Revamping the Outer Realm

[JohnBWatson]

Re: Aquilas -
I'd go as far as just giving each CSC an aquila, or, you know, giving them something with WMD and a T3 damage type. (I've never seen any use the launcher aside from Terra and Antarctica)

I think that's what the Brits are for. Modern carriers, which CSCs look like they're based on, typically only field point defenses and occasionally missiles. Perhaps a system where a squadron of Britannias is deployed when the target has internal HP? That seems balanced to me.

Waiting until 75% damage is too long.

It's more a last resort than anything else. My TF CSC defense plan consists of the following:

All times:

4x Tev9

7 orbiting Centurions

0 - 2 Aquilae

In combat:

7 Centurions spawn every minute to attack the current target, returning upon its destruction.

In combat with a capital ship:

Deploy 5 Britannias against the current target.

90% health:

7 Aggressive Centurions attack nearby hostiles, returning once the area is clear.

50% health:

5 Britannias attack the current target and return upon its destruction.

25% health:

Aquila sent to reinforce the CSC, departing after 10 minutes.

I would also not disable the aquilas after the antarctica mission. Perhaps deleting extras (in the event a CSC had more than 1 to start).

It's unlikely the player would return to earlier systems for extended periods post - Antarctica, so it's mostly intended as atmospheric, and to show how crippling it is for the Fleet to lose an entire squadron of Aquilae.

[Song]

Hmm. There is a lore problem with having the Aquilae in close co-operation with the carriers all the time. I can't actually say it though. And since it's not in the game.....it can be changed. And definitely if they're in-system, they should be called to assist a carrier in trouble.

Certainly, I'd love to see more of them. Having them as a rare patrol encounter as well would be cool. Or even as another source of fleet missions.

[Aury]

The fleet isn't going to be that dramatically crippled. While the in-game fleet is *hopelessly* outmatched by the Ares and could easily be wiped out of every ingame system were all the in-game ares ships to go on an offensive, the in-lore reality is rather different.

Yes, the fleet is at a disadvantage, but they're not total pushovers either. Well, they're not supposed to be. The game should be balanced to better represent this, rather than engaging in convolution of the story to try to fit poorly balanced ships, which is a defect of the actual in-game execution of the lore, not an intended product of the lore itself.

The aquilas however should ultimately not be used in this capacity [edit - yeah, see shrike's post] I'm treating them largely as a placeholder solution. The carriers shouldn't be so utterly dependent on the Brits. Because...

...Brit's just wont do enough, even if they were buffed like crazy. A Phobos can still easily swat them and then drill quickly through the last bits of structural HP before the aquila even arrives.

Capships and the Capship vs. Gunship dynamic really needs to be looked into.

In the long run, the fleet needs an established 'bomber' or other anti-capship type carrier based craft that it can use in situations such as this.

Aquilas should show up here and there, but they should be rare and held back put on defensive duties [for aforementioned lore reasons]

[Song]

I think we're going to have to wait and see what CSC America brings to the table in terms of fleet stuff before making specific suggestions on fleet setup. George is definitely adding more ships (incl. missileships and the Athena super-gunship), and we don't know anything about them yet......focusing on other areas of the outer-rim, as well as broad areas of improvement possible for the fleet, it going to be more efficient for working out stuff without running into lore problems that CSC America brings*.




*And unlike the last lore-note, this is not something I'm saying because of insider knowledge....I genuinely don't know what CSC America will bring, except that it's likely to be massive and change things a lot.

[JohnBWatson]

Hmm. There is a lore problem with having the Aquilae in close co-operation with the carriers all the time. I can't actually say it though. And since it's not in the game.....it can be changed. And definitely if they're in-system, they should be called to assist a carrier in trouble.

Certainly, I'd love to see more of them. Having them as a rare patrol encounter as well would be cool. Or even as another source of fleet missions.

I'd imagine that whatever prevents Aquilae from supporting the carriers directly would be nullified by the faction of the Fleet that commands the carriers requesting their immediate production to preserve a Fleet presence in the deep Outer Realm. Even if they're originally built as distant patrol craft, the mainstay of another military branch, or Decker's private hitmen, the facilities that build them are already present in the area and ready to go, and the immediate threat to the carriers in the region is such that production could easily be justified. It's not like they need the permission of the people commanding the current set of Aquilae to build some new ones.

---

The fleet isn't going to be that dramatically crippled. While the in-game fleet is *hopelessly* outmatched by the Ares and could easily be wiped out of every ingame system were all the in-game ares ships to go on an offensive, the in-lore reality is rather different.

