Posted by: symon
« on: August 12, 2010, 02:32:44 PM »Again, I'd like to see ortillery. Non-nuclear, orbital munitions deployed (only) in support of ground assaults with forward observers. Take out the defending troops, not the tower block.
Posted by: Yonder
« on: August 11, 2010, 09:13:11 AM »Quote from: "Hawkeye"
Lasers (or Mesons, for that matter) doing less/little damage to planets:
Those are precision weapons, good for taking out PDCs, for example, not so good if you want to take out industrial centers (yes, if you use a large enough laser, that will explosively vaporize a good chunk of matter, you get sort of an explosion, but regular explosives are likely to be a lot more efficient).
I don´t have a problem with that. (I like the "range" idea for them, I just don´t think laseres are any good for taking out dispersed targets, like ground troops. Yes, a tank hit by a 200mm UV-Laser beam will be DEAD, but there are a couple hundred in the division, it will take some time to take them all out, provided, you can even target a camoflaged, shut down tank).
I agree that a laser may not be a good weapon for taking out a Factory, it's likely that our Industry isn't really a single factory, but rather a reasonably sized industrial district of a city, so yes, a single shot shouldn't do much damage at all.
What about multiple shots though? If there are two warships in orbit firing four lasers each every 30 seconds for two days, that's over 23,000 laser shots. They should definitely have done significant damage to the planet's industry and population in that amount of time. Missiles are still way better of course, they could have done the same amount of damage in a single five second time increment.
Posted by: Erik L
« on: August 10, 2010, 11:00:33 PM »Quote from: "iamlenb"
Second, gameplay will have more interesting choices in both ship AND missile design/loadout, with more ship classes. I'd couple changes towards Unlimited system with a request for new Orbital Bombardment Destroyer and Cruiser class types. Who doesn't like designing more ships? And if the mechanics are changed away from the arbitrary hard limits to greater self-consistency while maintaining Steve's goals for Orbital Bombing, the only consideration would be Steve's time vs gameplay benefit trade-off. Totally worth it to me. I'd have troop transports, landing craft carriers, AND orbital bombers in my Assault Fleets. Mmmmm, orbital MiRVs with stage 3 bomblets, Dropships going in as the mushrooms blossom, with Landing Craft swarming over any space assets.As a side note, you can create your own ship types. Click the New Hull button on the design screen. Viola! New class type.
Posted by: iamlenb
« on: August 10, 2010, 10:44:34 PM »Although the self-consistency of the current mechanics is a bit lacking, the resultant gameplay seem to achieve Steve's goal for Orbital Bombardment Tactics. It just reminds me I'm playing a game when my super spacecraft obliterating streams of pure ravening 80 cm plasma bounce like a water hose hitting a house. Too bad Alderaan couldn't get their Terraformers running in time to stop the Death Star.
I like the proposed changes. First, atmospheric attenuation of beam weapons is great. No more "Magic Terraformer Beam Shield ON!" once your planet hits 1 atmosphere. At the moment, I've continued terraforming planets to 1 atmosphere, even if they're 0 colony cost at lower pressures. "Watch my Super Saiyan Level 1 Beamshield, Laser based NPR enemy!"
Second, gameplay will have more interesting choices in both ship AND missile design/loadout, with more ship classes. I'd couple changes towards Unlimited system with a request for new Orbital Bombardment Destroyer and Cruiser class types. Who doesn't like designing more ships? And if the mechanics are changed away from the arbitrary hard limits to greater self-consistency while maintaining Steve's goals for Orbital Bombing, the only consideration would be Steve's time vs gameplay benefit trade-off. Totally worth it to me. I'd have troop transports, landing craft carriers, AND orbital bombers in my Assault Fleets. Mmmmm, orbital MiRVs with stage 3 bomblets, Dropships going in as the mushrooms blossom, with Landing Craft swarming over any space assets.
"Here at FusionTek, we make Orbital Bombardment Fun and Easy, one whole hemisphere at a time! FusionTek, for all your planetary assault support needs. Call for our new Radiation and Dust Cleaning Service."
"EcoKill has just gone Green with atmosphere penetrating Green Lasers! Lasing those pesky planetary alien infestations helps your Death Fleet stay Environmentally Friendly."
*Known side effects include extensive radiation damage, massive atmospheric ionization, significant plant life extinction, hair loss, unsightly property damage, and a permanent reduction in the habitability of your target planet. See Terms of Service for details.
