Aurora 4x

C# Aurora => C# Suggestions => Topic started by: Platys51 on December 28, 2020, 01:22:03 PM

Title: Suggestion: Plasma Carronade technology: Direct feed
Post by: Platys51 on December 28, 2020, 01:22:03 PM
Plasma carronades, with little to no choices while designing them are being left behind as other weapons gain more uniqueness and design choices such as Lances, Spinal Lasers or upcoming reduced railguns.

And so, I propose unique tech for plasma carronade, which is by now least interesting weapon system with only capacitor and size techs.

Direct feed would do simple thing. Connect plasma weapon directly to reactor. Effect? Set recharge rate of plasma weapon to 5s. No matter the size or recharge tech.

Ofcourse, to offset this MASSIVE buff, weapon would have lowered HTK, higher power draw and upon being destroyed, said weapon would explode with force of reactor of size equal to its power draw. Extra cost and size would probably have to be added too to not make carronades too OP.

Anyway, details would be up to Steve. Im just throwing out nice idea I had. What I would like from this tech is lower tech navies with extra dakka up close. And a LOT of explosions. On both sides.
Title: Re: Suggestion: Plasma Carronade technology: Direct feed
Post by: nuclearslurpee on December 29, 2020, 12:48:44 AM
It's an interesting idea, however in practical terms I wonder what this actually does to make a plasma carronade a better weapon than it already is? Presently the plasma carronade essentially works like this: if your guns are in range of the target, you win. The check on it is very short range that cannot be improved with technology (although this does make them a very cheap weapon type to research). So realistically, what does making them even deadlier at that short range actually do to make them a more viable or interesting weapon? At the end of the day, if your guns are in range of the target, you still win.

Comparing to the other special mounts, I think there's a clear requirement that a special mount gives its weapon(s) an additional capability that supplements its existing role rather than merely enhancing it. Laser spinal mounts for example provide a supplemental long-range and alpha strike capability to the reliable DPS of standard lasers; turrets for lasers/Gauss/mesons give them point defense capability (in the case of mesons admittedly this is a VB6 holdover); the particle lance turns a decent mid-range sniper weapon into a surgical annihilation device with its unique damage profile; and in 1.13 railguns will gain a reduced shot capability making them a strong fighter weapon in addition to their existing all-around capabilities.

So for a unique plasma mounting option we need something that will give plasma cannons a new dimension or capability, not just more dakka. Given the existing limitations of plasma, this is a difficult order to fill (R.I.P. plasma torpedoes), but a necessary one.

(Incidentally, HP microwaves also suffer from this problem, although I've suggested the idea of mounting HPMs into a missile to produce an EMP bomb elsewhere. That said, their utility is so narrow and specific that it's hard to conceive of a meaningful alternative mounting for them as a beam gun weapon.)
Title: Re: Suggestion: Plasma Carronade technology: Direct feed
Post by: sadoeconomist on December 29, 2020, 04:02:55 AM
I thought looking at the historical usage of carronades might bring up some interesting suggestions for plasma carronades, I agree that they could use some more options as well.  Let's check Wikipedia.
Quote
Its main function was to serve as a powerful, short-range, anti-ship and anti-crew weapon.
Maybe an option that makes carronades cause extra crew/marine deaths? Like Neutron Blasters in MoO.  Radioactive space grapeshot.  That could make them especially useful as a complement for a boarding-focused strategy, which already synergizes with the carronade's point-blank range.  Though, it already sort of does this with its likelihood to cause shock damage.
Quote
The carronade was designed as a short-range naval weapon with a low muzzle velocity for merchant ships
Simplifying gunnery for comparatively untrained merchant seamen in both aiming and reloading was part of the rationale for the gun
Carronades initially became popular on British merchant ships during the American Revolutionary War.
A lightweight gun that needed only a small gun crew and was devastating at short range was well suited to defending merchant ships against French and American privateers.
So. . . maybe commercial ships should be allowed to use plasma carronades? Would that break the game too much? Maybe only let them be used in self-only final defensive fire against boarding attempts?
Quote
The smaller carronades served in three roles.  First, they often constituted the entire armament of unrated vessels.  For instance, the Ballahoo- and Cuckoo-class schooners were armed only with four 12-pounder carronades.  Second, gunboats such as those that the Americans deployed at the Battle of Lake Borgne often had one large 18-, 24-, or 32-pounder gun forward on a pivot, and two smaller carronades aft.  Finally, larger vessels carried a few 12-, 18-, or 24-pounders to arm their ship's boats—cutters, pinnaces, launches, barges, and the like—to give them firepower for boat actions.
Hmm.  Plasma carronades already seem pretty well suited to arming FACs and gunboat/corvette-sized ships.  I don't think they'd need any more special options to be a valid choice for that role.
Title: Re: Suggestion: Plasma Carronade technology: Direct feed
Post by: Gyrfalcon on December 29, 2020, 05:11:42 AM
Commercial ships with carronades would break the game pretty badly. It’s easy to build commercial shipyards to ludicrous sizes, and plasma carronades aren’t that big, so it’d be easy to slather a commercial ship in armor and carronades and use it as a warp point assault ship.
Title: Re: Suggestion: Plasma Carronade technology: Direct feed
Post by: liveware on December 29, 2020, 06:59:32 AM
I quite liked a suggestion posted in another thread:

