(Disclaimer: I'm not saying or implying this is going to be in the game.)

Instead of creating a whole new CPU intensive system for PDLs, it would probably be easier to just go with a BSG dynamic and have a cap ship's fighter squadron (if it had one) take out incoming missiles.

That idea would already be a possible if an order of battle or priority targeting system were to be implemented.

Having ship chasing down warhead could be fun.

Or maybe, you can have a Droid Sentry systems for capital ship, release orbital sentry droid to take out incomming payload.


Also like someone said, how much load the PDS take will depend on how other thing is implemented. Like will all ship come up with a big missiles battery and we'll have something like a missile rain all the time. Or it can be some specialize anti capital ships (and other capital ships) that can carry heavy torperdo, the like that can punch through shield and make some holes when they hit and that's what the PDS try to defense against.

In addition to look cool the reason I say it add more immersion because it can create some intense moment when you see a load of torpedo is flying toward your expensive ship and you may try to maneuver's the ship into position that the PDS have enough time to take out those torpedo.

PD systems and armor both serve the same exact function; to keep the ship running longer. beyond that they are mearly aesthetically different.

yes, they are the same thing. not in real life, but certainly in game.
its nice to have differences where they can be afforded. but its simply not feasible here.

who's to say you aren't overcomplicating it?

I highly doubt they would run a unit-total system like that, at best it would run by percentage-takedown.

you're gonna have difficulty making up the credibility.

they serve an identicle function. they serve it in different ways, but its the same function nonetheless.

hm...
I'm having trouble finding where either one of us is being aggressive... a little sarcastic perhaps but...
well if I said anything offensive, I didnt mean it that way

all different means to the same end;
keep the ship alive. anything beyond that is really just fluff. fluff that is nescessary for a decent game, but fluff regardless.

for instance if the kol's flak burst was anti-missile instead, or perhaps the magnetic charge; that would be fine.
but having all cap ships have it and use it continuously would be a strain.

this is the question here.
is the eye candy that a serious PDS-like system would create (not just pretty explosions and dissapearing missiles, seriously tracking counter-weapon weapon platforms) worth the taxing that it would apply to the system?

I would propose to you that it isnt.

By aggressive, I just mean your post seems to be ticky in a way, like this example



Well, but I never claim credibility, simply a disagreement

Although like I said, the impression maybe just me.





Again, by this logic, there would be only 2 systems. Offense system and defense system. So we can say we don't need all the differences between different defense mechanic, why would we bother to have different offense system. Energy Base weapon, beam weapon, Plasma weapon, Mass base weapon, rocket base weapon ...etc... all of them only serve one identical function - damaging the enemy right?


Again, this is talking about the semantic behind the mechanic of the system, not about the system load. While I don't agree I can understand your point concerning the load the PDS can place on the CPU, however it's not because in favor of that argument that the role of PDS, or any other defense systems whether in or not in the current game, should be altered, downplayed, and considered "shield subtitudable".



That's not an excuse, not a good one anyway.

Actually I can come up with a very good example where the logic you are using actually apply. Galactic Civilizations 2. I think it works exactly the way you put it and the way I stated it, stuffs can only be divided into two catalogers - defense and offense. Everything else are just pure cosmetic. So no difference between PDS, shield, armor neither between missile, gun, and beam. The thing here is Galciv2 is a TBS game and it excel at that, the focus is not about the combat system so such simplified system can get away without hurting the game too much. Now unless I'm really off the mark here Sins is a real time space combat game, having such system certainly doesn't sit very well, for me at least. Now, if the game has shield I'm certainly looking for a system that actually works differently, have different impact and mechanic as well as strategic use, not something that will work identical to an extra layer of armor.


Again, at this point I separate the arguments. The point about PDS is in or not is about can the system handle it or not, and the point about whether PDS is the same as any other defense systems.

About the multi-cores supported. I was kinda oblivious to the fact that the game will be released in 2008 (thought it was in August 2007). So in my "very limited vision" I do hope a game at the scale and level of detail like Sins will support multi-cores, if not by an out-of-the-box model then at least an optional adaption like other games do.

By the way, I just read the gamespot's interview with Blair Fraser:







So at least I still have a reason to be happy and hope for

Not if there are like three or five caps per fleet... Which is what I expected of Sins. Having 50 capital ships in a fleet just makes the name "capitals" seem unapropriate. They become "grunts" while frigates become obsolete. But frigates should be the backbone of the fleets. Caps are the "spice" of fleet. Something to break the monotony, something look forward to seeing in action.

Ok, I went OT... In any case - if there were far less capitals each of them could have PD system and it still wouldn't strain the comp too much.

Your idea is good as well - that PD system would be one of the possible upgrades.


