SpaceCombat Counters

[Krikkitone]

Well I don't think RPS should be explicit, just implied in synergy type effects.

e.g. any ship (based on its primary weaponry) will have certain types of effects
1. Range
2. Power/space
3. Targetability

Now based on Those Weapon stats, the ship will need certain types of characteristics
1. Speed (best for SR weapons)
2. Maneuverability (best for low Targetability weapons)
3. Defenses (also best for SR weapons)* specialized to the type of weapons it can be expected to encounter at its battle field position

Defenses include pd, shields, armor, Stealth, evasion, etc.... unless factors like stealth and Evasion have better effects at different distances... say Stealth is much better at long range


So looking at the Weapons at least 6 types can be seen (probable)
1. Power Based (SR heavy Cannons)
2. Range Based (LR beams)
3. Targetability based (PD)
4. Power+Range (LR Heavy beams)
5. Power+Targetability (SR Turrets)
6. Range+Target (Missiles)

Each of these 'weapon systems' would have an ideal 'position+strategy on the battlefield' and based on that position would need certain types of defense, and certain types of engine characteristics. So you have forced specialized ships.... you then play with the stats to develop an RPS system. Now if the RPS is made too strong then the ships may give up their specialization in exchange for RPS safety... more likely would be forming a balanced fleet.

[marhawkman]

@utilae

The point for carriers required to be big is that LR should be a counter for them (in my RPS system). Your medium carriers that wipe LR would be a gamebreaker.

- LR is superior vs large ships, moderate vs medium and useless vs small (can't hit from long distance, and up close they are too fast to aim at).
- Fighters are superior vs small ships and the best missile defence.
- Missiles are good vs LR ships (they have no good pd), but can easily be intercepted by fighters.

Now if you allowed carriers to be medium or small, LR wouldn't counter them anymore. If you allowed LR ships to have too much pd or missile defence, IF wouldn't counter them anymore. Pd must be balanced in a way that it does enough damage over time to handle fighters, but can't save you from missiles.

What you can build:
small LR - not as effective as medium LR (can't mount big guns), and more vulnerable to fighters
medium and big IF - the bigger your IF, the easier for LR to shoot them from the distance

Heck, i'm not compleately satisfied with that system yet, but i can't think of anything better.

Now about the SR ships... what are they effective against? What counters them?

Problem here is your ship designing basically comes down to "rock, paper, scissors". I prefer a system whare there are multiple ways to counter enemy threats. Say your opponent LOVES fighters. Have a way to research a reflective armor that makes the fighters less useful.

[ewh02b]

Yes, precisely. Why have RPS? Who says it is absolutely required? We can do all the balancing we want using space and damage requirements. That's right, instead of R<P<S<R, we have balance, where a skillful player can creatively use his/her ships to snatch victory from the arms of defeat.

As for cloaked missiles? Simple! Rule: Missiles are too small to mount a cloaking system, and probably fighters as well.

[utilae]

If we can't have cloaked missiles, then this ain't SciFi!!!!

You must remember that this is a complex space game. It ain't no simple RPS. It's not rocketmen are good against tanks, but useless against men because in this game a unit can be a mixture of man, tank and whatever else.

In this game the counters are the weapons, rather than the ship roles. See, you are making the ship roles the counters, which is good. But to be more flexible if the weapons and systems are the counters, then roles can be made that make them valuable in their specialties.

The point for carriers required to be big is that LR should be a counter for them (in my RPS system). Your medium carriers that wipe LR would be a gamebreaker.

It would not be a gamebreaker. There is a valid reason. My medium carriers are faster and can evade your slow targeting weapons easier. In fact, you simplify things too much. Who says that carriers should be outranged by LR. If the fighters were super long range (through adv. fuel tech) then the carrier could stay well out of range, while the fighters fly in and make a kill. This would of course be an extreme situation, as fighters would have to kill the LR before they had to return to base and refuel/rearm.

But my point is that it is possible. Just as it is possible for your LR to have long range weapons that are very good at tracking targets, making them good even against small targets. There would be disadvantages of course, obviously less damage.

- Fighters are superior vs small ships and the best missile defence.

PD is the best missile defense. Fighters might be thought of as PD, but they are fixed weapons, meaning the fighter have to face in the direction of the enemy first. If they had turrets or omni direction emitters then they could fire at targets that are anywhere, even behind them. Since a fighter has to chase the missile and also missile will be faster, plus worrying about other fighters and the capital ship target, fighters are not as good. Dedicated defense ships full of fast tracking turret PD weapons will be better at hitting missiles and fighters alike.

