Hard Light Productions Forums
General FreeSpace => FreeSpace Discussion => Topic started by: That Man on August 07, 2013, 12:09:22 pm
-
I'm contemplating FREDing my way to glory and creating my campaign (once I actually learn how to FRED, that is). Before I do, though, I have a question regarding game balance, particularly FS1-era anti-fighter weapons.
After the Great War ended, it should have been abundantly clear to both Terrans and Vasudans that--with the exception of the Typhon--their capital ships are terrible at shooting down enemy fighters.
Arguably, shooting down fighters is what other fighters are for. But a wing of fighters can usually only take on one other enemy wing at a time, leaving capital ships vulnerable to attacks from other vectors while its fighter escorts are engaged. Blobs may be good at killing incoming bombs and other enemy warships, but if a wing of three or four bombers can pose a serious threat to something as big as an Orion, clearly a weapons upgrade is in order.
Suppose, then, that it's just a few years after the Lucifer's destruction and the Hades Rebellion. Many system governments have seceded into independent states, industry and infrastructure will take decades to recover, and there's a niggling paranoia in the minds of many that the Shivans will return to Terran-Vasudan space before rebuilding is complete. Flak cannons and anti-fighter beams are years away from being realized.
Bearing all this in mind, how would Terran Command go about upgrading its destroyers and cruisers to be more effective against fighters?
-
Beams aren't there yet. Flak might.
However at that point the easier and most obvious solution to bombers is simply more friendly fighters in the air.
-
Cluster or shot-gun style pulse weapons would be a good one.
Heavy use of anti-fighter missiles would do well, though it is likely an expensive alternative, since you have to keep all that ordinance aboard. Plasma (pulse) seems like something easier to manufacture and easier to store as its more universally used by other aspects of a ship's operation.
-
Create a blob turret with more anti-shield damage and a higher projectile velocity.
Hell even sticking Avengers on the turrets instead if regular cap-ship turrets would probably be a great boost in anti-fighter defense for FS1 ships.
-
adding avengers is pure overkill, all the warships become killing mashines (ok, maybe not the orion)
in my lightning marshal revamp i simply increased the speed and damage of the small blobs, that worked pretty well i think (i made proper anti captial weapons out of the big blobs by the same method)
-
If I were in the GTA's position, I would consider using avenger or even flail turrets as at least a stop-gap measure while developing newer weapons as a more long-term solution. I feel it would be workable because they had those weapons available. At some point, somebody had to have said, "Hey, let's try this idea out?"
Maybe it's something that they would have tested on a few ships, in different configurations, until they either
a) found a setup that works
b) develop said newer weapons (better blobs, flak, beams)
c) decide that fighter-weapon turrets are unfeasable for some other reason (burn out too rapidly or something?)
-
Thank you all for your input. :)
Better/faster blobs seem like the most logical next step for GTA/PVE vessels, given the state of the colonies after the Great War. Cruisers and destroyers will create a blob-filled field of shooty death.
-
Man, forgot I had this. This might be a good visual of that premise. Personally, this is how turrets should have worked in the first place
Invalid YouTube URL: <iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/mEegS5GQfbw?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
e: sigh, what do I need to do to get the youtube embedding to work?
e: welp, it hyperlinked, which is good enough, thanks Niffiwan
e: da eff? now it's linking a royksopp song
e: I be captainin the strugglebus today haha
-
add the time param, something like:
[yt time=000]blah[/yt]
-
e: welp, it hyperlinked, which is good enough, thanks Niffiwan
You don't want the whole URL, just the video ID:
-
Oh, that's pretty. :yes2:
Thanks, guys. That's exactly the effect I'm looking for.
-
What I would do is similar to fightermedic's. my interpretation of the universe is that the game mechanic is an "easy mode" for what really happens in the universe. Even in the reference bible the devs mention that the fighters are overpowered because that's what the players are.
In actual FreeSpace universe, the world is probably a lot more chaotic and deadly for fighters and bombers. Anyway, it's just something to think about if you don't mind "tweaking" canon.
-
You don't even need to tweak canon.
When you make your own mod that played after, rather than during any official content, you can just argue that the GTA and PVN had to change their tactics due to the way the arrival of the Shivans and the development of shields and new fighter-grade weapons changed the battlefield.
Remember that every single capitalship in FS1 was designed and build in a time when the ML-16 and Rockeye were the best available fighter weapons and fighters had no shields! With the massive powerboost that fighters got during the course of the war, it's only natural to develop similar upgrades for capital ships, unless the entire doctrine is changed to a more carrier based approach.
