VieuxChat wrote:
Remember the game has to stay simple (not simplistic). Different kind of ammo would be too much things to remember when you enter combat.

Can very easily be solved by adding 2-4 ammo types. Dosen't have to be 10. I'm sure it won't get confusing as long as it's an decent amount of kinds.

Remember the game has to stay simple (not simplistic). Different kind of ammo would be too much things to remember when you enter combat.

Considering the (extremely short) engagement ranges and the supposed tech levels of the weaponry involved, what puzzles me most is that it's actually possible to miss, short of active interference by the targeted ships. If ships could dodge, that would be one thing, but aiming the weapons the wrong direction for a target with a known position is rather depressing.



Missiles. Why don't they track? We can build ships that travel faster than light, but we can't put guidance systems on our missiles? Also, since missiles are self-propelled, why aren't they constantly accelerating all the way to the target? Where are the thermonuclear proximity-triggered warheads?



Beams. Why aren't they beams (as opposed to silly pew-pew toys that aren't any faster than kinetics)? Also, it'd help if the color scale went from red -> violet (increasing frequency = higher energy), rather than green -> red.



Kinetics. Where are the high-powered relativistic guns? Also, could we have firing kinetics induce recoil on the ships?



Deflectors. Cool. I like. Sure, there are some inconsistencies when you consider that the energy involved to deflect a projectile is of similar magnitude to that needed to fire it, but eh. It works.

Shields. Cool. I like. Same energy constraint, but there are ways around that (e.g. absorbing and dissipating energy).



Flak. What about anti-missile ECM? Point defense lasers?

VSPavlov wrote:
I'd suggest playing with distance / shooting order.



For example, for me it's natural, that missiles are more long-ranged weapons, than lasers (which dissipate) and kinetics (since missiles have their own drives besides pure inertia). So, it makes sense for fleets to exchange a few missile salvos while they're on the longest distance even before they can efficiently fire other weaponry. That would give added benefits to using missile weapons.

For me I don't think that adds enough...

I'd suggest playing with distance / shooting order.



For example, for me it's natural, that missiles are more long-ranged weapons, than lasers (which dissipate) and kinetics (since missiles have their own drives besides pure inertia). So, it makes sense for fleets to exchange a few missile salvos while they're on the longest distance even before they can efficiently fire other weaponry. That would give added benefits to using missile weapons.

Agree on this. Not exactly sure what should be done about it, but I know it just can't be right that I know my ships will be destroyed when they only have slightly less flak than the enemy has missiles. There doesn't seem to be enough chance with the missiles.

I agree.

But i would really like to see different kinds of kinetic ammo too. Plasma burning through shields, mass projectiles to go through the armor. I don't have that much experience with torpedos and rockets but i agree its not random enough with the weapons at all and the armor is way too static. Sometimes the projectiles should avoid the shields.