Author Topic: Quick gameplay suggestion/question: making torpedoes dumbfire?  (Read 9616 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Commander Zane

  • 212
  • Spoot Knight of Anvils
Re: Quick gameplay suggestion/question: making torpedoes dumbfire?
To quote our friend General Battuta: OH SWEET JESUS THE SKY IS FULL OF WARHEADS
Sounds like DoS's homage mission to Nemesis.
Not to mention Nemesis itself.

 

Offline Dragon

  • Citation needed
  • 212
  • The sky is the limit.
Re: Quick gameplay suggestion/question: making torpedoes dumbfire?
Bank cooldown still exists whether you have a lock or not.  If you manage to fire two sets of torpedoes by "holding down the trigger a bit too long" I suggest you get your reflexes tested, as the shortest cooldown actual torpedo that I know of is fully twenty seconds (Cyclops).
Note, when I referred to "torpedo or two", I meant that if you're dual-firing the rockets, you'll drop two torps. It's rare to drop two sets of torps like that.

 

Offline crizza

  • 210
Re: Quick gameplay suggestion/question: making torpedoes dumbfire?
Strange and I thought I was smart launching two torpedos, switching the bank, lock on, fire another pair and switch back to the first bank^^
Improved AI now does that, too. Congratulations ! You are now as smart as the FS AI. (j/k)
There are moments when I realy hate you Mat...but then again, you did that HWBP^^

 
Re: Quick gameplay suggestion/question: making torpedoes dumbfire?
The Boanerges SuperBomber bug made Delenda Est unplayable, so I'm speaking from a position of "We know this doesn't work", rather than "This probably won't work". :P

To quote our friend General Battuta: OH SWEET JESUS THE SKY IS FULL OF WARHEADS
I believe that was a bug with artemises in the beginning of the mission.

 
Re: Quick gameplay suggestion/question: making torpedoes dumbfire?
I wouldn't say unbalanced but it changes the balance quite dramatically.

Take Bear Baiting for example.  With dumbfire helos it is fairly easy as you just run up launch, run away and start again, the sitting there waiting adds to the difficulty and acts as a tension device for the story.  You would have to greatly reduce the time the Sath is in the mission before jumping which while not an issue for seasoned players would make the mission much more difficult for newbies.

That's actually a really easy one to fix, and, in my opinion/speculation, make more fun. Add tension and difficulty by simply increasing the Sathanas' fighter escort/screen. After all, Sathanas' are supposed to carry a large contigent of fighters (IIRC). Part of the fun (and tension) is trying to survie the gauntlet while taking out the targets, with your allies assisting you.

As that mission currently is, I despite it utterly. It's not fun whatsoever for me, just incredibly frustrating. The only thing my allies do is distract the enemy fighters; my allied bombers, even when specifically ordered to do so, do not even attack the beam turrets, and my allied fighters won't attack the enemy LR-flak guns when ordered to. In the end, I'm rushing to take out all four turrets by myself...or waiting for that goddamn 30 second cooldown to end so that I can actually deploy the bombs (wow, guess our bomb-deploying technology really regressed from the 1940's B-17's and B-29's...)...or not, because I have to wait ten seconds for the bombs to lock on to the almost-stationary target 10 feet in front of me. "Fun" is the LAST word I would use to describe a bombing mission like that.

The Boanerges SuperBomber bug made Delenda Est unplayable, so I'm speaking from a position of "We know this doesn't work", rather than "This probably won't work". :P

To quote our friend General Battuta: OH SWEET JESUS THE SKY IS FULL OF WARHEADS

That's a false equivalence. The mission was balanced/designed for a specific set of circumstances, and when one of those circumstances is changed in a certain way, of course the balance is going to be screwed up. For one, this isn't "dumb-fire torpedoes are imbalanced", it's "wings of bombers spamming dozens of lock-on torpedoes simultaneously is imbalanced...when your ships have to assault an entire battle group afterwards."

If you want better balance for something like this, I suppose taking a page out of WW2 is a good place to start. The idea is not to make the bombs/torpedoes easy to intercept, but to make the real "battle" be about killing the bombers before they get in range to release their payload, or to harass them enough to force them to deploy their payloads improperly. So, perhaps, slow-moving dumb-fire torpedoes with very fast release-cooldowns--point defenses and fighter screens try to stop incoming bombers from getting in close to deliver their payloads at a close-enough range that the torpedoes can't be effectively intercepted.

