|
Post by The Astronomer on Nov 6, 2017 9:11:54 GMT
Is your nuke measured at 9mt, or 9Mt? Because it REALLY matters. I'm just going to assume capital Mega, instead of Micro. Isn't m milli? Also, sometimes I come across some factbooks on NationStates stating that their population is 1m people or something like that. 1 milli people (1/1000), really? Most people might not get the joke, but for us science-headed people it is really funny and is a matter of concern. For example, if a planet is 10 Mm away from the star, but you say that the planet is 10 mm away from its star, congrats, you just dipped that planet into its star.
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Nov 6, 2017 13:32:31 GMT
Remember that Vesta is just an asteroid; the gravity is quite low, so the fleets can easily fly straight at each other in a way they can't around Venus or even Luna. And the AI has something like 2-3X the funds you have, so such a direct fight is problematic. I do wish you could use stock-component drones/missiles without unlocking module design - you can build them, but not a launcher, which is a bit silly. It's possible to improve hugely on the Stinger even with stock modules and such a drone would be invaluable in this scenario. To elaborate on Admiral Obvious' suggestions: Each laser can only route through one laser mount at a time. Usually you just have 3-4 per laser, at most, to cover multiple facings. Personally I find the 13Mw is the best of the stock lasers; maybe use multiple of those instead, especially as you're power-limited in this design anyway. I was just testing this again myself and found that 3 of the stock cutters (so 9 13Mw green lasers in all) can destroy all the incoming drones/missiles pretty effectively if you specifically target the guns. The lasers probably won't do to kill the capital ships, though. Broadside-radiators-behind is a pretty standard design type. Remember that damaged weapons will leave holes in armor; you might want to mount them off center (if they have enough angle) or over spacers (so nothing is behind them). For a more extreme variant, put some or all armor layers only on the frontal side (see the stock Sentinel for an example of this). Ah! Thank you for confirming my suspicions about the lasers! I was wondering about this and must have skipped over the suggested reading part that explained that. Right now, that design actually has an energy glut. I'm pretty certain I could squeeze in at least one more 100mW laser and possibly two. Some tweaking on the power plant (or addition of one or two small ones) would allow for more dedicated "Laser + Mount" pairs. I had heard of the "target the guns" technique, but I'm curious: why would that matter? Given that gun operation is supposed to be "automatic?" I know that ticking "ignore range" results in a great deal more fire being lain down, but it is not clear if this has much real benefit. I had also encountered various commentators say similar things about lasers "not doing to kill capital ships" and I don't quite follow why that is the case. Are the 9mm rail guns likely insufficient for killing the cap ships? In my experience, missiles (my missiles) and drones are extremely ineffective. I designed a very high explosive (like 9mt) nuke and a matching flak missile (same size and mass) with the intent to launch salvos of 30 (27 flaks and 3 nukes). Probably way too big. In the course of two or three test plays with Vesta Overkill, multiple waves had minimal effect. The other thing with missiles is: the "safest" intercept trajectories seem to be fairly curved, even around Vesta. Because the computer sends his missiles at me headlong (using relatively more dV) they are relatively easy to sucker off into dead end trajectories. But I've found that, when I have made extensive use of Missiles, the computer opponent ALSO is quite savvy about suckering my more cost-effective (and thus slower) approach missile fleets and the outcome of the scenario ultimately depends on the attrition effects of his more numerous waves of drones and missiles whittling me down and then his largely unscathed capital fleet blasting me to smithereens. The broadsider ship I posted up above handles his missiles and drones almost without suffering harm. Killing most of his cap ships is also quite typical for that fleet of 10 to 13 broadside gunboats. But his last ship so far has always outlived my last ship. Some great ideas on weapon mounting! Until this design, I had been trying the "nose forward" and let all weapons fire, but in my experience that just does not work. there are no stock 100mW lasers, and whats the point of a 9mt nuke? explosive charges on larger flak warheads have more yield then that. I tend to design with more power then I need so that if radiators get shot off I can still fire all the guns. You NEED extruded turrets to use nose forwards. Metric prefixes, mm milimeter, Mm megameter, mW miliwatt, MW megawatt
|
|
|
Post by Kerr on Nov 6, 2017 13:41:00 GMT
