Railguns mechanic

[Platys51]

I think easiest and most simple sollution would be to just give railguns malus like reduced lasers.
3shot rail? 75% capacitor efficiency
2shot 50 and 1 25%.
There.
No more DPS issues and single high caliber rails can stay.

[Zincat]

I don't see any point in where I EVER would put a 35cm railgun as a 4-shot version over three single shot versions when the latter have three times the damage output... no one cares about the slightly reduced PD capability of such weapons in any way. There is not a choice here. Even if you change the distribution of the damage output to be less... you put these large guns on a ship for the ability to deliver damage at range not for PD. Railguns already have the highest DPS per power used so they already fill that niche to begin with. No matter how you do it you probably are better of with reduced sized large guns combined with small short range ones for PD no matter how you design it.

Balance is still quite important to a certain degree even for RP purposes otherwise we could just pretend everything and just write stories.

This 100%.
I'm sorry Iceranger but at this point SS large caliber railguns are SO good there's basically no reason to use other beam weapons for range damage. It's simply too much.

Plus Steve already said it was completely intentional on his parts. Because of this, as far as I am concerned this is simply a bug.

[nuclearslurpee]

I do feel like at this point, we have the response from Steve as to what his desire was for the railguns, and the argument is at this point circular, so we should probably content ourselves that the issue is played out, "balance" is restored to the Force railguns, and let it lie.

[Droll]

I think easiest and most simple sollution would be to just give railguns malus like reduced lasers.
3shot rail? 75% capacitor efficiency
2shot 50 and 1 25%.
There.
No more DPS issues and single high caliber rails can stay.

I think this is the solution Steve agreed to further up the thread.

[Iceranger]

I don't see any point in where I EVER would put a 35cm railgun as a 4-shot version over three single shot versions when the latter have three times the damage output... no one cares about the slightly reduced PD capability of such weapons in any way. There is not a choice here. Even if you change the distribution of the damage output to be less... you put these large guns on a ship for the ability to deliver damage at range not for PD. Railguns already have the highest DPS per power used so they already fill that niche to begin with. No matter how you do it you probably are better of with reduced sized large guns combined with small short range ones for PD no matter how you design it.

Balance is still quite important to a certain degree even for RP purposes otherwise we could just pretend everything and just write stories.

This 100%.
I'm sorry Iceranger but at this point SS large caliber railguns are SO good there's basically no reason to use other beam weapons for range damage. It's simply too much.

Plus Steve already said it was completely intentional on his parts. Because of this, as far as I am concerned this is simply a bug.

Beam fighters are already in a niche role after the meson nerf, shield buff, and the general buffs to large ships. And now we are adding a niche weapon to a niche role. I don't really see what the SS railguns are supposed to achieve after the nerf. If we examine various beam roles on fighters/FACs:

PD: 4-shot railguns or max tech gauss fulfill this role the best
DPS: again 4-shot railgun excel in this category, after the proposed nerf (usually doesn't matter for fighter caliber unless at extremely low tech where fighter themselves are questionable due to the lack of proper engine boost tech)
Alpha strike: reduce-sized laser is the go-to choice here
Penetration: again reduce-sized laser is again the go-to choice here. A non-reduced 10cm laser has the same penetration as a 35cm railgun, and a SS 35cm railgun is larger than a 10cm laser.
Range: laser wins again.

After the nerf, the SS railgun will be 35% size of a full-sized one, 50% of the cost, and 25% the recharge rate. Translate it into DPS (which is Railgun's advantage), it is 71% DPS per HS (note lasers have 75% DPS per HS compared to railguns), and 50% DPS per BP. I don't see how this is 'balance' by giving an already weak class (fighters) a new weapon that is not better than what it already can use.

