Author Topic: Tentative Suggestions for Missile Rebalancing by Tweaking Launcher Size Rules  (Read 12442 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Vivalas

  • Warrant Officer, Class 1
  • *****
  • V
  • Posts: 95
  • Thanked: 32 times
--- As a fighter centric player I vehemently disagree with box launchers being the same size as 30% launchers. Unless a Fighter Only Box Launcher was implemented.

 --- That said I would prefer that Box Launchers simply used the linear scaling rather that the square root scaling.

IIRC, this goes against the general sentiment Steve has of keeping things consistent.

I feel generally out of my depth in combat discussions since most of my campaigns stall out before getting past Precursors, but I read enough AARs to kinda understand the tactical level of the game.

Howrver, this is a war game and it models logistics appropriately well as wargames tend to do, and I feel like a lot of these super heavy numbers discussions miss the bigger picture of the fact that most wars are decided entirely by logistics and are already won or lost before the first time fleets make contact, but I digress.

30% being the same size as box launchers is an interesting idea, but thematically it's still a bit strange they would be the same size. Sure, you're gonna need magazines, but, in theory, couldn't 30% reduced be resupplied by a collier while box launchers need to be docked (or I may be mixing this one up). And if they're the same size, even regardless of cost, I'd probably just always throw 30% launchers on if they lack the explosion chance and give me the option to refit later on if I get extra HS with a micro magazine, to gain a few more alpha strikes without external resupply. Trying to play Devil's advocate, I guess.

Generally though the strength of the box launcher is in alpha strike, and the weakness is logistical overhead. Assuming I'm not wrong and you need a hangar to resupply box launchers (or maybe I am and they just take way longer, I forgot which), I think the changes to launcher size scaling (which I like) can be added while leaving box launchers alone, if you make them logistically more challenging. Like a switch to a hard need for military hangar space to reload them, which pretty much makes non-fighters a very tricky challenge to manage on that end (assuming I'm wrong and that's not already the case).

With that in mind I think the issue, as others have pointed out and Steve has admitted to designing towards, is carrier based craft with missiles in box launchers, which can be  very effective. And if we take a page from naval history, that's pretty on the money for the current "meta" of IRL.

But we could also (and I acknowledge, at the risk of getting out of scope and getting a bit suggestion - y, although this is the suggestions forum), "nerf" missile fighters a bit by adding more logistical overheads, and especially (as is the case from history) making carriers more vulnerable to damage from fighters onboard getting hit.

Carriers in general, I feel, have always needed a logistical rework in line with what fuel and ammo got to make it less instantaneous and more "forward-planning" based. A large issue, especially during WW2 was carriers going up in massive conflagrations after getting hit while spotting an air wing, the term used to describe filling up the flight deck bow-to-stern with fueled and armed aircraft. Even in the modern era this is still very much a concern (USS Forrestal) and could bre an interesting design path for Aurora).

Now, fire mechanics are definitely out of scope (if interesting and perhaps worth discussion on their own), but having some more carrier systems with their own design tradeoffs (launch tubes, flight decks, maintenance bays, etc.) could open a path towards a "spotting" system. The basic idea is, fighters take time to launch, which can be problematic in an unplanned encounter. Having your wings "spotted" can drastically reduce this, at the cost of hugely more potential for secondary explosions from hangar hits. The rationale being fighters in the hangars being fueled and ammo being transferred from the carrier's magazines.

At the extreme end, this could be from the aforementioned "carrier systems" rework, and at the easiest end it could just be a flat "launching fighters takes a certain time based on already existing factors and the spotting button just speeds that up while adding risk".

I'm also not immediately recalling damage mechanics for fighters in hangars when hit, is there some mechanic for fighters taking damage when that happens and potentially causing secondary explosions? If not, that could be a first step.

Anyways, the size changes are good but the box launcher discussion seems fixed on fighters and small craft, which I feel could be handled in a deeper way, IMO. I may eventually open a thread on hangar and launch time mechanics, but I wanted to throw the idea out here because it could also assist with the box launcher conundrum as well.
 
The following users thanked this post: Kelewan

Offline TurielD

  • Petty Officer
  • **
  • T
  • Posts: 25
  • Thanked: 20 times

I don't hate your idea, but I don't love it either. Still trying to figure out what my opinion is.
[..]
I feel like we already pay a lot in increased reload time for increased number of tubes.

