A New Idea - Flak for Capital Ships - a humble change. Developers please read.

By on February 22, 2009 1:25:27 AM from Sins of a Solar Empire Forums Sins of a Solar Empire Forums

CreditSuisse

Join Date 10/2006
+22

In the newly imagined hit-series Battlestar Galactica, the capital ship had a very sophisticated Flak defense array capable of projecting a dense Flak shield around the battlestar. Now, I have to ask the Ironclad developers, have they ever seen the Anti-SC capabilities of a capital ship in that series? Well it looks like this:

That is a lot of Flak. Also in the series, we've seen on television how effective these Flak shields can be taking down several cylon raiders on several occasions on television. Battlestars were equipped with hundreds... of point-defense turrents that created the lightshow you see in the above picture. 

In Star Wars Episode III, we saw dense capital ship Anti-Aircraft fire from the first minute. 

In any canon Star Wars hand-book of ships, it lists major capital ships such as Star Destroyer as carrying several AA-missile batteries and AA-Ion cannons in addition to its TIE squadrons for a secondary line of Anti-SC defense. 

In real life, the battleship - the epitome of what is considered a "capital ship" - is literally a moving Flak platform on wheels. The largest battleship ever created The Yamato had over 150 Type 96 25mm cannons, and over 25 type 93 13mm triple AA machine guns, other ships indeed almost any ship worth anything in battle carried Flak guns. Naval battles in the pacific tended to be massive Flak vs. Strike Craft contests with a lot of puff puff clouds covering the sky for miles.

The question is why then can't Capital Ships get Flak in this game? Yes, there are several caps (1-2 for each each) that has an anti-SC ability such the Kol Flak Burst, or the Dunov's Magnetize but does that really make up for Capital Ships not even having a small built in Flak defense system? No, not really. 

Yes, there are a specialized type of frigate: the Flak Frigate that is meant to be the primarily Flak defense for ships in SINs but does that mean unless you always bring along Flak Frigates your capital ships will always be completely defenseless against SC? Yes, it does (not counting the starting 1-2 strike craft your non-carrier capital ships get) 

What I propose is: give all capital-ships a general weak Flak capability equal to 2-3 Flak Frigates.  

Why we should give Capital Ships Flak. (And Starbases)

Capital Ships loved to be focused fired on by strike craft from all types of players. They see the biggest thing on the battlefield and want to take it out. This means, Capital Ships are always in near-constant danger of strike craft every game that goes onto the mid-game. You cannot count on your Anti-matter abilities because you may not have any, and your starting SC will not be able to really protect you unless you've spammed them in the form of light carriers. This extra protection however slight is needed.

The philosophical question really is: Why shouldn't huge capital ships (and even larger Starbases) that are very expensive and valuable not be able to protect themselves against SC without relying on abilities or your own SC - even slightly? They may not even good at it, they may not be effective at it, but they should be able to fire back. In WW2, Flak was nessecarily the best option for taking down planes, and options such as interceptors were better, but that is no reason to completely strip capital ships from having it. 

Why Capital Ship Flak is balanced.

The weak to moderate strenght Flak equipped on Capital Ships would only be a second to third line of defense for the capital ships against enemy-SC. Mass Flak Frigates would still be much more effective than relying solely on a Cap's light Flak defense, and your own fighter SC would also be much more effective. Essentially the balance will be unchanged from what it is right now, it'll only be just that now Capital Ships can shoot back and lightly dmg enemy SC swarming around them. Flak Frigates will NOT be obsolete (agent of Karma), Fighter SC will still be more effective, and enemy SC focus-firing on capitals will still be just as effective. Like I've mentioned, this is a humble change. 

 "We can live without Flak for capital ships, but do we really want to? Also on very principle we shouldn't. We owe it to the Science Fiction Genre. "

Why Starbase Flak is needed.

Everything that applied to capital ships applies here, except that Starbases in addition to being huge, expensive, and valuable, they are immobile. Strike Craft could simply avoid them, and they will be a zero threat. Now, for players attempting to assault these structures, they could send SC but its perfectly flesible and realistic they will take losses. Carrier Strike Craft, should not be able to jump in on the other side of the grav well released their strike craft, wait for a few minutes while the strike craft do their dirty work (without taking any losses, due to the lack of flak guns) then jump out once the Starbase dies. Yes, Starbases can have up to several SC of their own, but that is only available after multiple upgrades you need to buy. Starbases should already start out with built-in Flak or at least make it a cheap upgrade. 