Agree on the second point, but the Fleet ingame is actually at an advantage everywhere that isn't the extreme Outer Realm. A squadron of brits can kill anything that isn't a Deimos or Phobos without much difficulty.

---

...Brit's just wont do enough, even if they were buffed like crazy. A Phobos can still easily swat them and then drill quickly through the last bits of structural HP before the aquila even arrives.

Phobii are dreadnoughts, CSCs are carriers. Ultimately, the CSC should have an insurmountable advantage at long range and the Phobos should have the advantage at short range. Brit AI isn't currently sufficient to work in intercepting capital ships, but it could be done, especially over canon distances and without the firerateadj.

Of course, I'm sure CSC America will introduce ships more conducive to the role, like the Athena we had so much fun guessing about.

---

Capships and the Capship vs. Gunship dynamic really needs to be looked into.

Indeed. Capships at present fall into two categories: Trivial to kill due to lack of longrange armament, and nigh - impossible to kill without a massive technological advantage. The Phobos straddles that line at present, but it'll move into the latter once the AI range bug is fixed.

Gunships are empowered by their speed and maneuverability, neither of which the AI is smart enough to use. Fixing this would be brilliant, but I'm not sure if it's feasible.

---

In the long run, the fleet needs an established 'bomber' or other anti-capship type carrier based craft that it can use in situations such as this.

*Smiles and points to my Athena idea in that other thread*

[Aury]

Two squadrons of brits will not down a worldship. [Tested]
BTW - this is with Brits that have been substantially buffed by SM&M++
Phobii and groups of deimoses can also spawn relatively early as well, due to the 'unknown hostile' mission.

---

I'm talking about NPC gunships vs. NPC capships.

A player gunship can deal with just about any NPC capship in the game due to poor AI, poor AI aiming, better use of weapons, meta-gaming, etc.

Player vs. Capships isn't my concern here.

The Phobos is in no way trivial for AI gunships to kill.

---

There is no guarantee that the Athena would be back-ported into vanilla. Besides, thats a 'super-heavy gunship', not a bomber. You'd think that the fleet has figured out how the idea of bombers by now. Heck, it could even be an old model being phased out.

[JohnBWatson]

Two squadrons of brits will not down a worldship. [Tested]
BTW - this is with Brits that have been substantially buffed by SM&M++

Aren't those equipped only with particle weapons?

Phobii and groups of deimoses can also spawn relatively early as well, due to the 'unknown hostile' mission.

I kinda feel like leading a fleet of enemy capships to a friendly carrier is asking for it. They do rely on stealth and long range interception, after all.

I'm talking about NPC gunships vs. NPC capships.

As am I.

The Phobos is in no way trivial for AI gunships to kill.

Gunship AI needs to make use of speed and range. Regardless of internal HP and damage mechanics, confronting an APA at close range without dodging is going to get everything whatsoever bugsplatted.

There is no guarantee that the Athena would be back-ported into vanilla. Besides, thats a 'super-heavy gunship', not a bomber. You'd think that the fleet has figured out how the idea of bombers by now. Heck, it could even be an old model being phased out.

The Tundra is as close to a bomber as the game has, and it's classed as a heavy gunship. Transcendence classing is strange.

Ultimately, the only role a new high - tier gunship would really be desired for is anti - capship functionality, given how well Brits can kill Chasms and Tundras. There's no good short - range way to kill a Phobos, aside from Domina powers and Iocrym weaponry.

I'm not entirely certain that we both have the same concept of bombers. What kind of loadout would you suggest for such a ship?

[Aury]

Quick notes before I duck out of this thread: - this is quickly approaching a singularity of 'super secret devwiki lore' that the_shrike has wisely reminded me to not get tangled up in.

Worldships have ion + thermo

AI like that isn't going to magically poof out of nowhere. I highly doubt it will ever get made, except possibly on an extremely limited scale. Certainly not something that could be efficiently written in tlisp and implemented on every ship out there.

Furthermore the Ark, Worldship, Phobos, Deimos, and RDN are all D&O capships in the outer realm that outrange vast majority of gunships. I think only the playership tends to have comparable range (assuming the player slots a howitzer or something). Only the CSC and Processors have gunship-level range in the 'large capship' segment.

As for bombers, for various "secret lore things" I will refrain from delving deeper. I will mention the one public example, george's CC APD missileship is called a bomber.

[JohnBWatson]

Quick notes before I duck out of this thread: - this is quickly approaching a singularity of 'super secret devwiki lore' that the_shrike has wisely reminded me to not get tangled up in.

