Plasma Torps

[Suicide Junkie]

Cheaper missiles would not be an incentive to use plasma missiles.

When was the Last lime you considered cost when adding weapons to your ship???

The three things that determine battle power are:
-Size
-Damage
-Fire rate

Take damage divided by size divided by fire rate, and you get the strength of a weapon. The higher the better.

Smaller considerations include:
-Range
-Inherent accuracy bonus/penalties
-Cost

For the most powerful warship, maximize the value of (Hitpoints X AttackPower) where hitpoints includes armor and shields, and attackpower is the damage per turn you can maintain during battle.


Now, all you have to do is balance your "face-to-face" slugging power with your underhanded sneaky weapons & defences such as engine disruptors & such.


Anyways, weapons should have a strength (as calculated above) close to that of other weapons, unless they have a specific advantage/disadvantage to counter the altered power.

eg. Long range beams like WMGs have poor attack strength, but have long range.
Ripper beams have higher-than-average attack strength, but are limited to very short range.

[Pulaski]

Sorry if this is a newbie question, but: is it possible to have a weapon that does no damage at close range then damage at a specific range, or increasing damage as range increases?
Might make for more intersting use of things like the plasma torpedo

[DirectorTsaarx]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pulaski:
Sorry if this is a newbie question, but: is it possible to have a weapon that does no damage at close range then damage at a specific range, or increasing damage as range increases?
Might make for more intersting use of things like the plasma torpedo

---

Yes. HOWEVER, there are a few potential problems. Some are minor, and might be worth it just to keep the game interesting; but there's at least one major problem with it.

One, accuracy decreases with range for direct-fire weapons. This means you're trading accuracy for damage. Not a major problem, and certainly would make life interesting.

Two, for seeking weapons, you have little (if any) control over when the seeker hits, so if the enemy is rushing your ships, the seeker may hit too early and do no damage. Again, not a major problem, and certainly would make life interesting.

Three, (and this is the REAL problem) this would wreak havoc on the various combat strategies. So the AI would have a difficult time using such a weapon, and humans would probably be stuck using tactical to resolve battles involving that weapon.

So, while it's technically possible, and certainly interesting, that third problem I listed would make it difficult to integrate into the game.

[Baron Munchausen]

quote:

---

Originally posted by vostok:
Im new to the game so keep that in mind;
I agree that plasma torps are rather ineffective vs. CSMs; maybe they need a second ability, say 2x to shields (or maybe armor), or perhaps be a 'phased' torpedo.

---

Or edit the damage to only drop every OTHER square of distance. Or increase the fire rate to 2. Or make them faster. They move at speed 8 in my games. Not easy to escape unless you are a fighter. I've considered making them fire faster, but the races that use them seem to be doing quite well with the decreased range attenuation and increased speed. The Toltayan are now almost always a major power in any game which they get entered into.

[KiloOhm]

Never bothered researching them before but I did for the first time Last night. The description says they are a seeking weapon but they are really a direct fire weapon (range of 2????? 20/20 for level I). Why on earth would anyone use these?

------------------
Regards,
KiloOhm

[AJC]

I have added +1 movement to all seekers in my games.Plus all my seekers move a max of 6 at its top tech level. Except the plasma - it moves up to 8 at the top tech levels. At each level of plasma torpedo, my plasmas move 1 faster than the CSM.

IMO -the shard cannon needs to fire at a rate of 1

[This message has been edited by AJC (edited 10 March 2001).]

[Baron Munchausen]

quote:

---

Originally posted by AJC:
I have added +1 movement to all seekers in my games.Plus all my seekers move a max of 6 at its top tech level. Except the plasma - it moves up to 8 at the top tech levels. At each level of plasma torpedo, my plasmas move 1 faster than the CSM.

IMO -the shard cannon needs to fire at a rate of 1

---

Yep, missiles are too slow in the default config. They should be as fast as fighters.

And, yeah, I agree about the Shard Cannon. It was too powerful in the original demo but now it's pathetic. The damage/size ratio is less than any other weapon in the game, even one-shot per turn weapons with special abilities like the Time Distortion Burst, yet it still only fires every other turn. I've restored the fire rate of 1 and boosted the damage to 45 in my techs. That's still a lower ratio than standard weapons like the A-P Beam and the Meson BLaster but not so pathetic as before.

[KiloOhm]

OK, I did get the name wrong, it's "Anti-matter Torpedos" not Plasma Torps. So again I'll ask the question.

1) Why on earth would anyone wase research points on these? It seems that DUC's do about the same for a LOT less research.

2) Why are they called torpedo's and show a picture of a missle, but act like direct fire?

------------------
Regards,
KiloOhm

[Suicide Junkie]

Well, in space you need a rocket engine to accelerate (or solar sail, whatever) So the torpedo looks a bit missiley.

The torpedo, would not be seeking a whole bunch, but instead be boosted to a really high velocity by its engine, with minimal course corrections. This should make it cheaper, smaller & faster firing than a CSM.

Since it has an antimatter warhead, it should be doing much more damage than a DUC, you may want to mod that if it is a problem.

[Baron Munchausen]

quote:

---

Originally posted by KiloOhm:
OK, I did get the name wrong, it's "Anti-matter Torpedos" not Plasma Torps. So again I'll ask the question.

1) Why on earth would anyone wase research points on these? It seems that DUC's do about the same for a LOT less research.

2) Why are they called torpedo's and show a picture of a missle, but act like direct fire?

---

This is a long-standing balance problem with torpedos. Most beam weapons fire every turn and do lots of damage over time but less per single shot. Seekers fire less often but do HUGE damage per hit. Torpedos are meant to be intermediate between beams and seekers. They fire every-other turn and do more damage per hit than a beam but less total in those two turns than a beam and much less than a seeker. Think of it as a seeker that travels very quickly and so doesn't need to be represented on the combat grid. It's fired and reaches its target the same round.

I've been messing with torpedo abilites more than any other weapon while trying to balance my own custom techs. If you let them do a large amount of damage then they make seekers seem much less valuable. So, why bother with seekers? You can have direct-fire damage without the problem of PDC intercepting it... which could be corrected by massively increasing seeker damage, I guess, but then races that use seekers become too powerful. The same goes for range. If you give torpedos more range than beam weapons then they also begin to crowd-out seekers. The best solution I've been able to come up with so far is to give them a bonus to hit. Since it is a 'seeker' of a sort it ought to be able to correct its course and hit more often than a beam. 'Real' seekers will hit every time if they actually reach the location of their target, you know. So, with a +20 percent to hit a torpedo has some sort of advantage over a beam but does not make seekers seem useless. Since torpedos do not have 'range attentuation' like most beams this also enhances their use as "stand off" weapons.

Perhaps we will ultimately have to rebalance the whole system, inflating all sorts of things -- weapon damage, shield power, and even armor -- to give a broad enough range of effects for beams, torpedos, and seekers to fit properly.


[This message has been edited by Baron Munchausen (edited 10 March 2001).]