Advice Needed, CompEn. file
 

OK, I am reformatting/re-tweaking/re-working my CompEnhance file (Weapon Mounts) in the hope of 'perfecting' it for posting for that cd Shrapnel will be putting out...

I have posted various Versions of this before, with some feedback (and most of it was included in the DevnullMod awhile back), but I have re-done quite a lot, with some ideas that I came up with and some I 'borrowed'(or rather, were inspired by others, most notibly the 'Gatling Mount', inspired by a DUC cannon Version by Suicide Junkie in his P&N mod...I just made a mount Version for any weapon)..

Added since Last update (Aug21st):

Gatling Mounts (10% of size/cost of weapon, so you can have 10 Torp Launchers that do 4 points of damage, or 1 that does 40 <normal>, more chances to hit...+5% to hit as well. There are also Extended Range and Pulsed Versions of them).

Extended Range Point Defense Mount,
Spinal Mount for ANY size ship (AI will not use...)
MinniMissile Mounts for base/ship/sat/wpn platform (1/2 size missile launcher, same damage as normal size, makes missiles more formidable).

Also re-worked mounts for Satellites and Weapon Platforms to make ranges longer for better planetary defense....

Feedback is MORE than welcome here, I WANT to know what you like/don't like, what you want/don't want....

I would greatly like to contribute to the Shrapnel 'bundle cd' and this is the best way I know how....

(Note, these are not components, just mounts, alot of them are human use only, but they are set up so the AI WILL use certain mounts for certain ship sizes, makes the game more interesting IMO)...


EDIT: corrected a minor syntax/spelling mistake in mod, ADDED a Minature Version of components mount.....Note, this is a 'beta' Version for some mounts, will be playtested this week for compatibility but no major issues expected..
------------------
"We are all...the sum of our scars"....(paraphrased) Matt. R. Stover-'Blade of Tyshalle'.

"Human existance is all imagination...Reality is no more than a simple agreement among its participants that this is where we shall meet, and these are the rules that we shall abide by."- Kevin McCarthy/David Silva "The Family:Special Effects"..

[This message has been edited by Deathstalker (edited 07 October 2001).]

Re: Advice Needed, CompEn. file
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
Long Name := Light Mount
Short Name := Light Mount
Description := 1/2 size, 1/2 damage, -1rng. 1/2 cost. 150kt min.
Code := Lt
Cost Percent := 50
Tonnage Percent := 50
Tonnage Structure Percent := 50
Damage Percent := 50
Supply Percent := 50
Range Modifier := -1
Weapon To Hit Modifier := 0
Vehicle Size Minimum := 150
Weapon Type Requirement := Direct Fire
Vehicle Type := Ship
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This seems pretty useless to me. This mount is a penalizing mount. Everything is equal to the normal mount (by ratios) except for the range, which is decreased by 1. So overall, a ship using this mount will be outclassed by a ship of the same technology using regular weapons. The only purpose I can think of for this mount is putting a large weapon like a Wave Motion Gun on an Escort or a Frigate, which doesn't seem very useful to me.

[This message has been edited by Imperator Fyron (edited 07 October 2001).]

Re: Advice Needed, CompEn. file
 

Quote"This seems pretty useless to me. This mount is a penalizing mount. Everything is equal to the normal mount (by ratios) except for the range, which is decreased by 1. So overall, a ship using this mount will be outclassed by a ship of the same technology using regular weapons. The only purpose I can think of for this mount is putting a large weapon like a Wave Motion Gun on an Escort or a Frigate, which doesn't seem very useful to me." End Quote.

I know, I have tweaked and re-tweaked this mount, the main purpose for it was to 'fill the Last 10 space' in a ship, as well as to give more chances to hit. I thought of it this way, if there was no penality to it then why just take 1 DUC cannon when you can take TWO light ones that add up to the same damage etc but give you TWO chances to hit. That and I rationalized that a smaller Version of a weapon would not have the necessary 'power' to reach the same distance, think pistol vs. rifle for projectile weapons.....


