Author Topic: v1.13.0 Changes Discussion Thread  (Read 21359 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Bremen

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • B
  • Posts: 632
  • Thanked: 100 times
Re: v1.13.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Reply #315 on: February 18, 2021, 11:04:47 AM »
So will the reduced-shot railguns make them the go-to weapon for beam fighters? I try to keep my fighters at 125 tons and always had trouble fitting gauss cannons in them. They are only meant to act as mobile PD for the bombers anyways.

It'll be interesting. In theory a four shot railgun fighter still does more damage/PD coverage per ton than a one shot railgun fighter that's a third the size, not to mention better range due to the fuel efficiency of larger engines. But dozens to hundreds of 125 ton fighters are going to be a nightmare to detect and shoot down; as the quote goes "quantity has a quality all its own."
 

Offline SpaceMarine

  • Bug Moderators
  • Captain
  • ***
  • Posts: 544
  • Thanked: 538 times
Re: v1.13.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Reply #316 on: February 18, 2021, 11:18:04 AM »
I dont agree, heres my thoughts on it.

80, 125 ton Railgun fighters that use a 1 shot railgun are 10,000 tons
20, 500 ton Railgun fighters that use a 4 shot railgun are 10,000 tons (Keep in mind atm 400-500 tons is the amount required for railgun fighters due to BFC size, railgun weapon size and reactor size)

Both fire the exact same number of shots so in terms of PD they are the same, for anti ship railguns themselves have one of the worst damage patterns anyway so if its in chunks of four or 1 it will do around the same.

Now in terms of fuel efficiency yes larger fighters will be better but this is offset by the fact that you dont make beam fighters for their fuel efficiency you make them for their very fast speed and flexibility.

I agree with the point that 80+ Fighters are gonna be insanely hard to deal with for some fleets and you may overwhelm the enemy as they may have the weapons to destroy them or the ammo but they cant target enough of the fighters at a time before they themselves take damage, not only will this provide a useful distraction its also very dangerous especially when you combine this with other weapons as the enemy PD, missile and other capabilities will be fired a these fighters which are small, hard to hit due to speed and expendable.



 

Offline Jorgen_CAB

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • J
  • Posts: 2353
  • Thanked: 432 times
Re: v1.13.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Reply #317 on: February 18, 2021, 11:32:29 AM »
I dont agree, heres my thoughts on it.

80, 125 ton Railgun fighters that use a 1 shot railgun are 10,000 tons
20, 500 ton Railgun fighters that use a 4 shot railgun are 10,000 tons (Keep in mind atm 400-500 tons is the amount required for railgun fighters due to BFC size, railgun weapon size and reactor size)

Both fire the exact same number of shots so in terms of PD they are the same, for anti ship railguns themselves have one of the worst damage patterns anyway so if its in chunks of four or 1 it will do around the same.

Now in terms of fuel efficiency yes larger fighters will be better but this is offset by the fact that you dont make beam fighters for their fuel efficiency you make them for their very fast speed and flexibility.

I agree with the point that 80+ Fighters are gonna be insanely hard to deal with for some fleets and you may overwhelm the enemy as they may have the weapons to destroy them or the ammo but they cant target enough of the fighters at a time before they themselves take damage, not only will this provide a useful distraction its also very dangerous especially when you combine this with other weapons as the enemy PD, missile and other capabilities will be fired a these fighters which are small, hard to hit due to speed and expendable.

A 500t fighter in a pure engagement will almost always win given equal tech level... they can have more armour use more efficient engines and require less space for fire-controls and sensors. They are just way more durable than the small ones. The only benefit of being small is essentially the stealth factor in terms of fighters so they are harder to fight with missiles. But as long as the opponent know your fighters size even this matters very little in the end.

A heavier fighter also can fit a heavier beam weapon which is deadly to other fighters even with less DPS.
« Last Edit: February 18, 2021, 11:43:14 AM by Jorgen_CAB »
 

Offline SpaceMarine

  • Bug Moderators
  • Captain
  • ***
  • Posts: 544
  • Thanked: 538 times
Re: v1.13.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Reply #318 on: February 18, 2021, 11:48:46 AM »
I dont agree, heres my thoughts on it.

