Change Log for v7.2 Discussion

[alex_brunius]

I disagree. A customizable titan could be anything from a Commander unit from the Supreme Commander series, to an Experimental Land Battleship/Mobile Factory from the same series, or the UFO from After series or XCOM 2, a Jaeger/BattleMech from any anime or a giant Mech Warrior.

I'm pretty sure that complaint was about combat game mechanics... not about what kind of RP it opens up.

[IanD]

Would it be possible to include non-Titan artillery units? Act as very weak Garrison units for the purposes of ground combat, but do add firepower to bombardment?

The one unit missing at the moment IMHO is an AAA unit. Within the current mechanics I would favour a meson based transportable unit which could reach near Earth orbit (out to approximately 50,000k), intercept incoming missiles and possibly have a chance of intercepting any ground units being dropped onto a planet. At the moment I don't use combat drop modules as there is no real need to. But if the chance of interception was 100 x greater or my troop ships would have to come under fire to land them and a combat drop module could insert them from say 100,000k I certainly would use them.

If you want more a complex division of ground units that could come later with a complete re-write of ground combat. I could see the unit above being viable under the current system.

[Bremen]

If we're talking ground combat dreams, it would be cool to have the option for atmospheric fighters that could fight in space normally or support ground combat. But that's really more fluff and might not be worth adding.

I do like the idea of weapons eventually breaking. It doesn't necessarily have to be a tracked number of shots; it could just be a 5% or whatever chance to burn out when fired, then if you wanted more "endurance" on your beam weapons you could just add more MSP storage. It would mean one small ship with a range and speed advantage couldn't destroy a million tons of warships just by sitting out of range.

[Felixg]

Also, if ground combat is getting a look at, I would love to see the "beam" weapon atmo penalty removed from Railguns and Gauss weapons.

I wanna use some Rods from God on ground based targets! 

[TheDeadlyShoe]

the atmospheric penalty exists for a reason: so you can't glass a world essentially for free.

Trying to balance it by making beam weapons have ammo or reliability issues would be a severe nerf to beam weapons relative to missile ships, as their primary strategic advantage is not having to deal with such problems like missile ships do. Additionally, since NPRs do not deal with maintenance, they would not suffer any such problems.  Finally, even if a reliability mechanic were implemented along with removal of the atmospheric penalty, it's likely it would not have much impact on decision making; the damage required to cripple a plausible ground force is not really that high.

[ardem]

I think if Steve makes any improvements to ground that would be hugely beneficial and fun. This is only for creative juices for you Steve but titans might be as far as you go which I am cool with as well.

The whole attack defence current game is nice but does not allow for different outcomes. I do like to think that planetary types can influence battle e.g We can finally use water field on the planet (The higher the water level the better infantry works over heavy assault. Aka more trees or river courses to defend)

Also I would like options  Probe, Defend, Attack and Assault. These scale up the casualties,

Also it be nice to be attacked by the NPR on occasions, especially when it notes the first landings to attack instead of allowing the player to create a bridgehead.

Lastly using maintenance supplies, as resources if it runs out the readiness level drops. Combat uses supplies, however there is a minimal supply needed. I woulfd use the maintenance supplies so not to create new mechanics.

[alex_brunius]

Finally, even if a reliability mechanic were implemented along with removal of the atmospheric penalty, it's likely it would not have much impact on decision making; the damage required to cripple a plausible ground force is not really that high.

That is the issue here. Being able to find or hit dug in troops, especially in a world with vegetation and terrain that can be used as cover should be extremely hard, but not impossible. Especially not if you have troops or fighters spotting them and can cooperate with combined arms.

[Mor]

Much harder todo if they are hiding in "plain sight" (urban areas) especially if you want to take the population and industrial base unharmed.

Also, what about something like attrition? Steve said he is adding some sort of independence mechanic, what if recently subjected world that was insufficiently defended would revolt and rejoin their former masters.

[83athom]

Alternatively, you could just glass the world and start anew.

[Haji]

I'm sorry if someone mentioned this earlier, it's quite a long topic, but how will the new structural shell interact with nebulae? I know you can't have engines on those constructs, but you can still tow them to their intended location, so will that be possible or will this cause some errors?

[83athom]

I'm sorry if someone mentioned this earlier, it's quite a long topic, but how will the new structural shell interact with nebulae? I know you can't have engines on those constructs, but you can still tow them to their intended location, so will that be possible or will this cause some errors?

As 1 layer of armor.

[Steve Walmsley]

I'm sorry if someone mentioned this earlier, it's quite a long topic, but how will the new structural shell interact with nebulae? I know you can't have engines on those constructs, but you can still tow them to their intended location, so will that be possible or will this cause some errors?

Good question - I'll take a look at that but I suspect it will act as 1 armour.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

re: particle lance

looks swag, i often prefer particle beams.  Maybe too swag.  My first impulse is to say size should be 3x. The superior armor penetration is super nasty...

Maybe the Brazilians will end up buying some to put on their ships

Although, a question: does it count as a spinal weapon or not?

[Steve Walmsley]

re: particle lance

looks swag, i often prefer particle beams.  Maybe too swag.  My first impulse is to say size should be 3x. The superior armor penetration is super nasty...

Maybe the Brazilians will end up buying some to put on their ships

Although, a question: does it count as a spinal weapon or not?

Not at the moment. I will see how effective it is during play testing.

[Mor]

The Particle Lance is intended as a powerful anti-ship weapon that requires a large investment in a particular tech line, lacks the flexibility of lasers or railguns and provides a different armour penetrating option to mesons, although mesons are still superior against shields. Mainly though it is to boost the Particle Beam as a serious weapon choice

Seems promising !