I get you, but I think it's looking at missiles the wrong way.

More launchers = better. As nuc illustrated in the OP: having a wave of 100 missiles is vastly inferior to a wave of 600 missiles. It doesn't matter if that wave of 600 only fires every 200 minutes, while the wave of 100 can be every 10 seconds - if it doesn't overwhelm PD, the damage is 0.

That should cost more.

I like the justifications given and on the surface of it I like Turiel's idea quite a bit.

However, in practice I think we have to be careful with tweaking the costs too much as the strategic effects can be difficult. Missiles are already pretty expensive, both to build and to maintain the logistics chain for, so bumping up the cost for missile fleets would make it even harder to actually match a beam fleet ton-for-ton - how that balances against the intended tactical improvements which we hope make missiles more viable is unclear but it would pose an uphill battle for missile fleets. If we reduce the base cost to compensate then this is a bit of a buff for the AMM-spam tactics that most players do not like very much.

Given this I think keeping the cost mechanics as they are, aside from the proposed box launcher changes, is the reasonable starting point and then Steve can use cost as another knob to tweak if he feels the need in testing the changes.

My fear is that missiles might swing too much to the strong side, and that's why I wanted to suggest a (relatively minor) cost disincentive.
The point is to make choices feel more complex and meaningful, by tweaking player psychology with incentives.

The main cost of missile armaments is the missiles and logistics, but that's not a cost people see when building their ships. When you're designing the Porcupine McMacross Missile Massacre with its 600 box launchers, you shouldn't be incentivized by seeing that its a cheaper vessel than the 100-tube magazine-fed ship of equal tonnage... but you are.
Because Box Launchers not only cost 0.15 as much as a regular launch tube, the launch tubes are probably 2x or more expensive again because of the cost increase from missile ROF tech. And it takes crew!
It's actually not even close. Factoring in magazine size and crew quarters, the box-to-standard comparison is closer to... 1/10. To even carry 600 missiles, you can at most fit 60 full size tubes at medium tech levels in the same tonnage. And the ship costs ~ 20% more for the privilege of being vastly inferior in combat capability by dividing it's 600 shots over 10 individually intercept-able waves. Your idea helps this somewhat, halving the effectiveness of box launchers, I don't want to understate how good an idea that is.


My reasoning for worrying about stronger missile ships is that missile vs beam is pretty much binary: Either the missiles take out the opposing force before they reach beam range (presuming the beam ships are fast enough to catch them to begin with) or the beam ships win with superior ROF and no concern for ammo.
Right now the only really dangerous missiles are AMM spam. That's a pain, but manageable in a number of ways. Your proposal is going to enable similar size missile waves for size 4, or size 9 missiles. That kind of firepower will take out earlier-tech fleets. The precursors are going to get all the more painful by more than doubling their ASM wave sizes.


Now, I feel I'm somewhat derailing the original point of the thread. And I agree with your final point above: by all means park the idea of changing launcher price, I'm a huge fan of the initial proposal. It's OK if missiles are stronger. They need to be - my concern may not even be relevant.
 

Offline Jorgen_CAB

  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • J
  • Posts: 2822
  • Thanked: 673 times
Now, I feel I'm somewhat derailing the original point of the thread. And I agree with your final point above: by all means park the idea of changing launcher price, I'm a huge fan of the initial proposal. It's OK if missiles are stronger. They need to be - my concern may not even be relevant.

Although I wonder what in this change that makes missiles stronger than before, the change only change the relationship between smaller and larger missiles. Box launched missiles to some degree actually become a small bit worse not better, depending on the size of the missile.
 

Offline El Pip

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • E
  • Posts: 197
  • Thanked: 165 times
What is the concern with trying to 'balance' waves vs box launchers? Aurora has already well established the idea that not all options are equal, there are some weapons that will always be 'worse' or at least are only viable in a very specialist niches. Waves are always going to be worse for all the excellent reasons mentioned and no plausible cost saving can make that worthwhile.

I'd also say that one of the most annoying parts of the game is tediously pushing through waves of missiles which your PD can easily handle, so surely the concern should be making sure the AI's designs and fleet composition can take advantage of the proposed missile launcher rules and not trying to twist the system and invent special rules just to make a bad idea seem viable?

If the concern is choice in missile, then Box Launcher vs 30% provides that. There is an advantage in being able to re-arm ships outside of a dockyard or colony so that does become a choice, a slightly smaller massive salvo vs being able to keep a fleet on station after a fight.
 

