Missile/Projectile Weapons

For what's not in 'Top Priority Game Design'. Post your ideas, visions, suggestions for the game, rules, modifications, etc.

Moderators: Oberlus, Oberlus

Message
Author
User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 1896
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: Missile/Projectile Weapons

#31 Post by Oberlus » Sat Jan 18, 2020 3:56 pm

I'd like to know the gameplay reasons that justify the specifications following each of the "I want" items you've listed.
Some could be motivated by personal preferences that are not shared among other players. Only those that are motivated by better gameplay are interesting, and most of them require more explanation.

User avatar
labgnome
Vacuum Dragon
Posts: 637
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2015 5:57 pm

Re: Missile/Projectile Weapons

#32 Post by labgnome » Sun Jan 19, 2020 2:33 am

Oberlus wrote:
Sat Jan 18, 2020 3:56 pm
I'd like to know the gameplay reasons that justify the specifications following each of the "I want" items you've listed.
Some could be motivated by personal preferences that are not shared among other players. Only those that are motivated by better gameplay are interesting, and most of them require more explanation.
Sure thing, I thought many of the points ere self-evident but I can go into greater detail if you need me to. I listened them as what I want because I know that people might have differing opinions as to what they would want from missiles, or that they feel is important. I wanted to see what common themes,if any, emerged from what people would like to see from missiles.

I want missiles to be a system of weapons with multiple options like fighters and direct weapons. I'd like there to be variety for players who want to go with missile type weapons for whatever reason. Just to give them interesting options.

I want missiles to remain relevant throughout the game, so they should upgrade. I think this is pretty obvious. Without upgrades missiles would easily be surpassed in utility by both fighters and direct weapons. Both of which can upgrade. Most major weapons systems in free Orion can upgrade, so I feel to that balance missiles they should be able to upgrade too.

I want missiles to be more limited than direct weapons or fighters. Missiles have limitations that direct weapons do not requiring supply connection to re-arm, and that fighters do not being destroyed on impact. I think that these are good limitations to the weapon system. I do not want to see missiles as some kind of super-weapon. I want them to be limited in their capacity.

In the spirit of the previous point, I want the new default weapon to be a missile weapon. This is probably the biggest shake-up I am proposing. With the limitations of missiles, to me, it makes more sense to have to start off with them. It will mean players will have to be more aware of supply early in the game. Space is dangerous in Free Orion, and missiles are limited, making players needing to be more cautious with using their military ships early on. It also makes direct weapons a choice, like fighters which I think makes them more interesting. Right now direct weapons are kind of boring IMO.

I want missiles to be an economical choice. With the limitations of missiles, there needs to be something to balance this out. I believe that making missile weapons economical in terms of production points spent is a good way to balance to this out.

I want missile-ships to be more specialized than gunships and more generalized than carriers. This is "exactly hat it says on the tin". I think that missile-ships should be more specialized than gun-ships while being more generalized than carriers in their roles. Fleets of missile-ships should be viable, but probably less so than mixed fleets or fleets of gun-ships, while carrier ships should need a gun-ship escort.

I want most missile weapons in the mechanical technology theme. Missile weapons will need a home in the new tech tree, and I feel that the mechanical technology theme is the best fit fluff-wise for them.

I want most missile "warhead" upgrades in the energy technology theme. Missile weapon upgrades will need a home in the new tech tree. If a missile-type weapon becomes the new default weapon then we can possibly split-up new weapons from the weapon upgrades. The energy theme is where I think that this fits best fluff-wise.

The last two are just things I'd like to see because I think they would be cool ideas.

I'd also like missiles to be non shield-piercing and have damage balanced against shields, but I could see them as shield-piercing with damage balanced against armor parts. So that's an either-or kind of situation for me.
All of my contributions should be considered released under creative commons attribution share-alike license, CC-BY-SA 3.0 for use in, by and with the Free Orion project.