Fighters are not superior to small ships. They have to dogfight each other. They are superior in the sense that small ships are unlikely to have fast tracking turrets and have fixed weapons instead.

- Missiles are good vs LR ships (they have no good pd), but can easily be intercepted by fighters.

But you can build a LR ship with PD on it. If a has 50% PD and 50% LR, then it is obviously a mix. It won't be as good as 100% LR, but it's the best of both worlds.

Now if you allowed carriers to be medium or small, LR wouldn't counter them anymore. If you allowed LR ships to have too much pd or missile defence, IF wouldn't counter them anymore. Pd must be balanced in a way that it does enough damage over time to handle fighters, but can't save you from missiles.

Even fighters are less effective against PD, then you still cannot say that PD will always beat fighters, because if you have enough fighters (alot) then you will overwealm the PD.

If small/medium carriers make LR not counter them anymore, then the LR player has to make his LR ships different. Better computers and scanners to detect stealth and hit small targets better. More vector thrusters to turn quicker. Turreted long range cannons for accurate hits. Some PD to deal with bombers or fighters that are released from the carrier.

Now about the SR ships... what are they effective against? What counters them?

Short range ships have either close combat or short range weapons, eg bombs, sr lasers, ramming, boarding. Short range weapons are much higher damage then an equivilent cost long range weapon. So having short range weapons is for the close strike that will be a fatal blow. They need a means to get in close, eg stealth, armour/shields, speed. There weapons are specialised at being more damaging in short range and very accurate as a result. If they get close, they are always certain to hit.

[Eddie]

I'm just talking about shiptype RPS. Weapontype vs armor RPS is an entirely different thing. Ok, scanners and cloaking plobably belong in the same category as ship sizes in how they affect combat.

Btw, why do you assume if i say pd beats fighters, fighters can never win, no matter how many of them there are? If you read my posts carefully and not every sentence for itself and quote them and then think of a response to that particular sentence, we won't get anywhere.
Please use some common sense, or do i need to post so many details that you will have to think really hard on how it could be misunderstood?

Now personally, i'd like there to be a difference whether i make a ship LR, IF or a carrier. To make a game work, you have to start simple, and then add detail if it is needed. What you should also keep in mind, FO is no space combat simulator. Spacecombat is just part of the game. A combat system that is more complex than any other full time combat game is clearely NOT what is needed.


So back to shiptype RPS. What i'm talking about is what ship would beat which, if they all are the same tech lvl and the same cost in PP (multiple smaller ships vs a big one). All you know is:
- main weapon type: LR, SR/PD, IF and carrier
- ship size
- scanners and cloak

And now, with JUST these things (no "I'll put more pd on that ship", cause then it won't be that ship anymore. It will be a PD/SR ship), tell me what combination beats which. If you can't come up with anything better than me, stop complaining.

Edit - you just said SR is good in close combat. Well, guess what, i already knew. But what shiptype (LR, IF, carrier) is SR good against?

[utilae]

Btw, why do you assume if i say pd beats fighters, fighters can never win, no matter how many of them there are?

Even fighters are less effective against PD, then you still cannot say that PD will always beat fighters, because if you have enough fighters (alot) then you will overwealm the PD.

I was just pointing out that the counters aren't always going to be decided souly on the ship roles. Eg even though LR can beat carriers, there are situations where a carrier might beat a LR.

If you read my posts carefully and not every sentence for itself and quote them and then think of a response to that particular sentence, we won't get anywhere.
Please use some common sense, or do i need to post so many details that you will have to think really hard on how it could be misunderstood?

I'll do what I like. Besides, I think that it is much easier to get your point across when the quote is there, because that is what you are replying to.

Now personally, i'd like there to be a difference whether i make a ship LR, IF or a carrier. To make a game work, you have to start simple, and then add detail if it is needed. What you should also keep in mind, FO is no space combat simulator. Spacecombat is just part of the game. A combat system that is more complex than any other full time combat game is clearely NOT what is needed.

I just don't want the RPS system to be too simple. The only roles you have so far are LR, IF, Carrier, Fighters. There are many roles, and some such as PD which would obviously beat missiles and fighters are decided to be worse than fighters at this.

Obiously roles will be different. But I want it so that the player designs the ship and based on certain characteristics of the ship, it is effective in certain roles. So there is flexibility.

And now, with JUST these things (no "I'll put more pd on that ship", cause then it won't be that ship anymore. It will be a PD/SR ship), tell me what combination beats which. If you can't come up with anything better than me, stop complaining.

