Re: some suggestions - please discuss
 

Perhaps there should be a low-signature missile available -- say, with adequate Cloaking tech, new missiles are allowed that have defense bonuses, with the idea that knowledge of how to cloak entire ships can be applied to reducing heat/radar/etc signatures on missiles. Alternately, allow a wide-area ECM Overloader that provides a fair defense bonus to *all* friendlies (and maybe hostiles, as well) by trying to fool sensors into perceiving hordes of fake contacts (thus, hopefully, confusing targetting systems).

------------------
-- The thing that goes bump in the night

Re: some suggestions - please discuss
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>1) Sats in combat view
Make them deploy equally devided in 4 Groups at the "corner" of the planet/warppoint like that.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'd prefer 8 Groups, myself; I think that would put them close enough together to give each other covering fire.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>2) Armor
Take standard armor away from "Chemistry I" and add it to "Construction I", so the AI can armor ships as soon as it can build some (50000points Chemistry and 5000 Points Armor are not worth it, especially as Shields cost the very same)

2b) use of "Chemistry I"
.. make it requirement for "explosive warheads" (makes much more sense than for "titanium armor" IMHO)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I interpret Chemistry leading to Armor as research into exotic alloys that are stronger than the normal construction materials.

I think Explosive Warheads should stay available at start with no prerequisites. We figured out how to make explosives centuries before we could manage space flight.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>3) weapon sub-types
4) Missiles
5) PD Missiles<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The "proper" balance between the various weapons, armor, and shields is the subject of so much discussion on these Boards, I don't think there will ever be a consensus on how to change it. Better to leave it for people to mod to personal taste as it is now.

[This message has been edited by capnq (edited 27 March 2001).]

Re: some suggestions - please discuss
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>The "proper" balance between the various weapons, armor, and shields is the subject of so much discussion on these Boards, I don't think there will ever be a consensus on how to change it. Better to leave it for people to mod to personal taste as it is now<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

All he was suggesting is that point-defence not nessesarily be only beam weapons.

Interceptor missiles would be cool, and could easily parallel most of the PDC stats (damage factor, size), adding some range (so they have time to start moving before enemy impact) and high speed.

Right now PD is pretty bland, with only one weapon research thread. It could (and has been in mods) fleshed out to include:
- normal
- Extra Range + low damage
- Short range + higher damage
- Seeker PD
- Armor PD (range 1, single shot per battle)
- Field PD (small damages to all enemies in range each turn) [Note: can't be modded needs new ability- but would be really cool]

Some of these could be included in the official game.

Can there be any friendly-fire weapons??? That whole area has been neglected. What about a shield-recharging beam to help a ship in need? EM scambler to help a nearby friend avoid fire?

Anyways, its almost morning & I'm tired, so good night (morning?) Whatever.

Re: some suggestions - please discuss
 

this thread has wandered off topic a bit, but here's an idea on the PDC:

two types of Point defense: PDC and PDMissles.

PDC can no longer target seekers.
PDM can only target seekers.

This way, you have to make a choice: do i defend well against missles and hope i don't see fighters, go half and half (prolly not a good idea), or defend against fighters and hope i don't get missles shot at me.

But I must say, what pagan gods are you guys worshiping that can tell you what _will_ be in the next patch? I haven't heard anything about increased seeker speed in the next patch. Last I heard it was pretty much just the Map editor and that was about it.

------------------
May your Life prosper and your Dreams be sweet.

Re: some suggestions - please discuss
 

Dumbluck:
"But I must say, what pagan gods are you guys worshiping that can tell you what _will_ be in the next patch?"

I call him Richard and he said:

"14. Changed - Increased all seeker speeds by 1 (thanks to AJCaton)."

The god descended from heaven and posted it right here on this board.

Thanks AJCaton.

Re: some suggestions - please discuss
 

hopefully the change in speed will make everyone happy -
anyone else try the weapon mount change on weapon platforms? This is the modification i am testing now.

in the \data\CompEnhancement.txt make a change to the "Range Modifier" from "0" on the following mounts....

Long Name := Large Weapon Platform Mount
Short Name := Large Mount
Description := Larger sized weapon mount which increases damage from the weapon by 2 times. Increases the range of the weapon by 2. Requires a platform of at least 200kT. Can only be used on Direct Fire weapons.
Code := L
Cost Percent := 150
Tonnage Percent := 150
Tonnage Structure Percent := 200
Damage Percent := 200
Supply Percent := 200
Range Modifier := 2
Weapon To Hit Modifier := 0
Vehicle Size Minimum := 200
Weapon Type Requirement := Direct Fire
Vehicle Type := Weapon Platform

Long Name := Heavy Weapon Platform Mount
Short Name := Heavy Mount
Description := Heavy sized weapon mount which increases damage from the weapon by 3 times. Increases the range of the weapon by 4. Requires a platform of at least 400kT. Can only be used on Direct Fire weapons.
Code := H
Cost Percent := 200
Tonnage Percent := 200
Tonnage Structure Percent := 300
Damage Percent := 300
Supply Percent := 300
Range Modifier := 4
Weapon To Hit Modifier := 0
Vehicle Size Minimum := 400
Weapon Type Requirement := Direct Fire
Vehicle Type := Weapon Platform

Long Name := Massive Weapon Platform Mount
Short Name := Massive Mount
Description := Massive sized weapon mount which increases damage from the weapon by 5 times. Increases the range of the weapon by 6. Requires a platform of at least 600kT. Can only be used on Direct Fire weapons.
Code := M
Cost Percent := 300
Tonnage Percent := 300
Tonnage Structure Percent := 500
Damage Percent := 500
Supply Percent := 500
Range Modifier := 6
Weapon To Hit Modifier := 0
Vehicle Size Minimum := 600
Weapon Type Requirement := Direct Fire
Vehicle Type := Weapon Platform


[This message has been edited by AJC (edited 27 March 2001).]

Re: some suggestions - please discuss
 

IMO Seekers are incredibly hard to balance because they tend to be 'all or nothing' weapons. At the beginning of the game, they are almighty. Missile armed ships can easily sweep away superior numbers and sizes of gun armed ships.

A bit farther up the tree, PD weapons completely eclipse missiles. They become nearly useless. A few DD class ships maxxed out with PD weapons and most seekers are KO'ed with ease.

So, what you have is a weapon that either overpowered or useless depending on how the game flows and who researches what. How are you supposed to actually 'balance' that?

In my set, I actually reduced seeker ranges and increased their costs at the lower end. Once investment in the tech is made, the higher level missiles are more and more unpleasant. I did this is in attempt to maintain some sort of balance between research spent on missiles and research spent on PD weapons.

Finally, the balance is easily disrupted by the way the AI functions. It will never 'respond' to heavy missile use by building dedicated PD ships. All it has is what it is scripted to have. A player will adapt to the enemy's designs while the AI cannot. This exaggerates the problem even further.

So, IMO, there is no 'right' answer. All you can do is play with what feels right to you. Maybe once (if) TCP/IP play is possible, more games between human players will be possible (and using tactical combat). When that happens, perhaps a better sense of 'balance' will show itself.

Thanx,
Talenn

Re: some suggestions - please discuss
 

Perhaps that's the points. Seekers simply become obsolete. Of course, if they are obsolete do to PD ships, and so no seeker ships are built, then people might not build PD ships any more, allowing seekers to become more useful.

I tend to use missles as ablative armor for my fighters. Fire volley's of missles to absorb the PD attacks, and send the fighters in after. It helps a bit.

Re: some suggestions - please discuss
 

If you want the missiles to have a better defence against PD then just incease their damage before destroyed limit up for higher tech weapons.