.com.unity Forums - Is "BattleCruiser" a relative size? -- discussion

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

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

- - Is "BattleCruiser" a relative size? -- discussion (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showthread.php?t=9706)

Re: Is "BattleCruiser" a relative size? -- discussion

Quote:

Originally posted by Soulfisher:
...I would think the game would be better if fighters (and therefore Carriers) were stronger than they are against capital ships. Maybe a PDG weapon mount could be devised (limited to Destroyer class vessels or smaller) to make those ships better at destroying fighters than capital ships are. The AIs would then have to updated to create an "anti-fighter destroyer" ship and to not use tonnages greater than XXX for this design.

As for my initial reason for starting this thread, most people seem desirous of some sort of relative ship-size scale.

Proportions does a marveliuos job in balancing fighters and antifighter weapons. Check my proportions AIs for "anti-fighter destroyer" http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: Is "BattleCruiser" a relative size? -- discussion

The best way to protect ships from aircraft is with other aircraft. In SE4, a similar maxim would be 'fight fighters with fighters' but that sounds silly. It'd make carriers more powerful if fighters were better at killing fighters and point-defence systems were much weaker (amongst other things).

Quote:

Originally posted by Ed Kolis:
Hmm, we do have "Small Anti-matter Torpedoes", but they're completely useless because the only advantage they have (huge raw damage) is nullified by the fact that fighter damage stacks... did you notice that SAMT's are the ONLY fighter based weapons to do more damage than Emissive Armor III is capable of blocking??? Hmmmmm.....

It'd help if that were fixed and/or fighters were restricted to using seekers/PD weapons.

Plus I'd like to see the armour system revamped...

Quote:

Originally posted by Thermodyne:
America also had to learn the same lesson the hard way; we built carriers with unarmored flight decks all through the war, as did the Japanese.

American and Japanese carriers could have 50% to 100% larger airGroups because their flight decks weren't armoured and the hangers weren't enclosed (meaning a much larger risk of a fire causing the ship's loss). Also the reduced weight ensured a higher speed. British carriers were much hardier but they didn't have the same punch (having rubbish aircraft for most of the war due to the RAF's intransigence didn't help either).

Out of interest, do people like to build carriers with the largest cargo space/fighter launching capacity possible or do you like to use some space for defences?

Quote:

Originally posted by Thantis:
I'd also like to see a little more diversity in the AI's ship designs - since we have fleet formations, it would be nice to have true fleet-type units - escorts, missile ships, fleet defense ships, etc.

Would be nice, wouldn't it? Sounds like something SE5 ought to be able to handle.

Quote:

Thermo again:A few years latter the Hood sank from shell fire that it should have weathered, and its bLast doors were in place! Lots of excuses have been offered, but the hard fact is that deck armor was left out of the design to save money.

The deck armour was thin as the ship was designed and built at a time when bombs dropped from aircraft were miniscule and the main guns of ships didn't have the range to 'plunge' down onto the decks (most WWI ships that fought in WWII had the max elevation of their guns doubled to increase their range). Sadly, the refit that was due to modernise her a more battle-worthy standard was put-off and never happened.

A team actually discovered the wreck recently (they also had to re-discover the Bismarck as Ballard won't tell anyone where he found her) but couldn't offer any clues to her loss other than that both main magazines had exploded, ripping the ship into three pieces. Whether the fatal shell penetrated the belt or deck will probably never be known.

Re: Is "BattleCruiser" a relative size? -- discussion

Quote:

Originally posted by Chief Engineer Erax:
So if you want a game universe in which carriers rule the spacelanes, you need a sci-fi equivalent for torpedoes, which is small enough to be carried aboard your starfighters.

I think we have this easily: Capital Ship Missiles are perfect, really. Mounted on Fighters they fit even better... I think...

You can launch Seekers from Fighters, can't you? I don't think the un-modded game does this...

Anyway, I think the important thing, for both the fighters and the torpedoes, is to get rid of the PDC. That thing completely overpowers Fighters, Seekers, Drones, Sats, all Units I guess.

Re: Is "BattleCruiser" a relative size? -- discussion

Yes, fighters can launch seekers, although there are no such weapons in the basic game. The Crossover Mod does this with proton torpedoes and concussion missiles from Star Wars. Fighter-launched seekers behave just like ship-launched seekers during combat. You just have to be careful when modding them in because a stack of fighters with multiple launchers per fighter can fire off a HUGE stack of seekers !

I'd prefer it if PDCs were kept, but toned down (less range or less damage, perhaps). Fighter-mounted seekers will also go a long ways towards overloading enemy PDCs and reducing fighter losses.

Re: Is "BattleCruiser" a relative size? -- discussion

Quote:

Proportions does a marveliuos job in balancing fighters and antifighter weapons. Check my proportions AIs for "anti-fighter destroyer"

Not really. It makes fighters too powerful, so much that they overpower ships in the same way that ships overpower fighters in the unmodded game.

Re: Is "BattleCruiser" a relative size? -- discussion

My opinion only, In hotseat or sp against the AI, other weapons besides PD's can be used against ftrs both in unmodded and modded. My opinion is to take this ability away and only let PD's be used against ftrs. In strategic combat I'm don't think these other weapons fire on ftrs, but if they still do, then ftrs become basically useless in later parts of a game, They can't get in close enough to fire.

just some ideas Mac

Re: Is "BattleCruiser" a relative size? -- discussion

I've have looked at the data files for Proportions mod, but I have never played in it. I'll have to study it's Ship vs. Fighter combat in detail.

Chef Engineer Erax: If PDGs were kept as they are in unmodded SE IV, how strong would this Torpedo have to be to make a difference?

Wanderer: I've been leaning toward Fighter vs. Fighter as the ideal counter-fighter solution. Probably because I've seen enough of PDG vs. Fighter in unmodded SE IV.

Re: Is "BattleCruiser" a relative size? -- discussion *DELETED*

Post deleted by Arkcon

Re: Is "BattleCruiser" a relative size? -- discussion *DELETED*

Post deleted by Arkcon

Re: Is "BattleCruiser" a relative size? -- discussion *DELETED*

Post deleted by Arkcon