The big thing is ROF. You can have otherwise equal 45cm RG's but one fires every 5 seconds while the other fires every 45 seconds. It doesn't matter that the latter fires 4 times because the former has fired NINE times. It's really unintuitive that a weapon meant for beam fighters is actually better than the normal version of the weapon in all cases. Well, except for PD, maybe and I kinda doubt that too.
I agree with you on Aurora balance - there's no reason to try to make everything equal and that would just destroy lot of the character of Aurora, and I doubt Steve would ever go for it anyway. But all weapons should have a niche & role to play and currently single-shot RGs are just too powerful that they eclipse multi-shot ones.
The big thing is ROF. You can have otherwise equal 45cm RG's but one fires every 5 seconds while the other fires every 45 seconds. It doesn't matter that the latter fires 4 times because the former has fired NINE times. It's really unintuitive that a weapon meant for beam fighters is actually better than the normal version of the weapon in all cases. Well, except for PD, maybe and I kinda doubt that too.
I agree with you on Aurora balance - there's no reason to try to make everything equal and that would just destroy lot of the character of Aurora, and I doubt Steve would ever go for it anyway. But all weapons should have a niche & role to play and currently single-shot RGs are just too powerful that they eclipse multi-shot ones.
I wouldn't say that the multi-shots are completely eclipsed. For small-medium ships like FACs and corvettes having a multi-shot means that you can stuff more firepower under a single weapon FC. Which can often be significant for these smaller sizes. Similar situation with turrets.
Single shot railguns were intended as a solution for small craft. I hadn't realised the implications of being able to stack power plants for larger weapons to generate increased DPS. Unless someone comes up with a good reason against it, I will limit the calibre for v2.0 as suggested above.
Single shot railguns were intended as a solution for small craft. I hadn't realised the implications of being able to stack power plants for larger weapons to generate increased DPS. Unless someone comes up with a good reason against it, I will limit the calibre for v2.0 as suggested above.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
This would inturn make these weapons very similar but increasing capictor give Gauss more dps but rails more alpha and range.
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. :)
Particle beams or lances probably are more Railgun like to be honest if you want to go down that route.
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: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
...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: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 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.
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.
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.
If it is super important to you it can be changed in the database if you like, so you can call any technology whatever you like.
Wait a minute, who said that multiple shot railguns are worse in every aspect?It's about the large calibre ones. SS RG were meant to allow more options for fighters and FAC but because their ROF is higher than MS RG due to capacitors being vastly more effective for SS RG over MS RG, they turned out to be better for big ships than MS RG. For example, a 45cm SS RG will fire every 5 seconds whereas a 45cm MS RG will fire every 45 seconds. A ship loaded with the former will absolutely wreck a ship loaded with the latter.
Wait a minute, who said that multiple shot railguns are worse in every aspect?It's about the large calibre ones. SS RG were meant to allow more options for fighters and FAC but because their ROF is higher than MS RG due to capacitors being vastly more effective for SS RG over MS RG, they turned out to be better for big ships than MS RG. For example, a 45cm SS RG will fire every 5 seconds whereas a 45cm MS RG will fire every 45 seconds. A ship loaded with the former will absolutely wreck a ship loaded with the latter.
Now while this only really matters for duels or other player-versus-player engagements, since NPR's do not use them, it is really counterintuitive that the gun with more shots is inferior in every way to the gun with less shots, especially as it's initially the other way around.
Wait a minute, who said that multiple shot railguns are worse in every aspect?It's about the large calibre ones. SS RG were meant to allow more options for fighters and FAC but because their ROF is higher than MS RG due to capacitors being vastly more effective for SS RG over MS RG, they turned out to be better for big ships than MS RG. For example, a 45cm SS RG will fire every 5 seconds whereas a 45cm MS RG will fire every 45 seconds. A ship loaded with the former will absolutely wreck a ship loaded with the latter.
