Proposal for TechSystem table updates

[dooots]

The problem with fighter engines is that they are only 1 hs, this means a fighter bigger then 4 hs is going to have less then 25% engines which is the minimum for a fac so they seem slower then facs.  I think all that needs to change is fighter engines need to let you enter their size like you do with missiles.  It would be nice to be able to put more then one engine on a fighter but 1 hs increments is really just too big even for a heavy fighter.

Also what do people think of changing the fuel usage for fighters from 100x per hs to 80x per hs?  This would mean a 5 hs fighter using 25% engines would use 100x fuel.  To me it seems like a reasonable change given that 4 hs fighters are too small for most jobs.  I chose 25% because it is the minimum for facs.

[Charlie Beeler (OP)]

Are you sure about this? I have never noticed that Gauss cannons require a larger percentage of their size allocated to turret gearing.  They're larger than most other turreted weapons, sure, but percentage wise I thought everything worked the same. There's the rounding problem, yes, but that just means you pick the mount multiple that rounds the best and work with that. I can't understand how you're getting from 40% to 60% turret gear for the same tracking speed with two different weapons.

One thing I would like to see is turrets not round to the nearest HS.  We have plenty of other components that work on the 0.5, 0.1 and even 0.05 scales (although that's just one slightly odd component of size 0.25).  If turrets rounded to the nearest 0.1 HS, the rounding problem is essentially a non-issue.

I hate assumptions, and I really hate it when I find myself basing an agrument on an assumption.  

The method of rounding and locations in the calculation of turret hs are skewing the total.  My assumption was that the higher starting hs of the GC was creating a higher percentage when compared to the lower starting hs of Lasers and Mesons, I was wrong it actually favors them.

Laser Meson Gauss

beam hs 3 3 6

# beams 4 4 4

subtotal beam hs 12 12 24

10% 2 2 3

turret base speed 1250 1250 1250

turret speed 5000 5000 5000

turret hs  multiplier 4 4 4

total gear hs 8 8 12

gear % of beam hs 67% 67% 50%

total turret hs 20 20 36

I will have to rethink this one, I was trying to have a simple table entry change that didn't require a coding change to support it.

[Narmio]

I think we can all agree that a rounding function should not play such a large role in ship design decisions - I know I base all my turrets on the most advantageous rounding situation, and that's kinda odd. I would very much like to see 0.1HS rounding on turrets, that would be awesome and save a lot of headaches!

[Brian Neumann]

I think we can all agree that a rounding function should not play such a large role in ship design decisions - I know I base all my turrets on the most advantageous rounding situation, and that's kinda odd. I would very much like to see 0.1HS rounding on turrets, that would be awesome and save a lot of headaches!

I often add a little extra tracking speed to my turrets to get them to the next full hull space.  Sometimes this is not much, but early in the game I find it is often around 1/2 way to the next tech tracking speed.  This way the ships the turrets are mounted on can have a fairly small upgrade of just the fire control and this will allow for an upgraded tracking speed.  While not as good as replacing the turrets also, it is usually doable in a short time frame, and does not cost as much.  In addition the extra tracking speed on the turret is a fairly small increase in the cost wheras replacing the entire turret is much more expensive.  This has been my way around the rounding issue.

Brian 

[Yonder]

My two cents:

I think that a few smaller changes would be almost as successful in giving beam fighters some more loving.

1. Instead of base aiming speed (can't remember what it's actually called, the value for the weapon not the fire control) being "Max(ship speed, turret speed, base fire control)" it should be "Max(ship speed + turret speed, base fire control)". This change wouldn't effect the larger, slower ships too much, but it would be a huge boon to the fighters. Right now it's impossible to make a small turret to help fighters a little bit, you either have to give them a really big turret (half of which's gear is wasted) or go without.
2. I also think that we should remove the "one engine per" restriction for FACs and Fighters. I don't think that it should be based on ship size either. If you want to build a 20kton ship with 100 fighter engines then go for it.

This would require some balancing tweaks though, I already think that the enormous fuel cost of the smaller engines would make that strategy less workable than you'd think, but we'd probably want to do a couple other things to penalize it a bit further. One possibility would be to further lower small engine efficiencies, but that would harm current fighters too, as would lessening the effect of the efficiency research on small engines, or giving small engines their own separate efficiency research (that adds paperwork in general).

What I would do it increase the failure rate of the smaller engines. It should bother the existing ships too much, because they aren't high endurance craft anyways. Fighters especially spend most of their time in hangars without increasing their maintenance clock.