Add an option to allow for carronades to be equipped to ships which do not have reactors but require reactor-less carronade ships to 'recharge' from a ship that has a large enough reactor and hanger. Each recharge would allow the reactor-less carronade ship to fire a limited number of carronade shots (maybe 1-5?) and then it would have to return to base for another recharge. This would make carronades very unique and allow them to maintain their existing advantages while providing potential boost to reactor-less carronade ships which could leverage their reactor space for more armor/engines/weapons/etc...
Title: Re: Suggestion: Plasma Carronade technology: Direct feed
Post by: kilo on December 29, 2020, 07:25:38 AM
On wooden ships the carronade was  used on the upper decks it had a short barrel but a high caliber. This allowed the nations to place short ranged and inaccurate guns in positions, which could otherwise only be used for small guns. How could that be done in Aurora?

If I was Steve, I would introduce a modifier like the one we have with Gauss or will get with Rails. Gauss can trade mass vs accuracy, Rails can trade RoF vs tonnage. Maybe Steve could give Plasma a mass vs range modifier. This would give players the opportunity to build smaller guns with higher damage falloff or larger guns with a smaller one.
Title: Re: Suggestion: Plasma Carronade technology: Direct feed
Post by: Droll on December 29, 2020, 10:58:40 AM
I quite liked a suggestion posted in another thread:

Add an option to allow for carronades to be equipped to ships which do not have reactors but require reactor-less carronade ships to 'recharge' from a ship that has a large enough reactor and hanger. Each recharge would allow the reactor-less carronade ship to fire a limited number of carronade shots (maybe 1-5?) and then it would have to return to base for another recharge. This would make carronades very unique and allow them to maintain their existing advantages while providing potential boost to reactor-less carronade ships which could leverage their reactor space for more armor/engines/weapons/etc...

The problem I see with this is that reactors don't actually take up that much space to begin with.
Title: Re: Suggestion: Plasma Carronade technology: Direct feed
Post by: liveware on December 29, 2020, 12:10:09 PM
I quite liked a suggestion posted in another thread:

Add an option to allow for carronades to be equipped to ships which do not have reactors but require reactor-less carronade ships to 'recharge' from a ship that has a large enough reactor and hanger. Each recharge would allow the reactor-less carronade ship to fire a limited number of carronade shots (maybe 1-5?) and then it would have to return to base for another recharge. This would make carronades very unique and allow them to maintain their existing advantages while providing potential boost to reactor-less carronade ships which could leverage their reactor space for more armor/engines/weapons/etc...

The problem I see with this is that reactors don't actually take up that much space to begin with.