Now while this only really matters for duels or other player-versus-player engagements, since NPR's do not use them, it is really counterintuitive that the gun with more shots is inferior in every way to the gun with less shots, especially as it's initially the other way around.
Surely at most the difference could be 5 seconds and 20 seconds, since the 4x shot gun needs 4x more charge, correct?
I agree in principle with the idea that this is more powerful than intended for large single shot railguns, but it seems a shame to lose it entirely (which is basically what giving all railguns the same ROF regardless of shots will do, save an edge case on ships so small they can't use a full size railgun). It was an interesting idea that gave railguns a unique role.
Exactly this. You can even, if it irritates you, not only rename Particle Beams as Railguns/Mass Drivers, but set their relevant technologies to be Missile/Kinetic instead of Energy Weapon specialty.
Additionally, changing the category names in DIM_ResearchCategories should rename the component type in the component design window dropdown list, so you don't have to remember to design a "Particle Beam" when you want a new 50cm Mass Driver or what have you.
Whoops, that was a typo on my part - I meant to write 25 seconds in my example, where I compare these two:
45cm RG (4 shot) V80/C10 - 650 tons - Crew 39 - HTK 6 - Cost 554.3 - ROF 25
40cm RG (1 shot) V80/C10 - 178.75 tons - Crew 11 - HTK 1 - Cost 240 - ROF 5
At point-blank, the latter does 12 points of damage per hit whereas the former does 16 points of damage. So far so good, right? Well, you can have 3.64 of the single shot guns for one of the multi-shot guns. So even if you just have 3 guns it means you have room for more shield or armour or whatever, you'll do theoretically 12x3 versus 16x4, still okay. But then the ROF kicks in and this is where it breaks down because in 50 seconds of firing:
-the multi-shot 45cm RG can theoretically do 128 points of damage if each four shots hit both times the gun fires.
-the single shot 40cm RGs can pull off 360 points of damage if all three shots hit every 5 seconds.
And because the SS RGs are firing more often, missing a shot is less harmful whereas missed shots for the MS RG are far more detrimental. Only downside is increased MSP consumption but as said, using 3 SS RGs leaves you quite a bit of extra space.
Sure, the MS RG has more HTK and is slightly cheaper than the 3x SS RGs but that's a worthless advantage in comparison with the damage difference. This is why there really is no meaningful choice to make here: with large calibres, a SS RG is always better than a MS RG because you can get it down to ROF 5 and you can pack more of them in the same space. Only if you can get the MS RG down to ROF 10 (320 points which is still pretty far behind) or ROF 5 will it be competitive. But that requires big RP investment in capacitor tech and if tech parity exists, then your opponent can get bigger calibre SS RG's down into ROF 5 so they actually stay ahead.
By any measure except burst damage and point defense fire, that still greatly favors the single shot - it does about 2.8x as much DPS per ton and about 1.8x as much dps per cost (which is less of a factor, as the support systems on a warship often cost significantly more than the weapon itself), but I think your example considerably exaggerated it.
My complaint is more that simply giving them the same ROF just reverses it - the multishot maintains the advantage in burst fire and point defense but now does 1.3x as much dps per ton, meaning reduced shot railguns will basically never be used and it's otherwise a quite cool mechanic.
The original use case was to buff beam fighters by giving some more weapon options. a 4-shot 25cm or 30cm railgun cannot be mounted on a useful fighter, while a single-shot model can be. Of course beam fighters are generally considered a fairly weak class of ships, but if players want to use them it is fine to give them more options for weapons.
I suspect beam fighters and FACs will mainly use 4shot 10cm or 12cm railguns, which will have far higher DPS than larger caliber single shot weapons at the expense of range, which matters less for fighters as they can generally close quickly. The multishot small railguns also have the advantage of powerful point defense capabilities on squadrons of fighters, which can be quite useful.
I feel like reduced fire rate railguns will probably only show up on the very rare edge cases of fighters so small they can't effectively use a 4shot 10cm railgun.