You know fans... We'll take what we can get, but we'll always want more.

when I crush you in combat, I'll just point out your capital-conservative tactics.

also keep in mind that all of your flak frigs will have this, possibly another type of frigate, maybe even your scouts.

precisely.

not what I said.
I'm not supporting kicking shields and just keeping the hull. what I'm saying is that adding another defensive layer, which we dont need and may very well break the game, is unescessary.

but seriously, the only thing thats actually different from a PDS to a shield is that the shield takes down lasers as well.
a PDS is nothing but an offensive shield using hard ammo, now an energy shield (if energy or some sort of particle) is another offensive shield, but instead using a field of interacting particles/energy to take down the targets.
beyond that there really isnt a difference, reloading bullets, reloading shield energy etc.

I didnt say no difference. I said a no difference in their physical duties. no matter how insane or benign, your shield will do the same thing as the PDS; take down incoming weapons.

I never said all frig should have this. In fact, I think it's repeated many times that a PDS on Large ships ... placing it on a fighter ... what's for? You're making it out of proportion. PDS is used to defense target that generally big and high priority, and relative poor manuever. Heh, I hope a scout can out run or out turn a torperdo shooting at is, if that ever happens.


With a limit to Large Ship (which reasonably, the only ships that need PDS) I don't think it can be a huge load if the engine is capable enough to handle battle with 1000+ ships. It's the question about proportion.



Same as Space Voyaer, I hope Battleship is prominent enough that the game doesn't become a battleship fest. If a player commits 100 ships into a battle I would expect nothing more then 10 of those are battleships, if it's a thousand ships then battleship should be in the range of 50-100. This like I said, should not effect the load too much. It becomes a problem however if a player commits 100 ships into battle and HALF of those are battleships. But the problem here is no longer with excessive PDS, but with the game itself, since if this is the case then I won't consider a battleship ... a battelship. Big guns is only one of many characteristic of a battleship, a battleship is a batteship if it feels like a batteship, and that include everything like: fire power, durability, speed, rarelity, aww effect, aqquistion ...etc...







Ok, let me point out a few things that make no two system (if implemented well) are the same:


+ the first issue is with flexibility: from your description it looks like shield is used as a universal defense rather then a beam specialist. This is fine, but with universal system that means when you change one thing, you change the others as well, ala side effect. Take Haegemonia as example: shield is used as a universal defense against Proton, Ion, Missile, Quantum weapon. But each of them have an extra mechanic defense. Say missile base weapon in later game hurt quite a bit with Nuclear Toperdo, so it has an extra defense system - ECM. It helps to reduce the impact of missile based weapon while leave the other weapon in tact. Now thing what happens if there is only exist a universal defense? The only way to do it is to increase shield or armor. While this will offer extra defense against Missile, the side effect is it also increase the defense against other weapon as well. Proton and Quantum will have a harder time with shield while Ion will have a harder time with armor plating. The chain effect here is that in order to balance a weapon, it may end up imbalance other weapon. But with a universal system, the option is limited.


+ Now talkig about the mechanic of PDS itself: I can name you one for example. The difference between shield and PDS is that shield doesn't have a range, PDS while the range may be short, it does have a range. Shield created an individual defense net, and yes, more effective then PDS. With PDS however, it can allow group defense through coordination. So a formation of ships can benefit from overlaping PDS coverage. While Shield creates a single defense net, PDS may offer a group defense net. In a way, they allow a more dynamic defense mechanism with more thought is put into formation and ship maneuveur tactic. And this, is just one of many example why PDS and Shield are not subtituable.



So there you go. Like I said, any system can be the same if they're all simplified to a certain decree. However a simplified system is something to be left with TBS game where it is more about strategy. But for real time game, I'll certainly look for a little bit beyond that with some element of tactical thinking.

neither did I.

flak frigs would serve that duty, that is the point of their guns.

how many of our naval craft are capable of doing that...
none.

now, say I were to go all sorts of easy on your arguement; aircraft. there are maybe 2 aircraft in the world capable of outmanuvering tracking, high speed missiles. there really isnt a way to get the massive-butt scouts to go fast enough to avoid the missiles (unless 1) they PS away or 2) you really slow down the missiles by modding, which is always fun)

unfortunately with the current frigate selection that wont be the case...

currently the shield is universal.
I dont see how weakening the shield only to replace it with a similar system has... well... a point?

also you are leaving the frigates open as hell. what is their defense to be against mechanical weaponry? they dont have PDS to stop missiles (thanks to your explanation) only shields against ion and beam weaponry. that seriously unbalances the game.

keep in mind this game does not focus on ship to ship tactics. its about overall military strategy. if you come into this expecting complex ship-ship interactions, you're going to be dissapointed.

None.

