Author Topic: Suggestions for v5.1  (Read 37901 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline UnLimiTeD

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • U
  • Posts: 1108
  • Thanked: 1 times
Re: Suggestions for v5.1
« Reply #405 on: April 01, 2010, 09:27:52 AM »
This is more or less a balance discussion for the mechanics or the like.
While I agree that missile ranges are too high, I don't see a big problem with it.
Missiles can be intercepted, Beams can't.
Higher tech levels give a tracking speed bonus of a good 100% versus missiles in sensor range, resulting in a Dual Gauss turret (firerate 3, range 3) to swat a half dozen missiles out of the air every five seconds.

Cloaking technology lets you close to beam distance more easily, ECM caps the targeting range for enemy missiles, and most of all:
They cost a smegload of resources, on medium techlevels you can build fighters whose ordnance exceeds the ships cost.
They also don't work in Nebulae, the only thing I miss are decoy buzzers to lead them astray.
Only problem I see with missiles is that you can make them untargetable on high tech levels.
 

Offline Andrew

  • Registered
  • Commodore
  • **********
  • Posts: 698
  • Thanked: 132 times
Re: Suggestions for v5.1
« Reply #406 on: April 01, 2010, 10:41:35 AM »
I am not convinced that missiles are unbalanced in fact given the size and cost of missiles along with the limited magazine capacity of warships I seriously consider not building missile armed ships. Against a taskgroup of comparable technology equipped with good antimissile defenses (antimissiles, plenty of laser or Gauss turrets)some shielding and decent armour I find that missile attacks often fail to inflict any signifigant damage forcing both sides to close the range .
The only two methods I have found for making missiles effective are
1) mounting large numbers in Box launchers for big salvo's to overwhelm the defenses
2) large numbers of small (size 1 or 2 missiles) fired at short range as the salvo's are large enougth
The problem of 1 is is the alpha strike does not kill the enemy then you are in deep trouble , with 2 the range is around 3-4 million km which means beam armed ships can close through your fire particularly as the small warheads take a lot of hits to kill an well armoured ship

Have you a lot of experience of missile fleets being undefeatable?
 

Offline praguepride

  • Warrant Officer, Class 2
  • ****
  • p
  • Posts: 51
Re: Suggestions for v5.1
« Reply #407 on: April 01, 2010, 10:56:55 AM »
Quote from: "Andrew"
Have you a lot of experience of missile fleets being undefeatable?

No, I'm still a newb. I was just reading through a bunch of the stories and it seems that most people go heavy on the missiles (at least early on) and swat the AI left and right with it.

Perhaps it's more of an issue of the AI then the game itself. Now that I think about it, it makes sense. I often compare this game to Space Empire (although this game rocks far more) and missiles are similar in some ways (long range, high damage, long reload, limited magazine, expensive) but the key difference is that their range is only about x4 that of beam weapons (at least in the beginning). Sitting down and looking at those weapon range charts, it struck me as very odd that a "basic" missile's range is measured in the millions of km.

If mid-tech counters and high-tech shuts down missile strategies, I guess they don't need to be balanced, but then again it strikes me that missiles are heavily unbalanced if they swing from overpowered to underpowered. Balanced would mean that they are equally useful throughout the game :D
 

Offline waresky

  • Registered
  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1486
  • Thanked: 8 times
  • Alpine Mountaineer..ohh Yeah!
Re: Suggestions for v5.1
« Reply #408 on: April 01, 2010, 11:21:27 AM »
Too many suggestions.

lately am found 3 or max 4 field to "become more interesting"
1)Army management,more flexible and more addictive than a TaskGroup windows
2)More "orders line" in windows TG (eg: Deployment Collier,JumpTender)
3)Improvement in NPR management for loose few time 5-sec step.
4)more Diplomatical field and more choice in Diplomatical screen.

in fact many of our new friends havent play in a Hundereds colonies Empire..and not know how many difficult are to manage a monster Navy or Civie fleets around-:D

So a 5th suggestions was: some of improvement in Civie fleets orders,management and choice or something.
Navy TG windows than Civie TG windows,for more fast selection.
=more Automation in Civie management and target,load-drop,more choice,(eg: "if Earth or Capital running low on xxxx type mineral:pls GOto nearest 4jumop Mining Colony and Load":_DDD..not?:D.." ok fired'em..eheh
Ty Steve:)
 

Offline praguepride

  • Warrant Officer, Class 2
  • ****
  • p
  • Posts: 51
Re: Suggestions for v5.1
« Reply #409 on: April 01, 2010, 11:22:17 AM »
What can I say, new ideas is what I do :D

I don't think any of mine are vital to the game, just putting thoughts out there about "possabilities."

