Nosferatiel wrote:
I just still don't get the difference between deflectors and armor, lorewise.

I'm just guessing here but I thought that (lorewise) deflectors generated a field/force field/barrier which blocks/protects but which needs to be powered, whereas armour simply consists of plating...?

Nosferatiel wrote:
No, you're right, I just still don't get the difference between deflectors and armor, lorewise.

Instead of armor I'd prefer structural integrity measures, additional segmentations of the hull, distributed energy supplies, etc, that really would make the ship harder to destroy.

Armors and deflectors just are the same, in principle, in my opinion.

True enough.

Igncom1 wrote:
I like your ideas, although you say armor you do mean deflectors right?



Or did I miss the point?

No, you're right, I just still don't get the difference between deflectors and armor, lorewise.

Instead of armor I'd prefer structural integrity measures, additional segmentations of the hull, distributed energy supplies, etc, that really would make the ship harder to destroy.

Armors and deflectors just are the same, in principle, in my opinion.

Nosferatiel wrote:
Okay, elaborating on this to make it physically more correct, let's ponder three scenarios for each weapon/counterweapon-pair:

1) weapon is much more powerful than defense

2) weapon and defense are equally powerful

3) weapon is basically harmless to defense

and see what happens.



Kinetic weapon vs armor:

1) Slug penetrates the armor, armor mitigates damage percentually, since it slows the slug proportional to it's thickness.

2) Slug hits armor, armor takes a dent, becoming less effective. Minor internal damage due to stress on structure behind the armor. (Scenario almost alike to the game-default, since the armor would have to be penetrated, before anything worthwhile happens.)

3) Slug hits armor, armor reflects slug, perhaps the lacquer gets scratched.



Laser weapons vs shields:

1) Laser passes shield with minimal disturbance, no further dispersion, full damage. Shield is basically undisturbed.

2) Laser hits shield, shield scatters a large part of the laser beam, mitigated damage, but still damage. This in turn scatters part of the shield, so it becomes less effective for the next shot.

3) Laser hits shield, shield scatters laser beam completely, no damage to the ship, still a part of the shield is scattered. (game scenario default)



Missiles vs flak:

1) Missiles lock on, warhead safety disabled, flak fire ineffective. Full damage.

2) Missiles lock on, warhead safety disabled, flak fire effective, only a few missiles hit.

3) Missiles do not lock on or warhead safety still enabled, flak fire effective: You're lucky if anything hits at all.



Actually the missile system is the only one I'm happy with, but I'd like the flak fire to have randomized probabilities to actually hit and kill a missile. Something like a good old gaussian flak damage distribution and a fixed value of damage a missiles "needs" to blow up.

For the lasers, overpowering lasers should practically ignore shields, while normal ones are mitigated and powerless ones completely dispersed. Best way to include this would be to give all shields a fixed damage-mitigation value.

For kinetics the armor should have HP in itself, but not regenerate during the phases. It also should have an offset, where it is impenetrable and only the leftover damage counts toward armor damage, but also a maximum value, where it only substracts the maximum and the rest directly hits the target.



Quite complicated, I admit, but this would really make the different weapons and defenses unique.

I like your ideas, although you say armor you do mean deflectors right?



Or did I miss the point?

Igncom1 wrote:
That is a fantastic idea, and I particularly love the idea of laser weapons always being accurate but having damage penalty's.



But how would you suggest we deal with the problem where ships can avoid all damage via their defenses? While shields kinda make sense (And I wish there was a visual indicator, something I might suggest) deflectors don't, why should a defense type (That isn't flak) be able to completely deny a weapon despite its accuracy and damage?



I feel like Deflectors and Shields should either function in the same way, or possibly allow deflectors to instead reduce the damage of a number of projectiles instead of just blocking them.



Somthing similar to: Deflector reduces damage of 3 kinetics per round by 50%



This way, shields can be brought down with enough fire (Possibly with the addition of a anti-shield card or EMP weapon) and deflectors can only reduce the firepower of a number of projectiles, thus making kinetics a solid weapon type even when faced by damage reducing defenses.

Okay, elaborating on this to make it physically more correct, let's ponder three scenarios for each weapon/counterweapon-pair:

1) weapon is much more powerful than defense

2) weapon and defense are equally powerful

3) weapon is basically harmless to defense

and see what happens.



Kinetic weapon vs armor:

1) Slug penetrates the armor, armor mitigates damage percentually, since it slows the slug proportional to it's thickness.

2) Slug hits armor, armor takes a dent, becoming less effective. Minor internal damage due to stress on structure behind the armor. (Scenario almost alike to the game-default, since the armor would have to be penetrated, before anything worthwhile happens.)

3) Slug hits armor, armor reflects slug, perhaps the lacquer gets scratched.



Laser weapons vs shields:

1) Laser passes shield with minimal disturbance, no further dispersion, full damage. Shield is basically undisturbed.

2) Laser hits shield, shield scatters a large part of the laser beam, mitigated damage, but still damage. This in turn scatters part of the shield, so it becomes less effective for the next shot.

3) Laser hits shield, shield scatters laser beam completely, no damage to the ship, still a part of the shield is scattered. (game scenario default)



Missiles vs flak:

1) Missiles lock on, warhead safety disabled, flak fire ineffective. Full damage.

2) Missiles lock on, warhead safety disabled, flak fire effective, only a few missiles hit.

3) Missiles do not lock on or warhead safety still enabled, flak fire effective: You're lucky if anything hits at all.



Actually the missile system is the only one I'm happy with, but I'd like the flak fire to have randomized probabilities to actually hit and kill a missile. Something like a good old gaussian flak damage distribution and a fixed value of damage a missiles "needs" to blow up.