I'd say that this would just make AI bombers even more of a pain in escort missions, which is the exact opposite of what anyone wants.  With this, they wouldn't even have to respect the lock-on time, and as soon as they jump in, just start shoveling torpedoes at the nearest capital ship lead indicator.

Unless you apply the rule of realism and internal consistency by:
1) Upping the number of friendly wings/craft escorting your ships, and/or
2) Giving them automatic orders to intercept the enemy bombers/torpedoes.
3) Make allied ships not point-defenseless.
4) Increase the size of torpedoes, up their damage significantly, and limit their deployment to bombers. The end result being that only bombers can carry torpedoes, and only heavy bombers can carry more than one or two (roughly speaking) at a time. Now torpedoes are far more dangerous and dramatic, but also "more bang for your buck" so to speak. Well, you might need to up the torpedo speed a bit, and make sure enemy bomber wings don't jump out right next to your ships.

I'm not entirely sure how that would work out in playtesting, but I think the end result, if possible via tweaking, would be worth it.
« Last Edit: July 29, 2012, 10:05:50 pm by SaltyWaffles »
Delenda Est delenda est.

(Yay gratuitous Latin.)

 
Re: Quick gameplay suggestion/question: making torpedoes dumbfire?
so the main torpedo counter is flak right? would it make sense if a more effective countermeasure was developed against dumbfires? basicly anything that can push and tilt the torp away from its target and harmlessly into space. it would render dumbfires obsolete and require a smart torp to actively pilot itself to the target

 
Re: Quick gameplay suggestion/question: making torpedoes dumbfire?
so the main torpedo counter is flak right? would it make sense if a more effective countermeasure was developed against dumbfires? basicly anything that can push and tilt the torp away from its target and harmlessly into space. it would render dumbfires obsolete and require a smart torp to actively pilot itself to the target
Flak is actually pretty horrible against torpedoes, because it has built-in inaccuracy and torpedoes don't take splash damage. Blob turrets are the best bomb interceptors in the game, surprisingly enough.

 
Re: Quick gameplay suggestion/question: making torpedoes dumbfire?
the problem is point defence is equally effective against smart and dumb. the solution is to devise a defense that is 100% effective against dumbfire to force the opponent to employ expensive smart torps

 
Re: Quick gameplay suggestion/question: making torpedoes dumbfire?
so the main torpedo counter is flak right? would it make sense if a more effective countermeasure was developed against dumbfires? basicly anything that can push and tilt the torp away from its target and harmlessly into space. it would render dumbfires obsolete and require a smart torp to actively pilot itself to the target
Flak is actually pretty horrible against torpedoes, because it has built-in inaccuracy and torpedoes don't take splash damage. Blob turrets are the best bomb interceptors in the game, surprisingly enough.

The irony in it is so amusing, really. "The Orion-class destroyer is a massive capital ship bristling with over two dozen cannons...that are only good as point defense against incoming torpedoes. No, I am not the genius who designed that setup."

the problem is point defence is equally effective against smart and dumb. the solution is to devise a defense that is 100% effective against dumbfire to force the opponent to employ expensive smart torps

What?

Okay...um, I'll try to break this down; sorry if this comes across as incoherent.
1) The only system that would be 100% effective against dumbfire but not smartfire is the ability to dodge the torpedo. Smartfire torpedoes can't maneuver worth a damn anyway, and they're very slow to begin with, so it's entirely moot.
2) If there was a 100% effective defense against torpedoes, you'd see it on every ship. It would be like proposing the notion "if there was a weapon 100% effective against cruisers" or "if there was a missile 100% effective against enemy fighters".
3) Any minor "deficiency" a dumbfire torp has over a smartfire torp is easily made up for by the bomber simply aiming the shot a little better, or getting a little closer (not that using smartfire bombs at longer ranges actually works against anything more than a defenseless target). And by the fact that dumbfire torpedoes don't require 10 seconds of lockon time to hit the side of a barn (or 3 kilometer-long warship, as the case may be) from 10 feet away.
« Last Edit: July 29, 2012, 10:07:13 pm by SaltyWaffles »
Delenda Est delenda est.

(Yay gratuitous Latin.)

