You seriously overestimate China when you don't realize WHY they are in the position they are, and before you answer, make sure NOT to think it's the first three reasons you think, because realistically and governmentally and militarily and politically... that's not correct.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Whats that got to do with Ballistic Weapons? 
Ok so.. i tested AP Drivers.. they are awesome.. i love them. Funny that in all my SOTS1 playing i never went the mass-driver route it always ended up some kind of beam setup. Also, its pretty damn imbalanced that we get all 3 sizes of AP pwnage from 1 research. That research should be 1 tech that splits into 3 - and for each of the 3 the later tech is a separate research as well.
Ok so.. i tested AP Drivers.. they are awesome.. i love them. Funny that in all my SOTS1 playing i never went the mass-driver route it always ended up some kind of beam setup. Also, its pretty damn imbalanced that we get all 3 sizes of AP pwnage from 1 research. That research should be 1 tech that splits into 3 - and for each of the 3 the later tech is a separate research as well.
China isn't an economic superpower because it's headed for a massive pensions crisis.
also a lot of other stuff that i'm not going to go into 'cause this isn't the off topic forum. hint hint.
also a lot of other stuff that i'm not going to go into 'cause this isn't the off topic forum. hint hint.
You can watch it yourself you like, or look at any of the reports from the news when they announced it and did a live demonstration.
Off the top of my head... Future Weapon's did one too.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4OqlTXwLG40
Here's a link to an episode snip of that part of it, though that was in 2007, things got better since then.
BY 2015 they are planned to be deployed on the new destroyers.
Off the top of my head... Future Weapon's did one too.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4OqlTXwLG40
Here's a link to an episode snip of that part of it, though that was in 2007, things got better since then.
BY 2015 they are planned to be deployed on the new destroyers.
Fun fact, I was asking for a source for an absolutely ridiculous reason. I looked at the numbers you posted and went "Mach 7 to 10? What? Last time I checked the projectiles only had a speed of 2.5 km/s!"
It then took me 15 minutes to realize I had actually managed to confuse Km/s and Mach with each other, and thinking they both the same. So yeah, a brainfart on my side.
Really? Because last time I checked, congress voted to cut the funding for the project several months ago? (Then again, things could have changed while I wasn't paying attention).
The day congress controls our military is the day I leave this country.
But yeah, they can do as they will and as they always do, but military tech always gets the funds it needs for the most part and so just wait and be patient. In any case, they're already nearly done.
But yeah, they can do as they will and as they always do, but military tech always gets the funds it needs for the most part and so just wait and be patient. In any case, they're already nearly done.
I know. No one said you couldn't fit two mediums in the large by default.
Of course, I do recognise that this is not one I'll win. Wouldn't mind the option at start but also recognise it'll probably only be possible via modding.
actually, i kind of did, hahah. you're right, i hadn't thought of that.
is there any particular reason you don't want the MD tree researched at game start?
I like researching up - I always feel there is not enough in a game to research, especially weapons. It is entirely personal preference. It would also potentially mean they would make MDs slightly better if you had to research them, helping out the ballistic races.
Most saliently, though, I dislike having each race have the same techs at start. Either none at all, or some level of variation.
hmm, i see what you mean. i was always a bit down on SOTS 1's nearly-fixed allocation of starting techs for a boosted start, and that seems to be back. i'm not sure MDs is what i'd target, because it makes some sense that a race that can build a small driver can build a big one, but i'd like to see a bit more variety in the starts. with the fixed maps, there's a loss of some degree of those random handicaps that make SOTS 1 games special, so a variety in tech start would be nice.
it's probably unwise to beg the attention of the sadorandomizer, but i kinda like it.
it's probably unwise to beg the attention of the sadorandomizer, but i kinda like it.
In SOTS1 beam and laser weapons were the most reliable damage dealers, but they had problems. Generally beam weapons were not particuarly good at armor penetration, and also could have somewhat short range compared to some of the more powerful projectile weapons, they also did OK damage at best, and were directly countered by absorbers, while lasers were rendered almost useless by reflective plating. Basically beams were the most average weapons in the game unless you countered them.
Ballistic weapons on the other hand were generally very powerful, but had problems hitting in no small part due to their travel time. I generally found that the best ballistic weapon was the burster, simply because it is very hard to avoid getting hit by it. It doesn't hit what you aim it at, but it does throw shrapnel at it very reliably, and it scales up the bigger the target is. You also get AP round which are more effective the more armor a target has, and you have things like predictive gunnery research, and the AI command/aim assist command modules which would help negate some of the crappy accuracy.