My complaint is more that simply giving them the same ROF just reverses it - the multishot maintains the advantage in burst fire and point defense but now does 1.3x as much dps per ton, meaning reduced shot railguns will basically never be used and it's otherwise a quite cool mechanic.
I suspect beam fighters and FACs will mainly use 4shot 10cm or 12cm railguns, which will have far higher DPS than larger caliber single shot weapons at the expense of range, which matters less for fighters as they can generally close quickly. The multishot small railguns also have the advantage of powerful point defense capabilities on squadrons of fighters, which can be quite useful.
I feel like reduced fire rate railguns will probably only show up on the very rare edge cases of fighters so small they can't effectively use a 4shot 10cm railgun.
Basically, even if it is not a widely-used option I think the reduced-shot railguns will have uses even while being less efficient, and in Aurora it is okay if not every weapon or option is as widely useful as every other (except for mesons which are completely useless). The original intention was to give fighters and small craft a few more options and I think this is still very much accomplished.
I suspect beam fighters and FACs will mainly use 4shot 10cm or 12cm railguns, which will have far higher DPS than larger caliber single shot weapons at the expense of range, which matters less for fighters as they can generally close quickly. The multishot small railguns also have the advantage of powerful point defense capabilities on squadrons of fighters, which can be quite useful.
I feel like reduced fire rate railguns will probably only show up on the very rare edge cases of fighters so small they can't effectively use a 4shot 10cm railgun.
Clearly, DPS is the only possible metric for viable designs, which is why no one uses box launchers or reduced-size lasers.
The reduced-shot railgun was introduced to expand the design space. But as it is currently implemented the single-shot rail just out-performs the full size version, which means that the design space has changed, but hasn't expanded (except into the very rare edge case of fighters so small they can't effectively use a 4-shot 10cm railgun). The RoF change to reduced-size railguns preserves the design spaces that they were meant to fill (which, I assure you, includes much more than the micro-fighter case), and restores the full-sized railguns to the design spaces they had been filling previously.
The reduced-shot railgun was introduced to expand the design space. But as it is currently implemented the single-shot rail just out-performs the full size version, which means that the design space has changed, but hasn't expanded (except into the very rare edge case of fighters so small they can't effectively use a 4-shot 10cm railgun). The RoF change to reduced-size railguns preserves the design spaces that they were meant to fill (which, I assure you, includes much more than the micro-fighter case), and restores the full-sized railguns to the design spaces they had been filling previously.
By the same argument, I wonder why people don't like the current single-shot railgun. Yes, its high DPS was unintentional, and it just 'outclasses' all other beam weapons in terms of DPS per tonnage, but in Aurora it is okay if not every weapon or option is as widely useful as every other :)
As I said in my earlier post, I like to see Aurora providing more options rather than limit them. Put RP reasons aside, the current single shot railgun is less efficient in all terms in smaller caliber (when the recharge rate can recharge a 4-shot version in 1 or 2 ticks), and in large caliber, they provide a higher DPS at a higher cost. This provides an interesting tradeoff to consider. But the proposed changes make them always less efficient compared to the 4-shot version, thus the choice becomes uninteresting: the single-shot version is always inferior in terms of DPS (per BP or per HS) compared to the 4-shot version, it also doesn't provide a single huge alpha strike as the reduced sized lasers do. So its purpose is really questionable.
The current single-shot railgun also doesn't 'just outperforms the full-sized version'. The outperform is only true when the caliber is large enough that the best capacitor recharge rate cannot recharge the full-sized version in 1 or 2 ticks. This to me is a more interesting choice than the case when the 4-shot version is always superior in DPS, and the single-shot one does not provide anything other than a smaller size for its higher cost.
