Proposal for TechSystem table updates

[ardem]

I am talking about not missile launchers above but beam weapons, the mechanics around reduction of these components would not be the reload factor for the next short but the amount of power generated, and the smaller mirrors, gear systems, barrels which would affect accuracy, power density and range.

Missile launching system I totally agree  is a totally different issue around size reduction this definitely would affect reload times, but when your talking about the build up of energy and the firing of energy that is all in the capacitor system, not the actual beam weapon. The size of the weapon it more around the amount of power and range it can generate. Example.

Say the laser light you create is fired and it has a 3 to 4 metre trail behind it, this create the melting force into the armour. Making a smaller version would reduce the trail or power density of that pulse of light, which would reduce damage and range.

[EarthquakeDamage]

The only beam weapons that can be reduced in size are lasers and gauss (IMO the rest should have the same option as lasers).  For various reasons (e.g. damage dropoff with range, integer values instead of floating point or whatever), it's better for reduced-size lasers to increase the power requirement than to decrease damage.  I suppose lasers could follow the gauss model and reduce accuracy, and that'd probably be fine.  It'd be more consistent, especially if the option were available to all beam weapons.

[Narmio]

Making a smaller version would reduce the trail or power density of that pulse of light, which would reduce damage and range.

The option already exists to do this.  Just use a lower calibre laser and you get less damage and less range.

The gauss cannon is a kinda special case in that it already has minimal damage and minimal range, so some other kind of tradeoff is needed, thus accuracy.  But for everything else there's reducing calibre.

[ardem]

My point was about reality the 'miniaturization' of a laser weapon does not decrease the reload speed, but the power and accuracy.

Yes the reduction of Focal point decreases the size, but this is about making something for fighter that why you have miniaturize tech ability.

The smallest 12cm focal laser is without miniaturization is already too heavy for a fighter, that why this 50% decrease was included. You are correct you could get rid of this all together and add a 6cm or 8cm focal point for lasers.

[dooots]

I think slower reload was chosen to keep point defense from being too powerful and keeping the weapon useful.  The accuracy drop on gauss cannons is not that bad because of the rate of fire, but a laser could go a long time with out scoring a hit with a base 50% hit rate.

Adding a normal 6cm laser could make early to mid game point defense too strong.  Depending on stats they could compete with medium level gauss cannons for best point defense beam weapon.

On the agility what if fighter and gun boat engines gave the ship an agility rating.  It could either reduce the hit percent like ecm does to beam weapons but for all weapons or be a multiplier to the speed in the chance to hit formula.

For the ecm option it could be something like sqrt(speed/10) for fighters and sqrt(speed/20) for gun boats.  I was going to go with hs * 2 for fighter and just hs for gun boats but 4 hs fighter would become invincible with max techs.

The agility rating being a multiplier for speed in the chance to hit formula would probably be a better choice.  It could just be flat multiplier the engine gives, say 2 for gun boats and 3 for fighters.  Those are just really rough guesses but it gives something to start with.

[EarthquakeDamage]

Adding a normal 6cm laser could make early to mid game point defense too strong.  Depending on stats they could compete with medium level gauss cannons for best point defense beam weapon.

A 6cm laser would deal either 1 or 2 damage.  At max tech (i.e. range multiplier x12) a 1 pt laser would have twice the range of max tech gauss, but fire only one shot compared to 8 for gauss.  Suppose 6cm lasers weigh in at 2 HS.  Further suppose it has 50% size reduction but you can still achieve a 5 sec firing rate with max tech capacitors.  So 1 HS, 1 dam, 100% accuracy.  Six of these has the same size as a 6 HS, 1 dam, 100% accuracy gauss cannon.  The difference:  gauss gets 8 shots, laser gets 6 shots and double range (still useless for anything but final fire).  Without 50% size reduction, the laser only gets 3 shots for the same hull space.  So gauss remains the superior PD choice (since both deal 1 damage, missile armor doesn't matter).

If the 6cm laser dealt 2 damage, it'd give gauss a run for its money at 2 HS.  IIRC 10cm lasers are only 3 HS, so a 2 pt laser would need to be 2.5 HS or 3 HS for balance.  At 3 HS, why bother?  At 2.5, you don't gain anything substantial, so again why bother?

So no, I don't think there's anything to be gained by adding smaller lasers.  They certainly wouldn't outperform gauss on the PD front.

On the agility what if fighter and gun boat engines gave the ship an agility rating.  It could either reduce the hit percent like ecm does to beam weapons but for all weapons or be a multiplier to the speed in the chance to hit formula.