This is true. Some further refinement is probably in order. Maybe some adjustment to the recharge rate of normal carronades is in order... they are already very potent alpha strike weapons. I'm not sure how useful they are in their current state in terms of pure DPS as I've always considered them an alpha strike weapon.
Title: Re: Suggestion: Plasma Carronade technology: Direct feed
Post by: Droll on December 29, 2020, 12:21:43 PM
I quite liked a suggestion posted in another thread:

Add an option to allow for carronades to be equipped to ships which do not have reactors but require reactor-less carronade ships to 'recharge' from a ship that has a large enough reactor and hanger. Each recharge would allow the reactor-less carronade ship to fire a limited number of carronade shots (maybe 1-5?) and then it would have to return to base for another recharge. This would make carronades very unique and allow them to maintain their existing advantages while providing potential boost to reactor-less carronade ships which could leverage their reactor space for more armor/engines/weapons/etc...

The problem I see with this is that reactors don't actually take up that much space to begin with.

This is true. Some further refinement is probably in order. Maybe some adjustment to the recharge rate of normal carronades is in order... they are already very potent alpha strike weapons. I'm not sure how useful they are in their current state in terms of pure DPS as I've always considered them an alpha strike weapon.

I personally like carronades as an STO weapon - cheapness means that the STO formation doesn't take a decade plus STOs are likely to fire at ships that are close to the planet anyways.
And then the alpha strike is quite good when you need to one-shot a troop transport
Title: Re: Suggestion: Plasma Carronade technology: Direct feed
Post by: xenoscepter on December 29, 2020, 02:55:37 PM
 - I've made quite a few suggestions on HPM, Mesons and Plasma Carronades. The one I like for Carronades is the use of fuel rather than power to fire them. These could end up having reduced mass as well, allowing them to be more useful on Fighters and FACs as well as making them an attractive "weapon of last resort" or Anti-Fuel Based Carronade option for bigger ships.

 - Perhaps a "Plasma Array" for mounting options? It 's a battery of 'em and fires 2-4 shots rather than one, but weighs more and use more power. Basically the reduced railgun, but in reverse. Perhaps an Extended Range version that doubles the size and quadruples the power requirements, but triples the range and doubles the damage per shot? Maybe have the ability to combine them for a truly massive weapon?

 - I don't know, I'm just spitballin' here. :P
Title: Re: Suggestion: Plasma Carronade technology: Direct feed
Post by: Migi on December 29, 2020, 04:41:06 PM
My 2 cents:
1) make plasma cannons more effective against shields because there isn't a dedicated anti-shield weapon yet.
 1a) straight 2x damage vs shields because it's simple
 1b) +1 damage at base, can be increased by +1 per level by tech. This would make different permutations possible.
 1c) plasma damage increases shield recharge time by +1 seconds per point of damage, which wears off after 1 hour
Title: Re: Suggestion: Plasma Carronade technology: Direct feed
Post by: Needler on December 29, 2020, 04:53:05 PM
Maybe a Anti-Missile function similar to the EDM from Starfire? Kicks out a Plasma Cloud that Fools the missile into Detonating early or late.  Maybe 15-20% chance Self Only, with a 1-3% at Fleet Level.  With the salvo sizes Ive been seeing in game even this would help. 
Title: Re: Suggestion: Plasma Carronade technology: Direct feed
Post by: TheTalkingMeowth on December 29, 2020, 05:08:00 PM
My 2 cents:
1) make plasma cannons more effective against shields because there isn't a dedicated anti-shield weapon yet.
 1a) straight 2x damage vs shields because it's simple
 1b) +1 damage at base, can be increased by +1 per level by tech. This would make different permutations possible.
 1c) plasma damage increases shield recharge time by +1 seconds per point of damage, which wears off after 1 hour
HPM do triple damage versus shields.
Title: Re: Suggestion: Plasma Carronade technology: Direct feed
Post by: Bluebreaker on December 29, 2020, 06:15:00 PM
My 2 cents:
1) make plasma cannons more effective against shields because there isn't a dedicated anti-shield weapon yet.
 1a) straight 2x damage vs shields because it's simple
 1b) +1 damage at base, can be increased by +1 per level by tech. This would make different permutations possible.
 1c) plasma damage increases shield recharge time by +1 seconds per point of damage, which wears off after 1 hour
HPM do triple damage versus shields.
Yes triple sounds impresive, until you remember HPM always do 1 damage.
Title: Re: Suggestion: Plasma Carronade technology: Direct feed
Post by: Migi on December 29, 2020, 06:31:34 PM
My 2 cents:
1) make plasma cannons more effective against shields because there isn't a dedicated anti-shield weapon yet.
 1a) straight 2x damage vs shields because it's simple
 1b) +1 damage at base, can be increased by +1 per level by tech. This would make different permutations possible.
 1c) plasma damage increases shield recharge time by +1 seconds per point of damage, which wears off after 1 hour
HPM do triple damage versus shields.
Yes triple sounds impresive, until you remember HPM always do 1 damage.
Larger HPM should do more damage as a matter of principal, you use more power, you get more damage.
Even +1 damage per caliber would make them a proper anti-shield weapon. (And make my argument for plasma becoming anti-shield redundant).
Title: Re: Suggestion: Plasma Carronade technology: Direct feed
Post by: xenoscepter on December 29, 2020, 06:47:57 PM
 - Honestly, both Mesons and HPMs should have some sort of damage scaling... I wonder if that's a matter of a simple DB edit?
Title: Re: Suggestion: Plasma Carronade technology: Direct feed
Post by: nuclearslurpee on December 29, 2020, 06:58:45 PM
- Honestly, both Mesons and HPMs should have some sort of damage scaling... I wonder if that's a matter of a simple DB edit?

