Re: Missile/Projectile Weapons
Posted: Sun Jan 05, 2020 2:06 am
Can we have some "target assignment system", that only fire ENOUGH missile. Don't fire a thousand missiles to a single scout.
Reasons to have missiles be a single-part weapon
This idea I like. My first impression is that the second option would have more utility, however I'd like to hear your thoughts on how the first option would be useful, especially if it's easier to do.One could also combine these two ideas, missile launcher with batteries included and another internal part which e.g. refills missile launchers after battle (simple FOCS implementation) or adds extra capacity (maybe tricky FOCS implementation or some extra backend implementation).
I agree. MoO2 had that and it was very nice to have: you can deliver lots of missiles faster at greater cost (more launch bays per missile pod) and less vulnerability against enemy flaks, or slower at cheaper cost (less launch bays per missile pod) and more vulnerability to enemy flaks.
Refilling missile launchers after battle helps if you are out-of-supply. If missile launchers exist this would only need a generic part (so no special missile-storage part class). The number of missile launched in a battle would also be determined by the launcher and not the number of bouts.labgnome wrote: ↑Sun Jan 05, 2020 2:19 amThis idea I like. My first impression is that the second option would have more utility, however I'd like to hear your thoughts on how the first option would be useful, especially if it's easier to do.Ophiuchus wrote: ↑Sat Jan 04, 2020 9:16 pm ]One could also combine these two ideas, missile launcher with batteries included and another internal part which e.g. refills missile launchers after battle (simple FOCS implementation) or adds extra capacity (maybe tricky FOCS implementation or some extra backend implementation).
The question is what "enough" means here. I take this as: only shoot if there is a ship with immediate structure larger than zero. Basically a missile launcher fleet would do no overkill.
I think I get what you are saying and I'll go for it.Ophiuchus wrote: ↑Mon Jan 06, 2020 11:58 amRefilling missile launchers after battle helps if you are out-of-supply. If missile launchers exist this would only need a generic part (so no special missile-storage part class). The number of missile launched in a battle would also be determined by the launcher and not the number of bouts.labgnome wrote: ↑Sun Jan 05, 2020 2:19 amThis idea I like. My first impression is that the second option would have more utility, however I'd like to hear your thoughts on how the first option would be useful, especially if it's easier to do.Ophiuchus wrote: ↑Sat Jan 04, 2020 9:16 pm One could also combine these two ideas, missile launcher with batteries included and another internal part which e.g. refills missile launchers after battle (simple FOCS implementation) or adds extra capacity (maybe tricky FOCS implementation or some extra backend implementation).
It's looking like we might need to talk about how we want to to targeting priority/target assignment systems. Maybe missiles will necessitate that kind of system. However I do think that might be veering into off-topic territory that may warrant its own thread.On a related note:The question is what "enough" means here. I take this as: only shoot if there is a ship with immediate structure larger than zero. Basically a missile launcher fleet would do no overkill.
That would be possible but completely out of line to the current handling of weapons. Maybe it is warranted for such weapons with depleting capacity.
I'm open to to this idea. It's something we can definitely flesh-out in this thread. Currently how many bouts does combat last for?Or we simply accept overkill crazyness as normal. That should be ok if high levels of munitions are easily achievable (e.g. a launcher carries by default carries enough missiles to last for two turns battles).
Missiles could be a rather good weapon for defensive players at the right cost. Maybe have them be cheaper per shot than direct weapons. With "warhead" boosting techs this could make missiles fairly economical. Maybe have a tech that boosts the damage up to 23, maybe "quantum warheads" or "void warheads".It looks to me that the smallest common denominator here is currently that missiles should be based on supply-regenerated munitions?
If munitions are kind of low that is only a useful weapon if you can reconnect to your supply. So you must be either in or close to your supply or able to outpost/invade a planet in order to restock. So rather a boost for defense.
I'd say from what this discussion has brought out so-far is that missiles are potentially a defensive weapon. They would be initially effective against fighters but through technology become more effective against ships, keeping up with shield technology.So I think we need to determine first the combat roles of missiles. Currently I see more issues than utility but that may clear up.
Well there are several. The specific thing here is if would be OK to have a (mostly) no-shot-overkill weapon system. Two variants I see: either missiles launch as usual (random weapon shots), so a beam weapon might generate shot-overkill on an enemy killed by a missile; or missiles shoot last - which would mean no shot-overkill by missiles at all. There might be a veto from the depths of history (the project leads). Start one thread if you like.labgnome wrote: ↑Mon Jan 06, 2020 11:40 pm It's looking like we might need to talk about how we want to to targeting priority/target assignment systems. Maybe missiles will necessitate that kind of system. However I do think that might be veering into off-topic territory that may warrant its own thread.