80, 125 ton Railgun fighters that use a 1 shot railgun are 10,000 tons
20, 500 ton Railgun fighters that use a 4 shot railgun are 10,000 tons (Keep in mind atm 400-500 tons is the amount required for railgun fighters due to BFC size, railgun weapon size and reactor size)

Both fire the exact same number of shots so in terms of PD they are the same, for anti ship railguns themselves have one of the worst damage patterns anyway so if its in chunks of four or 1 it will do around the same.

Now in terms of fuel efficiency yes larger fighters will be better but this is offset by the fact that you dont make beam fighters for their fuel efficiency you make them for their very fast speed and flexibility.

I agree with the point that 80+ Fighters are gonna be insanely hard to deal with for some fleets and you may overwhelm the enemy as they may have the weapons to destroy them or the ammo but they cant target enough of the fighters at a time before they themselves take damage, not only will this provide a useful distraction its also very dangerous especially when you combine this with other weapons as the enemy PD, missile and other capabilities will be fired a these fighters which are small, hard to hit due to speed and expendable.

A 500t fighter in a pure engagement will almost always win given equal tech level... they can have more armour use more efficient engines and require less space for fire-controls and sensors. They are just way more durable than the small ones. The only benefit of being small is essentially the stealth factor in terms of fighters so they are harder to fight with missiles. But as long as the opponent know your fighters size even this matters very little in the end.

A heavier fighter also can fit a heavier beam weapons which is deadly to other fighters even with less DPS.

I disagree on some of the points.

1A - Armour is not important for fighters really due to various reasons, 1. they cant even fit more armour on space wise because of how tight the margins are for beamfighters, 2. Most things that will hit it will do enough damage/shock damage to disable the fighter if not destroy it, 3. Fighters are generally expendable so putting armour on is just extra cost for not much gain.

2A - In terms of BFCs the main tonnage sink is the engines and the weapon for example on one of my railgun fighters 350 of the 500 tons are already gone for the weapon and engine, BFCs atm tend to be around 50 tons, reactors 30-35 at around Ion-magneto, and the rest is fuel, so while your correct you have less space in practise not really at all, since percent wise its  gonna be the same with the changes made, also the idea of "sensors" on a beamfighter is just dumb, any beamfighter will not have its own sensors as its too much tonnage that could be used on fuel or anything else as beamfighters are inherently quite massive, instead they use their carries or an AWACs that accompanies them.

3A - I disagree that the only benefit is stealth yes that is one of the benefits but as stated in the previous post if you have 80 fighters instead of 20 you have 60 more targets for the enemy to shoot at, and lets be real if you get hit once in a fighter theres an 80% chance its either disabled or destroyed so this will actually massively increase survivability in terms of  endurance in being effective.

4A - While technically this is true it doesnt change tonnage efficiency or anything else, now for lasers fighters you may have a point as a larger laser can and will penetrate deeper but for railgun fighters this matters little as railgun damage pattern is not good at all.

At the end of the day we can argue forever but I for one am happy we have more choice in 1.13 where we can decide on what doctrine to use fighter wise either swarm or heavier more deadly fighters, we dont have this in 1.12, keep in mind this is all preference, peoples own doctrine and how they use fighters so its gonna be heavily subjective in many regards. 
« Last Edit: February 18, 2021, 11:53:57 AM by SpaceMarine »
 

Online Iceranger

  • Registered
  • Commander
  • *********
  • I
  • Posts: 316
  • Thanked: 174 times
Re: v1.13.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Reply #319 on: February 18, 2021, 11:58:02 AM »
I dont agree, heres my thoughts on it.

80, 125 ton Railgun fighters that use a 1 shot railgun are 10,000 tons
20, 500 ton Railgun fighters that use a 4 shot railgun are 10,000 tons (Keep in mind atm 400-500 tons is the amount required for railgun fighters due to BFC size, railgun weapon size and reactor size)

Both fire the exact same number of shots so in terms of PD they are the same, for anti ship railguns themselves have one of the worst damage patterns anyway so if its in chunks of four or 1 it will do around the same.

Now in terms of fuel efficiency yes larger fighters will be better but this is offset by the fact that you dont make beam fighters for their fuel efficiency you make them for their very fast speed and flexibility.

I agree with the point that 80+ Fighters are gonna be insanely hard to deal with for some fleets and you may overwhelm the enemy as they may have the weapons to destroy them or the ammo but they cant target enough of the fighters at a time before they themselves take damage, not only will this provide a useful distraction its also very dangerous especially when you combine this with other weapons as the enemy PD, missile and other capabilities will be fired a these fighters which are small, hard to hit due to speed and expendable.