Basically guns are going to be pretty inaccurate compared to lasers, but you can't rely solely on lasers. In SOTS1 I found that it was very rock paper scissors, a swarm fleet could wipe out a cruiser group with no PD, but a few destroyers with lots of PD would make short work of it. I had hoped SOTS2 would move away from that a bit, as it kinda makes winning or losing somewhat down to chance, depending on what you researched, and I suppose by giving you more starting tech to choose from it might have done that. Along with giving each race a very pronounced specialty, which I think SOTS1 didn't play up as much.
Ballistic weapons on the other hand were generally very powerful, but had problems hitting in no small part due to their travel time. I generally found that the best ballistic weapon was the burster, simply because it is very hard to avoid getting hit by it. It doesn't hit what you aim it at, but it does throw shrapnel at it very reliably, and it scales up the bigger the target is. You also get AP round which are more effective the more armor a target has, and you have things like predictive gunnery research, and the AI command/aim assist command modules which would help negate some of the crappy accuracy.
Basically guns are going to be pretty inaccurate compared to lasers, but you can't rely solely on lasers. In SOTS1 I found that it was very rock paper scissors, a swarm fleet could wipe out a cruiser group with no PD, but a few destroyers with lots of PD would make short work of it. I had hoped SOTS2 would move away from that a bit, as it kinda makes winning or losing somewhat down to chance, depending on what you researched, and I suppose by giving you more starting tech to choose from it might have done that. Along with giving each race a very pronounced specialty, which I think SOTS1 didn't play up as much.
i'm gonna leave off the rest of your post (a lot of which i heartily disagree with) but this one i have to pick up on. the tech/countertech game that is war in SOTS 1 is absolutely not down to chance, it's about strategic information acquisition, data correlation and subtlety in fleet tactics (hide the impactors in the reserve list until he starts fielding anti-energy-weapon counters...). it's the biggest part of the game, a game that I like precisely because it prevents rock paper scissors.
six cruisers, or ten DEs with green lasers and missiles and no CnC, will wipe out a swarm hive. the Queen takes a bit more, but not a lot more if you stay behind her and aim for the head. PD is not necessary at all; i've done it with gauss cannons (though it's not ideal).
I guess you can just rush the queen but you'll lose the fleet in the process, the round doesn't end until you kill all the little ones and they can quite easily kill a fleet full of cruisers, they did exactly that the first time I ran into a swarm hive. Also green lasers? I tried using X ray lasers against it once and they just bounced off. The queen has reflective plating if I recall, it'd work eventually but considering the rate the little ones cut through destroyers I'd be surprised if they'd last long enough.
Compared with a pair of cruisers covered in PD with strafe commands fitted with mass drivers, it's a lot less efficient to throw a fleet full of ships at it just to lose them all in the process of winning, you can't afford to do that for every swarm you encounter given the rate those things spread.
Also saying 'you should know what to research' doesn't really work when you have to research everything to deal with every conceivable threat. Either you can research anything you want and win, because the game has no rock paper scissors element, or the game is based around research counters, in which case it is entirely rock paper scissors based. You just called it tech/countertech, that is precisely what rock paper scissors is, everything is a hard counter to and is hard countered by everything else. This is fine if you have access to both rock, paper, and scissors at any given time, but because most of the good rocks papers and scissors at at the back of the tech tree, chances are you will only have one researched, or two if you've been neglecting other important things like colonisation and infrastructure development. Essentially, if you run into someone for the first time, they're probably going to have wildly different tech from you, and if their tech beats your tech, there isn't really anything you can do about it other than lose a lot and hope you can research something better before you get wiped out.
Compared with a pair of cruisers covered in PD with strafe commands fitted with mass drivers, it's a lot less efficient to throw a fleet full of ships at it just to lose them all in the process of winning, you can't afford to do that for every swarm you encounter given the rate those things spread.
Also saying 'you should know what to research' doesn't really work when you have to research everything to deal with every conceivable threat. Either you can research anything you want and win, because the game has no rock paper scissors element, or the game is based around research counters, in which case it is entirely rock paper scissors based. You just called it tech/countertech, that is precisely what rock paper scissors is, everything is a hard counter to and is hard countered by everything else. This is fine if you have access to both rock, paper, and scissors at any given time, but because most of the good rocks papers and scissors at at the back of the tech tree, chances are you will only have one researched, or two if you've been neglecting other important things like colonisation and infrastructure development. Essentially, if you run into someone for the first time, they're probably going to have wildly different tech from you, and if their tech beats your tech, there isn't really anything you can do about it other than lose a lot and hope you can research something better before you get wiped out.
nope, just stand still, wait while all the drones fail to do damage to cruisers, then they all die, then roll over and shoot the queen to death. her reflective coating's not that useful, provided you've got even a few missiles or similar along (MDs in the medium mounts on Liir destroyers will also do).
a full CnC of red laser destroyers'll do it too, with only a couple of lost ships. and i play Liir, so let's be honest, anyone whose armour isn't tissue-thin will have an even easier time of it.
