Hard Light Productions Forums
General FreeSpace => FreeSpace Discussion => Topic started by: TrashMan on November 17, 2018, 06:53:00 pm
-
In terms of gameplay effect and balance, how well does such a weapon fit in?
A weapon that makes heavy fighters better at bomber intercept/carrier defense than dedicated interceptors?
A weapon who's range makes it so the player doesn't even have to bring himself into harms way to take out bombers?
Does it even fit? Should it even be there?
I know it's modeled after the AIM-54 Phoenix, but there are some BIG differences between real world and it's use in FS. For example:
- in real world, you cannot rearm so quickly and easily. You're supply is very limited
- in the real world, capital ships have long-range missile too, so you cannot snipe their turrets from afar.
- and somewhat of a lesser note, in the real world, not every fighter can carry such a missile to begin with.
Knowing all that, how does one fix it?
Does one give enemies and capital ships similar missiles too?
Does one limit it only to interceptors?
Does one remove it from the game completely?
-
I think it fits rather well....
In gameplay terms, the Treb is to give the player the option to fight at much longer ranges, which transfers in the ability to engage more targets - esspecially in escort situations where you might fight against two wings attacking from opposite sites.
-
The BP approach has been to give warships countermeasures. You could also give Trebs the bomb flag.
-
Knowing all that, how does one fix it?
Does one give enemies and capital ships similar missiles too?
Does one limit it only to interceptors?
Does one remove it from the game completely?
Reduce the subsystem damage to make it not godly against turrets. Gotta disarm turrets? Take the Stiletto II or the Maxim.
-
As an aside, also in the real world, warships have decent countermeasures as well (Phalanx CIWS and others).
-
Personally I like them. Since they are quite large most ships cannot carry that many. Therefore you can't spam them too often, unless you are flying a 'treb truck' with a huge secondary bank like an Ares. They are pretty useless at close range, so if you are planning on using missiles for dog fighting you will only be able to have one bank of them in most cases, as the other bank will need to be filled with harpoons or tornadoes etc.
Ways they could more balanced could include:
Firstly make them interceptable like bombs.
then...
Make bomber's self defence turrets more useful - lower damage per shot, but higher ROF and projectile speed - essentially a bomber grade CWIS.
Better CIWS systems for cap ships. For example: 1- flack that is more accurate, so that the flak shell is more likely to score a direct hit. 2 - Point defence turrets being like Gatling guns as in real world systems, or the PDGs from 'The Expanse'. 3 - Anti-missile launchers similar to the RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile. 4 - Alternate low-power but very short recharge time mode for AAA beams for sniping multiple warheads in quick succession.
More effective Countermeasures for bombers. Perhaps some of the larger ones could have a limited number of sacrificial drones which will 'take the hit' for them?
Greater use of ECM vessels to protect cap ships - If you can't lock on, you can't use them.
Enemy NPCs using them against YOU.
Equip cap ships with treb launchers - if you can terb them, they can treb you!
Make rearming them take longer - perhaps on par with swarm missiles.
As an aside, I have been meaning to ask - How well do NPCs use them, both friendlies and hostiles? Does difficulty level make a difference? Does Fury AI have an effect on them?
-
In retail, the AI cannot use trebs at all IIRC, because of some conflicting table targeting priorities which prevents them from EVER being launched without the mission designer specifically scripting them to be used:
"Despite being one of the most effective anti-bomber/anti-turret weapons in the game, the AI is incapable of firing the Trebuchet. This is because of the combination of the "bomber+" flag and the "huge" flag in the table files. The first restricts the AI to firing the missile only at bombs and bombers, while the second prevents the AI from using it against smaller ships. Since these two types of targets are mutually exclusive, there are no valid targets at which the AI can fire the Trebuchet at. If you wish for AI to use Trebuchets in a mission, use the good-secondary-time SEXP."
This can easily be changed by simply editing the tables or just scripting missions properly so the AI can use them.
The AI (fury AI or not), is incapable of properly avoiding trebuchets at long range, whereas a human player can avoid them quite easily as long as they know the "trick" to doing so and aren't otherwise occupied by say, a swarm of angry fighters on their tail. I find this "imbalance" to be much more of an issue because it's not so easily fixed - the AI will almost always be vulnerable to trebuchet-like missiles because it just doesn't know how to properly evade it, and won't unless someone programs the AI with the proper evasive maneuvers to evade trebs, but then that'd open another whole can of worms in making the AI considerbaly harder to kill with missiles, perhaps to the point of aspect seekers being useless...