Babylon 5 station's defense grid. Interceptor Station Point Defense Guns.

Specifics: Give the Akkan, Progenitor, and the Jarrasul a moderate Flak capability.

All the other capital ships and starbases will have a weak Flak equal to 2-3 Flak Frigates, however the Mothership type capital ship I adovcate for a moderate Flak ability equal to about 3-4 Flak Frigates.

 The Akkan should receive moderate Flak abilities. 

Again not much of a leg up, but still important. This makes these ships even better and helps protect your fleet in the immediate radius. The reasoning for this is, Flak is a support/defense ability these ships could have in contrast to the battleship capitals with their high hp + dmg and the command caps with their great abilities. This gives player an addition reason to go with these ships as their first capital ship knowing it will be very useful even in late-game battles vs. just slightly useful in combat.  

PLEASE NOTE: This thread is not here to discuss Flak balance vs. Strike Craft Carrier balance. That is for another thread, and there are plently of them out there. Please do not post something like: "Great idea, but it's all unless without a carrier fix and a general buff to flak" [I actually agree with this, but keep it in another thread]

This is Silfarion's three criteria for adding in a change to the game. That I agree with. 

 

1. It's balanced.

2. It fits the theme of the game and what the developers had in mind.

3. It works with minimal fuss or change.

---------------------

1. - Topic for debate. I say Yes. 

2. - Yes, and double Yes. I have to ask, do the developers even watch BattleStar Galactica? 

3. - Yes, and triple yes. It is easily implemented and won't create much of a fuss, (except for diehards out there such as Hack87, who won't like this idea no matter how humble) 

I make sure to make all my trends very specific, full of examples, and with a Rebuttal section to combat the diehards out there, who hate new ideas no matter what they are. It is my hope that most people will see the merits of this humble proposal despite the over-the-topic critics that will surely seek to destroy this thread with everything they can muster. 

Objections & Rebuttal COLUMN (read this first for all you diehards out there)

— "This isn't really needed"

Having cherry on a Ice-Cream Sunday isn't needed, but it's good and moreover it's "right". If we were to simply not do a change because it wasn't crucially needed and we only did things when it was absolutely nessecary in today's society then we would not have video games, ice cream, ... toilets. This change really implements the spirt of the genre and a humble change that will not cause any problems for balance. 

— "Capital Ships already have 2 things to deal with squadrons ... It's a bad idea then, its a bad idea now." 

Some Capital Ships have two thing to try to deal with SC, but with 1 they fail completely, the other is very micro/anti-matter dependent. I'm talking about of course their own SC, and their own capitial ship abilities that some ships have. The flaw in the first one is that the number of squadrons a cap carries (1-3 max) will almost never be enough to really protect it against enemy swarms. Second, the abilities are anti-matter dependent and highly situational. None of these 2 give a good reason why capitals shouldn't have a reliable built in Flak both in game-terms and philosophically. 

— "Capital Ships aren't supposed to be a one-ship fleet, they support, and need support... they need Flak Frigates ad fighters already with them. Capital Ships are limited by hardcoding to three weapons systems..."

They're not. Capital ships will still very much need support to be effective. Giving capital ships a weak Flak will not by any means make them one-ship conquer all wonders. Flak Frigate support will still be very much desired, Fighter support will still be very viable. As for hardcoding, there are mods out there that already has this as a feature, so we know its all very much possible.

178 Replies +6
Search this post
Subscription Options


Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
February 26, 2009 3:48:27 AM from Sins of a Solar Empire Forums Sins of a Solar Empire Forums

To everyone else, unfortunately I do have a pretty demanding Finance internship (BCG) and a full schedule for the next few days so obviously there will be periods of vicious accusations by Hack, Carbon and probably other cheap shots I will not be able to fully respond to. However as soon as I get a break I will. I'm actually typing this at 3 am EST.

I have a full time job as well. I just post at lunch or when I get home. We all work. I also resent you saying my posts are vicious. I have never attacked you personally. You have called me either directly or by assocation a troll and a termite. So get some perspective on what you are saying

Hack tried to do a cheap shot argument like you're doing right now and completely failed. Both I and two other posters immediately replied that in Star Trek they have the equivilent of Flak because their main phaser arrays can target enemy fighters. Fighters die very quickly to caps in ST, and are much less prominent.

