v2.2.0 Changes Discussion Thread

[nuclearslurpee]

a pretty damm stupid question - and sorry for asking but...

Steve, do you still have the codebase of your 2.2.0 Aurora without the missle changes? And could you release this as 2.2.0 and the missle changes as 2.3.0?

I really like the missle changes but I would think that with propper playtesting of the new systems, 2.2.0 will be delayed for 3-6 month at least - so maybe - if possible - it would be a good idea to bring the 2.2.0 live with the bugfixes and changes so far (before the missle stuff

if it is not possible, c'est la vie .. but I thought it would be worth asking

Counterpoint: I'm waiting for 2.2 to come out to start a campaign, and I wouldn't want to start this campaign without the coming missile changes as I would very much like missile warfare to be a part of that campaign. If missile warfare is pushed to 2.3, we will not see it for a year as Steve will come up with other ideas to add to that patch to delay even more. 

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

a pretty damm stupid question - and sorry for asking but...

Steve, do you still have the codebase of your 2.2.0 Aurora without the missle changes? And could you release this as 2.2.0 and the missle changes as 2.3.0?

I really like the missle changes but I would think that with propper playtesting of the new systems, 2.2.0 will be delayed for 3-6 month at least - so maybe - if possible - it would be a good idea to bring the 2.2.0 live with the bugfixes and changes so far (before the missle stuff

if it is not possible, c'est la vie .. but I thought it would be worth asking

There are no different code bases - just the current version - so the missile changes are already in.

[Iceranger]

Code: [Select]

The cost of adding a laser warhead is equal to the Laser Warhead Damage Efficiency / 100 and uses Corundium. The size of the component is 0.25 MSP.So missiles equipped with laser warheads have a 'regular' explosive warhead, and an additional 0.25MSP component described here to convert the explosion energy to laser, is that the correct understanding?

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

Code: [Select]

The cost of adding a laser warhead is equal to the Laser Warhead Damage Efficiency / 100 and uses Corundium. The size of the component is 0.25 MSP.So missiles equipped with laser warheads have a 'regular' explosive warhead, and an additional 0.25MSP component described here to convert the explosion energy to laser, is that the correct understanding?

Yes, that's correct. It's based on Project Excalibur in the 1980s and I had a much more detailed version in Newtonian Aurora. For C# Aurora though, I borrowed the mechanics principle from Starfire 3rd edition.

[Iceranger]

I know it is still pending playtest, but I think the current research cost for setting up laser missiles is a bit steep

In the lists below, techs related to general shipbuilding and sensors are omitted as they will be researched anyway.

The current tech lines are needed for a certain type of beam weapon:
Wavelength/focus/range tech
Caliber tech
Capacitor recharge tech
BFC range
BFC tracking speed

For normal missiles, the following 65 techs are needed:
Warhead tech
Launcher reload tech
Magazine efficiency tech
Magazine ejection tech
Agility tech
Ordnance Production tech

Laser missiles need the following 3 techs in addition:
Laser Warhead Damage Efficiency tech
Laser Warhead Focus
Laser Warhead Tracking Range

Admittedly these tech lines are shorter tech lines, but at the early game the additional RP requirement is significant. I hope laser warheads are really powerful after all these researches

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

I know it is still pending playtest, but I think the current research cost for setting up laser missiles is a bit steep

In the lists below, techs related to general shipbuilding and sensors are omitted as they will be researched anyway.

The current tech lines are needed for a certain type of beam weapon:
Wavelength/focus/range tech
Caliber tech
Capacitor recharge tech
BFC range
BFC tracking speed

For normal missiles, the following 65 techs are needed:
Warhead tech
Launcher reload tech
Magazine efficiency tech
Magazine ejection tech
Agility tech
Ordnance Production tech

Laser missiles need the following 3 techs in addition:
Laser Warhead Damage Efficiency tech
Laser Warhead Focus
Laser Warhead Tracking Range

Admittedly these tech lines are shorter tech lines, but at the early game the additional RP requirement is significant. I hope laser warheads are really powerful after all these researches

The first tech line is definitely needed. However, I did a lot of back and forth in my head about whether to add the focus and tracking techs. The alternative is to use existing laser wavelength tech instead of focus and a 2x multiplier of the the existing beam fire control range instead of tracking range. I ended up with the extra lines for two reasons. Firstly, laser wavelength isn't the same thing as focusing x-rays from a detonation so the techs don't match. Secondly, I didn't want a missile-focused race to be too dependent on non-missile tech lines, or create an incentive for a missile race using laser warheads to always select lasers for energy weapons. I also considered making the techs cheaper, but was concerned that would give missiles a superior effective range compared to ship-mounted lasers for the less research cost. That might still be fine, as the weapons are one use, but it just seemed odd. Finally, laser warheads are really a new weapon system compared to normal missile, so it seemed reasonable to have additional techs.