You can always argue that the capships in FS2 had to go back to the old weapons because otherwise there wouldn't have been enough energy for the beams, or simply branch the mod off into an alternate timeline.
-
Of course you don't have to tweak canon. There are many mods that just accepts canon at face value and still make it realistic BP and VD for example. And your idea is widely applied and assumed in even retail. I was giving an alternative rationale of increasing cap ship potency other than "canon is king", which is less of the purist route and might drive a few wedges.
I take everything official and develop my interpretation of how the universe works instead of basing it primarily on the gameplay. For example, when the Tech Room contradicts what happens in game, I would favor the Tech Room. And when I watch the anis and the cutscenes, those are used to complement canon but not supersede nor be replaced by gameplay. As long as it is not contradicted by every other source, it can be incorporated into the mythology. This includes the official non V shorts minus the one about Laramis.
One way I think of it is this: different modes of entertainment can represent the same thing differently. The cutscenes have fighters that appear slower and more fragile than the gameplay, for example. The anis show fighters as fragile glass cannons that have thrusts, something which isn't available on many ships in the gameplay. The tech room mentions a ship having more turrets than it actually has in game. The box art shows a Deimos with side turrets. A poster shows Shivan cruisers having beam weapons.
Rather than saying only gameplay is right and everything else is non canon, I say they're all canon but focusing on different aspects. All fighters can thrust like the anis and are very fragile like the cutscenes but go even faster than the game allows. Vasudan freighters are quite deadly to fighters but can still be defeated. The armament in the tech description is more true than the gameplay. Capital ships have side turrets.
Retail gameplay was more focused on the pilots because it had to be. The other media aren't constrained by the players and technical limitations and can tell a different story with different constraints.
Not contradicting gameplay canon is cool, but contradicting it would be quite awesome as well. Blaise Russell's new campaign contradicts story canon, but it wasn't less of a story because of it. It may even have been better since the fall wasn't in a couple of days!*
E: I'm not attacking your idea by the way. I'm just rationalizing mine with supporting material from official sources. ^_^;
*i didn't play yet unfortunately.
-
Back in the day, the:
-GTF Apollo was the top of the line GTA fighter. It came equipped with 4x ML-16 laser guns, and 2 banks of either MX-50's or unguided rockets.
-GTF Angel, the predecessor of the Valkyrie, had 2 ML-16's, and only 2 main engines. Since it was a scout, I'd be willing to bet money it was much more fragile than the Val, to keep its high mobility regardless of the lower thrust.
-GTB Athena carried Synaptic bombs (http://www.hard-light.net/wiki/index.php/GTM_Synaptic), which were the top of the line killing machines against... nope, not fighters. The tech description uses "ship" and "target" in singular form.
Try killing an Aten with ML-16's, dumbfire rockets and Synaptics.
Capships were adequately armed, and in fact the THT had nearly 2.5 times the range of the ML, not to mention its incomparable damage per shot, or nearly 2x greater sustained damage potential.
The Terran Turret, while outranging the ML by only a bit more than a quarter mile, had even more sustained damage potential than the THT.
Then FS 1 began, several new weapons were introduced to fighters and bombers, and capital ships were left behind in technology. I'd expect there to be some progress between FS 1 and 2, perhaps a velocity boost to turrets and a damage per shot boost for huge turrets- which would then quickly become obsolete and replaced by Flak and beams.
A good starting point for a mod with weapons of the era between the 2 canon games would be to find where the beams and Flak appear and modding those turrets with better blobs.
All others were left untouched, and let's assume there was a reason for it (power supply, space available near those particular turrets, beams were designed to fit into the rebuilt and upgraded turrets, but the ones that remained stock weren't compatible, etc).
-
-GTB Athena carried Synaptic bombs (http://www.hard-light.net/wiki/index.php/GTM_Synaptic), which were the top of the line killing machines against... nope, not fighters. The tech description uses "ship" and "target" in singular form.
Nope, Synaptic wasn't available until the Shivans turned up, where it was explicitly called "new":
New Technologies: Hercules Fighter and Synaptic Cluster Bomb.
I am pleased to announce we have two new weapons to use against the Shivans, the Hercules Heavy Assault Fighter, and the Synaptic cluster bomb. You may study these in the Tech Room. They will prove very useful.
There are arguments to be made (It may have been new to the Galatea or whatever), but it almost certainly wasn't around for the TV War, when these capships were designed. The GTA probably had some kind of bomb, but we don't see it in FS1.
