Author Topic: v1.13.0 Changes Discussion Thread  (Read 46770 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Demonius

  • Warrant Officer, Class 1
  • *****
  • Posts: 83
  • Thanked: 25 times
Re: v1.13.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Reply #30 on: November 25, 2020, 05:16:19 AM »
Any fix coming for the Raksha save/load issue or is that even a conceived bug on the to do list yet?
 

Offline DEEPenergy

  • Warrant Officer, Class 2
  • ****
  • Posts: 55
  • Thanked: 35 times
Re: v1.13.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Reply #31 on: November 25, 2020, 07:17:11 AM »
Single shot carronades would be awesome and totally fit into the WW2 naval battles in space feeling that I get from the game :) As it stands now missile-fighters are less fighters and more like carrier launched missile boats
 
The following users thanked this post: Vizzy

Offline TheTalkingMeowth

  • Captain
  • **********
  • T
  • Posts: 494
  • Thanked: 203 times
  • Gold Supporter Gold Supporter : Support the forums with a Gold subscription
    2021 Supporter 2021 Supporter : Donate for 2021
    2022 Supporter 2022 Supporter : Donate for 2022
Re: v1.13.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Reply #32 on: November 25, 2020, 10:12:48 AM »
Any fix coming for the Raksha save/load issue or is that even a conceived bug on the to do list yet?
Oh, is THAT why they keep vanishing?
 

Offline Drakale

  • Warrant Officer, Class 2
  • ****
  • D
  • Posts: 53
  • Thanked: 18 times
Re: v1.13.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Reply #33 on: November 25, 2020, 11:12:34 AM »
Any fix coming for the Raksha save/load issue or is that even a conceived bug on the to do list yet?
Oh, is THAT why they keep vanishing?
Happened to me too, they just vanished on continuing my game. They still have a colony but pacifying it apparently require a completely absurd amount of military forces, like several billions infantry.
 

Offline clement

  • Pulsar 4x Dev
  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • *
  • c
  • Posts: 137
  • Thanked: 13 times
Re: v1.13.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Reply #34 on: November 25, 2020, 01:28:44 PM »
- Thus under these changes Plasma Carronades would become a more robust and interesting weapon system to invest in, without losing their low-cost / low-tech niche. HPMs would become shield-buster / ion cannon-esque weapons, and with the option to turret would double as Anti-Fighter / Anti-FAC against beam-centric foes. Mesons would a lot more useful to research as a main weapon option, since the big ones would give better performance against ships while the turreted small ones remain a viable Anti-Missile / Anti-FAC, with the ones in the 12~15cm range would double as Anti-Fighter weapons. These would make Mesons into an actually threatening weapon, without reverting them to the overpowered monstrosities that they were. Add back them Armored Missiles and suddenly they become very, very attractive options indeed. :)

A different view on Plasma Carronades, I have always seen them as the short range, super high damage weapon of the game. To that end, in my head, they have been a lot like the Plasma Mortars in the The Last Angel stories. In those, the plasma mortar is a short range devastating weapon that hits harder than just about any other energy weapon and then burns. To that end, I would do something like a certain spoiler's weapon.

To that end, I would make it so that when a plasma carronade hits, it does its damage and then each 5 second tick after the hit, it applies "burn" damage to the same armor columns it damaged in the initial hit. The burn damage would be at most 1 armor in each armor column per 5 second tick. The total amount of burn damage that a hit from the plasma carronade could do would be limited to some percentage of the damage the initial hit did. The percentage could start at 50% and you could have a research line to increase this percent, call it Plasma Control. With a research option you could allow more damage to be caused by the burn, even potentially more than the initial hit.


Example: (Numbers are from VB Aurora so not sure if damage number is the same)
25 cm Plasma Carronade: 16 damage
Damage Template: The damage would be across 7 armor columns and be 4 rows deep.

Time 0: Plasma Carronade hits and causes 16 damage
Time 1 (5 seconds after initial hit): 50% of initial damage is 8, 8 units of burn damage remain to be applied. All 7 armor columns would apply a single point of damage, for a total of 7 burn damage. If any columns with no additional armor rows, then the burn damage is applied to internal ship components.
Time 2 (10 seconds after initial hit): 50% of initial damage is 8, 1 unit of burn damage remains to be applied. 1 armor column applies a single point of damage, choose deepest armor column (ie: the middle column in the damage template). If the column(s) have no additional armor rows, then the burn damage is applied to internal ship components. (Stretch goal: apply burn damage to same components as previous increment if they were not destroyed by previous damage)
Time 3 (15 seconds after the initial hit): 50% of initial damage is 8, all damage has been applied so do nothing.

For a max tech Plasma Carronade, you would do 168 initial damage (24 columns wide, 13 columns deep) and burn another 84 damage across 24 columns of armor resulting in another 3+ rows of armor destruction or internal damage.

Now that is a close quarters devastating weapon.