I find this "imbalance" the major issue with Trebs, and not how they can harass capital ships with impunity due to outranging them. I don't find that to be a problem at all, seeing as anti-fighter beams are basically pure RNG whether they hit or miss you and completely bypass your shields, outranging them is the only real "skill-based" counterplay, so I think Trebs are fine in their interaction with capital ships and have a very necessary place if the player is ever instructed to engage AAA-beam armed capital ships.
Plus, it's very easy to fix in a mod, between the aforementioned armor.tbl and bomb flags, capital ships just mounting treb-equivalents in return. There are also other ways such as just giving capital ships shields, which may work depending on your setting.
-
Treb subsystem damage is still totally busted. If FS was more balanced you could have the AAA beams with generally lower health and trebs dealing just enough damage to take most of those out, but not enough to just oneshot capital-grade beams too.
I mean, the Trebuchet deals HIGHER subsystem damage than the Stiletto II, a dedicated anti-subsystem missile. It also has higher velocity, longer range, and can't be shot down. And that's not even considering that you can also lob it at strikecraft. And they both have the exact same cargo size of 8, so it's not like you can carry more stils.
So the solution to "fixing" the treb isn't all that easy because FS isn't very balanced, and the treb(or at least something similarly reliable) is kinda necessary to interact with capships. Arguably the treb isn't even the best secondary, the Tempest's DPS is absolutely idiotic.
-
They're super overpowered. The Ravana is supposed to be the biggest threat since the Lucifer until the Sathanas comes along, a single fighter with Trebuchets can render is toothless in about 30 seconds. Its ability to take out fighters and light bombers is also unbelievable, in Argonautica you can rack up as many kills as you like without ever coming within 3km of a hostile.
-
The thing with the Ravana is less about the Trebuchet being overpowered and more of the Ravana's main beams' hitpoints being woefully underpowered.
-
^ It's especially jarring compared to the Demon's big beams that require like 5-6 trebs to take out vs about the same number of Harpoons for the Ravan's.
-
The Ravanas turrets can easily be disabled, with or without Trebuchets (just with them it can be done from 4 or 5 clicks with 1 shot).
-
The Missile is FINE as is. what's wrong in my opinion is the countermeasures not strong enough. It's primary mission is a Bomber destroyer/ cap ship systems destroyer missile. Secondary is taking out fighters and other ships at long range and if it cannot do this, then allot of the FS2 missions will not be able to succeed as designed and would need allot of changed for that.
Just saying :)
-
Personally I like them. Since they are quite large most ships cannot carry that many. Therefore you can't spam them too often, unless you are flying a 'treb truck' with a huge secondary bank like an Ares. They are pretty useless at close range, so if you are planning on using missiles for dog fighting you will only be able to have one bank of them in most cases, as the other bank will need to be filled with harpoons or tornadoes etc.
Ammo capacity is barely a balancing factor. Rearm in FS is so easy that it makes missile ammo capacity almost completely irrelevant. Just ask for rearm, run away from the support ship until you're empty, then just do it again. Missiles are basically infinite.
The only time this isn't the case is in missions that don't let you rearm.
The Missile is FINE as is. what's wrong in my opinion is the countermeasures not strong enough. It's primary mission is a Bomber destroyer/ cap ship systems destroyer missile. Secondary is taking out fighters and other ships at long range and if it cannot do this, then allot of the FS2 missions will not be able to succeed as designed and would need allot of changed for that.
Just saying :)
You don't need trebs to complete any mission in FS2.
-
In retail, the AI cannot use trebs at all IIRC, because of some conflicting table targeting priorities which prevents them from EVER being launched without the mission designer specifically scripting them to be used:
"Despite being one of the most effective anti-bomber/anti-turret weapons in the game, the AI is incapable of firing the Trebuchet. This is because of the combination of the "bomber+" flag and the "huge" flag in the table files. The first restricts the AI to firing the missile only at bombs and bombers, while the second prevents the AI from using it against smaller ships. Since these two types of targets are mutually exclusive, there are no valid targets at which the AI can fire the Trebuchet at. If you wish for AI to use Trebuchets in a mission, use the good-secondary-time SEXP."
This can easily be changed by simply editing the tables or just scripting missions properly so the AI can use them.
For TotT I had to remove both flags in the weapons.tbl, then the AI fired them at some 3.5 km from the targets IIRC.
The AI (fury AI or not), is incapable of properly avoiding trebuchets at long range, whereas a human player can avoid them quite easily as long as they know the "trick" to doing so and aren't otherwise occupied by say, a swarm of angry fighters on their tail. I find this "imbalance" to be much more of an issue because it's not so easily fixed - the AI will almost always be vulnerable to trebuchet-like missiles because it just doesn't know how to properly evade it, and won't unless someone programs the AI with the proper evasive maneuvers to evade trebs, but then that'd open another whole can of worms in making the AI considerbaly harder to kill with missiles, perhaps to the point of aspect seekers being useless...
