Redesigning Weapons

Fyron · Galactic Guru Joined: Aug 04, 2003 Location: CA, USA

After reviewing the weapons of the mod, I have come to the conclusion that different paradigms aren't all that different. There are minor differences, but they are just details.

To remedy this, I am contemplating starting over on all of the weapons. Each paradigm will have some non-autofire PD weapons and 10 other weapons. These 10 weapons will include every ship weapon, from beams to missiles to special damage types. The weapons will all be, say, 500 kT, with mounts providing a variety of scaled options. Each weapon will have 15 levels, split into groups of 3: a low tech version requiring almost no theoretical techs, a medium tech version requiring moderate theoretical techs (and the low tech version), and a high tech version.

Each paradigm should have some general theme to their weaponry. For example, organic races might focus on short ranged claw weapons and missiles. Energy races might focus on long range beams (where long range is going to be about 8 or so, with more weapons limited to ranges like 3 and 5, especially in the early game).

This system should hopefully make the weapon selection of each paradigm unique, thus creating different strengths and weaknesses.

What do you think?

What weapons would you assign to a paradigm, and why?

CapnKy · Space Emperor Joined: Jan 01, 2005

Organics;
Powerful claw attacks, grapple(tractor beam) attacks, and direct-fire spikes.

It makes sense that Organic races would have tentacle-based attacks that could grab and pull an enemy towards them, or short-range 'claws' that can shear through anything. They probably wouldn't have long-range weapons.

~~

Energy;
Beam and bolt weapons all the way. No seekers.

Makes sense, don't it?

~~

Machine;
Kinetic Direct-Fire, Energy Beam & Seekers. High waste. High power, high size.

Can't get too creative here.

~~

Magic;
Lots of fast-moving 'bolt' projectiles.

Lightning bolts, fireballs, you name it. Maybe not seekers though.

~~

Standard;
Kinetic DF, Energy Beam/Bolt, Seekers

Similar to machine, but less efficient on size and damage. Better supply use.

CaptainKwok · Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2006 8:54 pm Post subject:

*sigh*

Why make them all have 10 weapons, 15 levels, 3 types etc? Don't you realize that won't solve the fact that they'll basically be the same but only different in the damage types they use?

Mix it up, give some paradigms more variety, make wierd number of tech levels for some and make some have lots of versions and others only one. You're skilled enough that you can balance it nicely.

douglas · Space Emperor Joined: Mar 25, 2005

Organic:
Strengths: very short range but high damage direct-fire (claws, tentacles, etc.), long range seekers (launching swarms of small autonomous creatures), auto-firing short range PD (big creatures surrounded by swarm of tiny ones that independently intercept incoming fire)
Weaknesses: long range direct fire (damage at range depends on chemicals much more than raw kinetic impact, and acid globules etc. tend to disperse or freeze as they travel), shield damaging weapons (damage depends on matter-matter interactions that don't come into play with shields)

Energy:
Strengths: long range direct fire with damage not affected by range (ability to generate coherent energy beams with practically no dispersion), shield damaging weapons (intimately familiar with energy fields and how to disrupt them), high damage-per-shot but slow firing weapons (ability to pour pretty much all energy available into a single shot instantly with negligible loss)
Weaknesses: no seekers (projectiles have so little mass that even the tiniest push sends them going fast enough to be direct fire)

Machine:
Strengths: hull damaging weapons (high damage to hull, normal to shields, great at wrecking things but merely average at penetrating energy shields), "efficient" weapons (computerized optimization for high damage rate, low cost, or low supply use), ramming (machines don't hesitate to sacrifice themselves when necessary)
Weaknesses: special damage types (machines favor a straightforward approach)

Magic:
Strengths: high accuracy low damage long range weapons (area effect spells like fireball), very high damage but low accuracy weapons ("save-or-die"), shield damaging weapons (magic is better at manipulating energy than matter)
Weaknesses: high supply use (magic isn't as easy to mass produce as machines)

Physical:
Strengths: Decently good at everything (the baseline for comparison)
Weaknesses: Excellent at nothing (the baseline for comparison)

bearclaw · Space Emperor Joined: Aug 04, 2003 Location: BC, Canada

I, for one, really like the idea of the low tech, mid tech and high tech options relying on theoretical techs to achive.

