| Author |
Planetary Defense Revamp? [Original Post Edited, Repliers PLEASE re-read] |
Demorian
Fleet Admiral
Galactic Navy
Joined: October 06, 2001
Posts: 3406
From: Charlotte, North Carolina
|  Posted: 2003-07-25 15:26
In light of changes to how bombing is done and how easy planets are to cap in 1.481 and later, I've had a bit of an epiphany on planetary defense. Everyone bear with me for a moment. 
1.481 changes:
- No longer will you be able to create massive clouds of over a hundred bombs as you cruise toward planets. The reason for this is the limitation on the number of projectiles (or objects) any device, such as a bomber device or a minelayer, can create. By default this means point defense on planets has less to worry about and calls for a reduction in the defensive abilities of planets ala lasers.
- Planetary inf cap has been raised to 32, meaning a station will no longer be able to take its 20 inf and cap a planet on its own. A planetary capture will mean a sustained effort from at least two ships, but more likely five-six on the "average every-day attack" scale.
- Beam weapons now terminate their firing cycle and immediately begin charging again when their target is destroyed, meaning point defense is faster and more efficient on both ships and planets. This also allows for a reduction in Defense Base power.
So, I was thinking about Defense Bases and fighter bases and such and what they should be to be properly balanced for the patches and gameplay to come.
Before you think of anything else, let me present you with the very first concept... every time a Defense Base on a planet fires any weapon, whether it's point defense at a bomb or a missile at a ship (or any of the other weapons/spacecraft I will mention later in this post), have it choose a new target. It is unrealistic for Defense Bases to always focus on the closest target as they currently do. A real planet with such defenses, run by intelligent people...  ... would distribute its defenses among all attacking bodies.
Again, a prerequisite in your thinking for the rest of this post... each time a weapon is fired from a defense base... it fires on a newly picked target. If it's the same one as before, so be it... but it fires on a newly picked target.
Fighters
----------
Now for the second order of business... forget fighter bases. Yep, do away with em. Why? Simple. The average planet has 18 Defense Bases. Why not just have every Defense Base launch a fighter after producing them in the same way that barracks create inf? Seriously, think about this. You would build a defense base, and when selecting the base, you would have the option of constructing fighters. This would take a good amount of resources for a full compliment of fighters per base.
Then, when the planet falls under attack, each Defense Base will launch *one* fighter. Not two. It's not necessary for the full complement of Defense Bases present in my idea. Keep reading. If a planet has 20 Defense Bases, 20 fighters will be kept in space at all times as long as they have been built beforehand. If a fighter dies, a new one will be launched. Every time. To keep the complement at 20.
Point Defense
----------
Every defense base, UGTO, ICC, or K'luth, will carry standard issue beam weapons as their point defense. The charge time will match that of the charge time on the ship.
UGTO/ICC Defense Base: 1 CL 500
K'luth Defense Base: 2 Disruptors
On ICC/UGTO bases, no CL 300's; it will recharge too quickly and be too much like a pulse beam. Yes, no pulse beam for ICC. Save that for ships acting as fleet point defense. That's a better purpose for the pulse beam now that beams stop firing when their target is destroyed, effectively making every small beam close to a pulse beam in power.
(Besides, ICC have shields No pulse beam for you, come back one year)
Note that I made K'luth bases have two disruptors because disruptors take too long to charge. Each disruptor on a single base, preferably, would target a different bomb than its partner.
These changes would tone down on the bomb cloud obliterating potential of current defense.
Physical Defenses
----------
Now for the last bit... Defense Bases need to have more than just missiles for their automated defenses. Because each Defense Base will be targetting a different ship under this idea's context (not obliterating one at a time), Defense Bases should have the following arsenal altogether:
UGTO:
1 IT Missile
1 Proton Torpedo
1 CL 500
1 UGTO Fighter
ICC:
1 IT Missile
1 Fusion Torpedo
1 CL 500
1 ICC Fighter
K'luth:
Psi Missile
1 AM Torpedo
2 Disruptors
1 Larvae
...too much, Dem, you say?