I know that it's possible to customize countermeasures, I'll be playing around with some options to see if I can get a missile diverged away from its target, so even if the AI fails to dodge, the missile will still be off target when attacking head on.
I find this "imbalance" the major issue with Trebs, and not how they can harass capital ships with impunity due to outranging them. I don't find that to be a problem at all, seeing as anti-fighter beams are basically pure RNG whether they hit or miss you and completely bypass your shields, outranging them is the only real "skill-based" counterplay, so I think Trebs are fine in their interaction with capital ships and have a very necessary place if the player is ever instructed to engage AAA-beam armed capital ships.
Ahhh, skill based beam dodging...
Next time when you see a AAA beam charging go to a 90 deg angle from the upcoming beam and hit afterburners.
When flying perpendicular you get out of the beam, which will not follow your ship during its shot.
If you fly fast enough, you'll be out of it well before it burns out, so most of its damage potential is wasted.
I know it's not a full dodge, but losing 3% of your hull vs 15% on a beam hit makes a big difference fast.
Plus, it's very easy to fix in a mod, between the aforementioned armor.tbl and bomb flags, capital ships just mounting treb-equivalents in return. There are also other ways such as just giving capital ships shields, which may work depending on your setting.
Or issue Trebs in a limited amount of missions.
If the mission involves assaulting a capital ship, Trebuchets don't need to be available, Stiletto's, rockets and conventional bombs can do the job.
If there's a desperate defense, then Alpha Wing could have all the toys in the arsenal, held in reserve just for such situations.
And even then don't issue enough...
Have the player pick between 1 missile haulin' Ares, or maybe having all of Alpha Wing having trebs in one secondary bay of Perseus interceptors, but not all Alpha Wing being Ares missile boats.
Same thing with Kaysers, GTF Erynies and other powerful tools.
-
Tebuchets
hello yes i am t. e. buchet.
-
I know that it's possible to customize countermeasures, I'll be playing around with some options to see if I can get a missile diverged away from its target, so even if the AI fails to dodge, the missile will still be off target when attacking head on.
I experimented with custom CMs. One of my mods had basically inevitable missiles, the only thing you could do was make a difference between shield damage and KO. The trick was that the CMs explode with blast wave, propelling the the forward like an additional AB (albeit drifting).
-
I know that it's possible to customize countermeasures, I'll be playing around with some options to see if I can get a missile diverged away from its target, so even if the AI fails to dodge, the missile will still be off target when attacking head on.
This is impossible in retail because CM's don't actually 'pull' aspect seekers, just make them fly in a straight line - so if the Treb is on target it will remain roughly on target (barring the target's movements in that brief window before impact).
With the options BP added you can make CMs pull aspect seekers.
-
If you ask me all missiles should have the "bomb" flag enabled, i never liked the idea of invulnerable missiles, no matter the type.
The other problem is that turrets are just too good at shooting missiles, this is what makes the Stiletto II worthless and this is true on BP too Battuta, useless it is launched at very very close range.
The Trebs are mostly a "hack" because of V was unable to makes missiles actually evade turret fire.
-
If you ask me all missiles should have the "bomb" flag enabled, i never liked the idea of invulnerable missiles, no matter the type.
https://wiki.hard-light.net/index.php/Weapons.tbl#.22interceptable.22
-
If all missiles could be intercepted then saturation attacks might be the solution to getting through a cap ship's defenses, combined with decoys, radar jamming etc. Pretty much what happens in the real world today.
-
If all missiles could be intercepted then saturation attacks might be the solution to getting through a cap ship's defenses, combined with decoys, radar jamming etc. Pretty much what happens in the real world today.
This guy disagrees:
(https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fnavyrecognition.com%2Fimages%2Fstories%2Fnews%2F2018%2Fmay%2FTwo_Production_Versions_of_LRASM_Scores_Again_in_B-1B_Flight.jpeg&f=1)
-
Trebuchets are not that hard for a player to avoid in most ships.
-
If all missiles could be intercepted then saturation attacks might be the solution to getting through a cap ship's defenses, combined with decoys, radar jamming etc. Pretty much what happens in the real world today.
You would have to mount beams on all turrets. :D
-
If all missiles could be intercepted then saturation attacks might be the solution to getting through a cap ship's defenses, combined with decoys, radar jamming etc. Pretty much what happens in the real world today.
