Post reply

Warning - while you were reading 84 new replies have been posted. You may wish to review your post.

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: QuakeIV
« on: December 08, 2019, 08:15:18 PM »

I for one think in general it would be nice if at some point mineral mining was de-simplified so you could focus purely on mining the stuff you actually want.
Posted by: Hazard
« on: December 08, 2019, 04:03:44 PM »

Well, I was basically thinking like this:

Mining potential would be the total amount of minerals a given planet could dig in a year, let's say that we're at 300 mines with a mining rate of 10 tons per year per mine, so 3000 tons in total.

Weighted share of minerals by availability would go, for example, go with Duranium (0.7), Gallicite (0.2) and Mercassium (0.1). Total availability is 1.0, total mining rate is 3000 tons, Duranium has 7 shares of the mining rate (total mined in a year 2100 tons), Gallicite has 2 shares (total mined 600 tons) and Mercassium has 1 share (total mined 300 tons). Total mined is 3000 tons of material.

Weighted share with loss of potential from lack of availability would go 0.7 Duranium, 0.2 Gallicite, 0.1 Mercassium, 0.3 unavailable, 0.8 unavailable, 0.9 unavailable, total 2.0 unavailable, and mine 700 tons of Duranium, 200 tons of Gallicite and 100 tons of Mercassium. The remaining 2000 ton capacity is 'wasted', dredging up Newtonian materials from the depths of the aether that are not relevant to the game or otherwise just expended effort that is not useful. There would still be 3000 tons of material mined in total even 2/3rd of it is discarded.

Being able to turn certain minerals off in a mining operation is helpful in this case because it lets you go for 0.7 Duranium and ignore the impact and loss of efficiency due to low availability of other materials, you'd still need to account for the 0.3 unavailability rating though. So in that case you'd be mining 2100 tons of Duranium, 900 tons of discarded waste material, and not touch the Gallicite and Mercassium deposits.

Being able to turn off certain minerals in a place where you are always mining the maximum possible of the mineral wealth of the planet with the availability ratings only impacting ratios of the materials dug up would kinda break the system because it'd allow you to use this setup to mine 3000 tons of material from an availability 0.1 material from a planet with only one or a few materials, and would render a body with all minerals at 1.0 availability but in small quantities strictly inferior to a body with vast quantities of all materials at only 0.1 availability simply because that body is going to be mined for a long time to come.
Posted by: Father Tim
« on: December 08, 2019, 03:31:48 PM »

Thinking of the mineral situation that so often causes issues:

Refactoring mining from 'full mining rating, all materials, multiply by availability' to 'total mining potential, weighted share of minerals by availability', which would produce 10 times as much of a 1.0 mineral over a 0.1 availability mineral, or 'total mining potential, weighted share of minerals by availability, fractional loss of potential according to total of ((number of minerals)-(sum of availability))', which would make body with a small number of high availability minerals very valuable over a planet with one or two high availability minerals and low availability on the others because the mining potential loss fraction is so much lower.

Although in that case you want the ability to focus efforts on mining a certain mineral as a planetary/colony policy, or a technology that lets you lower the availability penalty.

All of these would pretty majorly impact the economic side of the game though.

The main goal here is to offer a little greater control or at least different trade offs, without the oddities that you sometimes get like where you are desperately mining a low availability deposit of a material you need while the same high availability deposit of a material you don't need (right now) just produces a bigger and bigger stockpile of stuff you can't make use of.

I don't entirely understand your suggestions, but the ability to set a colony-wide 'focus on this mineral' command that, say, doubled the availability of one mineral at the expense of halving all the others would be valuable to me.

So Planet Bob, with 1.0 Duranium, 0.8 Neutronium, 0.6 Gallicite, and 0.4 Mercassium could be set to focus on the Merc (effectively 0.8) at the cost of reducing Dura to 0.5, Neut to 0.4, & Gall to 0.3; or focus on the Neut (1.2) and get Dura 0.5, Gall 0.3, & Merc 0.2.


- - - - -


Obviously, a colony with only one or two minerals would gain +100% or +25% to its total mining rate from this change.  Any colony using this feature would also be racing towards the point of diminishing availability at twice the previous rate.
Posted by: Hazard
« on: December 08, 2019, 10:25:23 AM »

Thinking of the mineral situation that so often causes issues:

Refactoring mining from 'full mining rating, all materials, multiply by availability' to 'total mining potential, weighted share of minerals by availability', which would produce 10 times as much of a 1.0 mineral over a 0.1 availability mineral, or 'total mining potential, weighted share of minerals by availability, fractional loss of potential according to total of ((number of minerals)-(sum of availability))', which would make body with a small number of high availability minerals very valuable over a planet with one or two high availability minerals and low availability on the others because the mining potential loss fraction is so much lower.