I'm not complaining. I'm highlighting the weaknesses of your system and suggestin improvements and my own ideas as well.

-Ship A is 50% LR and 50% PD.
-Ship B is 100% LR.
-Ship C is 100% Carrier.
-Ship D is 50% Missile and 50% Carrier.

Ship B beats Ship C. Ship A is even more effective against Ship C because its PD weapons will deal with fighters, though not as quickly as a dedicated PD ship. Its lack of LR weapons means it will take longer to kill the Carrier.

Ship D beats Ship C, Ship D probably destroyed as well. Its missiles can be used from a long range and even released with fighters (they release closer). Really it's possible that Ship D can release missiles and take out the LR ship. Though the LR ship could also be the same range. So yes, the LR ship may kill the Carrier, but its missiles will eventually hit the LR ship.

Ship A and Ship D may be a more even match, though Ship A will probably win. LR will kill the carrier and the remaining missiles will be stopped by PD. Though the carrier might not be killed fast enough allowing it to release many missiles and then the PD will not be enough to stop them all. So it could still be a case of both ships killing each other.

Edit - you just said SR is good in close combat. Well, guess what, i already knew. But what shiptype (LR, IF, carrier) is SR good against?

I'd say an SR ship would be good at taking out LR ships, since they can close in quickly and may avoid slow LR fire. They'd have the firepower to kill the usually large LR ships. Since they are Manueverable and fast, only long range fast tracking PD weapons are the best defense against them.

They'd be useless against missiles because their weapons are short range so that they can only shoot a missile when it is close enough to explode and have the explosion hit the ship. They are however manuervable and fast and so can probably out run a missle, though it won't work too well.

The following is assumed:
-LR have slowtracking weapons.
-IF is missiles and have large explosive radius and are fast.
-PD are medium-long range fast tracking weapons.
-Fighters and SR are roughly equal, only SR are specialised in speed, armour/shields and therefore able to escape them while heading for the helpless carrier. Fighters have fixed cannons.

These are the counters as I see them working:
Carrier > LR
IF > LR, Carrier, SR
LR > PD
SR > LR, Carrier
PD > Carrier, IF, SR

[solidcordon]

Counter fighters or missiles with good old fashioned flak guns, no need for all that expensive tracking and detection hardware, just bombard space around your ship with high speed projectiles and some of them will hit a missile or fighter. regardless of how stealthy or evasive they are.

The tactical part of the game could be interesting with just 'weapon damage' and 'hitpoints' if it were implimented properly. More interesting with movement per turn, more interesting still with stealth and detection. Allowing the player to make choices about all these things is great but there does come a point when there's too much to choose from.

I'd favour leaving ship roles to the player. Keep the combat / damage system as transparent and simple as possible and let the player decide what they think is a good ship design. Trying to decide which general types of ship should beat other types of ship before there's even a framework of a combat system seems a lot more storm than brain to me.

[Krikkitone]

I'd favour leaving ship roles to the player.

I definitely agree. Of course, to make sure the weapons systems balance, we will probably be eventually looking at what ship roles a player might use and designing an RPS type strategy by jiggling with the stats and ideal strategies.

[marhawkman]

BTW about point defense cannons.... I dislike the idea of having them only target fighters and missiles. I'd prefer making them simply do more damage to those. And of course the autotarget thing is good, but make it so your ships' AIs decide whether to save them for actual PD or to actually fire them on the enemy.

[utilae]

Counter fighters or missiles with good old fashioned flak guns, no need for all that expensive tracking and detection hardware, just bombard space around your ship with high speed projectiles and some of them will hit a missile or fighter. regardless of how stealthy or evasive they are.

Yes, that's another good method that I only thought of as applying to missiles having an explosive radius. But to have beams or guns that shoot bullets creating an explosive radius or radius of spread bullets is a good idea.

I definitely agree. Of course, to make sure the weapons systems balance, we will probably be eventually looking at what ship roles a player might use and designing an RPS type strategy by jiggling with the stats and ideal strategies.

While this might be necesary, I think we will also have to start wearing our thinking caps and try and add some components that allow a player to create new roles or provide a means for an existing role to reduce it's weaknesses.

For example,
Carriers have to get within range of fire from LR ships in order to release their fighters. This means that carriers are considered weak against LR ships. To help the carriers in this situation we could provide some new technology. A short-term-jump-system would allow the carrier to jump half the range of the LR ships weapons, meaning that fighters can be dropped off much closer.