Offline Snoman314

  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • ******
  • Posts: 127
  • Thanked: 39 times
I get you, but I think it's looking at missiles the wrong way.

More launchers = better. As nuc illustrated in the OP: having a wave of 100 missiles is vastly inferior to a wave of 600 missiles. It doesn't matter if that wave of 600 only fires every 200 minutes, while the wave of 100 can be every 10 seconds - if it doesn't overwhelm PD, the damage is 0.

That should cost more.

It absolutely should. My point there was that it already costs a _lot_ more, in terms of rate of fire.

Of course a smaller salvo that can't penetrate is wasted. But if your salvoes are getting through, but you need 2 or 3 penetrating salvoes to neutralise an enemy beam fleet before it closes with you and shoots you to bits, then rate of fire is going to matter. Not as much as salvo size, but it does still matter. And currently we pay dearly in ROF, for the increased number of launchers.

Although I wonder what in this change that makes missiles stronger than before, the change only change the relationship between smaller and larger missiles. Box launched missiles to some degree actually become a small bit worse not better, depending on the size of the missile.

It does so by making launchers smaller (even box launchers, for size > 4), allowing more tubes and larger salvoes for the same tonnage, while incentivising larger missiles by making this buff apply more to larger missiles.

More tubes = bigger salvoes = stronger.
 

Offline Jorgen_CAB

  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • J
  • Posts: 2822
  • Thanked: 673 times
I get you, but I think it's looking at missiles the wrong way.

More launchers = better. As nuc illustrated in the OP: having a wave of 100 missiles is vastly inferior to a wave of 600 missiles. It doesn't matter if that wave of 600 only fires every 200 minutes, while the wave of 100 can be every 10 seconds - if it doesn't overwhelm PD, the damage is 0.

That should cost more.

It absolutely should. My point there was that it already costs a _lot_ more, in terms of rate of fire.

Of course a smaller salvo that can't penetrate is wasted. But if your salvoes are getting through, but you need 2 or 3 penetrating salvoes to neutralise an enemy beam fleet before it closes with you and shoots you to bits, then rate of fire is going to matter. Not as much as salvo size, but it does still matter. And currently we pay dearly in ROF, for the increased number of launchers.

Although I wonder what in this change that makes missiles stronger than before, the change only change the relationship between smaller and larger missiles. Box launched missiles to some degree actually become a small bit worse not better, depending on the size of the missile.

It does so by making launchers smaller (even box launchers, for size > 4), allowing more tubes and larger salvoes for the same tonnage, while incentivising larger missiles by making this buff apply more to larger missiles.

More tubes = bigger salvoes = stronger.

Humm... don't entirely agree... first of, rate of fire are second to just bring more launch tubes instead. So it is ALWAYS going to be better to bring enough launch tubes than make sure you have good rate of fire. That is just the way it is.

For the second point... you don't make missile attacks stronger in the sense that size 4 missiles still are more efficient than size 5 even with this change, the change is that bigger missiles become more viable when you factor in range, electronics and payload. So yes sure, bigger missiles become a bit more powerful that they was before... but they were less powerful than smaller missiles before anyway which has not changed. Missiles smaller than 4 also become a bit worse than they were before.

The balance between beam and missiles does not really change in any big amount with this change.
« Last Edit: February 10, 2023, 09:44:58 PM by Jorgen_CAB »
 

Offline Nori

  • Bug Moderators
  • Lt. Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 234
  • Thanked: 42 times
  • Discord Username: Nori Silverrage
  • Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter : Support the forums with a Bronze subscription
    2021 Supporter 2021 Supporter : Donate for 2021
At the ranges of most engagements, a 60s or even more, reload time is no big deal. Depending on speed and distance your closing rate may be hours afterall. I would always greatly undersize my launchers to get more in the same space and was always happy forgoing a decent ROF. The only missiles I really care about are AMM launchers.

In anycase, I approve of this suggestion. It'd be nice to see larger missiles be a lot more viable. I personally always liked making size 12+missiles and doing sub munitions. Maybe not optimal but it was fun!
 

Offline Garfunkel

  • Registered
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • Posts: 2781
  • Thanked: 1048 times
Yeah, unfortunately that's very much true.

