Okay...so I tried out the changes...now, I haven't had a chance yet to test them very much...I was only able to play a 1v1 against an unfair AI and didn't quite finish, but here are my feelings so far...

I really like LRFs not being as good against heavy armor....most definitely requires a more varied fleet composition with lots of LFs (I was using about 1/2 LRF, 1/3 LF, and 1/6 Flak for most of the early game)...in one situation I actually built only LRF because the enemy through a capital ship at me (its the best early counter), but when they sent reinforcements of some flak and LFs, the LRFs didn't fair very well (would have been an easy victory before)...

However, I don't like the speed nerf to LRFs (sorry Darvin)...I was playing TEC who have the best LRF and the one with the most range, and honestly they were too slow...it seemed to take forever for them to get across a gravity well or even get from the factory to the battle...with LFs more valuable, I think LRFs need to be a very strong counter against them...LFs are fast, I really don't think any counter to a fast ship can afford to be terribly slow...if LRMs aren't very good at a slow speed, Illuminators certainly won't (which is why I think Darvin suggested only lowering the speeds of LRMs and Kanraks)...

So, I think LRF vs heavy armor nerf is good...slower LRFs, not so good, the reduced effectiveness against heavy armor whittles down their numbers by a fair amount; the reduced effectiveness against caps penalizes them enough, no speed nerf is needed...haven't yet really had a good chance to progress my game where the AI is actually using lots of HCs...started with an Akkan and the speed boost was noticeable...it no longer lags behind the fleet...the AI built 2 Radiances, but I didn't really get a good feel for the speed boost (since they're dumb and never retreat caps)...I will say though, there was one battle where that battleship speed was noticeable, a Radiance charged right into my fleet and activated animosity before the rest of the enemy fleet was even in range...so, cap ship speeds also good...

All in all, I like the changes so far minus the LRF speed nerf....

By the way, a cumulative change log would be nice since there were a lot of small changes...

Indeed; illuminators need their mobility to be effective, and seeing as they're underperforming currently and less effective at focus fire to begin with, it's fair that they're better at chasing.

How about taking the Javelis and Kanrak to 450 if 400 is too harsh?  If the heavy armor changes are working well, let's roll with it, but I still think that the LRF move speed should be clocked down at least a little.

The AI throws all its units (including capital ships) into fleets, so the faster capital ships would have their speed reduced by fleet cohesion behavior so they don't move out of formation.  You won't see the AI use this at all, pretty much.

I'll definitely stop by to test this over the weekend (won't be available until Friday evening).

I definitely think it is worth trying...the modded speed actually is 450, so I'd say 475...it's small, but it'll still be noticeable since it will slow early fleets down (that are just LRF, LF, and flak)...

475 is where the colony caps used to be, which was noticably slower (if only because the LRF was at 500...)

So sure, let's see how that pans out.

Not exactly sure if this is the best place to bring it up, but I do think it involves capital ships and counters...

First, I think Vasari fighters and sentinels need to have a weapon other than phase missiles...I'm not the only person to suggest this, but the issue lies in which weapon to put on them...

We basically have three choices...pulse gun, pulse beam, and wave cannon...

Currently, in all 3 factions, bombers and LRFs share the faction's primary weapon while flak and fighters share the same weapon...

So, from that standpoint, sentinels and fighters should have the same weapon type...though, this is not a requirement...

My vote goes to pulse beams, but it'd be good to get lots of opinions and reasons on this...

Also, since LFs are going to be much more important, I think it is only fair that Skirmishers get a boost in DPS...per fleet supply, cobalts do about 1.9 and disciples do about 2.1...my preliminary suggestion would be to buff the skirmisher from 1.7 DPS per fleet supply point to about 2 DPS per fleet supply point, putting it in between the other two LFs...

In order to do this, the skirmisher's DPS would have to be raised from 12 to 14...that is my proposal...feedback appreciated...

I've noticed a pattern with weapon upgrades.  I'll categorize each weapon as one of the following:  light, medium, and heavy.  The "light" weapon upgrades are lasers, lasers, and pulse gun.  The "medium" weapon upgrades are missiles, beams, and phase missiles.  The "heavy" upgrades are autocannons, plasma, and wave.  TEC beam and Vasari pulse-beam weapons are miscellanious and only affect capital ships.