User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 1896
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: Missile/Projectile Weapons

#33 Post by Oberlus » Sun Jan 19, 2020 3:09 am

Sorry, my words were confusing. The general motivations are indeed obvious. I meant they needed more clarification about the specifics. For example:
labgnome wrote:
Sun Jan 19, 2020 2:33 am
I want missiles to be a system of weapons with multiple options like fighters and direct weapons.
What do you mean by this? Specifically like fighters OR like SR weapons? Or in general, as in "I don't won't it to be just a single weapon part without upgrades nor variants"?

User avatar
labgnome
Vacuum Dragon
Posts: 637
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2015 5:57 pm

Re: Missile/Projectile Weapons

#34 Post by labgnome » Sun Jan 19, 2020 3:12 am

Oberlus wrote:
Sun Jan 19, 2020 3:09 am
Sorry, my words were confusing. The general motivations are indeed obvious. I meant they needed more clarification about the specifics. For example:
labgnome wrote:
Sun Jan 19, 2020 2:33 am
I want missiles to be a system of weapons with multiple options like fighters and direct weapons.
What do you mean by this? Specifically like fighters OR like SR weapons? Or in general, as in "I don't won't it to be just a single weapon part without upgrades nor variants"?
Yes. I want both upgrades and variants.

Edit: I mean yes in general.
All of my contributions should be considered released under creative commons attribution share-alike license, CC-BY-SA 3.0 for use in, by and with the Free Orion project.

User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 1896
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: Missile/Projectile Weapons

#35 Post by Oberlus » Thu Jan 23, 2020 1:25 pm

I was making calculation for the current implementatios (missiles 4 fire rate 3 damage), and I extended them to more tiers (like fighters, four techs).
I also added a torpedo type with bigger damage that only targets ships and planets.

Missiles do not upgrade damage but fire rate (starts at 4, then 6, 8 and 10). They are able to soak lots of damage and very good at shooting down swarms (many small) with little overshooting. Defending against them requires more and more flaks/GBS/interceptors the more advanced the missiles are, so it’s also a good passive defence (enemy must sacrifice anti-ship weapons for PD).

Torpedos does not upgrade fire rate (fixed at 2) but upgrade damage (starts at 10, then 15, 20 and 25). If target is undefended (or attacker chaff-shields them with swarms of interceptors/missiles), they are the most dangerous weapon against big hulls (shielded or not), but defending against torps is rather cheap compared to missiles.

Both missiles and torps can be fully countered (no damage taken), even late game, and so are a risky bet. Other only weapon that can be fully countered (appart from MD, laser and plasma) would be the GBS.

These stats also seem to work (could need small adjustments) for 4-bout combats, if we make missiles launched on bout 2 to not do anything on bout 3. The CombatDmg/PP doubles (provided enough ammo) but they can be countered (0 CombatDmg/PP) so it seems an appropriate trade off.

I attach an excel with the (simple) calculations. Cost of missile/torps is considered as (4 launch bays + 1 hangar bay)/4, so 25 for the missiles and 35 for the torps (from 25 per launch bay and 40 for the hangar). Damage numbers could be tailored to make the parts cheaper if necessary.
Attachments
FO_049_weapons_with_missiles.xls
(15.5 KiB) Downloaded 2 times

User avatar
labgnome
Vacuum Dragon
Posts: 637
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2015 5:57 pm

Re: Missile/Projectile Weapons

#36 Post by labgnome » Thu Jan 23, 2020 4:15 pm

Oberlus wrote:
Thu Jan 23, 2020 1:25 pm
I was making calculation for the current implementatios (missiles 4 fire rate 3 damage), and I extended them to more tiers (like fighters, four techs).
I also added a torpedo type with bigger damage that only targets ships and planets.

Missiles do not upgrade damage but fire rate (starts at 4, then 6, 8 and 10). They are able to soak lots of damage and very good at shooting down swarms (many small) with little overshooting. Defending against them requires more and more flaks/GBS/interceptors the more advanced the missiles are, so it’s also a good passive defence (enemy must sacrifice anti-ship weapons for PD).