Fyron · Galactic Guru Joined: Aug 04, 2003 Location: CA, USA

Fulgrymm · Posted: Tue Jan 31, 2006 3:23 am Post subject:

For magic, there could be a "conjuration" aspect that would entail having fighter's as the monsters instead of seekers if people don't like that. It would make a little more sense than having an always moving creature that plows into stuff. Ooh ooh I got it, seekers for magic could be a form of telekinesis like hurling giant rocks or something. And the seeking aspect could be covered by the fact it's controlled by the mind so it goes where you want it to.

CaptainKwok · Posted: Tue Jan 31, 2006 3:45 am Post subject:

I see why you'd want to make it easy and less work, that makes perfect sense. We're all lazy.

The idea of varying the amounts and types of weapons for each paradigm is to make them distinct. I mean isn't that why you've decided to redo this? If you end up making ten types for each race, then you'll end up using all the damage types anyway for each paradigm because it wouldn't make much sense to have weapons with the same types lasting all game. And then every paradigm ends up with the same weapons all over again. Sure maybe the ranges or sizes might differ, but you remove many more avenues of uniqueness that are possible.

And I don't see why weapons can't die off. You'd except some types to be only relevant with low technology and then others to replace them as technology advances. Sure, they'll be a few that might stick around, but it should be an exception and not necessarily the rule.

Pax · Posted: Tue Jan 31, 2006 8:07 am Post subject:

Pax · Posted: Tue Jan 31, 2006 8:18 am Post subject:

CapnKy · Space Emperor Joined: Jan 01, 2005

douglas · Space Emperor Joined: Mar 25, 2005

Fyron · Galactic Guru Joined: Aug 04, 2003 Location: CA, USA

Pax · Posted: Tue Jan 31, 2006 10:52 am Post subject:

Pax · Posted: Tue Jan 31, 2006 11:00 am Post subject:

CapnKy · Space Emperor Joined: Jan 01, 2005

Pax · Posted: Tue Jan 31, 2006 12:21 pm Post subject:

Fyron · Galactic Guru Joined: Aug 04, 2003 Location: CA, USA

Energy races will not have seekers, just beams. I see no need for any "realistic" justification; they are pure fantasy in the first place!

JAFisher44 · Space Emperor Joined: Jun 25, 2005 Location: OR, USA

Black_Knyght · Posted: Wed Feb 01, 2006 5:42 am Post subject:

Just a few bits for thought:

Biologic - Certain plants have an "explosive" seed pod that "detonates" to propel the seed significant distances. Some Eels and other animals generate a "Bio-electric" field for attack or defense. Porcupines and some other animals can propel their quills at a target with tremendous force.

Energy - Any means that can form a ship and direct it can also presumably create a missile/projectile and direct it. Though admittedly beam or pulse weapons would seem much more common. An energy lifeform might favor an energy weapon that efeected energy, such as an EMP weapon.

Mechanical - Sentient, or self-guided, weapons. "Smart Bombs" and their descendents are extremely reasonable. A couple of prime examples: Cylon "fighters" on the new "BSG, the Cardassian missile "Dreadnought" from "ST: Voyager"

Magical - Still working on this one.

Peksa · Space Emperor Joined: May 30, 2005 Location: Finland

If I was an being completely based on energy, I don't think I'd have any problem with manipulating primitive energy shields as I wish. I wonder if making all, or most, of Energy's weapons shield piercing? Missiles could be replaced with very cheap sentient fighters which would ram.

For machines I'd imagine super-accurate firing systems becouse of the immensely powerful calculating capacities. Maybe some kind of precision bombs, beams or pulses with possibility to attack crew, weapons, propulsion, anything. And computer controlled systems should be highly vulnerable to them.

