Author Topic: Semi-Official 7.x Suggestion Thread  (Read 35671 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Detros

  • Commander
  • *********
  • Posts: 363
  • Thanked: 23 times
    • View Profile
Re: Semi-Official 7.x Suggestion Thread
« Reply #660 on: June 18, 2017, 09:33:46 AM »
  • Production->Industry: when Ship Component is selected on the left, all non-obsolete designs that use it are listed in the bottom left corner under its cost.
  • Task Groups: message is visible in the list of commands (possibly only while onmouseovering).
  • Event Log: when TG is delivering a message, the name of TG is automatically added in front of the message.


 

Offline Barkhorn

  • Commander
  • *********
  • Posts: 346
  • Thanked: 47 times
    • View Profile
Re: Semi-Official 7.x Suggestion Thread
« Reply #661 on: June 18, 2017, 04:18:59 PM »
Make jump gates a ship module.  I'd make them huge, so they would be hard to move, and I would not allow any ship with them to have engines, so they cannot move under their own power.

This would be a lot more realistic for a few reasons.  First of all, they'd be destructible.  Second, a station with a jump gate could have other equipment too; sensors to monitor the gate, fuel to refill transiting ships, maintenance modules to repair ships, maybe weapons to guard the gate.  Third, they'd be very expensive, instead of the current gates, which are free.
 

Offline Detros

  • Commander
  • *********
  • Posts: 363
  • Thanked: 23 times
    • View Profile
Re: Semi-Official 7.x Suggestion Thread
« Reply #662 on: June 19, 2017, 12:10:18 AM »
Make jump gates a ship module.  I'd make them huge, so they would be hard to move, and I would not allow any ship with them to have engines, so they cannot move under their own power.

This would be a lot more realistic for a few reasons.  First of all, they'd be destructible.  Second, a station with a jump gate could have other equipment too; sensors to monitor the gate, fuel to refill transiting ships, maintenance modules to repair ships, maybe weapons to guard the gate.  Third, they'd be very expensive, instead of the current gates, which are free.
So you would build them in a normal shipyard and then use tugs to get it to JP? That sounds like current mobile jump gate designation, just a tender with both commercial and military jump engines. The only difference would be shipping lines could go through too. But what if it moves or gets destroyed while they are already on the way? If you make all jump gates movable you need to also rewrite how NPRs and shipping lines react to their ships getting stranded on the other side. I guess this not-too-big change could lead to big rewrites.
 

Offline Barkhorn

  • Commander
  • *********
  • Posts: 346
  • Thanked: 47 times
    • View Profile
Re: Semi-Official 7.x Suggestion Thread
« Reply #663 on: June 19, 2017, 11:46:10 AM »
I'd make them absolutely gigantic, maybe 20,000HS or more, so they pretty much have to be made in factories, using the orbital habitat build rules.

Maybe add an order for "install jump gate" for vessels with the jump gate module when at a jump point.  This would lock the gate in place, and then the AI could use their pre-existing jump point pathing.

Another advantage I thought of is that the gates would no longer be neutral.  Your enemies would not be able to use your jump gate network; not without capturing the gates at least.  Could make boarding attempts more worthwhile.
 

Offline Garfunkel

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • Posts: 713
  • Thanked: 29 times
    • View Profile
Re: Semi-Official 7.x Suggestion Thread
« Reply #664 on: June 21, 2017, 08:14:39 PM »
Originally we had to build jump gate components and use those to build the gates but the gates themselves were not actual structures.

Building jump gates via factories and then tugging them to place is a great idea, especially if it's possible to use Marines to board and capture them. That would certainly make Marines vastly more useful than they are currently, where they only exist as the niche of a niche. It would also create one new level of diplomacy, of allowing friendly races/nations to use your jump gates and vice versa. We could still find old, abandoned jump gates but now we'd need combat engineers or construction brigades to activate them.

There should be some sort of delay before a jump gate activates after being moved to a jump point. Perhaps the jump gate construction tech line could be readjusted for that, shortening the time required to start it up once on location.
 

Offline DIT_grue

  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • ******
  • Posts: 140
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: Semi-Official 7.x Suggestion Thread
« Reply #665 on: June 22, 2017, 12:00:45 AM »
Bleh, no. I prefer a second stable configuration that Jump Points can be nudged into, no megastructures required.
 

Offline Barkhorn

  • Commander
  • *********
  • Posts: 346
  • Thanked: 47 times
    • View Profile
Re: Semi-Official 7.x Suggestion Thread
« Reply #666 on: June 22, 2017, 11:31:08 AM »
I think I've got it!

All "orbital habitats" should be built in pieces by factories, much like PDC's can be.  Then, they can be assembled on-site by construction ships, instead of being tugged into place.