Torpedos does not upgrade fire rate (fixed at 2) but upgrade damage (starts at 10, then 15, 20 and 25). If target is undefended (or attacker chaff-shields them with swarms of interceptors/missiles), they are the most dangerous weapon against big hulls (shielded or not), but defending against torps is rather cheap compared to missiles.
I am intrigued by this idea. Having both systems be determined by tech is interesting. I also think that an anti-swarm and and anti-ship angle is interesting. It's certainly different from my idea to have the number of shots would be determined by part and damage be determined by tech. However I will say that i think that if they upgrade in different ways, missiles for number of shots and torpedoes for amount of damage, that they should have different upgrade tech branches.
Both missiles and torps can be fully countered (no damage taken), even late game, and so are a risky bet. Other only weapon that can be fully countered (appart from MD, laser and plasma) would be the GBS.
I'm not sure how I feel about this for torpedoes. I assume you mean this for the case of non shield-piercing?
I attach an excel with the (simple) calculations. Cost of missile/torps is considered as (4 launch bays + 1 hangar bay)/4, so 25 for the missiles and 35 for the torps (from 25 per launch bay and 40 for the hangar). Damage numbers could be tailored to make the parts cheaper if necessary.
Given your proposed changes I think I dislike the idea of two-part projectile weapons systems even more than I did before. As you would need two different hangers and two different launchers and I think that defeats the whole point of a hanger/launcher system. The most KISS solution to me, is to just have two single-slot weapons.
All of my contributions should be considered released under creative commons attribution share-alike license, CC-BY-SA 3.0 for use in, by and with the Free Orion project.

User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 1896
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: Missile/Projectile Weapons

#37 Post by Oberlus » Thu Jan 23, 2020 5:06 pm

labgnome wrote:
Thu Jan 23, 2020 4:15 pm
Both missiles and torps can be fully countered (no damage taken), even late game, and so are a risky bet. Other only weapon that can be fully countered (appart from MD, laser and plasma) would be the GBS.
I'm not sure how I feel about this for torpedoes. I assume you mean this for the case of non shield-piercing?
Nope, shield-piercing. But if you take down all missiles/torps before they hit anything they can hardly pierce anything.
Given your proposed changes I think I dislike the idea of two-part projectile weapons systems even more than I did before. As you would need two different hangers and two different launchers and I think that defeats the whole point of a hanger/launcher system.
I disagree, or I don't understand your point.

When I design a ship with 10 parts I have to double click or drag&drop 10 parts, whether they are all the same or not.
If I design a bomber carrier, I'll have to do the same "work" whether the launch bays are the same for all fighters or not. So I don't see the extra complexity anywhere if we have different launch bays for each type of missile.
Arguably, it's not KISS to have lengthy FOCs code on different places to account for the different launch capacities of the fighter bays depending on what hangars you mounted.

However, if your dislike only comes from that fact (having different launch bay parts), maybe something can be done for the balancing. If we lower the trop part costs to be the same of missiles, damage could be 9, 12, 16 and 22 (instead of 10, 15, 20 and 25). This makes the torpedoes closer to bombers. I was hopping to get some bigger weapon to help the feeling of diversity.

The most KISS solution to me, is to just have two single-slot weapons.
Apart from my disagreement on having multipart ships being "complex", the single-part version won't happen unless you implement it. It is my understanding that the other interested in this discussion have expressed their preference for a multi-part weapon that allow the player control fire rate (ammo depletion).
Also, it comes as mandatory with the fighter code reuse, if I'm not confused.

User avatar
swaq
Space Kraken
Posts: 176
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2019 1:56 pm

Re: Missile/Projectile Weapons

#38 Post by swaq » Thu Jan 23, 2020 5:10 pm

Oberlus wrote:
Thu Jan 23, 2020 5:06 pm
When I design a ship with 10 parts I have to double click or drag&drop 10 parts, whether they are all the same or not.
Ctrl+Click&Drag duplicates a part in all available slots.