Magicians could use pure force for pulse-weapon replacement. Imagine bolts unscrewing themself for no apparent reason or windows breaking or massive blows to hull with nothing to be seen. What would a being that's in control of matter do? Maybe move ship a few paces left, but leave the crew where it was. I think the weapons should be much more more original than the ones from bulk-fantasy games or books, especially for magical races.

I can imagine a ton of ideas for organic races, but very little for weapons. I imagine organic ships to be one sentient being (or an extension of an overmind), not some piece of organic matter controlled by more sentient pieces of organic matter. Weapons could function as merely extensions of the being, much like our hands are to us. Controlling them would be easy, leading to low supply consumption and moving would be effortless. Maybe it could use claw weapons or just squeeze and twist a ship into useless metal junk or rip it's weapons away. Or have an acid reserves in it's body, which would be quickly emptied, but cause much damage.

Physical races should be much like us, limited in many ways, but more flexible to doing a lot of different kind of things.

Just my 2 cents.

Fyron · Galactic Guru Joined: Aug 04, 2003 Location: CA, USA

"I imagine organic ships to be one sentient being (or an extension of an overmind), not some piece of organic matter controlled by more sentient pieces of organic matter."

I tried to stick with the single, sentient organism idea for Organic ships.

Similarly, machine ships are huge self-automated drones. I think I will put MC computer ability into all of their hulls to prevent the silly psionic crew conversion of a machine... Wink

Organic ships are actually alive, so that doesn't seem to be much of an issue to me.

Rathan · Space Emperor Joined: Jun 07, 2005

ok- this has probably already been decided upon, but I think the machines should have seeker weapons and/ or kamakase fighters as thier primary focus beacuse they would have the experience and capability to make small electronics, tracking systems and AI's that are useful for that sort of thing.

I like Peksa'a ideas for weapons, especially magic's.

Praetorian_Dust · Space Emperor Joined: Feb 28, 2006 Location: Texas, USA

Organic Mostly Claws,Spines,and the such, i think they should have basicly no shields, and very good at close combat and bad at range.

Mechanical Mechanical should be based upon weaponry, and able to "mass-produce" themselves and their soldiers, thus they really don't care about armor and the such. Also it doesn't matter if it is a humanoid mech. (mechanical) or if it is like organic ships, only robotic.

Energy I agree with no seekers, hyped shields, and basicly no fundamental armor. I also agree mostly laser-based weaponry and few or no physical weaponry Ex: DUCs.

Magical Personally i have NO idea WHY a magical race would be in a sci-fi game or mod, its just strange that magic would exist yet other race types wouldn't make use of it. Perhaps magical would change to inter-dimensional Confused

???

Physical Anything goes, should be a balanced group in my opinion, all the normal changed but similiar stock weapons Smile

.

DanaO · Space Emperor Joined: Oct 31, 2005

(Incidentally, I hope there will eventually be at least cosmetically different versions of some of the weapon families for each paradigm. While I understand game balance is a far higher priority, it's still nice to further distinguish races.)

I am assuming the following across-the-board changes to allow for non-autofire point defense weapons:

Seekers have greatly increased defense bonuses and greatly reduced damage resistance.

Specifically anti-seeker weapons, if any, have compensating increases in accuracy and decreases in damage done. They're also generally smaller in size.

Any general weapon which can target seekers will at least have one semi-suitable mount allowing small, slightly-accurate, far weaker (but not shorter-range) "point-defense" versions of that mount to be added to a design. (Design files should make sure any of these get added before the main guns, given that the AI fires weapons in order without much discrimination.)

Combat strategies used by the AI will ensure that some weapon fire is actually directed at seekers if other targets are within range.

As multiplex tracking is suddenly more significant if direct-fire weapons are being split to point-defense, its lowest-level versions will be either built into hulls or be more quickly researchable, and the tech family can go to a higher level.
Counting the various attack types I can think of (and assuming that all paradigms can at least try to do all of them), my take on the inherent tendencies of the paradigms (I am attempting to limit my ideas to what the AI should be able to potentially handle, given that it can be made to build multiple design sizes and types at once for each of the "Default Design Types", despite the scarcity of races who actually do this):

Physical
I assume that this is being used as a baseline.