In addition to an all around failure rate increase, we could have a failure rate penalty for multiple engines. Say two small engines on a ship gives both of them a 20% increased failure chance, etc etc. I'd probably cap that value though, say a five-fold failure rate at ten engines or more.

Heck, if you wanted to you could also give a single exploding engine a bonus chance to spread to other engines.

That way we have the ability to make really really fast ships of all sizes, but they would be fuel-guzzling fiends that are a maintenance nightmare.

[EarthquakeDamage]

In addition to an all around failure rate increase, we could have a failure rate penalty for multiple engines. Say two small engines on a ship gives both of them a 20% increased failure chance, etc etc. I'd probably cap that value though, say a five-fold failure rate at ten engines or more.

AFAIK failure rate for an engine, regardless of size/type, is fixed.  So 5 fighter engines is substantially more failure-prone than 1 military engine.  Besides, your suggestion would greatly penalize large ships, and I don't see the need to only apply a penalty to GB/FTR engines, either, since they're already more than balanced by fuel usage IMO.

Heck, if you wanted to you could also give a single exploding engine a bonus chance to spread to other engines.

Cascade explosions are already quite possible.  If the explosion destroys another engine, that engine may explode.  GB/FTR engines have a greater explosion chance than standard military engines, so further explosions would already be more likely.

[Brian Neumann]

My two cents:
>>>snip<<<
What I would do it increase the failure rate of the smaller engines. It should bother the existing ships too much, because they aren't high endurance craft anyways. Fighters especially spend most of their time in hangars without increasing their maintenance clock.

Maybe instead of a better chance for the engine to explode with damage, up the maintenance cost of the engine above the actual cost of the engine.  This would have little effect on fighters as they are going to be in hangers a lot and their base failure rate is so low.  For bigger ships using these engines it makes them very short ranged in general time wise as well as fuel wise.  Currently it is not a problem to put small ships on sentry duty near jump points if they have good mainenance on board.  If the engines take up a significantly larger portion then they will not be able to stay on station anywhere near as long, or they will have to put more tonnage into maintenance suplies which detracts from their combat ability.

Brian

[Charlie Beeler (OP)]

I could be wrong (imagine that ) but I don't recall any of us that were involved in the original discussions about fighter changes for v2.6 (over 3 years ago http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php/topic,998.0.html) doing any kind of analysis of the speed vs military or gunboat engine usage (much less fuel usage for said speed).  So far I've only done a basic analysis and published it with a suggestion to change the base value to be more in line with what I perceived to the original intent.  

That discussion also was the impetus for introduction of the Gauss Cannon. http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php/topic,1000.0.html

I stand by my assertion that fighters (even 500t ones) are too slow for their fuel consumption rate.  Because of the limitation of a single engine fighters cannot  be built with power to weight ratio's that favor high speed with effective weapons loads.  If the single engine restriction is retained then to power output should be increased to 5x over military engine power as I outlined in the OP or drop the engine count limitation(In which case the limitation should also be dropped from gunboat engines).  In either option there is coding that needs to be changed, but the max hs to qualify to the engine type usage should be retained.  increased explosion chance does not need changing since it's already significantly higher and most fighters that take internals are usually destroyed anyway.

I not sure one way or the other about changing maintenance/failure rates.

I don't recall when turrets were introduced, but it was way before v2.6 when GC's were added.  But I do recall that they were specifically added for the point defense roll.  At the time none of us noticed, or at least posted that I can find, that roundup for the gears was skewed to actually much higher percentages.  I'm sure that it was in place to make sure that a minimum of 1hs was added when turreting a laser or meson cannon.  When GC's were added to the mix I did notice the significant increase for quad mounts but failed to really look into the reason at the time.  I stand by my suggestion that turret tracking speeds should match the 4x value of the same tech level beam fire control tracking speed.  I will amend the suggestion by adding the caveat that the gear hs calculations should be changed as well.  Base track gears should be 20% or 30%, the code to calculate the % should only round nearest whole hs (minimum 1hs) not roundup.

As far as a smaller GC goes, I highly doubt that it will happen.  Quite awhile back I did a fairly detailed suggestion for it and the final outcome was no change(except for the introduction if CIWS).  I started to make a new detailed analysis and suggestion for this and decided, based on the last discussion, that it was a wasted effort.  http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php/topic,1629.195.html starts at reply #205

The last suggestion, changing beam fire control ranges, actually has the broadest impact on game balance and has gotten the least discussion.  By intent and design the various energy weapons have a wide set of differences in range and capability.  After the first few tech levels range becomes effectively equal because of the 5 light second range limitation on the beam fire control.  If we stick with the concept that trans-newtonian particles are limited to Einstienian physics for speed then the suggestion is moot.  