I like the proposed changes. First, atmospheric attenuation of beam weapons is great. No more "Magic Terraformer Beam Shield ON!" once your planet hits 1 atmosphere. At the moment, I've continued terraforming planets to 1 atmosphere, even if they're 0 colony cost at lower pressures. "Watch my Super Saiyan Level 1 Beamshield, Laser based NPR enemy!"
Second, gameplay will have more interesting choices in both ship AND missile design/loadout, with more ship classes. I'd couple changes towards Unlimited system with a request for new Orbital Bombardment Destroyer and Cruiser class types. Who doesn't like designing more ships? And if the mechanics are changed away from the arbitrary hard limits to greater self-consistency while maintaining Steve's goals for Orbital Bombing, the only consideration would be Steve's time vs gameplay benefit trade-off. Totally worth it to me. I'd have troop transports, landing craft carriers, AND orbital bombers in my Assault Fleets. Mmmmm, orbital MiRVs with stage 3 bomblets, Dropships going in as the mushrooms blossom, with Landing Craft swarming over any space assets.
"Here at FusionTek, we make Orbital Bombardment Fun and Easy, one whole hemisphere at a time! FusionTek, for all your planetary assault support needs. Call for our new Radiation and Dust Cleaning Service."
"EcoKill has just gone Green with atmosphere penetrating Green Lasers! Lasing those pesky planetary alien infestations helps your Death Fleet stay Environmentally Friendly."
*Known side effects include extensive radiation damage, massive atmospheric ionization, significant plant life extinction, hair loss, unsightly property damage, and a permanent reduction in the habitability of your target planet. See Terms of Service for details.
Posted by: UnLimiTeD
« on: August 10, 2010, 06:31:03 PM »
Kinda expected this to be completely dead.^^
You know, the concept doesn't change the effect of dust a bit, it would still be based on actual weapon damage as opposed to surface damage.
PDCs are actual units, and as such the full weapon damage would bear on their armor.
This suggestion would actually make orbital bombardments harder, you'd need weaponry geared towards planets for maximum effect.
Sure, beam weapons would always be a possibility, but with less damage and maybe even some radiation, I think thats ok.
Posted by: Yonder
« on: August 10, 2010, 02:52:14 PM »Hmm, discerning between large nukes and small nukes is a good idea IMO. It adds a lot more realism to the choice of what sort of armament you should be using. I would modify your idea a little bit though, in that right now you are ignoring the deep levels of hits as being damaging, instead they should do a different sort of damage.
My idea is to have the upper level of missile damage have a big bonus to industry and troop damage, and give the deeper hits a big bonus to dust production and attacking PDCs.
I'm not sure if that would go against Steve's desire to punish orbital bombardment though, as it would allow a light "dusting" of strength 1 missiles to clean up a lot of ground troops with minimal environmental damage. Of course those strength 1 missiles wouldn't do a good job at breaking into PDCs, so it may be self balancing. An increase in barracks and other PDCs to shelter from small missiles leads to a greater use of big missiles which leads to the same environmental problems.
As far as attacking the surface though, do railguns take a penalty from that still? Doesn't seem like they should.
My idea is to have the upper level of missile damage have a big bonus to industry and troop damage, and give the deeper hits a big bonus to dust production and attacking PDCs.
I'm not sure if that would go against Steve's desire to punish orbital bombardment though, as it would allow a light "dusting" of strength 1 missiles to clean up a lot of ground troops with minimal environmental damage. Of course those strength 1 missiles wouldn't do a good job at breaking into PDCs, so it may be self balancing. An increase in barracks and other PDCs to shelter from small missiles leads to a greater use of big missiles which leads to the same environmental problems.
As far as attacking the surface though, do railguns take a penalty from that still? Doesn't seem like they should.
Posted by: Morrigi
« on: July 05, 2010, 02:46:27 PM »But ridiculously huge planet busters are FUN! 
Other than that, I don't see anything fundamentally wrong with this, and I think it would be a nice addition to the game.
Other than that, I don't see anything fundamentally wrong with this, and I think it would be a nice addition to the game.
Posted by: UnLimiTeD
« on: July 04, 2010, 06:35:39 PM »Ok, a little of a necro, but seeing how the discussion has died out and the system been refined, could this be moved to suggestions?
Because thats what it is, a suggestion.
Thx in advance.
Because thats what it is, a suggestion.
Thx in advance.