Direct fire: The usual array of mass drivers, torpedos and beams, with weapon mounts scaling size, power and supply usage in a pretty linear way and also limiting range for beams. Some beam weapons should probably become effective against seekers. The projectiles are good against shields, the beams normal. Average shield and phased shield draining capacity, either in weak and distant "area-effect" fields or at close range. A bit weaker than currently so at bypassing shields/armor, so that other paradigms or subparadigm racial traits can have relatively greater abilities at that without becoming unbalanced.

Seeker: Standard seekers with fewer types, with moderate supply usage. Weapon mounts allow for variable-size "missle bays", inversely relating component size and fire rate (with slight supply penalties for the really small bays). Good damage and average in other respects. Possibly allow for slower armored versions at high tech levels.

Autofire point-defense: The usual turrets, maybe with fire rate reduced to 2 and the component made smaller.

Warhead: Better than average kamikaze capabilities for ships and fighters.

Boarding: Average capabilities on both attack and defense.

Forced ship movement: Average.

Anti-component: I can see these represented as "targeted shots" (average accuracy, good damage against component types which can appear in multiples in a design, low range and one or two shots per battle) or "fields" (good accuracy, range and fire rate, low damage).

Anti-planet: The usual stuff.

Fighters: Baseline.

Troops: Soldiers have good damage, are cheap and very fragile (assaults will be over wth quickly), mechanized have adequate defense and slightly low damage. Average ground combat doctrines (while the AI can't organize specific "assault teams" for transport and assault, it can build the right percentages of "command units" to get an overall benefit from the tech area, especially for planetary defense and occupation).

Mines: Baseline capabilities. Specialized damage type components changed to zero-size one-per-mine items with reduced damage.

Drones: (I assume drones will exist.) Baseline capabilities. Specialized damage types for anti-planet use.
Organic

Direct fire: Accurate, and low-supply use point-blank physical attacks with a range of fire rates and damage scales which should be good for point defense, with weapon mounts scaling size and damage (reducing the fire rate for the larger sizes of weapon). Ranged attacks which, whether projectile or energy based, are slightly inaccurate and pretty expensive supply-wise, with mounts scaling size to damage (and for the largest sizes, options to reduce the fire rate for a reduction in supply usage). Limited and short-range capacity to drain or bypass shields, and bad at bypassing armor.

Seeker: Fragile but evasive seekers with good range and damage. Mounts relate increased supply usage to increased component size to decreased fire rate - these are being spawned rather than carried - at something like a 2-1.5-.75 scale. Damage doesn't increase much with tech level, but their speed and evasion increase. A "destroy armor" seeker with better damage.

Autofire point-defense: Almost nonexistent, but more versatile - physical attacks should be used for most point-defense. Those specialized organs which do exist should provide a pretty effective but ultimately low level of protection against seekers, fighters, satellites and mines (with components providing combinations of those target types).

Warhead: Very good kamikaze capabilities against unshielded targets. Possibly specialized warhead types for fighters to do exotic damage types like "reduce recharge".

Boarding: In general, very good boarding defense but low attack potential. There should be specialized components which allow good takeover capacity but provide severe penalties to ship performance outside of that one field ("mind control parasite" stuff or warriors who need a livable region in the ship). (I don't assume Organic ships won't have a crew, but that's a roleplaying rather than game balance element for the paradigm.)

Forced ship movement: Good ensnaring over a moderate distance with a bad fire rate (if the AI could handle it, I'd make them one-shots). Above to shove ships around at very close range with a decent fire rate. Very low supply usage overall, and small components. Possibly a component comparable to the ensnaring to push or relocate seekers.

Anti-component: Low damage and range, but a good fire rate. In the case of destroying armor, better damage with a lower supply usage.

Anti-planet: Quite effective for everything except doing direct damage to a planet, with mounts allowing for powerful point-blank effects or very weak effects at a very long range (outside of most planetary defenses, and the AI might be trainable to take advantage of this).

