Proposal for TechSystem table updates

[sloanjh]

In response to your comment about how hard it is for a pure beam pd to work against missile attacks.  I have done this.  If you put the points that would otherwise be going into missile reasearch then you can do it.  The key is to push the beam tracking speed, and to have all of your ships mount decent point defense.  Either lasers, or mesons in turrets, or alternately lots of 10cm railguns.  I prefer an all laser armament for this as this keeps my weapons research down to 1 track total.  I even turreted my big lasers (35cm iirc) to help in thickening up the point defense.  Also use shields heavily as these will recharge between salvo's.  If their math is off and the use to few missiles to take a ship out then by the time they come back to shooting at you, your shields will be back to full strength.  The only thing that worked against me was being either massivly outmassed, or mass salvo's from box launchers.  In this case they are giving up any future attacks until they get back to a planet for one massive salvo.  Even then the couple of times that this happened I was able to shoot down enough that they didn't kill many of my ships.  I won't say it was an easy setup to play, but it is doable, and has its own rewards - not having to build munitions reduces the cost of my fleet in a big way.

What did you do for planetary defense?  Lots of orbital platforms?

John

[jseah]

Offense is it's own defence?

I tend to neglect planetary defence, mostly relying on mobile fleets to handle anything that comes along. 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My main problem with beam-only PD is that mass for mass, a salvo from 33% size launchers will mostly overwhelm beam PD. 
Especially if they have adapted their missile design for this scenario (ie. small size 3 missiles in 33% size launchers), one 6kton frigate will chuck out upwards of 30 missiles every five minutes. 

A single full salvo will overwhelm the equivalent PD and still deal enough to damage to destroy or cripple the ship unless you have alot of armour (say 6 or 7 layers even), even then the ships can carry at least three salvoes and that will easily demolish even a 3v2 tonnage fleet. 

And the whole thing gets a whole lot worse if the enemy uses a carrier fleet. 


Last I saw, while missiles are expensive, ships are even more expensive. 
In the a design experiment I did just now, a full salvo of 122x of (WH4, 60mkm, 40kkm/s) size 3 missiles costs ~408BP.  The 6kton ship it can destroy costs roughly 3 to 4 times that.  The delivery platform of a missile frigate is ~1200BP. 
IE. 1 missile frigate + 1 load of missiles = 1 pure beam frigate


I'd say that given the relative ease of updating missile designs vs the updating of ship design would place the advantage, even strategically, firmly on the pure missile side than the pure beam side. 
Hybrids might take the cake though. 

[Brian Neumann]

For defense of planets with a pure beam pd setup I use 10cm mesons, or 15cm lasers if the atmosphere is thin enough. 

Most of my games have been solitaire pc vs the npr that the computer puts together.  Computer designed ships rarely have reduced size launchers and I have not come up against that sort of thing.  A lot also does depend on how good your passive defense setup is.  If you can get up to carbon composite armour then having a destroyer (5-6000 tons) with 6 points of armour is not to hard.  Help that along with epsilon shields for 20-30 points of shielding and it does take a lot of missiles to put them out of action.  While I have had a succesful pure beam game, my preference is to have some pd missile to back up the beam weapons.  In this configuration I will have a very few pure missile pd ships with lots of ammo and 10 launchers.  Thier job is to thin out large salvo's so the beam weapons don't get overloaded.  I will usually put them at 1v1 setting.  If they take out 20% of an incomming swarm it makes a big difference.  My pd missiles are not as high tech in general as the rest of the fleet with .2msp for warhead, .01msp for fuel .5engine (which is at max engine tech available) and the rest agility.  Agility is usually around 20-30%.  This is not a great missile but it does work against comparable tech oponents fairly well for what I want.  Against lower tech it rocks of course.
In general game terms I think the hybrid fleet definately had some advantages.  It works really well against a large oponent as you are not constantly having to build missiles to keep up with combat usage.  If you do run out of ammo, then your beam ships are still fairly strong, especially at jump point defense.  Missiles on the other hand definatly have the range advantage, and you can easily update an older fleet by giving them new missiles.  Also the combination works well at system offense or defense, where beam weapons are best suited to holding jump points and missiles are quite weak for this purpose.