The weapons in Star Trek are not dedicated AA weapons was my point. Your own post states "equivilent". The reason they don't have it is that phasers are highly accurate. I understand this. Go back before TOS to Enterprise and compare those weapons to what a Soverign fields and then discuss. It would also be interesting to look at what is classified as SC in Star Trek. Most capital ships could never do the stuff the Defiant does. So what would it be classified as in WWII (since we keep coming back to it???)

Also - what rule has Carbon violated? I see a claim of it yet cannot see any supporting evidence to allow me to see if your claim has foundation. Do not take this as support for him in anyway, nor as anything against you. I just want to know what he has done that you feel violates the T&C and possibly led you to report him (I am assuming this from the "Appropriate action will be taken" bit, sense you lack any authority, so you can only get this outcome from a mod.

 

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
February 26, 2009 3:57:38 AM from Sins of a Solar Empire Forums Sins of a Solar Empire Forums

I know I am not the only one who has issue with this as well Credit. Below are Karma quote I have received...

Countered the FUD.

Please don't stop giving your opinion in the forums on balance. I appreciate it if no one else does.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
February 26, 2009 5:18:08 AM from Sins of a Solar Empire Forums Sins of a Solar Empire Forums

Most of Credit's reasoning in his original post don't seem, really to have any baring on the matter.  To try and draw parellel's between other science fiction genre's and World War II is just a tad bit silly.  Why does SINS need to "conform" to these type of supposed rules of ship design? They don't even take a lot of real science into account (e.g. why is there sound in space, and ships in deep space (not near a gravity well) wouldn't bank when they move) And also it needs to be taken into consideration that those are not interactive games that require a high degree of balancing.

So any comparison or use of another SciFi show or movie is completely and utter invalid and really quite odd and non-sensical.

It's like saying that apples and oranges are both fruit so therefore they should taste the same.

And you're agrument that because flak was used so heavily in actual modern wars (WWII), you are applying warfare mechanics of one era to another.  Boarding was a heavily used tactic until the late 16th century, when more accurate brass guns that could be fired more often made long range engagements practical.  The introduction of energy shields may make most flak obsolete since it works as an inpenitrable shield against most "small arms" fire (which would be from strikecraft).  Thus, this argument is completely invalid and odd (although not to the degree of comparing SINS to other scifi shows as afore-mentioned).

And the fact that you quote other people sharing the same opinion as you, does not really strengthen your agrument at all.  The problem lies in the fact that they are not experts (no offense);  they are not a developer of the game, they are not someone who completely comprehends how making this change would effect and change every other aspect of combat and is subjective about the subject. Having people that agree with you does not make you right just as much as having a lot of Nazi's doesn't make killing Jews kosher (just an example, not trying to stir you up by calling you a nazi, although that would be an interesting way of going about it; and sorry if i just offended any PC people out there).

A major problem with cap ships with flak is that would most liekly unbalances them in early game with smaller fleets without an overwhelming mass of Strike craft.  This sort of change would take away from the basic balance of the game which is not having any ship that is effective against all other kind of attacks.  Capital ships are effective against all other ships, except strikecraft. if they were given this ability the carrier class would be completely outclassed in any one on one fight as well as other support cap ships which rely partly on their strike craft.

I understand that it is frustrating to have your capital ships swarmed and killed constantly in late game but giving cap ships a "moderate" amount of flak will not change this, it will only unbalance earlier game mechanics. 

The thing is, most likely, every ship would have some sort of flak, but then that would make strike craft nearly useless.  but for the sake of balancing (or for the sake of the designers who don't want to put flak everywhere), the role of anti-fighter support was focused and simplified into the flak frigate.  I would agree that it makes things more awesome with cap ship flak, but in my opinion it hurts the balance of the game.

 

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
Sign Up or Login and this ad disappears!
There are many great features available to you once you register. Sign Up for a free account and browse the forums without ads.
February 26, 2009 5:25:38 AM from Sins of a Solar Empire Forums Sins of a Solar Empire Forums

Well, let me summarize what you said.

 

"We don't have strong evidence to support flaks on capital ships nor to not support."

 

By the way ignoring the whole Sci-fi is just plain stupid and out of sense. Most of Sci-fi works have been influenced on one another and SOASE is indeed greatly influenced by Starwars and other stuffs. There are strong relations everywhere in this game.

 

If not, how Ironclad could think of a floating ship in space? *hint

 

By the way, from my multiplay experience, I highly doubt that flaks on capital ships would distort current balance. Because they just don't seem to die anyway.