Having said all that, I might change it after playtest. This is not something I am convinced about either way.

[nuclearslurpee]

It might be worth putting the laser warhead techs into the Energy Weapons research category. That will let a missile-heavy race get better use from EW scientists, especially with reduced research admin meaning you want to use a larger group of scientists anyways.

Missile-based races already tend to be heavy into the kinetic weapon techs as well since Gauss is the best PD weapon type (and is needed if you want to use CIWS) and railguns are generally second-best for PD and provide a balanced all-purpose weapon type. This way, EW scientists remain useful without forcing a missile-based race into lasers, etc. just to fill lab space.

[TheTalkingMeowth]

Does retargeting capability work against missiles?

If so, it seems like this can be used to make much more cost effective AMMs. You roughly double the size and cost of the AMM to fit the retargeting, so you get 1/4 as many AMMs per enemy salvo per ton of launcher (half fire rate and half as many launchers).

But if the AMM is faster than the target missile, as long as it intercepts more than 10 seconds before detonation it will get 3 attack rolls and so the average missiles killed/cost of AMM goes up. If you can get four rolls, which is not hard not hard I think, you actually come out ahead in missiles killed/ton of launcher.

At early TN tech: 1 million km launch range with 25kkm/s speed of ASM is reasonable. If AMM isn't much faster that leads to intercept at 500kkm and means you get 4 rolls. Since AMMs are now size 2 they should have plenty of fuel to go a million kms.

[nuclearslurpee]

Does retargeting capability work against missiles?

Yes. AMM-vs-ASM is not mechanically any different than ASM-vs-Ship, and yes this does mean AMMs can potentially be much more effective if you make an effective fleet doctrine to use this new mechanic.

[deathpickle]

The single-shot railgun nerf was very necessary, it was basically a laser with better dps, it is a good change.
I like the new missile changes thematically too, with them swarming like torpedos is just cool and makes sense.  Missiles not absolutely needing to be so fast from "eventually you'll hit it" mechanics means that everyone can use missiles moderately effective now, as even a weight-inefficient missile is still technically costs the same BP, so i can finally put a dent in that 500k tritanium stockpile I have sitting around without wasting 500k of my precious gallicite.

My personal counter to box-launched missiles as a no missiles beamship-guy was to just to build a 300% speed, very highly armored 13000 ton """fighter""", that could withstand the entire volly without any shock damage.  Given that missiles at base only hit like 10%-30% of the time, speed was effectively multiplying my HP significantly more than straight armor would, meaning it certainly wouldn't be cost efficient, and I personally found in my tests it was able to defeat 2 box launching missile cruisers of equal tonnage, (though this probably wouldn't work as well at later techs). 

Now that's no longer the case, because missiles using less important resources, and the fact that they "always hit", slowness from weight inefficiency and low agility doesn't actually reduce any DPS in terms of cost efficiency, it just makes it more interceptable.  (in the case of above, speed is no longer like a multiplier for your HP vs missiles - you NEED to out PD them, so my Armored train that's running into them isn't *necessarily* more cost efficient anymore. ) I also appreciate that it gives more time for detection bonuses and means there is more hit opportunities for box launched.  I feel that missiles being a more viable secondary weapon for non-specialists fills an important niche to kill beam ships that out-maneuver and out-range; it's just such a necessary thing to give out-teched people for a chance at least deal some damage, instead of 0 damage, although I guess there's always STO's. 

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

Does retargeting capability work against missiles?

If so, it seems like this can be used to make much more cost effective AMMs. You roughly double the size and cost of the AMM to fit the retargeting, so you get 1/4 as many AMMs per enemy salvo per ton of launcher (half fire rate and half as many launchers).

But if the AMM is faster than the target missile, as long as it intercepts more than 10 seconds before detonation it will get 3 attack rolls and so the average missiles killed/cost of AMM goes up. If you can get four rolls, which is not hard not hard I think, you actually come out ahead in missiles killed/ton of launcher.

At early TN tech: 1 million km launch range with 25kkm/s speed of ASM is reasonable. If AMM isn't much faster that leads to intercept at 500kkm and means you get 4 rolls. Since AMMs are now size 2 they should have plenty of fuel to go a million kms.

Yes, this would be a valid use. To be honest I was thinking about ASMs, not AMMs, when I created the component. It certainly would make AMMs a lot more effective - possibly too effective. I need to see how this works in playtest.