Aside from a few weird ones (Advent starbase and TEC siege) there's a clear pattern going on here.  Light frigates, scouts, and support cruisers always share damage types, as do bombers and LRF.  The flak and fighter always share damage type, but the exact type is different from each faction to the next.  Advent uses light, Vasari medium (those blasted phase missiles) and TEC heavy.

Now let's look at the actual positions of the upgrades themselves:

No patterns here, just the painfully obvious.  Phase missiles stand out here as the most accessible and wave cannons as the least.  There's no obvious way to solve this issue aside from changing what these upgrades do (since it costs more than twice as much to upgrade the first level of waves as it does to upgrade the first level of plasma or autocannons). 

So how do we want to change this around?  Do we want to try to maintain some of the patterns here or just throw them out the window?  Should we keep flaks and fighters together, or maybe separate them.  I think at least one unit of flaks, fighters, and bombers should stay phase missiles to complement assailants, but other than that I'm not sure of where to go with this.

Bombers most definitely need to stay with PMs...that is a Vasari strength and I don't think it should be taken away...

The nice thing with pulse beams is that it is easier to get (LFs are now more important so pulse gun is going to get researched anyway)...but, wave cannons allow +30% instead of just +20% and are on the enforcer...

Vasari are getting hit hard...now, I think this is good since their advantages in some cases were ridiculous...but, they can't be nerfed to oblivion, they need to stay as strong as the other factions...if fighters and sentinels lose PMs while skirmishers become more important, then DPS needs to go up on these units (I'd even argue DPS may need to go up on the enforcer)...

Right now TEC/Advent/Vasari ships do the following DPS per fleet supply point...

• Garda     3.83333
• Defense  4.5
• Sentinel  3.26666

• Cobalt       1.9
• Disciple      2.125
• Skirmisher  1.71428

• Kodiak   1.8
• Destra    1.9
• Enforcer  1.91666

• Ogrov     1.875
• Solanus  0.833333

I would add on to this that LRFs and Illuminators do almost exactly the same DPS, but only half of that is frontal for the illuminator...also, Vasari fighters are almost identical to Advent fighters in DPS, so I'd leave those alone as well even though they're losing PMs...

Now, looking at these 4 sets of numbers...

Vasari most definitely need more DPS from the skirmisher and sentinel (especially since it's losing PMs)...

With the nerf to LRFs, I think LRMs are going to be extremely dominant because of their range and cost...so, I think it is fair to say that the 1st/2nd/3rd LRF is LRM/Kanrak/Illuminator in terms of taking out LFs as well as caps and structures (the next two most vulnerable things to LRFs)...since LRFs are less important, I don't think any buffing is necessary to the illuminator...it may be weak but the Advent have strong LFs and flak...

As far as flak goes, the rankings are Defense/Garda/Sentinel...and for LF, the rankings are Disciple/Cobalt/Skirmisher...

Advent are strongest in both (but weakest LRF) while Vasari are weakest in both...now, I'm fine with advent being strongest with both since they have the weakest economy...however, I don't think Vasari should be weakest in both, that is just going to be too crippling...given the expenses of skirmishers, I think Vasari should have the 2nd best LF...since Vasari essentially have the strongest SC, I think they should still have the weakest flak, though a stronger one nevertheless...

Buff the skirmisher to a DPS per FSP of 2.0...that means the DPS would increase from 12 to 14....

Buff the sentinel to a DPS per FSP of about 3.46666...that means the DPS would increase from 16.3333 to 17.33333...this would make it better against SC than it currently is, but the loss of PMs would make it weaker against frigates (though I think the skirmisher and strong SC may make up for it)...

Now, we also have HCs to concern ourselves with...with advent now most likely dominating the frigates, and Vasari losing frigate power badly (kanrak, fighter, and sentinel all nerfed due to LRF nerfs or loss of PMs), I think the enforcer needs a slight buff...nothing major, just a little bit...

I'd say buff the enforcer to a DPS per FSP of 2...that means the DPS would increase from 23 to 24...not big, but it's something...