Box launchers or reduced-sized launchers trade DPS for a bigger alpha strike per HS. But where is the tradeoff in the nerfed single-shot railgun compared to the 4-shot version? Its cost is higher but it doesn't provide higher DPS nor alpha strike per HS or per BP, nor longer range, nor better penetration, nor better RoF.
Not quite sure what 'design space' you are referring to. The current implementation of the single-shot railgun can be put on every single design that the nerfed one can. If you feel its current state limits your design, you can simply give the single-shot version a lower recharge rate when designing the weapon.
If single shot railguns clearly outperforming multishot railguns means they don't expand the design space, then the converse would also be true - multishot railguns clearly outperforming single shot railguns also wouldn't expand the design space.
The current single-shot railgun also doesn't 'just outperforms the full-sized version'. The outperform is only true when the caliber is large enough that the best capacitor recharge rate cannot recharge the full-sized version in 1 or 2 ticks. This to me is a more interesting choice than the case when the 4-shot version is always superior in DPS, and the single-shot one does not provide anything other than a smaller size for its higher cost.
Box launchers or reduced-sized launchers trade DPS for a bigger alpha strike per HS. But where is the tradeoff in the nerfed single-shot railgun compared to the 4-shot version? Its cost is higher but it doesn't provide higher DPS nor alpha strike per HS or per BP, nor longer range, nor better penetration, nor better RoF.
Not quite sure what 'design space' you are referring to. The current implementation of the single-shot railgun can be put on every single design that the nerfed one can. If you feel its current state limits your design, you can simply give the single-shot version a lower recharge rate when designing the weapon.
The current implementation of the single-shot railgun can be put on every single design that the nerfed one can.I agree completely. Stating that it couldn't would be a very very strange thing to say. It also has nothing to do with my arguement.
I feel like reduced fire rate railguns will probably only show up on the very rare edge cases of fighters so small they can't effectively use a 4shot 10cm railgun.
I feel like reduced fire rate railguns will probably only show up on the very rare edge cases of fighters so small they can't effectively use a 4shot 10cm railgun.
They were added so that fighters had more options. The side-effect for higher calibres was unintentional.
On the point of capacitor recharge rate: If the cap rate tech needed to achieve RoF 5 on a single-shot rail is lower, that in itself is a point of comparison. This is true for every caliber of rail: at cap rate 1 a ss 10cm rail has RoF 5 and the full size has RoF 15. All the weapons have tech level sweet-spots, and of course your best options are going to change as more research is completed.Yes the breakpoint is different based on your tech level, which makes it interesting than 'oh, the SS railguns are always less efficient'.
As for the "only thing" gained being size, that is quite frankly enough imo. If I can put a higher caliber ss rail in the same space as a lower caliber 4-shot rail, I'm gaining range and penetration. In other words I can choose to sacrifice dps and cost for these things instead of weight.For range and penetration, why not reduce sized laser? They provide higher alpha strike, penetration, and range if you are looking for a hit-and-run fighter/FAC force.
I agree completely. Stating that it couldn't would be a very very strange thing to say. It also has nothing to do with my arguement.The point is, the current implementation does not stop you from using the 'new' implementation if you feel like it.
On the point of capacitor recharge rate: If the cap rate tech needed to achieve RoF 5 on a single-shot rail is lower, that in itself is a point of comparison. This is true for every caliber of rail: at cap rate 1 a ss 10cm rail has RoF 5 and the full size has RoF 15. All the weapons have tech level sweet-spots, and of course your best options are going to change as more research is completed.Yes the breakpoint is different based on your tech level, which makes it interesting than 'oh, the SS railguns are always less efficient'.As for the "only thing" gained being size, that is quite frankly enough imo. If I can put a higher caliber ss rail in the same space as a lower caliber 4-shot rail, I'm gaining range and penetration. In other words I can choose to sacrifice dps and cost for these things instead of weight.For range and penetration, why not reduce sized laser? They provide higher alpha strike, penetration, and range if you are looking for a hit-and-run fighter/FAC force.I agree completely. Stating that it couldn't would be a very very strange thing to say. It also has nothing to do with my arguement.The point is, the current implementation does not stop you from using the 'new' implementation if you feel like it.
