I continue to enjoy your great game, and as I play I start to notice trends with the weapons that I think could use some adjustment. I am finding that certain weapons get a lot of use...whereas other weapons tend to get left by the wayside. Missiles So similar to MOO2, the early game is all about missiles. They are far and away the best bang for your buck. That is fine for the early game, but what I find is that missiles don't just get a bit weaker as the game goes on, they kind of fall off a cliff. The problem with missiles is two-fold: 1) Defenses against missiles increases a lot in the mid to late game (much more PD capability, both with more accurate PD beams and simply much more of them). However...missile HP and missile defense do not scale well enough to meet these new challenges. Therefore, the amount of missiles that actually get through become few or often none. This is further compounded by the way miniaturization works right now. In general, your base weapon often does the most damage per space because of miniaturization. Missiles are no exception....except that you lose out on the HP bonuses of higher missiles. So I can go for higher level missiles that take more hits....but with much less damage....or missile barrages that can generate a good damage value except that they will all get shot down. 2) Missile Damage does not scale well enough. Even if I was willing to take the gamble with number 1...missiles simply don't do enough damage. Auto-Fire beam/kinetic ships actually generate more damage for the space, and can generate that round after round. If I am willing to risk missiles getting shot down, and the risk of running out of missiles in a large fight....they need to do significantly more damage to justify their cost, but they don't even do damage parity in my experience by the mid game (aka Graviton Flux and beyond). Torpedoes have the same problem. While they don't have the shoot down problem, they simply don't do enough damage. Even if I do a weapon overload torpedo run, considering I have to wait a round (or two with certain torpedoes) to generate more damage....its just not worth it. Solution: I think the damage value of all of the higher missiles and torpedoes (from Polaris onward) need to be increased, and the increase should be greater the farther down the line you go. I also think the missile defense against PD should be increased more with engine boosters (so that later missiles have some chance of avoiding PD fire). Perhaps each new missile type should be faster by default (which also generates more defense in that case). I actually think some very strong buffs are needed to make missiles useful in the mid to late game. Beams I think in general beams are in a reasonable place. Beams tend to be stronger in the mid game when accuracy is still very important.....and then in late game as accuracies tend to be more than you need kinetics become the main damage dealers....but the differences are not significant, and the weapon addons different enough, that I don't think either line dominates the other. That said, there are a few rough spots with beams: Fusion / Neutron Beams: In general I find the Laser with miniaturization is pretty much always better until the very very late game when miniaturization levels start to catch up (and by then I move on to other beams for different reasons). The laser not only does more damage / space....its actually cheaper AND gets better mods (Auto-Fire is an incredible damage boosters in the mid game once accuracy is in a good place, and no range dissipation is a decent early to mid game booster in certain circumstances). Graviton Flux: I am noting this one as I think its one of the best designed weapons. Until you get to structure damage, lasers are still better weapons in general. However, the double damage on structure means this weapon has a very strong niche. This makes for fun ship/fleet design...sometimes I combo Flux ships with laser ones...the laser softens up the ship and then the flux ship gives the big punch at the end. This is the first weapon where I actually consider getting off of lasers for. Phasors: This weapon I find has the opposite problem from the Fusion/Neutron beam....it tends to scale too well into the late game. When you first get it, fluxes do more damage but the stun is interesting enough that I might consider its addition. However, with some miniaturization....once you can put both shield and armor piercing on the same weapon this becomes THE late game weapon. This thing has everything: I negate half a ships HP with my piercing, I have a stun chance, good damage/space, reasonable cost, can use them for PD, Auto-Fire for damage scaling....seriously everything. I find I never use the weapons after phasors....I simply add more phasors. All of the weapons past this are gimmicky in comparison...if you want raw power that can't be stopped....you come here. Kinetics I think Kinetics are the best overall balanced of the types right now. While kinetics have the same scaling issues that Beams do (aka lower level weapons with miniaturization are cheaper and more damage/space), but their mods tend to provide more variety. Some examples: Tungsten Gun vs Particle Accelerator: For a good part of the game, the TG is the better overall weapons. However, the shield piercing on the PA weapon provides it a reasonable niche....so I will sometimes take the PA even when its the inferior damage option. Railgun: The half accuracy penalty gives it some utility in the mid game when accuracy is still a factor in my weapon selection, again even if lower options are superior on damage/space. And then once accuracy is no longer my primary concern, the miniaturization makes it more competitive. Wurtzite: This is a weapon that actually manages to outscale the lesser cannons in damage/space....and has the Auto-Fire enhancement for even more scaling. However, its drawback provides some debate on which weapon I want to use. That is a nice strategic decision, which makes this an interesting weapon. Doom Cannon: This weapons is just laughable. It does abysmal damage for its weight...and a 2 turn cooldown!? You could literally double the damage of this weapon and I don't know if its worth it. Weapon Mods Just wanted to comment on a few mods in general. 1) Continuous: Personally I only use this in the very early game. More commonly I just use missiles, and then by the mid game I would rather not waste the cost for the small boost in accuracy. 2) Armor Piercing: I think this module is overpriced. AP plus SP is quite strong together, but individually AP is not all that many hp to chew through (most ships go triple structure by the mid game so that's where the bulk of your work is, not the armor). And unlike shields, armor doesn't regenerate or reduce my damage. I guess maybe if your enemy is using a lot of nano bots to heal its armor it could be useful....but I just don't find that to be the case in most circumstances. I would rather just have more raw power, chew through the armor, and be done with it. 3) Heavy Mount: My biggest issue with HM is that I generally can hit all of the front line of the enemy with a single move once I have HM. Even though its just "double the range"....I find that actually means that range no longer matters...I can pretty much hit what I want to hit right from round 1. I kind of wish the range scaled with hull size. I have no issue with a Titan or even a battle ship firing from that range, but when a cruiser can just sit back and hit anything it removes something from the game. One Last Note One thing I don't think the game plays around enough with is Damage/Space vs Cost. Right now I find that the weapons are the most efficient for Damage/Space ALSO tend to be the cheapest ones too. So its literally a no brainer. If the higher end weapons were actually cheaper for their damage in comparison...suddenly you have a new decision on your hands. And the difference would have to be significant....in general damage/space is much more important in the mid to late game. But if I can make a ship that does 2/3 the damage for 1/2 the price....well that's something worth considering.
