come at a high price - the heat. Decrease that, and I'm not sure what happens.

[Thorgrim]

Hmm, I just thought of a very simple solution for UGMs. Make the bigger racks exact doubles of smaller racks. Then modify the "missile table" to make the bigger racks more effective.
All LRM racks hit with a minimum of 1/3 the rack's size currently, modified by roll. Make it something like min 1/3 for LRM6, 4/9 for LRM9 and 1/2 for LRM12. SRMs/NMs hit with min 1/2, make it 1/2 for smaller racks and 3/4 for bigger racks.
Not sure if the 50% threashold for max hits should then be changed.

[Sleeping_Dragon]

ORIGINAL: Thorgrim

Yick! Don't like giving same rack type different characteristics.

It don't bother me if it better balances the racks and gives them distictivness, especially the SRMs since there's usually no slot advantage to the larger rack. Some 'similiar' weapons are better then others is certian areas and worse in others, (ie. not all guns of the same caliber have the same characteristics, carry that over to missles.)

Notice that by decreasing recycle time, you're increasing heat/sec. The more you decrease recycle time, the bigger burden will be placed on the heat reg, and so the fewer racks you'll be able to fire. A Devastator with all LRMs recycling in 15 secs would create 7.93C/sec!!! Way over the 5.28 it can dissipate (currently produces 5.54).
Not sure about decreasing heat for the LRMs either. A Devastator right now will go to 119C if it fires all racks. A devastating volley, which should come at a high price - the heat. Decrease that, and I'm not sure what happens.

Well if you had all LRMs recycle at 15, then heat is your limiting factor, pull off a couple racks, bring your heat back in line, you'll end up with the approximately the same overall damage/sec ratios you started with (since you have faster recycle times) and a bunch of free wieght to use elsewhere for things that don't create heat.

Decreasing heat drastically (enough to bring the racks inline) would therotically just lead to a better overall damage/sec ratio, as smaller racks are replaced by larger racks with better heat and better slot useage and additional racks (if space/slots allow) could be added. Something Larkin isn't too keen on (probably rightly so). Or free up wieght from the heat dissapation systems (HR's and Armor types) since your not producing as much heat and use it elsewhere.

That's the reasons why I'm leaning toward differnet rack characteristics (to-hit, range, other?) instead of 'full' heat/damage/recycle time adjustments to make the racks 'equal'. It creates 'balance' without greatly disturbing the status quo in titan design.

Another option would be to put the crit/stability check number back to 4, that would give the larger racks more of an advantage, but I think it was reduced for that reason to start with... or was there another reason? MGs..AC4's? If those were the reasons, juust make it so they can cause crit/stability checks.

[LarkinVB]

I also thought about it while looking for other factors than range/damage/heat/recycle to balance things. Will check it.

[LarkinVB]

ORIGINAL: Sleeping_Dragon


Another option would be to put the crit/stability check number back to 4, that would give the larger racks more of an advantage, but I think it was reduced for that reason to start with... or was there another reason? MGs..AC4's? If those were the reasons, juust make it so they can cause crit/stability checks.

small weapons including two normal missile hits in a single location shouldn't trigger a movecheck. IMO its not good to change this.

[Thorgrim]

ORIGINAL: LarkinVB

ORIGINAL: Sleeping_Dragon


Another option would be to put the crit/stability check number back to 4, that would give the larger racks more of an advantage, but I think it was reduced for that reason to start with... or was there another reason? MGs..AC4's? If those were the reasons, juust make it so they can cause crit/stability checks.

small weapons including two normal missile hits in a single location shouldn't trigger a movecheck. IMO its not good to change this.

It's a 2% chance anyway, it's not like it's going to make too much of a difference.

[Thorgrim]

ORIGINAL: Sleeping_Dragon
It don't bother me if it better balances the racks and gives them distictivness, especially the SRMs since there's usually no slot advantage to the larger rack.

If they were distinct, they wouldn't have same # of missiles per slot for one.
There is a slot advantage if you can live with only one ammo slot.

Some 'similiar' weapons are better then others is certian areas and worse in others, (ie. not all guns of the same caliber have the same characteristics, carry that over to missles.)

???