But thanks for the comments......keep 'em coming! http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: Advice Needed, CompEn. file
 

I guess that sort of makes sense. But the way I see it, the problem is that all the size 20 weapons are too weak already. If you decrease thier power by half, then they would be even more useless.

------------------
It's not whether you win or lose that counts: it's how much pain you inflict along the way.

Re: Advice Needed, CompEn. file
 

I agree, most of the size 20 weapons are kinda useless (but I am a fan of the shield depleter and the ripper beam) but this mount file is set up so that you can choose what you want to use (barring size limits) and the AI will only use certain parts for certain ships....The Light weapons mount will only be used for escort (150kt) class, then Normal for 200kt, Extended Range for 300 (destroyers), Large for Light Cruisers, Pulse for Cruisers, Heavy for Battleships, Massive has been downfitted for Dreadnoughts and High Energy Focus has been brought in for Baseships...The AI will use them this way...

Re: Advice Needed, CompEn. file
 

Didn't think about shield depleters. They are somewhat useful.

If the AI uses light mount DUCs and such, then it will be even easier to defeat them than it is now.

------------------
It's not whether you win or lose that counts: it's how much pain you inflict along the way.

Re: Advice Needed, CompEn. file
 

Why not give the light mount an accuracy bonus? 5% to 10% should be enough to compensate for the range reduction.

Re: Advice Needed, CompEn. file
 

SJ, that's a good idea. That way, light mounts wouldn't be completely negative. I think a 10% bonus to accuracy would be best.

------------------
It's not whether you win or lose that counts: it's how much pain you inflict along the way.

Re: Advice Needed, CompEn. file
 

Note also that when you give 'em the 10% accuracy bonus, the absolute minimum accuracy possible is 11%.

So if the enemy is using ECM 3, stealth tech, and has a great racial defesiveness trait, all on small ships http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif, you can load up on the light weapon mounts of WMGs, forget combat sensor research, and get a minimum 41% accuracy (no matter what).

Re: Advice Needed, CompEn. file
 

Really? I thought the game added all of the to hit modifiers at once. So the weapon's own modifier is added after everything else is calculated? Does that mean that if you gave a weapon an ability of -10% to hit chance, then the final modifier would end up at -9%?

------------------
It's not whether you win or lose that counts: it's how much pain you inflict along the way.

Re: Advice Needed, CompEn. file
 

No. It cannot go below 1%, at least that I've seen. And my TechMod rockets have -10%; the big guns occasionally have much more than that.

Phoenix-D

Re: Advice Needed, CompEn. file
 

I know for sure. I'd taken a -20% offense racial characteristic, along with religious for the talisman.
Since I had to fight enemies before I'd gotten the talisman, I went with P&N's torpedoes (+15% accuracy, maxtech +25% accuracy).

For most of the game, I had 16% accuracy no matter what, and used swarms of BioCrystal armored ships. Worked out pretty good, since I was maxed out on racial defensiveness, ECM tech, and was using smaller ships.

Re: Advice Needed, CompEn. file
 

Ahh, I see. I didn't know this stuff because I'm not in the habit of taking negative mofifiers to weapon to hit chance.

I've got a suggestion: Why not add a weapon mount that gives, say, +100% accuracy, increases the size by 300% or 400%, but doesn't increase damage by much (if at all)? That way, every race could get weapons that have a 99% chance to hit at any range. These no-miss weapons would not be as powerful damage-wise as regular weapons. Religious races would still have the advantage because they could use the Talisman to get the 100% chance to hit and still be able to use Large or Heavy mounts (or whatever). Maybe this mount could be restricted to capitol ships and it could represent a large battery of small weapons, almost guaranteeing that a hit will occur.

------------------
It's not whether you win or lose that counts: it's how much pain you inflict along the way.

[This message has been edited by Imperator Fyron (edited 07 October 2001).]