[kilo]

Does retargeting capability work against missiles?

If so, it seems like this can be used to make much more cost effective AMMs. You roughly double the size and cost of the AMM to fit the retargeting, so you get 1/4 as many AMMs per enemy salvo per ton of launcher (half fire rate and half as many launchers).

But if the AMM is faster than the target missile, as long as it intercepts more than 10 seconds before detonation it will get 3 attack rolls and so the average missiles killed/cost of AMM goes up. If you can get four rolls, which is not hard not hard I think, you actually come out ahead in missiles killed/ton of launcher.

At early TN tech: 1 million km launch range with 25kkm/s speed of ASM is reasonable. If AMM isn't much faster that leads to intercept at 500kkm and means you get 4 rolls. Since AMMs are now size 2 they should have plenty of fuel to go a million kms.

Yes, this would be a valid use. To be honest I was thinking about ASMs, not AMMs, when I created the component. It certainly would make AMMs a lot more effective - possibly too effective. I need to see how this works in playtest.

I would not see this as a huge problem for AMMs, as the modules require quite a bit of the small missile's displacement. It could simply be balanced by making it fatter.

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

Does retargeting capability work against missiles?

If so, it seems like this can be used to make much more cost effective AMMs. You roughly double the size and cost of the AMM to fit the retargeting, so you get 1/4 as many AMMs per enemy salvo per ton of launcher (half fire rate and half as many launchers).

But if the AMM is faster than the target missile, as long as it intercepts more than 10 seconds before detonation it will get 3 attack rolls and so the average missiles killed/cost of AMM goes up. If you can get four rolls, which is not hard not hard I think, you actually come out ahead in missiles killed/ton of launcher.

At early TN tech: 1 million km launch range with 25kkm/s speed of ASM is reasonable. If AMM isn't much faster that leads to intercept at 500kkm and means you get 4 rolls. Since AMMs are now size 2 they should have plenty of fuel to go a million kms.

Yes, this would be a valid use. To be honest I was thinking about ASMs, not AMMs, when I created the component. It certainly would make AMMs a lot more effective - possibly too effective. I need to see how this works in playtest.

I would not see this as a huge problem for AMMs, as the modules require quite a bit of the small missile's displacement. It could simply be balanced by making it fatter.

Yes, agree that is the simplest solution. 0.75 instead of 0.5 would make significantly more difference to AMM than ASM. I'll see how it performs before making any adjustments though.

[Serina]

-Snipped previous-
The first tech line is definitely needed.  However, I did a lot of back and forth in my head about whether to add the focus and tracking techs.  The alternative is to use existing laser wavelength tech instead of focus and a 2x multiplier of the the existing beam fire control range instead of tracking range.  I ended up with the extra lines for two reasons.  Firstly, laser wavelength isn't the same thing as focusing x-rays from a detonation so the techs don't match.  Secondly, I didn't want a missile-focused race to be too dependent on non-missile tech lines, or create an incentive for a missile race using laser warheads to always select lasers for energy weapons.  I also considered making the techs cheaper, but was concerned that would give missiles a superior effective range compared to ship-mounted lasers for the less research cost.  That might still be fine, as the weapons are one use, but it just seemed odd.  Finally, laser warheads are really a new weapon system compared to normal missile, so it seemed reasonable to have additional techs.

Having said all that, I might change it after playtest.  This is not something I am convinced about either way.

I think that regardless, it's not a horrendous idea to through tech encourage dipping into multiple techs.  Some of the changes that are coming are based around the idea of multi layered defense, which, given the removal of agility, means that it will become increasingly more difficult to only pursue one type of tech exclusively.  While I agree with your reasoning for the most part, I think there's room to for instance, have the tracking range base off of normal BFC range, as it both makes sense, and it does encourage multidisciplinary research.  And seeing as BFC range is one of the more universal beam researches, you can pick it up and basically go with whatever beam weapon you want, even cannonades.  I believe removing the tech for tracking range and subsittuting it for as you mentioned, 2 X Beam tracking range would be ideal, as it would not only be consistent, but also allow for you to in the future tune the beam fire control ranges of well every beam weapon, without forgetting about Missile beams, and vice versa. 

[Ragnarsson]

This change applies to:
Population Importance
Naval Admin Command Importance
Ship Class Commander Priority
Ship Class Point Defence Protection Priority (new for v2.2)
Ship Class Refuel Priority
Ship Class Resupply Priority
Ship Class Maintenance Priority
Ship Refuel Priority
Ship Resupply Priority
Fire Control PD Priority (new for v2.2)
If am I missing anything from that list, please mention it on the changes discussion thread.

Ground unit replacement logic is another area this may impact.