-
The GTA probably had some kind of bomb, but we don't see it in FS1.
I always thought that the GTA used Fenrises and Leviathans for bombing action in the Pre-Great War era. :nervous:
-
Well, they did have a bomber that didn't carry any of the anti-ship bombs displayed is FS1. It wouldn't be too far-fetched to assume the GTA had something lighter than the Tsunami to put in the Athena.
-
Racks of Furies.
Those things do a number on cruisers, y'know.
-
Basically, the state of military equipment in FS1 makes no sense whatsoever. This is not news.
-
Basically, the state of military equipment in FS1 makes no sense whatsoever. This is not news.
To be honest, it only makes sense likely because you're a newbie and they don't trust you with ****.
-
Which makes sense; but whilst FS2 generally says "you are now authorised to use...", FS1 mostly describes new weapons as having just been developed.
-
In both games you could argue that due to the attrition rate in the respective starting conflics the recruiting criteria for pilots were lowered or they might even have started drafting. Thus it's no surprise that the access to the more devastating equipment is restricted to the longer serving and proofen pilots.
Show that you are more than undisciplined cannon fodder and no danger to your wingmates and you get the expansive and dangerous toys.
But honestly that's all just ingame justification while the real reason is GAMEPLAY!
-
When i was working on a pre-FS1 mod(the one that discovered the unfixeable red alert bug), them first i trough that FS1 was just never intended for anything pre-Shivans, the warships are no balanced, The Orion can single handely murder 2 Typhons, maybe even 3, the Aten never has a chance aganist a Fenris, as its missile battery gives them way too much advantage, not to mention the Leviathan...
Them i finally discovered whats up, the Vasudans have fighter-bomber superiority, and that considering the GTA has the Apollo, Angel, Athena and Medusa in-service (using maybe Phoenix 4 as bombs), the Vasudan idea was just to swarm the area with both cheap things (Anubis), bomber killer things (Horus), deadly things (Seth), really deadly things (Osiris), and ugly-hard to kill things (Amun) maybe thats why the Typhoon has 2 hangars, even considering the Vasudans have no bombs, Furys are effective, and cheap too. And Fenris and Leviathans can turn easily a battle, both of them are deadly, from, the Vasudan POV the Fenris must be killed ASAP, as it can close distance fast and start shooting missiles, and the Leviathan is just overkill, it can kill a Typhon.
The only deveploments after the Shivans are the Ursa, Ulysses, Hercules and Thoth, and all the weapons, but you can guess that the Medusa and the Amun where using some kind of bomb (maybe a slower and interceptable version of the Phoenix V), and the GTA probably had a slower and less acurate version of the Interceptor, both of them replaced before player had access. Having those limited weapons is what make bombers no that affective as they are when the Phoenix V and Tsunamis become avalible.
The result is a really more balanced battle, and a hard one for GTA pilots. There is not much point in more AA defenses as the idea is to kill big things, without shields, the laser turrets somewhat usefull, fighters must do the rest. Under all those conditions if you improve AA defenses, the GTA cant be beaten, pure and simple, the GTA Warships have way too much firepower, you just need to check the number and strength of turrets on a Typhon and on a Orion, a Aten, then a Fenris, the GTA is determined to kill capital ships fast, and the Vasudan to hold them off long enoght for their pilots to give them a edge.
Even a Fenris can kill a Typhon if it can survive long enoght to disarm the turrets, and thats the main problem of Vasudan warships.
-
Them i finally discovered whats up, the Vasudans have fighter-bomber superiority, and that considering the GTA has the Apollo, Angel, Athena and Medusa in-service
Again, the Medusa was described as "new" in La Ruota della Fortuna (http://www.hard-light.net/wiki/index.php/Briefing_texts_(FS1)#La_Ruota_Della_Fortuna). Same arguments as before, but I've excluded it from Frontlines for that very reason.
I pretty much agree with the rest of your post - the Aten is rubbish, and I'm just assuming that the Typhon's canon badassness is purely the result of its fighterbays, since you're right, one on one it's nothing special. The Amun is a real beast without shields thanks to its turrets, more like a little gunship than a pure bomber.
In terms of weapons, I've had to make some up to make it work, and use all of the port ones for the Zods.
-
The Herc and Medusa are in the Intro after all, its probably they where deployed in small numbers to special units, just like the Erinyes on FS2, especially the Herc seems to be tailored to kill Vasudan bombers.