So, a PT boat will not be able to outrun and outturn a torpedo? A destroyer or Frigate are acutally not able to out turn a torpedo? Eh ... Even a light cruiser should be able to out turn a torpedo.

And then, they actually put a pair of MK17 Phalanx and a pair of 116 RAM on the carriers you know, why they don't have something like that on the F-18 or F-35?



And from what people have been talking about it, and judging from your tone you're probably on the same camp. Currently it's not a good thing right? You would want to see some change to it, yes? So ...





You misinterpreted what I said, so the concern about balance here is kinda moot.


- I didn't say to weaken shield. I'm perfectly fine with universal shielding.
- I didn't say to remove some of the shield function and then subtitude it with PDS. No, as much as I don't like Shield to be in place of PDS I'm definitely not in favor the other way around. Remember my stand is that "everything has its place". I am not bias against of in favor of PDS or any other system.


The shield in Hegemonia is universal and it protects against all weapon. The ECM was there to provide an extra and specialize defense against Torpedo (which packs a wallop) and in a sense, take of some load from the shield so say ... it can take more proton and quantum hit. The point here is that the ECM (or PDS) offer a decree of flexibility, you can adjust one perimeter without the side effect it gonna effect another parameter (ala increase shield and thus increase resistance against all weapons).


So no, the frigate won't be defenseless, it still has its shield and whatever mean of defense that can be reasonably put in there (and I hope a frigate is faster then a battleship with in a sense, a mean of defense). But of course it's not going to have as many defense as a battleship, neither it should to. Hell, tf the enemy unload 10 torpedo at a frigate, and 10 torpedo at a battleship, I would expect the battleship to come out with a better shape. There is *no* imbalance in that, but rather a reasonable logic.






Well, first with this short answer I presume I had convince you that PDS is indeed with the right implementation can have some strategic effect and good variety to the game mechanic and not just to be cool?


Yes, I know fully well this is a RTS, it's called a RTS, not a tactical combat ship. I'm not expecting ship to ship combat, but I *do* expect fleet to fleet combat, and by that it's not just the volume. There is a thread running on this board and I can see that's not just only my point of view. Fleet combat is made up from good coordination and dynamic system with different mechanic, both in term of defense and offense. So let's just say I'm hopping for something more then a normal drag-point-click RTS, because if it's so then yes, I would be *very* disappointed.


However I have my faith in the game developers it won't be that over simplified. And the chance for me to see this seems to come much sooner then I expected

PT boats are not ships.
sorry if I was ambiguous

and no, a light cruiser cannot outurn a torpedo. do you realize how long it takes those ships to turn?
no wait... apparently not. (sorry, had to do that part)

you know what this does?
unbalances the game! gasp!
now bombers will be far too weak, seeing as they wont be able to hit.

except by your logic the frigate will take all 10 hits, where the battleship will only take 3 or 4 (ECM/PDS). now considering that battleships are already far hardier, thats too much.

1) how is having your ships be impervious to a certain type of attack "strategy"
2) no, I dont think it would be cool. quite a bit of this game is spent zoomed out telling your ships what to do. its too much for the system for such little benefit.

your still stuck on ship-ship combat. fleet-fleet combat is what SoaSE focuses on, not on the strategy of ship placement and how your ships shoot down missiles, but how you choose to compose your fleets and where you send your fleets to strike.

what you're asking for is simply infeasible both for system requirements and game mechanic.
heres the issue
p1) you place PDS in, but its too much for the system
a1) reduce the number of ships with PDS to just cap ships
p2) now the cap ships have more defense than is feasible for their balance, they now become even more insanely powerful than they originaly were
a2) you reduce the effectiveness of shielding, removing the anti-physical properties of it (so that such things as siege frigs and bombers actually have some effect)
p3) now frigs are defenseless against said strategy of bombs and siege frigs
a3) place PDS on the frigs

do you see the catch-22 here? if you can succesfuly find some way to break it that doesnt result in another catch-22 I'll congratulate you.

It would look cool to have something similar to the radar guided gattling guns that are on present day aircraft carriers. Anyone remember the carrier attack scene from the movie "Sum of All Fears"? Perhaps it could only be 50% effective like the PDS on the U.S. King Rapter in "C&C Generals: Firestorm" or be limited only to one class of ship. Still, if it can't be done because of gameplay issues, I agree it should be dropped.

That's a refenrence to why you want to put PDS on a scout.



I'm not talking about battlecruiser or armored cruiser, the modern missile cruiser is faster then you think.




And even if I'm wrong, the destroyer and frigate are still mobile enough to do so, which in turn doesn't say any better about your earlier statement. So tone down the sarcastic will you?



