Railguns mechanic

[Steve Walmsley]

E: Another option: let the design ROF be the ROF of the full-size railgun with whatever capacitor technology is selected, and then reduce the capacitor size of a reduced-shot railgun and preserve the same ROF. For example, a 12cm railgun (6 power) with a C3 capacitory will have ROF 10; if I then select the two-shot variation, it will have a C1.5 capacitor in the design (even though C3 tech is selected) and thus still have ROF 10 even though the required power per increment is reduced. I think this makes sense, avoids weird exceptions and arbitrary limits, and allows reduced-size railguns of any caliber to be an option for smaller craft without affecting large ship balance.

Yeah, I was about to suggest something similar. It does make sense to cap ROF to be same regardless of amount of shots fired.

Yes, that would solve the problem without requiring a special rule. It's much better.

[Zincat]

E: Another option: let the design ROF be the ROF of the full-size railgun with whatever capacitor technology is selected, and then reduce the capacitor size of a reduced-shot railgun and preserve the same ROF. For example, a 12cm railgun (6 power) with a C3 capacitory will have ROF 10; if I then select the two-shot variation, it will have a C1.5 capacitor in the design (even though C3 tech is selected) and thus still have ROF 10 even though the required power per increment is reduced. I think this makes sense, avoids weird exceptions and arbitrary limits, and allows reduced-size railguns of any caliber to be an option for smaller craft without affecting large ship balance.

Ohh I like it. Much better than an arbitrary caliber restriction. Well thought out.

[Bremen]

If you go with the standardized rate of fire idea (the same regardless of number of shots) would it be worth increasing the cost/size reduction? Currently the scaling makes a 1 shot railgun approximately 1/3rd the size/cost of a 4 shot, which is pretty inefficient if they have the same ROF. Previously even the small caliber ones ended up considerably cheaper since you could use lower capacitor techs for them.

[nuclearslurpee]

If you go with the standardized rate of fire idea (the same regardless of number of shots) would it be worth increasing the cost/size reduction? Currently the scaling makes a 1 shot railgun approximately 1/3rd the size/cost of a 4 shot, which is pretty inefficient if they have the same ROF. Previously even the small caliber ones ended up considerably cheaper since you could use lower capacitor techs for them.

I think it is fine as it is. Many component types in Aurora becomes more cost-efficient as they scale up in size (true for, e.g., fuel storage, Cargo/cryo/troop transports, etc.) and in this case the reduced-shot railguns are really only for smaller craft so we aren't balancing the costs of mounting 40 single-shot guns versus 10 four-shot guns.

Note that if we make them the same cost, the single-shot railguns again become superior in most cases due to reduced research costs, increasing ship HTK, etc. so it is better for balance to have a cost premium attached to the size reduction.

[xenoscepter]

If you go with the standardized rate of fire idea (the same regardless of number of shots) would it be worth increasing the cost/size reduction? Currently the scaling makes a 1 shot railgun approximately 1/3rd the size/cost of a 4 shot, which is pretty inefficient if they have the same ROF. Previously even the small caliber ones ended up considerably cheaper since you could use lower capacitor techs for them.

 --- Perhaps I am mis-understanding things, but the suggestion was not to merely cap the RoF, but rather to force a lower Capacitor to be used, ergo the cost-savings of those lower capacitors would be preserved. So despite a 3 Capacitor being put in the reduced shot gun only 1.5 would count, ergo you would reduce the capacitor to 1.5 or less.

[nuclearslurpee]

If you go with the standardized rate of fire idea (the same regardless of number of shots) would it be worth increasing the cost/size reduction? Currently the scaling makes a 1 shot railgun approximately 1/3rd the size/cost of a 4 shot, which is pretty inefficient if they have the same ROF. Previously even the small caliber ones ended up considerably cheaper since you could use lower capacitor techs for them.

 --- Perhaps I am mis-understanding things, but the suggestion was not to merely cap the RoF, but rather to force a lower Capacitor to be used, ergo the cost-savings of those lower capacitors would be preserved. So despite a 3 Capacitor being put in the reduced shot gun only 1.5 would count, ergo you would reduce the capacitor to 1.5 or less.