The Medusa is pointless without a better bomb anyway, so its likely they where testing bombs or using pre-production version of Tsunamis.
What i did in that time, is take the Phoenix V, make it 50% slower, flag it as bomb, name it "Phoenix IV" and put them on Athenas, it works really well, so well that i had to reduce the damage, and did the same with the Interceptor and placed them on Apollos, it worked quite right for anti-bomber duty.
The Medusa is pointless because the Athena will do a better job.
Them i took the Fury, i make it slower with less firing rate, flag as bomb and slightly more damage, placed them on Amuns, and i let the standart Furys to Osiris.
They work quite right, battles last longer and are harder for player, increasing AA is just no needed.
-
Nice concepts for pre-FS1, but the discussion started about the post great war era between FS1 and FS2. You could say it's theorizing about potential stop-gap solutions (or alternate timeline) for the time between the end of FS1 and the time when beams (particularly AAA variants) and FLAKs saw wide-spread employment.
-
You need to understand the pre-FS1 and what happened on FS1 first, Vasudans are likely to stick with their "fighters first" doctrine, notice how both Vasudan destroyers have both, 2 Hangars, so they are likely to not bother with AAA for a while, but rather focus on weapons for small ships and anti-capital.
Lets look at the FS2 ships that lacks some weapons
Aten - AAAF
Mentu - AAAF/Flak
Fenris/Lev - AAAF
Orion - AAAF
Its hard to guess, but i think the description of the Mentu is wrong, the Flak is proyectile based, so its likely hard to implement on small ships prepared to use energy weapons, you need room to store the ammo, extra crew, a good transportation system, etc, so i think the Mentu was meant to say it was prepared to use the new flaks, not beams.
Also the anti-capital beams are diferent from terran and Vasudans, so that likely suggest they where developted by both groups on their own, before the GTVA was formed, likely from what each other could salvage from the Hades or Intel on the Lucifer, and its likely they focused on that first.
Flaks and AAAf are likely a join development, if the question is what came first, thats easy, the AAAf, the flaks are only present on new ships, except for the Typhoon, that may also suggest that the developement started by the Vasudan, But the anti-capital beams are likely to come first, it makes sence to give that the highest priority of all, and also makes sence that AAAF come before flak if that happened.
-
Why would the factions stick with doctrnes that are clearly outdated due to new enemies and technologies?
They might stick with them, but a complete change in dorctrine and ship design would be well justified as well, if the author wants to do that.
Just look at the concept of massive battleships in the real world. After the advent of submariens and air combat, no military stuck with those. Instead they build smaller warships and carriers. Or if you go further back, you'll find similar situations with cavalry against machine guns or knights against longbowmen. Stick with the outdated weapons and technologies and you're just wasting your military strength.
In the military tradition has a room in the ceremonies, but not in the tactics and developement.
-
Actually 2 doctrines works really when when you work as 1, both groups seems to have stick with their original doctrines on FS2, but they are now working as 1 to cover their weak spots.
All FS2 ships seems to have been created with the idea of doing diferent jobs working as 1, but they still inspired by they original doctrine, the Vasudans still seems to be commited to swarm the area with fighters and bombers and the Terrans seems to be commited to have the best anti-capital firepower, just look at the Orion, Fenris/Lev, Aeolus, Deimos, some of the Vasudans ships does not have anti-capital weapons at all, like the Aten and the Mentu. Even the GTM Hippocrates has a anti-capital weapon, its highly weak, but somewhat effective is they move in convoys.
The only weird thing is the Hecate, i think someone removed a bgreen of it and weak it for plot reasons.
If we back to the original question, i think anti-capital beams come up first, they are the only weapon that are diferent, look diferent and work diferent, those have to be developed before the GTVA was formed, along with the Subach HL-7, anti-capital was the weak thing on FS1 for both groups, and it make sence, all other weapons in game are the same for both, so they at least where developed with the idea of being used on both groups.
Them what come up first, if the AAAF or the flaks, it definately the AAAF, the flak is only on new ships except for the Typhoon, the flak maybe have come first as a tecnology, but it may needed new ships to be designed with the idea of having them, reemplacing a energy weapon, for another energy weapon is easy as long it have enoght power, reemplacing a energy weapon for a proyectile weapon is not that easy. It does not mean they cant modify 1 ship to act as a platform for testing.
-
FS1 weapon and ship development throughout the campaign makes no bloody sense whatsoever. Anyone who intends to improve on that front, should ditch canonical setting entirely and just go with vast array of different kinds of weapons for both caps and fighters right from the start.