User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 1896
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: Missile/Projectile Weapons

#39 Post by Oberlus » Thu Jan 23, 2020 5:19 pm

swaq wrote:
Thu Jan 23, 2020 5:10 pm
Oberlus wrote:
Thu Jan 23, 2020 5:06 pm
When I design a ship with 10 parts I have to double click or drag&drop 10 parts, whether they are all the same or not.
Ctrl+Click&Drag duplicates a part in all available slots.
Oh, interesting, thank you. That will come handy for weapons or armour parts.

Getting back to the subject:
If we would make the missiles the same as they were in MoO2 (keeping aside the fundamental differencies), the hangar would only have ammo, a fixed ammount, and the launch bay would be configurable: in MoO2 you could increase the fire rate in exchange of extra cost, here we could add more launch bays (which increases cost).
A base configuration could be hangar contain enough shots for 1 launch bay per 4 bouts, or 4 launch bays in a single bout.

User avatar
labgnome
Vacuum Dragon
Posts: 637
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2015 5:57 pm

Re: Missile/Projectile Weapons

#40 Post by labgnome » Sat Jan 25, 2020 3:53 am

Oberlus wrote:
Thu Jan 23, 2020 5:06 pm
I disagree, or I don't understand your point.
I think you might be missing my point and I might be missing some part of what you are suggesting.

From my understanding the whole point of having both a hanger bay and a launch bay is that the system would be configurable. IE: you could have different combinations of projectiles launched and damage done by projectile.

Also, from my understanding hangers set the damage done and launchers set the number of shots fired.

In the system I initially proposed each projectile does the same amount of damage, while each launcher fires a different number of shots. That way different launchers can use the same hanger. A kind of inverse of fighters, where we have different hangers and one launcher.

Unless I am missing something your concept would work along the following lines. Missiles would always do 3 damage, that would be set by their hanger. Also, missiles would get increasing rates of fire set by their launcher. Torpedoes would do increasing damage, that would be set by their hanger. Also, torpedoes would always have a fire rate of 2, set by their launcher. So you would need separate hangers and separate launchers for both missiles and torpedoes with no mixing between them that is what I mean by not configurable.

Maybe KISS is the wrong way to put it, so let me try another angle. For me I see this as unnecessary complexity in ship design at the expanse of utility. From a player perspective I don't want to have to spend two slots to get one thing for one type of ship. With fighters you get three types of ships for two slots because the system is configurable. With your system you get one type of ship for spending two slots, because the system is not configurable. Requiring the hanger and launch bay both makes missiles a bad deal from a player perspective. It's fewer steps to change a interceptor carrier to a bomber carrier then it would be to change your missile ship to your torpedo ship in the ship design screen.
All of my contributions should be considered released under creative commons attribution share-alike license, CC-BY-SA 3.0 for use in, by and with the Free Orion project.

User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 1896
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: Missile/Projectile Weapons

#41 Post by Oberlus » Sat Jan 25, 2020 10:17 am

labgnome wrote:
Sat Jan 25, 2020 3:53 am
missiles would get increasing rates of fire set by their launcher. [...] torpedoes would always have a fire rate of 2, set by their launcher. So you would need separate hangers and separate launchers for both missiles and torpedoes with no mixing between them that is what I mean by not configurable.
The need for different launch bays came from giving them different PP costs. There is no need to use different launch bays if the cost of both is the same. The fire rate of the launch bay is set depending on the hangar present at the ship.
I myself don't see the need to be able to mount torps and missiles on the same ship the same I can live without mounting interceptors and bombers on the same ship.
But I see it would give us more versatility in ship designs of huge hulls if we could.
This argument applies to both missiles/torps and the three fighter types.
I see this as unnecessary complexity in ship design at the expanse of utility.
I still don't understand. If you want missiles, you mount missiles (hanger and launch bay, whether the launch bay is shared for different kind of hangars or not). If you want torps, the same. What is complex here? I don't see it is more complex than installing bombers in your ship.

