Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
The one big caveat I see for this is that collateral damage is supposed to be reduced for ground combat in 1.14 by about 80%, so the need for ERWs may not be very pressing after this change. Playtesting would be needed to confirm whether or not there is a useful niche here.

Hold on does that change also apply to orbital bombardment? The impression I got was that the reduction was for the ground combat itself only. So stuff like artillery, tanks etc.

I don't think it does. My point is more that if Steve is trying to make ground assaults a more viable option, buffing the nuclear war crime button might be a bit at counter purposes.
2
C# Suggestions / Re: C# Suggestions
« Last post by Droll on Today at 09:55:51 PM »
I think ground support fighters should be built as ground equipment instead of as space fighters.

It would be less time-consuming by having them baked into a formation to support from the start like artillery is. Having them under the Army's direct command also makes more sense, as would their reduced size. The smallest GSF I could build was still 50-75 tons, and even that seems too large for a bomber/fighter meant to operate in atmosphere.

Only problem then is simulating GSFs operating from space-borne carriers. Perhaps they have to be loaded in to a new type of hangar and then provide air support automatically when its mothership is over a world?

No need for a new type of hangar, just use troop transport bays except they don't unload like the rest. Especially since if they're ground equipment like the rest of the army you shouldn't have to worry about MSP, repairs etc. normally associated with what is otherwise a fun sized spaceship. Don't forget that with spoilers you don't necessarily have all ground battles happening under a significant atmosphere, hell there might not be an atmosphere on the body at all.

Edit: Honestly I'm happy with what space fighters are, just that they seem too hard to micromanage at any significant number that can influence the tide of battle. You can probably manage about 60-100 fighters without going completely insane but those fighters are going up against 1000s of AA units, which limits their usefulness by a lot.
3
The one big caveat I see for this is that collateral damage is supposed to be reduced for ground combat in 1.14 by about 80%, so the need for ERWs may not be very pressing after this change. Playtesting would be needed to confirm whether or not there is a useful niche here.

Hold on does that change also apply to orbital bombardment? The impression I got was that the reduction was for the ground combat itself only. So stuff like artillery, tanks etc.
4
C# Suggestions / Re: C# Suggestions
« Last post by Borealis4x on Today at 09:48:20 PM »
I think ground support fighters should be built as ground equipment instead of as space fighters.

It would be less time-consuming by having them baked into a formation to support from the start like artillery is. Having them under the Army's direct command also makes more sense, as would their reduced size. The smallest GSF I could build was still 50-75 tons, and even that seems too large for a bomber/fighter meant to operate in atmosphere.

Only problem then is simulating GSFs operating from space-borne carriers. Perhaps they have to be loaded in to a new type of hangar and then provide air support automatically when its mothership is over a world?
5
I think probably a simple and sufficient change to give ERWs a useful niche is to have the radiation modifier be a multiplier rather than divisor for damage done by missiles to troops. I believe presently a ERW will deal reduced damage to ground troops compared to a normal missile, when it should probably deal increased damage instead. This would be a relatively simple change to make, I would assume, and doesn't require adding a new mechanic for radiation damage.

So basically, if you have ERW 5, instead of a ERW missile doing 20% damage to ground troops it does 500%, while keeping the 20% damage dealt to industry and other 'hard' targets. Actually, this might be rather extreme so maybe it is sufficient to say that ERW warheads deal the same damage as normal missile to ground forces, while keeping the reduction of industrial damage.

The one big caveat I see for this is that collateral damage is supposed to be reduced for ground combat in 1.14 by about 80%, so the need for ERWs may not be very pressing after this change. Playtesting would be needed to confirm whether or not there is a useful niche here.
6
Currently the main reason to deploy enhanced radiation warheads is roleplay - they are only really useful if you want to make an NPR home world glow in the dark and watch its surviving population fall into Mad Max anarchy.

