Re: A Newcomer\'s Commentary
 

It is becoming hard not to notice how there is a constant reference to large fleet battle i.e. The Battle of Tudran. I don't know how many people play CB but I'd have to think that battles of that size are not the norm. They may be the norm for the CB PBW games but I doubt that they can be considered typical.

While I appreciate huge firefights with lots of explosions as much as the next guy battles of that size do not allow ships/fleets to show their designs/strategies exactly because of the dense packing.

If I may make a suggestion...
I think the missile speeds should track against Missile Manufacturing. The following suggestions are for late game X series missiles.

Heavy Kinetic Missile should end up with a max speed of 7 to 9 so that it is faster than a Propulsion VI fighter.

Explosive Missiles would be 5 to 7 in order to outrun late game destroyers which end up with a combat speed of 4 to 5.

Nuclear Missiles should be 4 to 6 reflecting their general targetting against slower battleships and dreadnoughts.

PBMs can stay right where they are since their target doesn't move. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/cool.gif

Re: A Newcomer\'s Commentary
 

I'd love to substitute but I'm unable to right now due to the simple fact that I don't have an Internet connection at home right now. Something that will be fixed shortly with any luck.

Piece of advise... never give your roommate cash for phone bill without seeing receipt of payment!

Re: A Newcomer\'s Commentary
 

The battles in CB3 are a bit larger than typical due to the fact that it is in the endgame.

Most of the serious fighting going on in PBW games involves fleets of approximately 100 ships for the midgame games.

Re: PISSED !!!
 

On the missile speed-up thing, please do include Planetary Bombardment Missiles.

The reason is that there are only 30 turns of combat, and the ships must close to within range twenty to launch. The first shot will probably hit before the end. (I have seen engagements of a couple dozen ships, where the bombers couldn't get in range soon enough, due to the crowd). The second shot will definitely launch, but will probably go to waste due to the thirty-turn time limit. That's a very expensive waste, in terms of supply usage.

I have tried to use point-blank tactics, but my planetary bombardment ships take heavy damage when doing so. Seems artificial to force them into orbit just to avoid a timer wasting shots. Also rather crippling to reduce the entire fleet's strategic movement in order to slow down the bomber's approach.

So in closing, as far as I have seen thus far, it seems like a good idea to include PBMs if you increase the missile speeds.

-Jonathan

Re: PISSED !!!
 

Right.
Got those PBMs fixed now.

The 20 turn reload was OK when it was a 50 round combat. Not so anymore.

Re: PISSED !!!
 

Yippeeeeeee!

Re:PBMs fixed now
 

Wahoooo!

IwannadownloadIwannadownloadIwannadownload...Must remember to cut back on coffee...

Re:PBMs fixed now *DELETED*
 

Post deleted by Suicide Junkie

Re:PBMs fixed now
 

Thanks!

Some quick early beta feedback on first game:
- Unknown trait "Warriors" for "Galactic Empire"

and for the AI files:
- Unknown value "Optimal Weapons Range:Anti-Ship/Fighter" in record "Combat Ship (B)" and record "Scout (C)"
- Unknown value "Point Blank Range:Anti-Missile/Fighter" (comes up three times each race)

Back to hunting Caspians...

v1.6b try #2
 

v1.6b attached.

Re: v1.6b try #2
 

That fixed it.
Wow that was fast!

Re: v1.6b try #2
 

Ground Combat: Liking it a lot!

Not sure if this is possible, but:
I made some 800 attack artillery units, but they have range-1, so...they have to be on the front row to fight? Putting that fella up against the Phong 101st rabble legion, I'de rather have some armored infantry on the front row.

Is the range band thingy just an illusion in SEIV ground combat, or can troops with range-2 fire from behind the front line?

Re: v1.6b try #2
 

Range doesn't do anything in SEIV ground combat.

Re: v1.6b try #2
 

ok, it looks like the first square is the one that takes all the damage.

Do all the squares get to fire, or is it just the first squares duking it out?

Re: v1.6b try #2
 

Only the range-1 damage matters.
Stuff such as reload rate and range are ignored.

Re: v1.6b try #2
 

Downloaded 1.6b v2... missiles are faster!!! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/cool.gif Darnit! Missiles are still not fast enough! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/eek.gif Late game fighters and escorts can still outrun the missiles they are firing or being targetted by! See previous post please.

Re: v1.6b try #2
 

The missiles aren't going to get any faster...

Fast fighters are weak fighters, and in the late game you should be using more direct fire weapons.

In the late game missiles will still reach their targets despite the speed if you choose your strategies right (IE: missile ships should prioritize different targets than the DF ships, so the targets don't die before the missiles arrive)

Re: v1.6b try #2
 

OK fine but I still think it is crazy to have missiles that can be outrun by the targets! Nevermind the insanity of firing a missile that is slower than the ship you are in.