I checked and it is not.

Since Steve did update railguns a bit for 1.13 I think we can hope that he will look at mesons and HPMs in future updates, certainly I can't imagine he's happy with the current state of those weapon types either. Plasma I think is as good as it will get aside from the possibility of a creative mounting option, since right now it fills its niche very well and the issue is that the niche in question is questionably useful. Mesons and HPMs are just straight-up weak choices even within their niches, and while the idea of having specialized secondary weapons is neat in theory it doesn't fit well with Aurora's research model, with Gauss being really the major exception just because of how important point defense is.
Title: Re: Suggestion: Plasma Carronade technology: Direct feed
Post by: TallTroll on August 03, 2021, 01:47:29 PM
>> and HPMs should have some sort of damage scaling

HPMs already have damage scaling... use them as fighter/FAC weapons. You do need a bit of tech to make them work as fighter weapons, but a couple of dozen will bring down the shields and wipe out the sensors of pretty much any target that doesn't VASTLY outtech you in under a minute. You do then need a Plan B to do actual damage
Title: Re: Suggestion: Plasma Carronade technology: Direct feed
Post by: Garfunkel on August 03, 2021, 10:41:55 PM
I've always disliked Mesons so I can't think of anything with them and I agree that Plasma Carronade is fine as it is, especially since it's a quick way to boost your ground force damage output in early game.

For HPM, the one thing that would make them more useful is if microwaves would fry engines in addition to electronics. That would make them the ultimate boarding weapon - take down shields, blind fire controls and sensors, disable engines, send in the marines.

I don't think it would be overpowered compared to other weapons because it would still only do 1 pt of damage per shot meaning that you need lot of weapons to disable a ship quickly since engines have plenty of HTK. Plus, HPM range is on the shorter side of things so enemy lasers / particle beams will definitely put up a proper fight.
Title: Re: Suggestion: Plasma Carronade technology: Direct feed
Post by: serger on August 03, 2021, 11:31:40 PM
It will be a weakening of HPM, because their main advantage is an ability to make a target combat-ineffective quickly, and if engines will be vulnerable - they'll absorb microwaves before FCs went down, so more expected time of return fire.
Title: Re: Suggestion: Plasma Carronade technology: Direct feed
Post by: Garfunkel on August 04, 2021, 08:27:42 AM
True but there would still be a DAC roll. Depending on whether engines are just one slot in that table or 1-slot-per-HTK will make a huge difference and something that can be tested and modified.
Title: Re: Suggestion: Plasma Carronade technology: Direct feed
Post by: ExChairman on August 04, 2021, 11:09:28 AM
Make it more like old Starfire where plasma guns fired "pellets"  of plasma, doing heavy damage, it was possible to intercept these "pellets" with missile defences. Make it short ranged, interceptable and powerfull as a last tech for carronades...