Although in that case you want the ability to focus efforts on mining a certain mineral as a planetary/colony policy, or a technology that lets you lower the availability penalty.

All of these would pretty majorly impact the economic side of the game though.

The main goal here is to offer a little greater control or at least different trade offs, without the oddities that you sometimes get like where you are desperately mining a low availability deposit of a material you need while the same high availability deposit of a material you don't need (right now) just produces a bigger and bigger stockpile of stuff you can't make use of.
Posted by: amram
« on: December 07, 2019, 10:36:02 AM »

Definitely a concern.  Smaller ships have less ability to counter punch at range, or to take the abuse until they can.  They can't mass enough armor to take abuse, nor enough shields to shrug it off.  Nor can fighters compete for ECM/ECCM, generally either 10% behind with compact, or way 30% behind with compact.

That said, they almost always have a significant closure and numbers advantage.  You can hit 180kkms and still pack beam weapons if you want to, closing at speeds that make most missiles seem slow.  Those speeds can push their hit chances below 50% point blank, and worse at range.



Agreed on "fear the microwave" if you don't harden the hell out of an FC that big — you're begging to get it blotted out, microwaves have some reach, lol.  If you built to counter microwaves, you likely went shield heavy, and Meson's can gut you.  Build for Meson and you might lack enough shielding to help against microwaves, lol.  Build for both, master neither.
Posted by: Jorgen_CAB
« on: December 07, 2019, 08:51:01 AM »

Shields can force the main fighting to be within 5 light seconds anyways.

I don't see the problem.

And how well does those shields work against particle beams ( which retain full damage out to max range ) or against mesons ( which ignore shields )?

If the particle beams are on the attack?  They cap out at 1.2mkm.  They can afford to force you in closer by having a vastly cheaper FC and cheaper weaponry, in tonnage terms.

If the Particle beam ship is the one needing to weather the storm to get its kill, then with you can match their 15.5kton investment into destruction on a smaller investment of just 8200 tons with an 8x FC getting you 7300 tons to spend on shielding if your need to to force them closer.  That lets a 25 damage 20 RoF 800 ton particle beam, with 10 on one ship, output 250 damage at 65% odds at 700kkm, for a sustained 8.125 damage per second, and a whopping 146 shields, for the same tonnage budget.

Do note that I've ignored the cost of carrying enough MSP to ever manage a single repair of the only firecontrol on the ship, which swings things further towards the inferior tech shield heavy ship.  80,000 MSP costs you quite a bit of tonnage, its just far too messy to work out in excel.

So, you get 4x36hs shields.  Which means you have 1440 hp base, at 189.7% strength for 2732hp more shielding than them, and 4.8hp/sec regen.  This lets you sustain the abuse indefinitely beyond 1.1mkm, or last for 15.595 minutes at 700kkm over which you can do 11500 damage with strength 25 hits.

If they could kite you to death now, then they still can, with a narrow 300,000 window to do it in where you cannot respond.  If you can get the closure to 1000km/s, you can close that gap in just 300 seconds, 5 minutes, you'll survive 15+.



Mesons get to play with ranges up to 10.08mkm, you are gonna get a little chewed up on the way in.  Have HTK to spare.  Spend your excess, if any, on armor.  To have that range, they'll need an FC of at least 10.08mkm, a multiplier of 58, for an FC tonnage of 1450, and 10 weapons, at 1250 tons, it costs them 13950 tons.

Now, one would think that mesons bypassing shields and armor become king.  Except, in c# they don't entirely bypass armor, they may be stopped by it, you can weather this storm, somewhat.  7% chance to penetrate at maximum tech, per layer of armor.  At max tech, you can make the max tech warship at around 35ktons easily enough.  For a 35kton warship, putting 6 layers of armor, 6 shields, 2 16HS x2.15 engines, and 14 Large fuel + 1 Normal gives a 35kt warship that can do 70kkm/s over 20bkm and still have 22ktons for mission package.  Plenty of headroom to load the 15.5kton weapons package above. 