For the lasers, overpowering lasers should practically ignore shields, while normal ones are mitigated and powerless ones completely dispersed. Best way to include this would be to give all shields a fixed damage-mitigation value.

For kinetics the armor should have HP in itself, but not regenerate during the phases. It also should have an offset, where it is impenetrable and only the leftover damage counts toward armor damage, but also a maximum value, where it only substracts the maximum and the rest directly hits the target.



Quite complicated, I admit, but this would really make the different weapons and defenses unique.



P.S.: Oh, almost forgot to make that clear: All of this counts per shot, not per phase. So 200 relatively powerless lasershots are worse off than 200 relatively powerless slugs denting away armor slug by slug, til the armor is gone.

Nosferatiel wrote:
Intruiging idea, but may I propose a little alteration of this, making it 2-dimensional and (for the sake of being a sake) physically more correct?



Long range accuracy/damage:

70%/100% Kinetic

100%/70% Laser

100%/100% Missile



Medium range accuracy/damage:

80%/100% Kinetic

100%/85% Laser

90%/100% Missile



Short range accuracy/damage:

95%/100% Kinetic

100%/100% Laser

80%/100% Missile



My reasoning behind this (values may be a bit arbitrary, but the trend is not):

The accuracy of kinetics has to be lowest for most stages, as kinetic weapons suffer from mechanical instabilities. The damage, though, must be 100% at all ranges, since there is no friction in space, so there is no reason for any mechanism declining their damage.

Lasers though should always hit (as they should also be beams and invisible to any observer :P ), since there is no reason why you should not be able to hit anything you can detect with light with a light beam in turn. But lasers suffer from dispersion, the collimation of any light beam is not perfect. Since the damage of a laser is proportional to the intensity per unit area and a longer range means essentially that the target area becomes larger, but the intensity is constant (imagine being in a dark room, holding a light bulb and lighting up the far end of the room (long range) and then the near end of the room (short range), then you've got an idea what I'm referring to), the damage should be antiproportional to range.

Finally for the missiles, I could imagine a mechanism not unlike for torpedoes. Basically a safety where the missiles begin locking on after some safety distance and can only then explode, not earlier. This would beautifully explain why the accuracy should go down at shorter ranges, even if you have guided weapon systems.

That is a fantastic idea, and I particularly love the idea of laser weapons always being accurate but having damage penalty's.



But how would you suggest we deal with the problem where ships can avoid all damage via their defenses? While shields kinda make sense (And I wish there was a visual indicator, something I might suggest) deflectors don't, why should a defense type (That isn't flak) be able to completely deny a weapon despite its accuracy and damage?



I feel like Deflectors and Shields should either function in the same way, or possibly allow deflectors to instead reduce the damage of a number of projectiles instead of just blocking them.



Somthing similar to: Deflector reduces damage of 3 kinetics per round by 50%



This way, shields can be brought down with enough fire (Possibly with the addition of a anti-shield card or EMP weapon) and deflectors can only reduce the firepower of a number of projectiles, thus making kinetics a solid weapon type even when faced by damage reducing defenses.

Igncom1 wrote:


For the sake of Discussion I would suggest that the weapon accuracy's be changes to this:

Long range accuracy:

70% Kinetic accuracy

80% Laser accuracy

100% Missile accuracy



Medium range accuracy:

80% Kinetic accuracy

95% Laser accuracy

90% Missile accuracy



Short range accuracy:

95% Kinetic accuracy

80% Laser accuracy

80% Missile accuracy

Intruiging idea, but may I propose a little alteration of this, making it 2-dimensional and (for the sake of being a sake) physically more correct?



Long range accuracy/damage:

70%/100% Kinetic

100%/70% Laser

100%/100% Missile



Medium range accuracy/damage:

80%/100% Kinetic

100%/85% Laser

90%/100% Missile



Short range accuracy/damage:

95%/100% Kinetic

100%/100% Laser

80%/100% Missile



My reasoning behind this (values may be a bit arbitrary, but the trend is not):

The accuracy of kinetics has to be lowest for most stages, as kinetic weapons suffer from mechanical instabilities. The damage, though, must be 100% at all ranges, since there is no friction in space, so there is no reason for any mechanism declining their damage.

Lasers though should always hit (as they should also be beams and invisible to any observer :P ), since there is no reason why you should not be able to hit anything you can detect with light with a light beam in turn. But lasers suffer from dispersion, the collimation of any light beam is not perfect. Since the damage of a laser is proportional to the intensity per unit area and a longer range means essentially that the target area becomes larger, but the intensity is constant (imagine being in a dark room, holding a light bulb and lighting up the far end of the room (long range) and then the near end of the room (short range), then you've got an idea what I'm referring to), the damage should be antiproportional to range.

Finally for the missiles, I could imagine a mechanism not unlike for torpedoes. Basically a safety where the missiles begin locking on after some safety distance and can only then explode, not earlier. This would beautifully explain why the accuracy should go down at shorter ranges, even if you have guided weapon systems.

n18991c wrote:
I actually like the idea, particularly with kinetics being strengthened/improved during long range phase...

20% accuracy is kind of a joke really, not as good accuracy sure but 20%? that's pointless.

I actually like the idea, particularly with kinetics being strengthened/improved during long range phase...

davea wrote:
It is very easy to make this as a mod. You may be interested to try it out, and see if you like it. I personally am not sure it would be an improvement; but YMMV.

I think I will, and thank you for being a fair forum moderator and hearing me out.

It is very easy to make this as a mod. You may be interested to try it out, and see if you like it. I personally am not sure it would be an improvement; but YMMV.