SEV discussion: Mines

[JLS]

Originally posted by Grand Lord Vito:
Thats all you have to is put up a fast mine field in se4 and that should stop the AI cold

I know this is about se5 mines; however, GLV.
If you use the se4 TDM AI (extra mine sweeper class ) and only place your fields at the warp points and (try) to reframe from a desperate Planet mine launch against the AI Fleets - mines are fun.

-- --

Originally posted by Suicide Junkie:
Yes, mines should definitely do the damage type listed, and not have automatic shield-skipping.

AGREED

Perhaps not both armor and shields at the same time: for general AI design concerns - but certainly the (Highest defensive value) of at least one or the other

= = = = = = = = = =

I like most of Arkcon se5 ideas posted here - June 18, 2004 08:10 PM

[ June 20, 2004, 15:49: Message edited by: JLS ]

[Fyron]

Originally posted by aiken:
Imo, the easiest way to fix minesweeping for se5 is to use ability Can sweep N kt of mines per use., instead of current Can sweep N mine per use.

Even better, have the minesweepers do actual damage to the mines. Then, you can add armor (or even maneuvering thrusters if you want to make it abstract) to the mines to get better protection against sweeping at the expensive of payload. A good alternative to spamming the fields with small mines with only a single warhead, if you ask me. Also, it does not increase the micromanagement very much at all, as the only change in practice would be in how you design your mines in the first place.

[ June 20, 2004, 19:39: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

[primitive]

Originally posted by Suicide Junkie:
Yes, mines should definitely do the damage type listed, and not have automatic shield-skipping.

Nah (shield-skipping),
If Aaron keeps the random ship damage introduced in 1.91 it will be way too easy to just steam straight through a minefield as soon as you have a decent sized fleet (as you can with organic armored ships now). Of course you can ballance that with bigger warheads, but then again you might make the early stray fields too powerfull. I kinda like it as it is as it helps making armor (even the regular one) a viable alternative to shields.

[Suicide Junkie]

Originally posted by primitive:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Suicide Junkie:
Yes, mines should definitely do the damage type listed, and not have automatic shield-skipping.

Nah (shield-skipping),
If Aaron keeps the random ship damage introduced in 1.91 it will be way too easy to just steam straight through a minefield as soon as you have a decent sized fleet (as you can with organic armored ships now). Of course you can ballance that with bigger warheads, but then again you might make the early stray fields too powerfull. I kinda like it as it is as it helps making armor (even the regular one) a viable alternative to shields.

---

Perhaps you misunderstand me.
I still think stock mines should use the shield skipping damage type.

HOWEVER, the mines should not be shield skipping if their damage type is changed to "normal"

[sachmo]

The purpose of earth bound mines is to slow down an enemies advance.

I agree with the stop movement policy. Toning down the damage would be my vote.

[JLS]

Originally posted by sachmo:

The purpose of earth bound mines is to slow down an enemies advance.

For se5 agreed. would like the AI to defend itself, however.

I agree with the stop movement policy. Toning down the damage would be my vote.

I am unsure of the stop movement policy taking a mass root - there must be better options?

SJ has toned the se4 mines down effectivly and they work fine I would like to see this in se5 stock.

[ June 21, 2004, 15:41: Message edited by: JLS ]

[Chronon]

I have to agree with those who have argued that mines' usual military purpose is to slow down the enemy rather than destroy the enemy. Of course, space-borne mines may be a completely different thing than our present earth-bound mines, but I think the basic principle would probably still be the same. So, I think some kind of a movement penalty should be applied whenever a fleet hits a minefield that's not completely swept. Perhaps it should be related to the number of mines in the field. Something like for every 10 mines in the field the fleet loses a movement point.

I like alot of the ideas proposed here about minesweeping and random damage.

But, I also agree with Primitive that gameplay should be the primary concern for SE5. One of my biggest irritations in SE4 is mines (fighters and satellites are right up there, too). Unless there is a good (perhaps script it yourself?) minister for mines, in my view, the micromanagement involved in them really detracts from the flow of the game.

So, I hope they are kept as simple as possible from a usage standpoint. I would much rather design and build a fleet of my latest battlecruisers than fiddle with 100 mines at every warp point.