Railguns mechanic

[TheBawkHawk]

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 find myself doing this very often in my games, particle beams being called railguns/mass drivers, and railguns being called some version of particle/plasma guns.

[Jorgen_CAB (OP)]

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.

[nuclearslurpee]

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.

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.

[Garfunkel]

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.

[Bremen]

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.

[nuclearslurpee]

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?

Correct. In practice the single-shot guns can do about 3x as much DPS as the four-shot guns, due to the extra power plants needed to recharge so many weapons, but it is still a huge DPS spike that makes multiple-shot railguns considerably weaker in nearly every way - the only advantage four-shot railguns can have is alpha striking, which isn't really the railgun's forte.

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.

Eh. Railguns already have a unique role as the best DPS weapon in the game, since compared to lasers or plasma they gain 33% of their damage points "for free" in terms of the required power to fire the weapon. All the single-shot exploit really does is hyper-optimize for that role in a way which really isn't intended and arguably breaks the game balance in a negative way, because ~3x DPS is really quite a lot of damage output.

It is worth noting that depending on how Railgun costs are implemented with respect to the capacitor level/tech, reduced-shot models may still have uses - for example they may be size-inefficient but cheaper to research and providing extra HTK compared to the full-shot models. So by bringing balance back to the Force railguns, there is an interesting if fairly minor design decision which can be made.

[Garfunkel]

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.

[serger]

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.

That's what I do every time indeed, with a slight risk to mess up horribly and a surrender of contributing in bug-hunting. :/

[Bremen]

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.

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.

Let's try an example that uses the same size railgun and accounts for things like power plants:

4 shot 25cm Railgun V50/C3.75: 20 damage, ROF 20, 400 tons, HTK 4, Recharge Rate 3.75, Cost 72.6
1 shot 25cm Railgun V50/C3.75: 5 damage, ROF 5, 130 tons, HTK 1, Recharge Rate 3.75, Cost 36.3

Exact power plant tonnage varies based on the size/efficiency curve, but my standard powerplant in that game is 142.5 tons, produces 30.79 power, and costs 92.4. Adding that to the above numbers, we get:

4 shot 25cm Railgun V50/C3.75: 20 damage, ROF 20, 417.3 tons, HTK 4, Cost 83.9
1 shot 25cm Railgun V50/C3.75: 5 damage, ROF 5, 147.3 tons, HTK 1, Cost 47.6

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.

[nuclearslurpee]

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.

This is the correct analysis. Depending on your power plant technology and choice of railgun caliber, you're looking at roughly ~3x DPS over the four-shot models. Not as bad as a straight 4x increase, due to railgun size penalties and need for more power plants, but pretty extreme still.

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 think the idea is that reduced-shot railguns are a specialized weapon and not the default, and in this role they will have uses.

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.

You can also see uses for smaller ships in the 1,000-3,000 ton range where weapon size breakpoints are more important, to fit an extra reduced-shots weapon into some tonnage where a full-size railgun will not fit. Even for FACs the very large calibers are not always mountable at full size, so something like a two-shot 50cm railgun could be desirable.

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.

[Bremen]

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.

[Jorgen_CAB (OP)]

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.

1000t FAC probably can mount fairly large Railguns if they come at reduced size.

The way the game mechanic work there is no reason why larger ships should get more powerful Railguns by making them single shot, Railguns already have more damage at close range than all other types of weapons.

Also, beam fighters already is a rather sub optimal platform so it is mainly there for role-play or as PD for fighters groups or to engage other fighters or lightly armed ships.
[/quote]

[Density]

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.

On one level, I understand your position. On another level, I feel like you're arguing that a quad-turret should fire four times slower than a single weapon turret.

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.

[Iceranger]

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.

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.

[Iceranger]

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 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.