Re: Advice Needed, CompEn. file
 

Sounds like a good idea Imp....

maybe something like this (using +cost instead of + weight):

Long Name := Target Aquired Gunnery Mount
Short Name := T.A.G. Mount
Description := Massive Computer/Sensor combo that increases 'to hit' ratio and aquires lock onto targets unique 'hull particle' signature....+100% to hit, x10 cost, 500kt min.
Code := T.A.G
Cost Percent := 1000
Tonnage Percent := 100
Tonnage Structure Percent := 100
Damage Percent := 100
Supply Percent := 100
Range Modifier := 0
Weapon To Hit Modifier := 100
Vehicle Size Minimum := 500
Weapon Type Requirement := Direct Fire
Vehicle Type := Ship

Now the only problem for the AI would be that it would use them for Cruisers automaticly as the AI uses the (first) largest mount available in the .txt file it comes across.

Or it could be worked this way (+weight and added cost)..

Long Name := Target Aquired Gunnery Mount
Short Name := T.A.G. Mount
Description := Massive Computer/Sensor combo that increases 'to hit' ratio and aquires lock onto targets unique 'hull particle' signature....+100% to hit, x2 cost, x10 size.
Code := T.A.G
Cost Percent := 200
Tonnage Percent := 1000
Tonnage Structure Percent := 100
Damage Percent := 100
Supply Percent := 100
Range Modifier := 0
Weapon To Hit Modifier := 100
Vehicle Size Minimum := 0
Weapon Type Requirement := Direct Fire
Vehicle Type := Ship

This way it could be added to the beginning of the file (b4 the gatling mounts) and only be used by human players, the AI would still use the 'Pulsed' mounts for Cruisers....This would be similar to my Version of the 'Spinal Mount', with the size increase you could only really put it on LC's or better, (a Meason BLaster would be 200kt, so you 'could' put it on a destroyer, but it would still do normal damage...)

Now would a +25% damage ratio added as well be good, or should damage be kept the same??

Oh yes, and I will be adding a +10% to hit for the Light Weapons Mount, seems good for the range trade off....(Thanks SJ and Imp for that one...)

Any other suggestions/likes/dislikes???

------------------
"We are all...the sum of our scars"....(paraphrased) Matt. R. Stover-'Blade of Tyshalle'.

"Human existance is all imagination...Reality is no more than a simple agreement among its participants that this is where we shall meet, and these are the rules that we shall abide by."- Kevin McCarthy/David Silva "The Family:Special Effects"..

Re: Advice Needed, CompEn. file
 

I think that the following would be best:

Cost Percent := 500
Tonnage Percent := 500

If you make the tonnage percent 1000, then this mount would equal 10 normal weapons. If you use normal weapons instead of this mount, you only have to hit with one of them and then this mount is pointless. In my experience, I have always been able to hit with at least 10% of my weapons. If you make the tonnage percent 500, then this mount would only be equal to 5 normal weapons. Without max techs, this mount would allow you to make an effective max-range attack ship. If the tonnage is 1000%, then the ship wouldn't have enough firepower to have an effect on the battle. Sure, he'd always hit, but the enemy would be able to hit with at least a few weapons, and would easily outgun the ship with the accuracy mount.

------------------
It's not whether you win or lose that counts: it's how much pain you inflict along the way.

Re: Advice Needed, CompEn. file
 

Thought more about it, 5x sounds like it might work better....Will add the mount...Thank you....


Anyone else?

Edit, thought more about it...5x cost is too much, a Massive mount cost is only 3x, will use 3x instead of 5x, why you ask?, example, a weapon that costs 400 minerals, add the mount, now it is 1200 minerals, add 3 weapons and it is 3600, the cost of some destroyer class ships and no shields/internals have been added yet....

Will definitly have to playtest this one today....(after I get some PBW turns done, I think some games are waiting on me...ooppss http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif).

[This message has been edited by Deathstalker (edited 08 October 2001).]

Re: Advice Needed, CompEn. file
 

OK, here is the re-re-formatted Mounts file..


Added: +15% to hit for Light Mounts
T.A.G. Mount (+100% to hit, 3x cost, 5x size)(ships only so far)

Removed: -10% to hit for ER weapons, made them go against what they were supposed to do....(now if only you could modd for specific ranges, ex +50% to hit at range 8 but +20% to hit at range 9, etc)

All for now, keep those comments rollin' in http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif