Lharrs

Ships, Tech, Tactics?

▼

Ships, Tech, Tactics?

from Sins Forums
Hello All,

I being what I am, have many many questions, given the length of my posts to date, can go on at some legnth at that. I will attempt to keep these shorter.

First up, just curiosity, I have seen some of the screens, and noticed( most likely incorrectly) that for each of the factions, not all the ships look as though the same mind crafted it. It looked almost as if there were different teirs of ships that could be researchd. It is hard to really explain, so I will jsut as the question.... When creating your fleet, do you unlock certain ships as you go done certain lines? For example, if you do extensive research into rocketry and missles, will you ships look different then say if you went down the way of energy based weapons or will there even be reasearch since you can customize your ships, what really is hte point to it?

If there is research, what areas are there to be researched and how will they effect he empire/ships/races...?

Is it possible ot specialize in certain areas? By that, I do mean specialize. In most RTS games I have seen that say you can specialize, they say something like we have 60 techs to research over 4 catagories, and you can specialize in any one of them. Well, what that acually means is that you can research one catagory and be specailzed but then you go and research all the rest and then, your just like everyone else; Or, your can do something similar to that, but then you can get plus 5!!!!! to your score at lasers (or something) yet the total range is 120, so while everone else is at 120, your at 125 and they call that specialized. I am asking if you can truely specialize in something or somethign to the effect of your have 50 standard techs, that everyone can research, and then like 60 tech in 6 catagories that you can only research one catagory and you wont know the others, unless you trade or conquer them or something. You know somehting fun.

That should be kinda ok to start with.

Still trying ot bring my post size done a bit.

Lharrs
103,583 views 58 replies
Reply #26 from Sins Forums Top
they get stronger the more damage they take.

this may have been removed for either balance or system issues, but I'm praying it remains.
Reply #27 from Sins Forums Top
this may have been removed for either balance or system issues, but I'm praying it remains.


While the logic behind it is still unknown...
Galactic Civilizations III
Reply #28 from Sins Forums Top
it would be interesting to a point... but the shield would eventually have to fail.
Reply #29 from Sins Forums Top
I think we settled on "its more efficient and increases survivability to keep it at lower points, but as it gets more damaged people increase energy so as to save their asses"
Reply #30 from Sins Forums Top
As in:

Ensign: "Captain, forward shields are down to 25%!"
Tactical: "Sir, we can't take another hit like that one."
Captain: "Increase power to forward shields!"
Reply #31 from Sins Forums Top
ahyup
Reply #32 from Sins Forums Top
Nice, but if this energy came from nowhere it's weird. Will any other systems work worse because of this "energy transfer"?
Reply #33 from Stardock Forums Top
Random Sci-fi babble mode On:

It's because of fluctuations in the quantum inversion matrix, Duh!.
What do they teach you kinds in school these days?

Random Sci-fi babble mode off:

But seriously there is a large amount of energy being directed at the shields. (kinetic, chemical, heat), I’m pretty confident that a advanced space based society is capable of using at least a part of this energy for it's own advantage.

The question is what happens if the shields get overloaded?
Does it just go offline, does the generator blow or do you get burn trough? (weapons pass trough that part and only that part of the shield)

I'm hoping for option three but any of the others would be fine too,

It does however raise a further question, will ships have one big shield surrounding the entire ship or will there be different quadrants front, left, bottom, etc?

I also realy like the custom formations idea (i.e. own design), it would give a huge number of tactical options. But it might be a hard one to properly design and there are more important aspects to be worked on.



Reply #34 from Sins Forums Top
I'm hoping for option three but any of the others would be fine too

agh really REALLY old flashback (i.e. its unreliable info)

I dont think there is any real burnthrough, rather though that if your fire is concentrated a good percentage will get through rather than if its spread out over the whole ship.

and it fizzles, not pop.
Reply #35 from Sins Forums Top
Hi Blair, I hope you read this.

Your posts seem to suggest the shield mechanics are meant to avoid/minimize the standard micromanaging tactic of sequential target focus fire. If that is the goal, then here is my 1.5 cents on to do it.

Each time shields take a hit, they should get a % bonus on resisting damage from any further hits for the next second or so. This would reduce the effectiveness of focus fire to some extent, and allow players to concentrate on other issues.

You could even explain the technology lore away as such: weapon hits to shields cause short lived energy flairs that get in the way of other incoming weapon fire, thereby reducing the damage that actually reaches the shields.
Reply #36 from Sins Forums Top
I love when people explain things in ways that make no physical sense   
but I like the idea of the mechanic.
Reply #37 from Sins Forums Top
I wouldn't say my Tech Lore described above has no physical sense.

Let's say a missile/torpedo/shell hits the shield and is blown to pieces. These pieces could get in the way of other incoming missiles/torpedoes/shells, thereby reducing their damage potential.

As for plasma/particle weapons, they also would be halted by the shields. Plasma and particle residue hovering near the shield surface would then momentarily interfere and decrease the damage potential of any other incoming plasma/particle weapons.

So, I am just trying to say my logic for momentary increased shield damage resistance makes some logical sense.
Reply #38 from Sins Forums Top
Ok, we'll leave it at "some," but the mechanic sounds great.
Reply #39 from Sins Forums Top
These pieces could get in the way of other incoming missiles/torpedoes/shells, thereby reducing their damage potential.

it would dissipate way too quickly.
especially in empty (or nearly so) space.
As for plasma/particle weapons, they also would be halted by the shields. Plasma and particle residue hovering near the shield surface would then momentarily interfere and decrease the damage potential of any other incoming plasma/particle weapons.

again, it would just dissipate too quickly.

although you could say that as energy is being surged to make up for the hole, that momentary, unstable energy surge (which would last a little while before stabalizing) is what increases the defense.

why wouldn't you just keep it unstable? because you cant without a lot of energy being put in. more than is feasible.
Reply #40 from Sins Forums Top
An energy flare that occurs when filling in weakened points in the shield that gives a momentary bonus to shield resistance = Sounds good to me.

I just want to point out that my shield damage resistance theory is based on weapon debris and gases dissipating quickly. If fact, the idea that I mentioned earlier that said debris and gases would momentarily get in the way of incoming fire works well with your idea of a exponential decrease in weapon damage (as debris/gases quickly clear, shields lose that additional protection).
Reply #41 from Sins Forums Top
I understand. but will 3/4 inch of floating in-the-way steel (which is suspended, not held) going to diminish a massive the effect of a cannon round thats traveling at several thousand miles per hour?
I dont thinks so.
Reply #42 from Sins Forums Top
Okay Schematicsninja, I don't plan on posing here as a physicist. But let's look at this a little more closely. Let's compare each (known and probable) in game weapon systems performance versus that 3/4 inch of floating in-the-way steel.

1) Nuclear/shaped charge tipped Missiles/Torpedoes and a layer of 3/4 inches of floating in-the-way steel: I don't think anybody will argue the potential disastrous effects here on missile/torpedo integrity. Even if the weapons rips through the layer of debris relatively intact and still functional without premature detonation, the spherical shaped charge that critical masses the plutonium or uranium/the shaped charge that focus the plasma could be damaged = less than ideal detonation for either weapon.

2) Particle/Plasma beam weapons and a layer of 3/4 inch of floating in-the-way steel: Energy will be lost to the debris prior to shield impact. Of course, debris density and coverage are variables that we really can't deal with in terms of trying to figure out exactly how much energy would be bled off.

3) High speed shells/rounds and a layer of 3/4 inch of floating in-the-way steel: Munitions will lose some velocity in any impacts. More importantly for munitions is that they can suffer from fragmentation/deformation and deflection.