I think agility/maneuvering is already implied in the "speed makes you hard to hit" calculation.  If gunboats/fighters need an extra dodge bonus (and IMO they don't), their size should be the reason.  Maybe add an accuracy penalty against ships below a certain size?  That size could be, say, 10-20% of the firing ship's size.  But then specialized anti-fighter turrets/fire controls (you know, with high tracking speed) would perform poorly.  This would also make PD horrible, since missiles are in some sense tiny ships (20 MSP = 1 HS).

Personally, I'm satisfied with the way it's handled now.  Fire controls with high tracking speed are heavier and probably don't have the same range (since range and speed scale independently, and you probably don't want 16 HS fire controls).  Your tracking speed is the minimum of your FC and your weapon.  Standard weapon tracking speed is the maximum of ship speed (high for GBs/fighters) and base tracking speed tech (the FC one, not the turret one -- either way, it's poor against GBs/fighters).  Turreted weapons with high tracking speed are heavy.  So full size warships shooting at small craft have heavy weapons, low accuracy, or both.

The only defense a fighter needs is high speed.  I like the OP's suggestions here:  x5 mult instead of x3 and/or no engine limit.  They make fighters more competitive against GBs speed-wise (but not firepower- or armor-wise), and heavy fighters (10 HS) become viable.  GBs/fighters do not need a magic agility rating to add moar evasion.  Remember:  They're cheap and quick.  Cheap means they shouldn't match a larger ship's firepower and durability.  Quick means they're great for pursuit, harassment (hit-and-run), and keeping your larger, more expensive ships out of harm's way.

[ardem]

You could make the 6cm and 8cm fighter only, this would be the easy solution if your worried about point defence, and also these options come available as a substitute to the 25 and 50% reduction instead.

As for your speed opinion, and manuvuerability for a 7500 ton ship going at 10,000km/s has the same percentage to be hit has a 500 Ton fighter at 10,000 km/s, also a fighter rolls and has a general higher standard of movemen,t where as a 7500ton frigate cannot, because there is too much energy expanded needed for it to complete those manoeuvres.

So I disagree a fighter and perhaps a gunboat should have a percentage manoeuvres bonus.

Also when on 'follow' a fighter and gunboat should retain 100% speed always.

I am actually happy with the current fighter speeds, otherwise if you change them you will need to change missile tech, to increase theses speeds.

[Charlie Beeler (OP)]

Gentlemen,  reduced size beam mounts is a bit off topic.  It's a good topic in it's own right though.  Erik,  can we get those responses split to thier own thread?

[dooots]

I think agility/maneuvering is already implied in the "speed makes you hard to hit" calculation.  If gunboats/fighters need an extra dodge bonus (and IMO they don't), their size should be the reason.  Maybe add an accuracy penalty against ships below a certain size?  That size could be, say, 10-20% of the firing ship's size.  But then specialized anti-fighter turrets/fire controls (you know, with high tracking speed) would perform poorly.  This would also make PD horrible, since missiles are in some sense tiny ships (20 MSP = 1 HS).

Size already plays a roll, you can't shoot what you can't see.  This works perfectly fine against a fleet lacking point defense but as you said missiles are much smaller then fighters.

Personally, I'm satisfied with the way it's handled now.  Fire controls with high tracking speed are heavier and probably don't have the same range (since range and speed scale independently, and you probably don't want 16 HS fire controls).  Your tracking speed is the minimum of your FC and your weapon.  Standard weapon tracking speed is the maximum of ship speed (high for GBs/fighters) and base tracking speed tech (the FC one, not the turret one -- either way, it's poor against GBs/fighters).  Turreted weapons with high tracking speed are heavy.  So full size warships shooting at small craft have heavy weapons, low accuracy, or both.

I seem to be missing your point.  Any fleet that plans on using beams for PD will be using a FC and turret that will have no issue tracking a fighter/fac.

The only defense a fighter needs is high speed.  I like the OP's suggestions here:  x5 mult instead of x3 and/or no engine limit.  They make fighters more competitive against GBs speed-wise (but not firepower- or armor-wise), and heavy fighters (10 HS) become viable.  GBs/fighters do not need a magic agility rating to add moar evasion.  Remember:  They're cheap and quick.  Cheap means they shouldn't match a larger ship's firepower and durability.  Quick means they're great for pursuit, harassment (hit-and-run), and keeping your larger, more expensive ships out of harm's way.

I don't think its magic.  I look at like the engines of some modern fighters that can change the direction of the thrust to improve agility.  I agree fighters and facs should go down easier then normal ships but currently they are slow missiles with a bit of armor making them fairly easy targets for PD.

[sloanjh]

*SNIP*
I don't think its magic.  I look at like the engines of some modern fighters that can change the direction of the thrust to improve agility.  I agree fighters and facs should go down easier then normal ships but currently they are slow missiles with a bit of armor making them fairly easy targets for PD.