 

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
February 26, 2009 5:35:00 AM from Sins of a Solar Empire Forums Sins of a Solar Empire Forums

 

Quote:

ASTRO-OFFICER: We count thirty Rebel ships, Lord Vader.
But they're so small they're evading our turbo-lasers!



TRUTH:
The Death Star could have used some FLAK emplacements.
Lucas was too enamored with the visuals of turbo lasers to
bother sticking sticking something as simple as FLAK turrets
on his precious Death Star!


CONSEQUENCE:
The Death Star was needlessly destroyed by OverPowered
Rebel X-Wings, all because it was thoughtlessly built without FLAK!
(And it had a chimney that lead straight to the reactor core.)


TRUTH:
Capital ships in SOASE have also thoughtlessly been built without
FLAK! By designing the ships this way, the developers follow
Lucas' dangerous precedent in making othermise mighty vessels
indefensible to OverPowered strikecraft.

CONSEQUENCE:
The most powerful ships in the SOASE universe are totally helpless
when confronted with hordes of strikecraft. Except the Kol....which
has Flak. And the Halcyon, which has mad powerful telekinetics
onboard. The Dunov is still kind of vulnerable, with its magnet.....
and a Kortul can probably get away with Jam Weapons.
Excluding them...TOTALLY HELPLESS!!


My CONCLUSION!!!

Give me an Evacuator and 30 Assailants, and I promise you I will
kill the Battlestar Galactica before the Vipers get my Assailants.
I'm pretty certain Grav Bomb will stop them from jumping. I think.
Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
February 26, 2009 5:54:59 AM from Sins of a Solar Empire Forums Sins of a Solar Empire Forums

Oh and arguing that cap ship flak is a luxary and that it's good to have it and it's also "right" is boardering on sad, silly and adorable.  This entire point is fantastically obsurd; because you compared this change to the human tendency to create non "necessary" items (and for your information, toilets are totally a necessity for public hygiene, unless you want to pour your waste into the street without drainage like in medeival europe and then contract the plague) which is really just an example of culture, and because you think that this "change really implements the spirit of the genre", which is one of thee largest piles of BS I've heard in a while.  This attempt to make your argument seem that important, is Coo-Coo for Coco Puffs. 

 

On a side note, I meant "sad, silly and adorable" in the most non-malicious way possible

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
February 26, 2009 6:04:03 AM from Sins of a Solar Empire Forums Sins of a Solar Empire Forums

you miss my point wnmnkh, my issue is not that SINS can't borrow other sci fi ideas it's that it in no way has to stay consistant with any other science fiction universe.  My entire post was just pointing out that Credit's entire original argument was completely flawed.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
February 26, 2009 7:19:07 AM from Sins of a Solar Empire Forums Sins of a Solar Empire Forums

Well, that's a second person to voice the concern that flak unbalances the early game...

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
February 26, 2009 7:28:54 AM from Sins of a Solar Empire Forums Sins of a Solar Empire Forums

OK Credit if u want a formalized debate then you need to rebutle against the claims that are being made instead your just using personal attacks

As it stands capital ships wont reciev flak because:

1. Hardcoding limits caps to 3 weapon types

2. Giving caps flak would change the games balance

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
February 26, 2009 7:37:27 AM from Sins of a Solar Empire Forums Sins of a Solar Empire Forums

Personally I like things the way they are, with regards capital ships. Sure, some capitals are vulnerable to strike craft, but sins is all about balancing your offensive fleets. There are always plenty of anti strike-craft options around. Is it realistic not to have flak on capships? Probably not, but then really - who cares? 

That said, it would be nice to see flak on starbases. After all, they are supposed to be defensive strongholds. Perhaps gaining a couple of flak cannons each time the hanger bay upgrades are made would be a nice way forward - this way upgrading the hanger capabilities becomes a more general 'anti-strike-craft' upgrade.

 

 

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
February 26, 2009 8:44:39 AM from Sins of a Solar Empire Forums Sins of a Solar Empire Forums

Both I and two other posters immediately replied that in Star Trek they have the equivilent of Flak because their main phaser arrays can target enemy fighters.

You're comparing a specifically anti-fighter munitions based system with a general-purpose laser based system?

Also there is Flak in Star Trek, look up the Voyegar Episode with the Malon.

Hence "almost no" instead of "no" flak.

. . . but that's all beside the point. They're red herrings, deviating from the real question: Must we do everything that other Sci-Si shows do merely for the sake of "being faithful to the Sci-Fi genre?"

