Post reply

Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.

Note: this post will not display until it's been approved by a moderator.

Name:
Email:
Subject:
Message icon:

shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview

Please read the rules before you post!


Topic Summary

Posted by: chrislocke2000
« on: September 22, 2011, 06:16:50 AM »

If anything I was expecting this to make the game more complex and deep. You will no longer be able to pour all of your research into one weapon type and expect to be able to deal with all of the threats out there.

This means spending more time designing balanced fleets and mixing both your offensive and defensive systems.
Posted by: Gidoran
« on: September 21, 2011, 09:00:27 PM »

On a random note, if you were to make kinetic weapons longer ranged than it'd be a moot point if beam fire controls weren't provided with better range to compensate.

That said, I support longer ranged beam weaponry all around. It makes me sad that I could design a 14m kilometer laser and only have a tenth that range because of the FC.
Posted by: Elim
« on: September 21, 2011, 08:38:43 PM »

Quote from: ardem link=topic=4063. msg40074#msg40074 date=1316648302
He is not talking a dumb down of the game when it comes to balancing, it no different then say real life.

Take for instance the horse, infantry, artillery rock paper, scissor

Horse beat artillery on most occassions, infantry beats horse (in most occasions), artillery beats infantry.

There are a multitude of factors but there is a basic rock paper scissors.  But those multitude of factors and realism quality enhance the rock paper scissor without even noticing it.

Thanks, makes more sense.  i get very emotional  if i fear something dumbs my most liked games down.
My reaction was. . . prematurely.

Posted by: PTTG
« on: September 21, 2011, 07:00:29 PM »

Quote from: UnLimiTeD on September 07, 2011, 10:17:11 AM
...On the other hand, if you retreat from an enemy, your kinetic weapons will probably deal less damage, while lasers are unaffected by speed...

Don't forget redshift!

I like this concept.
Posted by: ardem
« on: September 21, 2011, 06:38:22 PM »

He is not talking a dumb down of the game when it comes to balancing, it no different then say real life.

Take for instance the horse, infantry, artillery rock paper, scissor

Horse beat artillery on most occassions, infantry beats horse (in most occasions), artillery beats infantry.

There are a multitude of factors but there is a basic rock paper scissors. But those multitude of factors and realism quality enhance the rock paper scissor without even noticing it.
Posted by: Elim
« on: September 21, 2011, 05:32:30 PM »

Please no Rock Paper Scissors Balancing.   
It is unrealistic.   I hate it in every Game.   
Some Things are just better than others.   

Although your Points are good. 

Posted by: UnLimiTeD
« on: September 07, 2011, 10:17:11 AM »

Most of it seems reasonable and will likely occur naturally just from the change of pace.
I can see lasers to be the ultimate high tech engagement weapon versus Fighters/Missiles and possibly stuff like gravitic shields (essentially making kinetic projectiles miss/deal less damage), but suck versus particle shields and (change from now) heavy armor, as their damage would probably be lower than that of a heavy Mass Accelerator.
On the other hand, if you retreat from an enemy, your kinetic weapons will probably deal less damage, while lasers are unaffected by speed.

There's so many options, but we'll see what is feasible.  ;)

+1
Posted by: waresky
« on: September 07, 2011, 06:20:10 AM »

i like this "smeg"..

+1 Cmmdr.
Posted by: chrislocke2000
« on: September 07, 2011, 06:13:10 AM »

Might be getting ahead of things a bit here but with Newtonian mechanics it feels like there is a good opportunity to get some decent rock paper scissors options on weapons and weapon platforms. Some thoughts on this from my side are:

PDCs:
Hard to detect when not active
Can mount the largest weapon systems
Very exposed to kinetic weapons and stand off missile strikes

Fighters:
Good intercept and stand off delivery system due to high delta v change potential (possibly drones v manned to deal with high gs?)
Exposed to attack from shorter range, high manoeuvrability  missiles
Beam fighters should be very good close in against fighters armed with anti ship missiles

Ships:
Most flexible weapon platform
Fuel hungry
Committed actions and less options to change as situation develops

Missiles:
Very long range engagement options
Long range missiles will be more susceptible to anti missiles and kinetics / lasers due to more limited fuel for evasive man
Large volleys of missiles should be easier to detect on scan and hence give longer intercept times
Single missiles or small volleys have greater chance of getting close before detected and hence less reaction time
MIRVs give best option but very expensive to build and large
Clear distinction in roles for missiles - anti ship missiles should have very poor chance to engage other missiles and fighters.

Lasers:
Very good at closer range for fast maneuver ships / missiles / fighters
Good on individual target engagements but not so good against volleys

Kinetics:
Longer range than lasers now
Great against orbital targets / PDCs / slow maneuver ships
Very poor against fast maneuver hostiles

Thoughts???