Three bouts per turn (and hopefully soon four). So two turns would mean six (soon eight) missiles. Under normal circumstances this means that it is ok to waste shots. So a sending a decoy ship triggering the attack of an enemy fleet would be destroyed in a single bout would deplete missile storage by one. I thought first to scale capacity with the used number of bouts but maybe a fixed value is also fine (e.g. if you have 10 capacity, wasting a shot means loosing only a tenth of the firepower iff you can't resupply). Of course this would make missiles more similar to other weapon systems - munitions only would matter if your fleet is unsupplyable. This would be (more) interesting i guess if cutting off supply would be more realistic or battles would take multiple turns (so in the course of the multi-turn battle the ammo runs out). Requiring to be not in combat, stationary and in-supply for resupplying missiles might help.labgnome wrote: ↑Mon Jan 06, 2020 11:40 pmI'm open to to this idea. It's something we can definitely flesh-out in this thread. Currently how many bouts does combat last for?Or we simply accept overkill crazyness as normal. That should be ok if high levels of munitions are easily achievable (e.g. a launcher carries by default carries enough missiles to last for two turns battles).
If it is too effective/economical it becomes boring. I think early invasion should be possible and it is already hard to pull it off. So there needs to be a counter.
If missiles target fighters as well one can use those as a counter (decoy shield). That could be a nice niche.labgnome wrote: ↑Mon Jan 06, 2020 11:40 pmI'd say from what this discussion has brought out so-far is that missiles are potentially a defensive weapon. They would be initially effective against fighters but through technology become more effective against ships, keeping up with shield technology.So I think we need to determine first the combat roles of missiles. Currently I see more issues than utility but that may clear up.
I'm totally fine with missiles firing last.Ophiuchus wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2020 10:30 amWell there are several. The specific thing here is if would be OK to have a (mostly) no-shot-overkill weapon system. Two variants I see: either missiles launch as usual (random weapon shots), so a beam weapon might generate shot-overkill on an enemy killed by a missile; or missiles shoot last - which would mean no shot-overkill by missiles at all. There might be a veto from the depths of history (the project leads). Start one thread if you like.
Three bouts per turn (and hopefully soon four).
True, I was more trying to get to a point of thinking of what kind of RP and PP costs these techs and parts should have. I want missiles to be economical enough to justify their limitations.If it is too effective/economical it becomes boring. I think early invasion should be possible and it is already hard to pull it off. So there needs to be a counter.
I think we are on the same page here.If missiles target fighters as well one can use those as a counter (decoy shield). That could be a nice niche.
Currently we are going for: ships,planets and Bombers are attacking ships (but no fighters); the only way to attack fighters are flak and other Fighter/Interceptors; missiles could fill in for attacking both ships and fighters.
I think I grok what you are saying. Missiles would shoot on bout two, once, and not fire again. Thus particular missile launchers would only need to carry twice the number of shots they fire?So I would suggest: have missile launcher parts only (multi-)shoot in bout two, launcher by itself can shoot once - it gets refilled after battle from supply network or from "missile storage" part if you have one with four capacity. Normal missiles attack ships and fighters. Resupply of storage and launcher parts happens only in-allied-supply, if stationary and not in combat last turn. (?Note to self "on event=onShoot" effect?)
I think I was considering them to not be shield-piercing, which I think I would prefer. Is there any reason they should be shield-piercing?Not sure if missiles should be shield-piercing or not.
If you can do non shield-piercing I think I'm totally on-board.What could be prototyped with FOCS if I add the condition to query the current bout to the backend using fighters: can have multiple missile launcher launch bay and a single missile storage hangar which gets some extra capacity per launcher part. Normal missiles only target fighters OR ships and are shield-piercing. Resupply of storage and launcher parts happens only in-allied-supply, if stationary and not in combat last turn. Missiles can be shot down like fighters by flak,Fighters and Interceptors. If the ship was in combat, decrease the capacity storage capacity by the number of launcher parts (so this is where missiles are used up). Damage gets scaled to the number of bouts per turn.
Ophiuchus wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2020 10:30 amSo I would suggest: have missile launcher parts only (multi-)shoot in bout two, launcher by itself can shoot once - it gets refilled after battle from supply network or from "missile storage" part if you have one with four capacity. Normal missiles attack ships and fighters. Resupply of storage and launcher parts happens only in-allied-supply, if stationary and not in combat last turn.
It could be one or the other (mostly a matter of balance).