You would have to mount beams on all turrets. :D
You say that like its a bad thing :D
Theoretically you could create a fast firing low power AAA beam for this. Too weak to be of much threat to fighters and bombers, but great at taking out missiles and bombs. Or, you could create a CWIS type turret to achieve the same. Very high RoF, very high projectile velocity, but low damage per shot.
Also anti-missiles. I have had some success using harpoons in single fire mode to shoot down bombs. You could imagine a fast-targeting, fast moving and multi-locking swarm missile would be useful for taking out multiple warheads. These could be mounted both on interceptors and the cap ships themselves. Again, nerf their power against fighters and bombers for balance reasons.
It would be cool if the CWIS, flack and anti-missiles were ammo-limited, and the 'anti-missileAAA' beams RoF has to be scaled back after heavy use due to energy draw and thermal build up. At the start of an engagement the amAAA, CWIS, Flack and anti-missile screen would be almost impenetrable, but as the munitions start to run out the cap ship becomes more vulnerable until it has only the AAA beams are left. These too then start to become less effective as their RoF has to be lowered.
This would make Shivan style multiple bomber waves a viable tactic. The first waves would be expended to use up the defenders munitions, the later waves would then go in for the kill. This would make for an interesting escort mission.
Waves 1-3: Ha that was easy, my cap ship has 'nary a scratch! :cool: Waves 4-6: Ok, this is getting a bit tricky, my cap ship is getting a little beat up :blah: Waves 7-8: Oh crap, my cap ship is getting wrecked :shaking: Wave 9: Noooooo, my cap ship got blown up :eek: :(
-
If all missiles could be intercepted then saturation attacks might be the solution to getting through a cap ship's defenses, combined with decoys, radar jamming etc. Pretty much what happens in the real world today.
This guy disagrees:
(https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fnavyrecognition.com%2Fimages%2Fstories%2Fnews%2F2018%2Fmay%2FTwo_Production_Versions_of_LRASM_Scores_Again_in_B-1B_Flight.jpeg&f=1)
Touché :nod: A stealth torpedo would make for a great new 'wonder weapon' in game, specifically designed to quickly penetrate a cap ship's defences even when they are operating at 100% efficiency (see above). Using one would be awesome, defending a cap ship against one would be nightmare inducing :-)
-
Or you use cruise missiles - fighter sized drones with shields, a big warhead and subspace drive. That's my personal favourite.
-
Or you use cruise missiles - fighter sized drones with shields, a big warhead and subspace drive. That's my personal favourite.
Those too :-)
That could fit well with the above actually.
Side A fields stealth missiles.
Side B then creates enhanced sensors, AWACs etc. to make them targetable.
Side A, realising their stealth edge has been lost, but also realising side A's defences are geared towards defeating small and relatively fragile warheads, decides to use a brute force approach instead. They then field shielded and armoured kamikaze drones with big warheads. Side A's defences have no trouble targeting and hitting the kamikaze drones, but are not able to destroy enough of them quickly enough before they impact. Considering the drone's mass and velocity, even the wreckage hitting the cap ship after the drone has been destroyed would be pretty damaging in of itself.
Side A then gears its defences towards harder hitting, but lower RoF point defences. This is effective against the drones, but is less effective against multiple smaller warheads.
Side B goes back to saturation small warhead tactics.
etc. etc.
-
Then side C comes and opens warp holes with SSMs... inside side A and B. :D
-
Then side C comes and opens warp holes with SSMs... inside side A and B. :D
:lol:
-
Touché :nod: A stealth torpedo would make for a great new 'wonder weapon' in game, specifically designed to quickly penetrate a cap ship's defences even when they are operating at 100% efficiency (see above). Using one would be awesome, defending a cap ship against one would be nightmare inducing :-)
WCS had those. Obviously, they decloaked at intervals so you could shoot them down, otherwise they would be unbeatable. Yes those missions were very tense.
-
Skipper torpedoes?
-
I forget what they were called but that sounds right.
-
Skipper torpedoes?
Yup, and those were arguably even worse in WC3's archaïc flight model.
-
Touché :nod: A stealth torpedo would make for a great new 'wonder weapon' in game, specifically designed to quickly penetrate a cap ship's defences even when they are operating at 100% efficiency (see above). Using one would be awesome, defending a cap ship against one would be nightmare inducing :-)
Y'know after reading that...
I now envision the LRASM dropping a 1000 lb mini-torpedo some 2-3 km from the target.
This is actually technically very doable.
Then side C comes and opens warp holes with SSMs... inside side A and B. :D
Is there any canon game mechanic or story element that allows or prevents such things?
I don't think such cases were ever mentioned.
-
Then side C comes and opens warp holes with SSMs... inside side A and B. :D
Is there any canon game mechanic or story element that allows or prevents such things?