A 1-shot railgun will be larger than 1/4 of a 4-shot railgun (35% rather than 25%), meaning if you design a 125-ton fighter with a 1-shot railgun, it has less fraction to be used for engines. So you cannot assume they perform the same when doing PD duties. Yes, the number of shots is the same, but the tracking speed on the 125-ton fighters will be worse than the 500-ton ones.

If the two fighter designs have a similar weapon/engine/fuel ratio, the smaller one utilizing the 1-shot railgun will be roughly 1/3 size of a 500-ton one. So yes they will be more numerous, but ton-for-ton efficiency is lower.
 

Online nuclearslurpee

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • Posts: 618
  • Thanked: 295 times
  • Radioactive frozen beverage.
Re: v1.13.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Reply #320 on: February 18, 2021, 01:06:55 PM »
Quote
For the following list of components, the Development Cost has been changed to: SQRT(Cost * 5000)

snip

I notice that the only ship design component not listed are HPMs. Is there a reason for this, or an oversight in the listing?

Quote
For ground units the breakeven point is a cost of 10 BP. For example, the development cost of a minimal armour static HQ with 250,000 capacity will reduce from 5,012 RP to 1,583 RP.

This is absolutely the best news I've heard all day. Personally I didn't mind linear component RP costs as much as others did, but the ground HQ costs were a major thorn so this is an A++ change.
 

Offline Bremen

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • B
  • Posts: 632
  • Thanked: 100 times
Re: v1.13.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Reply #321 on: February 18, 2021, 01:58:03 PM »
I dont agree, heres my thoughts on it.

80, 125 ton Railgun fighters that use a 1 shot railgun are 10,000 tons
20, 500 ton Railgun fighters that use a 4 shot railgun are 10,000 tons (Keep in mind atm 400-500 tons is the amount required for railgun fighters due to BFC size, railgun weapon size and reactor size)

Both fire the exact same number of shots so in terms of PD they are the same, for anti ship railguns themselves have one of the worst damage patterns anyway so if its in chunks of four or 1 it will do around the same.

Now in terms of fuel efficiency yes larger fighters will be better but this is offset by the fact that you dont make beam fighters for their fuel efficiency you make them for their very fast speed and flexibility.

I agree with the point that 80+ Fighters are gonna be insanely hard to deal with for some fleets and you may overwhelm the enemy as they may have the weapons to destroy them or the ammo but they cant target enough of the fighters at a time before they themselves take damage, not only will this provide a useful distraction its also very dangerous especially when you combine this with other weapons as the enemy PD, missile and other capabilities will be fired a these fighters which are small, hard to hit due to speed and expendable.

A 4 shot 10cm railgun is 150 tons, a 1 shot railgun is 49 tons. So assuming exactly the same tonnage proportionately, you'd have 3 1 shot fighters for every 4 shot fighter. Actually a little less, since you need a few tons for the fire control and crew quarters, less efficient power plant, etc.

So you're trading a 25% reduction in firepower for having three targets instead of one. That's not necessarily a bad trade - there are a lot of situations where having 3 smaller fighters makes them much harder to deal with, particularly if the enemy is trying to kill your fighters with missiles - but it's not a clear upgrade, either. Like I said, it's going to be an interesting tradeoff.

If your fighters' primary job is providing PD support for larger ships or picking off damaged/defenseless targets, you're probably better off with 4 shot railguns since they get more shots per ton. If you want the fighters to charge the enemy and duke it out in beam range, I think 1-shots are better -  trading 25% less firepower for effectively 200% more hitpoints (the larger fighters are technically more durable, but how often do fighters survive a hit?) is a decent looking trade.
« Last Edit: February 18, 2021, 02:03:56 PM by Bremen »
 

Offline Jorgen_CAB

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • J
  • Posts: 2353
  • Thanked: 432 times
Re: v1.13.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Reply #322 on: February 18, 2021, 05:07:45 PM »
I dont agree, heres my thoughts on it.

80, 125 ton Railgun fighters that use a 1 shot railgun are 10,000 tons
20, 500 ton Railgun fighters that use a 4 shot railgun are 10,000 tons (Keep in mind atm 400-500 tons is the amount required for railgun fighters due to BFC size, railgun weapon size and reactor size)

Both fire the exact same number of shots so in terms of PD they are the same, for anti ship railguns themselves have one of the worst damage patterns anyway so if its in chunks of four or 1 it will do around the same.