I'm not sure I'd say that its purpose is "questionable" - besides the various comments about uses for these made by others in the thread, Steve himself has said that the intention was to give fighters and other small craft more options, and this at least is accomplished by reduced-shot/size railguns. So the purpose may be more or less narrow, depending how much credence you give to the various comments others have made, but it certainly is not "questionable" - the intended purpose is clear and is accomplished reasonably well.Its intended role doesn't need this recharge nerf to fulfill.
While true, I would argue that in most practical cases the caliber is large enough for this to be true, or else the caliber is 10cm, maybe 12cm and the weapon is intended for point defense. Which actually brings up another issue with the current single-shot railguns - they in practical terms tend to make point defense rather unnecessary in the context of a whole fleet since you can end up putting out the same volume of shots per 5/10s increment to kill missiles using solely anti-ship weapons rather than having to deploy separate PD and anti-ship weapons/ships in your fleets.This cut-off point is different for different tech levels and research progress, which makes it interesting compared to 'SS railguns are always weaker in terms of DPS'.
I think the issue here is that when we think about box launchers, we are comparing two forms of missile launchers only - there is no other weapon besides missiles which offers the mechanics of missiles. When we think about railguns, we are considering not only 1/2/3/4-shot railguns against each other, but also against every other class of beam weapons. In that comparison, there is not really mechanically a place for an alpha/DPS split for railguns, as railguns are simply not the first-strike weapons generally speaking.Comparing to other beam weapons, SS railguns do not stand out at all. Since the original intended purpose is for fighters/FACs, let's check different utilities:
Making the argument that "if you think the feature is broken, do not use it" is not a valid argument when discussing whether or not said feature is, in fact, broken.Broken is subjective in a game like Aurora where it is mostly an RP tool. In this case, providing more options is better than having fewer. It's not like everyone else is using SS railguns only will affect your gameplay in any way if you choose not to use it.
1. You see ss rail being less efficient as less interesting. I see ss rail supplanting full-sized rail as being less interesting. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.You misunderstood my point in (1). I was not saying SS railguns being less efficient is less interesting. I was saying SS railguns always being less efficient is less interesting than there are cases, depending on your tech progress, where SS railguns can be more efficient than full-sized ones and less efficient in other cases.
2. Because I have never played a game of Aurora where I have developed all the weapon systems at the same rate. If I'm developing rail and not lasers, I'm going to make different ship designs than if I'm developing lasers and not rail.
3. Still not my point. Saying it's my point does not make it my point.
1. You see ss rail being less efficient as less interesting. I see ss rail supplanting full-sized rail as being less interesting. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.You misunderstood my point in (1). I was not saying SS railguns being less efficient is less interesting. I was saying SS railguns always being less efficient is less interesting than there are cases, depending on your tech progress, where SS railguns can be more efficient than full-sized ones and less efficient in other cases.
2. Because I have never played a game of Aurora where I have developed all the weapon systems at the same rate. If I'm developing rail and not lasers, I'm going to make different ship designs than if I'm developing lasers and not rail.
3. Still not my point. Saying it's my point does not make it my point.
For (2), you totally right, every player has their own preferred way to play, thanks to the flexibility of the general game design. How one plays doesn't affect how others play at all, and one (perhaps other than Steve since this is his game after all :) ) cannot say others' way of play is invalid or not good. Thus I always prefer more options than fewer options. Under the current implementation, a player who doesn't like the more efficient SS railguns can use lower capacitor charge tech to achieve this. But after the proposed change, a player who prefers SS railguns being better can no longer use it.