Ah! Thank you for confirming my suspicions about the lasers! I was wondering about this and must have skipped over the suggested reading part that explained that. Right now, that design actually has an energy glut. I'm pretty certain I could squeeze in at least one more 100mW laser and possibly two. Some tweaking on the power plant (or addition of one or two small ones) would allow for more dedicated "Laser + Mount" pairs. I had heard of the "target the guns" technique, but I'm curious: why would that matter? Given that gun operation is supposed to be "automatic?" I know that ticking "ignore range" results in a great deal more fire being lain down, but it is not clear if this has much real benefit. I had also encountered various commentators say similar things about lasers "not doing to kill capital ships" and I don't quite follow why that is the case. Are the 9mm rail guns likely insufficient for killing the cap ships? In my experience, missiles (my missiles) and drones are extremely ineffective. I designed a very high explosive (like 9mt) nuke and a matching flak missile (same size and mass) with the intent to launch salvos of 30 (27 flaks and 3 nukes). Probably way too big. In the course of two or three test plays with Vesta Overkill, multiple waves had minimal effect. The other thing with missiles is: the "safest" intercept trajectories seem to be fairly curved, even around Vesta. Because the computer sends his missiles at me headlong (using relatively more dV) they are relatively easy to sucker off into dead end trajectories. But I've found that, when I have made extensive use of Missiles, the computer opponent ALSO is quite savvy about suckering my more cost-effective (and thus slower) approach missile fleets and the outcome of the scenario ultimately depends on the attrition effects of his more numerous waves of drones and missiles whittling me down and then his largely unscathed capital fleet blasting me to smithereens. The broadsider ship I posted up above handles his missiles and drones almost without suffering harm. Killing most of his cap ships is also quite typical for that fleet of 10 to 13 broadside gunboats. But his last ship so far has always outlived my last ship. Some great ideas on weapon mounting! Until this design, I had been trying the "nose forward" and let all weapons fire, but in my experience that just does not work. there are no stock 100mW lasers, and whats the point of a 9mt nuke? explosive charges on larger flak warheads have more yield then that. I tend to design with more power then I need so that if radiators get shot off I can still fire all the guns. You NEED extruded turrets to use nose forwards. Metric prefixes, mm milimeter, Mm megameter, mW miliwatt, MW megawatt Qswitched should add laser pointers. Should be as lethal as the stock lasers.
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Nov 6, 2017 14:30:41 GMT
I thought that was what the stock 400Kw laser was for
|
|
|
Post by AdmiralObvious on Nov 6, 2017 15:33:40 GMT
Is your nuke measured at 9mt, or 9Mt? Because it REALLY matters. I'm just going to assume capital Mega, instead of Micro. Isn't m milli? Also, sometimes I come across some factbooks on NationStates stating that their population is 1m people or something like that. 1 milli people (1/1000), really? Most people might not get the joke, but for us science-headed people it is really funny and is a matter of concern. For example, if a planet is 10 Mm away from the star, but you say that the planet is 10 mm away from its star, congrats, you just dipped that planet into its star. Probably. Again, insomnia. I've not gotten much more than 3 hours of sleep at the time of posting.
|
|
|
Post by Rocket Witch on Nov 6, 2017 21:05:34 GMT
I was considering recreating the scenario to see if it has some "tweaked" math under the hood, but I"ll take your word for it that a copy of the scenario would perform (statistically) identically to the one in the campaign. There are level presets that replicate various campaign scenarios in the sandbox; Vesta Overkill is one of them. You can also view a large number of parameters when selecting an AI for a fleet in sandbox to see how they behave (and even mod in your own); Voitenko uses the 'aggressive' behaviour set.
|
|
|
Post by treptoplax on Nov 6, 2017 21:26:47 GMT
I was considering recreating the scenario to see if it has some "tweaked" math under the hood, but I"ll take your word for it that a copy of the scenario would perform (statistically) identically to the one in the campaign. There are level presets that replicate various campaign scenarios in the sandbox; Vesta Overkill is one of them. You can also view a large number of parameters when selecting an AI for a fleet in sandbox to see how they behave (and even mod in your own); Voitenko uses the 'aggressive' behaviour set. It does put you in random orbits, whereas the campaign scenario starts you in specific (in this case relatively close) positions; it's not a big deal for some of the campaign missions but matters slightly for VO.
|
|
|
Post by dichebach on Nov 6, 2017 22:14:09 GMT
Thanks again for all the detailed responses and good humor folks! Qswitched is lucky to have such a cordial, knowledgeable and engaged core of regulars as you guys. I can only hope to attract gamers of such high quality when my product eventually gets to alpha and I have something for people to play and take apart and dissect before my horrified eyes. What is that saying that I have heard some editors say to some authors "You must murder your babies . . ." something like that.