A-nope. Once again, the torpedoes will be firing on a different target each time they fire, and they have a much shorter range than the missiles so if you stay far out, they won't fire on you. The Missiles will gently whap you from afar, the torps will rain in when you get close.
----------
So if you're alone against one of these defense bases, chances are you'll wanna either hide your ship under cloak or ECM or get out. This version of the Defense Base has several purposes in mind:
- Encourages fleet activities... the more ships present near the planet, the less likely each member of the fleet is to die.
- Makes planet capturing more epic... forces players to stick together rather than launch unrealistic single-ship or double-team attacks on more than one planet at a time.
- Compensates for changes in how hard players can bomb a planet and how hard it is to take a planet in general in 1.481+.
- More realistic targetting... planets will focus on the entire attack force rather than the most imminent threat.
- *puts on his TV advertising voice* ... and much, much more!
Sure, this may mean a reduction in torpedo damage if Faustus likes it... but hey, they're too strong anyway Think about it, guys. If you don't like the torpedo part after thinking about it, just say you could do without that part. Or just trash the entire idea  . It's up to you.
-Dem
_________________
``We are the GTN. You will be resupplied. Resistance is optional.``
[ This Message was edited by: Demorian on 2003-07-25 17:00 ]
_________________
|
Imaginary Shifty
Midshipman
Joined: June 02, 2003
Posts: 204
From: Estonia
| Posted: 2003-07-25 15:38
uhh 3 psi and 1 am x14 def bases can rip a dread to shreds in seconds
_________________
Beyond Imagination Hosted by Twisted Designs
|
warren
Grand Admiral
Joined: April 18, 2002
Posts: 312
From: piney point, md
| Posted: 2003-07-25 16:13
now lets think about this you have a kluth plante with 20 def youll have 60 missels 20 fighters and 20 torps. even with a fleet of 6 youll have 10 missels and 3 fighters and 3 torps going after every ship.
_________________
|
Demorian
Fleet Admiral
Galactic Navy
Joined: October 06, 2001
Posts: 3406
From: Charlotte, North Carolina
| Posted: 2003-07-25 16:36
Yea, you guys are right. I did the post at work (tee hee) and didn't do the math after I put the numbers out...
Like I said, the torps are a gray area...
...but consider the missiles all marked down to 2 instead of 3.
-Dem
_________________
|
Koda
Marshal
Fatal Squadron
Joined: August 29, 2002
Posts: 1384
| Posted: 2003-07-25 16:55
Good post Dem,
_________________
|
Chromix
Cadet
Joined: June 29, 2001
Posts: 3052
| Posted: 2003-07-25 17:50
Shouldn't reloading the missiles/torpedos on the def bases cost resources, so one can theoretically siege a poorly managed planet until it runs out of resources ?
Torpedos on def bases would be pretty problematic. In ship to ship combat there is a fixed point from which torpedos are launched at your ship, that makes it not too hard to dodge them. Defence bases are distributed all over the planet, that means the point one torp is launched may be 200gu away from the launch point the second torp is launched at you. That means after being near the planet for a few seconds you have torpedos left, right & in front of you -> you are dead
_________________
|
Sandals
Fleet Admiral
Agents
Joined: January 21, 2002
Posts: 2001
From: Redmond,WA,USA
| Posted: 2003-07-25 18:45
torpedeos on dbases is only workable with droppods...it will make bombs nearly imopssible.
_________________
|
Demorian
Fleet Admiral
Galactic Navy
Joined: October 06, 2001
Posts: 3406
From: Charlotte, North Carolina
| Posted: 2003-07-28 11:50
Aside from torps, though. Whatcha think of the rest of the idear? 
-Dem
_________________
|
jedi42
Grand Admiral
Evil Empires Inc.