It's really weird that you're using different calibers to illustrate the difference, since it's a specific example that makes the problem bigger. And then ignores things like power plants or the extra range of the larger railgun.I used those because they are the "best" damage output railguns you can get at a equal RP investment. Yes, it might be unfair to compare different calibres but, in my opinion, the fact that 40cm RG's outdamage 45cm RG's is another important point to make. The powerplant investment and the range difference are both meaningless just like the cost is because the damage difference is almost TRIPLE.
The current implementation of railguns simply make them too effective at above certain tech levels, that is just a fact.This is simply not ture. In the current implementation, on almost all perhaps except the first tech lever, there are railgun calibers that full-sized ones are more effective, or SS ones are more effective. This cut-off caliber is higher when the tech level is higher.
Single shot or smaller railguns was only intended to be used on smaller crafts where a full size would not fit.This is true, but as you said later, a niche use case. And the current implementation can find more roles than just this single niche role. Quoting myself from another post:
We have to look at general game balance first. I don't think that there need to be perfect balance in the game, but there need to be some balance and adding up to 3x the damage output to a beam weapon is a bit broken.I don't think balance play much of a big role in an essentially RP tool. If you feel SS railgun is OP, you can choose not to use it without affecting your gameplay anyway. It's not like there is PVP in Aurora or the AI is minmaxing.
Reduced size railguns are suppose to be a niche system and not better than full size railguns, just as reduced sized lasers have a niche in a similar vein.
This is true, but as you said later, a niche use case. And the current implementation can find more roles than just this single niche role. Quoting myself from another post:Not a bad idea at all if you can get the numbers right.Having 1 game mechanics for just a niche use case is, imo, a questionable design.
- small caliber single-shot railguns are for tiny fighters, trade higher cost for its smaller size
- small caliber multi-shot railguns are for PD roles, to provide RoF and high volume of fire
- large caliber multi-shot railguns to provide higher-than-normal DPS and some degree of PD capability
- large caliber single-shot railguns are to provide the highest DPS, at the cost of higher cost, higher power draw, and limited PD capability
Having 1 game mechanics for just a niche use case is, imo, a questionable design.
- small caliber single-shot railguns are for tiny fighters, trade higher cost for its smaller size
- small caliber multi-shot railguns are for PD roles, to provide RoF and high volume of fire
- large caliber multi-shot railguns to provide higher-than-normal DPS and some degree of PD capability
- large caliber single-shot railguns are to provide the highest DPS, at the cost of higher cost, higher power draw, and limited PD capability
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.
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 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.
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.
...
large caliber single-shot railguns are to provide the highest DPS, at the cost of higher cost, higher power draw, and limited PD capability
While 1 shot railguns have a niche on fighters, what's the use for 2 and 3 shot railguns?
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?
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.
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 :D
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?
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?
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 pointThat would be an interesting calibration point - how does a reduced size railgun perform vs. a similar penetration laser, in terms of damage per second per ton?
That would be an interesting calibration point - how does a reduced size railgun perform vs. a similar penetration laser, in terms of damage per second per ton?
That would be an interesting calibration point - how does a reduced size railgun perform vs. a similar penetration laser, in terms of damage per second per ton?
At CAP 9, a 40cm Railgun dose 12 dmg (1-3-4-3-1 pattern). A 4-shot can fire once every 20 sec and weights 550 tons (11 HS), and a 1-shot can fire every 5 secs and weighs 179 tons (3.575 HS).
HS wise, a 1-shot railgun matches up with a 12cm laser (if we round up) at 200 tons (4HS) that dose 4 dmg in a (1-3 pattern).
Damage wise if falls between a 20cm laser and a 25cm laser. 20cm weighs 300 tons (6 HS) and dose 10 dmg (3-5-2). A 25cm Laser weighs 800 tons (8HS) and dose 16 dmg (1-4-6-4-1).
At CAP 9, both the 20 & 25cm laser have a RoF of 10 (due to rounding).