Or that might be a problem with SF copyright...
Title: Re: Suggestion: Plasma Carronade technology: Direct feed
Post by: nuclearslurpee on August 04, 2021, 11:28:42 AM
Make it more like old Starfire where plasma guns fired "pellets"  of plasma, doing heavy damage, it was possible to intercept these "pellets" with missile defences. Make it short ranged, interceptable and powerfull as a last tech for carronades...

Or that might be a problem with SF copyright...

I think these or similar were in VB6 as the legendary Plasma Torpedoes but have not made an appearance in the C# version.
Title: Re: Suggestion: Plasma Carronade technology: Direct feed
Post by: iceball3 on August 04, 2021, 02:37:40 PM
It's an interesting idea, however in practical terms I wonder what this actually does to make a plasma carronade a better weapon than it already is? Presently the plasma carronade essentially works like this: if your guns are in range of the target, you win. The check on it is very short range that cannot be improved with technology (although this does make them a very cheap weapon type to research). So realistically, what does making them even deadlier at that short range actually do to make them a more viable or interesting weapon? At the end of the day, if your guns are in range of the target, you still win.
Actually, I did an analysis on the vanilla plasma carronade a few years ago, and came to a pretty damning conclusion; Plasma carronades are completely identical to same-size infrared-tech lasers, excepting a few differences.
-Infrared lasers cost WAY less.
-Carronades have slightly reduced crew requirements.
-Carronades have a wide penetration profile, more like missiles, so penetrate less layers of armor in a given hit on a fresh segment.

In essence, plasma carronades in any size are 100% obsolete once you research the corresponding size laser, and entirely obsolete for single mounts once you have spinal laser mounts. The only point to researching them is to essentially have larger infrared lasers for fewer tech points, which is... not great, because you're essentially forsaking every other laser technology role in the process. I'm almost certain railguns will outperform it in all except lategame tech shock-damage roles, due to the extra capacitor and weight efficiency of the weapon system.
Hell, lasers even beat it in the point blank alpha strike department anyway because you can just build a battery of infrared lasers with reduced size tech. An incredibly cheap battery too.

I'd like to restate again that carronades are physically identical to flat stock infrared lasers of same size, including the part where they suffer damage falloff, so you necessarily have to hug in 10kkm range to actually do that damage, which entirely requires you have higher initiative than the fleet you're engaging on top of being faster.
It's not great, honestly. I was kind of hoping that carronades would've been directly re-fluffed as specialized planetary bombardment weapon with the ground combat update, so at least it's current stats could be justified as it's essentially the stat spread of an improvisation of a space-to-surface weapon, turned against ships.
Title: Re: Suggestion: Plasma Carronade technology: Direct feed
Post by: Droll on August 04, 2021, 03:18:47 PM
It's an interesting idea, however in practical terms I wonder what this actually does to make a plasma carronade a better weapon than it already is? Presently the plasma carronade essentially works like this: if your guns are in range of the target, you win. The check on it is very short range that cannot be improved with technology (although this does make them a very cheap weapon type to research). So realistically, what does making them even deadlier at that short range actually do to make them a more viable or interesting weapon? At the end of the day, if your guns are in range of the target, you still win.
Actually, I did an analysis on the vanilla plasma carronade a few years ago, and came to a pretty damning conclusion; Plasma carronades are completely identical to same-size infrared-tech lasers, excepting a few differences.
-Infrared lasers cost WAY less.
-Carronades have slightly reduced crew requirements.
-Carronades have a wide penetration profile, more like missiles, so penetrate less layers of armor in a given hit on a fresh segment.

In essence, plasma carronades in any size are 100% obsolete once you research the corresponding size laser, and entirely obsolete for single mounts once you have spinal laser mounts. The only point to researching them is to essentially have larger infrared lasers for fewer tech points, which is... not great, because you're essentially forsaking every other laser technology role in the process. I'm almost certain railguns will outperform it in all except lategame tech shock-damage roles, due to the extra capacitor and weight efficiency of the weapon system.
Hell, lasers even beat it in the point blank alpha strike department anyway because you can just build a battery of infrared lasers with reduced size tech. An incredibly cheap battery too.