EDIT: swarms don't spread in my games. i play with my room-mate, and we both control our infestations from turn one, thank you very much. just 'cause you're happy to live in a bug-ridden empire doesn't mean everybody is. it really doesn't require anything like the effort you're going to; are you standing still in combat? if not, do that. form your ships up into a tight formation without obstructing firing lines, target the big ones.
my roommate plays hivers, ten red laser and missile destroyers without a CnC is how he controls silicoids early game. loses some; but it's not a significant investment anyway, i'd happily scuttle ten fission DEs.
my opponent is fielding emitters. i can research reflective->emp hardening, or i can use UV lasers to outrange him, or I can break up my fleet and hit him from two sides with missiles. none of these are hard counters to emitters; there isn't one. i can use drones to absorb emitter arcs, etcetera, etcetera.
you look at your opponent's fleets before you attack them, dude. why do you think deep scan exists? being poorly informed is nobody's fault but your own. when an opponent comes against you using fusion cannons, you don't go "oh dear, i don't have a tech to counter them, better roll over and die!" you research a tech to counter them. maybe that's torpedoes, or pursuit sections, or disruptors; none of them are hard counters, none of them are far down any tree, all of them can work.
this is not rock paper scissors. i didn't mean you should know what to research, i meant you WILL know what to research; if someone attacks you with short range high firepower ships, long range weaponry, specific counters, armour techs, there's all kinds of things that can be used. jammer fleets so he can't field a real defense. opportunistic trade raiding so you don't have to engage any of his ships until his economy's crippled so he can't afford the losses.
there is also no situation where an opponent's "tech beats your tech". if there is, you're using your tech wrong. i've had such fun shooting deflector sections off with unupgraded mass drivers or overwhelming point defense with sheer numbers.
EDIT: even with hard counters; if your opponent fields grav shields and you're fielding all ballistics, you can't hurt him, right? well, you can roll out a UV laser fleet and cost yourself three cruisers for every one of his you kill and still win, 'cause grav shields are expensive, even before you take in the cost of researching them in the first place (which is massive). also, you only have to take out the shield section, then you can railgun them all you like. in fact, i'd recommend it.
EDIT: go read some of ZedF's AARs on the Kerberos boards; there's a few where his tech rolls are horrendous, which are good tutorials on what to do when you miss, for example, point defense, and your opponent is missile-happy.
a full CnC of red laser destroyers'll do it too, with only a couple of lost ships. and i play Liir, so let's be honest, anyone whose armour isn't tissue-thin will have an even easier time of it.
EDIT: swarms don't spread in my games. i play with my room-mate, and we both control our infestations from turn one, thank you very much. just 'cause you're happy to live in a bug-ridden empire doesn't mean everybody is. it really doesn't require anything like the effort you're going to; are you standing still in combat? if not, do that. form your ships up into a tight formation without obstructing firing lines, target the big ones.
my roommate plays hivers, ten red laser and missile destroyers without a CnC is how he controls silicoids early game. loses some; but it's not a significant investment anyway, i'd happily scuttle ten fission DEs.
my opponent is fielding emitters. i can research reflective->emp hardening, or i can use UV lasers to outrange him, or I can break up my fleet and hit him from two sides with missiles. none of these are hard counters to emitters; there isn't one. i can use drones to absorb emitter arcs, etcetera, etcetera.
you look at your opponent's fleets before you attack them, dude. why do you think deep scan exists? being poorly informed is nobody's fault but your own. when an opponent comes against you using fusion cannons, you don't go "oh dear, i don't have a tech to counter them, better roll over and die!" you research a tech to counter them. maybe that's torpedoes, or pursuit sections, or disruptors; none of them are hard counters, none of them are far down any tree, all of them can work.
this is not rock paper scissors. i didn't mean you should know what to research, i meant you WILL know what to research; if someone attacks you with short range high firepower ships, long range weaponry, specific counters, armour techs, there's all kinds of things that can be used. jammer fleets so he can't field a real defense. opportunistic trade raiding so you don't have to engage any of his ships until his economy's crippled so he can't afford the losses.
there is also no situation where an opponent's "tech beats your tech". if there is, you're using your tech wrong. i've had such fun shooting deflector sections off with unupgraded mass drivers or overwhelming point defense with sheer numbers.
EDIT: even with hard counters; if your opponent fields grav shields and you're fielding all ballistics, you can't hurt him, right? well, you can roll out a UV laser fleet and cost yourself three cruisers for every one of his you kill and still win, 'cause grav shields are expensive, even before you take in the cost of researching them in the first place (which is massive). also, you only have to take out the shield section, then you can railgun them all you like. in fact, i'd recommend it.