Cobra, it is cheap shot hacks like you I resent even more than Hack78.

You addressed a side issue about the nature of fighter defense in the Sci-Fi genre. Perhaps I should clarify:

Is this only for "keeping in line" with the Sci-Fi genre, or do you believe this will actually improve gameplay?

It sounds like the primary argument you are using for supporting this modification is a bandwagon fallacy.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
February 26, 2009 9:20:02 AM from Sins of a Solar Empire Forums Sins of a Solar Empire Forums

Sigh, You dont have to add in a 4th weapon slot, ive said this multiple times now.  All one has to do is take the lowest dps weapon on a Cap ship, lower the damage more and enable it to fire on SC, and work it so that the decrease in firepower in that weapon is transfered to the other weapons on the ship.  Then all it would require is testing.

 

Cobra-  If you have played starfleet command I or even the table top game, you will know that ST had flak equivilents, that being of course PHASERS.  When were talking about flak, were using the word loosely, because even in Sins, the vasari and advent dont have flak, they have equivilent to it.  This whole jumping on a bandwagon with other sci-fi shows is a bad argument, since sins is based on many other shows / books.

 

Flak guns, oh wait sorry Anti-SC guns should be on capital ships because not of other shows have them, or books have them, because it makes sense and the gameplay impact would not be that big.  You have people arguing that early gameplay would be affect, how?  you have not even stated how.  Okay, lets say our planets are right next to each other, and i send a Kol at your planet which has a sova carrier at it, no matter what the kol will win in a 1 on 1 battle even including SC.  Now lets say were three planets apart, by the time i get to you or you get to me the cap ship will be lvl 2 or 3, heck maybe 4 depending on the planets and i have seen people by that time have carriers out, so how would a cap ship with really crappy anti-SC guns affect the gameplay?  You don't know and will not know unless it is tested.  So what you guys are doing is being a troll, you wont stop abusing and insulting a person and his idea, which has support and merits but also flaws.  This is up to the developers to decide and look at not people bashing each other over the head trying to look good while crap is coming out of thier mouth.  Grow up and grow a pair and leave Credit alone with his idea.  Like I said multiple times now in multiple posts, this an a thread to spread ideas not to destroy them.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
February 26, 2009 10:29:48 AM from Sins of a Solar Empire Forums Sins of a Solar Empire Forums

This whole jumping on a bandwagon with other sci-fi shows is a bad argument, since sins is based on many other shows / books.

The fallacy holds: There is no "law" forcing Ironclad to include it if they don't want to include it.

You have people arguing that early gameplay would be affect, how?

You fail to understand what I have typed.

I am asking if it would improve gameplay. If it does, then it would make sense.

But if it's just to make some hardcore Sci-Fi fans somehow "feel better" then I think Ironclad's priorities should be elsewhere.

 

Cobra- If you have played starfleet command I or even the table top game,

This is a side issue, but FYI Star Trek stuff outside the movies and shows aren't really considered canon.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
February 26, 2009 11:37:42 AM from Sins of a Solar Empire Forums Sins of a Solar Empire Forums

I'm sorry but you don't seem to understand the hypocracy of your statement.  Credit wished for the topic to be discussed, and i was simply refuting the explanations he had given. You criticize us for supposedly "abusing and insulting" others and you're response involves labeling us as "trolls" and challenging us to "grow a pair".  The problem is that you yourself are creating is continually perpetuating this cycle because you feel that by telling us off will put us in our place or will show your support for your cause but really all you've done is commited the same sin that you accused us of doing.  Thus you showcase yourself as a hypocrite and goad us to either replay in kind or to take the time to face your accusations, which just continues the cycle.  Now my intent was not to offend Credit, but surely he can see why, trying to validate the reason for flak on capital ships by using a different scifi interpretation as proof for how it should operate in another scifi interpretation just does not work (or even using WWII references).