For example: I've recently started playing an "Exodus" style game and one thing that puzzles me is that if you have 5 empires on the same planet, if any one of them uses a geosurvey team, all of them find the results. Plus, all of them have "geo team survey" marked as complete.

Why can't an Empire try and hide it's finding? Why can't multiple teams hit a planet? Not saying it's vital but it would be really neat if Empires retain control of their geological team surveys. This would mean that different planets might mean different things to different empires. You might look at a planet and say "nothing's there! I checked" but the AI is scrambling mines over to take advantage of hidden deposits.

Bonus points for being able to trade this information with other Empires. More bonus points if capturing enemy facilities on a planet revela the hidden deposits.
 

Offline Hawkeye

  • Silver Supporter
  • Vice Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1059
  • Thanked: 5 times
  • Silver Supporter Silver Supporter : Support the forums with a Silver subscription
    2021 Supporter 2021 Supporter : Donate for 2021
    2022 Supporter 2022 Supporter : Donate for 2022
    2023 Supporter 2023 Supporter : Donate for 2023
Re: Suggestions for v5.1
« Reply #410 on: April 01, 2010, 11:36:11 AM »
Quote from: "Andrew"
I am not convinced that missiles are unbalanced in fact given the size and cost of missiles along with the limited magazine capacity of warships I seriously consider not building missile armed ships. Against a taskgroup of comparable technology equipped with good antimissile defenses (antimissiles, plenty of laser or Gauss turrets)some shielding and decent armour I find that missile attacks often fail to inflict any signifigant damage forcing both sides to close the range .
The only two methods I have found for making missiles effective are
1) mounting large numbers in Box launchers for big salvo's to overwhelm the defenses
2) large numbers of small (size 1 or 2 missiles) fired at short range as the salvo's are large enougth
The problem of 1 is is the alpha strike does not kill the enemy then you are in deep trouble , with 2 the range is around 3-4 million km which means beam armed ships can close through your fire particularly as the small warheads take a lot of hits to kill an well armoured ship

Have you a lot of experience of missile fleets being undefeatable?

Agreed. I have recently encountered an NPR fielding a dedicated AMM-Cruiser (actually, three of them) and it took my 12 Missile cruisers entire ammo load to kill two of them. Their defensive fire was incredible. When you see salvos of 150 missiles being swatted from the sky, you realy start to think about your building priorities :)
Ralph Hoenig, Germany
 

Offline Commodore_Areyar

  • Warrant Officer, Class 1
  • *****
  • Posts: 97
  • I will format your cruiser!
Re: Suggestions for v5.1
« Reply #411 on: April 01, 2010, 01:28:25 PM »
As long as we're brainstorming on biological research:

UPLIFT technology: raise non-sentient natives to sentience.
Not really instant slave labour (as the uplifted population by necessity starts small), but an allied/subject race colonizing a planet perfectly suited for them.
images of planets etc
 

Offline Andrew

  • Registered
  • Commodore
  • **********
  • Posts: 698
  • Thanked: 132 times
Re: Suggestions for v5.1
« Reply #412 on: April 01, 2010, 05:57:43 PM »
Quote from: "praguepride"
Quote from: "Andrew"
Have you a lot of experience of missile fleets being undefeatable?

No, I'm still a newb. I was just reading through a bunch of the stories and it seems that most people go heavy on the missiles (at least early on) and swat the AI left and right with it.

Perhaps it's more of an issue of the AI then the game itself. Now that I think about it, it makes sense. I often compare this game to Space Empire (although this game rocks far more) and missiles are similar in some ways (long range, high damage, long reload, limited magazine, expensive) but the key difference is that their range is only about x4 that of beam weapons (at least in the beginning). Sitting down and looking at those weapon range charts, it struck me as very odd that a "basic" missile's range is measured in the millions of km.