The odd thing about this game is: despite me being a psychobiological scientist, not physical or engineering, and despite the many gripes and critiques I have, I find it quite addictive. The ship/module designer could probably be a game all by itself, and if it included things like: small arms, body armor, loaders, assembly lines, surface vehicles, utility craft, EVA vehicles, boarding craft, drop ships, etc., etc. I believe it could command quite a large audience.
Off to fiddle with designs and I'll post a few pics to answer previous questions, etc.
|
|
|
Post by 𝕭𝖔𝖔𝖒𝖈𝖍𝖆𝖈𝖑𝖊 on Nov 15, 2017 6:14:17 GMT
Finally, after a ridiculous amount of fiddling have a ship design that does fairly well in Vesta Overkill. It is almost like I'm playing another game than what you guys (and many Youtubers) seem to be referring to in their descriptions of that scenario. I've tried at least a half-dozen different ship designs, and before this one, they were all slaughtered, as in: nothing left after a few missile/drone fleets hit. This one still is not skating all the way through yet. The missile and drone fleets generally seem to cause minimal harm. But in the handful (3?) where I've endured the lag and stutter long enough to get to the final moments of the scenario, the fleet carrier always seems to outlast my last ship. This has got to be one of the fatuous hard game scenarios I have ever encountered. The game was not overly difficult up to the point of Vesta Overkill, but in all honesty, sorting out what works and what doesn't (much less why, which remains partly a mystery based on the variety of solutions I saw suggested by various others and which did not work for squat for me) was about equal parts pain and fun. Had I tried to do this without unlocking the module designer, downloading a handful of modules and studying how those were put together then fiddling with alternative designs, and reading up about the stuff, i.e., how the game assumes these things will work, I very likely would have just stopped playing as it seems many users must have. This is not meant as an attack on anyone, but merely as a factual description of my experience as a user. The beauty is, it doesn't have to be that way and the game has so much magic and wonder in it, it would be a literal travesty to NOT revise the game design to make this an addictively fun game. I really hope it happens. ADDIT: I also feel the need to say: I've played a lot of computer games over the years. I've been military board games, and roleplaying games since 1983, and computer games for nearly that long. I am pretty good at estimating what is going on with the algorithms that comprise my computer opponents under the hood, and I tend to suspect that Admiral Voitenko is a big fat cheater! There is as yet, no such thing as "AI" and certainly not in the emergent decision-making patterns which can arise from the algorithms in a little game app for PC. With the exception of specialty opponents like chess opponents or other relatively simple board games, MOST so-called "AI" in computer games cannot possibly pose a credible competitive threat to a typical human player if they meet on a level playing field. In short, I understand that "cheating" computer opponents are in fact, the norm and I have been party to them myself. But there is blatant "this don't seem like we are being bound by the same rule set" cheating and then there is "Hmmm, how did he do that so fast/easy/direct?" Vesta Overkill falls into the former, more blatant category and I can imagine that many would be fans did not take well to that experience. use Small missiles/drones to deal with all their missile barrages. they don't have that much ammo actually
|
|
gun
New Member
Posts: 21
|
Post by gun on Nov 19, 2017 7:36:23 GMT
Thanks again for all the detailed responses and good humor folks! Qswitched is lucky to have such a cordial, knowledgeable and engaged core of regulars as you guys. I can only hope to attract gamers of such high quality when my product eventually gets to alpha and I have something for people to play and take apart and dissect before my horrified eyes. What is that saying that I have heard some editors say to some authors "You must murder your babies . . ." something like that. The odd thing about this game is: despite me being a psychobiological scientist, not physical or engineering, and despite the many gripes and critiques I have, I find it quite addictive. The ship/module designer could probably be a game all by itself, and if it included things like: small arms, body armor, loaders, assembly lines, surface vehicles, utility craft, EVA vehicles, boarding craft, drop ships, etc., etc. I believe it could command quite a large audience.Off to fiddle with designs and I'll post a few pics to answer previous questions, etc. You have played Kerbal Space Program, yes?
|
|
|
Post by dichebach on Nov 21, 2017 5:16:55 GMT
Oh yeah, I've played KSP a lot!
|
|
|
Post by 𝕭𝖔𝖔𝖒𝖈𝖍𝖆𝖈𝖑𝖊 on Nov 30, 2017 7:15:45 GMT
now, the only thing this game needs is fully integrated soft body physics like Beam NG drive, but in space, so gun collisions can LAG EVEN MORE!!!
|
|