And then we have the issue of ogrovs vs solanus....now, if you play against the AI, they seem to use these things to great effect...the damage per ship I honestly don't think is the problem...the issue is the cost in both resources and fleet supply (which don't matter to a cheating AI)...I think the solanus needs a buff so that it is at least a good option but the fact that it is expensive I still think should be a major drawback....I suggest keeping the cost the same (so it will be much more expensive than an ogrov) while reducing the fleet supply...this allows a greater potential for damage, but at an extreme cost (so bombers are still better choices in most situations)...

I'd say reduce the solanus's fleet supply from 18 to 14...that changes the DPS per FPS from .83333 to 1.07143...more potential, but still just as expensive...

I'm not set on any of these numbers, but I think they'd be a decent start...

Okay, 13 instead of 14 would still be an improvement...I can go for that...

As for adjudicators...I'd like to not change the combat stats of the unit...would a slight cost reduction and FS reduction be in order?

Also, I've been thinking about it, and I think maybe sentinels and fighters should use wave cannons...TEC have the same situation with their HCs, flak, and fighters using the same weapon...it also would make those expensive wave cannon techs much more useful...pulse beam is like TEC beams, only on a limited number of items, which is fine by me....

While that would be nice, it doesn't solve the real problem with wave cannon upgrades: that they're horribly overpriced for what they do.

TEC beams and Vasari pulse beams are a similar story; too far up the tech tree and too expensive.  Maybe we could bump them from 5/10/15/20 to 10/20/30/40 % damage bonus.  This would only have significant impact on the Kol and Kortul, which probably could use a bit of a DPS boost at that stage of the game anyways.  It would also affect the Argonev, but honestly I just don't go toe-to-toe with upgraded starbases to begin with, particularly the TEC variety.

Since the weekend is here and I'm sure a lot of people would like to do some testing, there is now a compilation of all 4 min-mods currently in progress...my apologies if it is not complete or the change log is not perfect...I tried to compile different string files and entity manifests as accurately as possible, but I will admit it was a bit rushed so that there would be a compilation for testing this weekend...

The changes in the current version are by no means permanent or complete...it is simply the best effort to have something available that allows all changes to be tested...

You can download the compilation here...

Move speed is working extremely well.  I love the faster and more mobile capital ships.  Capital ship durability is just perfect now.

Unfortunately, it seems we've overshot the mark on LRF and reduced their presence too much.  So we've got to buff them up (and possible bring down bombers a notch).  The challenge will be to do so without messing with capital ship durability, which is just perfect right now.

Yeah, imagine what would have happened if I actually put them at 400... if we increase them to 475 that will give even the slowest capitals a 50 speed lead while LRFs should be able to catch up to carriers again, plus actually get from place to place at a somewhat tolerable speed.

Is there anything besides bombers that needs to be changed before the next version? Has anyone tried how the heavy cruiser changes are working?

They were at 475 in the game we played.

I'm wavering on the issue of LRF right now.  The thing is, Seleuceia was running bomber/flak/HC, while I was running fighter/flak/HC.  With so few LF on the field and basically massed LRF counter, should we really expect the LRF to have a strong role?  I'm just not sure; I think we need to play more games ot get a feel for this.  It may not be that LRF are too weak, but rather that their counters are dominating.

Realistically, LRF is countered by heavies, fighters, and flaks.  Bombers in a pinch, too.  That's virtually every combat unit in existance.  It wasn't noticable when the LRF was strong enough to bloody its own counters, but now I'm really feeling it.

This whole armor/weapon counter thing is going to be very very difficult to deal with...the biggest part of the issue is that bombers and LRF share the same armor type...if flak or fighters are strengthened against bombers, then LRF becomes even more useless...if flak and fighters are weakened, then bombers become even more powerful...

The early game revolves around a Triad of 4 units (with 4 different armor types), so it is an inherently flawed system to begin with...LRF are clearly a counter to LF, but after that it gets fuzzy...fighters and flak counter LRFs, but flak also counters fighters...so, flak is supposed to counter LRF yet also protect it at the same time??  WTF??

That LFs counter both flak and carriers doesn't help...and then fighters also have to counter bombers, which counter HCs, which semi-counter everything else...so basically, the situation is totally ridiculously complicated...

Let's look at units and their counters....