[EarthquakeDamage]

the code to calculate the % should only round nearest whole hs (minimum 1hs) not roundup.

If I understood your explanation earlier, the rounding is done for every weapon added to the turret.  Perhaps only the final turret size should be rounded?  Every weapon would still have additional mass, but the rounding would add at most 1 hs instead of 4.

If we stick with the concept that trans-newtonian particles are limited to Einstienian physics for speed then the suggestion is moot. 

With the sole exception of hyperdrives (technically also sensors and communication), motion in Aurora is limited by light speed.  Also, most beam weapons (exception:  the unspecified Particle Beam) use ordinary non-TN particles like photons, mesons, presumably ordinary plasma, and metal slugs for rail/gauss.  Those slugs are assumed non-TN because otherwise they'd probably have a mineral ammunition/firing cost and might ignore atmosphere (the latter because ships already ignore it ).

[Charlie Beeler (OP)]

If I understood your explanation earlier, the rounding is done for every weapon added to the turret.  Perhaps only the final turret size should be rounded?  Every weapon would still have additional mass, but the rounding would add at most 1 hs instead of 4.

Not per beam added, but both at the 10% gear calculation and the hs addition for speed above tech reseached.

With the sole exception of hyperdrives (technically also sensors and communication), motion in Aurora is limited by light speed.  Also, most beam weapons (exception:  the unspecified Particle Beam) use ordinary non-TN particles like photons, mesons, presumably ordinary plasma, and metal slugs for rail/gauss.  Those slugs are assumed non-TN because otherwise they'd probably have a mineral ammunition/firing cost and might ignore atmosphere (the latter because ships already ignore it ).

Maximum possible beam ranges:

Laser Partical Beam Meson Cannon Railgun Plasma Carronade High Powered Microwave Gauss Cannon

20,160,000  1,200,000  10,080,000  1,800,000  1,680,000  10,080,000  60,000

Functionally only Lasers, Mesons, and HPM would benefit from the change.  Yes, Railguns and Plasma Carronade max range is beyond 5LS but only at the last tech level.  Partical Beams and Gauss Cannons are not an issue with the exception of what the change would do to TOHIT percentages for ALL BEAMS, that's the real game changer and why I'm dubious able actually implementing it.

[Yonder]

Besides, your suggestion would greatly penalize large ships, and I don't see the need to only apply a penalty to GB/FTR engines, either, since they're already more than balanced by fuel usage IMO.

Sorry, I meant that this maintenance penalty would only apply to fighter/FAC engines, military and commercial engines would be unaffected.

It's possible that the fuel usage already balances them, but I don't know. Since Steve hardcoded in a single one of those engines per craft it's possible that he didn't think multiple ones would be balanced, which is why I'm trying to come up with alternate ideas that would penalize a large ship with a bunch of fighter engines.

[sloanjh]

Sorry, I meant that this maintenance penalty would only apply to fighter/FAC engines, military and commercial engines would be unaffected.

It's possible that the fuel usage already balances them, but I don't know. Since Steve hardcoded in a single one of those engines per craft it's possible that he didn't think multiple ones would be balanced, which is why I'm trying to come up with alternate ideas that would penalize a large ship with a bunch of fighter engines.

The general argument Steve makes about "special small-craft" equipment (engines, beam weapons, etc.) is "If you can put one on a small craft, you should be able to put a bazillion on a large craft, and that must not imbalance the game".  At the time GB were introduced, I think you're right - the fear was that the higher power curve would introduce imbalance by allowing GB-engined warships.  I don't know if the implications of the fuel consumption were fully appreciated at the time.  My point of view is that the fuel consumption is sufficiently balancing (especially for fighter engines) that the 1-engine limitation (or a max hull size limitation) is probably unnecessary - this is especially true if these engines suck more fuel during training.  I have no idea if Steve will agree.

One side note:  When GB and fighters were first being advocated, I (and I think a lot of others) thought that the primary way they would stay alive while closing to range would be through speed.  In other words, they'd be so quick (actually "agile") that they would be hard to hit.  It didn't work out this way.  In reality, it's size that's the primary survival trait for GB/fighters - if you can't see them, then you can't shoot at them.  This is what led to the change in the active-sensor range formula a few releases ago - Steve felt that size was too imbalancing a factor (and it probably was).  What that says to me is that back when GB engines were being introduced, we all thought speed was more imbalancing than it actually was.  This leads me to hope that Steve will agree that lifting the 1-engine restriction won't be excessively imbalancing.

