OG 1st post here:
http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=13020.msg164840#msg164840So on the first point, of Missile Guidance it seems that Steve, ever the clever lad, was one step ahead of me. I post this here for posterity and completeness, since I promised an effort post. There will be no math here, at least not yet, because a prior engagement prevents me from dedicated that much time to this at the time of writing. Math may be added as soon as this evening, but we shall see. Your own math is also welcome.
--- Missile Guidance:
-- So Missile Agility has been removed in 2.2 along with a slew of additions and general changes to missiles and a whole lot of things besides. The concept of 'Missile Guidance' came to me in a tea-induced sleepless torpor at around 2~3am. Basically, how Missile Agility worked, for anyone reading who doesn't know, is that a tech line gave you X amount of Maneuverability per MSP spent on it. This made your missiles more accurate without them being faster. One serious issue that this created, was that smaller missiles benefited from it a lot more than larger missiles, though this was part of a larger problem with many more parts. So the proposal of a 'Missile Guidance' was to do what agility did, but without the small missile bias. The proposal itself follows.
-- Missile Guidance would have a tech line, the name of which is/was currently undecided. For our purposes I shall call it "Max Missile Guidance". What this tech line does is to govern the maximum amount of guidance that a missile can derive a benefit from. It's is worth noting, that nothing would be stopping a player from just... adding more, so much as they would not derive a benefit from that investment. The intention for this is that later on, old missiles that overbuilt for guidance WOULD inherit the new maximum as tech advanced, allowing a modicum of future proofing in game terms, and allowing players to role-play various things such as a project needing to deliver now, then the proposed upgrades being delivered later, etc.
-- In design terms, Missile Guidance would be work as such; with missiles possessing a certain innate amount of guidance, which would count towards that tech governed maximum, making this mechanic more beneficial to larger missiles. Likewise, the player could allocate MSP to Guidance during the missile design process itself, in much the same way the MSP could be devoted to agility. The MSP devoted to guidance and the innate guidance derived from missile's size would be added up and any benefit in excess of the guidance cap would be discarded. This 'Missile Guidance' would be functionally identical to Missile Agility in that it would add accuracy without adding speed.
--- Missile Agility:
-- An addendum to the OP, I believe Agility as-is could've been re-introduced instead of the above Guidance proposal, but with the caveat of it being a flat modifier rather than an "X Agility per MSP". Currently all missiles are assumed to have an agility equal to 10, so the proposal would just see the old tech line repurposed to increase this flat value. If combined with the above, then the flat bonus should be reduced by missile size, with larger missiles deriving less of a benefit, but I can already see that being problematic and counter-productive to the end goal of the 'Guidance' proposal... that being added verisimilitude in missile design. The math will tell the tale I'm sure... if I ever get around to it.
--- Capacitor Banks:
-- This proposal is the more involved one. So currently, the player designs a beam weapon, which has a power requirement. During the design process, the player specifies a number of capacitors, which then determines the Rate of Fire in increments. Currently, there is no way to specify Capacitors in excess of Capacitor Recharge tech. This proposal aims to create interesting design decisions by creating a means by which to increase the RoF of beam weapons through other means. The proposal follows:
-- A 'Capacitor Bank' as it shall be called going forward, is a ship component. This component would be designed in the Component Design window, like many other such ship components. In addition to using the Capacitor Recharge Tech line, the Capacitor Bank has three tech lines in and of itself. Maximum Size, Minimum Size, and Efficiency. Maximum Size starts at 300 Tons (6 HS), progresses up to 1,500 Tons (30 HS). The stages for Maximum Size are; 300, 450, 900, 1200, and 1500. Minimum Size Starts at 250 Tons (5 HS) and progresses down to 25 Tons (0.5 HS). The stages for Minimum Size are: 250, 175, 125, 50, and 25. Efficiency begins at 0.20 and works its way up to 1. The increments for this are: 0.2 0.25, 0.33, 0.5, 0.66, 0.75, 0.8 and 1. Maximum Size serves as a pre-requisite for Minimum Size tech, so you will need to research bigger Capacitor Banks before you can research smaller ones. Likewise, the existing Capacitor Recharge tech serves as a pre-requisite for the Efficiency tech line, and so you must first research better capacitors before you can research more efficient Capacitor Banks. The Efficiency tech caps out at 1 after Capacitor Recharge 10. The initial tech line for this is called "Capacitor Banks, and is available after Capacitor Recharge Tech 1. Researching Capacitor Banks unlocks the Maximum Size, Minimum Size and Efficiency lines.
