Change Log for v7.2 Discussion

[Panopticon]

I saw particle lance and immediately though Nova Cannon from W40K, I desire this weapon immediately.

[illrede]

Will Advanced Particle Beam tech progress trigger the Particle Lance?

[QuakeIV]

I think its meant to work like the spinal laser, so it draws from the normal particle beam tech.

[Steve Walmsley]

Will Advanced Particle Beam tech progress trigger the Particle Lance?

No, it's just from the normal tech progression.

[Haji]

Back in 6.43 there was a bug that if you had only orbital maintenance bases those would not reload your box launchers. If you had even one fully manned ground based maintenance facility, everything was fine. Has this bug been fixed? From what I have seen from your campaign you're not using box launchers so I don't know if you tried reloading them in one of your deep space bases.

[iceball3]

Back in 6.43 there was a bug that if you had only orbital maintenance bases those would not reload your box launchers. If you had even one fully manned ground based maintenance facility, everything was fine. Has this bug been fixed? From what I have seen from your campaign you're not using box launchers so I don't know if you tried reloading them in one of your deep space bases.

Can't you load box launchers from colliers? As of the new version, we will be getting civilian ammo storage, which means you could set your maintenance base (or a miscellaneous civilian transport/storage ship) as a collier and load it like such with their mounted magazines, precluding needs for maint-loading, though if that is restricted, you could likewise make a military collier and have it be maintained by the maintenance modules.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

You can reload the ammo of a box launch ship from colliers, but the reload timer won't tick down without being at a hangar or maintenance facility.  It's a valid question.

[Mel Vixen]

So i have to just unlock the patricle lance right? Thus i could make a relativly light craft with a small 4 DMG particlelance and quick cycling?

If so that could make a nice fast gunboat against the Spoilers which makes me love this idea even more.

[iceball3]

So i have to just unlock the patricle lance right? Thus i could make a relativly light craft with a small 4 DMG particlelance and quick cycling?

If so that could make a nice fast gunboat against the Spoilers which makes me love this idea even more.

Code: [Select]

Once Particle Beam Range 200,000 km and Particle Beam Strength 6 have both been researched, the Particle Lance can be researched for 30,000 RP. You will be able to, but you'll need to research your particle beam tech to those levels, first. That's a lotta RP, so expect that to come into play more mid game.

Lances at that size, though, they'll only reliably outperform particle beams against ships with 3 or less armor layers, as the smaller particle beams require less power plant or capacitor tech to cycle more quickly. The particle beams in tandem will also out-damage the lance against shields.
The lances are really most profitable in cracking apart large, decently armored ships from a large range in a single shot, which require a decent amount of power to do. In this manner, they outperform mesons, as they leave burnt-out columns in the armor of the ship, and dump all of the damage they do in excess of armor thickness into the hull of the ship. Shields look to be extremely effective against them, though, as shields take the full brunt of the shot before they start to penetrate.

A good offensive application would be some variety of long (beam) range lasers and size 1 missile pepperboxes on the shield, followed by a lance when the shield is down for massive damage.

I actually wonder if particle lances do shock damage.

[Iranon]

The Particle Lance looks good to me. The first hit can inflict significant damage to ships and destroy/cripple armoured fighters at range.
Sustained damage per increment will be very poor, so it has a natural counter in shields.

They seem to have uses at all sizes - small ones for decent DPS though armour, large ones for one-shotting things (I could imagine building them with capacitor 1 to keep costs down, counting on one salvo to be enough). All in all, I expect them to be attractive without being overpowered, sufficiently different from existing weapons, and good for the game's depth.

*

The changes to the maintenance system still make me very nervous. I already find some use for disposable ships (long maintenance life, use without overhaul until obsolete or worn out, then scrap or salvage). So far it's a niche option for ships that need to stay in deep space, which is great - alternative ways to build things depending on requirements.

With the stated changes, I fear that it may be best to ingore the whole maintenance aspect and make everything disposable or hangar-based (minimising MSP usage). At that point, we may as well play with maintenance off as it no longer adds anything to the game, just encouraging one to jump through hoops to bypass the system and limiting viable options... maintenance off may well become the deeper and better-balanced option. I'd hate for that to happen, as I enjoy the logistics aspect of the game.