Only exception is if you play multi-faction Earth starts, where it's likely that several human navies have ships in relatively close proximity in a Cold War style situation but for normal human vs NPR/spoilers gameplay the ROF for ASM's mostly doesn't matter.

This change looks interesting and making bigger missiles more viable is definitely worthwhile.
 

Offline boolybooly

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • Posts: 171
  • Thanked: 87 times
I am in favour of making reloadable launchers more viable as they do take too much space at the moment but dont see why box launchers have to be so hugely nerfed in the process. I am not sure this is going to help early game, it seems based on a late game perspective.

Early game, with Raiders set to system#0, you have to build fighters because they wipe out your shipyards.

Basic fighter class defence orbital costs 43BP, of which 8.1BP is made of non launcher components ie 19%.

If you double the component size of the box launcher and keep its missile size the same then you will halve the cost of the box launchers per fighter class orbital and you will halve the salvo size per fighter. But you are effectively adding a salvo tax of +19% cost to build launchers because you have to build twice as much non launcher components per launcher because you have to build twice as many orbitals to get the same salvo alpha count because you can only build fighters.

Also if you do this, box launchers become redundant after the first twenty years of the game as 30% launchers will reload quicker at an ordnance distribution point. All because noone tried to figure out a way to scale box launcher size independently from reloadable launchers, which is where the argument appears to spring from.

My suggestion would be to treat box launchers as a different class of launcher and continue to scale as a direct proportion to missile size, currently its 3x e.g. size 1 missile at 2.5t uses box launcher = 7.5t, but it could credibly be a bit more, say 4x so 10t box launcher instead of 7.5t currently, meaning e.g. an orbital with 16 s3 box launchers could only field 12. Then scale build cost down relative to size as suggested with consideration for the salvo tax effect.

Also I will just throw this in as we are discussing ideas, have you considered having a fighter only "hard point" or "pylon"? Similar to the box launcher class in scaling smaller than box launchers, say 3x missile size, with the disadvantage that it is external and not an internal component so any damage hitting the outside of the ship has a chance of hitting the hard point instead of armour, destroying any unlaunched missile with double the box launcher chance of detonating the missile which reduces with the box launcher reduction tech and must use a planet based ordnance distribution point to reload (Spaceport or Ordnance Transfer Station) due to gravity requirement for fixings i.e. cannot use hangar, hub or collier. Can only be used on fighter class as they can land on planet. Just a thought as this distinguishes the fighter class in a meaningful way and gives me my early game fighter planet defence fleet!
« Last Edit: February 14, 2023, 09:22:47 AM by boolybooly »
 

Offline nuclearslurpee (OP)

  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • Posts: 2960
  • Thanked: 2222 times
  • Radioactive frozen beverage.
I'm gonna re-link the nice little spreadsheet Steve made because it is important:



If you look you will realize that box launchers are not substantially nerfed by the proposed changes. This is because while box launchers are proposed to be 30% of the size, they are also benefiting from the reduction of launcher size for larger missiles due to SQRT size scaling.
  • If you look at the two tables on the right, comparing the current and proposed cases, box launchers for size-4 missiles remain just as efficient and for larger missiles actually get smaller.
  • The bottom-left table is even more succinct, showing that only box launchers smaller than size 4 will see a "nerf". Bottom-right table is just the cost comparison showing box launchers cost 50% of the smallest reloadable launcher.
This basically means that box launchers are only nerfed for the smallest missile sizes, which is fine as these are not used too much anyways, and box launchers actually get a little bit of a buff for larger missiles, which is arguably a good thing because one of the goals is to make larger missiles more viable as a tactical choice.

I feel like people are looking only at the "double box launcher size" part and missing that this change only makes sense in tandem with the "launcher size scales as SQRT" change. The overall goal is to make reloadable missiles more viable relative to box launchers and to make larger missiles more viable relative to smaller ones - not to nerf box launchers in general.
 
The following users thanked this post: StarshipCactus, Mayne

Offline Elouda

  • Gold Supporter
  • Lieutenant
  • *****
  • Posts: 194
  • Thanked: 21 times
  • Gold Supporter Gold Supporter : Support the forums with a Gold subscription
    2020 Supporter 2020 Supporter : Donate for 2020
    2021 Supporter 2021 Supporter : Donate for 2021
    2022 Supporter 2022 Supporter : Donate for 2022
Overall I like the idea, but the biggest issue I see is if you make Box Launchers and 30% ones the same size, 30% becomes the no-brainer choice (even if the cost of full size ones in my opinion), as it eliminates the need for a lot of the infra you need to rearm box-launcher ships in deep space.