Again, a blow of out proportion thinking. Since when PDS means "Missile immunity"? You said it yourself that in term of perfection Shield is better then PDS because it's a more complete net, now in order to support your argument you make it sounds like a PDS is a perfect net. You know, PDS, unlike shield, has holes. But again, I think you know that, but right now it's not as favorable to your "balance argument" as it was to your "shield vs PDS" argument so I guess PDS == missile immunity now.






Oh yes, that's exactly how it is. I already said a battleship is, a battleship in term of fire power, defense, functionality, acquisitions. Imbalance? Of course! A balance doesn't exist between a battleship and a frig because such thing doesn't exist! The only virtual balance is the number between them, whether there are several dozen of frigs but there is only one or two battleship. And if the game economy and structure allow player to have as many battleship as frig then no, the problem is not with the ship, but with the system. A battleship is a battleship, is a battleship and is a battleship. A frigate is a frigate, is a frigate, and is a frigate. They don't have a balance. The reason a battleship only take 3 or 4 hits because it should take me a much longer time, and much more resource to build one! That's where the balance is, and where the balance end. A battleship should be more then just an oversize frigate!







1) Impervious, no since PDS is not 100% effective. Harder, yes? Strategy, how about now you have to come up with better plan to take down those monsters?

2) Another blow out of proportion statement? Surely something like a "Fighter Screen", "Capital Phalanx" formation is not too much to do? Surely you don't want a battle without any orientation where ships just roll into each others like street brawling?






p1) not if it's done right, without an "out of proportion implementation"
a1) for good reasons that I explained a few times.
p2) Yes, because they're supposed to be insanely powerful to begin with. I would rather have 5 battleships that actually feel like they're battleship, rather then 20 battleships when they actually feel just like oversize frigates.
a2) this make me wonder if you give my post enough attention before you replied

And you even quoted that, did you read what you quote? *I never said anything about remove or reduce shield functionality.
p3) And I ask again, did you read what I post before making your response?

And since I never said to remove impact base defense from shield, so yes it still has defense against missiles, *just not as much as battleship*. And thus ... leading to
a3) There is no need for PDS on frig.





No, see above ^. Over half of your analysis pattern completely missed my point due to the fact that you didn't seem to even read them, there is no catch-22 in my logic, just one that you created.

You know, I don't think it's worth it any more. We don't agree but at least we can still respect and make an afford to stay constructive. But it seems you just want to mix, bend, and ignore argument just so they work in your favor, and your over sarcastic tone offer little constructive criticism. No bragging, but at least I make the afford to come up and defense my argument (be it wrong or right). So I think this is where the debate between you and me should end since I don't find it necessary to pursuit an argument with unhealthy attitudes. Everything are mutual.

you're in space, things HAVE to be armored.
and still, missiles are far faster than any ship or even PT boat. (actually missiles are what we are refering to here, they go far faster due to less friction than torpedo's would have to deal with, seeing as space has even less this is what applies)

it would need serious holes, as in it maybe hits 1/9 or 10 missiles. any more than that and you run into afforsaid balance issues.

do you have the beta?
apparently not.

anyhow formations would imply strategy, but an inlaid PDS system does not. its got nothing to do with strategy.

they are already way tougher than you realize. play the beta and you will see.

I'm running hypotheticals.
speaking of which where is your answer to problem 3?

I read through your post repeatedly, anything you do either
1) unbalances the game (PDS only on cap ships) or
2) nullifies any sort of functionality of the PDS (weaken it so that it doesnt unbalance cap ships)

there is the catch 22 there, its glaringly obvious. now seriously, how do you propose to fix it?

I'm taking every last sentance of yours for face value, you are the one seeming to miss the context behind my words
that problem, answer series was a set of hypotheticals running into issues for every countermeasure you take to the inbalances/imperfections of the previous fix.

my sarcastic tone comes when you either miss very elementary things, or because I explained why something wouldn't work and you insisted that it would.

now, seeing as you dont like to address the issues behind your own logic, I agree that this should be done away with.

lets have a discussion not a fight

I'm not going to call myself an expert on modern naval combat, but from what I know of torpedo turn rates and speeds and combat vessel turn rates and speeds, karaoke, there are no ships longer than, say, about eighty yards in service today that can outrun a modern torpedo. Take the ADCAP torpedo at 55 knots or so and, say, an Oliver Hazard Perry-class frigate at call it 30, and unless you time your rudder hard starboard perfectly, the torpedo wins.

That's why most American ships have a torpedo decoy they can deploy and tow if they get shot at, because with the range, speed, and maneuverability of your average torpedo, they don't stand much of a chance otherwise.

and still, a torpedo runs by a propeller. missiles run by pure rocketry.

almost nothing can outrun a missile, excluding as I said before, a few aircraft.