I think my fruit analogy still works well.  SINS is an apple, and lets say BSG, SW, ST & B5 are Oranges.  Now these oranges taste awesome, and what credit is saying is that because they taste awesome the apple should taste like them too.  Just because those oranges have very unique and interesting tastes does not mean that the apple needs to or should taste like them. (sorry if this has confused anyone further)

Anyway, the point i was making about unbalancing early game mechanics was that it makes strikecraft used offensively and defensively very vunerable against a capital ship unless they are in greater numbers.  Let's say a TEC planet has 2 hanger bays and 3 gun platforms.  When this Kol arrives, it's flak capability is able to eat up the fighters/bombers quickly before it comes into combat with the defense platforms (4 squadrons vs  the equivalent of 4 or 3 flak frigates, not good odds).  This seems to make hanger bays fairly unreliable as an early game defense because of the capital ship.  The usefulness between the individual capital ships has been brough up before in these forums, and this would make carrier caps obsolete early game (even more so than they are now) simply because if they run into an enemy capital ship about half of their offensive capability is gone  (2/3 squadrons vs the equivalent of the same amount of flak frigates, again not good).  My other issue was that this upgrade would not be-terribly effective in late game anyway, because if a large fleet is focus firing on your cap ship, there isn't a whole lot you can do to effectively other than what's already available (the abilities for some cap ships, Flak frigates and your own fighters as well as support cruisers to slow the bleeding). 

-CU- Raptor brings up a point that is very important, as well as all the people (including Hack) who have mentioned it and have tried to show the pro-flak side the severity of the change: the limit to 3 weapon slots.  Yes, you've mentioned that you'd simply manipulate the damage values  to get the same damage output for your normal weapons and reduce the damage of the new flak weapon slot, and how apparently easy this is to do but that is changing the capital ships fairly drastically.  Not only that but you'd have to stop the flak damage from increasing by level, which again requires going in and causing more problems.  That laser damage (for the sake of debate i picked laser) will become less and less effective against higher level cap ships because it doesn't increase in damage  (and thus does not keep up with the added armor) but still fires on normal ships (i'm assuming that if fires regularly when there is other non-strike craft targets in range.  If not then that will drastically change the way they play because you've just eliminated one of their weapons for solely anti-fighter duty).  and people may just making sure that there is other combat targets for capital ships before sending in fighters, thus, completely negating this upgrade.   (I'm not 100% on the effect of higher armor and the resulting diminishing returns for damage done so please correct me if I am mistaken)

 

There just seems so many factors that to tamper with it will end up with creating more issues that will need to be ironed out.  And the fact is that to make this work correctly, as cloud has pointed out himself, that it requires testingReally what needs to be done, is a mod needs to be made, if it already hasn't been, and this idea needs to be tweeked and tested and tweeked and test, and so on and so forth until it seems to work properly, THEN bring your findings to the attention of the developers and the community, because currently, you seem to have no real proof that this will not distort the current balance (such as it is) in a negative fashion.  I would think the developers are slightly more worried with not making things worse and keeping the status quo rather than constantly improving.

I'm not trying to aggrivate people with my posts, my comments about Credit's reasons were simply to point out that explaining how game mechanics should resemble using something that is only relevant by a vague relation on subject matter is not a valid reason to argue his point, nor is it valid to use the reasoning that if many people agree with you, that validates your premise (sorry for using Valid 3 times, it just works so well).  I'm trying to remove the clutter from his argument so that he can focus on his legitimate points.

Also Cobra's post above pretty much summarized much of what I just rambled on about.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
February 26, 2009 12:09:55 PM from Sins of a Solar Empire Forums Sins of a Solar Empire Forums

My $.02...

 

almost, if not all, large ships in the navy have some kind of AA capability, so capital ships in this game definitely should.  Maybe not proper flak guns, but some kind of AA gun that targets fighters and bombers.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
February 26, 2009 12:31:51 PM from Sins of a Solar Empire Forums Sins of a Solar Empire Forums

Quoting Caydr,

Ice Cream SUNDAE, not sunday.

Totally offtopic but funny, the sundae was named after sunday

Evanston, Illinois

Evanston was one of the first locations to pass anti-soda water legislation, doing so in 1890. "Some ingenious confectioners and drug store operators [in Evanston]... obeying the law, served ice cream with the syrup of your choice without the soda. Thereby complying with the law... This sodaless soda was the Sunday soda."[8] As sales of the dessert continued on Mondays, local leaders then objected to naming the dish after the Sabbath. So the spelling of the name was changed to Sundae.

 

you can look it up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sundae

 

 

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
February 26, 2009 12:33:58 PM from Sins of a Solar Empire Forums Sins of a Solar Empire Forums

Real Life, Star Wars, Star Trek, BSG, etc. ≠ Sins.

Has it used select elements? Yes. Does it need to use more just because? No.

Every Sci-fi would be the same if they all just copy everything from each other.

 

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
February 26, 2009 1:33:03 PM from Sins of a Solar Empire Forums Sins of a Solar Empire Forums

My two cents.