If mid-tech counters and high-tech shuts down missile strategies, I guess they don't need to be balanced, but then again it strikes me that missiles are heavily unbalanced if they swing from overpowered to underpowered. Balanced would mean that they are equally useful throughout the game :D
My own fleets are probably more resistant to misile fire than most NPR's but I have had several battles where NPR's of comparable or slightly lower tech have shot down my entire missile force. I have also had a battle where one 7400 tom precursor ship destroyed a 40,000 ton BB and crippled a second using lasers . I have also had battles where my missiles have slaughtered the enemy but in those cases my fleet had a large advantage in either tonnage or technology so I would have slaughtered them whichever weapons I used.
I think missiles are about equally useful throughout the game as antimissile defenses keep improving along side the offensive missiles and the really big limitation as Hawkeye said is that you sometimes run out of missiles completely , your lasers always work.
 

Offline Andrew

  • Registered
  • Commodore
  • **********
  • Posts: 698
  • Thanked: 132 times
Re: Suggestions for v5.1
« Reply #413 on: April 01, 2010, 06:00:02 PM »
A possible change or alternative to the cloaking device instead of having it reduce the sensor range , have them reduce the cross section of theship mounting them so you need active sensors with a lower resolution
 

Offline boggo2300

  • Registered
  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 895
  • Thanked: 16 times
Re: Suggestions for v5.1
« Reply #414 on: April 01, 2010, 06:12:03 PM »
Quote from: "wilddog5"
I see that everyone wants to be able to alter the gravity of a planet using teraforming

I say just create an new infrastructure type call it grav plating and have it work like infrastructure does for col cost

most of the code is already there so it would be quicker and easer to do

Personally I think it's a lousy Idea, changing the gravity of a planet is WAAAY out of scope of how terraforming works in Aurora, and for me it stretches believability about 4 times past the snapping point.

However, Wilddogs idea I could live with, but I think if the colonisable world range is expanded we may run into performance issues

Matt
The boggosity of the universe tends towards maximum.
 

Offline Brian Neumann

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1214
  • Thanked: 3 times
Re: Suggestions for v5.1
« Reply #415 on: April 01, 2010, 06:22:38 PM »
Quote from: "Andrew"
A possible change or alternative to the cloaking device instead of having it reduce the sensor range , have them reduce the cross section of theship mounting them so you need active sensors with a lower resolution
Currently this is how cloaking tech works.  Ecm reduces the range of missile fire control and the to hit chance of beam weapons.

Brian
 

Offline sloanjh

  • Global Moderator
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • *****
  • Posts: 2805
  • Thanked: 112 times
  • 2020 Supporter 2020 Supporter : Donate for 2020
    2021 Supporter 2021 Supporter : Donate for 2021
Re: Suggestions for v5.1
« Reply #416 on: April 01, 2010, 08:40:41 PM »
Quote from: "praguepride"
Quote from: "Andrew"
Have you a lot of experience of missile fleets being undefeatable?

No, I'm still a newb. I was just reading through a bunch of the stories and it seems that most people go heavy on the missiles (at least early on) and swat the AI left and right with it.

Perhaps it's more of an issue of the AI then the game itself. Now that I think about it, it makes sense. I often compare this game to Space Empire (although this game rocks far more) and missiles are similar in some ways (long range, high damage, long reload, limited magazine, expensive) but the key difference is that their range is only about x4 that of beam weapons (at least in the beginning). Sitting down and looking at those weapon range charts, it struck me as very odd that a "basic" missile's range is measured in the millions of km.

If mid-tech counters and high-tech shuts down missile strategies, I guess they don't need to be balanced, but then again it strikes me that missiles are heavily unbalanced if they swing from overpowered to underpowered. Balanced would mean that they are equally useful throughout the game :D

A few things you might not be aware of:

1)  SE ship design and combat is very similar to Starfire, which is the game that Aurora morphed out of.  I have no knowledge one way or another, but it's a plausible conjecture that there was some intellectual cross-fertilization there.

2)  Aurora missiles, like those in SF, originally were not significantly longer-ranged than beam weapons.  Then Steve's drive towards internal consistency led him to run some numbers, and he realized that it didn't really make sense for them to be that short-ranged.  You should be able to find the thread discussing this, some where in Mechanics, IIRC, and should read it.  Looking for "tomahawk or harpoon" might help, since there was some discussion of modern naval warfare in the thread.

