Bomber damage can be quite high. But the reason why this is ok with fighters/bombers is because you can blow them up easily with flaks. So you can remove that threat pretty fast. To destroy the missile turrets you would probably have to fight yourself through lots of gauss cannons (and probably flak frigates if fighting against a smart enemy) with very high losses. This you don't have to do with hangar defenses. They are though, but they don't really matter once you've destroyed it's squadrons.





Those two things don't work together.

Range of LRM: 8500
Range of Gauss Cannon: 7500

So, either the missile turret would have a high enough range to prevent to "skirt around the system undammaged" for which they would need a much higher range (probably over 15000, if not even more. Then they would rival fighters/bombers though. Or they would have the same range as a LRM (upgraded LRM or not?) thus making them another gauss variant, but one which could destroy LRMs.

Since LRMs are the counters to defenses (LRMs are countered then be ships) would this make defenses much more powerful then before and LRMs much weaker.

Your right it would prevent no damage skirting around, except that most of the time your ships will be in range of Gauss when they come in anyways, they just fly away fast enough... that is also why the Missile Turret like I said, would have low dammage.


I think Anataar1 also had a good idea.

You didnt explain how those two things don't work together?

Missile Turret weak dammage protects Gauss cannons, and if guarded properly will give dammage to phase in ships, Hangars protect the entire system, but can be intercepted... notably hangars also have much more health.

Those work fine?

But again I also like Anataar1's idea. The point is it doesn't make anything obsolete and you would be paying a research cost and tactical cost for this thing... its no uber cannon that makes the game unballanced.

You just don't seem to Like it.

This of course also depends very much on the point cost of these defenses. Logically, if it would be as powerful as you describe you should be able to place very very few of them, and with good reason.

If there would be a missile platform that could reach LRMs, I can easily see it costing 8 tactical slots to place, simply because 1 of those platforms + 1 repair station makes non-massed LRM raids in early/small games obsolete

but it wont be early at all if it is a level 6 tech req

Level 6 meaning needing 6 military research stations? With the increased resource gathering rate it's a lot easier to build up those stations, but by the time you get that many the enemy still should have a decent sized fleet, so yeah perhaps making them 5-6 per platform would do okay.

Sort of moot theorycraft though in any case, I was just trying to make a point for Vandenburg that direct combat ability doesn't necessarily make anything overpowered, the direct costs and opportunity costs of using it are also taken heavily into account.

Easiest case in point: capital ships. Vastly overpowered to every other non capital in the game, but it's not their pure resource cost (except in small/early games) that makes them balanced, it's the 40 fleet supplies per ship (and to a smaller degree the need for research stations).

Nah, what makes capital ships a bit balanced (they aren't actually balanced though, a high lvl capital ship is overpowered) is the need for crew research and it's high money cost.

I can easily churn out the first 4-6 capital ships in a short game on a small map, but after that it gets much harder to have more of them because of the research necessary for the crew. Ship points are no problem with most of the maps.



Of course they would work together. Now add a flak turret and you have a nigh impregnable defense for early to middle game. (As long as the enemy doesn't come with multiple capital ships).



Nope. I have neither much sympathy or antipathy for the addition of new defense structures, as long as they're counter able, balanced and innovative.

I also wanted more in deep info of how those missile turrets should work. It's easy to say what they should do in theory but I'm more interested in the implementation of it into the game.

But imho the small gravity wells of Sins just don't lend themselves very well to much defenses. It's ok in other games like SupCom, because you have large, accessible maps and a diverse array of attack possibilities. But in Sins with the limited possibilities of moving inside a grav well you can make defenses overpowered very easily.

Just place a small fleet inside your defenses next time the enemy attacks, he'll stand no chance as long as he's no overpowering advantage already (nummeric and tech wise).

But this missile turret sounds more like something to make the need of a fleet added to your defenses needless. And that's what I don't like.

More types of defensive platfroms doesn´t mean that there will be more turtling (as the ammount of tactical points availiable wont increase)
Its a good thing to have more types of defensive options so people can make diverse defenses that complete the ships left behind (right now as you can only defend against caps and soso against fighters you need to leave long range ships an anti fighter behind)
If the enemy can´t expect what mixture of units and platforms he has to face if he doesn´t scout is a good thing!
I know its work to make additional models for new defenses and balance them and its probably not high priority, but a lot of us players like to bunker turtle and just want to feel safe in their systems.
Catering to them is definitly good.
It would also break up the dull view of 12 gauss cannons at the edge of a system.
Diversity is good and makes for more interesting situations and strategies!

For the same reason people use any cut down word: its faster.



Except not as vulnerable to flak frigates (Vulnerable, perhaps, just not as vulnerable).

Ron, as usual you cut to the quick and miss the point. It was the only word he cut down, and its not typical or a word which normally gets cut down... more importantly it sounds weird... Imba... reminds me of Scuba

Say Scuba its weird (Venture Brothers Joke)

A) Imba is a frequently used "cut-down" Edit: Not to mention pretty clear.
How do you think new words get coined?