I'm not going to claim this chart to be perfect...that fighters are a hard counter against bombers is honestly very debatable...nevertheless, I think this chart highlights our problems...the most obvious issue is the lack of symmetry, clearly noticeable around the LRF/bomber area (the most problematic area of all)...it seems that no matter what you do, either these two units become ridiculously powerful (current version of game) or one of them gets totally gimped (current version of mod)...

LRFs are the only unit to have 3 different counters (as Darin noted early)...HCs only have one counter...you could even argue that bombers have no hard counters, just two soft counters...the entire system lacks symmetry, and therefore would be ridiculously hard to balance (and maybe even impossible)...

I really hate to say this, but the current armor changes in place don't solve this issue...they simply replaced one dominant unit (the LRF) with another (the HC)...I honestly don't think the current armor/weapon type system is feasibly balanceable...I hope someone proves me wrong, but I don't think it is possible to balance this unless the armor type of the LRF is changed or the roles of each ship dramatically change...light armor is the only armor type shared by direct combat units (the bomber and LRF), and that one fact is what is hurting our efforts to balance this...

On the bright side, I do think the LRF and bomber reduction against caps is good...as of right now, I feel those two changes alone are good enough...for my own personal use, I am probably going to rework the system (which will involve some dramatic changes)...I'll be willing to share those changes, but they will probably change the game too much and therefore not be good inclusions for this balancing mod...

Trying to balance the current system now makes my head hurt...if someone figures it out, you will be my hero, but until then, I don't know what else to say in regards to this issue....

I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing; asymmetrical relations can add to the depth of the game.  It's just a matter of managing them, and giving each unit unique roles.

Hopefully; I quite like the current setup and I'd prefer to see it work rather than scrap it completely.

I'm thinking perhaps the best solution may be just to reverse the LRF nerf against very heavy armor type, revert the HC vs LRF counter back to its softer defaults.  It seems fighters and flaks are doing the job just fine now.  I'm thinking perhaps bomber vs fighter could be solved by simply reducing the damage fighters take from flaks.  Since fighters have their own unique armor type, this wouldn't impact any other unit, and a little more staying power would probably do them wonders.

I would be willing to try both of those suggestions....

Okay I lied...I have been thinking about this....

So what exactly are the problems with the current version of the game?  One, caps are too easy to kill and two, LRFs and Bombers dominate...

Now, reducing bomber v cap and LRF v cap seems to have solved the first issue...

So, how do we solve the 2nd?  Fighters are the counter to both the dominate units, bombers and LRF...I think Darvin is correct, if flak were less powerful against fighters, then we could possibly solve the issue without much further tweaking...

So, how about this....like Darvin said, revert the HC v LRF and LRF v HC stats to their originals...change flak v fighter from 1.3333 to 1.0...change HC v LF from 1.2 (originally 1.25) to 1.0...

What does this do?  HCs are not as dominate, bombers are easier to counter, LRFs and LFs hopefully become more useful...I think this or something similar is really worth testing...

I'm not sure reverting HCs back to their original is a good idea. Maybe LRFs vs very heavy was overnerfed, but I don't think just a speed reduction and having more fighters is enough to keep the LRF from being able to give heavies a run for their money. Also HCs are supposed to be a counter to LRFs as well, and in the unmodded game it was clear that they were failing in that task. Also I'm afraid that having fighters be the only viable counter to both units will just make carriers the main combat unit again, which is not something I want to go back to.

I don't mind reducing flak fighter damage, but I don't think that is a sufficient change to help heavy cruisers. Also I never changed HC vs light, it is still at its base 1.5.

The only other option to deal with bombers then is to increase flak v bomber (light)...of course, this will also affect LRF since they share the same armor as bombers...

Maybe, but maybe not...if bombers are weakened (however that is done) then HCs inherently become stronger...bombers are the only counter to HCs, so if bombers are weakened by a fair amount that is a huge boost to HCs...

The strength of the original LRF was that it was good against everything....change that "everything" to just LFs, and the LRF because pointless because LFs are now pointless too once HCs are used...

If LFs become much more useful, LRF inherently is more important...I think if LRF are weaker against heavy armor and HCs are weaker against medium armor, we may be able to accomplish this...

Now, the current version of the mod does one of those changes (LRF weaker v heavy) but didn't do much in terms of HC v LF (1.25 -> 1.2), so LFs are pretty much pointless since they have 2 fairly hard counters...

