Electronic Warfare

[Charlie Beeler (OP)]

There are three areas in electronic warfare that I think need some changes:  Missiles, Smallcraft and ECCM.

Missiles
Currently the only impact ECM has on missiles is to shorten the range at which a missile fire control can lock target offset by the use of ECCM.  In addition to the reduced range it should also adjust the to-hit chance in the same manor beam fire control chances are reduced.  After all, the point of ECM is too degrade the accuracy of incoming fire.

Smallcraft
Research into smallcraft ECM/ECCM is internally inconsistent with all other EW systems.  The fullsize ship systems are the foundation of all the other systems and should stay that way.  Missile ECM is on the same tech level with fullsize ship systems with the requirement that the ship system be researched first and should stay that way.  Compact ship systems are 1 tech level behind full size tech systems and should stay that way as well.  Smallcraft systems require compact level 2 for initial research and then require the even levels of compact before the next smallcraft system may be researched, this is the first consistency breakdown. The second is that all other system have levels 1-10 while smallcraft only have levels 1-6. 

Since these are not main ship systems they shouldn't be dependent on the compact systems developement.  Instead the should be dependent on the second level of full size ship systems and either Gunboat or Fighter engine developement for introduction and stay 1 level behind the full size systems in the same manor as compact systems(but not dependent on them).

ECCM
ECCM is more of a long term suggestion.  Take if from being a seperate system that is assigned to a fire control and make it a component of the fire control.  But, it should not be a required component.

[EarthquakeDamage]

Missiles
...  In addition to the reduced range it should also adjust the to-hit chance in the same manor beam fire control chances are reduced.

IMO it should be either/or.  If you like reduced range, leave it at that (and/or affect beam range instead of beam accuracy).  If you'd rather reduce the hit chance, then don't reduce the range.

Smallcraft
...  smallcraft only have levels 1-6.

Nitpick:  I think it's 1-5, actually.

Instead the should be dependent on the second level of full size ship systems and either Gunboat or Fighter engine developement for introduction and stay 1 level behind the full size systems in the same manor as compact systems(but not dependent on them).

That would render compact levels 1-5 mostly obsolete.  I'd prefer 1 level behind the compact systems.  In essence, miniaturization level 2 requires miniaturization level 1 (i.e. compact before supercompact for "small craft").

ECCM
ECCM is more of a long term suggestion.  Take if from being a seperate system that is assigned to a fire control and make it a component of the fire control.  But, it should not be a required component.

I like this.  Sure, it makes it different from ECM, but it also jives better with the built-in ECCM of CIWS.

[Charlie Beeler (OP)]

IMO it should be either/or.  If you like reduced range, leave it at that (and/or affect beam range instead of beam accuracy).  If you'd rather reduce the hit chance, then don't reduce the range.

Obviously I'd like both.   

Nitpick:  I think it's 1-5, actually.

Your correct.

That would render compact levels 1-5 mostly obsolete.  I'd prefer 1 level behind the compact systems.  In essence, miniaturization level 2 requires miniaturization level 1 (i.e. compact before supercompact for "small craft").

I like this.  Sure, it makes it different from ECM, but it also jives better with the built-in ECCM of CIWS.

I should have added that the Small Craft version needs to be restricted to smallcraft.  Reason could be that the strength from the small systems can only cover up to a x hull spaces.  Actually the Compact versions should also have an upper limit for internal consistency.

[EarthquakeDamage]

I should have added that the Small Craft version needs to be restricted to smallcraft.  Reason could be that the strength from the small systems can only cover up to a x hull spaces.  Actually the Compact versions should also have an upper limit for internal consistency.

I suppose it could be handled like cloaking devices, where you design individual systems for different ship sizes and tech levels.  It adds complexity and addresses your concerns, but don't forget to ask "how much does the additional complexity improve gameplay?"

[Charlie Beeler (OP)]

I suppose it could be handled like cloaking devices, where you design individual systems for different ship sizes and tech levels.

 

I said nothing about scalability which is what the cloak does and so do the jump engines.  The restriction for at least the smallcraft systems is inline with existing game mechanics for gunboat and fighter engines. 

It adds complexity and addresses your concerns, but don't forget to ask "how much does the additional complexity improve gameplay?"

Assume snarky retort has been made.   

[UnLimiTeD]

Well, no one stops you from building a 5000 ton FAC, only that it's probably a very slow attack craft by then.

Scalability would probably address this better, or an auto-scaling system that decreases the effect based on ship size.

Ultimately, in the long run, shouldn't Electronic Warfare be revamped anyways?
It's not much Warfare right now. It's another form of cloak.
I'd like some offensive potential.^^

[Sheb]

Well, you got offensive potential using microwaves that bypass armor and attack electronics.

[UnLimiTeD]

Yes, a nearly unused weapon, blocked by shields, with short range and limited to one target.
Why can't I spread a Virus over the communication Channel?
How about fake signals to confuse enemy sensors?
The only thing we have right now is a weapon, subject to the same deficiencies that all other weapons have.

[Ziusudra]

blocked by shields

Actually, HPM does 3x damage to shields.

[Brian Neumann]

This is an area where Steve has previously said he plans to upgrade things extensivly.  He just hasn't gotten around to it.  For those who haven't been on the board long when Steve says he plans on an extensive rework you can expect it to get done at some point, but it will be a major change in the game when he does it.  This means that he has to be happy about everything else's stability before he is going to do such a major coding change.

Brian

[UnLimiTeD]

That means it takes another year.
But I'm fine with that, it's not that the graphics would get old or something.