As I mentioned earlier, it can be possible to not nerf it to the ground, while making it still stand out. Let's consider the following possibilities before simply dismissing them:

• SS railguns are 35% size, 50% cost, and 25% recharge rate compared to the full-sized gun. This means it is 71% DPS per HS, 50% DPS per BP. This is the current proposal.
• SS railguns are 35% size, 50% cost, and 35% recharge rate compared to the full-sized gun. This means it is 100% DPS per HS, 70% DPS per BP. It is still inferior to the full-sized one, this at least give me a reason to use SS railguns on fighters/FACs
• SS railguns are 35% size, 50% cost, and 40% recharge rate compared to the full-sized gun. This means it is 114% DPS per HS, 80% DPS per BP. This will give SS railguns a trade-off: higher cost for higher DPS per HS.

[Bremen]

As I mentioned earlier, it can be possible to not nerf it to the ground, while making it still stand out. Let's consider the following possibilities before simply dismissing them:

• SS railguns are 35% size, 50% cost, and 25% recharge rate compared to the full-sized gun. This means it is 71% DPS per HS, 50% DPS per BP. This is the current proposal.
• SS railguns are 35% size, 50% cost, and 35% recharge rate compared to the full-sized gun. This means it is 100% DPS per HS, 70% DPS per BP. It is still inferior to the full-sized one, this at least give me a reason to use SS railguns on fighters/FACs
• SS railguns are 35% size, 50% cost, and 40% recharge rate compared to the full-sized gun. This means it is 114% DPS per HS, 80% DPS per BP. This will give SS railguns a trade-off: higher cost for higher DPS per HS.

Something like this would more or less be my preferred solution; they're too good now, not disputing that, but something where they're worthwhile tradeoffs for burst/PD capability vs damage/cost and similar would make for an interesting decision.

That said if Steve just goes with the standardized ROF that's not a huge deal, I just thought the variable shots weapon was a cool design space.

[Jorgen_CAB (OP)]

I like the single shot railgun from a conceptual level so I have no problem with this at all.

My question is when would you NOT use a single shot Railgun over the multi shot one for large caliber Railguns?!?

The only reason to use a multi shot one would be if you are only going to fit one weapon system and can use a half size fire-control... the small additional cost is nothing and generally space to damage efficiency is way more important as there are other overhead costs to consider with space not payed by the ship itself. The difference in cost also is very small when you consider a whole ship.

If you make the cost too expensive then no one will use it to gain an extra 14% damage as you are better of with just building the ship slightly bigger or more ships and take the cost that way instead.

So... is there really a huge point if there is no practical choice in the matter?

[ArcWolf]

...
large caliber single-shot railguns are to provide the highest DPS, at the cost of higher cost, higher power draw, and limited PD capability

but it's not really more expensive. Sure per weapon unit is cost a little more, but on a fleet basis its actually much cheaper.

4-shor Cruiser Design i through together

Off-Topic: show

4 Shot CA class Cruiser      19,497 tons       642 Crew       6,500.9 BP       TCS 390    TH 2,400    EM 0
6154 km/s      Armour 12-64       Shields 0-0       HTK 126      Sensors 0/0/0/0      DCR 14      PPV 110
Maint Life 2.69 Years     MSP 2,917    AFR 217%    IFR 3.0%    1YR 575    5YR 8,627    Max Repair 400.00 MSP
Kommandorkaptajn    Control Rating 5   BRG   AUX   ENG   CIC   FLG   
Intended Deployment Time: 12 months    Morale Check Required   

Magneto-plasma Drive  EP800.00 (3)    Power 2400.0    Fuel Use 43.67%    Signature 800.00    Explosion 12%
Fuel Capacity 1,250,000 Litres    Range 26.4 billion km (49 days at full power)

40cm Railgun V60/C9 (10x4)    Range 480,000km     TS: 8,000 km/s     Power 36-9     RM 60,000 km    ROF 20        12 12 12 12 12 12 10 9 8 7
Beam Fire Control R480-TS8000 (1)     Max Range: 480,000 km   TS: 8,000 km/s     98 96 94 92 90 88 85 83 81 79
Stellarator Fusion Reactor R25 (4)     Total Power Output 101.2    Exp 5%

Active Search Sensor AS23-R100 (1)     GPS 1600     Range 23.4m km    Resolution 100
Active Search Sensor AS5-R1 (1)     GPS 16     Range 5m km    MCR 454.2k km    Resolution 1

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes
This design is classed as a c for auto-assignment purposes

Single shot design.