 
Re: Quick gameplay suggestion/question: making torpedoes dumbfire?
the concept would be an anti-gravity replusion field or point defence that would effortlessly redirect the dumbfires away from the ship this would be extremely effective against the dumbfires to the point that you would need to spam an ungodly amount of them to do the job of a few smart bombs that can actively pilot themselves toward their targets. really all this is about is writing a wall-o-techno-babble to justify using smart torps with long aim times over dumbfires

 

Offline The E

  • He's Ebeneezer Goode
  • 213
  • Nothing personal, just tech support.
    • Steam
    • Twitter
Re: Quick gameplay suggestion/question: making torpedoes dumbfire?
/MODERATOR POWERS: ENGAGE

Salty: You do know that you can simply edit your posts, right? You do not have to multipost. In fact, unless there's a really good reason for you to do so (Hint: No, there isn't), multiposting is frowned upon. Makes it seem like you want the thread all for yourself.
If I'm just aching this can't go on
I came from chasing dreams to feel alone
There must be changes, miss to feel strong
I really need lifе to touch me
--Evergrey, Where August Mourns

  
Re: Quick gameplay suggestion/question: making torpedoes dumbfire?
/MODERATOR POWERS: ENGAGE

Salty: You do know that you can simply edit your posts, right? You do not have to multipost. In fact, unless there's a really good reason for you to do so (Hint: No, there isn't), multiposting is frowned upon. Makes it seem like you want the thread all for yourself.

Sorry about that. An old bad habit, I guess. I'll be conscious of it from now on. I definitely don't want the thread "all to myself", but you're right. Again, my apologies.


the concept would be an anti-gravity replusion field or point defence that would effortlessly redirect the dumbfires away from the ship this would be extremely effective against the dumbfires to the point that you would need to spam an ungodly amount of them to do the job of a few smart bombs that can actively pilot themselves toward their targets. really all this is about is writing a wall-o-techno-babble to justify using smart torps with long aim times over dumbfires

I don't really think that's realistic, even in FS2 terms. Any kind of defense like that would be either totally impractical or practical enough to make you wonder why it's not used for other purposes. That, and the FS'verse never even hints at anything like that. Further, why doesn't it ever use something like that against my other dumbfire missiles?

As for more specific reasons why it'd be totally impractical (or incredibly broken if otherwise):
1. It would have to be capable of covering most of the ship from almost any angle.
2. It would have to project enough force to knock a large, heavy torpedo travelling at somewhere around 70 meters per second off its course by a major degree.
3. Said force in #2 would have to somehow be incapable of doing the same to a "smartfire" torpedo, except it would have to somehow not be enough force to knock it off course by an even smaller degree (because otherwise the torpedoes would still miss their designated targets).
4. Said defense would have to not be power-intensive.
5. It would have to be completely independent of a turret configuration, because otherwise the ship would be severely lacking in point defense against anything that isn't a torpedo.
6. If it WERE a turret, it would still be far more practical for one or more of the bombers--or their escorts--to use Maxims or Trebuchets to knock out the one or two of these turrets covering the approach in order to launch several times more ordinance on a single pass.
« Last Edit: July 06, 2012, 03:02:10 pm by SaltyWaffles »
Delenda Est delenda est.

(Yay gratuitous Latin.)

 
Re: Quick gameplay suggestion/question: making torpedoes dumbfire?
What BP lore and FS tables seem to imply is that torpedos have such long lock-on rates because they need to calculate optimal damage/focus the blast/whatever, not because they need to plot a trajectory, as evidenced by the $Dinky Explosions of torps and things that can be dumbfired.  As such, if Helioses/Cyclopses were dumbfired, their yields would be significantly reduced/utterly ineffective. 

It doesn't seem that far-fetched if you consider that Helioses are matter/antimatter, and there's bound to be lots of calculations for making that kind of stuff work optimally. 

 
Re: Quick gameplay suggestion/question: making torpedoes dumbfire?
claiming smart torps use directed explosives makes sense

 

Offline Klaustrophobia

  • 210
  • the REAL Nuke of HLP
    • North Carolina Tigers
Re: Quick gameplay suggestion/question: making torpedoes dumbfire?


It doesn't seem that far-fetched if you consider that Helioses are matter/antimatter, and there's bound to be lots of calculations for making that kind of stuff work optimally.

not really.  you just turn off the containment on the anti-matter and it annihilates.  i really don't see where target-specific calculations could possibly be needed.
I like to stare at the sun.

 

Offline Dragon

  • Citation needed
  • 212
  • The sky is the limit.
Re: Quick gameplay suggestion/question: making torpedoes dumbfire?
Like that, you're wasting around 50% of energy, and the rest is applied inefficiently. The best way would be to inject the antimatter into the target's hull, for it to detonate in the most vulnerable layer. Determining this would take a while of scanning, and it'd be different for each part of the ship.

 
Re: Quick gameplay suggestion/question: making torpedoes dumbfire?
Also, keep in mind that in BP lore, warships are full of ECM, internal shielding, active armor, and lots of other stuff bombs have to figure out how to get through. 