Scccuuuba... your right it is weired (return line in VB)

I disagree with everything above this post. X-pecialy shortening of words such as imba...

New words get coined all the time, but they usually are new forms of old words such as Truthiness, not a shortening or cut of a perfectly reasonable word. No Its not a common shortening, or at least I don't believe you based on my own experience, which of course differs from you.

Maybe you visit forums of hottentot-word butchers and it is common slang.

At any rate, I wasn't trying to make it an issue, as much as just mention it in passing. So can we drop it yet?

Hehehehe Scuba

PS: if we were not on a game forum, and you just used imba, its not very clear, its only MADE clear by the context of its use.

Well duh

Fighters (and IIRC Gardas too) can already intercept LRMs. Why should these be any different?

If you think LRMs are a big threat to your existing defenses, just build some fighters and set them on local defense around the turrets. No need for new uberdefenses.

Also, the inability of current defenses to reach the edge of the gravity well is an intentional balance choice. Longer range defenses aren't liable to happen.

I think we are all aware of that, and if you read a little more carefully you would see that I (and I don't think anyone who has posted in this thread) are looking for an 'uber-defense' that would be absolutely stupid.

I was unaware that fighters intercepted LRM, that does change things a bit, and yes I'm aware the intention of not having weapons that reach the edge of the Grav well... even though they have a weapon which does that quite effectively already and even though currently if you warp in a decently sized fleet half of them in Gauss Range anyways.

So regardless of their intent they outrightly failed. You will get fired on by Gauss most of the time coming in... I don't care personally I think thats apropriate, just move the hell out fast, simple. In addition you will get hit by bombers when you come in as well as they have free range.

SO what does it matter if it can hit incoming vessels since they are already getting hit. Why can't I have that option with weak damage and very weak armor (I would basically have it be a Cobalt in health probabbly less) and the added cost of it being a tier 6 or 7 tech!

Seriously, a wimpy missile turret bothers you This Much? You want problems with turtling the place to start worrying about it is the Novalith Cannon.

Which still won't cause a turtle issue if it is at all ballanced.

well... maybe the answer to all this thread is a Starbase. A buildable starbase, having upgrades like Gauss, Missiles and protection (shield, hull). Plus, the starbase could have levels (slowly but surely).

In fact, a Starbase could basically replace Gauss cannons (having some on it), missile batteries (doing the same thing as fighters) and of course you could flank the starbase with hangars. Why build a starbase instead of Gauss cannons? Well, more expensive, longer to build, but stronger and could add to population cap, logistic, tactical, increase research speed a little, etc. Could even be buildable in empty space (asteroid fields, gaz giant, etc.)

The starbase would not be buildable at beginning, but with a medium tech, you could add 1 starbase (only). Another high level tech would allow you to build 2, for example (the same principle as the capital ships, but less in number).

Your thoughts?

Who said they do that?

Not going to happen.

I know, but isn't it a good idea?

Kryo stated that Fighters and Flak can 'intercept' LRM

LRM has armor type light.

Fighters have attack type antilight making 1.5 times the damage to light armor, while flaks have attack type antiverylight making normal damage against light armor.

So yes, fighters are very good against LRMs while flaks just do normal damage.

Oh, missed that. Nice.

Via Blair, several times (mostly on IRC when we were dealing with target priority issues, granted).

couldnt read the last few posts, but on the missile turret thing:

the posters arguing for it said it should be only lightly armoured, while doing light to moderate damage, so essentially, this things aren't for heavy defense but for doing at least some damage to enemy fleets passing through and generally being a nuisance.

if we need it, lets get specific: say, around 1500 hp, a bit less dmg than lrm, range 10.000 - 11.000 (if the above values are correct and lrm range is 8500 and gauss is 7500) and cost of about a gauss canon or a bit more.

keep in mind that it should have a better dmg/ money value than lrms, otherwise you would just use a couple of those for defense.

and lastly: even though a well devised attack plan should greatly reduce your losses, I am not particularly fond of the possiblility that if you combine lrms with flaks and some more ships, you won't essentially take any losses at all unless an enemy fleet is nearby. by doing that, defense is only good for slowing the enemy down, which is good, but not sufficient imo. we are not talking about undefeatable defenses, just something that does at least slight damage to even a prepared fleet.

This is like the longest thread I've ever started in my internet life. lol. woot!

Anyways...

In regards to capitol ship limits...I finished a large game in which I was fielding the maximum number of capital ships. At that stage, I controlled 3 star systems and there was absolutely nothing preventing me from churning out as many cap ships as I wanted, all the resources were plentiful or purchasable from the market. So really the most important caps in a large game are the fleet caps and research cap, not the resources.

Anyway, I re-iterate that missle batteries fit within the context of this game and can be balanced by some combination of the following restrictions:
- an appropriate tactical slot cost
- resource drain on metal/crystal to replinish ammunition
- can be limited to targetting capital ships with larger missles
- ammunition can be targetted and destroyed by flak frigates and possibly fighters.

They don't make gauss cannon obsolete because gause cannon has the advantages of a) faster rate of fire non-targetable ammunition c) Targets frigates and cruisers.