Well if you had all LRMs recycle at 15, then heat is your limiting factor, pull off a couple racks, bring your heat back in line, you'll end up with the approximately the same overall damage/sec ratios you started with (since you have faster recycle times) and a bunch of free wieght to use elsewhere for things that don't create heat.

No. You'll fire all racks every 15 secs, not some every 15 and some every 27. And you need to have something to spend the tonnage on. And assaults already have everything, maybe some equipment can be slightly improved but a big part of the tonnage will go to waste.

Decreasing heat drastically (enough to bring the racks inline)

Where did this come from? In line with what?

[Sleeping_Dragon]

ORIGINAL: Thorgrim

ORIGINAL: Sleeping_Dragon
It don't bother me if it better balances the racks and gives them distictivness, especially the SRMs since there's usually no slot advantage to the larger rack.

If they were distinct, they wouldn't have same # of missiles per slot for one.
There is a slot advantage if you can live with only one ammo slot.

Why wouldn't they have the same # of missle per slot? There's more to a missle rack then the missle.

The slot advantage is only available IF you drop the number of rounds, the other racks will give you a slot advantage and still keep a similiar number of rounds by using 2 slots and still have a slot left over.

Some 'similiar' weapons are better then others is certian areas and worse in others, (ie. not all guns of the same caliber have the same characteristics, carry that over to missles.)

???

Every REAL gun that fires a 9mm round don't have identical firing properties. A lot of the time, it's differences with the gun, not the ammo. Not all weapon rack have to have the same to-hit mod.

Well if you had all LRMs recycle at 15, then heat is your limiting factor, pull off a couple racks, bring your heat back in line, you'll end up with the approximately the same overall damage/sec ratios you started with (since you have faster recycle times) and a bunch of free wieght to use elsewhere for things that don't create heat.

No. You'll fire all racks every 15 secs, not some every 15 and some every 27. And you need to have something to spend the tonnage on. And assaults already have everything, maybe some equipment can be slightly improved but a big part of the tonnage will go to waste.

Huh? I thought that was what I said, "if you had all LRMs recycle at 15".

The tonnage wouldn't have to go to waste, You'd have free slots from the 'missing' missle racks.

Decreasing heat drastically (enough to bring the racks inline)

Where did this come from? In line with what?

Heat is one of the factors that can be adjusted to balance things. If it was solely used to balance the racks the reduction would be pretty dramatic.

In line with respect to each other... balanced

[Thorgrim]

ORIGINAL: Sleeping_Dragon

ORIGINAL: Thorgrim

ORIGINAL: Sleeping_Dragon
It don't bother me if it better balances the racks and gives them distictivness, especially the SRMs since there's usually no slot advantage to the larger rack.

If they were distinct, they wouldn't have same # of missiles per slot for one.
There is a slot advantage if you can live with only one ammo slot.

Why wouldn't they have the same # of missle per slot? There's more to a missle rack then the missle.

Did I say missile rack? I said ammo slot.

The slot advantage is only available IF you drop the number of rounds, the other racks will give you a slot advantage and still keep a similiar number of rounds by using 2 slots and still have a slot left over.

That's what I said, yes, IF. As in giving you alternatives.
Don't really understand your calculations there.

Some 'similiar' weapons are better then others is certian areas and worse in others, (ie. not all guns of the same caliber have the same characteristics, carry that over to missles.)

???

Every REAL gun that fires a 9mm round don't have identical firing properties. A lot of the time, it's differences with the gun, not the ammo. Not all weapon rack have to have the same to-hit mod.

Hmm, you're comparing 9mm weapons, and transposing that to different rack sizes? One of us is not thinking straight. So should MGs (or any other weapon) have variable range rolled for when they're assembled to each different design? To accomodate factory specifications and all that.

Well if you had all LRMs recycle at 15, then heat is your limiting factor, pull off a couple racks, bring your heat back in line, you'll end up with the approximately the same overall damage/sec ratios you started with (since you have faster recycle times) and a bunch of free wieght to use elsewhere for things that don't create heat.

No. You'll fire all racks every 15 secs, not some every 15 and some every 27. And you need to have something to spend the tonnage on. And assaults already have everything, maybe some equipment can be slightly improved but a big part of the tonnage will go to waste.

Huh? I thought that was what I said, "if you had all LRMs recycle at 15".