Brian

[jseah]

I have contemplated creating a missile based jump point defence however. 

Consisting of no reduced launchers but involving size 3 "sprint mode" missiles optimized for speed and having only 10mkm range. 
Even at internal confinement, it's trivially easy to get missiles that travel at 60kkm/s if you don't want range.  AMMs have incredibly poor hit rates against those. 

And if you want beam range missiles, at internal confinment, I can make my missile go at 72kkm/s with 1mkm range.  For a size 3 launcher + 2 magazines, IE. the size of a good single laser turret, this is not actually too bad considering that shooting these down will be a horrendous task and they basically never miss. 
Normal Size 3 launchers reload at beam weapon rates too so it's more or less a beam weapon at that point. 


Jumppoint assaults are probably the one that missiles are weak at though. 

[Charlie Beeler (OP)]

I'm not sure you understand how beam weapons tracking speed is determined.  Non turreted beams have max potential of the ships speed or the baseline beam fire control speed, whichever is the greater.  Turrets are the means to use the fire control speeds that are greater than baseline.  With turreted weapons the lesser of either the fire control or the turret is used.  Fighters have specialized fire control available that starts at the 4x the ship type fire control.


I don't understand why you think Narmio's post indicates a lack of understanding of tracking speed.  I believe that the point he is trying to make is the following.  Let's say you've got 4000kps turret tracking, and a ship that has a speed of 10000kps, and a fire control with a tracking speed of 16000kps.  This setup will have an overall un-turreted tracking speed of 10000kps, limited by the ship's speed.  In order to get an overall tracking speed that matches that of the fire control, you'd need a 40% turret.  The point is that the first 25 of those 40 percentage points are "wasted" - all they're doing is catching up with the 10000kps ship's speed.  The proposal  changes the trackings speed of a turret to be (ship speed+speed from turret percentage), so in this case you'd only need a 15% turret (with no wasted mass).  Your proposal effectively cuts the turret mass penalty by 4x, so in your case this would be a 10% turret, even for a lumbering (e.g. 4000kps) behemoth.  The differences between the two proposals are 1) that yours is more aggressive (10% vs. 15% in the example, even more so for higher speeds) and 2) the overall tracking speed of the same turret on the behemoth is only 10000kps (4000 speed + 6000 from the turret) - it would require a 30% turret to bring the behemoth up to 16000kps.

What Narmio is saying (I think) is that, with your proposal, it would be VERY cheap to turret the main battery on a BB, so effectively you've removed ship's speed from the tracking speed equation - it's almost no cost to put enough turret mass in to beat the ship's speed.  This means that all turretable beam weapons effectively become dual-use turrets, because the dual-use penalty is too small.  The (ship+turret vice max(ship,turret)) proposal, in contrast enhances the "faster ships have a better chance of hitting fast targets" effect, especially when coupled with bumping up the max possible fighter speed by removing the single-engine restriction (I don't think Steve will go for a change in the power ratio).  This fulfills the stated goal of giving fighters better tracking speed, while having a much smaller effect on slower combatants.  BTW, this "wasted points" issue has been something that's been bothering me for a loooooong time.

So in summary, I think I agree with Narmio:
1)  Turrets add to ship's speed, rather than replacing it for tracking calculations.
2)  Round turret size to the nearest 0.1 (or even 0.05).  Steve said he was planning to rework weapon design, so I assume he'll do this.
3)  Remove the single-engine restrictions from GB/FAC, or even better allow variable mass engine designs (with no max size restriction).

John

PS - It feels like these proposals might be intended to correct a perceived imbalance.  At present, I think it's very difficult to design a fleet that can go up against a missile-armed opponent with only beam point-defense.  Is the goal of your original suggestions to shift that balance so that beam-only PD is an effective strategy?

I stand corrected.  For some reason I was seeing that the ship speed was added to the fire control speed not the turret tracking speed.  The problem I see is that you don't know the speed of the ship you intend to mount the turret at turret design time.  