So a 1-shot 40cm Rail gun trades 1 to 2 layer of pen for for half the weight and twice the RoF compared to 20 & 25cm lasers. HS wise the 40cm 1-shot is clearly superior to a 12cm laser in all regards (though that should kind of be expected because of the tech level difference).
Damage Per Shot (1) 12 Rate of Fire 20 seconds Range Modifier 80,000
Max Range 960,000 km Railgun Size 3.575 HS (179 tons) Railgun HTK 1
Power Requirement 9 Recharge Rate 2.25
Cost 216 Crew 11
Development Cost 1039 RP
It has a DPT of 3, and a penetration of 3 layers.Damage Output 4 Rate of Fire 5 seconds Range Modifier 80,000
Max Range 320,000 km Laser Size 4 HS (200 tons) Laser HTK 2
Power Requirement 4 Recharge Rate 4
Cost 64 Crew 12
Development Cost 565 RP
It has a DPT of 4, and a penetration of 3 layers. It is less than 1/3 of the 40cm SS railgun in terms of cost. It also requires much less research (C4 compared to C10). It has much shorter range, but fighters should have much higher speed compared to their targets, and can should be able to close the gap relatively easily. And such high RoF, high penetration weapon is suitable for anti-fighter role.Damage Output 16 Rate of Fire 160 seconds Range Modifier 80,000
Max Range 1,280,000 km Laser Size 4 HS (200 tons) Laser HTK 2
Power Requirement 16 Recharge Rate 0.5
Cost 160.0 Crew 12
Development Cost 894 RP
It has a DPT of 0.5, and a penetration of 6 layers. It's about 66.7% the cost of the 40cm SS railgun. It requires the same recharge tech (C9 and C10 are available with the C10 research). Such high damage, high penetration but slow recharge weapon is suitable for the 'hit and run' tactics which looks for high alpha strike.Damage Per Shot (4) 1 Rate of Fire 5 seconds Range Modifier 80,000
Max Range 80,000 km Railgun Size 3.0 HS (150 tons) Railgun HTK 1
Power Requirement 3 Recharge Rate 3
Cost 41.6 Crew 9
Development Cost 456 RP
It has a DPT of 4, and a penetration of 1 layer. It's less than 20% the cost of the 40cm SS railgun. It is also only 3HS which enables a faster 10HS fighter. Fighters using such a weapon are usually for PD.Damage Output 6 Rate of Fire 5 seconds
Max Range 60,000 km Carronade Size 4 HS (200 tons) Carronade HTK 2
Power Requirement 6 Recharge Rate 6
Cost 14.7 Crew 8
Development Cost 271 RP
It has a DPT of 6 and a penetration of 2 layers. It's less than 7% the cost of the 40cm SS railgun. It only requires C6 to design, and 15cm carrot tech is cheap to research. Such high DPT, low penetration weapon is suitable for reducing enemy shields.As a compromise suggestion, what if the single shot weapon kept the current ROF but it was moved over to a "spinal weapon" equivalent? Which is to say, you can only mount a single weapon per hull, and maybe with a caliber bonus as well as currently happens with spinal lasers.
For a fighter or a FAC, it still works - they get a single railgun of a decent caliber and a decent fire rate. Large ships can still use them too - you can give them a big single shot spinal rail that will fire decently fast, and give it smaller 4shot railguns. But you won't get the examples of completely replacing a ship's weapons with a large number of single shot railguns to maximize DPS.