So lets drop two engine tiers to plasma core engines, .16 fuel, and drop two tiers in armor. 6 layers of armor, 6 shields, 35ktons, 9 45hs x3.0 engines, and 53 Normal Fuel tanks, and I get a warship that can do 106.5kkms over 9.5bkm 10 particle beams as above.  Drop the shields and raise to sit at 6 layers of armor leaves just enough mission package to carry adequate MSP and a simple sensor, very short endurance.  We've a closure of 36kkm/s if they attempt to run.  A lucky strike could send us packing, we can lose 2 engines before they can close in on us.

We can close the range in 260 seconds, or 7 firing cycles before we can retaliate.  So I will assume they get shots every 1340kkm of range closed in, starting from 1000kkm outwards, so the first shot as closing would occur at 10.076mkm.  They have a 93% chance to penetrate armor per layer and we have 6 layers, so they have a 64.7% chance of getting an internal hit per actual hit, they've got 10 weapons.  The first salvo at 9.04mkm nets 0.667 hits, 7.7mkm nets 1.53 hits, 6.36 nets 2.39, 5.02 -> 3.24, 3.68 -> 4.1, 2.34 -> 4.97, 1 -> 5.83, sum total of 22.7 hits, call it 23.

We have 207HTk in just engines, comprising 69.9% of all hits.  50HTk in fuel, 44 HTK in crew, 12 in engineering.  In DAC, 415-558 is particle beams, 562-565 is fire control, 610 is search sensor, 674-682 are reactors.  Those comprise just 155, out of a total of 686, or 77.4% of internal hits are going to be absorbed by systems not critical to killing the opponent - though engines can really only afford one loss.

She's short legged, but can win her fight by taking 65% engine/fuel, can't go hunting, but if they come to her...



Can you overcome a min-maxed warship on the same tonnage that has tech advantage?  Probably not.  Can you build a tech disadvantaged warship to kill an advantaged warship?  Absolutely.  Can two ships of equal tech deal with their shortcomings?  Certainly.

Only way the Meson holds its range advantage for same tech, is equal or greater investment into engines, or lesser tonnage.  Both require you decrease weaponry, c# imposes a penalty to having few rapidly firing weapons, that 2% failure will bite you.  Over 34 shots, its 50/50 that a weapon fails.  The Meson wants its range, it needs to splurge on an FC, that hands the speed advantage, or the quantity advantage, or the defence advantage tot he competitor.

To get that disadvantaged in a fight between equals, one of you wasn't teching at all, or the other was handed the advantage as a handicap.

I still don't see this as the insurmountable task its been made to be. 

See attached for the particle beam/meson warships specc'ed out.  Keep in mind I stacked multiple FC's to consume tonnage as if it were bigger—as if the multiplier allowed such ranges, and over stocked MSP to allow replacement of the FC, which is the biggest cost in both ships.

I hope that fire-control is hardened if the ship is ever hit by a Microwave weapon....  far more dangerous to such ships than any other weapon.  ;)

I probably agree that there would not be a huge problem... but if these extreme beams was unleashed I think you should also add some penalty or bonus to hit based on ship size. Otherwise small ships might get really shafted as you focus fire easily on them with weaker shields, not to mention really small ships or fighters being even worse.
Posted by: amram
« on: December 07, 2019, 06:35:09 AM »

Shields can force the main fighting to be within 5 light seconds anyways.

I don't see the problem.

And how well does those shields work against particle beams ( which retain full damage out to max range ) or against mesons ( which ignore shields )?

If the particle beams are on the attack?  They cap out at 1.2mkm.  They can afford to force you in closer by having a vastly cheaper FC and cheaper weaponry, in tonnage terms.

If the Particle beam ship is the one needing to weather the storm to get its kill, then with you can match their 15.5kton investment into destruction on a smaller investment of just 8200 tons with an 8x FC getting you 7300 tons to spend on shielding if your need to to force them closer.  That lets a 25 damage 20 RoF 800 ton particle beam, with 10 on one ship, output 250 damage at 65% odds at 700kkm, for a sustained 8.125 damage per second, and a whopping 146 shields, for the same tonnage budget.

Do note that I've ignored the cost of carrying enough MSP to ever manage a single repair of the only firecontrol on the ship, which swings things further towards the inferior tech shield heavy ship.  80,000 MSP costs you quite a bit of tonnage, its just far too messy to work out in excel.