Off-Topic: show

1 shot CA class Cruiser      19,348 tons       628 Crew       7,918.4 BP       TCS 387    TH 2,400    EM 0
6202 km/s      Armour 12-64       Shields 0-0       HTK 107      Sensors 0/0/0/0      DCR 14      PPV 92.95
Maint Life 3.52 Years     MSP 3,581    AFR 214%    IFR 3.0%    1YR 443    5YR 6,648    Max Repair 400.00 MSP
Kommandorkaptajn    Control Rating 5   BRG   AUX   ENG   CIC   FLG   
Intended Deployment Time: 12 months    Morale Check Required   

Magneto-plasma Drive  EP800.00 (3)    Power 2400.0    Fuel Use 43.67%    Signature 800.00    Explosion 12%
Fuel Capacity 1,250,000 Litres    Range 26.6 billion km (49 days at full power)

40cm Railgun V60/C9/S1 (26)    Range 480,000km     TS: 8,000 km/s     Power 9.00-9     RM 60,000 km    ROF 5        12 12 12 12 12 12 10 9 8 7
Beam Fire Control R480-TS8000 (1)     Max Range: 480,000 km   TS: 8,000 km/s     98 96 94 92 90 88 85 83 81 79
Stellarator Fusion Reactor R25 (10)     Total Power Output 253    Exp 5%

Active Search Sensor AS23-R100 (1)     GPS 1600     Range 23.4m km    Resolution 100
Active Search Sensor AS5-R1 (1)     GPS 16     Range 5m km    MCR 454.2k km    Resolution 1

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes
This design is classed as a c for auto-assignment purposes

Comparison:
4 shot does 480 dmg every 20 seconds, and 1440 every minute
1 shot does 312 every 5 seconds and 3744 every minute.

It would take 5 of the 4-shot cruisers to do the same amount of damage in 1 minute as 2 1-shot cruisers. So, for the cost of 5 4-shot cruisers i can have 4 1-shot cruisers and do 2x the damage. Add to that the only real difference in cost is wealth, neutronium and boronide, 3 thing that are rarely ever a bottleneck in production.

[Destragon]

While 1 shot railguns have a niche on fighters, what's the use for 2 and 3 shot railguns?

[ArcWolf]

While 1 shot railguns have a niche on fighters, what's the use for 2 and 3 shot railguns?

depending on the caliber, fighter or FAC

[Iceranger]

I like the single shot railgun from a conceptual level so I have no problem with this at all.

My question is when would you NOT use a single shot Railgun over the multi shot one for large caliber Railguns?!?

The only reason to use a multi shot one would be if you are only going to fit one weapon system and can use a half size fire-control... the small additional cost is nothing and generally space to damage efficiency is way more important as there are other overhead costs to consider with space not payed by the ship itself. The difference in cost also is very small when you consider a whole ship.

If you make the cost too expensive then no one will use it to gain an extra 14% damage as you are better of with just building the ship slightly bigger or more ships and take the cost that way instead.

So... is there really a huge point if there is no practical choice in the matter?

It is kind of true that many players choose 'better' weapons over 'cheaper' weapons. That's probably why the plasma carrots are only used in niche situations despite being massively cheaper in researching and building than all other beam weapons. That's also why I'm against the current proposed change (1/4 charge rate for SS railguns), since it will create a weaker variant that is also more expensive. I feel 45% recharge rate for it might be a good point that provides tradeoffs.

[Jorgen_CAB (OP)]

Plasma Carronades currently is a very strong Beam option... for the amount of research you put into them they are super effective as ground to orbit defense weapons, ground force weapons and primary anti-ship weapons for ships. When combined with Gauss and Missiles they form a very cheap and strong Beam option currently, especially if you are playing with slow technology progression.

So I don't agree that Carronades is a weak option, just perhaps not as well explored an option perhaps.

As for Railguns there is no good option with your suggested change, your option is not an actual option as single shot railguns just are better. Nobody will care about multiple shots even if the others are a bit more expensive and it is not the same as Carronades as they are a completely different weapon system requiring their own set of research.