I would suggest if the idea is to make box launchers 30% size, then the reloadable 30% size should be done away with, and the smallest becomes 40%.
Or alternatively if 30% sized launchers are desired to be kept, the make box launchers 20% size or something.

As a personal aside, I rather like using Size 1 Box Launchers for PD against factions also rocking box launchers, so this would cut the number available in half, but I suppose thats a fairly niche use.
« Last Edit: February 14, 2023, 12:25:45 PM by Elouda »
 
The following users thanked this post: Jorgen_CAB

Offline boolybooly

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • Posts: 171
  • Thanked: 87 times
With all due respect, the suggestion that noone uses sub size 4 launchers isn't true. Box launchers for my current game started at s3 and then migrated to s1.7. Precisely because of the current scaling and the nature of missile vs PD interaction.

Quote
Lennon Karma class Orbital Defence Platform      488 tons       2 Crew       43 BP       TCS 10    TH 0    EM 0
1 km/s      Armour 1-5       Shields 0-0       HTK 0      Sensors 0/0/0/0      DCR 0      PPV 7.65
Maint Life 25.31 Years     MSP 38    AFR 8%    IFR 0.1%    1YR 0    5YR 2    Max Repair 2.5 MSP
Magazine 51   
Seeker    Control Rating 1   
Intended Deployment Time: 15 months    Morale Check Required   

Rack (17)     Missile Size: 3    Hangar Reload 86 minutes    MF Reload 14 hours
Pointer (2)     Range 6.6m km    Resolution 18
Spear of Truth Seven (17)    Speed: 42,533 km/s    End: 0.4m     Range: 0.9m km    WH: 8    Size: 3    TH: 269/161/80

Sentinel (1)     GPS 18     Range 3.3m km    Resolution 18

Quote
Lennon Karma 2 alt class Orbital Defence Platform      487 tons       2 Crew       53.3 BP       TCS 10    TH 0    EM 0
1 km/s      Armour 2-5       Shields 0-0       HTK 0      Sensors 0/0/0/0      DCR 0      PPV 7.8
Maint Life 30.23 Years     MSP 42    AFR 8%    IFR 0.1%    1YR 0    5YR 1    Max Repair 2.5 MSP
Magazine 51   
Seeker    Control Rating 1   
Intended Deployment Time: 15 months    Morale Check Required   


Hard Point (30)     Missile Size: 1.7    Hangar Reload 65 minutes    MF Reload 10 hours
Pointer (3)     Range 14.2m km    Resolution 18
Tyrant's Teacher (30)    Speed: 41,177 km/s    End: 0.3m     Range: 0.7m km    WH: 6    Size: 1.7    TH: 301/181/90

Sentinel (1)     GPS 38     Range 7.1m km    Resolution 18

At these sizes, the proposed scheme is a major nerf to small box launchers.

IMHO its worth discussing the bigger picture of how the proposal would change the dynamics of box launcher use early game and make them redundant late game, (because you are always better off building 30% launchers instead if you have the time and build points to do it because they are exactly the same size).

I agree reloadable launchers deserve to be more usable but TBH I do not think 30% launchers and box launchers should should scale the same. Just doesnt feel right.
« Last Edit: February 14, 2023, 11:36:10 AM by boolybooly »
 

Offline Jorgen_CAB

  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • J
  • Posts: 2822
  • Thanked: 673 times
With all due respect, the suggestion that noone uses sub size 4 launchers isn't true. Box launchers for my current game started at s3 and then migrated to s1.7. Precisely because of the current scaling and the nature of missile vs PD interaction.