The idea is that the capacitor tech is the same for all variants, the actual capacitor power is simply reduced proportionally. I'm not actually sure what this would do to the cost as I don't know how Aurora computes the cost, if it is based on the tech or the capacitance value. Either way I am sure Steve will make sure that the cost balance is as desired so that large ships will prefer 4-shot railguns as intended.

[Density]

If you go with the standardized rate of fire idea (the same regardless of number of shots) would it be worth increasing the cost/size reduction? Currently the scaling makes a 1 shot railgun approximately 1/3rd the size/cost of a 4 shot, which is pretty inefficient if they have the same ROF. Previously even the small caliber ones ended up considerably cheaper since you could use lower capacitor techs for them.

 --- Perhaps I am mis-understanding things, but the suggestion was not to merely cap the RoF, but rather to force a lower Capacitor to be used, ergo the cost-savings of those lower capacitors would be preserved. So despite a 3 Capacitor being put in the reduced shot gun only 1.5 would count, ergo you would reduce the capacitor to 1.5 or less.

It depends on a bit of data that isn't clear on slurpee's excelent suggestion, which is whether the costs to research/build the design is using the capacitor selected (3 in this example) or the capacitor used (1.5 same example), so people may be assuming different things. Unless they meant the savings on the research cost of the Capacitor Rate tech needed to reach a target RoF on any given large-caliber, single-shot railgun vs the research cost to get the same RoF on the four-shot version. 'Cuz that goes away, as it should.

As an aside, there would not be an "or less." With this suggestion, any two-shot railgun where capacitor rate 3 was selected would result in a design with a capacitor rate 1.5. If you wanted the end result to be less, you'd select a cap rate that was less than 3 from the pull-down (and it would calculate RoF using that).

[KriegsMeister]

So I have always been intrigued about why railguns were even multi-shot to begin with.  What was the original reasoning for Steve to makethis design choice either IRL or in-game lore reasons.  As well as some questions of other weapons.  I think it's a little silly to not talk about Guass cannons, being the sister kinnetic beam, in comparison to rails and my main gripes are why they only do 1 damage and can be turreted while rails can not.  My understanding of their real life mechanics are basic, but I don't think the game mechanics really line up well. 

First, Gauss weapons, or otherwise known as Coilguns, send an electric current through either a single or multiple coils to create a magnetic field.  A magnetic object is then pulled in from one end of the coil(s) and pushed out the other end.   It requires obscene amounts of energy to achieve decent velocities with any meaningful amount of mass.  However,, they are generally very energy efficient since you can turn it on and push as many projectiles through as you want with out much degradation of velocity/energy of subsequent shots. 

Railguns, on the other hand, are made of 2 conductive rails, closed at one end and open at the other.  An electrical current is passed through the rails and a conductive object placed between (either the projectile itself, or a sabot/sled that carry the projectile).  The projectile is then accelerated away from the base of the rails via the Lorentz force.  The benefits of rail guns compared to coils, is that they are significantly cheaper to construct and can more easily achieve higher velocities with the same amount of energy.  With the one major drawback being almost total energy loss with each shot.

With that being said, my suggestion would be a little more involved change to the designing of rails/gauss's but would still keep their current roles in game.  First, I'd make both have caliber, velocity, and capicitor techs, removing gauss accuracy tech.  I'd make both turretable, because why not.  While both use capacitors, they have different effects.  On gauss they would be basically the same as the original rate of fire tech, increasing power = more rounds.  Rails however would get a multiplier to velocity which would increase range and damage.  This would inturn make these weapons very similar but increasing capictor give Gauss more dps but rails more alpha and range.  So a 10cm Gauss would still do 1 damage and be short range and rapid fire, ideal for PD.  10 cm rail could extend range and damage but that damage would be wasted on missiles, though might be better for anti-fighter/fac work and double as PD in a pinch.  And this relationship of short range/good dps and long range/good alpha would continue in larger calibers.  Possibly make rails a bit cheaper for given the same caliber/base velocity/capacitor in comparison.  This would require more involved mathing and testing then I am capable of doing to find a right balance. 