Worldships have ion + thermo

AI like that isn't going to magically poof out of nowhere. I highly doubt it will ever get made, except possibly on an extremely limited scale. Certainly not something that could be efficiently written in tlisp and implemented on every ship out there.

Furthermore the Ark, Worldship, Phobos, Deimos, and RDN are all D&O capships in the outer realm that outrange vast majority of gunships.

Ark is more of a base than a capship, so I'm not certain it should count. If stations are buffed to be better defended, nerfing Arks would feel a bit unfair to a faction that's already getting power - creeped pretty badly.

The Phobos and Deimos have fixed main guns, which leaves them open to long range attack from anything with good maneuverability. The fairly simple AI below could fight them fairly well.

Code: Select all

Check if within 80 ls 
  Move directly away from target if so
If not, check if within 20 degrees of target's front
  Move in a direction 90 degrees perpendicular to target if so.
If neither, face toward target and fire all weapons with sufficient range to hit the target.

The RDN is well armed but technologically inferior to some of the regional powers' gunships, though internal HP renders it and the Xenophobe worldship more powerful than they ought to be.

I think only the playership tends to have comparable range (assuming the player slots a howitzer or something).

Brits have their starcannons. I'm not sure about Chasms, but I think they might have comparable range. Not sure whether Xeno fighters have lancers or not.

Only the CSC and Processors have gunship-level range in the 'large capship' segment.

Ditto Tripolis, Ventari, and probably a few others. The Ventari is getting scaled up soon, so it'll be less annoying but still in need of a ranged counter.

As for bombers, for various "secret lore things" I will refrain from delving deeper. I will mention the one public example, george's CC APD missileship is called a bomber.

Noticed that too, but it didn't really act like one. It threw a lot of missiles at me, but I feel like a Phobos or similar ship would turn it into vapor. The thing about the APA is that large slow ships don't have a chance against something fielding it.

[sun1404]

The Ventari doesn't really have range disadvantage. Yes, some guns outrange their weapons, but unless you're familiar with them, they're gonna catch you surprised when you fly by. And they're nigh-invincible at short range. Getting shot by the disruptor with shield down will quickly disable your ship, and the disruptor isn't easy to evade.

Regarding your AI - one glaring weakness is that if a ship using such AI were to to fight a Phobos, it will circle the Phobos indefinitely until it is destroyed, which won't be very long, since Transcendence ships can aim ahead. Ships circling something firing at them -will- get shot. You need to weave around to avoid getting hit.

At 80 ls. no ships can circle a Phobos, or anything, faster than it can turn.

I think the current AI is good enough for a game. If you start upgrading gunship AI, then capital ships would have AI disadvantages, you'll then have to upgrade capitol ship AI, which would put gunships at a disadvantage again. Transcendence have a very complex relationship between ship classes and stations. You can't really make an AI that would make everything realistic. If you can, it'll be a stellar piece of code.

[JohnBWatson]

The Ventari doesn't really have range disadvantage. Yes, some guns outrange their weapons, but unless you're familiar with them, they're gonna catch you surprised when you fly by. And they're nigh-invincible at short range. Getting shot by the disruptor with shield down will quickly disable your ship, and the disruptor isn't easy to evade.

A faction that can catch a new player by surprise once and then easily be beaten for the rest of time isn't really balanced.

Regarding your AI - one glaring weakness is that if a ship using such AI were to to fight a Phobos, it will circle the Phobos indefinitely until it is destroyed, which won't be very long, since Transcendence ships can aim ahead. Ships circling something firing at them -will- get shot. You need to weave around to avoid getting hit.

Multiple ships with this AI would resolve that - the Phobos can only target one at a time. The AI's ability to lead targets only works based on current velocity, acceleration and curved lines are not accounted for. Ultimately, a single non - player gunship is not expected to destroy a non - AI range glitch - impaired Phobos. Indeed, the main use of this AI would be for squadrons under player command in both this game and CSC America. In the former scenario, capships are almost certainly targeting the player. In the latter, they're probably operating with support from other ships.

I think the current AI is good enough for a game. If you start upgrading gunship AI, then capital ships would have AI disadvantages, you'll then have to upgrade capitol ship AI, which would put gunships at a disadvantage again. Transcendence have a very complex relationship between ship classes and stations. You can't really make an AI that would make everything realistic. If you can, it'll be a stellar piece of code.

The current AI is identical for gunships and capships. At present, it is awful for the former, which are often unable to hit even a static target. Thus, fights between gunships and capitals using the current AI tend to play out like a boxing match between Muhammad Ali and Stephen Hawking. One side is able to fully show off its talents, and the other is completely unable to do the same.