Alternately, let's look at it the other way around. People seem to be focusing on the DPS, but I think that's wrong - a single shot railgun has, at absolute best, the same DPS as a 4 shot railgun - the issue is that it's considerably smaller. Alternately, a single shot large railgun has the same DPS as a 4 shot small railgun, the difference is the single shot has longer range and (slightly) better armor penetration. And it's still smaller, which IMHO is clear evidence that single shot railguns are too good. But I would argue the problem isn't that their DPS is too high, the problem is that they're too small. Let's take a look at four weapons:
10cm Railgun V50/C3: 4*1 damage, 50kkm range, 150 tons, 26 Cost
12cm Railgun V50/C3/S2: 2*2 damage, 100kkm range, 138 tons, 26 Cost
20cm Railgun V50/C3/S1: 1*4 damage, 200kkm range, 114 tons, 26 Cost
10cm Far Ultraviolet Laser: 1*3 damage, 150kkm range, 150 tons, 26 Cost
The three railguns seem like they should be (mostly) sidegrades if you ignore the tonnage. The 10cm is the best at point defense, the 20cm has the best range and armor pen, the 12cm is midway between. Personally, I'd say I'd prefer having a single 20cm to a single 4shot 10cm, since range is king in Aurora, and that is somewhat born out by the laser doing less damage while being a nominally equivalent weapon. The problem here is the 10cm is the heaviest because of how the shot reduction is handled, and I think that's what makes the single shot railguns too powerful.
Currently railguns get a reduction of 22.5% size per reduced shot; I think this is clearly too much. If we imagine a change where each shot reduces the size by 15%, we get:
10cm Railgun V50/C3: 4*1 damage, 50kkm range, 150 tons, 26 Cost
12cm Railgun V50/C3/S2: 2*2 damage, 100kkm range, 175 tons, 26 Cost
20cm Railgun V50/C3/S1: 1*4 damage, 200kkm range, 192 tons, 26 Cost
10cm Far Ultraviolet Laser: 1*3 damage, 150kkm range, 150 tons, 26 Cost
Suddenly they feel a lot more fair. For each "step" you're paying a small premium in tonnage to keep the same DPS at a longer range, while being less viable as point defense. And the 20cm Railgun matches reasonably against the 10cm laser, doing 33% more damage for 28% more tonnage - it's still probably better, but at least the comparison is more sane. 12.5% less per shot might be better. Regardless, I think these numbers show how you can balance reduced shot railguns without making them completely useless.
--- What if the Reduced-Shot Railguns just... didn't change? Instead of nerfing them, why not buff the bigger ones? Instead of forcing the Reduced Shot versions to use less power AND fire slower, why not have the big ones require less power to fire at the rate they do currently? That way instead of becoming more power efficient the smaller you go, instead you get more power efficient the higher you go. Don't make the higher shot railguns fire faster just make it cost less power to get that RoF.Kind of what I offered before in this thread, just that in addition to making larger railguns more economical in mass production sense, I also think that more numerous shots have to be a research decision - that is, if you want to design more shot railguns, you have to research shot number tech line - I guess the default 1-4 shot railguns can be available on the get-go, but for anything more than that - research is required.
--- This seems a neat, no nonsense way to implement balance without extra rules, special rules, more tech or any other thing. The currently accepted course of action is to force the Reduced Shot ones to fire slower due to enforcing a hard upper limit on Capacitor, but what if we just went the other way and allowed the higher shot ones to just have lowered Power Requirements instead? So, to be perfectly clear on what I'm suggesting; the Single Shot Railguns would remain unchanged both in Power Requirements and Rate of Fire, the 2,3 and 4 Shot Railguns would instead become progressively more power efficient per shot.
Single shot railguns were intended as a solution for small craft. I hadn't realised the implications of being able to stack power plants for larger weapons to generate increased DPS. Unless someone comes up with a good reason against it, I will limit the calibre for v2.0 as suggested above.
Single shot railguns were intended as a solution for small craft. I hadn't realised the implications of being able to stack power plants for larger weapons to generate increased DPS. Unless someone comes up with a good reason against it, I will limit the calibre for v2.0 as suggested above.
Will reduced shots be limited to 10cm permanently or will the limit increase as you research more tech?
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.
Yes, that would solve the problem without requiring a special rule. It's much better.
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.
Could reduced size lasers be changed to work in a similar way? But instead of dropping shots it drops damage.
Yes, that would solve the problem without requiring a special rule. It's much better.