This is definitely a much more roundabout way to "fixing" large single shot rails, I do think it could be a little bit more beneficial.  If not I do like nuclearslurpee's suggestion of just making capacitor/RoF fixed for a given caliber with reduced shots.

[nuclearslurpee]

This would inturn make these weapons very similar but increasing capictor give Gauss more dps but rails more alpha and range.

This is really the crux of the reason here. The way Railguns and Gauss are currently implemented ensures that they are each very different in use and abilities, with railguns as short-range DPS specialist weapons with decent PD ability and Gauss as the premiere PD weapon with limited anti-ship utility. While it might be "more physically accurate" to make the weapons more similar with some slight differences, it doesn't really accomplish anything to make weapon and ship design interesting mechanically.

I would make an analogy to lasers and particle beams. In terms of physics, there is not really any reason why a laser should lose damage over distance while a particle beam should not, nor is there a particularly good reason why a particle beam should have much shorter range than a laser as the difference between lightspeed and 0.99*c is not 10,000s km of range. However in terms of game mechanics the difference weapon types offer very different tactical uses as they currently stand.

If we insist on demanding physical realism in out futuristic sci-fi fantasy weapons (...), we also have to question why reducing the size of our Gauss cannons reduces their accuracy, or indeed what prevents us from putting a railgun into a turret (or a plasma cannon, particle beam, etc...). It is of course always fine to have new additions to the game which are inspired by real (or theoretical) physics, but to demand physical accuracy at the cost of good gameplay is usually a non-starter. The gap between physics and game mechanics is filled by this mystical force known as "roleplay" and this is where the best magic of Aurora happens. 

For what it is worth... I think the current implementations are decently in line with physics, not perfectly but reasonably. Railguns use capacitors which represents that only limited shots can be fired before exhausting the energy (or for that matter destroying the weapon barrel), while Gauss cannons are able to maintain a continuous fire by running the coils continuously. This makes sufficient sense even if the more intimate details are subject to the waving of hands.

[Garfunkel]

Limiting the ROF of single-shot RG is a great idea and it also works logically - the weapon is smaller and thus can only accept a smaller capacitor - without having to create a special rule, and it closes the problem, which was that a large calibre SS RG was in every instance superior to a large calibre MS RG making the latter completely obsolete in normal play and a design trap for pvp.

[Steve Walmsley]

If we insist on demanding physical realism in out futuristic sci-fi fantasy weapons (...), we also have to question why reducing the size of our Gauss cannons reduces their accuracy, or indeed what prevents us from putting a railgun into a turret (or a plasma cannon, particle beam, etc...). It is of course always fine to have new additions to the game which are inspired by real (or theoretical) physics, but to demand physical accuracy at the cost of good gameplay is usually a non-starter. The gap between physics and game mechanics is filled by this mystical force known as "roleplay" and this is where the best magic of Aurora happens. 

Yes, completely agree. Plus you don't have to call them lasers and railguns when you design the weapons. In a recent 40k campaign, weapons were all given different names: "In order to utilise the nomenclature of the Imperial Navy, railguns of 12cm or more will be named weapon batteries, gauss turrets will become defence turrets, CIWS are commercial defence turrets, 10cm railguns on small craft will be lascannon, particle beams will be lance batteries, lasers will be bombardment cannon and missiles will become torpedoes."

[Jorgen_CAB (OP)]

Yes... Railguns often become plasma cannons in my game as they a bit better represent by a few ball of plasma fired in rapid sequence as a rail gun should would not really loose kinetic energy in space.

Particle beams or lances probably are more Railgun like to be honest if you want to go down that route.

Carronades often become energy torpedoes for close range high damage weapons and simply plasma weapons for ground forces.

I think that Lasers probably are the weapons that is most like what it's real counterpart would be if we look at realism.

Missiles can be called missiles or torpedoes. Torpedoes make sense by the pure fact they are fired in the same medium that the ship is moving through, so make more logical sense than missiles in some sense.

But in the end it comes down to role-play so any system can represent any type of weapons that you like.

[serger]

I think what bothers most of us (those who think some naming isn't suitable) is that we have to look at the word "missile" or "railgun" and think "it's not what is writen", and while we can rename any model to have ready and nice ship class description textbox - we'll continue to see wrong names at research windows/logs, etc.