Yes, and what I said was, you may end up with the same overall dama/sec ratios, but you'll be pumping out fulls volleys every 15 secs instead of distributed over time. 12 secs is a long time. You can get a kill with a full volley.

The tonnage wouldn't have to go to waste, You'd have free slots from the 'missing' missle racks.

And probably nothing else to put there?

Decreasing heat drastically (enough to bring the racks inline)

Where did this come from? In line with what?

Heat is one of the factors that can be adjusted to balance things. If it was solely used to balance the racks the reduction would be pretty dramatic.

In line with respect to each other... balanced

Did someone ever mention only changing heat? I don't get the point.

[LarkinVB]

Perhaps you two should switch to PM ?

[LarkinVB]

ORIGINAL: Thorgrim

Hmm, I just thought of a very simple solution for UGMs. Make the bigger racks exact doubles of smaller racks. Then modify the "missile table" to make the bigger racks more effective.
All LRM racks hit with a minimum of 1/3 the rack's size currently, modified by roll. Make it something like min 1/3 for LRM6, 4/9 for LRM9 and 1/2 for LRM12. SRMs/NMs hit with min 1/2, make it 1/2 for smaller racks and 3/4 for bigger racks.
Not sure if the 50% threashold for max hits should then be changed.

This will make LRM12 too strong IMO

[elmo3]

ORIGINAL: LarkinVB

Perhaps you two should switch to PM ?

Please keep the discussion here, and civil. I'm learning from it.

[Thorgrim]

Ok, I shouldn't have said exact doubles. I meant in conceptual terms, and as a starting point. The figures presented were preliminary, tweaks would be necessary. Notice that I said in the beginning of the discussion that recycles should be closer together, but I didn't say they should be the same. Haven't changed my mind about that.

There are a few "versions" around already, it's hard to make clear comparisons because the reader won't know what version is being compared to. That's why I was trying to point only a general path to go and not go for values yet.

[Sleeping_Dragon]

ORIGINAL: Thorgrim

Did I say missile rack? I said ammo slot.

Nothing changes with the ammo, same missles. The to-hit mod would be an effect of the rack. (poorer electronics for the LRM6?). Changing the to-hit mod don't have to be viewed as changing the type of ammo or the amount that can fit in an ammo slot.




Slot savings:

That's what I said, yes, IF. As in giving you alternatives.
Don't really understand your calculations there.

Look at the slot saving ability of the different racks in reverse. If you have a LRM12 with 20 ammo, you can replace if with 2 LRM6's with 20 ammo, but it would take 1 additional slot. There's a distinct slot savings for using the LRM12. With the SRMs this don't hold true. You can swap out a SRM8 with 22 ammo for 2SRM4s with 22 ammo but for the same number of slots. Obviously you can still short the ammo with both the LRM12 and SRM8 to gain an additional slot.

Hmm, you're comparing 9mm weapons, and transposing that to different rack sizes? One of us is not thinking straight. So should MGs (or any other weapon) have variable range rolled for when they're assembled to each different design? To accomodate factory specifications and all that.

Don't be assinine. This goes back to linking the to-hit mod to the weapon system, not the ammo. Just say the LRM6 has worse electronics. Hopefully this is a dead portion of the disscussion anyway as the last 'version' I saw took a big step toward fixing the problem IMO.

Yes, and what I said was, you may end up with the same overall dama/sec ratios, but you'll be pumping out fulls volleys every 15 secs instead of distributed over time. 12 secs is a long time. You can get a kill with a full volley.

Ok, this is starting to make some sense now. You never mentioned anything about 'alpha-stikes' or concentrating damage in one sec. in your earlier posts. At least I now know which direction you were headed. I'm still not clear on your exact point though, since your initial volley will actually cause less damage.

And probably nothing else to put there?

Not in my opionion. You can always improve the electronics or armor if you have the free slots and wieght to do it. As much as we say "the assaults have everything" there's none that couldn't use a little more of something.

Did someone ever mention only changing heat? I don't get the point.

Yes, I did, very early on.

[Thorgrim]

ORIGINAL: Sleeping_Dragon
Nothing changes with the ammo, same missles. The to-hit mod would be an effect of the rack. (poorer electronics for the LRM6?). Changing the to-hit mod don't have to be viewed as changing the type of ammo or the amount that can fit in an ammo slot.

Maybe Henrik will explain you what I just explained him.