3)  As others have said, and as is mentioned every time this perceived imbalance comes up, logistics is part of the game.  The handicap with missiles is that it's very difficult to keep those magazines full of the latest and greatest missiles.  That being said, I tend to build missile-armed FAC early on in my conventional starts because they do seem to be the only weapons system that have a chance against higher-tech bad guys.

John
 

Offline Father Tim

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 2162
  • Thanked: 531 times
Re: Suggestions for v5.1
« Reply #417 on: April 01, 2010, 10:30:22 PM »
Quote from: "praguepride"
Nerfing Missiles (this is sure to make me popular)

Missiles aren't unbalanced, it just that people almost universally overlook or discount their disadvantages.

1.  Missiles don't work in a Nebula.  At all.  If missiles are your only weapon, you're screwed.
 - This is somewhat negated by the fact that a 'Real Stars' game will have NO nebula systems in it, but in my opinion that's a bug with the real stars setting.

2.  Missiles are expensive.  I can build entire ships for less than the cost (in money and minerals) of filling the magazines of a missile cruiser.

3.  Missiles have a shallow damage template, requiring them to average more total damage to cripple or destroy a ship.

4.  Missiles are very weak in a jump point assault - or defense.  They gain no benefit from short range, save in the rare case where they deny anti-missile defenses multiple shots.

5.  Small, cheap anti-missiles can kill missiles at a spectacular exchange rate - something like 3-5% of the build time & cost.

6.  The mechanics of missile targeting and 'to hit' leads to wildly inefficient use of ammo.  It's not at all unusual to score a spectacular overkill, or underkill, on opponents.

7.  Most people seriously under-armour their ships.  My frigates have 12 layers of armour, my battleships 24 to 30.  

7a.  Most people - especially at low tech levels - seriously under-shield their ships.  In player vs player fights I've had a single battleship absorb the entire magazine capacity of my opponent's missile squadron without blowing up.
 - Granted, low-level shield tech is crap but it's not that expensive in terms of RP to improve it up to the level usefulness.

8.  Missile production is slow, and ammo is hard to get to the ships.  I conquered one NPR when it withdrew all its (empty) cruisers to re-arm, and another when it simply ran out of ammo on an empire-wide basis.  In both cases I lost 2-3 initial battles.


TACTICALLY, missiles are very strong.  STRATEGICALLY, they are fairly well balanced if you take adequate care to properly run your empire and plan for missile expenditure.  Most people don't, leading to them scoring crushing victories in 3-5 fights, then being one turn from extermination, whether they realize it or not.


When I fight missile empires, the fights go one of three ways:

1 - The enemy runs out of missiles before I run out of ships.  My survivors crush his entire fleet.
2 - The enemy runs out of reloads before I run out of fleets.  My survivors crush his entire empire.
3 - The enemy runs away faster than I can chase.  My survivors occupy what space I will, and wait for the enemy to return.

While I frequently lose battles, I never lose the war because I ruthlessly exploit the weaknesses of missile-armed opponents - especially economic weaknesses.
 

Offline waresky

  • Registered
  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1486
  • Thanked: 8 times
  • Alpine Mountaineer..ohh Yeah!
Re: Suggestions for v5.1
« Reply #418 on: April 02, 2010, 05:42:55 AM »
Out of Suggestions topic.

Agree on Father
r some months ive change my "older" Missile Squadroon in "Beam Squadroons" and the battles goes as well.
Obviously armour over 30
shield as many
SPEED r the Core of tactics.

And minerals r saving.
Obviously ive some Missile Squadroon active as complements to Battle Fleet (more than 2+ Squadroon=Fleet).
 

Offline UnLimiTeD

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • U
  • Posts: 1108
  • Thanked: 1 times
Re: Suggestions for v5.1
« Reply #419 on: April 02, 2010, 06:53:31 AM »
That many armor costs a lot when you encounter star swarm^^

Back to suggestions:

I think it would be nice to have a mass production bonus that increases the build rate by a small % every time you build the same thing again.

When you have 3 slipways churning out the same FAC for the last 6 years, you gotta expect them to be faster.
To counter it, the mod rate could go down.