From a player perspective I don't want to have to spend two slots to get one thing for one type of ship.
I see no gameplay reason for that. It seems to be just a personal preference that is not supported by gameplay.
With fighters you get three types of ships for two slots because the system is configurable. With your system you get one type of ship for spending two slots, because the system is not configurable.
Both systems torps and fighters are configurable. I really don't understand what you mean here.
It's fewer steps to change a interceptor carrier to a bomber carrier then it would be to change your missile ship to your torpedo ship in the ship design screen.
Yes, one more click, if you use different launch bays AND are editing a model, otherwise not. I already proposed numbers for a shared launch bay so this does not have sense to me.

Ophiuchus
Programmer
Posts: 1149
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2014 10:01 am
Location: Wall IV

Re: Missile/Projectile Weapons

#42 Post by Ophiuchus » Sat Jan 25, 2020 3:54 pm

Oberlus wrote:
Sat Jan 25, 2020 10:17 am
labgnome wrote:
Sat Jan 25, 2020 3:53 am
missiles would get increasing rates of fire set by their launcher. [...] torpedoes would always have a fire rate of 2, set by their launcher. So you would need separate hangers and separate launchers for both missiles and torpedoes with no mixing between them that is what I mean by not configurable.
The need for different launch bays came from giving them different PP costs. There is no need to use different launch bays if the cost of both is the same. The fire rate of the launch bay is set depending on the hangar present at the ship.
I myself don't see the need to be able to mount torps and missiles on the same ship the same I can live without mounting interceptors and bombers on the same ship.
But I see it would give us more versatility in ship designs of huge hulls if we could.
This argument applies to both missiles/torps and the three fighter types.
+1 thats the way I see it. Also the backend does not support mixing different types of projectiles/fighters in one ship design.

@labgnome did you have a chance to try the missiles implementation?
Any code or patches in anything posted here is released under the CC and GPL licences in use for the FO project.

Furthermore, I propse... we should default to four combat rounds instead of three ...for the good of playerkind.

User avatar
labgnome
Vacuum Dragon
Posts: 637
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2015 5:57 pm

Re: Missile/Projectile Weapons

#43 Post by labgnome » Fri Feb 07, 2020 11:46 pm

Oberlus wrote:
Sat Jan 25, 2020 10:17 am
...
Okay I think we both need to take a step back and realize we are operating on completely different wavelengths here. I'm not trying to fight you on this I am trying to explain myself here and you seem intent on responding with hostility and dismissing what I have to say, and that's not cool. You seem intent on not compromising at all or addressing any of my concerns. You don't even seem to want to understand what I am trying to say and insisting on making this into an argument. I don't know what I did to set you off, but I'm sorry.

No the way I see it there are two possible solutions:

1. Ask for back-end changes for a 1-slot projectile weapon system. Not ideal

2. Take my suggested projectile weapons systems over your suggestions. Not ideal

3. Think of more variety for missiles and torpedoes so both systems have versatility.

Maybe we could have "kinetic missiles", with different "kinetic warhead" bays tied to the different conventional armors.

So what about a standard warhead that does 3 damage, a zortrium warhead that does 5 or 6 damage, a diamond warhead that does 9 damage, and a xentronium warhead that does maybe 12 or 15 damage? The numbers are of course just suggestions.

Maybe "nuclear torpedoes" could have different "torpedo tube" launchers.

Maybe something like a magnetic launcher that launches 2, a monopolar launcher that launchers 3 or 4, and a gravitronic launcher that launches 4 or 6 torpedoes? Again the numbers are just suggestions.
Ophiuchus wrote:
Sat Jan 25, 2020 3:54 pm
@labgnome did you have a chance to try the missiles implementation?
My work schedule has been changing a lot recently so my sleep schedule has suffered, so I haven't gotten a chance to try them out yet.
All of my contributions should be considered released under creative commons attribution share-alike license, CC-BY-SA 3.0 for use in, by and with the Free Orion project.

