v2.2.0 Changes Discussion Thread

[Jorgen_CAB]

I mostly want this to be able to ignore Precursor AMM spam when I play with race that uses AMMs without manually controlling my AMM launchers. So for me it would be sufficient to have setting that allows me to ignore missiles of certain size. In case of the Precursors, when I enter their system, I would set that I want to ignore size 1 missiles and that would be it. My AMMs would launch against their ASMs and not be wasted on enemy AMM missiles, which can be handled by PD guns or shields or armour. Or they could be completely ignored in new version if they have 0.5 size warhead, but I presume Steve will program NPRs and spoilers to not waste such missiles against ships.

I will note that even more generally, we really would benefit from having a smoother control for AMMs. One reason I tend to avoid using AMMs is because it is a pain to manually set/reset their fire controls based on whether or not you actually want/need to use them for PD against a particular opponent. It would be nice if there was a button to turn on/off AMM fire, so if I'm facing a minor missile attack I can just let my guns handle it instead of wasting a bunch of ordnance without having to reconfigure a bunch of MFCs.

In my opinion there are two things I would like... as you said... turn them off so they don't and able to set a minimum range where they will no engage any missiles at all.

Especially now you might want to have some FC to engage missiles at long range and some at shorter range and at some point you might want to ignore them and focus on incoming missiles or just let PD handle it from there.

[Destragon]

Does the Missile Retargeting Capability work on laser warhead missiles?

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

Does the Missile Retargeting Capability work on laser warhead missiles?

As things currently stand, yes. However, I am considering making it interception only.

[Warer]

I really like the ECCM rework, cuts down on menu fidling and gives Beam FireCon more depth.

[Rince Wind]

I mostly want this to be able to ignore Precursor AMM spam when I play with race that uses AMMs without manually controlling my AMM launchers. So for me it would be sufficient to have setting that allows me to ignore missiles of certain size. In case of the Precursors, when I enter their system, I would set that I want to ignore size 1 missiles and that would be it. My AMMs would launch against their ASMs and not be wasted on enemy AMM missiles, which can be handled by PD guns or shields or armour. Or they could be completely ignored in new version if they have 0.5 size warhead, but I presume Steve will program NPRs and spoilers to not waste such missiles against ships.

I will note that even more generally, we really would benefit from having a smoother control for AMMs. One reason I tend to avoid using AMMs is because it is a pain to manually set/reset their fire controls based on whether or not you actually want/need to use them for PD against a particular opponent. It would be nice if there was a button to turn on/off AMM fire, so if I'm facing a minor missile attack I can just let my guns handle it instead of wasting a bunch of ordnance without having to reconfigure a bunch of MFCs.

In my opinion there are two things I would like... as you said... turn them off so they don't and able to set a minimum range where they will no engage any missiles at all.

Especially now you might want to have some FC to engage missiles at long range and some at shorter range and at some point you might want to ignore them and focus on incoming missiles or just let PD handle it from there.

Maybe an on/off button in the fleet window like the active sensor one.

[serger]

d) For each missile in the 'Missile List', the fire control cycles th(r)ough each weapon

If these weapons are ordered in the list by default (record number), we'd often have a weirdish-looking leaks, when this cycle would use longer ranged weapons first and then find no weapon capable of reaching the rest of the missiles in the list. So, I think it would be better to have weapons in this list ordered by their max range asc, so that every FC will use shortest-ranged weapons against closest missiles first. Otherwise it will be a tedious work for players to avoid this strangeness by distributing weapons between FCs by their range strictly.

[xenoscepter]

 --- Wait, the Compact-ECM and Small Craft ECM have been removed? Or is that a typo?

[Droll]

I really like that CIWS is a proper final defensive layer now. I imagine we will probably start seeing them appear on actual warships (at least important ones) with this update.

[Jorgen_CAB]

--- Wait, the Compact-ECM and Small Craft ECM have been removed? Or is that a typo?

I think Steve means to change slightly how these work and have not communicated this yet.

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

d) For each missile in the 'Missile List', the fire control cycles th(r)ough each weapon

If these weapons are ordered in the list by default (record number), we'd often have a weirdish-looking leaks, when this cycle would use longer ranged weapons first and then find no weapon capable of reaching the rest of the missiles in the list. So, I think it would be better to have weapons in this list ordered by their max range asc, so that every FC will use shortest-ranged weapons against closest missiles first. Otherwise it will be a tedious work for players to avoid this strangeness by distributing weapons between FCs by their range strictly.

The player can choose to assign his shorter range weapons to high priority fire controls. That gives him more control than forcing shorter range weapons to fire first. There may be situations where the latter behaviour isn't desired.

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

--- Wait, the Compact-ECM and Small Craft ECM have been removed? Or is that a typo?

Its a typo - I meant Compact-ECCM and Small Craft ECCM

[kilo]

With the suggested changes to ECM/ECCM, a difference of 5 levels in tech equal to 0% chance to hit. At the same time, CIWS only gets 50% of the ECCM tech effect. Will this change or will CIWS become less and less relevant with tech progression?

[serger]

The player can choose to assign his shorter range weapons to high priority fire controls. That gives him more control than forcing shorter range weapons to fire first. There may be situations where the latter behaviour isn't desired.

I didn't mean to replace your mechanics with just shorter ranged weapons firing first. What I did mean is to use weapons, that are already assigned to some (choosen) fire control, in order of their max range ascending (the same way their targets are already ordered).
It will not change the option to diligently manually assign shorter ranged weapons to a separate FC with higher priorities (or other way around) and so make a leak even less probable just with a cost of more FCs to build and more micromanagenent to bring on. Yet it can make manual reassignments less tedios during battle and a rule "you need a separate FC for every max range of weapons or your PD will strangely leak" less suppressing.

[nuclearslurpee]

I didn't mean to replace your mechanics with just shorter ranged weapons firing first. What I did mean is to use weapons, that are already assigned to some (choosen) fire control, in order of their max range ascending (the same way their targets are already ordered).
It will not change the option to diligently manually assign shorter ranged weapons to a separate FC with higher priorities (or other way around) and so make a leak even less probable just with a cost of more FCs to build and more micromanagenent to bring on. Yet it can make manual reassignments less tedios during battle and a rule "you need a separate FC for every max range of weapons or your PD will strangely leak" less suppressing.

If I read this correctly, it sounds like the concern is that the auto-assignment would assign a missile at a short range to the longer-range weapon, and then when the shorter-range weapon (assigned to the same BFC) looks for a target it might not be able to find one even though there are missiles at a longer range - which the longer-range weapon could have targeted.

So the suggestion is, for weapons assigned to the same BFC, that the shortest-range weapon (within a group of weapons at the same priority) should have target assigned first to prevent this possibility.

I think it is probably a rare edge case, both practically and because most people use dedicated BFCs per weapon type for point defense, but I can see how one might end up sing BFCs "suboptimally" in several cases (either roleplay or out of necessity) so it is probably worth the correction. Of course, weapons assigned to different BFCs would be handled as Steve already described.

@serger does this sound correct?

[serger]

@serger does this sound correct?

Yep. Sorry for my clumpsy English.

Honestly I know little about designs normal players use. I can look at it from my own design habits, and I prefer fast ships that in most cases just needed no layered FCs despite having different ranges of weapons. Slow turretted ships are completely another world, probably.

P.S. Though I see some players understood my concerns too.