Re: v1.6b try #2
 

Missiles would only be out-run in small skirmishes involving ships on the order of 10s. Carrier Battles is centered on large fleet operations, fleets in the 100s, plus fighters, and in those battles, you cannot run away from missiles because there is nowhere to move.

I haven't downloaded this version, but last I checked, the only missiles that could really be out-run in any normal situation were the planetary and capship missiles... for the anti-planet missiles, this is meaningless since the planet cannot run, and for the anti-ship missiles, only ships with large space dedicated to movement would outrun missiles, and in CB, that means you skimped on defenses and/or weapons, and thus your design will be useless anyway. It doesn't matter if you can move faster than the missiles when they're coming from all sides and it only takes a hit or two to disable something critical, and you got a dead ship.

Re: v1.6b try #2
 

Unlimited range + Slow provides gameplay improvement over short-range and fast.

Unlimited range + fast would be quite the munchkin missiles.

I could make some faster short range missiles, if torpedoes did not already fill the role.

Re: v1.6b try #2
 

You guys keep saying huge fleets, Battle of Tudran, no place to maneuver, etc. SJ has already said that he isn't making the missiles any faster. Fine. I will. Why?

Because I don't play setups where I have 50 turns without contact in an enormous galaxy with limited players allowing the time for huge fleet build up. I don't play setups where anyone has the luxury of creating multiple 100+ ship fleets guarding every warp point entrance to my space. I understand that it is what you guys playing CB PBW games seem to enjoy. I just don't like it. I'm rather confused by the fact that you all seem to want me to like it. You all seem to want me to like it because your always referring to having things set up a certain way to basically encourage it. Great... have fun! Me I'm editting CB 1.6 v2 to have faster missiles!

Re: v1.6b try #2
 

Well, you could do that. But really, there are reasons why the missiles aren't any faster than they are already, which is what everyone else is trying to say. Missiles are king in the early game when everything else is slow anyway, but there's still room to move around in battles. Then toward the end game, you need a variety of weapons to win any battle. The focus of the game is how to keep your fleets as balanced as possible, but if you increase the power of missiles too much (by increasing speed), the game simply becomes "who can build more missile boats faster?" And there comes a point where if you increase the speed any more, missiles just become glorified, never-miss, direct fire weapons.

BSG Race Emblem
 

Submitted for your approval...

For the Battlestar Galactica race, a little image modification, to reflect the new series. The attachment has two bmps that go in the pictures/BSG folder.

http://home.comcast.net/~anglewyrm/Emblem.jpg

Re: BSG Race Emblem
 

SCjazz:

Lets hit this from a different angle...
Given the slow missile speed, are you making more use of direct fire weapons?
Are you completely ignoring missiles?
Is the enemy damaging/destroying your ships with missiles still?

Re: BSG Race Emblem
 

1) My fleet escorts (not counting support ships like repair, supply, non-combatants, etc) are divided roughly along the lines of 1/3rd torpedo boats (Torps and DUC mix), 1/3rd Point Defense, 1/3rd Guided Missile ships. Similarly, Carrier fighter complements are 1/3rd Interceptors, 1/3rd Space Superiority, 1/3rd Attack Bombers. In the early game there is no problem at all.

2) During late-mid game and late game I strongly de-emphasize missiles on my fleet escorts because they are outrunning the missiles they fire or are being screened by. The recent addition of +1mp will push this back to a later point in time but it will still happen to my last generation fleet escorts. My A series fighter bombers get hammered for most of the game however because not having missiles is equally suicidal.

3) During the mid and late games. Basically, no. My ships are as fast as or faster than the missiles so when they are moving away from the enemy they have lots of time to shoot down the missiles with their PD lasers (Jazz design rule #439 all ships better at least be prepared to try and shoot down missiles aimed at them!). I've watched my escorts scream in to attack range, fire, and start withdrawing suffering minor damage (with exception of lucky hits that take out drives).

I'm not suggesting that all missiles at every point in tech get faster. I'm saying add a MP probably based on manufacturing (or something) so that L3 Manufacturing gets +1MP and like L5 manufacturing gets +1MP. Total max spd: 6 for the explosives, 5 for Nukes. Bump hvy kinetics 1MP on L3, L4 and L5 manufacturing in order to even try to keep up with fighters.

This doesn't turn them into super direct fire long range weapons. Torpedos and lasers are still longer ranged. Missiles still have to get launched and then move. Taking fire from Light Kinetics and PD lasers.