[Aury]

Well, not being able to hit a static target is an issue, but it still doesnt change the fact that gunships aren't bombers designed for assualting capships. We need some proper bombers/torpedo bombers/something of that sort to complete the basic 'RPS' loop of capship > fighter > bomber > capship > and so on

Of course there should be intricacies and subloops and whatnot, but at the core that's the loop that naturally presents itself... yet for some reason manages to be utterly absent in Transcendence due to a lack of any proper bombers in D&O.

[JohnBWatson]

Well, not being able to hit a static target is an issue, but it still doesnt change the fact that gunships aren't bombers designed for assualting capships. We need some proper bombers/torpedo bombers/something of that sort to complete the basic 'RPS' loop of capship > fighter > bomber > capship > and so on

Of course there should be intricacies and subloops and whatnot, but at the core that's the loop that naturally presents itself... yet for some reason manages to be utterly absent in Transcendence due to a lack of any proper bombers in D&O.

I think the best way to do this is to limit heavy weapons and armor to heavy gunships, give unguided and lightly guided missiles improved range, and make light gunships somewhat faster(the latter should be done regardless). Nerfing internal HP would also be good, perhaps by combining it with the previous system so that all hits to internal HP have a chance to destroy the target, which along with a buff to P1300 and Massive Tharsis would be quite well balanced.

Heavy gunships loaded for bear could bring down capital ships through ranged bombardment and massed WMD damage. Light gunships could outmaneuver and destroy heavy gunships after closing the distance with their superior speed, and could cut through their armor with weapons like the Hanzo, not worrying about WMD. Capital ships could swat light gunships down with their omnidirectional point defenses, and could shrug off their attacks with their heavy armor and nigh - immunity to non - WMD damage.

This would also give heavy gunships a justification for existing, as their armor and weaponry couldn't just be mounted on something smaller and faster for all around better performance.

[SolarGalaxy]

A CSC can destroy a worldship if it has a NAMI Heavy Launcher, which is why that in my opinion CSCs should really have a missile launcher or some other ammo based weaponry to defend themselves. Since the number of battles a CSC takes in itself should be small but critical (Phobos attack) in which it needs heavy weaponry to defend itself.

Since the fleet already has the Aquila a bomber either needs to be cheaper or more powerful than the Aquila in WMD firepower. Cheaper would mean that the fleet can amass more of it for operations and use it in more risky operations due to it being easier to replace. If being cheaper coincides with size than it could even be something slightly larger than a gunship such as the Praetorian missileship. This could allow it to be launched from a CSC. More WMD firepower would mean level 10 missiles, multiple missile launchers, or a Tier 4 WMD missile. As such if the Fleet's bomber is anywhere as large as the Yamato, it should have more WMD firepower than an Aquila to justify its size as it would then require a large crew and large amount of material which will make it expensive (unless what its made out of is cheap but then Aquilas would be cheap as well...)

g) Aquilae should be slightly faster and make use of all four main turrets.

Personally I think that Aquilas should have 0.20C due to their Corporate Hierachy origin which have 0.20C speed for both the generic Corporate cruiser and the huge Omsk cruiser. I usually only give this to "Aquila-III class cruisers" in my personal mods as its a major jump from 0.16C to 0.20C. Also I usually give "Aquila-II class cruisers" 0.18C and four turrets (Aquila-IIIs have all 6 turrets and are overpowered).

[JohnBWatson]

A CSC can destroy a worldship if it has a NAMI Heavy Launcher, which is why that in my opinion CSCs should really have a missile launcher or some other ammo based weaponry to defend themselves. Since the number of battles a CSC takes in itself should be small but critical (Phobos attack) in which it needs heavy weaponry to defend itself.

Possible solution: Give all CSCs a NAMI heavy launcher. Spawn 20 Medusas in their hold whenever they encounter a target with internal HP. Add a virtual device that will remove all Medusas and uninstall itself in 5 minutes.

Opinions?

Since the fleet already has the Aquila a bomber either needs to be cheaper or more powerful than the Aquila in WMD firepower.

The Aquila is a swarmbuster. 4 non - WMD ion turrets, and one missile specializing in area damage.

Cheaper would mean that the fleet can amass more of it for operations and use it in more risky operations due to it being easier to replace. If being cheaper coincides with size than it could even be something slightly larger than a gunship such as the Praetorian missileship. This could allow it to be launched from a CSC. More WMD firepower would mean level 10 missiles, multiple missile launchers, or a Tier 4 WMD missile.

I'd like a ship like that. 90ls ranged missiles with small radii and high thermo damage. Give the missiles very weak guidance and decent shot HP, and give the gunship an R5 and Hexphase.