Questions about torpedoes

Baron Munchausen · #1 January 8th, 2001, 07:08 AM

I think a 'torpedo' in space wargame terms is just a very fast seeker that doesn't stay around long enough to need representation on the combat grid like slower seekers. I suppose that some types of torpedos ought to be able to target smaller vehicles like fighters and satellites, but some should not. This would depend not only on the tracking technology it used but also the warhead. Some torpedos might be designed as "proximity" weapons as some have suggested, while others might be armor piercing and require a large, hard target to detonate properly. Unfortunately, there's not much variation in damage types available in SE right now. You've got 'normal' damage, the TDB "Quad damage to Shields" that also does normal damage, shields only, and a few "special" damage types that hit only one particular sort of component. There's not a lot of variety in types of "regular" damage. So, I guess you have to 'wing it' and just give certain torpedos the ability to hit smaller vehicles with a made-up technical explanation.

[This message has been edited by Baron Munchausen (edited 08 January 2001).]

Emperor Zodd · #2 January 8th, 2001, 07:14 AM

I think weapons should have a different affect(damage amount and hit %) for different targets(planets,ships,fighters) instead of just one. Less effect against multiple fighters.
This would put more emphasis on using Dog Fighters and point defense weapons.
Plus we might get a new class of wide beam or energy burst weapons that can be used against fighters, and to lesser affect against ships.
That's what I love about the open architecture of this game.

Emperor Zodd · #3 January 8th, 2001, 07:42 AM

I have given it some thought. I suppose torps are very fast seekers in this game(so I wont change them to use them against fighter Groups) . Other seekers are very accurate. Torps are very fast but not accurate like other seekers and have a short range. They also only fire every other round. I feel they need something extra. I feel they need to be more accurate than they are.
Why should I use a big torpedo system over two smaller beam weapons that can fire every round and at greater range and same fire power,plus can target fighters and sats!?
I suggest raising their weapon modifier at least what a Wave motion gun and High energy magnifier is(30),or higher. I am going to put them at 50 and see how they do. This will give me a reason to maybe employ them on my ships.

What do you guys think?

Baron Munchausen · #4 January 8th, 2001, 07:58 AM

quote:
Originally posted by Emperor Zodd:
I have given it some thought. I suppose torps are very fast seekers in this game(so I wont change them to use them against fighter Groups) . Other seekers are very accurate. Torps are very fast but not accurate like other seekers and have a short range. They also only fire every other round. I feel they need something extra. I feel they need to be more accurate than they are.
Why should I use a big torpedo system over two smaller beam weapons that can fire every round and at greater range and same fire power,plus can target fighters and sats!?
I suggest raising their weapon modifier at least what a Wave motion gun and High energy magnifier is(30),or higher. I am going to put them at 50 and see how they do. This will give me a reason to maybe employ them on my ships.

What do you guys think?

I agree that torpedos are too wimpy right now, and there's no good reason to use them, but we have to be careful not to over-compensate. I think that the difference that torpedos ought to have is RANGE. It's not a beam that loses focus over range (thus the damage level stays the same across it's full range), it's a device of some kind. It should be considered "intermediate" between beams and missiles. So, to make torpedos more than an after-thought or second-class weapon, as they currently seem to be, I'd recommend adding some range. Beams top out at 8, so torpedos ought to go somewhere between beams and missiles. I suppose the basic torpedo, like Anti-matter, could go to 8 like a beam, and then the Quantum torp could go to 10 or even 12. This makes the delay in firing worthwhile, like the extreme range of missiles makes the three turn delay worthwhile. If you do this, though, you'd better NOT give a to hit bonus! This idea and the 'to hit' bonus are not compatible. Both together would be much too unbalancing. A torpedo-armed ship could be impossible to defeat if the effects or range were canceled with a bonus.

If some experimentation shows that the range thing makes them too difficult to defeat, the final option is to boost their damage a bit. This is also mutually exclusive with the other options.

[This message has been edited by Baron Munchausen (edited 08 January 2001).]

Daynarr · #5 January 8th, 2001, 08:13 AM

quote:
Originally posted by Emperor Zodd:
I have given it some thought. I suppose torps are very fast seekers in this game(so I wont change them to use them against fighter Groups) . Other seekers are very accurate. Torps are very fast but not accurate like other seekers and have a short range. They also only fire every other round. I feel they need something extra. I feel they need to be more accurate than they are.
Why should I use a big torpedo system over two smaller beam weapons that can fire every round and at greater range and same fire power,plus can target fighters and sats!?
I suggest raising their weapon modifier at least what a Wave motion gun and High energy magnifier is(30),or higher. I am going to put them at 50 and see how they do. This will give me a reason to maybe employ them on my ships.

What do you guys think?

I think 50 is way too much. They have way to much of damage to make them always-hitting weapons. You can put 10 for anti-matter and 20 for quantum torpedoes, or 20-30 if you don't like 10-20. The balance is the issue here, and the fact is that just few races use torpedoes. That would give human too much advantage against AI (it would be like BFG in quake II). Amonkrie would love it, though.

Emperor Zodd · #6 January 8th, 2001, 08:47 AM

Being that they are fast like direct fire weapons means they use their fuel very quick and limit their range.

As they are now they need something a little extra to use them. Either keep their range short and make them more accurate, if we conclude they are fast seekers. Or extend their range out to a maximum of 8 like alot of other weapons and keep their accuracy at 0.
Remember, all weapon systems I believe, lose accuracy for every square on the map that they travel. So using them at a range of 8 would make them less accurate and you would have to wait 2 turns to get another shot off. While Wave motion guns have a 30 weapon modifier.
If they were both at 8, I would choose the torp over the Wave motion.
I think it would be better to not have to choose between the two of them for the best range 8 weapon.
So I think keeping them at their range now,or extending the range a little on the early models only,and increasing their accuracy is the way to go.
This way we can have a long range beam weapon(which can target fighters) and a shorter range torpedo system(which is a little more accurate and powerful against ships)both on your ship for variety(which is fun and gives us a reason to use our multiplex tracking).
Maybe 50 is too high,only point defense are that high. But CSM's seem very high even though their rating is zero.
I will change the weapon modifier for ant-matter torps to 20 and Quantums to 30.

Do you think that sounds fair? And would that make them a more viable weapon choice?
The early models are very short in range,do you guys think they should be increased by one?

[This message has been edited by Emperor Zodd (edited 08 January 2001).]

Daynarr · #7 January 8th, 2001, 09:04 AM

I think you should first go with the increased range (not damage) and then after playtesting add a little bonus (10 for start) and see how they do. Use simulator for that and see how AI handles the modification. In short, you should test all the things you modify to those torpedoes, and combat simulator is perfect for that.