And this ("slow missiles") is the thing that you have almost zero chance of getting changed.  One of Steve's core principles (which has led to some very good game effects) is trying to develop as set of "physical laws", and then pushing them to their logical conclusion.  This means that GB/FTR are small ships with reduced crew requirements because they don't have to stay on station longer, and missiles are really small ships with no crew requirements because the computer can handle their limited tasks.  This means GB/FTR are caught between a rock and a hard place - Steve will insist that any "hard to hit because they're agile" bonuses applied to them also be applied to missiles, and that will wreck PD.  That's why there's hope of getting the single-engine requirement removed - it's breaking the "one set of physical laws for everyone".

So the trick is to figure out a way to justify why GB/FTR should get a bonus that neither ships nor missiles get.  This will obviously be very difficult, since missiles are smaller/more agile than ships.  Just about the only factor I can think of is that there are humans on board GB/FTR and not on missiles - if you can think of some hand-waving that will take advantage of that you might get a change through....

John

[Charlie Beeler (OP)]

I agree with John on this, special target handling for smallcraft is not needed.

With the last round of changes to active sensors has had a segnificant impact on fighter operations, Brian has touched on this already.  It used to be that hull cross sections that didn't match the active sensor resolution thier detection was severly degraded.  This allowed a bit of 'gaming' the rules and allowed fighters to close to very close ranges without being detected if the defending fleet did not have at least 1 sensor suite dedicated to thier detection.  The change has allowed missile detection sensors to see fighters and gunboats at fairly extended ranges. 

This leads to another suggestion that I haven't as yet researched enough to make a detailed proposal on, changes to small craft counter-measures.  Basicly change the prerequisite techs to allow them to be introduced much earlier.

[dooots]

And this ("slow missiles") is the thing that you have almost zero chance of getting changed.  One of Steve's core principles (which has led to some very good game effects) is trying to develop as set of "physical laws", and then pushing them to their logical conclusion.  This means that GB/FTR are small ships with reduced crew requirements because they don't have to stay on station longer, and missiles are really small ships with no crew requirements because the computer can handle their limited tasks.  This means GB/FTR are caught between a rock and a hard place - Steve will insist that any "hard to hit because they're agile" bonuses applied to them also be applied to missiles, and that will wreck PD.  That's why there's hope of getting the single-engine requirement removed - it's breaking the "one set of physical laws for everyone".

So the trick is to figure out a way to justify why GB/FTR should get a bonus that neither ships nor missiles get.  This will obviously be very difficult, since missiles are smaller/more agile than ships.  Just about the only factor I can think of is that there are humans on board GB/FTR and not on missiles - if you can think of some hand-waving that will take advantage of that you might get a change through....

John

Well part of the way I look at is any counter measures I can come up with will be ineffective vs PD beams and coming up with hand waving to say why they work would be no worse then the agility.  Now that may not be the greatest reason to support agility but it is a valid point imo.

Like you said the missile are computer controlled and for now no computer can be truly random.  Given computers that can instantly process all the sensor data you would be getting I don't think it would be far fetched for them to quickly brute force the algorithm the missile is using to dodge so it mostly becomes a problem of hitting a small fast target with a bit of uncertainty on where it will go.

Also I said earlier the fighter and fac engines could be designed to improve agility.  As to why missiles would not have the same engine design it could be a size issue or to keep costs down or that missiles are replaceable and humans are not.  Normal ships would not use said engines to keep costs down, reduce wear and tear, and conserve fuel.  As for what the designs would be to improve agility would depend on how strongly you want to stick to how the game is implemented.  If you go purely by game rules the only real option I can think of is something similar to after burners that increases the ships max speed for a short burst.  If you are willing to relax on the infinite acceleration that opens up the ability to improve the ships ability to change direction.  Also with the one engine limit a fighter and GB engine could actually be several smaller engines setup in such a way that they improve agility.  This would not be possible at the engine design level for normal engines as they are used in different numbers depending on ship requirements.

Hopefully that shows that extra agility is not that far fetched.  In the end all I'm looking for is a way to make beam armed fighters/facs harder targets to kill now that they can be seen at much longer ranges by the sensors that are used for either PD or seeing normal ships.

[wilddog5]

i don't use fighters so i don't really care if this changes but fighters have people who are intelligent (?) want to live and have been trained in these things, a missile just wants to get to the target and declare itself god to the enemy

so fighters could have the extra evasion and missiles not because of the limits of programing (new techline? missle AI)

[Charlie Beeler (OP)]

Well part of the way I look at is any counter measures I can come up with will be ineffective vs PD beams and coming up with hand waving to say why they work would be no worse then the agility.  Now that may not be the greatest reason to support agility but it is a valid point imo.