This would allow the new jump gates to follow all the same rules as every other orbital habitat.  It would be realistic; our largest space station in real life, the ISS, was assembled piece-by-piece by "construction ships".  It would allow us situations like the second Death Star; fighting over an incomplete station.
 

Offline Frank Jager

  • Leading Rate
  • *
  • Posts: 9
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Re: Semi-Official 7.x Suggestion Thread
« Reply #667 on: June 22, 2017, 01:05:59 PM »
@Steve Walmsley

TL/DR Make Kinetic weapons useful, add an workable? ammunition component into the game.

I've searched the current forums and cant seem to find the discussion on why Kinetic Weapons don't have an ammunition requirement.
I feel that all Kinetic Weapons, (Rails and Gauss) should have an ammunition requirement leaving the true energy weapons (Lasers / Particle / Meson / Microwaves) with the current restrictions.

I propose a change to the weapons mix that I hope is easy to implement.


Kinetic Weapons  {Signifies real world counterpart}
Railguns                        {105mm Howitzers}
Turret-able, long range (Max BFC), slow reload, single shot, same damage profile, capacitor rate doubled

Gauss Cannon               {40mm Cannon}
Removed as CIWS, doubled range.               

Auto Cannon                 {Gatling Style Rotary Cannon}
Replaces CIWS Components, Max Size 1HS, 75% 50% 33% 25% Reduction techs, Baseline 10 shots per increment (120 RPM), double and triple fire rate techs.  Max Range 10km, base racial tracking speed or max ship speed.  Turret-able

Other Weapons
NO CHANGE

I feel this would further reduce the effectiveness of missiles, and give fighters a cannon to use against other fighters as close quarters (Dogfighting) this would also slightly increase the protection offered to Civilian ships.

As for the ammunition requirement, make its production similar to how MSP is produced in 7. 1 VBA.
Small 1 Missile Size Point containers with a 1 duranium cost produced in construction factories and stockpiled.
This fits nicely into the current magazine system, the tradeoff being that you can use energy weapons without magazines.
You would need to transport all kinetic ammunition around in magazines, which should be easier to do now there is a civilian magazine.  CIWS has a drawback in that it can be simply run out of ammunition and no longer be effective.  An advantage would be that the system is that CIWS would be twice as effective at base tech.

We simply deduct 1 Ammunition Crate per increment that the weapons are firing, including for CIWS weapons.  This is because rounds themselves are simply different sized strips of metal for each weapons system and they all have different fire rates.  I am unsure of proposing another tech line for reloading speed as i feel this is not necessary with the increment delay.

It doesnt make sense to me that civilian ships can have CIWS missile defenses but not have to pay any cost for the systems.

This would allow for a larger missile defense envelope allowing up to 5 ranges to engage missiles, AMM>Laser>Gauss>"Auto Cannon">CIWS

AMM would be as far out as missile design allowed.
Laser range is still out to 1. 4m km allowing for Light Speed limitations
Gauss Cannon range is doubled out to 20km at base and 120km at final tech
Auto Cannons are at Final Defensive Fire Range
CIWS are still at point blank.

This will allow more missiles to be destroyed short of their targets, but add in a strategic/logistical layer meaning that these weapon systems can be beaten by running the defending ships out of ammunition.

Railguns & Gauss would then be able to penetrate atmosphere and can be used within PDCs to defend a planet / system body, without using missiles.  This will make planetary assaults more challenging.

Because Railguns would be able to penetrate atmosphere they would still have an energy requirement but the capacitor recharge rate should be doubled, allowing for the fact that they will have a ammunition requirement.  This keeps them competitive with similar tech laser weapons as they can fire twice as fast, until they run out of ammunition.

Close Quarters Battles would then have more options than "Just stick big lasers on it".

Thoughts anyone?

Regards

Frank
 

Offline Barkhorn

  • Commander
  • *********
  • Posts: 346
  • Thanked: 47 times
    • View Profile
Re: Semi-Official 7.x Suggestion Thread
« Reply #668 on: June 22, 2017, 01:21:00 PM »
I don't think this will change much of anything in any particular battle, especially in the case of missile defense.  Because missiles are much larger than bullets, it will always require more magazine space to carry X number of missiles than it will to carry the number of CIWS rounds needed to defeat X missiles.  Basically there are no reasonable scenarios where you run out of PD rounds before they run out of missiles.

In general, I don't believe it will change much because if it is realistically scaled, ships will carry such a ludicrously large amount of ammo that they'll never run out during a single battle.

All I see this really changing is fighter vs fighter combat, and adding logistical overhead.
 
The following users thanked this post: Frank Jager

Offline Frank Jager

  • Leading Rate
  • *
  • Posts: 9
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Re: Semi-Official 7.x Suggestion Thread
« Reply #669 on: June 22, 2017, 03:33:00 PM »
@Barkhorn

Even if this only changes fighter v fighter combat and adds a logistical overhead, id be excited.