Yes, I think there is an imbalance where turrets are concerned and not driven by a beam only tech track. I've had a suspection for quite a while that turrets were too large in hull space cost for their game effect, and until a couple of weeks ago I hadn't done any analysis of what the real calculations were.  My assumptions of what the calculations were vs what I found matched what the programs results are significantly different.  

Assumed calculation was something like this: A + roundup((A*.1)*(B / C)) minimum gear hs of 1

Calculation I found to match program results: A + ((roundup(A*.1)*(roundup(B/C))

A = hs of beams added to turret
B = turret tracking speed built
C = turret tracking speed researched

This results in turrets built to use maximum potential of a ships fire control at the 4x level require 50% to 60% more hs to gears vs 40%.  

I have to agree that changing the turret baseline to 4x for a tech level is too aggressive...if the gear calculation is changed to eliminate the 2 internal roundup functions to a single external (to the gear hs portion of the turret calculation) roundup.  In this case the turret baseline speed should be equivalent to 2x the fire control tracking speed.  

[Narmio]

The problem I see is that you don't know the speed of the ship you intend to mount the turret at turret design time.  

I don't think that is necessarily the case.  I know what fleet speeds I'm shooting for when I'm designing components, even if I haven't designed any hulls yet.  Any competent R&D office is going to know that sort of stuff. Some players may have to adjust some habits, maybe even design more turrets than they currently do to equalise tracking speeds across different speed ships, but that's certainly not a significant point against the idea.

Yes, I think there is an imbalance where turrets are concerned and not driven by a beam only tech track. I've had a suspection for quite a while that turrets were too large in hull space cost for their game effect, and until a couple of weeks ago I hadn't done any analysis of what the real calculations were.  My assumptions of what the calculations were vs what I found matched what the programs results are significantly different.  

I have to agree that changing the turret baseline to 4x for a tech level is too aggressive...if the gear calculation is changed to eliminate the 2 internal roundup functions to a single external (to the gear hs portion of the turret calculation) roundup.  In this case the turret baseline speed should be equivalent to 2x the fire control tracking speed.  

I am still missing the reason why turrets are too large for their effect. The rounding situation is one thing, but you keep saying that the base speed needs to be increased.  I haven't seen an argument for significantly increasing the effectiveness of turrets.  I'm not saying there isn't one, just that this thread jumped straight into massively boosting turrets without explaining why.

[Charlie Beeler (OP)]

I don't think that is necessarily the case.  I know what fleet speeds I'm shooting for when I'm designing components, even if I haven't designed any hulls yet.  Any competent R&D office is going to know that sort of stuff. Some players may have to adjust some habits, maybe even design more turrets than they currently do to equalise tracking speeds across different speed ships, but that's certainly not a significant point against the idea.

My point is that you know what you intend, but... the program does not.  Even if a function is added to turret design, designs change, get upgraded, etc etc.  And lets face it history is full of "competent R&D" being way off real world implementation, been there done that and refused the t-shirt.

I am still missing the reason why turrets are too large for their effect. The rounding situation is one thing, but you keep saying that the base speed needs to be increased.  I haven't seen an argument for significantly increasing the effectiveness of turrets.  I'm not saying there isn't one, just that this thread jumped straight into massively boosting turrets without explaining why.

Effectiveness is not being changed, only the mass dedicated to the gimble/gears to support the turret.  When I talk about weapons effectiveness I'm referring to hit probability only and the hull space requirements have an indirect impact here.

Under the current calculation and with the turret speed matching the baseline fire control and the turrets built to the FC 4x speed a quad 10cm laser turret is 20hs, same for a 10cm meson, and a quad gauss cannon turret is 36hs.  With just the calculation changed that becomes 16hs for the laser and meson turrets, and 32hs for the gauss cannon.  Considering that these turrets can expect to see missiles that have speeds that are at least 5x faster than their tracking speeds the effectiveness is only 40%(if...you have a FC that is at 100% for the 10k to hit) per shot before any modifiers are applied, and that is only if the the missiles are from an equal tech level.  That's a lot of mass for, what I consider, a sub-par effectiveness.