 

Offline Sciguy

  • 23
Re: Quick gameplay suggestion/question: making torpedoes dumbfire?
Current AT weapons already have shaped charges to inject High velocity molten metal into the target with the goal of hitting something important.  FS torpedoes will likely do something similar but followed by a burst of antimatter.  The molten metal punches a hole in the hull which is then "filled" with antimatter that explodes, dealing massive internal damage.  The extended lock time probably is calculating the optimal location and angle to direct this charge while simultaneously calibrating for whatever active and passive countermeasures are being used (these calibrations are likely ongoing until the moment it strikes the target).  Also, if there is a local internal subsystem (coolant, water storage, bridge, magazines, etc.) it would be best to direct the explosion towards that as well to maximize damage to the target. 

The problem with dumbfiring these torpedoes is that you might not squarely hit the target.  As long as you don't miss completely you will do some shockwave damage but the impact/armor penetration damage would be affected by the angle of impact.  Additionally, without taking the active armor into account the odds of randomly hitting an important sub-armor system becomes vanishingly small even if you do hit squarely.

That being said I would love to use Dumbfire torpedoes in pretty much any bomber mission in existence (Delenda Est is one of the few that is fairly enjoyable, but you don't primarily use torpedoes).  You have to be 3 feet from the target to hit it anyway and nothing is more annoying than lumbering along in a bomber waiting for a target lock.

 
Re: Quick gameplay suggestion/question: making torpedoes dumbfire?
Current AT weapons already have shaped charges to inject High velocity molten metal into the target with the goal of hitting something important.  FS torpedoes will likely do something similar but followed by a burst of antimatter.  The molten metal punches a hole in the hull which is then "filled" with antimatter that explodes, dealing massive internal damage.  The extended lock time probably is calculating the optimal location and angle to direct this charge while simultaneously calibrating for whatever active and passive countermeasures are being used (these calibrations are likely ongoing until the moment it strikes the target).  Also, if there is a local internal subsystem (coolant, water storage, bridge, magazines, etc.) it would be best to direct the explosion towards that as well to maximize damage to the target. 

The problem with dumbfiring these torpedoes is that you might not squarely hit the target.  As long as you don't miss completely you will do some shockwave damage but the impact/armor penetration damage would be affected by the angle of impact.  Additionally, without taking the active armor into account the odds of randomly hitting an important sub-armor system becomes vanishingly small even if you do hit squarely.

That being said I would love to use Dumbfire torpedoes in pretty much any bomber mission in existence (Delenda Est is one of the few that is fairly enjoyable, but you don't primarily use torpedoes).  You have to be 3 feet from the target to hit it anyway and nothing is more annoying than lumbering along in a bomber waiting for a target lock.

Good points---things I hadn't thought of--but the lore seems to contradict those notions (however much sense they might make in theory). IIRC--so I could be wrong here--the game repeatedly refers to most of the torpedoes as "bombs", and only rarely as "torpedoes".

But further, the shape of the torpedoes themselves--unless made larger for no practical reason whatsoever--are either flat (Cyclops) or dully round (Helios). Armor penetrators don't tend to work well when featuring a wide, dull, round head to punch through armor. Shaped charges (from the ones I've seen/my limited understanding of the principles) are either conical/pointy for the armor penetration aspect, or their intended use is for precise demolitions on unarmored (or lightly armored) targets. Further, when you shoot down a bomb well before it hits its target, it explodes exactly the same way--and with the same force--as it does when it hits its target dead-on. In fact, it's rather telling that these bombs hit their targets perfectly, yet the explosion is still fully spherical and evenly distributed. That's the opposite of a shaped charge or armor penetrating weapon.

Of course, it's all made rather moot by the fact that the ludicrously long aspect-lock and refire times for existing torpedoes makes bombers/torpedoes relatively impractical.

Gameplay-wise, WW2 era bombing dynamics are the most fun for FS-style gameplay and physics, and they aren't ridiculously boring/annoying/frustrating to use.

