Author Topic: Semi-Official 7.x Suggestion Thread  (Read 173448 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline bean

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • b
  • Posts: 921
  • Thanked: 58 times
Re: Semi-Official 7.x Suggestion Thread
« Reply #435 on: August 10, 2016, 09:51:38 AM »
I don't think it would be effecient to proxy kill small salvos if the missiles are overkilling their targets.  Still a waste of a missile.
Sort of.  My point was that if we assume that missile cost is basically directly correlated with size, small proxy warheads change the balance between proxy kills and direct kills.  Let's assume we have a 25% PK warhead on a size-1 missile, which has 50% of the PH of an equivalent direct-kill missile.  In this case, the equilibrium salvo size for the proxy missile is 5.  If we raise the relative PH to 75%, then it drops to 2.333.  (That's not a typo.  Multiplying the numbers out, we expect .75 direct kills and .25 proxy kills per equivalent direct-kill hit).

Quote
On the other hand, you could probably achieve the effect you want just by making proximity kill warheads their own (heavier, more expensive) beast that essentially enables you to deter the use of large salvos.
I'm leaning towards that being a good idea.  Minimum warhead size of 1 MSP would be sufficient to mitigate the worst of the effects.
This is Excel-in-Space, not Wing Commander - Rastaman
 

Offline TCD

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • T
  • Posts: 229
  • Thanked: 16 times
Re: Semi-Official 7.x Suggestion Thread
« Reply #436 on: August 10, 2016, 02:32:53 PM »
Sort of.  My point was that if we assume that missile cost is basically directly correlated with size, small proxy warheads change the balance between proxy kills and direct kills.  Let's assume we have a 25% PK warhead on a size-1 missile, which has 50% of the PH of an equivalent direct-kill missile.  In this case, the equilibrium salvo size for the proxy missile is 5.  If we raise the relative PH to 75%, then it drops to 2.333.  (That's not a typo.  Multiplying the numbers out, we expect .75 direct kills and .25 proxy kills per equivalent direct-kill hit).
Thanks for the EMP in space correction, always good to learn new things. Guess we'll need to come up with a new technobabble name for Steve to use :-)

If you went with a dedicated PK warhead approach, what PK chance and direct damage numbers would you suggest for a minimum size 1 MSP proxy warhead?
 

Offline bean

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • b
  • Posts: 921
  • Thanked: 58 times
Re: Semi-Official 7.x Suggestion Thread
« Reply #437 on: August 10, 2016, 03:23:00 PM »
Thanks for the EMP in space correction, always good to learn new things. Guess we'll need to come up with a new technobabble name for Steve to use :-)
Best option there is probably enhanced-radiation weapons (neutron bombs).  A couple of US ABM systems used them, although I'm not 100% sure of the logic involved.
Note that the game uses enhanced-radiation to describe what are more accurately called salted weapons, and I'm not suggesting using the existing salted warhead rules for missile defense.

Quote
If you went with a dedicated PK warhead approach, what PK chance and direct damage numbers would you suggest for a minimum size 1 MSP proxy warhead?
A good question.  A minimum of maybe 10%, rising as you get better warhead tech.  Direct damage would be based solely on your existing warhead tech (maybe *0.5), but it's more or less irrelevant as you expect to mostly shoot at totally overwhelmed missiles.
This is Excel-in-Space, not Wing Commander - Rastaman
 

Offline TCD

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • T
  • Posts: 229
  • Thanked: 16 times
Re: Semi-Official 7.x Suggestion Thread
« Reply #438 on: August 10, 2016, 03:56:31 PM »
A good question.  A minimum of maybe 10%, rising as you get better warhead tech.  Direct damage would be based solely on your existing warhead tech (maybe *0.5), but it's more or less irrelevant as you expect to mostly shoot at totally overwhelmed missiles.
I think you'd need at least *0.5 damage modifier, otherwise you'd just make all your ASMs with dual purpose proxy warheads. 
 

Offline Bughunter

  • Bug Moderators
  • Rear Admiral
  • ***
  • Posts: 929
  • Thanked: 132 times
  • Discord Username: Bughunter
Re: Semi-Official 7.x Suggestion Thread
« Reply #439 on: August 13, 2016, 08:57:54 AM »
I used an empty troop transport to pick up some survivors and got life support failures. I think it would make sense to include unused troop transport and colonist capacity in the overcrowding check.
 

Offline Kytuzian

  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • ******
  • K
  • Posts: 132
  • Thanked: 9 times
Re: Semi-Official 7.x Suggestion Thread
« Reply #440 on: August 13, 2016, 03:32:13 PM »
I think you'd need at least *0.5 damage modifier, otherwise you'd just make all your ASMs with dual purpose proxy warheads.

It could also be similar to the enhanced radiation warheads. So you could decrease damage by half to double your proxy kill range (or maybe the number of missiles you can proxy kill), decrease it by a third to triple the range, et cetera.
 

Offline ChildServices

  • Hegemon
  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • ******
  • Posts: 140
  • Thanked: 10 times
Re: Semi-Official 7.x Suggestion Thread
« Reply #441 on: August 15, 2016, 06:07:19 PM »
I'm not sure if this is already in the game, if it does I haven't witnessed it.