Posted by: UnLimiTeD
« on: May 06, 2010, 12:01:52 PM »Ok, I've revised that formula to the point it should work:
If the range for the weapon is calculated as actual range + (apm/2 + (root apm)/2)*200k, modifying the accuracy and damage fall-off of beam weapons, excluding Mesons, Plasma Carronades will not recieve bonuses compared to lasers or Particle Beams.
That, in addition to a 'linear' divisional damage fall-off, would make beam bombardments possible more often, but less efficient overall.
Example:
With an atmosphere of 0.2, the range calculation would be:
Actual Range + (0.2 / 2) + (sqrt(0.2) / 2) = 0.323606798*200000km
Point Blank: 64.721 km distance
100k away: 164.721 km distance
The actual damage would be divided by 1.2, which is a reduction by 17%.
I also pondered the missile suggestion a bit and came to the conclusion that at higher tech levels, such a low damage is hardly viable.
A possible solution:
Take the surface damage calculation, and add 10% of the total weapon damage, rounded to the closed full number, to the result.
So, a 16 WH missile would deal 7+1.6=9 damage.
Surface damage through that calculation could just be shown just as radiation damage or laser warheads is shown in the missile design screen.
This is incredibly complicated, but I feel that doesn't let it stand out of the rest of the game^^.
Another quick lineup of proposed changes in total:
A
Missiles deal "Surface damage", which is calculated as shown in the first post, +10% of their regular damage.
Example:
This makes missiles with warhead strengths below 9 the most cost-efficient versus Planets.
B
The beam weapon calculation through atmospheres is changed, allowing Beam bombardments through thicker atmospheres, but at the same time reducing the efficiency of those weapons versus ground targets.
This is meant to diversify Orbital Bombardments, while at the same time making them less cost-efficient.
It would require players to build special Bombardment units for full efficiency, or use the obligatory ground troops.
Any feedback on that before I'm actually going to suggest it?
If the range for the weapon is calculated as actual range + (apm/2 + (root apm)/2)*200k, modifying the accuracy and damage fall-off of beam weapons, excluding Mesons, Plasma Carronades will not recieve bonuses compared to lasers or Particle Beams.
That, in addition to a 'linear' divisional damage fall-off, would make beam bombardments possible more often, but less efficient overall.
Example:
With an atmosphere of 0.2, the range calculation would be:
Actual Range + (0.2 / 2) + (sqrt(0.2) / 2) = 0.323606798*200000km
Point Blank: 64.721 km distance
100k away: 164.721 km distance
The actual damage would be divided by 1.2, which is a reduction by 17%.
I also pondered the missile suggestion a bit and came to the conclusion that at higher tech levels, such a low damage is hardly viable.
A possible solution:
Take the surface damage calculation, and add 10% of the total weapon damage, rounded to the closed full number, to the result.
So, a 16 WH missile would deal 7+1.6=9 damage.
Surface damage through that calculation could just be shown just as radiation damage or laser warheads is shown in the missile design screen.
This is incredibly complicated, but I feel that doesn't let it stand out of the rest of the game^^.
Another quick lineup of proposed changes in total:
A
Missiles deal "Surface damage", which is calculated as shown in the first post, +10% of their regular damage.
Example:
Code: [Select]
x00000x
xx000xx
xxx0xxx5 Surface damage + 0.1*9(total damage) =6 damageThis makes missiles with warhead strengths below 9 the most cost-efficient versus Planets.
B
The beam weapon calculation through atmospheres is changed, allowing Beam bombardments through thicker atmospheres, but at the same time reducing the efficiency of those weapons versus ground targets.
This is meant to diversify Orbital Bombardments, while at the same time making them less cost-efficient.
It would require players to build special Bombardment units for full efficiency, or use the obligatory ground troops.
Any feedback on that before I'm actually going to suggest it?
Posted by: UnLimiTeD
« on: May 03, 2010, 04:10:03 PM »The Aim of my suggestion is to actually make Planetary bombardments harder, but more diverse.
Yes, it would do away with the arbitrary limit of 1 apm and allow high caliber beam weapons to fire on ground units even through thicker atmospheres, but at the same time, the damage of energy weapons would effectively be drastically reduced, an 80 cm gamma laser would do lessthan 10 damage with no atmosphere at all, due to it's deep damage template.
Looks like I screwed up the calculations when posting.
The formula for beam weapons would just be Damage/(1+apm), plus the range calculation, as the "surface damage" template will drastically reduce the damage of all beam weapons but Plasma Carronades, which in turn will be hit by the range calculation.