Would I love to see Cap ships and SB have AA and PD capabilities? Yes

Am I going to stop playing because they don't? No

Would I pay another $10 if it was offered in the next expansion? Yes

While I think the idea is great, I also remember that back when Sins was first released, one of the big selling points was that even the lamest PC out there would be able to handle massive space battles. My thinking is that if every cap ship was loaded up Yamamato style with 125 flak cannons on each of them, imagine what the PC requirements would be when two players drop 16-cap ship fleets into the grav well of a sun that has 4 starbases maxed out with SC? I imagine that the game speed would start to drop to unacceptable levels.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
February 26, 2009 1:39:53 PM from Sins of a Solar Empire Forums Sins of a Solar Empire Forums

The reason so many large ships in sci fi have AA guns is because our current real life ships have AA guns, and that is because it makes sense to have protection built in to ships from small fighters and bombers.  Cap ships should absolutely have AA.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
February 26, 2009 1:46:13 PM from Sins of a Solar Empire Forums Sins of a Solar Empire Forums

Quoting CreditSuisse,

Carbon, you realize that quote was completely made up. You edited the code to make it look like I was being quoted. If you actually look at the real reply 14 it is not even one of my posts. Carbon now who is grandstanding? You're manipulating quotes and putting words into my mouth.
 

Oh no! Everyone will see through my clever attempt to frame you as saying "TROLL TROLL TROLL U A TROLL SPAM STOP SPAMMIN". If not for you meddling..kid? I would have got away with it! Blast! But maybe...

Quoting CreditSuisse,
I'm wrong

Whoa! No need to get hasty there! We were having a proper argument, no need to admit defeat so soon!

I'd better get him off my trail..he seems to be on to my trick

Quoting Carbon016,
AHHHHHHHHHHH BEES

Anyway, I look forward to (again) your responding to the challenge I put out:

In a paragraph or less, and without resorting to hand-waving about how freaking cool flak would be or how since this is a science fiction game we should implement everything the genre has ever done, explain the current issue with balance, and how adding flak to caps solves it. Perhaps I just missed it in all the talk about ice cream and toilets. Hack is addressing your issues and the people rebutting him are arguing with him over semantic historical realism. So help the thread out and summarize your argument.

Making others defend your point for you does them a disservice, no?

 

Re: the "just mess with damage values" argument for keeping the third weapon thing: keep in mind that a lot of caps (afaik) have three different types of guns and that there's really no way of doing it bar another capital ship weapons slot. Upping a laser damage value to compensate for the autocannons being off wouldn't work because those two weapons have different damage types.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
February 26, 2009 2:39:45 PM from Sins of a Solar Empire Forums Sins of a Solar Empire Forums

Guys, it is a game.  It isn't made to be totally realistic, it is made so that there are advantages an disadvantages to each unit type.  Yes, in any sci fi world where there are fighters, the bigger ships would have flak.  The damn cruisers and carrier cruisers would have some flak too.  Flak is relatively small compared to the size of these ships.

A lot of the arbitrary designs of the ships in a game are not to reflect the "most realistic" world, but to give people choices and counters to other people's choices.  No unit should be able to "do it all".

If you want to really talk about realism, future warfare is not going to use fightercraft at all, unless they were one shot drones with some kind of nuclear pulse gamma laser, or nukes / antimatter bombs.  The whole reason we have fighters in these sci fi worlds is because it is a glorification of WWII aerial combat... ie. the Battle Over Britain and the carrier warfare in the Pacific Theater. 

No future war machine would go through all the trouble of making tiny maneuverable self contained spacecraft, and only put light weapons on it.  A single strikecraft that penetrated the defensive screen would carry a heavy ordinance option to do massive damage to a large ship.

The whole conceit of a sci fi universe with strike craft is quite frankly because it looks cool and it glorifies the concept of the heroic pilot warrior who goes out to fight using his skill rather than wage war by pushing a button in safety somewhere.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
February 26, 2009 3:31:42 PM from Stardock Forums Stardock Forums

i think giving some caps anti-SC guns would help reduce the viability of the carrier/SC spam tactic...well slightly anyways

 

there here is a reasonable argument no needless refrences to real life or other sci-fi

 

can we plz have more reasonable arguments?