User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 1896
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: Missile/Projectile Weapons

#44 Post by Oberlus » Sat Feb 08, 2020 3:33 pm

labgnome wrote:
Fri Feb 07, 2020 11:46 pm
I don't know what I did to set you off, but I'm sorry.
I'm sorry too. You did nothing wrong, but I'm struggling to understand your points, and that frustrates me (my bad). I'll try to express myself in a less aggressive way.
1. Ask for back-end changes for a 1-slot projectile weapon system. Not ideal
Assuming "projectile weapon system" means a external-slot, fighter-like hangar that doesn't need a launch bay and that we call it "missile launcher", I don't know it that needs any backend change. Maybe it can be done already, or with a special attached to the ship.
2. Take my suggested projectile weapons systems over your suggestions. Not ideal
But I don't like the idea of implementing missiles without internal parts. As per the arguments provided in previous posts, I don't see what's the benefit, while I see a benefit from using interior parts.

I'd like to find a compromise between the both, sure, if that's possible. However, I don't see any middle point in between "use interior parts" and "not use interior parts", appart from what Ophiucus suggested of giving the launch/external parts some ammunition and make the internal parts optional. I still like more the "all ammo in interior parts, external parts only change fire rate" solution, but Ophiuchus is a nice one too (IMO) and I'd be happy with it, I think.

3. Think of more variety for missiles and torpedoes so both systems have versatility.

Maybe we could have "kinetic missiles", with different "kinetic warhead" bays tied to the different conventional armors.

So what about a standard warhead that does 3 damage, a zortrium warhead that does 5 or 6 damage, a diamond warhead that does 9 damage, and a xentronium warhead that does maybe 12 or 15 damage? The numbers are of course just suggestions.

Maybe "nuclear torpedoes" could have different "torpedo tube" launchers.

Maybe something like a magnetic launcher that launches 2, a monopolar launcher that launchers 3 or 4, and a gravitronic launcher that launches 4 or 6 torpedoes? Again the numbers are just suggestions.
Could you explain in more detail? To help me see how it be if implemented. Interior or Exterior parts? How are they unlocked (techs)? Older parts can be upgraded or new ships must be built?

Ophiuchus
Programmer
Posts: 1149
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2014 10:01 am
Location: Wall IV

Re: Missile/Projectile Weapons

#45 Post by Ophiuchus » Sat Feb 08, 2020 6:27 pm

Oberlus wrote:
Sat Feb 08, 2020 3:33 pm
labgnome wrote:
Fri Feb 07, 2020 11:46 pm
1. Ask for back-end changes for a 1-slot projectile weapon system. Not ideal
Assuming "projectile weapon system" means a external-slot, fighter-like hangar that doesn't need a launch bay and that we call it "missile launcher", I don't know it that needs any backend change. Maybe it can be done already, or with a special attached to the ship.
No. Needs backend changes. Currently instead of shooting (ShortRange part), a launch bay part launches fighters if there is/are hangar parts with capacity. If you do not have both a hangar part and a launch bay you won't launch anything.

There is also currently no way know which kind of launch part belongs to which kind of hangar part which means also that you can have currently only one kind of launched vessel (aka fighter) on board (i.e. only one of Fighter,Interceptor,Bomber,missile or torpedo).

My suggestion of getting extra capacity from each missile launcher only works because I use an effect to change the hangar part capacity based on the number of missile launchers. And as i did not want to tackle how to do that if you have multiple hangar parts, i came up with the KISS constraint that you can have only one missile storage per ship. Also i kind of like that because it makes the missile ship design choices different from the carrier design choices.

In order to make it possible to experience these choices i made the FOCS prototype.
Any code or patches in anything posted here is released under the CC and GPL licences in use for the FO project.

Furthermore, I propse... we should default to four combat rounds instead of three ...for the good of playerkind.

Post Reply