Quote
Lennon Karma class Orbital Defence Platform      488 tons       2 Crew       43 BP       TCS 10    TH 0    EM 0
1 km/s      Armour 1-5       Shields 0-0       HTK 0      Sensors 0/0/0/0      DCR 0      PPV 7.65
Maint Life 25.31 Years     MSP 38    AFR 8%    IFR 0.1%    1YR 0    5YR 2    Max Repair 2.5 MSP
Magazine 51   
Seeker    Control Rating 1   
Intended Deployment Time: 15 months    Morale Check Required   

Rack (17)     Missile Size: 3    Hangar Reload 86 minutes    MF Reload 14 hours
Pointer (2)     Range 6.6m km    Resolution 18
Spear of Truth Seven (17)    Speed: 42,533 km/s    End: 0.4m     Range: 0.9m km    WH: 8    Size: 3    TH: 269/161/80

Sentinel (1)     GPS 18     Range 3.3m km    Resolution 18

Quote
Lennon Karma 2 alt class Orbital Defence Platform      487 tons       2 Crew       53.3 BP       TCS 10    TH 0    EM 0
1 km/s      Armour 2-5       Shields 0-0       HTK 0      Sensors 0/0/0/0      DCR 0      PPV 7.8
Maint Life 30.23 Years     MSP 42    AFR 8%    IFR 0.1%    1YR 0    5YR 1    Max Repair 2.5 MSP
Magazine 51   
Seeker    Control Rating 1   
Intended Deployment Time: 15 months    Morale Check Required   


Hard Point (30)     Missile Size: 1.7    Hangar Reload 65 minutes    MF Reload 10 hours
Pointer (3)     Range 14.2m km    Resolution 18
Tyrant's Teacher (30)    Speed: 41,177 km/s    End: 0.3m     Range: 0.7m km    WH: 6    Size: 1.7    TH: 301/181/90

Sentinel (1)     GPS 38     Range 7.1m km    Resolution 18

At these sizes, the proposed scheme is a major nerf to small box launchers.

IMHO its worth discussing the bigger picture of how the proposal would change the dynamics of box launcher use early game and make them redundant late game, (because you are always better off building 30% launchers instead if you have the time and build points to do it because they are exactly the same size).

I agree reloadable launchers deserve to be more usable but TBH I do not think 30% launchers and box launchers should should scale the same. Just doesnt feel right.

To be honest that is just a good thing... I don't mind smaller missile launchers getting worse efficiency, they still are slightly better than bigger ones in terms of volume of fire.
 

Offline nuclearslurpee (OP)

  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • Posts: 2960
  • Thanked: 2222 times
  • Radioactive frozen beverage.
With all due respect, the suggestion that noone uses sub size 4 launchers isn't true. Box launchers for my current game started at s3 and then migrated to s1.7. Precisely because of the current scaling and the nature of missile vs PD interaction.

I could go either way, really. On one hand, I wouldn't want a change for game balance to quash roleplay opportunities. On the other hand, if we are choosing to use small missiles as the optimum for beating enemy PD, maybe this is indicative of an issue that should be solved to create a more interesting decision space.

Quote
IMHO its worth discussing the bigger picture of how the proposal would change the dynamics of box launcher use early game and make them redundant late game, (because you are always better off building 30% launchers instead if you have the time and build points to do it because they are exactly the same size).

This is an important point actually, since in the late game component costs generally go up, so a 30%-size reloadable launcher with the base reload rate 1 tech will become comparatively cheaper to the point where the build cost increase is negligible. There would be a small effective size difference since the reloadables require crew whole box launchers do not, but that won't be a major factor (except maybe for fighters/FACs, which don't usually care about reloadable launchers anyways).

That said, I'm not sure it's necessarily a problem that sufficiently advanced races could afford what is basically a "more advanced" reloadable box launcher functionally. In Aurora there are several examples where technological evolution changes the balance between systems such that some systems become stronger relative to others as the game goes on - shields vs hull, AMMs vs ASMs, etc. In fact, in the latter example I can see where "reloadable box launchers" help to offset AMM dominance to some degree, or at least push the critical point a bit further down the tech tree, by becoming mainstream once ship costs in general have inflated sufficiently.

Alternatively we could consider a later-game (i.e. high RP cost) tech or short tech line to reduce the size of box launchers - say, 30% --> 25% --> 20% --> 15% at fairly high RP investments (say, 15k --> 45k --> 150k or similar, analogous to Gauss ROF techs). That would in principle be something Steve could add if he playtests at higher tech levels and finds box launchers too weak in comparison, so it doesn't have to be a requirement to implement the other changes.

And again, box launchers would not really be completely eclipsed so long as they remain useful for fighters/FACs. All in all, I'd be okay with the idea of at least playtesting "as-is" for one version to see how things shake out in practice.
 

Offline Shuul

  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • ******
  • S
  • Posts: 108
  • Thanked: 28 times
Oh yes, i love this idea, always wanted larger launchers and missiles, but was disappointed by their lack of efficacy.