[iceball3]

The changes to the maintenance system still make me very nervous. I already find some use for disposable ships (long maintenance life, use without overhaul until obsolete or worn out, then scrap or salvage). So far it's a niche option for ships that need to stay in deep space, which is great - alternative ways to build things depending on requirements.

With the stated changes, I fear that it may be best to ingore the whole maintenance aspect and make everything disposable or hangar-based (minimising MSP usage). At that point, we may as well play with maintenance off as it no longer adds anything to the game, just encouraging one to jump through hoops to bypass the system and limiting viable options... maintenance off may well become the deeper and better-balanced option. I'd hate for that to happen, as I enjoy the logistics aspect of the game.

I'm not quite sure how the new system is an issue at all. It actually makes maintenance EASIER to play with than before, far as I know, or at least easier to manage, while still enforcing a supply lane and logistics requirement for your vessels, especially now without having to micromanage which minerals need to make it to your ships.
Where's the issue, again?

[Iranon]

Now, I hope I'm just misunderstanding something and someone can prove me wrong.

The new system makes it easier as it makes it easier to work around mineral shortages at a maintenance site, and that's a good thing.
But between increased maintenance/overhaul costs (minor) and the initial load of maintenance supplies having to be built/purchased (major), it's now attractive to build ships that need very few MSP during their entire service life.

At the moment, a maintenance storage bay that comes with 1000MSP has a cost of 15.
In 7.2, the contents alone will cost 250.
Maintenance Storage Bays already saw limited use in non-supply-vessels (they were somewhat viable in very cheap craft where engineering bays added few MSPs).
With the extreme cost increase of MSPs, we are given strong incentives to drastically lower their consumption. I can think of plenty, and have practical experience with some for my deep space fleets. Unfortunately, many of the ways to do so are fiddly, a little gamey, or attempt to bypass the maintenance system entirely,

The changes seem to aim for reduced micromanagement and giving us new interesting options. Unless we play extremely suboptimally, my concern is that they will increase micromanagement and limit viable options.

[Mor]

The only difference is that upon delivery maintenance storage bays don't come with supplies included (like magazines). Meaning that your initial cost to bring the ship to full readiness is highers, and you need to keep a higher supply reserve, or you might find your new ships stuck in port.

it doesn't effect consumption or your mission parameters, so I don't see why it would be an incentive to build ships with less MSP. But it is possible that maintenance storage bay are too costly right now.

[Iranon]

MSP usage increases with maintenance clock, with plenty of engineering spaces you get by with very little for years.
It's now attractive to use excessive engineering spaces, offload MSP to new ships once things start to fall apart, and scrap the ship.
Probably never bothering with overhauls or in-orbit maintenance.

[Nyvis]

MSP usage increases with maintenance clock, with plenty of engineering spaces you get by with very little for years. 
It's now attractive to use excessive engineering spaces, offload MSP to new ships once things start to fall apart, and scrap the ship. 
Probably never bothering with overhauls or in-orbit maintenance. 

I agree somewhat.   In orbit maintenance cost MSP by size, not by failure rate, and as such, is worse than engineering space.   And kinda exclusive with each other.   There is no point in reducing failure rate if you pay by size anyway, so ships staying in orbit of maintenance facilities do not need much engineering.   On the other hand, ships with a lot of it should avoid orbiting because they'll cost you a flat rate despite their low failure rate.   Having to avoid maintenance facilities when optimized for long missions seems weird to me. 

MSP cost of maintenance when in orbit should maybe depend on ship failure rate? It wouldn't solve the maintenance storage issue, but it would make orbital maintenance less counter intuitive in that crafts designed for reliability should cost less to maintain, be it in orbit or in space. 

To solve the maintenance storage issue, adding stacking penalties to engineering modules when above a certain rate compared to ship size would probably help.   Using more engineering space should be design-costly and valuable mostly long term. 

I disagree with you about overhaul though.   If you do it early enough (before things start breaking too much), even a craft with lots of engineering could benefit from it. 


EDIT: unrelated, about particle lances:
I feel being bigger should maybe increase range of the beam, rather than just damage.  Right now, it's just a gun with twice the damage for twice the size, but doesn't really offer new tactical opportunities compared to particle beams.  Being x1. 5 range x1. 5 damage could possibly be more interesting.  Just my opinion.