Beginning of FS1 campaign makes it look as if there has been very little weapon and ship development throughout the 14-year war, in weapons department in particular. And when Shivans suddenly appear, we start getting all kinds of weapons and ships out of bloody nowhere. FS1 entirely ignores the time needed for R&D, manufacturing and deployment.
Meh, best to ignore that **** entirely.
-
FS1 entirely ignores the time needed for R&D, manufacturing and deployment.
This has always been the most ridiculous thing about FS1 to me.
-
... the Vasudans still seems to be commited to swarm the area with fighters and bombers and the Terrans seems to be commited to have the best anti-capital firepower, just look at the Orion, Fenris/Lev, Aeolus, Deimos, some of the Vasudans ships does not have anti-capital weapons at all ...
Not 100% with you on that. The Orion fit the bill alright, but the Hecate is weird anyway, the most of the Levi's firepower comes from the Fusion Mortar rather than the beam, the Aeolus feels more like an anti-fighter boat with marginal anti-capital firepower. The Deimos is a jack of all trades, packing both powerful anti-fighter defence and decent capship beams with excellent coverage. On the other hand, the Sobek seems more dedicated to heavy anti-ship duty, beating the Deimos in that role by a fair margin, especially when facing a single target, while the Hatshepsut packs some serious punch on its dorsal side.
But yeah, the Aten's an even worse piece of junk than the Fenris and the Mentu is a damage sponge with decent anti-fighter firepower. Not sure how to classify the Typhon or the Mjolnirs. The medical frigate is disqualified for not making sense :P
-
The intention counts more, i really think someone decided to nerf Terran turrets for plot reasons at last moment, leaving a lot of noncensical things. The Typhoon was always a carrier with moderate firepower, and it still is, the Hatshepsut is just the best, it has both a lot of firepower and its still a big carrier, it has 2 hangars, its really a nice reeplacement of the Typhoon, because its still a carrier with improved firepower.
The Hecate is what does not make any sence, and because it shows up in the plot i think it really got hit with the nerf hammer taking all ships that share the turrets with him, as a carrier it does not come close to the Vasudan destroyers, and as anti-capital is not better than the Orion, it may be intended as AA Destroyer with those heavy and long range flaks, but as such is not reeplacement to the Orion at all.
It is possible that the Hecate and the Aeolus where Terran responses to the lack of AA defenses and the Sobek the Vasudan response to the lack of anti-capital firepower. The Hatshepsut is a improved Typhoon carrier with good firepower.
The GTM Hippocrates, belive or not, can help a lot to even the odds on convoy escort or evacuation efforts in hostile enviroment, 3 Hippocrates can kill a Cain + 4 Maras, the slash work quite good in disarming the target and those AAAF helps with the fighters. Even if they dont kill the target, there is a chance that the slash will disarm them, especially if we are talking about the Cain/Lilith, allowing them to escape.
It also help to complement the limited firing arcs of ships like the Fenris that are used as escorts.
About FS1 R&D, guys the Terran and Vasudans has been in war for a long time already, ALL tech that arrived after the Shivans was already in development by that time, the Uly is the only exception, and there is not evidence to the contrary, in some cases there is a chance the ships or weapons where deployed in small numers to special units, much like the Erinyes on FS2. It makes more sence that FS2 developing an AWACS and tags in a week.
-
Nope, Synaptic wasn't available until the Shivans turned up, where it was explicitly called "new":
New Technologies: Hercules Fighter and Synaptic Cluster Bomb.
I am pleased to announce we have two new weapons to use against the Shivans, the Hercules Heavy Assault Fighter, and the Synaptic cluster bomb. You may study these in the Tech Room. They will prove very useful.
There are arguments to be made (It may have been new to the Galatea or whatever), but it almost certainly wasn't around for the TV War, when these capships were designed. The GTA probably had some kind of bomb, but we don't see it in FS1.
Good catch, didn't recall that briefing.
The description does say "target" and "ship" and not "targets" and "ships". The whole text seems to be hinting that the bomblets are there to make sure one ship gets hit in several weaker armored areas.
Only the last sentence suggests to use it against fighters.
Perhaps the Synaptic is "new to use against the Shivans", as in it was in use earlier, but the player's squadron didn't get its hands on them to use them against the Shivans prior to that...?
It also happens to be GTM-1 (however the -numbers don't always make sense when reviewing the briefings)...
Then there's the Fusion Mortar. Would the GTB Athena fit those? I don't really have FS 2 installed on my laptop, so I can't do experiments to check now.
