Author Topic: v1.13.0 Changes Discussion Thread  (Read 996 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Steve Walmsley (OP)

  • Aurora Designer
  • Star Marshal
  • S
  • Posts: 10179
  • Thanked: 11356 times
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
v1.13.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« on: November 21, 2020, 11:17:22 AM »
Thread for discussion of changes announced for v1.13. Please do not post bug reports or unrelated suggestions in this thread.
 

Offline db48x

  • Commander
  • *********
  • d
  • Posts: 361
  • Thanked: 89 times
Re: v1.13.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Reply #1 on: November 21, 2020, 11:33:59 AM »
Did I miss 1.12.1?
 

Offline Droll

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • D
  • Posts: 608
  • Thanked: 132 times
Re: v1.13.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Reply #2 on: November 21, 2020, 11:39:56 AM »
No but what happened is that 1.12.1 got a DB change, turning it into 1.13.0
 

Offline Garfunkel

  • Registered
  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1947
  • Thanked: 517 times
Re: v1.13.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Reply #3 on: November 21, 2020, 12:07:37 PM »
I don't know Steve if you've seen the Conventional Railgun in Suggestions thread but it would fit well with the reduced shot ones: a 5cm 1-shot Railgun that's available before TN-tech. Though I don't know if it would throw off the weapon level progression for ground forces and if it would play havoc elsewhere. We could power it with a conventional powerplant, meaning that a rudimentary armed space shuttle would be possible!
 
The following users thanked this post: nuclearslurpee

Offline nuclearslurpee

  • Warrant Officer, Class 2
  • ****
  • Posts: 65
  • Thanked: 38 times
  • Radioactive frozen beverage.
Re: v1.13.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Reply #4 on: November 21, 2020, 02:07:22 PM »
I'm a bit unsure what the use case is for reduced shot railguns, since the HS-per-shot is larger as the number of shots is reduced. My best guess is that this is to make railgun fighters more viable?
 

Offline Barkhorn

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • B
  • Posts: 660
  • Thanked: 111 times
Re: v1.13.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Reply #5 on: November 21, 2020, 02:27:31 PM »
I've never understood this.  Why exactly do we have to pick sizes from a list?  Why not let us type in arbitrary values?  I know it can be done, the missile design window and designing command units for ground forces both allow arbitrary values.  So why can't I make a 57.6 size engine or whatever?
 

Offline Steve Walmsley (OP)

  • Aurora Designer
  • Star Marshal
  • S
  • Posts: 10179
  • Thanked: 11356 times
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Re: v1.13.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Reply #6 on: November 21, 2020, 02:36:14 PM »
I've never understood this.  Why exactly do we have to pick sizes from a list?  Why not let us type in arbitrary values?  I know it can be done, the missile design window and designing command units for ground forces both allow arbitrary values.  So why can't I make a 57.6 size engine or whatever?

Missiles and ground forces (and turrets) use bespoke windows. Ship components all use the same dropdowns on the same project window, which means they have to follow some common rules (like choosing from a list). At some point I may create bespoke design windows for each different component (probably tabs on the same window), which would get around the restriction. I would also need to change all the design code to accept different inputs and update the NPR design rules so they don't choose from a list either.
 
The following users thanked this post: serger

Online Bremen

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • B
  • Posts: 612
  • Thanked: 92 times
Re: v1.13.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Reply #7 on: November 21, 2020, 03:17:35 PM »
The reduced shots railguns open the interesting possibility of very small beam fighters, even around 100 tons. That doesn't really make them more effective, in fact four would have less firepower than a single 400 ton fighter, but it does give them a sort of survival enhancement in that you can only shoot one at a time. Previously you could do that with very low accuracy gauss, but... then you were using very low accuracy gauss. The only argument against tiny railgun fighters is micromanagement, and that could easily be reduced by improving fighter management tools (and in truth I haven't played with them enough to say if the micromanagement is even still an issue).

Being able to match your capacitor tech will also make for very high DPS weapons, I think. You get the advantages of a high caliber weapon (like improved range and armor penetration) without the cost of low DPS due to capacitor charge being the same regardless of caliber. And that's on top of railguns already getting a bonus to damage per power use and not using corundium.