I'd like to restate again that carronades are physically identical to flat stock infrared lasers of same size, including the part where they suffer damage falloff, so you necessarily have to hug in 10kkm range to actually do that damage, which entirely requires you have higher initiative than the fleet you're engaging on top of being faster.
It's not great, honestly. I was kind of hoping that carronades would've been directly re-fluffed as specialized planetary bombardment weapon with the ground combat update, so at least it's current stats could be justified as it's essentially the stat spread of an improvisation of a space-to-surface weapon, turned against ships.

Yeah carronades are only useful if you want to get high ground forces weapons tech. But generally speaking having a stronger space force is better than having a strong ground force. So lasers > carronades.
Title: Re: Suggestion: Plasma Carronade technology: Direct feed
Post by: nuclearslurpee on August 04, 2021, 03:35:03 PM
The only point to researching them is to essentially have larger infrared lasers for fewer tech points, which is... not great, because you're essentially forsaking every other laser technology role in the process.

This is actually a huge benefit to plasma carronades, because that "fewer tech points" part is actually a massive difference bordering on order of magnitude.

For example, a base-tech plasma carronade:

Off-Topic: 15 cm C1 Plasma Carronade • show

Damage Output 6     Rate of Fire 30 seconds
Max Range 60,000 km     Carronade Size 4 HS  (200 tons)    Carronade HTK 2
Power Requirement 6    Recharge Rate 1
Cost 2.4    Crew 8
Development Cost 109 RP

Materials Required
Duranium  0.5
Corundium  1.4
Boronide  0.5

This can be built out of the box on a TN start (500 RP after TN Tech on a conventional start) for a very low 109 RP component research cost.

By contrast a 15 cm infrared laser:

Off-Topic: 10.0cm C1 Infrared Laser • show

Damage Output 6    Rate of Fire 30 seconds     Range Modifier 10,000
Max Range 60,000 km     Laser Size 5 HS  (250 tons)     Laser HTK 2
Power Requirement 6    Recharge Rate 1
Cost 2.4    Crew 15
Development Cost 109 RP

Materials Required
Duranium  0.5
Boronide  0.5
Corundium  1.4

has the same development cost but requires 6000 RP (7000 on a conventional start) to develop the same capability.

Okay, but that's early game tech which doesn't matter that much, even on a conventional start it isn't hard to invest a couple years and a few dozen labs to get something shiny. What about later in the game? Well, for a total of 30k RP (i.e., 15k RP for the last tech) we can have a 40 cm carronade:

Off-Topic: 40 cm C1 Plasma Carronade • show

Damage Output 40     Rate of Fire 200 seconds
Max Range 400,000 km     Carronade Size 12 HS  (600 tons)    Carronade HTK 6
Power Requirement 40    Recharge Rate 1
Cost 6.3    Crew 24
Development Cost 177 RP

Materials Required
Duranium  1.3
Corundium  3.8
Boronide  1.3

For 30k RP that actually looks pretty nice, but what about lasers? Well, for 30k RP we can either have this not nearly so impressive-looking 25 cm laser:

Off-Topic: 25.0cm C1 Infrared Laser • show

Damage Output 16    Rate of Fire 80 seconds     Range Modifier 10,000
Max Range 160,000 km     Laser Size 8 HS  (400 tons)     Laser HTK 4
Power Requirement 16    Recharge Rate 1
Cost 4    Crew 24
Development Cost 141 RP

Materials Required
Duranium  0.8
Boronide  0.8
Corundium  2.4

...ugh. Or, we could split our research between caliber and wavelength techs, as God Steve intended, and deploy something like this:

Off-Topic: 20.0cm C1 Ultraviolet Laser • show

Damage Output 10    Rate of Fire 50 seconds     Range Modifier 40,000
Max Range 400,000 km     Laser Size 6 HS  (300 tons)     Laser HTK 3
Power Requirement 10    Recharge Rate 1
Cost 12.6    Crew 18
Development Cost 250 RP

Materials Required
Duranium  2.5
Boronide  2.5
Corundium  7.6

That looks a lot better. The alpha damage is a lot less, but it's half the size and fires 4x faster at the same maximum range (so probably limited by BFC tech at this point in the tech tree). It is however more expensive (~2x the cost per weapon, ~4x the cost per ton), and of course with such low alpha damage for lasers the "plasma bomber" approach still runs a good chance of decimating a fleet if a close-range ambush can be pulled off, such as when defending against a JP assault which conveniently enough is one of the main use cases for plasma.

