.com.unity Forums
  The Official e-Store of Shrapnel Games

This Month's Specials

BCT Commander- Save $6.00
World Supremacy- Save $10.00

   







Go Back   .com.unity Forums > Shrapnel Community > Space Empires: IV & V

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old January 30th, 2001, 12:18 AM

Elwood Bluze Elwood Bluze is offline
Private
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 36
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Elwood Bluze is on a distinguished road
Default 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!
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old January 30th, 2001, 02:23 AM

jowe01 jowe01 is offline
Corporal
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 104
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
jowe01 is on a distinguished road
Default 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".
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old January 30th, 2001, 03:15 PM

Nitram Draw Nitram Draw is offline
First Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Randallstown, Maryland, USA
Posts: 779
Thanks: 8
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Nitram Draw is on a distinguished road
Default 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.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old January 30th, 2001, 06:31 PM
Puke's Avatar

Puke Puke is offline
Lieutenant General
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: california
Posts: 2,961
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Puke is on a distinguished road
Default 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.)
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old January 30th, 2001, 06:41 PM

Sinapus Sinapus is offline
Second Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Houston, TX, USA
Posts: 571
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Sinapus is on a distinguished road
Default 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?
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old January 30th, 2001, 08:02 PM

Baron Munchausen Baron Munchausen is offline
General
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Ohio, USA
Posts: 4,323
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Baron Munchausen is on a distinguished road
Default 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.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old January 30th, 2001, 08:05 PM
Seawolf's Avatar

Seawolf Seawolf is offline
Second Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: New York, New York USA
Posts: 480
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Seawolf is on a distinguished road
Default 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
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:09 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1999 - 2025, Shrapnel Games, Inc. - All Rights Reserved.