So, you get 4x36hs shields.  Which means you have 1440 hp base, at 189.7% strength for 2732hp more shielding than them, and 4.8hp/sec regen.  This lets you sustain the abuse indefinitely beyond 1.1mkm, or last for 15.595 minutes at 700kkm over which you can do 11500 damage with strength 25 hits.

If they could kite you to death now, then they still can, with a narrow 300,000 window to do it in where you cannot respond.  If you can get the closure to 1000km/s, you can close that gap in just 300 seconds, 5 minutes, you'll survive 15+.



Mesons get to play with ranges up to 10.08mkm, you are gonna get a little chewed up on the way in.  Have HTK to spare.  Spend your excess, if any, on armor.  To have that range, they'll need an FC of at least 10.08mkm, a multiplier of 58, for an FC tonnage of 1450, and 10 weapons, at 1250 tons, it costs them 13950 tons.

Now, one would think that mesons bypassing shields and armor become king.  Except, in c# they don't entirely bypass armor, they may be stopped by it, you can weather this storm, somewhat.  7% chance to not penetrate at maximum tech, 93% chance they do penetrate per layer of armor.  You can make a max tech warship at around 35ktons easily enough.  Putting 6 layers of armor, 6 shields, 2 16HS x2.15 engines, and 14 Large fuel + 1 Normal gives a 35kt warship that can do 70kkm/s over 20bkm and still have 22ktons for mission package.  Plenty of headroom to load the 15.5kton weapons package above. 

So lets drop two engine tiers to plasma core engines, .16 fuel, and drop two tiers in armor. 35ktons, 9 45hs x3.0 engines, and 53 Normal Fuel tanks, and I get a warship that can do 106.5kkms over 9.5bkm 10 particle beams as above.  6 layers of armor leaves just enough mission package to carry adequate MSP and a simple sensor, very short endurance.  We've a closure of 36kkm/s if they attempt to run.  A lucky strike could send us packing, we can lose 2 engines before they can close in on us.

We can close the range in 260 seconds, or 7 firing cycles before we can retaliate.  So I will assume they get shots every 1340kkm of range closed in, starting from 1000kkm outwards, so the first shot as closing would occur at 10.076mkm.  They have a 93% chance to penetrate armor per layer and we have 6 layers, so they have a 64.7% chance of getting an internal hit per actual hit, they've got 10 weapons.  The first salvo at 9.04mkm nets 0.667 hits, 7.7mkm nets 1.53 hits, 6.36 nets 2.39, 5.02 -> 3.24, 3.68 -> 4.1, 2.34 -> 4.97, 1 -> 5.83, sum total of 22.7 hits, call it 23.

We have 207HTk in just engines, comprising 69.9% of all hits.  50HTk in fuel, 44 HTK in crew, 12 in engineering.  In DAC, 415-558 is particle beams, 562-565 is fire control, 610 is search sensor, 674-682 are reactors.  Those comprise just 155, out of a total of 686, or 77.4% of internal hits are going to be absorbed by systems not critical to killing the opponent - though engines can really only afford one loss.

She's short legged, but can win her fight by taking 65% engine/fuel, can't go hunting, but if they come to her...



Can you overcome a min-maxed warship on the same tonnage that has tech advantage?  Probably not.  Can you build a tech disadvantaged warship to kill an advantaged warship?  Absolutely.  Can two ships of equal tech deal with their shortcomings?  Certainly.

Only way the Meson holds its range advantage for same tech, is equal or greater investment into engines, or lesser tonnage.  Both require you decrease weaponry, c# imposes a penalty to having few rapidly firing weapons, that 2% failure will bite you.  Over 34 shots, its 50/50 that a weapon fails.  The Meson wants its range, it needs to splurge on an FC, that hands the speed advantage, or the quantity advantage, or the defence advantage tot he competitor.

To get that disadvantaged in a fight between equals, one of you wasn't teching at all, or the other was handed the advantage as a handicap.

I still don't see this as the insurmountable task its been made to be. 

See attached for the particle beam/meson warships specc'ed out.  Keep in mind I stacked multiple FC's to consume tonnage as if it were bigger—as if the multiplier allowed such ranges, and over stocked MSP to allow replacement of the FC, which is the biggest cost in both ships.
Posted by: alex_brunius
« on: December 07, 2019, 03:03:25 AM »

Shields can force the main fighting to be within 5 light seconds anyways.