This... I strongly disagree with, I would slam this move everywhere for one simple reason. Many players like smaller ships to retain a role throughout the game, we even did a poll here years ago where the voting was overwhelmingly in favor of it. As it is though, the game does favor larger ships. Frigates becomes useless at some point, (I know I scrap them and stop building entirely once the game goes past mid-level techs. SSP costs are also scaled to slightly favor large ships now, and a Titan breaks the formula of each ship doubling in space/size/power by 50% These factors mean that the game favors larger ships but not dramatically so. What you propose would further favor larger ships over small ones, something I don't want to see happen as right now the balance is acceptable to players that have different tastes. Why tilt this further to one play style at the expense of another? Do you have a compensatory move in mind that would address the viability/desirability of smaller ships if this were done? Right now, smaller ships are already putting out less damage due to size. (less space=less weapons). Smaller ships are more fragile due to size. Why reduce their effectiveness to address something that isn't guaranteed to happen? (I fight hundreds of battles, in in about half of them my starting position puts my heavy weapons out of range on turn one). Missile damage can be increased via strategic resources, it is a fascinating and elegant solution. I think a better solution would be to give more hit points as better armor techs are researched and move Polaris to level three tech instead of four. And finally a word on beam weapons, particularly Phasors. I avoid using beams after the middle game, (even Phasors) because too many times I've encountered the AI with full neutronium armor... If your ships then have only beam weapons aboard, you are simply un-armed. So if you want these weapons, it is good practice to pair them with something else that won't be affected by neutronium armor, thereby reducing their overall effectiveness. Great post by the way, nicely thought out and written well.
I am also a big proponent of keeping small ships competitive, but honestly the more I've played the more I still find their value. Hyperdrive frigates with maximum drive upgrades have a very good defense...I find most AI ships just whiff on them, and with Shield Piercing they can still generate respectable damage. This may be a result of AI ship building incompetence, but its pretty constant right now. I find its good to keep a squad of these around when the enemy attacks on multiple fronts, they can help to augment fleets when I need them. I think your idea for missiles is a solid idea. That said, I still think Missiles need more base damage along with that. Other weapons also get bonus damage from strategics...but at base missiles just don't do enough damage....even if they aren't being shot down as much they still don't compete with raw beam/kinetic damage.
They do... until you learn to target them with missiles and torps, then it's a one shot kill which makes Frigates akin to mosquitoes. A nuisance, but essentially harmless. (Photon torps are particularly devastating against them) This is sound operational doctrine, but at some point I still scrap them and replace their role with Destroyers. Once the game reaches the mid-point, I have the support required to skip Frigates entirely. In the last documented session I did here, by the time I stopped, I fielded over 30 Destroyers out of 60 ships total. They did the job well, Frigates were no longer putting out enough damage to be worth keeping in the field, even when used en-mass. Well I totally agree with you here. Missiles in past releases were doing a bit better, back then Nuclear missiles had a base damage of 8, this then got nerfed to 6, (wtf?) and is now at 7. Nukes should be returned to 8 and the rest of the missiles should be looked at to adjust damage, survivability, and their availability on the tech tree.