In the mod, LFs seem to be pretty valuable until HCs come around, so I think the HC v LF is the issue there...LRFs, even early on, aren't very useful, because the only thing they can do well is shoot LF...so, the issue there isn't HC v LRF (though that could still be an issue) but rather the utility of LRFs....they simply fill a specific role that can be done even better by HCs (since HCs can also kill LRF and flak better)...LRFs are going to need to be either more resilient against flak (flak v LRF lowered) or given some other bonus (stronger v caps or v structures or v HCs)...

Of course, flak v LRF also affects bombers...god this is just a mess...

Definitely worth trying.  Originally I wasn't sold on reducing HC damage against LF, but it's grown on me a bit and I don't have any objections to it anymore.

LRF were only winning because people had huge swarms built up from the early-game, and they often were busy introducing beneficial support cruisers while you were putting up 5 labs to get heavies.  If you brought an equal command value of HC's you'd beat the LRF no problems.

The counter was there, it was just a little soft.  I'd agree that in 1.19 it's too soft, but with our other changes, the LRF no longer needs such a hard counter and the HC can get away with being a softer counter.

I have a habit of rushing HCs when I play on ICO...even as TEC, I can say that it was well worth it if you weren't immediately rushed...LRF-based fleets usually did not work unless they vastly outnumbered me...obviously, you have to be careful that the enemy is not amassing insane amounts of bombers or is using repulsion on you, but from a composition point of view, HCs were pretty good since they aren't vulnerable to flak/fighters like LRF are...

That being said, it certainly wasn't a hard counter, and since HCs were so much more vulnerable to bombers, LRFs still were dominate...

This is one of those things that I think will only be solved by experimentation...theorizing and number crunching will only do so much good...

Agreed.

PS - Maybe you should start up a thread for technologies and economic upgrades.  A lot of miscellanious stuff that is simply never useful right now...

Good call, I agree...thread is up in strategy section...

Okay, I've been thinking about this some more...to keep things clear, let's just assume I'm starting from scratch...no modifications, no changes, just the original weapon/armor type stats...

In the original game, we had 4 issues:

1)  Capital ships are too vulnerable

2)  LRFs are too powerful

3)  LFs are almost useless

4)  Bombers are too hard to suppress

This resulted in people being over-protective of caps, LRFs dominating the frigates/cruisers, LFs never being built (except early Advent) and bombers being spammed...

This is my thought process on the changes I'm going to suggest...it might be best to read the whole thing in its entirety before you start highlighting text, quoting, and preparing to comment...

Now, as for fixing the first issue...reducing bomber v Cap and LRF v Cap is the obvious and most straightforward answer...

The current version of the mod changes LRF v Cap from .75 to .6 and Bomber v Cap from .75 to .65...conceptually, these two changes are good...now, we really have no idea if those are the numbers we want since Bombers and LRFs are going to see other changes...but suffice to say, let's just assume we want those changes and those numbers are more or less ideal for now...

Now, for the second and third issue...

Here is how things are supposed to work...you start the game with LFs...the counter to these is LRFs, so everyone researches these and builds them as fast as possible...the counter to LRFs is fighters, so people research carriers and build fighters...the counter to fighters is flak, so people research and build flak....the counter to flak is LFs, and by now people probably have some support ships, so there is good incentive to still build LFs...you end up with some decent amounts of all 4 units:  LF, LRF, fighters, and flak...

Here is how things actually work...LRF are a hard counter to LF, so everyone researches LRF and just builds those...fighters and flak are both counters to LRF, so if someone goes pure LRF then you build flak and some fighters...if someone builds only flak and fighters, LF are worth a shot...but eventually, someone with lots of flak and fighters realize they have virtually no offensive potential, so eventually pretty much everyone is building lots of LRF with some flak to counter/protect LRF...both LFs and fighters get slaughtered, so pretty much your only chance to get an upper hand is to build more LRF/flak or to research HCs...

The early triad of units is LF, LRF, and flak...but really, this early "Triad" should be a "Quad" of LF, LRF, fighter, and flak...the problem is, flak both counter LRF and protect LRF, when really all flak should be doing is countering fighters...