Look at the slot saving ability of the different racks in reverse. If you have a LRM12 with 20 ammo, you can replace if with 2 LRM6's with 20 ammo, but it would take 1 additional slot. There's a distinct slot savings for using the LRM12. With the SRMs this don't hold true. You can swap out a SRM8 with 22 ammo for 2SRM4s with 22 ammo but for the same number if slots.

Hmm, you're just repeating what had already been said in the beginning. You like to repeat things, I don't see the need, if someone else has already mentioned it.
Again, I said IF. I was perfectly aware of what I was saying.

Don't be assinine. This goes back to linking the to-hit mod to the weapon system, not the ammo. Just say the LRM6 has worse electronics. Hopefully this is a dead portion of the disscussion anyway as the last 'version' I saw took a big step toward fixing the problem IMO.

So *I* am being assinine. So what electronics in the 9mm makes it have better range? Or the SRMs for that matter.
Maybe you haven't seen the latest version. Let's just wait and see.

Ok, this starts makes some sense now. You never mentioned anything about 'alpha-stikes' or concentrating damage in one sec. in your earlier posts. AT least i know which direction you were headed.

I didn't? Are you sure?

Not in my opionion. You can always improve the electronics or armor if you have the free slots and wieght to do it.

You keep repeating what I already said.

Yes, I did, very early on.

So you said it, and then you refuted yourself, and it was supposed to be taken into account?

[Sleeping_Dragon]

Look at the slot saving ability of the different racks in reverse. If you have a LRM12 with 20 ammo, you can replace if with 2 LRM6's with 20 ammo, but it would take 1 additional slot. There's a distinct slot savings for using the LRM12. With the SRMs this don't hold true. You can swap out a SRM8 with 22 ammo for 2SRM4s with 22 ammo but for the same number if slots.

Hmm, you're just repeating what had already been said in the beginning. You like to repeat things, I don't see the need, if someone else has already mentioned it.
Again, I said IF. I was perfectly aware of what I was saying.

I'm repeating myself because your missing my point. Both LRMs and SRMs can gain a slot advantage IF you short them on ammo. Larger LRM racks have an additional slot advantage without shorting the ammo. I'm not looking at the slot advantage gained by shorting ammo, the one with the IF. I'm looking at the other.

So *I* am being assinine. So what electronics in the 9mm makes it have better range? Or the SRMs for that matter.

Yes you are. A better sight/scope, longer barrel, better groove/twist ratio for it's intended role, smoother trigger. All would improve accuracy or range on a 9mm. For an SRM I'm not sure, I don't have one, but there would be things in the construction/design of the rack that could effect to-hits or range.

So you said it, and then you refuted yourself, and it was supposed to be taken into account?

Yes, It's one of the factors that could be changed. Shouldn't it be taken into account? I was just pointing out the drawbacks with that option, Not nessasrily for you, who can/wants to do the math, but for other following the discussion.

[LarkinVB]

ORIGINAL: Sleeping_Dragon


I was just pointing out the drawbacks with that option, Not nessasrily for you, who can/wants to do the math, but for other following the discussion.

Thats not me

[Thorgrim]

ORIGINAL: Sleeping_Dragon
I'm repeating myself because your missing my point.

No, you're repeating others.

Yes you are. A better sight/scope, longer barrel, better groove/twist ratio for it's intended role, smoother trigger. All would improve accuracy or range on a 9mm. For an SRM I'm not sure, I don't have one, but there would be things in the construction/design of the rack that could effect to-hits or range.

Ah, so you made a comparison that's perfectly ludicrous, and you expect it to be taken seriously. Of course you think I'm being assinine... shame you didn't think about not having an SRM before making such comments. Haven't had the time to think of those things yet either, huh?

Yes, It's one of the factors that could be changed. Shouldn't it be taken into account? I was just pointing out the drawbacks with that option, Not nessasrily for you, who can/wants to do the math, but for other following the discussion.

Operative word being solely, as *you* said. Heat is always a factor in balancing, that's pretty obvious. To anyone.

[Coyote27]

Bah, stop bickering endlessly you two. :p
AFAICT fixing this would just entail changing the srm4 heat to 6 and/or the srm8 heat to 9, raising the lrm6 heat to 13.
Does this sound more or less fair?