What I'd like to see is the chance for officers to be generated by combat. How it would work is that army/navy NCOs would become officers through actual battle experience. They'd have far higher starting skills, but they'd also be a lot older than your fresh academy recruits.
Aurora4x Discord: https://discordapp.com/invite/Q5ryqdW

Cold as steel the darkness waits, its hour will come
A cry of fear from our children, worshipping the Sun
Mother Nature's black revenge, on those who waste her life
War babies in the Garden Of Eden, she'll turn our ashes to ice
 

Offline Sheb

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • Posts: 789
  • Thanked: 30 times
Re: Semi-Official 7.x Suggestion Thread
« Reply #442 on: August 16, 2016, 01:06:52 AM »
That's actually nice!

Another thing I'd like is to stop officers from teleporting around. Maybe not force you to move them manually with shuttle but make them take a long time off-screen to arrive, to simulate them being underway.
 

Offline TCD

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • T
  • Posts: 229
  • Thanked: 16 times
Re: Semi-Official 7.x Suggestion Thread
« Reply #443 on: August 16, 2016, 09:13:56 AM »
That's actually nice!

Another thing I'd like is to stop officers from teleporting around. Maybe not force you to move them manually with shuttle but make them take a long time off-screen to arrive, to simulate them being underway.
Perhaps it could be instant within a system, and impossible outside that? But even then there would be extra micro management as you'd probably want to carry spare officers around with every fleet, to prevent an accident removing a captain just before an important battle. 
 

Offline Sheb

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • Posts: 789
  • Thanked: 30 times
Re: Semi-Official 7.x Suggestion Thread
« Reply #444 on: August 16, 2016, 09:33:34 AM »
Would be less of an issue if you have XO's on big ships.
 

Offline TCD

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • T
  • Posts: 229
  • Thanked: 16 times
Re: Semi-Official 7.x Suggestion Thread
« Reply #445 on: August 16, 2016, 01:40:02 PM »
Would be less of an issue if you have XO's on big ships.
That's true.
 

Offline DIT_grue

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • D
  • Posts: 197
  • Thanked: 33 times
Re: Semi-Official 7.x Suggestion Thread
« Reply #446 on: August 17, 2016, 07:08:20 AM »
Another thing I'd like is to stop officers from teleporting around. Maybe not force you to move them manually with shuttle but make them take a long time off-screen to arrive, to simulate them being underway.

This phrasing makes it sound like you've forgotten about the Commanders -> Assign to any Location and Population and Production -> Teams/Academy -> This Population Only checkboxes, since while they wouldn't satisfy your ideal scenario, they certainly "stop officers from teleporting around."
 
The following users thanked this post: TCD

Offline Sheb

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • Posts: 789
  • Thanked: 30 times
Re: Semi-Official 7.x Suggestion Thread
« Reply #447 on: August 17, 2016, 07:18:07 AM »
I did actually.
 

Offline DIT_grue

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • D
  • Posts: 197
  • Thanked: 33 times
Re: Semi-Official 7.x Suggestion Thread
« Reply #448 on: August 19, 2016, 07:45:29 AM »
Beam Fire Controls assigned to Point Defence ought to choose their targets more intelligently at all. A whole cluster of guns should not be flailing away at a singleton when there are multiple-missile salvos in the same volley. Ideally there would be prioritisation taking into account the capabilities of the defending FCs and the weapons they control (e.g. a slow and short-ranged FC with multiple railguns shoots at the largest salvo because hits scored will be highly variable - it might miss everything, wipe out the whole lot, or anything in between - while a faster FC with a single twin laser turret picks off a salvo that was thinned out but not destroyed). But even if it continues to be a matter of each ship taking their turn, and each FC on that ship firing in turn, not obsessing over the first salvo on the list would allow killing more missiles.

The increased realism option would presumably be to organise what FCs are shooting at what targets then resolve the exchange, rather than resolving each FC in turn before letting the next one use that information to make its decision. It would be nice to be able to have a small number of FC reserved for swatting leakers, but that should probably be a single layer only (i.e. there's the standard intercepts, which might have five FCs firing at each salvo if there's enough of them, then you do the same sort of process to match reserve FCs to leaker salvos, but that's it and you don't get a third try). Perhaps it would also be a good idea to require a high tracking speed for a FC/weapon to be assigned as reserve, representing the necessary split-second reaction time to identify a missile that escaped destruction and then kill it. (Half the missile's speed? Equal? But if it's a decision made by the player setting PD modes the game can't know what will need to be intercepted. So just an additional targeting penalty for guns in reserve mode?)
 

Offline lennson

  • Warrant Officer, Class 1
  • *****
  • l
  • Posts: 76
  • Thanked: 10 times
Re: Semi-Official 7.x Suggestion Thread
« Reply #449 on: August 24, 2016, 10:57:01 PM »
I was wondering why ships don't cost wealth to keep operational (think crew wages or in the case of a hive mind race food).

As it is a tiny population can keep an arbitrarily large fleet running provided there are the needed minerals for maintenance from auto mines.

I think it would make more sense that to support a fleet a reasonable economic base is need which would be best represented in a constant wealth cost. This cost for a ship could be proportional to the number of crew on the ship.