I don't see the problem.

And how well does those shields work against particle beams ( which retain full damage out to max range ) or against mesons ( which ignore shields )?
Posted by: amram
« on: December 07, 2019, 02:09:46 AM »

In all seriousness can we just say that aurora TN beams are FTL and therefore can have range beyond the distance light can travel in 5 second increments?  The sensors are already FTL, so there is clearly some way to physically interact with stuff at FTL speeds.

The 5 second limit isn't because of light speed - that is just the convenient technobabble.

The real reason is that longer-range beams would unbalance the game. Currently, if you are out-ranged in a beam conflict, you at least have the chance to build faster ships and close the range. You'll take damage, but it isn't game over. If beam ranges become much longer, then speed becomes irrelevant and longest range wins every time.

Could we get that made optional?

Shields will go a long way towards mitigating the difference.  Whats more, assuming we simply get increased multipliers on FC's to be able to use the full range of weapons, the MSP, resource, and research costs become absolutely insane.

A max tech advanced spinal might have a 45mkm range, but over about 22mkm it does a paltry 1 damage, on a 80 second recharge, which means 0.0125dps on less than 50% chance to hit, a single shield 2 tiers from max has 10 HP and 300 second recharge, which lets it regen with 0.0333hp/s on 100% chance.  Long range, a single shield cannot be broken by three lasers, much less one.

If we go with 80cm far gamma capacitor 25 RoF 35 lasers, so we can stack more than one(without gamey tricks), you'd need an FC that can reach 20.16mkm.  That's a 121x multiplier on an FC, about 30 times the current maximum.  That suggests an MSP repair cost of about 80,000, and an equally absurd resource and research cost to produce.

Bring 10 such lasers along, you get 10 damage across nearly half your range, and that is with low chances to hit targets, less than 50% out beyond the rated FC range. If we assume an average around 37.5%, which works out to range around 12.6mkm, you only get 0.0107 damage per second per laser, 0.107 total.  We can easily resist this indefinitely with just 4 shields.

Suppose our opponent could only muster 60cm near gamma capacitor 16 RoF 30, and brings 10 of those, an all things equal sort of ship.  They're 300 tons lighter, so they could, if they wanted, spend that mass on shields, which nets them 60 shields.    it gets better, they don't need a 121x multiplier on their FC, so if we step down 2 tiers in tech, then its not 175kkm, its 125kkm, and they don't need 20.16mkm range, they only need 9.4, so a 76 multiplier.  The FC is 550 tons lighter, which is another 10 shields we can bring along.

If we assume the shields are also 2 tiers down, thats 10hp and 300s to recharge.  Those can reliably recharge at 0.0333 hp/sec, and there are 70 of them, for a combined 2.333hp/sec, and 700hp of resistance.  The 80cm lasers cannot hurt it at long range.  They cannot penetrate the shielding until you close to around 2.01mkm, as they start doing 10 damage apiece, when they reach an average of 2.572dmg/sec.  For a sanity check, 10/35 is 0.29 damage per second each, or 2.9 damage per second for 10 weapons.  At 10% of range, so 90% hit chance for an equivalent range FC, as above, which lowers the average sustained to 2.6, rounding errors.

We can resist as long as we wish pretty much. 

Lets make it an 1.4mkm, current maximum.  They hit for 14 damage apiece, averaging 3.72dps overall.  We can resist that for 9.4 minutes.

Those were 7.1 shields, its even better with c# shields.  We get 70HS of shielding, lets run 2x35 HS, which if I understand things correctly, means it'd be (under the same hp/tech, which I am unsure of) 187.1% stronger than standard, which means instead of 700hp, we get 1310hp, but the same basic rate(because the shields take proportionally longer to recharge fully).  Now we can resist for 17.65 minutes.

If you're only 1.4mkm out, how much harm could we do in return with 10 60cm lasers?  Well, 10 60cm Near Gamma with capacitor 16, 2 tiers down in all relevant tech, reach to 9.4mkm.  We can hit back.  Whats more, we can hit fairly strongly too, managing 2.553 damage per second, in salvos that average 51.1 damage, each laser doing 6 damage on 85% chance to hit.

Every second the fight goes on at 1.4mkm, they do more damage than we do, but they have more shields to shields to work through than we do.  By the time they bust down our shields, after 17.65 minutes, we've had 35 salvos, and done 1788 damage to armor/hull.  The max tech advanced spinal isn't any help either, just 32 damage at 1.4mkm, on an 80 second recharge, for 0.387dmg/sec, we can resist that indefinitely.