Further advancements might be for fighters to have this technology (very high tech), they could be released out of range and then jump close enough to travel to the target and back to the jump point. Since fighters would not be hit by the slow tracking LR fire and the carrier is out of range, the Carriers would then beat LR ships. This would be a change in RPS and would be interesting.

BTW about point defense cannons.... I dislike the idea of having them only target fighters and missiles. I'd prefer making them simply do more damage to those. And of course the autotarget thing is good, but make it so your ships' AIs decide whether to save them for actual PD or to actually fire them on the enemy.

You misunderstand. PD cannons would be any weapon that has a high tracking ability and as a result is very likely to hit its target. High tracking comes from the weapon being rotatable, eg on a turret, if the weapon is fixed, then high turning helps, high firerate and accuracy.

So PD weapons would be better at hitting fighters and missiles because they are able to track and target them better, since fighters and missiles tend to be fast and small objects.

I would not make them do more damage to fighters and less to large ships or something, because that is a kind of artificial RPS that just seems like its the way someone thinks it should work. Where I would like it to work this way because its physics. It's truth, the fact that the weapon can turn faster to keep its sights on the fast target and so can hit it. Take a weapon that is fixed in position. If that weapon is made to be able to hit the target by giving a damage bonus, then it's artificial, its cheating. The cannon that can actually rotate to keep with it's target is the honest one.

[Geoff the Medio]

Tracking and predictive and precise targetting would be much more important than speed of rotation for a point-defence weapon. Unless the target is really really close, the weapon doesn't really need to move very fast to get pointed in the general direction of just about any target that's a reasonable distance away. The hard part is knowing where to shoot to hit something, and pointing EXACTLY that direction, not just close to that direction.

[ewh02b]

Tracking and predictive and precise targetting would be much more important than speed of rotation for a point-defence weapon. Unless the target is really really close, the weapon doesn't really need to move very fast to get pointed in the general direction of just about any target that's a reasonable distance away. The hard part is knowing where to shoot to hit something, and pointing EXACTLY that direction, not just close to that direction.

Simple: PD weapons are all laser cannons. Zero (almost) travel time to target, so if they are pointing at it, they will hit. Missiles can only survive by moving faster than the turret can track, and/or being painted with radar-absorbing paint or something.

====
As for carriers vs. LR, LR can be laser cannons--almost unlimited travel distance in space, without an atmosphere to distort and weaken the beam. The carriers are vulnerable to LR whenever they aren't cloaked or out of detection range.

[Krikkitone]

Tracking and predictive and precise targetting would be much more important than speed of rotation for a point-defence weapon. Unless the target is really really close, the weapon doesn't really need to move very fast to get pointed in the general direction of just about any target that's a reasonable distance away. The hard part is knowing where to shoot to hit something, and pointing EXACTLY that direction, not just close to that direction.

Simple: PD weapons are all laser cannons. Zero (almost) travel time to target, so if they are pointing at it, they will hit. Missiles can only survive by moving faster than the turret can track, and/or being painted with radar-absorbing paint or something.

====
As for carriers vs. LR, LR can be laser cannons--almost unlimited travel distance in space, without an atmosphere to distort and weaken the beam. The carriers are vulnerable to LR whenever they aren't cloaked or out of detection range.

No Lasers will have time to target and attenuation in space, depending on what distances the combats are at.

[marhawkman]

I actually like the idea of being able to use Missile or torpedo based weapons as PD too. Examples: Flak cannons, and Anti-aircraft rockets.

[ewh02b]

Simple: PD weapons are all laser cannons. Zero (almost) travel time to target, so if they are pointing at it, they will hit. Missiles can only survive by moving faster than the turret can track, and/or being painted with radar-absorbing paint or something.

====
As for carriers vs. LR, LR can be laser cannons--almost unlimited travel distance in space, without an atmosphere to distort and weaken the beam. The carriers are vulnerable to LR whenever they aren't cloaked or out of detection range.

No Lasers will have time to target and attenuation in space, depending on what distances the combats are at.

The lasers are (in the first example) fired at targets that are less than a hundredth of a light-second away, so time to target is insignificant. Attenuation is also not a problem at short distances.

As far as the second example goes, I'm not sure if our combat arena is going to be large enough for a laser to "miss" something it was pointing at (I hardly think we're gonna be playing in a 5 light-minute arena, so that one ship can "dodge" the laser blast it can't see coming). Attenuation would actually only result in a (very slight) lowering of damage as range increases.