And with both the calculation and the turret baseline changed to equal the FC 2x speed the same turrets are 14 and 28 hull spaces.  With the turrets matching the FC 4x speeds the hull spaces change to 13 and 26 not a huge change from 2x but significantly better that current and effectiveness (per turret) hasn't changed.  I consider these values to be more in-line with game effectiveness. 

[Narmio]

Effectiveness is not being changed, only the mass dedicated to the gimble/gears to support the turret.  When I talk about weapons effectiveness I'm referring to hit probability only and the hull space requirements have an indirect impact here.

Smaller gears = smaller turret = more turrets per ship = extra hit probability and extra damage per second.  To me that sounds like a change in effectiveness.

[Charlie Beeler (OP)]

Smaller gears = smaller turret = more turrets per ship = extra hit probability and extra damage per second.  To me that sounds like a change in effectiveness.

Correct, the effectiveness of the individual turret is not being changed.  What the player uses the freed hull space for is wide open. 

[Narmio]

Correct, the effectiveness of the individual turret is not being changed.  What the player uses the freed hull space for is wide open. 

OK, this is kinda a silly semantics debate at this point, but it's important to understanding why you're proposing these changes.  A ship component that performs a certain task and takes a certain hull space has a certain effectiveness.  An component that performs the same task and takes less hull space is more effective! The ship can be lighter, or can have more of that component, or more other components, or whatever, but that freed hull space is of value whatever you do with it.  Having that free space is tangibly better than not having it.

To use a bit of reductio ad absurdum, would a 100% accuracy gauss cannon that only took one hull space be more effective than one that took 6? What about a 1HS jump drive for a 20,000 battleship? Smaller parts make your ship more effective.

This is not the discussion that we should be having.  You want to make turret-bearing ships more effective than they currently are. Let's talk about why, rather than talking about what "effective" means. A HS-to-HS comparison of AMM systems versus beam PD systems, perhaps? Show us why PD turrets are so much worse.

[Charlie Beeler (OP)]

OK, this is kinda a silly semantics debate at this point, but it's important to understanding why you're proposing these changes.  A ship component that performs a certain task and takes a certain hull space has a certain effectiveness.  An component that performs the same task and takes less hull space is more effective! The ship can be lighter, or can have more of that component, or more other components, or whatever, but that freed hull space is of value whatever you do with it.  Having that free space is tangibly better than not having it.

To use a bit of reductio ad absurdum, would a 100% accuracy gauss cannon that only took one hull space be more effective than one that took 6? What about a 1HS jump drive for a 20,000 battleship? Smaller parts make your ship more effective.

This is not the discussion that we should be having.  You want to make turret-bearing ships more effective than they currently are. Let's talk about why, rather than talking about what "effective" means. A HS-to-HS comparison of AMM systems versus beam PD systems, perhaps? Show us why PD turrets are so much worse.

Reduction to absurdity or proof by contradiction is a waste of time, the game is not modelling to a detail level to make the effort worthwhile.

At this point if you've read all the posts in this topic and followed and read the links to previous discussions and still do not understand what I'm driving at, further detailing will not help. 

Steve will either act on the suggestions or he won't.  I don't expect him to implement any of it whole cloth.  Never have, never will. 

[Narmio]

Reduction to absurdity or proof by contradiction is a waste of time, the game is not modelling to a detail level to make the effort worthwhile.

At this point if you've read all the posts in this topic and followed and read the links to previous discussions and still do not understand what I'm driving at, further detailing will not help. 

Steve will either act on the suggestions or he won't.  I don't expect him to implement any of it whole cloth.  Never have, never will. 

I didn't mean for this to turn so cold...  I was just saying you're proposing making something better and I don't feel you've explained why it needs to be better. Forgive me the reductio ad absurdum, that was a little flippant on my part, but I really wasn't expecting you not to concede that making something smaller = making it better.