Perhaps this was the bomber's main weapon for killing big ships in the age before shields (and the ability to survive shockwaves intact).
The Vasudans and their bigger bombers would then use the harder hitting Flux Cannon shells...
-
FS1 entirely ignores the time needed for R&D, manufacturing and deployment.
It's not clear that it does. The GTA has obviously been working on new equipment, as some of it is stated to predate the Shivans. This could simply be a cyclical upgrade for much of it.
-
In terms of definatly developed once the great war begins
T-V co-op: Uly, thoth, Interceptor
Shivan Based: Shields, Fighter scale inter system jump drives
The interceptor and inter system drives i can understand a quick turnaround on.
For the Interceptor nothing new was really developed, there would be time taken to calibrate the control systems for the new engine but I expect this would be a fairly trivial matter.
On the subspace drives would have probably have been in development anyway due to it's tactical significance so having the shivan data would serve to accelerate the process.
Shields, I would expect to have taken longer than depicted due to the need to reverse engineer the technology from scratch
Uly/Thoth on the other hand I feel realistically would not have been developed during the war, the sense I get is that the Great war takes place over a matter of upto a few months, perhaps 2 -4 tops.
-
Uly/Thoth on the other hand I feel realistically would not have been developed during the war, the sense I get is that the Great war takes place over a matter of upto a few months, perhaps 2 -4 tops.
From what I remember, the Great War proper takes place over 3 months. You can tell from the dates on the mission briefings and a few other sources. The attack on Ross 128 happened on Jan. 7th. The Lucifer was destroyed March 29th. It is unclear from Silent Threat when the Shivans were finally "defeated", since you never do get around to finishing them off, I believe. The Hades Rebellion itself ends on June 1st. So less than five months from Ross 128 to the end of the conflict.
-
Uly/Thoth on the other hand I feel realistically would not have been developed during the war, the sense I get is that the Great war takes place over a matter of upto a few months, perhaps 2 -4 tops.
I'd expect that a new spaceship would be created in just as much time as we need to model one and convert it into FS SCP.
The game does take place in the future, and designing a simple machine and 3D printing the prototype takes a couple days tops today.
I'd expect components to be engineered in days, assemblies in a few more days, and within a couple weeks the first 100 prototypes were already taken apart and rebuilt several times to find bugs and kill 'em.
-
certainly a possibility for an optimal design/build cycle, but it still doesn't sit right with me
-
Necessity is the mother of invention. The Terran-Vasudan war had been ongoing for fourteen years with neither side gaining a decisive edge during that time (that we know of). It's not out of line to think that both sides had settled into a more-or-less comfortable stalemate while developing new weapons and fighters in preparation for an ultimate showdown of ultimate destiny. The GTW Avenger had presumably been in development for some time before the arrival of the Shivans. And when the Shivans did come, the stakes changed from simply "winning a war" to "survival of two sentient species," which I think is motivation enough to speed up research and development of projects already on the drawing board. Political, bureaucratic, and economic considerations are meaningless if one is not alive to deal with them.
-
I remember the :v: FRED tutorial said something about the Orion needing two years or so to build.
-
It only makes sense when you consider game mechanics. Nothing else. Remember - until FS2 no game had EVER made its capships a threat. That was the biggest gameplay selling point.
Also consider the mathematical nightmare of balancing shieldless and shielded combat.
To make TV war era weapons and capships feel right, use the armor tbms to seperate out the different ship types by scale. This means you can put fighter dps level weapons in turrets without breaking cap ship combat.
You don't even need new weapon design. I seperated the ships by type and the capship blobs into normal, impact and siege. Further with FSOpens tbl and tbms it makes sense to make them look stronger which gives the capships more character too.
-
It only makes sense when you consider game mechanics. Nothing else. Remember - until FS2 no game had EVER made its capships a threat.
Um... define threat.
Here, watch someone slowly get broken by one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGAelrZ3980#t=6m53s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PBmCyz3PlA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wk_oeP2EhV0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EzYYYn-7mk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJ1DUnCJthA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=olfFa42-dKs
A few minutes will suffice to show you it's a threat, but near an hour will be required to watch the breaking down process of this player.
But don't rely on that guy for an opinion of the game. He doesn't know how to play the game properly, and it's funny! :D
It's Colony Wars! First Axem thought there were no beam games before FS and I showed him he was wrong. Now Colony Wars rises again! :lol:
-
I split out all the fun Star Wars wankery to here (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=85386.0), so have at thee!