You can have any roleplay, yet textual inconsistency is what ruins your roleplay picture constantly, making you tired and irritable of constant strain to remember what name is right and what is wrong - that's the problem.

That's why I have suggested to make tech branch names editable and exportable as a part of campaign settings (tech names scheme), so we'll have to rename such thing once and have our roleplays unfold smoothly throuout the rest of the game.

[Droll]

Particle beams or lances probably are more Railgun like to be honest if you want to go down that route.

I honestly am for railguns and particle beams being swapped around name wise. When I first used railguns I was really surprised by the fact that a kinetic weapon in space is suffering from damage falloff.

On the other hand particle beams/lances are exactly what I expected railguns would behave like so they are usually named as railguns instead.

[Blogaugis]

My idea about railgun economy would be, if the statement about single-shot railguns being superior in every aspect to multiple-shot railguns is true, this:
Less shot railguns should generally take up less space, and resources. As a single entity, that is.
More shot railguns are more bulky, but more efficient overall, especially when mass-produced. Think of it as this way - you don't need more components for a single multiple barrel weapon, than several single barrel weapons.
Right now it looks like this:

Code: [Select]

10cm Railgun V10/C1/S1
Damage Per Shot (1) 1     Rate of Fire 5 seconds     Range Modifier 10,000
Max Range 10,000 km     Railgun Size 0.975 HS  (49 tons)    Railgun HTK 0
Power Requirement 0.75    Recharge Rate 1
Cost 0.9    Crew 3
Development Cost 67 RP

Materials Required
Duranium  0.2
Neutronium  0.5
Boronide  0.2
And 4 shot:

Code: [Select]

10cm Railgun V10/C1
Damage Per Shot (4) 1     Rate of Fire 15 seconds     Range Modifier 10,000
Max Range 10,000 km     Railgun Size 3.0 HS  (150 tons)    Railgun HTK 1
Power Requirement 3    Recharge Rate 1
Cost 1.7    Crew 9
Development Cost 92 RP

Materials Required
Duranium  0.3
Neutronium  1.0
Boronide  0.3
...
Wait a minute, who said that multiple shot railguns are worse in every aspect? They still require less resources than 4 single shot railguns...
Still, what I propose is this:

Code: [Select]

10cm Railgun V10/C1/S1
Damage Per Shot (1) 1     Rate of Fire 5 seconds     Range Modifier 10,000
Max Range 10,000 km     Railgun Size 1 HS  (50 tons)    Railgun HTK 0
Power Requirement 1    Recharge Rate 1
Cost 1    Crew 3
Development Cost 67 RP

Materials Required
Duranium  0.2
Neutronium  0.5
Boronide  0.2and 4 shot:

Code: [Select]

10cm Railgun V10/C1
Damage Per Shot (4) 1     Rate of Fire 15 seconds     Range Modifier 10,000
Max Range 10,000 km     Railgun Size 4-0.32=3.68 HS  (184 tons)    Railgun HTK 1
Power Requirement 4-0.32=3.68    Recharge Rate 1
Cost 4-0.32=3.68    Crew 12-0.96≈11
Development Cost 92 RP

Materials Required
Duranium  0.8 - 0.064 = 0.736
Neutronium  2.0 - 0.16 = 1.84
Boronide  0.8 - 0.064 = 0.736Basically, every additonal shot reduces the price in materials, power requirement and size by 2%.
I also suggest that it would be... better, to have a separate technology line for more shot railguns, which means that 1 shot railgun is the default starting technology. But, who said you can't make a 100-shot railgun? Well, have theoretical designs for it, at least?
We might encounter a problem with this - with so many shots, you'd eventually make that 2% into a 100% and more, which could result in the builder getting resources... So, I offer either - make diminishing returns after... 10 shots? Meaning you'll no longer get as 2% but 1.98%; 1.96% etc... Or, set the hard limit to 25%. Personally, I'd prefer a diminishing returns approach, if it's not too hard, at least.
This is the rough idea about the economy behind it. Perhaps more values can be tweaked? Maybe that 2% has to be a different number?
Still, a fantasy of 1000-shot railguns being achievable would be nice...