Please explain - or quote from your previous explanations if I've missed something - why point defence turrets need to be better. You telling me I don't understand and therefore the discussion should cease isn't helping. I like the idea of discussing relative point defence system balance, and I want to know your take on it.  I'm not at all opposed to the idea of improving turrets, nor am I trying to threadcrap with talk about what constitutes "effectiveness".  I just want to talk about the game design rationale for the proposed suggestion.

[sloanjh]

Reduction to absurdity or proof by contradiction is a waste of time, the game is not modelling to a detail level to make the effort worthwhile.

At this point if you've read all the posts in this topic and followed and read the links to previous discussions and still do not understand what I'm driving at, further detailing will not help. 

Steve will either act on the suggestions or he won't.  I don't expect him to implement any of it whole cloth.  Never have, never will. 

Attempting reset:

Here's the original comment that started the "effectiveness" digression:

I am still missing the reason why turrets are too large for their effect. The rounding situation is one thing, but you keep saying that the base speed needs to be increased.  I haven't seen an argument for significantly increasing the effectiveness of turrets.  I'm not saying there isn't one, just that this thread jumped straight into massively boosting turrets without explaining why.

Here's what Narmio probably should have said:

I haven't seen an argument for significantly increasing the effectiveness of an equal mass of turrets.

Can we assume Narmio phrased it that way and go from there?

I would like to end up with a consensus opion that we can post back in the main suggestion thread.  I would like that consensus opion to be "Turret speed should add to ship speed, rather than replacing it, when calculating the total tracking speed of a weapons mount." 

I think we also need to put in a consensus "PLEASE fix the rounding of turrets so that it uses increments of 0.1 HS".  I think it's safe to assume that Steve will agree to and do this (at some point in time ).

The reason I prefer the "add speed" proposal to the original suggestion (of cutting the mass penalty/turret speed ratio by 4x) is that it keeps turrets expensive as compared to standard mounts while eliminating the current discrimation against putting turrets on fast ships (due to wasted turret mass).  You (Charlie) have expressed concern about not knowing the ship's speed when designing the turret.  I don't understand why this would be an issue.  I expect that one would either design a set of standard turrets (e.g. 4K, 8K, 12K speed) and incorporate the best one into a ship one's designing, or (at worst) spend a week or two designing a custom turret for a particular new ship class before laying it down.

Note that this proposal does not preclude changing the mass penalty/turret speed ratio; that could still be done as a separate correction.  I think it is a good thing to try as a first step, however, since I think it's much more likely to be adopted by Steve (since it's a change in game physics that seems to make sense and corrects a problem with high-speed ships, rather than a tuning of the effectiveness of a particular weapons system.)

So the question is: "Can you agree to this concensus proposal?"  If you can't, then I'd like to hear your new proposal (since IIRC you agreed that 4x is probably too aggressive an improvement).

Based on what you've said, I think that you feel that beam point defense is too weak, i.e. it costs too much mass to get a hit on a single missile, and that this is why you proposed changing the mass penalty/turret speed ratio.  If this is correct, and if you feel the "add speed" proposal won't solve the problem, perhaps the discussion should be taken to a new "should we and how do we improve beam point defense" break-out thread (since this one has become a bit cluttered)?

John

[Narmio]

Can we assume Narmio phrased it that way and go from there?

Thanks, sloanjh. Yeah, that's pretty much what I meant.  Also, I'm on board with the "Add turret speed to tracking" and "round to 0.1HS" suggestions.  As an aside, they will improve* turrets quite a bit anyway - both suggestions make the turret you need smaller.  Probably by about 5-10% depending on fleet doctrines, but fast escorts could, for example, be saving about 50% of their gear space. Gunboats could add turrets with only 10% gears and do PD duty.  I like it, but I'd also like to see what people do with it before we do anything else.

* Let's not go through this again! By "improved" in this case I explicitly mean "able to do the same thing while being smaller".

[jseah]

I like the idea of deploying fighters as missile defence. 

It gives beam fighters a very useful role. 

---------
EDIT: I do like the 0.1HS rounding (would prefer a smaller rounding, like 0.01HS) and the adding ship's speed.