Maybe I should revise the range calculation to make it more effective at reducing the effect of Large lasers and Carronades, without excluding particle beams.
I'll work on it.
Also, If beam weapons would work more often versus planets, they should produce radiation; I think 1 pt would rather be enough given their decreased efficiency.
To summarize it, the idea is:
Get rid of the arbitrary 1 apm limit for beam weapons.
Encourage the use of low damage missiles over huge "Planet Busters" or Capital missiles for Planetary Bombardments.
Reduce the effective damage and Accuracy of Beam weapons versus Ground targets in atmosphere.
Yes, it would do away with the arbitrary limit of 1 apm and allow high caliber beam weapons to fire on ground units even through thicker atmospheres, but at the same time, the damage of energy weapons would effectively be drastically reduced, an 80 cm gamma laser would do lessthan 10 damage with no atmosphere at all, due to it's deep damage template.
Looks like I screwed up the calculations when posting.
The formula for beam weapons would just be Damage/(1+apm), plus the range calculation, as the "surface damage" template will drastically reduce the damage of all beam weapons but Plasma Carronades, which in turn will be hit by the range calculation.
Maybe I should revise the range calculation to make it more effective at reducing the effect of Large lasers and Carronades, without excluding particle beams.
I'll work on it.
Also, If beam weapons would work more often versus planets, they should produce radiation; I think 1 pt would rather be enough given their decreased efficiency.
To summarize it, the idea is:
Get rid of the arbitrary 1 apm limit for beam weapons.
Encourage the use of low damage missiles over huge "Planet Busters" or Capital missiles for Planetary Bombardments.
Reduce the effective damage and Accuracy of Beam weapons versus Ground targets in atmosphere.
Posted by: Charlie Beeler
« on: May 03, 2010, 03:30:55 PM »UnLimiTeD what do you see as your goal?
Keep these things in mind. From the beginning a primary concept for Aurora was that planetary bombardment should be considered a bad thing. As in it's going to make living there afterwards extremely difficult, if at all possible, for anybody. Missiles should be effective but dirty. Beams were made nullified by a dense enough atmosphere. Anothere priamry concept is that if you wish to conquer a world it takes boots on the ground.
Now do your suggestions improve game play with these concepts in place or do they just muddy the water? Remember that for Steve to consider a change it must improve game play.
Keep these things in mind. From the beginning a primary concept for Aurora was that planetary bombardment should be considered a bad thing. As in it's going to make living there afterwards extremely difficult, if at all possible, for anybody. Missiles should be effective but dirty. Beams were made nullified by a dense enough atmosphere. Anothere priamry concept is that if you wish to conquer a world it takes boots on the ground.
Now do your suggestions improve game play with these concepts in place or do they just muddy the water? Remember that for Steve to consider a change it must improve game play.
Posted by: Andrew
« on: May 03, 2010, 01:51:39 PM »At the moment Lasers/Railguns/plasma cannonades are very good for killing enemy ground troops if the atmosphere is thin enougth, this makes planatery invasion in these circumstances very easy and with no down side (A bit of dust , but you get that from ground combat). Not tried meson guns but if they can target ground troops then invasions are always easy. I would actually prefer to make beam weapons less effective at ground support as at the moment they are instant win for about half of all invasions with no signifigant enviromental damage to the planet.
I do see your objection to the arbitary 1 atmopshere limit but for gameplay reasons I prefer to make energy weapons less useful for ground attack, possibly allowing ground troops to damage ships in orbit so that there is a price for using beam weapons.
I do see your objection to the arbitary 1 atmopshere limit but for gameplay reasons I prefer to make energy weapons less useful for ground attack, possibly allowing ground troops to damage ships in orbit so that there is a price for using beam weapons.
Posted by: UnLimiTeD
« on: May 03, 2010, 12:10:47 PM »I don't really want to discuss radiation here, I did that somewhere else already, and both sides settled with "let's ignore each other", which I can appreciate.
The simulation of Atmosphere is unnecessary, it was just for a point of discussion.
If, it would probably be a multiplier of 1+0.1*apm to missile damage.
It's not worth the effort, I'm bound to agree.
Bombardment systems aren't really needed, the change itself would require a lot of small warheads for maximum effect, best without much in the way of engines or fuel, thus forcing players to use orbital bombs for the job.
The simulation of Atmosphere is unnecessary, it was just for a point of discussion.
If, it would probably be a multiplier of 1+0.1*apm to missile damage.