I don't think such cases were ever mentioned.
I don't know- don't think so. Of course you can manipulate where things arrive on story purpose (compare Psamtik near Knossos and Iceni near Knossos had different outcomes), and possibly there's some kind of rule that you can't jump too close to node (Elseway, escort-capship-to-node missions would be pointless). But if you remember the mission where you were supposed to destroy the Iceni, one of the pilots complained that Command had Bosch escape on purpose although they were only a couple kilometers off. Also, Command had planned to attack the Sathanas rear in the nebula with 3 destroyers IIRC, so they must be able to put 3 of them into position without
a- having them in front of the Sath
b- being too far off to be able to use their beams
c- having them crash into each other
d- crash into the Sath
You'd probably require some luck to hit some point inside something the size a Sathanas though.
-
I think Into The Depths Of Hell had a missile that would open up a subspace window when it hits the target, dealing lotsa damage.
Also, if we decided to abandon the old V's approach to ship weaponry and warfare, we would definitely have something much more interesting. Capships would have very fast low-range warhead picking turrets, several powerful main cannons, swarm anti-cap torpedo launchers with additional countermeasures against enemy point defences... Maybe new multilock features could be used on turrets, this way we could use a single turret to launch a swarm of tiny missiles designed to intercept enemy projectiles and/or go for fighters.
-
Then side C comes and opens warp holes with SSMs... inside side A and B. :D
Is there any canon game mechanic or story element that allows or prevents such things?
I don't think such cases were ever mentioned.
I don't know- don't think so. Of course you can manipulate where things arrive on story purpose (compare Psamtik near Knossos and Iceni near Knossos had different outcomes), and possibly there's some kind of rule that you can't jump too close to node (Elseway, escort-capship-to-node missions would be pointless). But if you remember the mission where you were supposed to destroy the Iceni, one of the pilots complained that Command had Bosch escape on purpose although they were only a couple kilometers off. Also, Command had planned to attack the Sathanas rear in the nebula with 3 destroyers IIRC, so they must be able to put 3 of them into position without
a- having them in front of the Sath
b- being too far off to be able to use their beams
c- having them crash into each other
d- crash into the Sath
You'd probably require some luck to hit some point inside something the size a Sathanas though.
Luck - or something on the inside which can be locked on to ;7 Looks like General Battuta has already thought of this http://clarkesworldmagazine.com/dickinson_12_15/
-
IMO one way to balance Trebuchets would be to make them semi-active missiles like the Sparrow rather than fire-and-forget--instead of just lobbing them and moving on to something else, you would have to keep the target within a circle in the middle of the HUD for the missile to track.
-
Then side C comes and opens warp holes with SSMs... inside side A and B. :D
Is there any canon game mechanic or story element that allows or prevents such things?
I don't think such cases were ever mentioned.
I don't know- don't think so. Of course you can manipulate where things arrive on story purpose (compare Psamtik near Knossos and Iceni near Knossos had different outcomes), and possibly there's some kind of rule that you can't jump too close to node (Elseway, escort-capship-to-node missions would be pointless). But if you remember the mission where you were supposed to destroy the Iceni, one of the pilots complained that Command had Bosch escape on purpose although they were only a couple kilometers off. Also, Command had planned to attack the Sathanas rear in the nebula with 3 destroyers IIRC, so they must be able to put 3 of them into position without
a- having them in front of the Sath
b- being too far off to be able to use their beams
c- having them crash into each other
d- crash into the Sath
You'd probably require some luck to hit some point inside something the size a Sathanas though.
You only need precision of several km's to pull that off y'know.
If ships are too far, they can always maneuver into position, IIRC there were quite a few escort missions where the friendly cruiser, corvette or destroyer had to close the distance a bit, not to mention fighters always showing up at the edge of a battlefield and bombers having to go a couple km to get into range of their targets.
I'd say that there is limited precision outside of subspace nodes as to where someone shows up, and subspace missiles warping in inside their target is impossible...
IMO one way to balance Trebuchets would be to make them semi-active missiles like the Sparrow rather than fire-and-forget--instead of just lobbing them and moving on to something else, you would have to keep the target within a circle in the middle of the HUD for the missile to track.
Well the Phoenix (the AIM-54, not the FS 1 Phoenix V) had to be guided to its target for quite a distance before its own radar could actively see it.
Same with AIM-120 and all other missiles that are active radar - they need to have the target illuminated for a while to get to the specific one a pilot wants to shoot at.
They are fire and forget, but if not guided to the target using the airplane's more powerful radar, they'll use only inertial guidance and then will lock on the first thing they manage to detect on their own.