[Iceranger]

Plasma Carronades currently is a very strong Beam option... for the amount of research you put into them they are super effective as ground to orbit defense weapons, ground force weapons and primary anti-ship weapons for ships. When combined with Gauss and Missiles they form a very cheap and strong Beam option currently, especially if you are playing with slow technology progression.

So I don't agree that Carronades is a weak option, just perhaps not as well explored an option perhaps.

As for Railguns there is no good option with your suggested change, your option is not an actual option as single shot railguns just are better. Nobody will care about multiple shots even if the others are a bit more expensive and it is not the same as Carronades as they are a completely different weapon system requiring their own set of research.

STO weapons and ground force weapons aren't relevant to what we are discussing. Carrots ship-to-ship combat capability is niche at best, but I agree with your point on low research games.

But on railguns, let me summarize:
Single shot railgun always being better but being more expensive = not an actual option
Multi shot railgun always being better while being cheaper = an actual option
I see nothing wrong with that

[Jorgen_CAB (OP)]

Plasma Carronades currently is a very strong Beam option... for the amount of research you put into them they are super effective as ground to orbit defense weapons, ground force weapons and primary anti-ship weapons for ships. When combined with Gauss and Missiles they form a very cheap and strong Beam option currently, especially if you are playing with slow technology progression.

So I don't agree that Carronades is a weak option, just perhaps not as well explored an option perhaps.

As for Railguns there is no good option with your suggested change, your option is not an actual option as single shot railguns just are better. Nobody will care about multiple shots even if the others are a bit more expensive and it is not the same as Carronades as they are a completely different weapon system requiring their own set of research.

STO weapons and ground force weapons aren't relevant to what we are discussing. Carrots ship-to-ship combat capability is niche at best, but I agree with your point on low research games.

But on railguns, let me summarize:
Single shot railgun always being better but being more expensive = not an actual option
Multi shot railgun always being better while being cheaper = an actual option
I see nothing wrong with that

Eh... no...

You are simply arguing for single shot being the only option rather than the multi-shot one.

The issue with your version is that they just get better DPS with that version. They don't need more DPS as they already have the best DPS in the game.

Steve already said that the current version is unintended and should never have been that way. Reduced sized Railgun was only meant for those ships that can't mount a full version. In order to make your version work you would have to make the multi-shot version cheaper and worse than it is now and the single shot version have the same DPS as the regular multi-shot version currently have. They should retain their current DPS at +33% over other weapons for the amount of power they use in their best configuration.

I also don't agree that Carronades are a niche weapon with the changes made to it... it is currently a pretty strong beam weapon option when you consider all the benefits it brings.

[Iceranger]

You are simply arguing for single shot being the only option rather than the multi-shot one.

I'm arguing for the single shot one to be worthy compared to the multi-shot one. At 25% recharge rate, they have lower DPS and higher cost. It's DPS is even lower than lasers at this point while the penetration is much worse. I don't see any reason to use such an inferior weapon.

The issue with your version is that they just get better DPS with that version. They don't need more DPS as they already have the best DPS in the game.

Indeed the railguns already have the best DPS in the game. But I won't be worried about the SS version add a tad of DPS to that while being more expensive than the multi-shot version. In fact, I don't mind the DPS of railguns to be increased a bit to make it more unique than it is currently.

Steve already said that the current version is unintended and should never have been that way. Reduced sized Railgun was only meant for those ships that can't mount a full version. In order to make your version work you would have to make the multi-shot version cheaper and worse than it is now and the single shot version have the same DPS as the regular multi-shot version currently have. They should retain their current DPS at +33% over other weapons for the amount of power they use in their best configuration.

I totally understand the current version is unintended, and reduced sized railgun was only meant for small ships/fighters/FACs. But from a balance stand point, beam fighters/FACs are already at a disadvantagepis position due to engine efficiency, armor efficiency, shock damage and shield efficiency. I won't call giving them another below average weapon choice to them a good design. Yes it is an addition choice, but why choose it over other beam weapons?