I actually went and learned some basic modding/tabling myself recently, and made a dumbfire torpedo weapon. While quite unpolished, the overall concept played out very well--they were fun to use and relatively effective while still being relatively balanced. It's like dive-bombing--you burn right for the target, releasing half-a-dozen torpedoes within a few seconds, aiming with your ship and skills, trying to get as close as possible to ensure a hit. They only do damage on impact, and shooting them down is just as easy under similar circumstances (unless the bomber is able to get really close). And while they do great damage against hull, they do poorly against subsystems; this is (in-universe-wise) because the torpedo essentially delivers a well-shaped nuclear blast (technically, three of them in a cascade) that is effectively a tight stream of intense nuclear fire/plasma/concussive force punching straight through the hull. As a result, the internal areas of the ship take severe damage in a long, narrow area, probably slicing through important stuff/power-lines, and making damage-control very difficult. Rather than blowing a wide, shallow crater into a ship's outer hull, it punches right through, long-and-narrow, with intense destruction. Thus, it does major hull damage but poor(er) subsystem damage (the drawback/difficulty not necessarily being so much in damage as difficulty in putting the torpedoes on target--assuming the ship isn't sitting still like an idiot and point-defense isn't slacking off, you're trying to launch a slow, non-maneuverable torpedo into a relatively small, possibly tucked-away area that is moving in multiple directions at a significant fraction of the torpedo's own speed).

Frankly, it just doesn't add up how little damage these massive, insanely-powerful "torpedoes" do in FS2. When three SGreens do more damage than a perfectly-delivered Helios "torpedo", there's a problem. SGreens are very small-scale beams that a Fenris cruiser can easily mount in a tiny space, while the Helios is an anti-capital-ship antimatter bomb larger than some fighters! This is like a few old 5-inch guns with basic HE shells doing more damage (from much farther away) to a battleship than a modern, F-16-sized nuclear torpedo.

Like that, you're wasting around 50% of energy, and the rest is applied inefficiently. The best way would be to inject the antimatter into the target's hull, for it to detonate in the most vulnerable layer. Determining this would take a while of scanning, and it'd be different for each part of the ship.

Except that it A) can only lock onto subsystems (it can't lock on to a huge, flat patch of weak hull), B) doesn't do much damage at all--getting hit by an Apocalypse or Eos torpedo never seems to kill everyone in an entire section of the ship, or disrupt internal systems at all, and the torpedoes still explode in a perfectly spherical and evenly distributed manner when hitting their targets perfectly. In FS2 and BP--IIRC--the kind of damage done by standard torpedoes are like decent punches, not shortswords or daggers straight into the gut/thigh. It hurts, sure, and given enough punches you'd be dead, but the internals remain relatively intact and functional until you're on your last legs.
« Last Edit: July 29, 2012, 10:20:13 pm by SaltyWaffles »
Delenda Est delenda est.

(Yay gratuitous Latin.)

 

Offline niffiwan

  • 211
  • Eluder Class
Re: Quick gameplay suggestion/question: making torpedoes dumbfire?
Frankly, it just doesn't add up how little damage these massive, insanely-powerful "torpedoes" do in FS2. When three SGreens do more damage than a perfectly-delivered Helios "torpedo", there's a problem. SGreens are very small-scale beams that a Fenris cruiser can easily mount in a tiny space, while the Helios is an anti-capital-ship antimatter bomb larger than some fighters! This is like a few old 5-inch guns with basic HE shells doing more damage (from much farther away) to a battleship than a modern, F-16-sized nuclear torpedo.

Eh?  How are you calculating that?  From the wiki tables, the sgreen does 64 dps sustained.  The helios does (to hull) ~226 dps sustained.  The wiki tables don't take into account the fact that any weapon with a shockwave does double the tabled damage to anything they hit, so a dual fired helios does 226 x 2 x 2 = 904 dps sustained, which is better than a single bgreen (880 dps sustained)? 
http://www.hard-light.net/wiki/index.php/Weapon_Comparison_%28FS2%29

And some other random info - the $Dinky Shockwave weapon flags let you have a bomb/torpedo explode with less force if it hasn't "armed" yet.  Simulating a directional/shaped charge would require code updates, the best you could do currently would be to have a very small shockwave so the chances of catching anything else apart from the target in it would be low.  I think you've already done this bit though - and it removes the need for a $Dinky Shockwave anyway.

Actually - just realised that the current bombs *are* effectively a shaped charge, the target takes damage + shockwave damage, a secondary target 1 centimetre away from the impacted target only takes shockwave damage  :D (ignoring the fact that a correctly functioning shaped charge wouldn't have any backblast whatsoever  :nervous:)
Creating a fs2_open.log | Red Alert Bug = Hex Edit | MediaVPs 2014: Bigger HUD gauges | 32bit libs for 64bit Ubuntu
----
Debian Packages (testing/unstable): Freespace2 | wxLauncher
----
m|m: I think I'm suffering from Stockholm syndrome. Bmpman is starting to make sense and it's actually written reasonably well...