Joined: February 25, 2002
Posts: 478
From: jedi42
| Posted: 2003-07-28 12:32
[deleted - mis posted]
[ This Message was edited by: 42 on 2003-07-28 12:35 ]
_________________
jedi42, darkjedi42, [drunk], hoid o' toitles, evil, rum, cl2k drainer, gdi, {C?}, hive teets, fusion mating, perfect cloud formation, death star, point jump, tractor scout, torp det, def cluster, cloaked elf
|
Gee191
Fleet Admiral
Joined: April 02, 2003
Posts: 88
| Posted: 2003-07-28 13:08
if i read this correctly ecah db will haave 1 missle 1 torp 1 fighter and 1 beam (2 for kluth)
i find that eceptable yes if all 15 some odd trops stared flying at you wich would mean you where the only preitable target it was your dum idea to be the only peresntable target
evan with the number of objects eduntion there is another point about bombing : the planets spin
so if your dont traget the right thing at the right time your bombs will ither hit nothing or some thing you might not want it to hit evan with the bomb gidence changes
so this will make stream bombing harder
all in all that works for me
_________________
|
Lith Ragond
Cadet
Galactic Navy
Joined: November 25, 2001
Posts: 1854
| Posted: 2003-07-28 14:13
i like the new reworked idea... but instead of normal torps that ships carry, make a new class (as with the new class of weapons for the newfighters). cause technically speaking, all missles are, is a bunch of fuel, a rocket, and a warhead... torps? encased energy... you'd have to pump a LOT of energy into a torp to break it from the gravity of a planet. so instead of torp, or missle, have an orbital defense warhead... ODW. not quite a missle (range wise) and not quite a torp (launch wise). then you could tweak these ODWs anyway you want, and of course have 3 different types anywho, cause i just think normal torps (as they are) would be a LIL too much, so something a lil smaller and weaker... anywho.
also, keep in mind platforms will be playing a role, though we still dont know how many will be limited per system, but i suspect most will be used for the shipyard planets 
_________________
|
Axianda The Royal
Fleet Admiral
Terra Squadron
Joined: November 20, 2001
Posts: 4273
From: Axianda
| Posted: 2003-07-28 14:19
Quote:
|
On 2003-07-28 14:13, Lith Ragond wrote:
i like the new reworked idea... but instead of normal torps that ships carry, make a new class (as with the new class of weapons for the newfighters). cause technically speaking, all missles are, is a bunch of fuel, a rocket, and a warhead... torps? encased energy... you'd have to pump a LOT of energy into a torp to break it from the gravity of a planet. so instead of torp, or missle, have an orbital defense warhead... ODW. not quite a missle (range wise) and not quite a torp (launch wise). then you could tweak these ODWs anyway you want, and of course have 3 different types anywho, cause i just think normal torps (as they are) would be a LIL too much, so something a lil smaller and weaker... anywho.
also, keep in mind platforms will be playing a role, though we still dont know how many will be limited per system, but i suspect most will be used for the shipyard planets
|
|
I have always been for the Idea of Planetary weapons.
Planetary IT missile * PIT for short *
Planetary Torpedo's
etc etc
it would make ballancing armamanets a lot simpler cuz you dont have to worry about the effect on ship to ship combat
_________________
- Axi
|
warren
Grand Admiral
Joined: April 18, 2002
Posts: 312
From: piney point, md
| Posted: 2003-07-28 15:54
itd be cool to be able to biuld orbital planetary def
like rail gun platforms or somthing. like after 10 hours after you cap a planet itd become a option to biuld one then after another 10 hours you could biuld another and so forth. that way home systems would be harder to cap then the front line systems
_________________
|
Captain Caveman
Cadet
Joined: October 12, 2002
Posts: 668
| Posted: 2003-07-28 16:28
I like it.
However. Making d bases more powerful might well make the platforms redundant when they get phased in.
Also, if you're thinking that the d bases should target different ships because they are manned by intelligent people, I would have to disagree with that. Surely the dbases should concentrate on the most dangerous target until it was dead? Or maybe the dbases should be programmed to attack the targets that they know they have a higher chance of hitting?
_________________
|
JediKnight
Admiral
Joined: April 23, 2002
Posts: 356
From: Jacksonville, FL
| Posted: 2003-07-28 17:17
Dem: my fiasco the other day proves that 1 fighter per defense base would be insane, imagine the clusters 4-5 planets. If 40 fighter bases crashed FA what would 60-70 do?
Tom
_________________
|
English
Deutsch
Nederlands
)