Once again, don't get me wrong. I love your idea of the shield energy flair that occurs when shield projectors repair damaged zones in the shields, and thus momentarily increase damage resistance only to lose it at an exponential rate. I am just saying my debris theory is also plausible.
Reply #43 from Sins Forums Top
I just dont think it is plausible. from density to the effect on the payload, its probably negligable.

although a nuclear blast (or some other equally huge explosion) should create disturbances in all local munitions. I like that idea.
Reply #44 from Sins Forums Top
Okay, just the facts Mam. Schematicsninja, be sure to let me know if you have any disagreements on the following statements.

-Bullets can be deflected by minor objects they strike before reaching their target.
-Bullets can become fragmented or deformed from striking minor objects prior to reaching their target.
-Damaging the shape of an explosive shaped charge can reduce the effectiveness of the plasma jet.
-Damaging the shape of the spherical shaped primer charge on a nuclear weapon can reduce or nullify its ability to force critical mass

Okay, those ones are easy. As for particle and plasma beams, I doubt they would lose much energy to any minor debris they hit prior to reaching the shields. Sigh, my debris theory just isn't as tidy and all encompassing as my flare up theory and your vortex theory.

Anyway Schematicsninja, it doesn't really matter. Between the two of us, Blair suggests we have the real shield system pegged (or damn close). My momentary shield damage resistance after weapons hit and energy flare tech lore combined with your exponential decrease in the resistance bonus and energy vortex lore seem to have dealt with the shield mystery for now. Or at least until they change it again.
Reply #45 from Sins Forums Top
-Damaging the shape of the spherical shaped primer charge on a nuclear weapon can reduce or nullify its ability to force critical mass

well thats if your going for the more complex H-bomb.
you can, of course, just use the gunbarrel schematic of the Hirosima bomb.

the only problems I have with your statement is that you're assuming a small projectile. where a bullet will fragment, an artillery round will plow through (good example: your living room wall)
Anyway Schematicsninja, it doesn't really matter. Between the two of us, Blair suggests we have the real shield system pegged (or damn close). My momentary shield damage resistance after weapons hit and energy flare tech lore combined with your exponential decrease in the resistance bonus and energy vortex lore seem to have dealt with the shield mystery for now. Or at least until they change it again.

yeah. we're damn smart.
Reply #46 from Sins Forums Top
lol, i love the discussion on theoritical physics and shield tech on a public forum.

Projeciles wise, it all depends upon several variables. If were talking about a small more arrow shaped projectile with the idea of hitting the target with the highest amount of energy possible at one small point (ie kenetic tank round type thing) then a deflection of the round so that it dosent hit the target point on may have huge effect on total damage delt. The only problem with this is if a projectile hit a shield (think of the amounts of energy involved here) chances are it would simpley be vapourised, which wouldent really leave much to 'get in the way' of sucessive rounds.
That said, the amount of initial energy blown off would have to go somewhere, and well a wave of energy could potentially have a huge effect on incoming projectiles.

Then again, im no expert on physics (or anywhere near) so i couldent possibly begin to come up with a decent theory.
Reply #47 from Sins Forums Top
then a deflection of the round so that it dosent hit the target point on may have huge effect on total damage delt.

again, a suspended material will never provide enough deflection. not unless it is unsuitibly massive for a projectile.
That said, the amount of initial energy blown off would have to go somewhere

initially it would delve into the shield, then it would dissipate outward.
Reply #48 from Sins Forums Top
Also, concerning shells, this light debris would be very close to the targeted ship. So even if a shell rams a bit of debris, it is unlike to change its trajectory enough to completely miss the target.
Reply #49 from Sins Forums Top
although I do NOT want to see fire in a debris belt "mysteriously" passing through obstacles

same goes for if my enemy (I would never do it) is hitting his ships with a little (not a lot, AI and all) friendly fire.
Reply #50 from Sins Forums Top
Yeah, friendly fire should be less than friendly. I've always been irked by games that give units damage immunity if the source of the damage is from the player that owns them.