 

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
February 26, 2009 3:46:05 PM from Sins of a Solar Empire Forums Sins of a Solar Empire Forums

At Rembrandt:  I was talking about certian people who have posted on this forum who have directly insulted Credit, I was talking about them and also the people who constantly disagree and say they have this and this to support them so they say this and that on how it would unbalance the game in early stages but yet dont explain thier arguments.  You on the other hand have explained how it would unbalance it in certian situations and I applaud you for it, Im just sick of seeing people who state this and that, crop statements from this and that without even making a solid argument / explaination.  Yes credit is also guilty of this too, but theres a difference when responding to people who  dont want to argue in a civilized manner and people who do.

 

On the whole weapon change thing, heres an example of the weapon entity from a cap ship:

Weapon
    WeaponType "Projectile"
    damageEnums
        AttackType "CAPITALSHIP"
        DamageAffectType "AFFECTS_SHIELDS_AND_HULL"
        DamageApplyType "BACKLOADED"
        DamageType "PHYSICAL"
        WeaponClassType "AUTOCANNON"
    DamagePerBank:FRONT 54.000000
    DamagePerBank:BACK 99.000000
    DamagePerBank:LEFT 99.000000
    DamagePerBank:RIGHT 54.000000
    Range 5000.000000
    PreBuffCooldownTime 4.500000
    CanFireAtFighter FALSE
    SynchronizedTargeting FALSE
    PointStaggerDelay 1.000000
    TravelSpeed 3500.000000
    Duration 0.000000
    fireConstraintType "CanAlwaysFire"
    WeaponEffects
        weaponType "Projectile"
        burstCount 4
        burstDelay 0.300000
        muzzleEffectName "Weapon_TechCapitalAutoCannonHeavy_Muzzle"
        muzzleSoundMinRespawnTime 0.770000
        muzzleSounds
            soundCount 3
            sound "WEAPON_TECHCAPITALAUTOCANNONHEAVY_MUZZLE"
            sound "WEAPON_TECHCAPITALAUTOCANNONHEAVY_MUZZLE_ALT1"
            sound "WEAPON_TECHCAPITALAUTOCANNONHEAVY_MUZZLE_ALT2"
        hitEffectName "Weapon_TechCapitalAutoCannonHeavy_Hit"
        hitHullEffectSounds
            soundCount 1
            sound "WEAPONIMPACT_PHYSICALHEAVY_HITHULL"
        hitShieldsEffectSounds
            soundCount 1
            sound "WEAPONIMPACT_GENERICHEAVY_HITSHIELDS"
        projectileTravelEffectName "Weapon_TechCapitalAutoCannonHeavy_Travel"

Every weapon has this line, so one could in a mod enable this to true for all ships to test it.  My whole point about this wasn't to actually have IC do this style of editing weapon damaged, I said it is a possibility / one way of doing it (this is from multiple posts on the subject).

For me overall I would like to see flak / anti-SC on cap ships because like I said it makes sense for them to have such things, you may agree or disagree, but thats my beleif.  Do I think IC should do this, yes but not now, it should be a thing for a future patch / expansion when they have time to look this subject over.

 

At cobra:  Did I state you talking about early gameplay changes, no, this was directed at other people.

 

At Rembrandt:  Overlooking your example again and noticing a few things, I am not arguing for flak to be 2-3 flak frigs worth of anti-SC, I would have it where its equivilent to maybe one frig or even a half, since capital ships are big, slow targets with not the best firing arcs, therefore it would be logical that thier AA would be weak.  For late Game I do agree that Flak on this scale would not be that great, and why should it on a cap ship, because late game it is more focused on large fleets, early game is more small scale actions and hit and run tactics.

 

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
February 26, 2009 3:52:54 PM from Stardock Forums Stardock Forums

maybe instead of editing existing caps making a dedicated escort role cap that would have huge anti-SC capabilities

im bored with the current 5 i have with advent

specially since most of the super abilities are horrible

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
February 26, 2009 3:53:45 PM from Sins of a Solar Empire Forums Sins of a Solar Empire Forums

Quoting Phalnax811,

Quoting wnmnkh, reply
thank you for agreeing with me and i did not mean to insult your ship im sorry

notice i said like not os it has the basic design
Haha it's all good. There was a bit of sarcasm in there even if it wasn't detectable. 

 

that is why you put lol haha

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
Stardock Forums v1.0.0.0    #108433  walnut3   Server Load Time: 00:00:00.0001078   Page Render Time:

Home | About | Privacy | Upload Guidelines | Terms of Service | Help
WinCustomize © 2014 Stardock Corporation. All Rights Reserved.