Fighters: Fast and agile, with lower damage resistance (assuming regenerating armor is an option for fighters - I can't remember) and somewhat low weapon range and damage. Low supply usage. Organic carriers should probably have component mounts giving an advantage in how many fighters they can hold with a disadvantage to how quickly they can be launched.

Troops: Both soldiers and beasts have low damage but are tough - it's hard to get rid of them once they've infested a planet. Ground combat doctrines aren't good; they offer an advantage to attack or defense with a greater decrease to the other statistic and a planetary morale penalty. (compensating morale bonuses exist but negate both attack and defense).

Mines: Lower damage (compensatively cheaper to build), harder to cloak against anything but EM Passive.

Drones: Specialized damage types for anti-planet use. A bit slow movement-wise, but can be evasive and well-armored.
Magical

Direct fire: Tending towards long range and good accuracy (divination might be a prerequisite for the higher levels of all weapon families to allow for the special targeting techniques which cause this effect), but a touch low on damage. Weapon mounts allow either accuracy to be increased further with size (making the range more useful) with a relatively low damage increase, or reduce the firing rate and increase supply usage to increase damage. Very little here which can be used against seekers, but the "area effect" stuff is good against fighters. Good options to drain shields at range with small component sizes. Limited but ranged ability to bypass both regular and phased shields, unusually reliable (but otherwise less than great) ability to do damage at moderate ranges bypassing shields and/or armor.

Seeker: Small components (possibly with a maximum per design) which generate fast, long-range and evasive seekers with low damage and a minimum range. High supply cost, reducable through mounts which also reduce the fire rate. Options for shielding on the seekers (if possible) and seekers with exotic damage types (including draining shielding and bypassing armor).

Autofire point-defense: Mostly in the form of specialized seekers (like the current Illusion Mephit) and powerful with good range within those limits (spells and counterspells with a noticeable casting time). Expensive in terms of supply usage.

Warhead: Almost nonexistent at base. Subparadigms like Necromancy might provide some useful capabilities.

Boarding: Poor in general. What takeover capacity Magical races have is generally done at range and subparadigm (Psychic, Illusion...) based.

Forced ship movement: Individually weak effects with slightly bad fire rates, but extreme range-per-component-size ratio and low supply cost, which means the effects will tend to be cumulative for fleets. Possibly components which can target seekers.

Anti-component: Somewhat high damage, quite good range (with a significant minimum range), one- or two-shot fire rate, small component size (with a maximum per-design number), and indifferent accuracy (taking the usable range into account determining this). These are curses; sometimes they work, sometimes not at all... but when they work, they work very well indeed - and it should be possible for most ships regardless of type to carry one or two of them.

Anti-planet: Uniformly weak effects, but good range - siege should be a possibility.

Fighters: Shieldable; a touch slow and weak with weapon ranges which make up for it. Not very intrinsically evasive or tough. Magical carriers have a component option allowing for "summoning" rather than carrying the astral monsters - this drastically increases supply usage to launch them (if possible) but provides significant (and extradimensional) cargo space within the portal component. The conventional alternative allows for more monsters to be launched per combat turn. This makes non-Carrier carriers a bit more interesting.

Troops: Average soldier and monster damage, with them being a touch fragile. Strong ground combat doctrine, especially with subparadigms.

Mines: Strong in the area of specialized damage and capable of being specialized against shields or armor. A specialized hull exists with the right theoretical techs which allows for a mine to be a "pure spell" with no material object, weakening it and raising its resource cost but decreasing its "mass" (more per shipload) and letting it store an impressive array of potential cloaking components (which are available rather earlier than their counterparts for mines or ships in general).

Drones: Weak and fragile but fast and evasive, and "pure spell" hulls exist for these too, with the same benefits.

Satellites: Again, a "pure spell" option. With spirits onboard to harvest resources, these could be... interesting, especially for nomadical races.
Machine
I'll admit I can't offhandedly think of any good differences for the types of weapons that Machine and Physical Races would use (unless you subscribe to the theory that a given pe