Not a member yet? Why not Sign up today
Create an account  

  • 1 Vote(s) - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
 
Sea Encounters: Ironclads [Discussion]

#91
Alright cool! And thanks for the info re: spawn sticks by the way.. I've heard of them but never used any myself.

Instead of more JBGs.. people could have ACBs next to their main propellors and cut power to the propellors on the inside of the turn to increase turn rate..


Oi, DraWay! Care to share your cheese with us? Tongue
Reply

#92
(2018-08-13, 04:29 PM)Captain_Fox Wrote: @Farram: Well, early ironclads were absolute crap at turning... Hmm. I could allow that... So it'll be 2 props for a full fleet of four...

Well, you did say that they could be exchanged for 5 small props each. Frankly, it'd be a poor trade even if you allowed each huge prop to be traded for 9 props each to use the same power output with the bonus thrust that hue props get, but it'd still work for really small entries.

Quote:Uh...I suppose I could... It'd help with the broadside ships. But it'll need to be placed where the captain would be. Wink

It'd help with all ships. Naval AI is terrible when things spawn out of broadsiding range. Without devices like that, we're either relying on weird ACB shenanigans to try and get the AI to commit to a turn or just giving up and putting all the guns at the front of the ship, which is something I'd rather not do.

That said, if I understand this right, you want broadside forcers to be placed above the deck, in the superstructure where they can be disabled with one lucky shot, right? Does that also apply to the AI Mainframes and Naval AI Cards as well?
Reply

#93
[the thread still broken. sorry for this un-breaking post]
Makes things.
The fastest thing in the universe is sluggish... Years, decades, centuries from star to star.
Reply

#94
Is this working again yet?
Reply

#95
Ok. There it goes. Good grief FtD...


@Ferram: Yes that's what I'm thinking. Just the forcer. Which is optional to add at all, as is putting the AI there too.

Sorry about the lack of replies, I didn't think to test if my posting would fix it or not. :/
Reply

#96
Considering that including both a broadside forcer and Naval AI isn't viable (they'll fight each other and not work properly), then these rules mean that there's a choice between Naval AI and maintaining control up until the ship despawns and using a broadside forcer and guaranteeing a DQ very quickly when the superstructure is removed with HE spam. It would be more straightforward to simply ban them then if that's your goal.

Captain_Fox, I need to ask, what is your ideal vision of how these battles should go? Because the armor and weapon restrictions point to long, slugfests, but then the repair bot placement, the detection settings, and the broadside forcer placement all point to quick, decisive matches where targets are mission-killed within a few minutes. You've got a very strong risk of battles where more than half of the fight is just waiting for one ship to finally put down its helpless or disabled opponent.
Reply

#97
Isn't there a way to use ACBs to turn AI on and off?

Hmm... True. Well, that's what testing is for, no?
Reply

#98
There is a way to turn AIs on and off, but there isn't a way to reliably say, "turn this on only if this system is damaged." It's too easy for the system to become half-broken and then be a huge detriment.

Yes, and I've done some testing. The testing so far has found:

1) Repair bots surviving / being destroyed is almost entirely luck rather than a consequence of good design, assuming they aren't placed somewhere like the top of a metal crow's nest. Between nearly evenly matched ships, this turns it into a coinflip on who can repair damage.
2) The deliberately-exploiting-detection-on-spinblocks 360 camera shenanigans are only viable on larger ships, since the cameras still have to be above the waterline. Since smaller ships don't have much freeboard, the armored cameras may as well not exist for them. It's a good idea, but some base detection really is needed for the fleet entry to compensate for its lack of reliable detection, perhaps around 0.8 would do. The accuracy will already be trash at that setting, seriously, try a detectionless ship with it.
3) The 100 ton gun subclass alone is a poor decision unless the shell option changes also include the ability to go for more than 3m of pen on a pendepth fuse. The shell doesn't get deep enough in before it and just tickles the wall of internal divisions or you need to use solid shot, but solid just doesn't do enough damage with one shell every 30s.
4) The 100 ton gun can't be reliably combined with the monitor subclass under the current rules. 450mm guns simply can't track fast enough to actually pick the proper elevation to fire; with a change allowing an elevation-only turret to be placed on the spinblock though this can probably be changed, but then that needs testing to see if the 450mms are OP that way.
5) The monitor subclass doesn't have any real benefits for anything other than 305mm guns. Personally, I'd change it to 50% extra number of guns, rounded up, with a limit on the min caliber to keep things from getting too crazy. So 305s would go from 4 to 6, 265s would go from 8 to 12, etc.
6) Broadside forcer placement above the hull armor leads to the ship sailing out of bounds when it's damaged or destroyed. Just not worth it, but that puts extra limits on what kinds of designs are viable, in particular, discouraging old-fashioned 2-turret pre-dread / armored cruiser kind of ships due to the possibility of not being able to use the rear gun.
7) Autoloader count should probably be increased to 2 per gun to make it viable compared to direct feed. It'll still be slightly slower (~90% RoF of a full direct feed), but it'll be more protected with a smaller turret Limiting direct feed to make 1 autoloader viable will simply lead to very slow, boring fights with the guns we're allowed.

The best kind of situation, with the repair bot moved to the internals of the ship, the 2 autoloaders per gun, and no real limitations on any kind of control placement, the ships entered here should be pretty decent bruisers that will take a lot of damage but keep fighting all the way to the end. It'll also be less frustrating to watch your entry fight because even if the odds of something being destroyed are small, that just makes it so much more irritating when it does happen in the tournament.
Reply

#99
1) Hmm. Ok.

2) Well, normal detection is allowed as well, but I'll see about upping it to 0.8...

3) Hmm. Alright, I'll allow custom pendepth for anyone who wishes to do so.

4) I don't _think_ they would be OP since the chances of them pointing at the enemy when reloaded is slim, but I'll allow the elevation only turret. Just means a bigger target!

5) Hmm. That sounds like a far better rule set. Minimum caliber... 245mm?

6) Hmmph. Well shoot...I could spawn the ships in broadside range then?

7) I was honestly expecting the autoloaders to load faster than direct fed, at least with having an extra shell to toss in...

Given that's how hampton roads ended up, I was thinking that'd be the result.

Should I allow for whatever customization people want for their pendepth shells?
Reply

My humble views:
1) Agreed with Ferram. Looks pretty random. In my opinion repairs are not fun at all, unless they fit some specific theme (futuristic, nanobot repair etc.)
2) In SE:BB you can see how 0.9 autodetection worked (e.g. Big Hammer's battle) and judge for yourself if you want to see even more penalty for loosing detection.
3) I am on the "allow variety" side as long as you don't create a no-brainer must-take trait
4) I didn't test, but my gut feeling tells me both traits should be kept separate.
5) Indeed, monitor trait scales poorly (at all) for non-max calibers. Adding some % of additional guns makes sense.
6) I think designers should have freedom to protect their navigation equipment regardless if it's Naval/Aerial card or some fancy ACB based helpers. Bulkiness of the latter is a penalty in itself
7) Not sure about this one. Best thing to do is to try to build a prototype based on the rules and see how it would fare

I don't think it would make much sense limiting the pendepth setting.

How propulsion/steering looks like for the fleet trait?
primum non nocere
___________________________________
my tournaments:
★★★ Sea Encounters - Battleships! ★★★
★★★ Sea Encounters - Light Cruisers ★★★
Reply



Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)