So, here's a prudent change: weaken flak v LRF...now, what exactly will this do? 

If flak are weaker against LRF, then the only good counter against LRF will be fighters...this is good, because it forces a player to build the intentional counter to LRF...conceptually, this will create a "Quad" of units where only the appropriate counter will be adequately effective...

However, this change will leave flak very vulnerable to LRF (which in the original game are very good against heavy armor, 2nd only to LFs)...we don't want people using LRF to counter flak, we want people using LF to counter flak...we also want LRF to be weaker in general...

So, the obvious and straightforward solution is to reduce the effectiveness of LRF v heavy armor (flak/carrier/support)...

The current version of the mod reduces LRF v heavy armor from .75 to .60...this seemed to work out fairly well, and until HCs came into play it made LF much more useful (in fact, very useful)...however, the current version of the mod does not reduce flak v LRF...this, combined with HC v LRF makes LRFs pretty much useless...

Here is my suggestion...weaken LRF v heavy armor from .75 to .6 (as mod currently does) but also weaken flak v LRF from .75 to .5...

What does this do?

The game gives you the ability to build LF...so you build some (except maybe Vasari)...you research and build LRF as quickly as possible because you know everyone else started with LF...you see the enemy has a lot of LRF, so you research carriers and build fighters...of course, the enemy does too, and you research and build flak to help protect your LRF from fighters...you also build some more LF in order to help counter the flak and maybe even the carriers (and perhaps some hoshikos by now too)...until HCs come out, there is good reason to have at least some quantity of LF, LRF, flak, and fighters around at all times...

Now for the 4th issue, bombers...and here is where you may be thinking "Well Sel you are dumb because you weakened flak v LRF, and LRF and bombers have the same armor type."  But, what if flak v LRF was weakened yet flak v bombers wasn't...well, I think we may have the solution, and I think it lies within accuracy...

Every weapon type has a base percent chance to hit fighters and bombers (those are two, separate percentage values)...

Now, currently flak (anti-very light) have a 75% chance to hit bombers...now, I just weakened flak v light armor from .75 to .5...that is a reduction of 1/3, so if I increase the % chance to hit bombers by 1/3 I should in theory have reduced flak v LRF while doing nothing to change flak v bombers...a one third increase would put the percent chance to hit bombers at 100% (up from 75%)...therefore, I suggest increasing that percentage from 75% to 100%...this however, does not weaken bombers, but merely keeps them the same...we don't want bombers to just be the same, but to in fact be weaker...

Now, when testing the mod, 2 issues were noticed:

1)  HCs are too dominate

2)  Bombers are too good against fleet (though that fleet was dominated by HCs)

For the first issue, I think a simple reduction in HC v LRF and HC v LF may be in order...I suggest these ratios be changed from 1.5/1.25 (1.2 in mod) to 1.25/1.0...however, we want bombers, not LRF, to be a successful counter to HCs, so LRF v HC should also be reduced from .75 to .55 (already in mod)...

As for the 2nd issue, I don't think anything else should be done for now...HCs have been weakened and therefore their numbers hopefully won't dominate fleet composition...since bombers are most effective against caps (which has been changed) and HCs (which won't be as common), I think bombers may indirectly be weaker...I'm not saying they won't need more nerfing, but I'd like to test out the other changes first...

To summarize everything, I believe these are the best changes (relative to the original game):

• Anti-medium (LRF) v Capital Ship decreased from .75 to .60 (already in mod)
• Anti-very heavy (bomber) v Capital Ship decreased from .75 to .65 (already in mod)
• Anti-medium (LRF) v heavy (flak/support/carrier) decreased from .75 to .60 (already in mod)
• Anti-medium (LRF) v very heavy (HC) decreased from .75 to .55 (already in mod)
• Composite (HC) v light (LRF) decreased from 1.5 to 1.25 (new)
• Composite (HC) v medium (LF) decreased from 1.25 to 1.0 (new)
• Anti-very light (flak) v bomber chance to hit increased from 75% to 100% (new)

If bombers are found to be still too powerful, I'd recommend increasing the chance to hit of fighters v bombers (so LRF aren't affected)...

I'm not saying these suggestions are perfect, but I do believe that conceptually they are what is necessary to foster fleet diversity...