Best of all, and the part that really torques me, I don't have to watch my DDGs and CCGs dumping valuable supplies firing 3 to 5 waves of missiles at a target just to see the bogey get vaporized by one of my DUC PT boats right before the first wave makes it to the target. Or conversely watch my PT boat get vaporized because the missile screen that should have covered it is far behind!

Re: BSG Race Emblem
 

Strategies will help that last one a lot.

Set the firing options to 10% damage to targets, and do not target nearest. Instead, pick ones that are unlikely to target the same ship twice in a row... Has weapons, fastest, and least damaged are good ones. Farthest works too, since it will target the things that your PT boats will definitely not be shooting at.

You definitely don't want your whole fleet firing on the same ship.

PD beam ships vs missiles
 

Hey,

I've been trying to design a good PD Cruiser vs my current generation of missile fighters, but the PD ships can't seem to successfully shoot down missiles.

In Simulations, a wing of five missile fighters lauch five heavy explosive missile-IIs (seeker dmg resistance:24kT each). So it seems like the stack should have 24x5=120hp?

The PD ship is armed with 1x80mm Laser-III, 1x60mm Laser-III, and 3x40mm Laser-III. It also has Gun Crews-I. This should be a possible three missiles, and a possible two targets, right?

Edit:
But during combat, it fires on incoming missiles from range one to range four with almost no effect; During the course of the simulation, in thirty turns it might kill two missiles out of the twenty to twentyfive that are launched at it.

Am I missing something about damage allocation or to hit rolls or something?

For reference, The laser three damage tables:
(3x)40mm: 38, 36, 33, 30
(1x)60mm:103, 96, 89, 82
(1x)80mm:205, 205, 192, 178, 165

Re: PD beam ships vs missiles
 

As for damaging missiles:
Provided that you hit, damage only applies to one missile; any excess damage does not hit the second missile, but is lost.

With such firepower, the only way I can see you not killing missiles is due to missing.

Larger weapons have accuracy issues (+40, +20, 0, -10, -20), and missiles have a hefty evade bonus (60%)... Base accuracy is 70%, -6% per square.

20mm guns should get you a significantly higher hit rate.
Using a smaller hull will get you some hit bonus as well.

And, of course, if you chose the pacifist culture, they have -50% to accuracy off the top.
In that case, you need the antimissile missiles, since nothing else will hit (1% minimum hit chance for DF weapons).

Re: PD beam ships vs missiles
 

That -50 has got to be it. After a little spreadsheeting, it does seem to add up. Then it's missiles for this game, and I'll try different next game.

On another oddity that's come up: I've tried building "Highly Industrialized Sector" on a couple of my larger worlds, a 2.5 year project. I came back to them several months later, and they were instead building "Legacy Infrastructure", a 10~12 year project! I had to cancel four months production, and restart them on "Industrialized" again.

Re: PD beam ships vs missiles
 

You must have clicked the "Upgrade All" button on the queues list. That's a fairly dangerous button in CBmod.

Re: PD beam ships vs missiles
 

yep, did that; ok will avoid that.

Re: PD beam ships vs missiles
 

Does CB have AI?

Re: PD beam ships vs missiles
 

It has Rollo AI!

They will likely work best under v1.5, since Rollo has not been around since I got to v1.6.

1.6 has lots of nice stuff for multiplayer, including some spiffy ruins tech, more control over intel, and support for JunkYardWars style play.

Re: PD beam ships vs missiles
 

Thanks.

Don\'t Touch That Button!
 

OK so I didn't believe the whole... don't use low bonus or your gonna get trampelled into space dust advice.

Stupid me!

I've got a fight on my hands! I'm winning... sorta. Against one race (I control 2 of their homeworlds now). Of course it has taken half of my fleet warships (twice) to pull it off. And yah I do control one of their homeworlds... well the control thing is iffy with the 53 Eee warships orbitting above it (4000 hvy infantry, 600 lt infantry, and 44 basic fighters defending). Where is my fleet you ask? On the other side of the warp point licking its wounds and trying to get its act together after having all but 2 destroyer escorts, 3 CVs, and 4 LVs blasted into space dust.

Turn 74 and I've taken a whole 3 enemy worlds and I'm completely surrounded with no way to expand but conquest! Yah don't touch that button!

Suggestion for ReadMe File
 

SJ,
I'd like to suggest that you add the following to the ReadMe file...

Due to the lack of technology for opening warp points it is recommended that you remove the warp point closed event from Events.txt if you are playing on an AI Friendly Map.

*********************
Obviously I just got whammied by this event. Two occurences and I'm totally cut off from the rest of the galaxy.

Re: Suggestion for ReadMe File
 

You could also just reduce the severity of events. Warppoint closings are high severity.