- The strength of a Capacitor Bank is derived from the following formula: ((Component Hull Size x 50) x Capacitor Recharge Tech) x Efficiency. So a 300 Ton Capacitor Bank using Capacitor Recharge 2 and 0.2 Efficiency would have a total capacity of 120. The design fields for the component are: Size, Capacitor Recharge, and Efficiency. Using lower tech Recharge and Efficiency options results in a cheaper, but larger component overall. Actual cost modifiers TBD.
-- When designing a Ship Class, Capacitor Banks are mounted in much the same way as shield generators and engines, that is only one design may be mounted at a time but multiple of that design may be mounted. During gameplay, a Capacitor Bank will require power from a shipboard reactor to function. It has a draw equal to its combined output, so for example Capacitor Banks totaling up to 100 would impart a power requirement of 100. The rules of power distribution for Capacitor Banks are almost identical to the ones for beam weapons, with the caveat that Capacitor Banks always draw power AFTER beam weapons. Unlike beam weapons, Capacitor Banks will try to draw power equally, so mounting 4 Capacitor banks with 25 power each will see them fully recharged in 5 increments (25 seconds) if 6 power is available.
-- When beam weapons are fired, all Capacitor Banks also discharge, but only if they are full. When they discharge, they act like shipboard reactors with an output equal to their total capacity. So four Capacitor Banks with 25 capacity each would output 100 power. Unlike reactors, however, Capacitor Banks can provide power in excess of a beam weapons own capacitors. This power is distributed evenly among all beam weapons firing IN THE SAME INCREMENT. So if you are firing five beam weapons in that increment, and you had four Capacitor Banks with 25 capacity each, that would provide an extra 20 points of capacity to each of those beam weapons, along with an extra 20 points of POWER. In this way, if those five beam weapons each had 20 capacitors, and a power requirement of 40, instead of firing every other increment (10 seconds), they would fire every increment (5 seconds) assuming that you had four Capacitor Banks with 25 capacity each AND a power plant capable of outputting at least 140 points worth of power.
-- So I'll do some quick breakdowns to help drive home the point:
- Ship A has 4 Lasers. Each laser needs 10 power to function, and has a capacitor rating of 10. That means those lasers fire every 5 seconds, or every increment. This means that, provided Ship A has a reactor with at least 40 output, those lasers won't derive any benefit from Capacitor Banks, because Rate of Fire is capped to one shot per increment.
- However, let's say Ship A does NOT have a reactor capable of outputting at least 40 power. It instead has a reactor that outputs 24 power and mounts a Capacitor Bank with 20 points of capacity. This will result in the first two shots of those lasers being per increment, and every five shots after that will be on a per increment basis as well. Thus Ship A will fire in a salvo pattern of 1-1-2-2-2-2-2-1-1 and derive at least some benefit... assuming it isn't just more space effective to mount the 40 power reactor.
- Ship B mounts a single, big ole' honkin laser with an power requirement of 75 and a Capacitor count of 10. The empire fielding Ship B doesn't have any better Capacitor Tech than 10, so by mounting a power plant with 75 output and a Capacitor Bank with 65 Capacity, that big ole' honkin laser can fire once per increment. Thus deriving a good benefit. Even at the maximum tech for Capacitor Recharge, a Capacitor Bank with 50 capacity would let that big ole' honkin laser fire once per increment.
--- So, overall the Capacitor Bank would give more variety to beam ship designs. One thing I nearly overlooked is the failure rate. I'm not sure if imposing maintenance failures for capacitor banks would be helpful or not, or if it would make them useless or OP. So I'll see if this suggestion gets implemented before worrying about that, since Steve would likely figure it out via playtesting anyways if it does.