|
|
|
 |

January 30th, 2001, 12:18 AM
|
Private
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 36
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: Ship size vs. weapons
Well, I think that the big guns can't keep up with juking and jiving little escorts, frigate or DD's. That's what secondary weapons are for. Who's gonna post a mod on this?
------------------
Elwood Bluze
__________________
I'm back from the Big House, singin' Da Bluze!
|

January 30th, 2001, 02:23 AM
|
Corporal
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 104
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: Ship size vs. weapons
Adding negative "to hit" modifiers to the larger mounts already pretty much does the job, especially if you also reduce the ability to compensate for them through combat sensors. CapShips will still carry large mounts because they are still extremely efficient against other large targets (other CapShips, bases and planmets) which have negative defense modifiers. If CapShips nevertheless carry normal mounts, these can be considered "secondary weapons".
|

January 30th, 2001, 03:15 PM
|
First Lieutenant
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Randallstown, Maryland, USA
Posts: 779
Thanks: 8
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: Ship size vs. weapons
Another thought along these lines would be to make the large mount guns fire slower. Maybe 2 turns for large, 3 turns for massive etc. This would give an incentive to build secondary guns.
|

January 30th, 2001, 06:31 PM
|
 |
Lieutenant General
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: california
Posts: 2,961
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: Ship size vs. weapons
quote: Originally posted by Nitram Draw:
Another thought along these lines would be to make the large mount guns fire slower. Maybe 2 turns for large, 3 turns for massive etc. This would give an incentive to build secondary guns.
that would make alot more sense. you would have to up the damage numbers when you do that, but you would still want a smaller weapon since the larger one would waste its shot on a small ship when there might be bigger targets about. I do not think there is a way to make the use of such combinations work effectively in strategic combat without actually making extensive changes to the games code, but it would be a good mod for all the TAC players out there.
__________________
...the green, sticky spawn of the stars
(with apologies to H.P.L.)
|

January 30th, 2001, 06:41 PM
|
Second Lieutenant
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Houston, TX, USA
Posts: 571
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: Ship size vs. weapons
quote: Originally posted by Nitram Draw:
Another thought along these lines would be to make the large mount guns fire slower. Maybe 2 turns for large, 3 turns for massive etc. This would give an incentive to build secondary guns.
I made a similar request. One for a flag to alter reload times for weapon mounts. Basically, I wanted to make either rapid-fire or increase the reload times for some overloaded mounts...
...hey, you could always get some role-playing aspects and get stuck with a "lowest-bidder" mount.
------------------
--
"What do -you- want?" "I'd like to live -just- long enough to be there when they cut off your head and stick it on a pike as a warning to the next ten generations that some favors come with too high a price. I would look up into your lifeless eyes and wave like this..." *waggle* "...can you and your associates arrange that for me, Mr. Morden?"
__________________
--
...can you and your associates arrange that for me, Mr. Morden?
|

January 30th, 2001, 08:02 PM
|
General
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Ohio, USA
Posts: 4,323
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: Ship size vs. weapons
In SE3, there was a "range attenuation" setting for each weapon. Now SE4 has an exact damage setting at each range so you have even more control of that. But the decreasing ACCURACY of all weapons per square range is the same. It's set in settings.txt for every single direct fire weapon in the game. This doesn't seem right to me. Some weapons ought to lose accuracy FASTER than others. A DUC is firing a solid projectile, for example, while the Meson BLaster and APB are firing atomic particles -- at least, according to their respective names though the fields they are researched in are called ENERGY weapons...  Anyway, particles can be accelerated close to the speed of light. A huge chunk of "depleted uranium" probably cannot without very advanced technology. By simple ballistics, the DUC ought to become less accurate much faster than the particle beam weapons but it has the SAME loss of accuracy. How about a seperate setting for each direct-fire weapon for accuracy lost PER SQUARE or range instead of the flat "to hit modifier" thing that we have now? And once you do that you could have a modifer in "mounts" to change it as weapons get larger. The combination of the two settings could allow for a good simulation of larger "ponderous" weapons vs. smaller weapons with quicker tracking.
|

January 30th, 2001, 08:05 PM
|
 |
Second Lieutenant
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: New York, New York USA
Posts: 480
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: Ship size vs. weapons
Some basic points.
1) the smaller ships have a built in negative modifier to hit no matter what the weapon.
2) We have a time scale issue here. If you make larger mounts slower then you have to have the weapons that take more than 1 turn to relaod would take longer. Really screwing with the game mechanics.
3) larger weapons don't have to hit a small target to do damage. A 16" shell landing near a DD would usually do damage. Besides it was the inability to target the weapon that caused them to miss not the weapon it's self.
4) this is not a naval sim. Using wet navy rules just throws things out of whack.
------------------
Seawolf on the prowl
__________________
Seawolf on the prowl
|
Thread Tools |
|
Display Modes |
Hybrid Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is On
|
|
|
|
|