It is worth pointing out that if we want to deploy a 40cm laser, the required RP investment in caliber tech only would be 245k RP, a factor of eight times more RP than to deploy a 40cm plasma carronade. Again, the RP difference is an order of magnitude difference and is not a negligible consideration.

This RP-cheap nature also makes plasma carronades a very effective research target for boosting the ground forces racial attack level, as for the same nominal RP investment one gains an additional level of racial attack (and compared to lasers one can even pull two levels ahead since lasers and other weapons require multiple tech lines, although in practice this doesn't always happen due to concurrent investment in missiles or Gauss PD techs). This is another significant consideration when considering how well plasma carronades are balanced from the broader strategic perspective.

Overall I find plasma weapons to be fairly well-balanced, and I like using them as a backup beam weapon in missile-heavy fleets when I do not want to expend a lot of RP into lasers or particle beams at the expense of my missile, sensor, and PD techs. To be clear, for a primary beam weapon I will prefer lasers, railguns, or particle beams every time, but for a secondary or tertiary weapon plasma works well and has its own advantages so in my view it is quite usable. I think the mistake many players make is that the compare plasma to lasers on the premise that all beam weapon types should be equally viable and "balanced" as a primary fleet armament, which simply is not how Aurora is balanced nor should it be. It is entirely okay for some beam weapon types to be narrow and specialized, as long as they still have a useful niche in the game I think "balance" is achieved. Thus in my view, plasma is balanced in the same manner as HPMs and Gauss cannons as a viable secondary weapon (mesons, however, I have yet to find a compelling argument or use case for and I maintain they have been over-nerfed due to their power in VB6).
Title: Re: Suggestion: Plasma Carronade technology: Direct feed
Post by: Garfunkel on August 04, 2021, 07:58:46 PM
I think many players don't take the RP cost into consideration because if you're doing a "normal" game start with 1 NPR and some spoilers, paying 40k RP vs 4k RP isn't that big of a deal - in most cases you have the time to wait for that laser research to advance and you're not in a hurry to get a weapon out there.

Now, if you do a conventional multi-race start, then the RP cost becomes a hugely important factor and for those players who do that sort of thing, plasma is entirely viable weapon tech to go for. Plus, it's good for emergencies - if you forget to research lasers or RG or missiles and run into hostiles one jump away from Sol, plasma carronades are your best friend unless you have so many labs you can crash research other weapons in a week.
Title: Re: Suggestion: Plasma Carronade technology: Direct feed
Post by: iceball3 on August 05, 2021, 06:11:15 AM
I forgot that Steve added in ground forces weapon systems, that's actually pretty relevant! It's now a ground forces tech :P
Title: Re: Suggestion: Plasma Carronade technology: Direct feed
Post by: Jorgen_CAB on August 06, 2021, 03:53:24 PM
Also add that Plasma weapons are extremely effective as ground to space weapons for the time and research you put into them. Since size really is not a factor for planetary defences they are very efficient weapon in terms of research you put into them. If you instead put RP into sensors and fire-controls rather than expensive beam weapon technologies then plasma weapons will show how powerful they actually are.

As I like multi-faction games and know how important the RP cost is then plasma usually is the first weapon system most factions tend to develop as that give them better ground troops and better planetary batteries.

Another effect is that if you only have one large weapon on your ship as a secondary beam defence system you only pay half the cost of the fire-control rather than several laser or rail gun systems for example. It also cut down on research costs as well as fire-control costs.

Plasma only real drawback is that is is bad as a PD weapon, but I think you can generally live with that. Most who develop plasma tech probably also develop gauss cannons for PD at some stage to compensate. Low tech rail-guns also work well as a complement to Plasma weapons until you can afford better PD such as Gauss cannons.

I think that plasma weapons can be a main beam weapon for fleets that rely on beam weapons if paired with gauss technology, especially in slow tech campaigns where it is very unlikely to ever get into late game tech to begin with.