John

[Brian Neumann]

There is a problem with the beam weapons table.  You were only looking at the max tech stuff.  In reality most weapons currently can reach the  max range of similiar tech fire control. At the 100,000 rp mark max range is 480,000km.  Particle beams have a range of 400,000km, and are the only weapon that can not reach this range.  Railguns (40cm) reach 840,000km and 60cm Carronades 640,000km.  Mesons and HPM are over 1m km while lasers are 2.24m km.  This is important as most of these weapons would probably stay the same.  The one exeption is the particle beam which is designed as a long range beam weapon.  If fire control ranges are extended then particle beam ranges also need to be extended.  Currently most heavy beam weapons can reach the max fire control range at any given level of tech.  Lasers however can mostly have the medium weight weapons also reach the same max range.  Heavy lasers have an amazing ability to penetrate armour at their max ranges and this is one of their primary abilities.  At the tl I used here 35cm lasers are the heaviest you can build and they are doing 4 points of damage at max range.  15cm lasers have a max range of 420,000km and 20cm max it out but are only doing 1 point of damage at this range.  All of the other weapons have their own advantages and disadvantages.  Caronades are heavier caliber for a given tech than any other beam weapons, Railguns get more shots and have a higher max damage output, HPM do 3 points of damage to shields and once through they blind the target ship, ect.  All of these are tradeoffs that the designer needs to take into account.  If you up the max fire control ranges then most of this will stay the same.  The big difference will be that the railgun and carronades no longer reach the max range of the comparable fire control.  They still will have thier uses in close combat which is where they are better anyway.  The meson and hpm will probably still reach the max range of the fire control, but will need a larger caliber than currently which is probably a good thing.  Particle beams are the only weapon that will be severly impacted without any changes, and their change should be fairly easy to implement.  Currently the particle beam ranges are based on what Steve wanted for a given fire control range, so it shouldn't change his attitude towards them to extend their range as well.

Brian

[ardem]

Jumping in here around fighter 'BEAM' weapon size, I think steve made the mistake that reload factor is the thing impacted by reducing the size of the gun, what should of happened is the range and accuracy should of been reduced. The reload factor should have no bearing on reducing the size of the gun for firing, perhaps even damage down 1 point.

Also I would not be opposed to doubling the range of normal beam weapons, to allow beam fighters in many respects if your fighters or ships are not missile enabled you are at a great disadvantage.

-------

My other thought is manuvuerability, starships cannot rolls, zig and zag to avoid fire and missiles, I think in general fighters should be harder to hit, not just based on Speed like other starships but based on an additional maneuver bonus and also perhaps commander bonuses, I think its just as easy to hit a fighter now as it is to hit a starship travelling at the same speed.

Also some Flares or other countermeasures for missiles would be great, the other thing is when you catch a veseel the fighter reduces it speed to match, I think this is unfair, a fighter should strafe and twist and turn meaning it is always at its maximum speed. All these things would make a fighter a little bit more useful then a missile carrier that majority of player employee them as.


Also there should of been a tech tree on AI, to reduce crew numbers, you put in AI systems into the fighter and you could reduced the crew number to lessen the weight.

Sorry it was off topic but I thought I add my two cents to the discussion

Edit: to make it clear about which weapon sizes i was talking about as I was refering to the post above this that also talks about beam weapons

[Brian Neumann]

Jumping in here around fighter weapon size, I think steve made the mistake that reload factor is the thing impacted by reducing the size of the gun, what should of happened is the range and accuracy should of been reduced. The reload factor should have no bearing on reducing the size of the gun for firing, perhaps even damage down 1 point.

My other thought is manuvuerability, starships cannot rolls, zig and zag to avoid fire and missiles, I think in general fighters should be harder to hit, not just based on Speed like other starships but based on an additional maneuver bonus and also perhaps commander bonuses, I think its just as easy to hit a fighter now as it is to hit a starship travelling at the same speed.

A couple of thoughts in response.  Your analogy to shortening the barrel of a gun is not what is going on here.  Missiles fly at the speed the missile has and the launch platform makes no difference.  The size of the launcher is more about the mechanism for moving the missile from the magazine.  The larger the missile the more space it takes internally, and the more you need to do to get it to the launcher quickly.  The miniturization is more about reducing the mechanisms that move the missile from the magazine to the launcher.  Hence the box launcher which is only slightly larger than the missile it contains, but it has no real method of reloading it without outside help.

As for the issue of fighter manuvuerability I do agree with you in general.  There is one thing you can do to help keep them alive.  Set a very short distance that the fighter is offset from the target, ie 1000km.  This way the fighter is still counted as flying at full speed, even though it is keeping pace with the target ship.  Overall however you are correct a fighter in close to a warship has a very short lifespan indeed.

Brian