Hi KarasLegacy, thanks for your very well thought out feedback on weapons balance. Thanks also for your suggestions. Some of the issues you raised we had already identified as areas that could use improvement. We'll take your feedback into account in the continuous improvement of the game going forward. Cheers Adam
I for one am looking very forward to the continuous improvement of the game, both as a player and otherwise. While I understand the massive complexities involved, (not just for Praxis, but any developer attempting a similar product), I cannot ignore erroneous moves easily. And this is the essence of the matter at times. Many developers implement adjustments to their games, sometimes these work well, other times they only work well on paper but are horrid in practice. IS:G is a game that deserves far more than just cult classic status, and I sincerely hope that going forward it reaches its full potential.
I have to admit that I've been giving this some serious thought since you brought it up. Though I instinctively disliked the proposal at first glance, there is some merit to what you say, but I suggest a modification. Titans already have the benefit of special mounts and added Hit points, restricting Heavy mount only to this class of ship is a bad idea, even if Battleships are included, I don't think it will fly. In-game, a player may build Frigates and Destroyers without a starbase, this should be the cut-off. These two classes of ships not having heavy mounts may be acceptable, every ship class that needs to have a starbse to build, should benefit from heavy mount. If this were done, the AI would benefit on the harder settings, (trust me on this, I can back it up), but the player would still be able to field a variety of forces without feeling like he'she was being pushed towards heavier ships. Found ships of Destroyer class hull with heavy mount weapons should stay as they are, they are unique and legendary. This could be a more palatable approach that offers quite a few benefits.
So I took a quick look at some of the 1.13 beta weapon numbers for early beams. The screenshot below shows some quick excel math highlighting the Dmg/Cost and Dmg/Mass metrics of the first 3 beam weapons (which are the main metrics for effectiveness). Now I am making a big assumption in using the average between the min damage and max damage. That assumption is most accurate if you believe that most beam shots take place at "midrange". If you think beams more often fire at their longest range my dmg numbers are too large, and if you think most laser shots are closer to point blank than my numbers are too small. What I then did is slide the Fusion Beam and Neutron Beam to the right. What this does is gives us a nice comparison between your most modern beam vs the laser with the amount of miniaturization you would have at that time. In general, the trend is: The modern weapon gives the best Dmg / Mass while the Laser provides the best Dmg/Cost. That's a very reasonable way to differentiate the two weapons. However, note my numbers in red. The fusion beam has an interesting tail off towards the end. As miniaturization levels increase, it is outperformed by both the Laser and Neutron Beam in BOTH Cost and Mass calculations. Now the F. Beam does get Armor Piercing around this point...so perhaps its acceptable that the F. Beam becomes a specialty weapon for AP use at this stage in the game, but its an interesting change in the trend that I thought worth showing.
Lets take a look at Phasors vs Wurtzite Cannon. Normally Kinetics excel at longer ranges, but the Wurtzite cannons unique penalty suggests its designed for "knife fights". For example, it seems a good weapon to put on a combat jump ship...jump in, and hit at point blank range. So lets compare it to Phasors at 1 Miniaturization at those point blank ranges. This time because we are looking at very short ranges, we are going to assume the maximum damage for the Phasor. So the Phasor beats out or is extremely close to the cannon in Dmg/Mass, and that's before taking into account the extra 25% accuracy that would give the Phasor a bit more consistent hitting and will up its Dmg/Mass further. The cannon is more cost effective...but the difference is not much. How much is it? To fully stock a cruiser it costs about 400 hammers more for phasors than the cannon, which is less than half a turn for a good planet, and 1 turn or so for a normal ship producing planet. While cost is decent factor in the early game, by the mid game as I'm starting to fill up my Ship Supply....my main focus is effectiveness. I want my ships as strong as possible, and I'm willing to pay an extra turn of cost for the privilege. And of course the final nail...the Phasor's stun chance....which is a very good advantage. Honestly the only thing the cannon has going for it is Auto-Fire at Miniaturization II....a nice benefit, but considering this is a unique weapon designed for a true "shotgun in your face" hit...I think it could stand to get a buff in the damage department, or else a significant cost reduction.
Here is a good example of the Missile Scaling Problem. I can go Quantum Missiles or Nuclear. With nuclear I do more damage, my missiles have 40% more defense and are faster, and I'm saving on space. Quantum Missiles are cheaper, but its not enough to justify their use. The only advantage Quantum missiles have is there HP, but considering I can delivery twice as many nuclear missiles for the cost with an extra 40% defense...there is really no reason I would use Quantum missiles at this stage in the game.
With 1.13, what I'm seeing is the late late game shifting into Plasma Cannon. Unless the enemy has impervious neutronium armor, I'm finding that a cruiser filled with AF Plasma Cannon using combat jump, can simply jump in, overload the weapons, and one shot a Battlecruiser, or do incredible harm to a titan. 2 cruisers (with a good dose of beam boosters), can rip through a Star Fortress before it even fires. Part of that is the beam boosting tech and a good supply of helium -3, which I generally find is easy to get by the late game. But even with out, I can do the same thing just adding in a few more cruisers. To put it in context, I just took out a fleet of 3 Titans and 2 BS with just 4 of the forementioned Cruisers.