I honestly think this change might single-handedly make railguns the king of beam weapons, though I look forward to actually playing around with it.
« Last Edit: November 21, 2020, 03:24:50 PM by Bremen »
 

Offline Zincat

  • Captain
  • **********
  • Z
  • Posts: 507
  • Thanked: 82 times
Re: v1.13.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Reply #8 on: November 21, 2020, 03:19:20 PM »
The single weapons fire control change is great.
My beam fighters will surely benefit from that a lot. I'm also toying with the possibility of making single weapon FCs for my spinal lasers ^^
 

Offline Steve Walmsley (OP)

  • Aurora Designer
  • Star Marshal
  • S
  • Posts: 10179
  • Thanked: 11356 times
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Re: v1.13.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Reply #9 on: November 21, 2020, 03:20:42 PM »
Lasers have spinal weapons and particle beams have lances, so I thought this would make a good 'special ability' for railguns while helping beam fighters.
 
The following users thanked this post: Bremen, DIT_grue, Vasious, nuclearslurpee

Online Bremen

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • B
  • Posts: 612
  • Thanked: 92 times
Re: v1.13.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Reply #10 on: November 21, 2020, 03:51:12 PM »
Lasers have spinal weapons and particle beams have lances, so I thought this would make a good 'special ability' for railguns while helping beam fighters.

I'm going to make a couple of changes for the next version to make beam fighters a little easier, without making them overpowered.

I like the changes so far! After all, beam fighters don't have to be able to beat actual beam warships on a tonnage/cost basis to be practical as a weapon system. If they're even decent they'll still fill a useful role for skirmishing and picking off damaged/solo enemies, and unlike beam warships it's extremely hard to kite or run from them. You'd just have to avoid sending them into range of massed beam battleships.

Even if it ends up as simple as Missiles beat Beams which beat fighters which beat missiles, that's a matchup that rewards combined arms, and in truth it's likely to end up much more complex than that. I know I'll be much more worried about unescorted missile ships if swarms of tiny railgun fighters are a threat.
 

Offline Platys51

  • Leading Rate
  • *
  • Posts: 8
  • Thanked: 16 times
Re: v1.13.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Reply #11 on: November 21, 2020, 04:10:41 PM »
Quote from: Steve Walmsley link=topic=12088. msg143336#msg143336 date=1605993642
Lasers have spinal weapons and particle beams have lances, so I thought this would make a good 'special ability' for railguns while helping beam fighters.
Is there a plan to add something special to carronades too? I love the weapon, but designing one hurts with only 2 options.

That said, love all the changes so far.  Beam fighters needing to be reduced laser or gauss always threw me off of them as both of these come with big disadvantages.  Reduced rails look like the thing to bridge the gap between big alpha strike and volume of ineffective fire those 2 provide.
 
The following users thanked this post: papent, nuclearslurpee

Offline Droll

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • D
  • Posts: 608
  • Thanked: 132 times
Re: v1.13.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Reply #12 on: November 21, 2020, 04:11:03 PM »
The only argument against tiny railgun fighters is micromanagement, and that could easily be reduced by improving fighter management tools (and in truth I haven't played with them enough to say if the micromanagement is even still an issue).

I think mass fighter management is only a problem in the context of ground support fighters. Right now large numbers of CAS is literally unuseable because of having to one by one drag each fighter to a formation to support it. This is made worse by the fact that you cannot scroll the ground OOB menu while dragging fighters meaning that after a certain amount you become forced to split your CAS into a massive amount wings, cluttering the naval OOB menu. I say this with a force that "only" has 42 CAS fighters in 7 wings of six.
 

Online froggiest1982

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • f
  • Posts: 744
  • Thanked: 251 times
Re: v1.13.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Reply #13 on: November 21, 2020, 05:42:39 PM »
These changes are going to work well with my next project:

4 or 5 player controlled races starting in different systems. No NPRs or aliens in general, small galaxy 150 stars.

Special rules: no missiles on fighters, no launchers on ship only box launchers.

The idea was to have mostly dogfighting and close combat after first deadly alpha strikes

Offline DEEPenergy

  • Chief Petty Officer
  • ***
  • Posts: 48
  • Thanked: 26 times
Re: v1.13.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Reply #14 on: November 21, 2020, 09:35:37 PM »
The changes are great, looking forward to making FACs with massive caliber single shot railguns
 

 

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 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74