However, one of the original use cases for the development of the neutron bomb (the original enhanced radiation warhead) was as a tactical weapon in support of ground forces - the bomb would cause reduced physical collateral damage while still irradiating enemy combatants. From this 1981 article:

Quote
The long years of engineering grew out of a notion originated by Samuel T. Cohen, a Defense Department consultant, in the mid-1950’s.  Around 1957, at the instigation of Edward Teller at the Lawrence Livermore weapons laboratory, work began that led to the development of a device which, according to Defense Secretary Caspar W.  Weinberger, ”enables infantry to fight closely behind it, as with conventional artillery.” Army experts interviewed at the Pentagon admit that the Secretary is exaggerating. But they do believe that the neutron bomb could be used in a way that would cause less collateral damage and radioactive contamination than standard fission weapons.  General Fulwyler says, ”The enhanced radiation weapons offer even greater possibilities for use than the weapons of the past.”

Quote
The chief Congressional proponent of the neutron-bomb plan is Samuel S. Stratton, a Democratic Representative from upstate New York. ”The tactical nuclear weapons that we have at present,” he says, ”are 10 kilotons. You need 10 kilotons to destroy a tank. A neutron weapon is one kiloton, and you can explode it without touching the ground. As a result, there is no fallout whatsoever. All you have to do is be in a basement away from the immediate blast and you’re safe.” While Representative Stratton’s technical brief would appear to be at odds with Pentagon statements about how the bomb would be used and scientific analyses of its effects, his political logic has proved powerful in Congressional debates. ”The neutron weapon is essentially defensive, simply because it kills tank operators without destroying the German countryside you’re trying to defend,” he says. ”A weapon that is primarily limited to just killing soldiers and goes out of its way to preserve the invaded territory is offensively useless. The Russians are opposed to it because they cannot profit from it even if they could build it.”

I think that one way to improve the appeal of ER warheads could be specialize them into the planetary bombardment niche. One way to do this could be to make ground forces suffer damage from warheads' explosions and their radiation output. "All you have to do is be in a basement away from the immediate blast and you’re safe” could presumably be simulated by making GU fortification extra-effective against radiation attack.
7
 --- In terms of research costs, EM is better than Thermal as your EM tech bleeds over into your Active Sensors as well. An Active Sensor with 10 Active Strength will have more range if it uses 10 EM Strength instead of 5. On top of that, increasing the EM strength of your Actives DOESN'T make them easier to detect, so it's more range for the same footprint with regards to detection. In terms of uses, Thermal is more useful than EM, as engines are harder to hide than Actives, broadly speaking of course...
8
C# Bureau of Design / Re: 40,000 RP Designs
« Last post by Jorgen_CAB on Today at 04:17:17 PM »
While larger ships tend to have bigger and more expensive components which make them more expensive to repair they also can gain more efficiency out of highly skilled engineering officers and actually become more efficient than most smaller ships.

Two ships that are built with more or less the same components then larger ships actually are less costly than several smaller ships with the same total tonnage. Large ships generally can have more space for engineering in proportion to smaller ships in conjunction to utilize highly skilled engineers.
9
Bit of a necro, but I also wanted to add that when researching the EM sensor tech line, I always ensure that the EM Sensitivity tech is at least a couple of levels higher  than the Strength tech. This has 2 effects, making your Passive EM sensors better directly, and somewhat reducing the range at which your Active sensors will be detected, since your broadcast EM sig is related to Strength, but not Sensitivity Obviously, it's a bit inefficient in terms of RP, since you'd get the best possible sensors for a given RP spend by balancing research between the 2 lines, but for getting the best possible visibility whilst reducing the possibility of counter-detection, it is a better choice

This is actually in my opinion worth more than you might realise in allot of cases. Active strength can always be increased with just a bigger sensor so not a huge deal as cost are still the same, the sensor just are a bit bigger. In my opinion cost are generally the biggest issue with sensors. Having the technology for sensitivity at one or even two better than strength can be efficient. Those RP for active can probably be put to better use elsewhere most of the time.
10
Gothic Campaign / Re: Gothic Campaign Comments Thread
« Last post by TallTroll on Today at 02:15:36 PM »
It seems that Raiders, while dangerous, are pretty reliant on their tech edge. They certainly aren't unbeatable, and killing/capturing their ships should lead to a pretty rapid evening up of tech levels if you can salvage the wrecks, or choose to disassemble prizes. Of course, it being so early in the campaign, the Imperium is having trouble using the improved tech, because Gallicite shortage is a thing, as ever (and we haven't even GOT to the Corundinium Crunch yet), but if they can fend off this early pressure, it should mean a much stronger Imperium in the medium term, with access to much better engines, sensors and ELINT gear than you'd normally expect.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk