CompEnhancement Discussion.

[Deathstalker]

The purpose of this thread is discussion of the current CompEnhancement abilities (weapon mounts, component mounts) and what can be done to make them better. Currently we can mess around with supplies, structure, range, to hit bonus/minus, damage, size and the like but I would like to see some other abilities added to this .txt file.

Here is my wish list.

1) Mounts that are dependant on Research (ie, research Ship Construction to level 6 and gain access to Heavy Mounts, that way they could be used on ANY size ship) (add a line in the DesignCreations txt that specifies which mount is to be used for which weapons would make it all even better, instead of bigger ship, bigger gun)

2) Rate of Fire. This would make a welcome addition to the list of variables affected by this file. That and INCREASED RATE OF FIRE!!! Would love to see a DUC that fires more than once a turn, give me REAL gatling weapons please!!

3) Seeker mounts. Currently the only way we can affect missiles is the launcher, and only with supplies, size and less range. I would love to affect the damage and other abilities as well.

4) Added 'Damage Types'. Think of this, with an added line here you could give DUC's that damage Engines as well (or only), combined with a damage ratio distribution (ie, Normal 60% and Engine 40%, 40% damage straight off to the engines, and the rest spread around the ship).

5) Damage Ratio (as seen in #4). Would make it interesting for weapons that do say 70% damage to shields and the other 30% goes thru to damage the ship before the shields go down.

6) Lastly (for me anyway) Abilities added, example, add 'Regeneration' to engines or weapons.

Anyone else agree/disagree??? (#1 and 2 are my top wishes).

With an effective CompEnhancement.txt file you can do a 'fake' modd, this little file can mimic alot of things that would take extensive modification of the Components.txt (IE, gatling weapons, heavily armoured weapons, armoured components, energy efficient weapons and engines. Miniaturized Missile and Direct Fire weapons as well as Miniaturized Components (fit a shipyard on a destroyer!! ).

[ May 26, 2002, 01:50: Message edited by: Deathstalker ]

[TerranC]

1) Mounts that are dependant on Research

Makes sense; as a newborn spacefaring race wouldn't know how to build a gun the size and weight of a building.

2) Rate of Fire. That and INCREASED RATE OF FIRE!!! give me REAL gatling weapons please!!

I want gatling weapons also; but under these conditions:

Gatling weapons cannot be affected by mounts

Gatling weapons wear out after significant use (how to accomplish this; I don't know)

Gatling weapons have 4 times reduced firepower than normal

Gatling weapons use many supplies

Gatling weapons can be used as a bit stronger point defense weapons

3) Seeker mounts. I would love to affect the damage and other abilities as well.

I want it limited to planetary bombs; or implement it so that they have incredible damage but short range and slow speed, so that people won't be able to abuse some kind of bulletspeed cruise missile.

5) Damage Ratio (as seen in #4).

Nothing wrong with it, but I would like to see Damage ratio/area. I read this in a review that damage is inflicted right to left? That doesn't seem to be applied. So Considering that Right to left is Front to Back, a specific weapon can do 70% of damage to shileds, 30% of Damage to ship systems, specifically to the bottom to the top if fired from back. Don't know how it can be implemented but it would create one more thing to consider in ship design.

Edit: I gotta figure UBB out.

[ May 26, 2002, 02:32: Message edited by: TerranC ]

[oleg]

Well, in a sense a DUC II is research-based mount of DUC I weapon : you get more punch per size !.
Same goes for other weapons.

The alternative way (MOO II type) of reducing the size of weapons does essentially same thing but makes AI scripting more difficult.

[PvK]

You can effectively increase ROF by reducing component size, which you can do with mounts. Lowering ROF can already be done with mounts. The suggestion for tech requirements for mounts is already in MM's suggestion box (it would be really nice).

PvK

[Deathstalker]

The one problem with mimicing ROF with mounts reducing size is unintended weapon usages. Mainly the Unique Massive weapons. Create a gatling mount of 10% size/damage/cost/etc and just imagine a ship with 10 Massive Ionic Dispersers with Gatling mounts. Instead of a 100kt weapon with one chance of hitting in 30 rounds you get 10 weapons doing 10 points damage each, more chances to hit. That and the cost of repairing a ship with 60 gatling mounted Anti-Matter torps is horrendous for a race with a low repair rate (or even a high one).

"Gatling weapons wear out after significant use (how to accomplish this; I don't know)"

Could be done with a MechWarrior Heat/Heat sink type of system but IMO this would make micro management even more tedious. They could always have a seperate 'Supply System', ie once it is depleted it must regenerate from the ships supplies before it can fire multiple times per round again. (kinda like shields and shield regerators I guess).

[ May 26, 2002, 04:37: Message edited by: Deathstalker ]

[Andrés]

I'd like to see component mods able to boost an ability. eg a heavy engine mount gives them more standard movs or heavy shield mount more shield points.
Probably would have to make them specific for a comp family.

[Baron Munchausen]

Originally posted by PvK:
You can effectively increase ROF by reducing component size, which you can do with mounts. Lowering ROF can already be done with mounts. The suggestion for tech requirements for mounts is already in MM's suggestion box (it would be really nice).

PvK

How do you lower ROF with a mount?

And yes, mounts restricted by technology requirements would be a fantastic addition to the system. That and add shield/armor specific mounts and the customizations possible would finally equal MOO II.

[Baron Munchausen]

Originally posted by Deathstalker:

"Gatling weapons wear out after significant use (how to accomplish this; I don't know)"

This is simulated in the game by maintenance cost. It's true that military hardware of all sorts 'wears out' very quickly and is replaced. A jet engine is only good for a few hundred hours, for example, even at normal (non combat) performance and with perfect maintenance record. I've heard that the planes on a carrier end up costing many times as much as the carrier itself.

Anyway, gatling mounts should have a much, much higher than normal increase in cost/peformance ratio if you want to simulate a technology pushed to its limits.

[capnq]

I read this in a review that damage is inflicted right to left?

That only applies to mixed Groups of satellites, IIRC. (Mixed troops go left to right). Ship damage (after shields and armor) is random, with the chance of a component being hit a function of its size.

[Baron Munchausen]

Damage is random in ships and bases, in satellite stacks, and in WPs on planets. It used to be you put components into your ship 'left to right' and they were destroyed 'right to left' in SE II, NOT III or IV at any time! In the earlier Version of IV you did indeed see WP stacks and satellite stacks destroyed in a certain order. That has been changed. There is a tendency for smaller units to be destroyed first but even that is not absolutely predictable.