Now in terms of fuel efficiency yes larger fighters will be better but this is offset by the fact that you dont make beam fighters for their fuel efficiency you make them for their very fast speed and flexibility.

I agree with the point that 80+ Fighters are gonna be insanely hard to deal with for some fleets and you may overwhelm the enemy as they may have the weapons to destroy them or the ammo but they cant target enough of the fighters at a time before they themselves take damage, not only will this provide a useful distraction its also very dangerous especially when you combine this with other weapons as the enemy PD, missile and other capabilities will be fired a these fighters which are small, hard to hit due to speed and expendable.

A 500t fighter in a pure engagement will almost always win given equal tech level... they can have more armour use more efficient engines and require less space for fire-controls and sensors. They are just way more durable than the small ones. The only benefit of being small is essentially the stealth factor in terms of fighters so they are harder to fight with missiles. But as long as the opponent know your fighters size even this matters very little in the end.

A heavier fighter also can fit a heavier beam weapons which is deadly to other fighters even with less DPS.

I disagree on some of the points.

1A - Armour is not important for fighters really due to various reasons, 1. they cant even fit more armour on space wise because of how tight the margins are for beamfighters, 2. Most things that will hit it will do enough damage/shock damage to disable the fighter if not destroy it, 3. Fighters are generally expendable so putting armour on is just extra cost for not much gain.

2A - In terms of BFCs the main tonnage sink is the engines and the weapon for example on one of my railgun fighters 350 of the 500 tons are already gone for the weapon and engine, BFCs atm tend to be around 50 tons, reactors 30-35 at around Ion-magneto, and the rest is fuel, so while your correct you have less space in practise not really at all, since percent wise its  gonna be the same with the changes made, also the idea of "sensors" on a beamfighter is just dumb, any beamfighter will not have its own sensors as its too much tonnage that could be used on fuel or anything else as beamfighters are inherently quite massive, instead they use their carries or an AWACs that accompanies them.

3A - I disagree that the only benefit is stealth yes that is one of the benefits but as stated in the previous post if you have 80 fighters instead of 20 you have 60 more targets for the enemy to shoot at, and lets be real if you get hit once in a fighter theres an 80% chance its either disabled or destroyed so this will actually massively increase survivability in terms of  endurance in being effective.

4A - While technically this is true it doesnt change tonnage efficiency or anything else, now for lasers fighters you may have a point as a larger laser can and will penetrate deeper but for railgun fighters this matters little as railgun damage pattern is not good at all.

At the end of the day we can argue forever but I for one am happy we have more choice in 1.13 where we can decide on what doctrine to use fighter wise either swarm or heavier more deadly fighters, we dont have this in 1.12, keep in mind this is all preference, peoples own doctrine and how they use fighters so its gonna be heavily subjective in many regards.

I'm sorry but you are just wrong and I have actually done test of this in the game and had MANY fighter engagements with beam fighter against each other... armour is super important and will make them survive very effectively. Even the small savings you do with BFC is huge and fighter ECM is also huge as they add even more survival ability, a small fighter just can't fit an ECM module at all. You also need at least a 5t active on most if not all fighters... otherwise your active sensor fighters are targeted first if you don't have something far off that have the sensor. A 500t fighter only suffer shock damage at 10% for 1 damage point (actually only a total of 2% as shock damage is only 20% of 1 damage), so they are quite likely to survive.... bigger weapon also means more HTK as well, even the engine will have 2 HTK at 200t witch you would want as that give you a 50% chance to survive a 1 point damage, this is important.

Bigger weapon mean longer range too which is huge in beam combat, this is why Lasers are so powerful in beam fighter combat, a 15cm (even 20cm) laser in a 500t figher is possible.

I think you need to actually test it and not theorise it...  ;)

DPS is not as important as you might think, if you want a good beam fighter you should just make it as big as possible and use armour, just test it and you will see. The only reason you build fighter with small railguns is PD against missiles, they are NOT optimal against a beam fighter whose job it is to shoot down enemy fighters.

If I design my fighter for PD then I want as much PD as possible so that means a full size 10cm railgun... if I want something in between then a 12cm or 15cm railgun could be considered too in 1.13. Then they will be better in a beam engagement as well and pose a dual role. You could then have a few 15cm railgun fighters and a bunch of 10cm railgun fighters.