It's not worth the effort, I'm bound to agree.
Bombardment systems aren't really needed, the change itself would require a lot of small warheads for maximum effect, best without much in the way of engines or fuel, thus forcing players to use orbital bombs for the job.
Posted by: Hawkeye
« on: May 03, 2010, 10:37:03 AM »Lasers (or Mesons, for that matter) doing less/little damage to planets:
Those are precision weapons, good for taking out PDCs, for example, not so good if you want to take out industrial centers (yes, if you use a large enough laser, that will explosively vaporize a good chunk of matter, you get sort of an explosion, but regular explosives are likely to be a lot more efficient).
I don´t have a problem with that. (I like the "range" idea for them, I just don´t think laseres are any good for taking out dispersed targets, like ground troops. Yes, a tank hit by a 200mm UV-Laser beam will be DEAD, but there are a couple hundred in the division, it will take some time to take them all out, provided, you can even target a camoflaged, shut down tank)
Torpedoes:
Now that they are called Particle beams, they would fall into the same category, in my book
Missiles:
I feel this would become rather complex.
Realisticly speaking, the damage would also have to be adapted to the atmosphere (the thicker it is, the more violent the shockwave, while on an airless asteroid/moon, you don´t get a shockwave at all). I don´t think the benefit would be worth the effort.
Radiation:
It was put in by Steve to prevent something that was apparently SPO in Starfire: Nuke the enemy today, bring in a couple hundred million colonists tomorrow and start churning out new ships the day after tomorrow. That nukes leave radiation also looks pretty realistic to me, Muraroa(SP) anyone?
That missiles are the most effective way of blasting enemy ground installations, also serves that purpose.
Perhaps a new, dedicated bombardement weapon system? I realy would like a THOR delivery system like in Renegade Legion
To quote a T-shirt I got from the US of A
"Here at Ortillery Command
We have at our disposal Hundred Megawatt Laserbeams, Mach 20 Titanium Rods and Guided Thermonuclear Bombs.
Some people say we think that we´re God.
We´re not God.
We just borrowed his ´smite´button for our fire control system."
Those are precision weapons, good for taking out PDCs, for example, not so good if you want to take out industrial centers (yes, if you use a large enough laser, that will explosively vaporize a good chunk of matter, you get sort of an explosion, but regular explosives are likely to be a lot more efficient).
I don´t have a problem with that. (I like the "range" idea for them, I just don´t think laseres are any good for taking out dispersed targets, like ground troops. Yes, a tank hit by a 200mm UV-Laser beam will be DEAD, but there are a couple hundred in the division, it will take some time to take them all out, provided, you can even target a camoflaged, shut down tank)
Torpedoes:
Now that they are called Particle beams, they would fall into the same category, in my book
Missiles:
I feel this would become rather complex.
Realisticly speaking, the damage would also have to be adapted to the atmosphere (the thicker it is, the more violent the shockwave, while on an airless asteroid/moon, you don´t get a shockwave at all). I don´t think the benefit would be worth the effort.
Radiation:
It was put in by Steve to prevent something that was apparently SPO in Starfire: Nuke the enemy today, bring in a couple hundred million colonists tomorrow and start churning out new ships the day after tomorrow. That nukes leave radiation also looks pretty realistic to me, Muraroa(SP) anyone?
That missiles are the most effective way of blasting enemy ground installations, also serves that purpose.
Perhaps a new, dedicated bombardement weapon system? I realy would like a THOR delivery system like in Renegade Legion
To quote a T-shirt I got from the US of A
"Here at Ortillery Command
We have at our disposal Hundred Megawatt Laserbeams, Mach 20 Titanium Rods and Guided Thermonuclear Bombs.
Some people say we think that we´re God.
We´re not God.
We just borrowed his ´smite´button for our fire control system."
Posted by: UnLimiTeD
« on: May 03, 2010, 08:35:04 AM »Yes, on earth like planets and above, which is a totally arbitrary limit because a lot of planets have a thinner atmosphere.
If it was flat out impossible to target planets with beams at all, fine, but it isn't.
"Carry over from Starfire" is no argument in my book. It's a reason that it is how it is, but no reason to not change it.
Btw., thats just a part of the suggestion.
If it was flat out impossible to target planets with beams at all, fine, but it isn't.
"Carry over from Starfire" is no argument in my book. It's a reason that it is how it is, but no reason to not change it.
Btw., thats just a part of the suggestion.