Each CIWS has a 50% base chance toHit the new CIWS would fire 10-30 rounds per increment, the old system could fire 1-6 rounds per increment, that means in a salvo of 7 missiles one is always guaranteed to hit in VB6, potentially all 7 could get through without being engaged.  My system would mean that an 11 missile salvo would be needed to guarantee a hit, with the same possibility of all 11 getting through.  This is all per CIWS.

You could use a single missile salvo on targets you have identified as having PD forcing the CIWS to use 1 Ammunition Crate on only a single missile.  If there are multiple CIWS and they all fire this will increase the ammunition consumption.  Using a Size 1 Missile this creates an like for like scenario where the ship with the deepest magazine wins, like VB6 Aurora.

Alternatively you could then disengage, or force the other ship into direct combat.

The point is to make all the weapons in Aurora into more of a rock, paper & scissors fight where each system has its owns strengths and weaknesses.  I dont believe that CIWS should be able to fire at the same rate for the entire duration of the ships life without some additional drawbacks.

Regards

Frank
 

Offline iceball3

  • Commander
  • *********
  • Posts: 374
  • Thanked: 30 times
    • View Profile
Re: Semi-Official 7.x Suggestion Thread
« Reply #670 on: June 22, 2017, 09:55:38 PM »
@Barkhorn

Even if this only changes fighter v fighter combat and adds a logistical overhead, id be excited.

Each CIWS has a 50% base chance toHit the new CIWS would fire 10-30 rounds per increment, the old system could fire 1-6 rounds per increment, that means in a salvo of 7 missiles one is always guaranteed to hit in VB6, potentially all 7 could get through without being engaged.  My system would mean that an 11 missile salvo would be needed to guarantee a hit, with the same possibility of all 11 getting through.  This is all per CIWS.

You could use a single missile salvo on targets you have identified as having PD forcing the CIWS to use 1 Ammunition Crate on only a single missile.  If there are multiple CIWS and they all fire this will increase the ammunition consumption.  Using a Size 1 Missile this creates an like for like scenario where the ship with the deepest magazine wins, like VB6 Aurora.

Alternatively you could then disengage, or force the other ship into direct combat.

The point is to make all the weapons in Aurora into more of a rock, paper & scissors fight where each system has its owns strengths and weaknesses.  I dont believe that CIWS should be able to fire at the same rate for the entire duration of the ships life without some additional drawbacks.

Regards

Frank
Missiles already got slapped into the dirt with the most recent update logs, and gauss was already "good enough" under the previous paradigm.
AMMs already take up the niche of "logistics-intensive anti-missile system" anyway, and tracking miniscule metal fragments that could be anywhere from a pound to a few grams apiece seems a bit unnecessary, all things considered.
 
The following users thanked this post: Frank Jager

Offline Detros

  • Commander
  • *********
  • Posts: 363
  • Thanked: 23 times
    • View Profile
Re: Semi-Official 7.x Suggestion Thread
« Reply #671 on: June 22, 2017, 10:05:20 PM »
I would say it is a decent idea for a mod but I would not put kinetic ammo in the vanilla game.
 

Offline Barkhorn

  • Commander
  • *********
  • Posts: 346
  • Thanked: 47 times
    • View Profile
Re: Semi-Official 7.x Suggestion Thread
« Reply #672 on: June 23, 2017, 11:02:39 AM »
People already fire lots of single-missile salvos, with the aim of overwhelming their opponent's fire control capabilities.

I don't hate the idea; I actually really like it for fighters.  Maybe make a Gauss tech that lets you make a super-small yet still fairly accurate Gauss cannon, the drawback being that after X number of firings, it has to be reloaded in a hangar.
 

Offline Detros

  • Commander
  • *********
  • Posts: 363
  • Thanked: 23 times
    • View Profile
Re: Semi-Official 7.x Suggestion Thread
« Reply #673 on: June 23, 2017, 02:39:54 PM »
People already fire lots of single-missile salvos, with the aim of overwhelming their opponent's fire control capabilities.

I don't hate the idea; I actually really like it for fighters.  Maybe make a Gauss tech that lets you make a super-small yet still fairly accurate Gauss cannon, the drawback being that after X number of firings, it has to be reloaded in a hangar.
Do you mean you would like to have the option to have flock of little gauss cannon-like weapons against few-missiles-lots-of-salvoes tactics?
 

Offline Barkhorn

  • Commander
  • *********
  • Posts: 346
  • Thanked: 47 times
    • View Profile
Re: Semi-Official 7.x Suggestion Thread
« Reply #674 on: June 23, 2017, 02:43:39 PM »
I was thinking to emulate the fact that basically all fighter aircraft nowadays have both missiles and a cannon.  The missiles are the primary armament, but if all else fails they can switch to guns.

What you use that for is up to you.

Might be kinda strange that, given enough time your fighters could kill battleships with what amounts to a machine gun.
 

 

Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51