I would NEVER run a beam fighter without at least a 5t active res 1 sensor... it is just too easy and a big loss if the sensor scout is somehow destroyed, also a reason I don't like small beam fighters. If your fighter ever only operate close to the carrier then sure... but then I don't see why their beam fighting skills would ever be of much use either, they have too short range for that. PD fighters are pretty bad at beam range fighting.
« Last Edit: February 19, 2021, 03:25:47 AM by Jorgen_CAB »
 

Offline liveware

  • Bug Moderators
  • Commodore
  • ***
  • Posts: 731
  • Thanked: 80 times
Re: v1.13.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Reply #323 on: February 18, 2021, 06:10:35 PM »
Well I am very excited with the new RP scaling changes. I was hoping for just ground formation HQ scaling to be changed, but it looks like nearly everything is getting hit with the RP=SQRT(SIZE) stick.

Even jump engines...

That should mean that large jump engines are much more practical now. This will be excellent and entertaining.
Open the pod-bay doors HAL...
 
The following users thanked this post: BAGrimm

Offline Jorgen_CAB

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • J
  • Posts: 2353
  • Thanked: 432 times
Re: v1.13.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Reply #324 on: February 18, 2021, 06:51:40 PM »
Well I am very excited with the new RP scaling changes. I was hoping for just ground formation HQ scaling to be changed, but it looks like nearly everything is getting hit with the RP=SQRT(SIZE) stick.

Even jump engines...

That should mean that large jump engines are much more practical now. This will be excellent and entertaining.

Yes... this is a big boon for larger ships as you will be able to afford larger military jump engines now, I will likely be able to afford my really large military engine carriers at much lower tech level now.

It will also make larger active sensor more affordable as well, even if they still are limited in use in general, but I still can afford the occasional larger active sensor as well.

It definitely will make larger engines way more affordable as well, they were really expensive before for the general benefit of having them.

Now I also will actually have to spend some RP developing my fighters and FAC and making allot of different version of fighters and FAC will actually have a price now, that is nice too.

I really like how this work... it will also make more complex components cheaper the higher you research technology, so you will be able to afford more diverse components the further up the technology tree you get which sort of make sense in a way. Low tech components are more expensive than high tech components to develop in relation to their cost.
« Last Edit: February 19, 2021, 12:55:21 AM by Jorgen_CAB »
 

Offline liveware

  • Bug Moderators
  • Commodore
  • ***
  • Posts: 731
  • Thanked: 80 times
Re: v1.13.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Reply #325 on: February 18, 2021, 07:20:30 PM »
I also really like this. It lends credence to the concept of 'economies of scale' for large components. Combined with all of the other new things that v113 is brining to the table I am going to have to seriously rethink my fleet composition and ship designs.
Open the pod-bay doors HAL...
 

Offline Zincat

  • Captain
  • **********
  • Z
  • Posts: 534
  • Thanked: 90 times
Re: v1.13.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Reply #326 on: February 19, 2021, 07:39:03 AM »
I'm very much a fan of the RP cost reduction for large components. As I almost always build large ships.
I'm looking at you, sensors and jump engines.  ;D

Thank you Steve
 

Online Droll

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • D
  • Posts: 1031
  • Thanked: 261 times
Re: v1.13.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Reply #327 on: February 22, 2021, 02:40:01 PM »
I just saw the changes with regards to commander selection on the naval OOB menu which are really good.

Will the same work with admin commands?
 

Offline Nori

  • Bronze Supporter
  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • *****
  • Posts: 142
  • Thanked: 24 times
  • Discord Username: Nori Silverrage
  • Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter : Support the forums with a Bronze subscription
    2021 Supporter 2021 Supporter : Donate for 2021
Re: v1.13.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Reply #328 on: February 22, 2021, 04:06:04 PM »
I'm very much a fan of the RP cost reduction for large components. As I almost always build large ships.
I'm looking at you, sensors and jump engines.  ;D

Thank you Steve
Ditto. The large engines were always a bother too. :)
 

Offline pwhk

  • Warrant Officer, Class 2
  • ****
  • p
  • Posts: 63
  • Thanked: 13 times
Re: v1.13.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Reply #329 on: February 22, 2021, 06:07:35 PM »
I just saw the changes with regards to commander selection on the naval OOB menu which are really good.

Will the same work with admin commands?
AFAIK In VB Aurora you can click on any role in the commander window and the commander having that role will be automatically selected. It works for ground force commanders and administrators too. Wondering when and if this can be brought back to C# :P
 

 

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 75 76 77