 

Offline Bremen

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • B
  • Posts: 744
  • Thanked: 151 times
Re: v1.13.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Reply #35 on: November 26, 2020, 12:14:04 PM »
Another use for reduced fire rate railguns occured to me - STO weapons. In addition to all the normal benefits (and range is a big one for STOs), STO weapons have the same durability regardless of weapon size. So having multiple smaller guns will make them much harder to destroy if they get in a gun duel with enemy warships.

It does mean extra size spent on extra sensors and fire controls, but for large caliber railguns that would otherwise have low ROF I think it will be extremely worth it.
« Last Edit: November 26, 2020, 12:16:36 PM by Bremen »
 

Offline DFNewb

  • Captain
  • **********
  • D
  • Posts: 508
  • Thanked: 103 times
Re: v1.13.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Reply #36 on: November 26, 2020, 11:14:32 PM »
Super excited about the BFC changes, now my dream of spinal only fleet carried around by civie carriers will happen.
 

Offline xenoscepter

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1159
  • Thanked: 320 times
Re: v1.13.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Reply #37 on: November 26, 2020, 11:55:21 PM »
Another use for reduced fire rate railguns occured to me - STO weapons. In addition to all the normal benefits (and range is a big one for STOs), STO weapons have the same durability regardless of weapon size. So having multiple smaller guns will make them much harder to destroy if they get in a gun duel with enemy warships.

It does mean extra size spent on extra sensors and fire controls, but for large caliber railguns that would otherwise have low ROF I think it will be extremely worth it.

The best par for the bigger calibre guns is that the reduced fire rate Railguns will shoot faster too, on account of reduced power requirements. :D
 

Offline Droll

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • D
  • Posts: 1706
  • Thanked: 599 times
Re: v1.13.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Reply #38 on: December 03, 2020, 07:56:38 PM »
This isn't really a question specific to 1.13 as it regards gene modding.

How will gene modding in C# differ from what it was in VB6?
 

Offline xenoscepter

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1159
  • Thanked: 320 times
Re: v1.13.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Reply #39 on: December 08, 2020, 05:22:20 PM »
So, the Small Boat Bay was changed to only hold 1 HS... or 50 tons. This makes me sad... :(

I liked the 125 Ton bay...
 

Offline Cosinus

  • Warrant Officer, Class 2
  • ****
  • C
  • Posts: 69
  • Thanked: 23 times
Re: v1.13.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Reply #40 on: December 08, 2020, 06:00:18 PM »
Quote
Instant Build to Carriers

Instant Build on the Class window now has an option to build straight into a carrier hangar bay (and assign). This takes away the micro of creating fighters and manually setting the move orders to land on carriers.

I love changes that reduce unnecessary micromanagement. Will something similar be available for non Spacemaster mode as well, eventually?
My first and therefore probably bad idea is a setting in the fighter production menu where you can select a ship class. All built fighters would be assigned to and landed in hangars of any ships of that ship class in orbit around the planet.
 

Offline xenoscepter

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1159
  • Thanked: 320 times
Re: v1.13.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Reply #41 on: December 08, 2020, 06:48:01 PM »
Quote
Instant Build to Carriers

Instant Build on the Class window now has an option to build straight into a carrier hangar bay (and assign). This takes away the micro of creating fighters and manually setting the move orders to land on carriers.

I love changes that reduce unnecessary micromanagement. Will something similar be available for non Spacemaster mode as well, eventually?
My first and therefore probably bad idea is a setting in the fighter production menu where you can select a ship class. All built fighters would be assigned to and landed in hangars of any ships of that ship class in orbit around the planet.

 - Well if you have Build Points you don't need SM. :D
 

Offline StarshipCactus

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • S
  • Posts: 262
  • Thanked: 87 times
Re: v1.13.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Reply #42 on: December 08, 2020, 08:05:07 PM »
Looks like a great list of changes. Thanks Steve.
 

Offline nuclearslurpee

  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • Posts: 3009
  • Thanked: 2265 times
  • Radioactive frozen beverage.
Re: v1.13.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Reply #43 on: December 08, 2020, 10:40:56 PM »
So, the Small Boat Bay was changed to only hold 1 HS... or 50 tons. This makes me sad... :(

I liked the 125 Ton bay...

Since you can have multiple boat bays on a ship, I like this change as it allows more granularity in designing exactly the hangar size you need for a single specialized fighter. For example a fighter of 150 or 200 tons can now be accommodated exactly instead of wasting 50 or 100 tons on extra hangar space.
 

Offline xenoscepter

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1159
  • Thanked: 320 times
Re: v1.13.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Reply #44 on: December 08, 2020, 10:58:51 PM »
So, the Small Boat Bay was changed to only hold 1 HS... or 50 tons. This makes me sad... :(

I liked the 125 Ton bay...

Since you can have multiple boat bays on a ship, I like this change as it allows more granularity in designing exactly the hangar size you need for a single specialized fighter. For example a fighter of 150 or 200 tons can now be accommodated exactly instead of wasting 50 or 100 tons on extra hangar space.

 - But I design a lot of Fighters with 125 or 375 Ton profiles, precisely because they fit in a single Small Boat Bay, or a Small Boat Bay + Boat Bay. :(