Like you said the missile are computer controlled and for now no computer can be truly random.  Given computers that can instantly process all the sensor data you would be getting I don't think it would be far fetched for them to quickly brute force the algorithm the missile is using to dodge so it mostly becomes a problem of hitting a small fast target with a bit of uncertainty on where it will go.

Also I said earlier the fighter and fac engines could be designed to improve agility.  As to why missiles would not have the same engine design it could be a size issue or to keep costs down or that missiles are replaceable and humans are not.  Normal ships would not use said engines to keep costs down, reduce wear and tear, and conserve fuel.  As for what the designs would be to improve agility would depend on how strongly you want to stick to how the game is implemented.  If you go purely by game rules the only real option I can think of is something similar to after burners that increases the ships max speed for a short burst.  If you are willing to relax on the infinite acceleration that opens up the ability to improve the ships ability to change direction.  Also with the one engine limit a fighter and GB engine could actually be several smaller engines setup in such a way that they improve agility.  This would not be possible at the engine design level for normal engines as they are used in different numbers depending on ship requirements.

Hopefully that shows that extra agility is not that far fetched.  In the end all I'm looking for is a way to make beam armed fighters/facs harder targets to kill now that they can be seen at much longer ranges by the sensors that are used for either PD or seeing normal ships.

Your overlooking a critical point, Aurora engines are not thrust/DeltaV/interia drives so the afterburner analogy doesn't apply.  Brian's point is that if an option is added for smallcraft to use agility/advanced manouvering/etc to degraded targeting them then it has to be added for all ship types for internal consistancy.  This has been something that Steve, and a lot of the orginal core players, have not wanted to introduce to the game and the code.

[sloanjh]

*SNIP*

Hopefully that shows that extra agility is not that far fetched.  In the end all I'm looking for is a way to make beam armed fighters/facs harder targets to kill now that they can be seen at much longer ranges by the sensors that are used for either PD or seeing normal ships.

*EDIT*  Rereading the thread, it looks like I'm zeroing in on an off-the-cuff comment you made.  So please consider the below a treatise on "Background Thoughts for Those Who Would Like Agile, Beam-Armed Fighters" in the context of the post I quoted.

First, let me say that although it might not sound like it, I would love for beam-armed fighters to be survivable enough to close to beam range like an X-Wing above the Death Star.  The problem is that, as near as I can tell, from the beginning of Aurora Steve has been strongly against this idea because he feels it would be too unbalancing in favor of fighters.  I think part of the problem is something called (IIRC) the "Fighter Laser" in Starfire.  This was a weapon that basically jammed a laser turret onto a very hard-to-hit fighter (without any performance penalties), and let a fighter wing sit in close contact with a squadron of battleships and chew them up with unlimited shots (if you've read Steve's Rigellian Diary you'll know what I mean).  I think that the thing that offended Steve's sensibilities about this was that, just because beam-armed fighters are cool, the game allowed you to put super-powered (considering the size constraints) beam weapons onto a fighter resulting in an imbalance towards fighters.  The experience of those of us who'd love to have X-Wings over the Death Star has been that we have to have rock-solid arguments as to why changes in that direction make sense from a game mechanics point of view, and why they won't be imbalancing.  FAC actually resulted from one such set of arguments.

To put it a different way, Steve seems to prefer having fighters be a standoff missile-launch platform, rather than being short-ranged beam fighters.  If you want that to change (like I do), you'll have to convince him that such a change would be good.  This is different from making the argument "I'd like X to be in the game, and X is not far fetched."  The other problem is that the reason that sensors were improved to see GB/FTR at longer ranges is that the game was imbalanced in favor of these systems - trying to make them more powerful is going to be an uphill slog.  The one glimmer of hope here is that the game is currently balanced against knife-fighters, so you don't have to fight the imbalance argument for them.  The problem then becomes "How do I help knife-fighters without making missile-fighters impossible to hit?" because otherwise you're pushing against the imbalance that caused the sensor change.

So my message is not that I don't like what you're trying to do, but that I don't think your arguments are compelling enough to get the change you want.  And, given the rate at which computers are advancing, the argument "humans will be better at dodging incoming fire than computers" just doesn't seem to hold up (as much as I would like it to).  So it all comes back to the question "How do I design a mechanism that will make GB/FTR harder to hit but won't crush defense against missiles or missile-fighters?".  Think of it as making a DARPA proposal:  "using the Aurora set of technology/physical rules, I could make something that would do X, but the game doesn't let me do it."  Just saying it's plausible almost certainly won't be enough.

John