If we have weaker energy weaponry, we just need more shielding than they have, to force them to come closer to overcome our shielding, which lets us hit back.  Having enough shields brings them close enough that we can also bring their shields down.

Shields can force the main fighting to be within 5 light seconds anyways.

I don't see the problem.
Posted by: Jorgen_CAB
« on: December 06, 2019, 07:47:51 PM »

Yes... the battle of Jutland was a huge example of command failure and not a specific ship design being bad. If you use a the wrong tool for the job you might also expect the results to match.

Even if Great Britain walked of with a strategic victory it was a tactical blunder and embarrassment.
Posted by: Hazard
« on: December 06, 2019, 07:15:21 PM »

Great Britain didn't have fast big gun battleships in that battle.

Great Britain had a doctrine which fielded battlecruisers; long ranged, fast ships with relatively big guns. But when designing ships you are trading on 3 traits in a given displacement; speed, protection, firepower. The British battlecruisers focused on speed and firepower, and were never meant to get into the battleship line. Rather, they were supposed to beat off enemy cruisers and battleships when in the cruiser line, focusing particularly on the cruisers and stalling the battleships from closing in while friendly battleships moved in to take over.

Jutland however, saw those low armour battlecruisers face off against battleships, with similar bore guns but much better protection. This then combined with British doctrine requiring as rapid fire as possible, causing a number of munitions handling safety regulations to be systematically ignored meant that whenever a German ship managed to land a hefty enough blow on a British battlecruiser's turret and penetrate, ignite the stacked propellant and shells in the turret itself, and that fire then flashed down into the magazine spaces, igniting the propellant and shells there.

The results were to be expected with the magazines blowing up. Having your magazine blow up inside your ship tends to do horrible things to the ship, so...


Had those battlecruisers faced off against enemy cruisers, which generally fielded smaller guns to the battlecruisers and would have difficulty penetrating, but with similar armour protection facing off against the battlecruisers' bigger guns, the battlecruisers would've done pretty well for themselves.

It's notable that while the German fleet got pretty heavily damaged, they lost fewer ships and IIRC much fewer crew than the British did.
Posted by: QuakeIV
« on: December 06, 2019, 05:41:48 PM »

That kind of reminds me of battleship combat honestly, like how the British navy had fast big gun battleships during the great war and said 'speed is our armor', then they suffered a rather severe defeat where some idiot admiral willingly chose to close the distance in spite of that being completely against doctrine.

e: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Jutland

Overall makes sense though I suppose.
Posted by: Steve Walmsley
« on: December 06, 2019, 04:20:36 PM »

In all seriousness can we just say that aurora TN beams are FTL and therefore can have range beyond the distance light can travel in 5 second increments?  The sensors are already FTL, so there is clearly some way to physically interact with stuff at FTL speeds.

The 5 second limit isn't because of light speed - that is just the convenient technobabble.

The real reason is that longer-range beams would unbalance the game. Currently, if you are out-ranged in a beam conflict, you at least have the chance to build faster ships and close the range. You'll take damage, but it isn't game over. If beam ranges become much longer, then speed becomes irrelevant and longest range wins every time.
Posted by: Jorgen_CAB
« on: December 06, 2019, 04:12:21 PM »

In all seriousness can we just say that aurora TN beams are FTL and therefore can have range beyond the distance light can travel in 5 second increments?  The sensors are already FTL, so there is clearly some way to physically interact with stuff at FTL speeds.

To be honest I think beams work just fine as is. Beam weapons are still important weapon systems as you don't want ships to be totally defenceless when missiles fail and they are really good for defending a specific point in place such as planets or jump points or used as bombardment weapons.

I don't thin there is anything in particular wrong with missiles being a better weapon for general space superiority purposes.

C# will close the gap and range quite significantly between the two as well so the dynamic might actually change more than we know. With general scouting becoming more of a hide and seek question then beam weapons might become even more important as well, I think we will have to wait and see how the new dynamic will play out.
Posted by: QuakeIV
« on: December 06, 2019, 03:18:44 PM »

In all seriousness can we just say that aurora TN beams are FTL and therefore can have range beyond the distance light can travel in 5 second increments?  The sensors are already FTL, so there is clearly some way to physically interact with stuff at FTL speeds.
Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55