.com.unity Forums - thoughts - the source of all problems and disbalances

.com.unity Forums (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/index.php)

- Space Empires: IV & V (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/forumdisplay.php?f=20)

- - thoughts - the source of all problems and disbalances (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showthread.php?t=7935)

Re: thoughts - the source of all problems and disbalances

Only question I have Gryph is does your Spinal Tap weapon power knob go to eleven? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[ December 05, 2002, 14:48: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

Re: thoughts - the source of all problems and disbalances

I see it also that weapon mounts are a big problem in SEIV. As I have mentioned several times before, more is not always good. Mounts are not necessary in the game. I could easily do without them being in the game. (as well as designable unit-types like armies which are also useless in the current stage)
MM did developed too many things in SEIV without much initial conceptation and the result is sometimes frustrating game play and a mediocre AI.

For example I dont need a designable ground combat unit without a ground combat system which take care of my design.

I can design a indefinite number of different satellites, but I never had games where more than 2 different types of satellites of the same generation operated at the same time in my empire (1 longrange and 1 point defense)
Instead of such feature, MM should have brought along a concept of satellites initial placement options before the first round of combat.

These are only 2 examples of misconception and unnecessary complexity in the game. Mounts are are 3rd one.

bye
Klaus

Re: thoughts - the source of all problems and disbalances

I don't think any of those are unneeded.

Troops: simultanious combat, same as with ships. The design of a troop makes a difference. Cheap riot-control troops, heavily armored main line troops, heavily -armed- backup troops, etc. To say nothing of what it lets you do in terms of moddng.

Same with fighters and sats. In one game I currently have 7 different types of fighter active. Ship attack, interceptor, fast ship attack, fast interceptor, smaller Versions of same (they build faster). Sats: missile sat, sensor sat, ripper beam sat. One or two generics just doesn't cut it. Again the modding posibilities as well.

Mounts: see modding possibilities AGAIN. Especially with the new Gold patch that allows different things with then, solved a lot of problems for me. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif In the standard game, they're OK if a bit overpowered. But then I don't see you suggesting removing the PPB from the game because it's overpowered..

Phoenix-D

Re: thoughts - the source of all problems and disbalances

In the standard game, they're OK if a bit overpowered. But then I don't see you suggesting removing the PPB from the game because it's overpowered..
Oh, of course there is a certain imbalancing. But this is just a matter of modifying it. (editing capabilities are very fine in SEIV IMO)

The problem is that MM has removed some very good game ideas from SEIII and instead has introduced some cumbersome game mechanics. These mechanics lead to a frustration and a bad AI which cannot handle it. I would have wished that the developement time which has been spent on introducing the new ship building system (the old one was much better), the change from predefined units to designable ones and all those unnecessary diplomatic mumbojumbo which is of limited use had been used for a better, more intelligent AI.

I am sure 8 of 10 SEIV players are playing only against the AI and not against other humans. The main focus of SEIV should have been the AI developement and not all these useless chrome.

bye
Klaus

Re: thoughts - the source of all problems and disbalances

Quote:

was that aliteration? did I even manage to spell aliteration correctly?

No, and no. "Anachronistic handcuff" is only alliteration if you have a Cockney accent. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Re: thoughts - the source of all problems and disbalances

Quote:

Originally posted by Gryphin:
In terms of “Realety”, Hm, Yes, large guns on small ships would be a problem on Earth today. Those are weapons with a Recoil.
My itterpretation of the wepaons in SEIV do not use Recoil based weapons. The point about Spinal Tap weapons beling less accurate is certaily valid. I wonder what a 15” gun in a Destroyer hull would have done with WWII technology. Anybody here know the math?
I would think if you could close to within Direct Fire Range that accuracy would be fairly high when aiming at a Cruiser size hull. Imagine 3 direct hits from 15” guns at fairly close range. Too bad we will never know.
I can see a Mod for a “Spinal Tap” weapon
Low to hit
High Damage bonus
1 Per ship
At least a 3 reload time.
At least 50kt.

A DUC would have recoil. Many Star Wars weapons seem to have recoil, but that's Lucas physics. However, as I said, the problems would be different, but probably there will still be engineering issues and tradeoffs due to size and mass, power requirements, spacial issues (massive turret blocking other surface facilties), etc.

In WW2, a destroyer with a 15" gun would I think be technically problematic or even impossible due to mass. A destroyer is also not a very stable firing platform, which would mean that even if you could fire without capsizing (or even sail without capsizing), the gun would be very inaccurate at long range, and one of the main points of having a 15" gun is to be able to out-range your opponents. The reason a WW2 battleship is superior to a WW2 cruiser is that it can nail the cruiser before the cruiser can even get in range. The 15"-armed destroyer probably wouldn't be able to hit anything at the gun's longer ranges. Much more practical was the heavy weapon which was given to destroyers - the torpedo, which would do as much or more damage than a 15" gun, and may have had similar accuracy when mounted on a destroyer, to what a 15"-armed destroyer would have had. I suppose with enough engineering, maybe a spinal-mount heavy cannon of some sort on a destroyer might have had intermediate range and been an interesting and perhaps feasible alternative weapon. I tend to think they'd still be held at bay by the more accurate long-range guns of larger ships.

In any case, though, WW2 destroyers were rarely able to close the range with capital ships, because they would get nailed by direct-fire before they got within torpedo range, more often than not. But sometimes they did, and the threat of them doing so was tactically important, and of course destroyers were extremely useful in all sorts of other roles.

Of course another major factor would be expense. A 15" gun was expensive to produce, much more so than a torpedo tube.

PvK

Re: thoughts - the source of all problems and disbalances

In empty space, with no friction, a flash light is an engine!!! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif Still Going!!! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

So firing Ionic Dispersers, Meson guns and whatever is gonna rock the boat for sure.

Re: thoughts - the source of all problems and disbalances

Quote:

A destroyer is also not a very stable firing platform, which would mean that even if you could fire without capsizing (or even sail without capsizing)

But can one actually capsize in space?

Re: thoughts - the source of all problems and disbalances

Quote:

Originally posted by PvK:
In any case, though, WW2 destroyers were rarely able to close the range with capital ships, because they would get nailed by direct-fire before they got within torpedo range, more often than not. But sometimes they did, and the threat of them doing so was tactically important, and of course destroyers were extremely useful in all sorts of other roles.

PvK[/QB]

Which is why the Imperial Japanese Navy attacked at night, where they could get in close and not worry about those big, bad cannon! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: thoughts - the source of all problems and disbalances

1) If you're firing at something 1000s of km away, a small recoil & a little bit of torque and you'll miss by some way if you don't correct your aim.

2) 15" shells weighed a ton (literally) - you wouldn't be able to put many in a destroyer without slowing her to a crawl, and if you tried it you'd make a very pretty firework display if the enemy hit your unarmoured magazines... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

IMO the mount system is good. If you want to have starships built like Napoleonic ships of the line with numerous rows of small guns, go ahead, but I think I'll be 'borrowing' the idea of giving large mounts a to-hit penalty.

*re-engaging lurking device*