SOTA FOCS-only fighters based implementation can only be shield-piercing. No way to stop a fighter from being shield-piercing. We could do 0-damage fighter implementation and count how many missiles got through and distribute that damage after combat between the enemies.. but let's rather not do that.labgnome wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2020 12:30 amIf you can do non shield-piercing I think I'm totally on-board.Ophiuchus wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2020 10:30 amWhat could be prototyped with FOCS if I add the condition to query the current bout to the backend using fighters: can have multiple missile launcher launch bay and a single missile storage hangar which gets some extra capacity per launcher part. Normal missiles only target fighters OR ships and are shield-piercing. Resupply of storage and launcher parts happens only in-allied-supply, if stationary and not in combat last turn. Missiles can be shot down like fighters by flak,Fighters and Interceptors. If the ship was in combat, decrease the capacity storage capacity by the number of launcher parts (so this is where missiles are used up). Damage gets scaled to the number of bouts per turn.
Well my preference is to have non shield-piercing so the damage boosts from techs is balanced against shield strength. However if we need to make them shield-piercing I suppose the damage could be scaled to armor parts instead? I just worry that having two out of three different weapon systems be shield-piercing will make shields mostly irrelevant. I'd personally rather have shields be a counter to missiles. I also feel that would again, make them too similar to fighters. What are your thoughts?
That just sounds ugly, so yeah, let's not.SOTA FOCS-only fighters based implementation can only be shield-piercing. No way to stop a fighter from being shield-piercing. We could do 0-damage fighter implementation and count how many missiles got through and distribute that damage after combat between the enemies.. but let's rather not do that.
So this all looks good, and I like what I can see. How likely do you think it will be to see a version of this in a test version after 0.4.9 comes out? I'd like to test missiles out.I did a FOCS-only implementation in PR-2710. Missiles launch in bout 1, can be shot down in bout 2 and do damage in bout 3. See details in the PR.
This sounds acceptable for a stop-gap until we can get missile resupply to work how we want.One thing I found is that the resupply seems to be hardcoded in the backend, so I can not put a specialized version for missiles in place. Timing of resupply also means I can not reuse fighter UI for showing the total amount of missiles available - supply happens after movement before combat. I first used the MaxCapacity of the hangar part to show the current storage - but it also meant that the launcher launched more missiles than it should have.
That sounds potentially annoying, hopefully something that's solvable.Another general thing with targeting conditions and UI and AI came up. Total damage calculation is off. Missiles do damage only once - but my targeting restricted fighter implementation does damage in bout two as well in UI and in AI estimation - so the estimation is double the real value.
No, not anymore.Ophiuchus wrote: ↑Tue Jan 14, 2020 3:15 pmDo you have a linux system available?
As this is FOCS-only you do not need to compile and only need the FOCS files. Get the default folder from the pull request and point your resource directory in freeorion settings to it.
Code: Select all
# create branch PR2710_Fighters from PR-2710 from origin remote
git fetch origin pull/2710/head:PR2710_Fighters
git checkout PR2710_Fighters
??? What do you mean by "point your resource directory in freeorion settings to it". I understand exactly what none of that means.Ophiuchus wrote: ↑Wed Jan 15, 2020 10:11 amAs this is FOCS-only you do not need to compile and only need the FOCS files. Get the default folder from the pull request and point your resource directory in freeorion settings to it.
If you got git already setup you can do the followingCode: Select all
# create branch PR2710_Fighters from PR-2710 from origin remote git fetch origin pull/2710/head:PR2710_Fighters git checkout PR2710_Fighters
In your freeorion settings there is a tab where you can set your directory paths. You can change the path of the default directory freeorion uses to another one (in this case the one from the PR). So you can use your installed freeorion with the default folder with the missile tech.labgnome wrote: ↑Thu Jan 16, 2020 10:57 pm??? What do you mean by "point your resource directory in freeorion settings to it". I understand exactly what none of that means.Ophiuchus wrote: ↑Wed Jan 15, 2020 10:11 amAs this is FOCS-only you do not need to compile and only need the FOCS files. Get the default folder from the pull request and point your resource directory in freeorion settings to it.
If you got git already setup you can do the followingCode: Select all
# create branch PR2710_Fighters from PR-2710 from origin remote git fetch origin pull/2710/head:PR2710_Fighters git checkout PR2710_Fighters
So I copy default folder to my hard drive then set Free Orion to use that one instead of the regular one?Ophiuchus wrote: ↑Fri Jan 17, 2020 12:37 pmIn your freeorion settings there is a tab where you can set your directory paths. You can change the path of the default directory freeorion uses to another one (in this case the one from the PR). So you can use your installed freeorion with the default folder with the missile tech.
I mean it's looking to me like missiles are entirely feasible and might have a place in Free Orion. I'll try testing them out soon. Hopefully I won't be the only one to do so.in the meantime I also thought up a FOCS-only way to stop targeting exploding missiles, but it would mean to change all the weapons' target condition for all weapons which target fighters to check the bout and skip on the missile-launcher launched fighters.