EDIT: go read some of ZedF's AARs on the Kerberos boards; there's a few where his tech rolls are horrendous, which are good tutorials on what to do when you miss, for example, point defense, and your opponent is missile-happy.
Last edited:
Looking at what you're facing is only practical if you know it's coming and if you have the time to refit your fleets before his arrive.
Assuming he's spend twenty turns or so building up a fleet, it's going to take you just as long to get something to counter it, in the meantime you're going to lose everything you had previously built and probably a decent chunk of your empire because you can't stop him. If you try to attack with only half your fleet ready, he's going to lose less than half his due to 20 ships being stronger than 2 batches of 10 ships.
It's very much down to who gets lucky right off, they get a major advantage in any fight.
Assuming he's spend twenty turns or so building up a fleet, it's going to take you just as long to get something to counter it, in the meantime you're going to lose everything you had previously built and probably a decent chunk of your empire because you can't stop him. If you try to attack with only half your fleet ready, he's going to lose less than half his due to 20 ships being stronger than 2 batches of 10 ships.
It's very much down to who gets lucky right off, they get a major advantage in any fight.
...no. sheesh. you send deep scan ships to HIS systems. you scout his fleets, identify his targets. you do this because he is your neighbour and you might one day need to know what techs he has SO YOU CAN FIGHT HIM!
if you don't not only know it's coming but also know it's being built, where it's coming from and whether he's even CONSIDERING war with you, you are failing to do use the resources available to you for gathering information.
so start as soon as he rolls the first ship off, by having a spy ship on his forgeworlds, or leaving deepscan nearby, or just plain raiding him because he's on your border. lack of information is entirely your fault; it always works for me.
i've decided to stop arguing this, because you're not really absorbing my posts, apparently.
suffice to say, i have none of the problems with SOTS 1 that you're having, not against AI, not in multiplayer. i think you're doing something wrong. since I can kill silicoids easily, enjoy the race of tech that happens in a war where each side edges for an advantage, find creative uses for low-level techs to overcome my enemy's tricks (stop railguns with destroyers?), react ably to my enemy's fleet and have never had a problem fighting off attacks with my general-purpose ships and always have good warning of the beginnings of buildups to attack me, i conclude that you're not doing the things that allow me to be successful in the fields you're saying you have problems with. not sure what those are (though the stuff i mentioned in my previous posts is a clue).
I agree with Anaris, sorry Chris0123
and Chris0123 the Shermin Tank worked well enough in WW2 and if you don't get the Reference I'm sure some one else here will be willing to explain it
But this has nothing to do with the Topic.
Ballistics Yay or Nay. It comes down to Math
ignoring the realities of the actual real world viability of the technology, is it viable in the game and here is where I think people have missed some information.
I don't know if its even used yet but when you design your ships I see two listings that I think are intended to be directly connected to this argument.
Supplies, and Energy/Battery
There is even a Module or two that increases supplies.
If what I'm thinking is right (I could be wrong) then Supplies represent Ammo, while Energy/battery, represents the Production/use of said energy.
This makes it a Balance issue.
Energy Weapons, Hit ~100% of the Time and do say an Average of 5 Damage
Ballistic Weapons, Hit ~50% of the Time and do say an Average of 10 Damage
Math says they are the same, but thats just not true.
Balance vs Immersion is what this is all about.
If the game uses an Approximation of Newtonian Physics then Ballistics would almost always win.
Because in a Immersion scenario the Projectile can be dodged, a Laser/EW can't, However if the Ship that's trying to fire the Laser/EW IS hit by a Projectile it could (and Should) send the ship spinning making it unable to hit the enemy again right away. However the Ship firing the Projectiles CAN run out of Ammo. While a ship using Energy Likly Won't Using the current system.
I got more. But I'll wait for you guys to poke holes in this first
and Chris0123 the Shermin Tank worked well enough in WW2 and if you don't get the Reference I'm sure some one else here will be willing to explain it
But this has nothing to do with the Topic.
Ballistics Yay or Nay. It comes down to Math
ignoring the realities of the actual real world viability of the technology, is it viable in the game and here is where I think people have missed some information.
I don't know if its even used yet but when you design your ships I see two listings that I think are intended to be directly connected to this argument.
Supplies, and Energy/Battery
There is even a Module or two that increases supplies.
If what I'm thinking is right (I could be wrong) then Supplies represent Ammo, while Energy/battery, represents the Production/use of said energy.
This makes it a Balance issue.
Energy Weapons, Hit ~100% of the Time and do say an Average of 5 Damage
Ballistic Weapons, Hit ~50% of the Time and do say an Average of 10 Damage
Math says they are the same, but thats just not true.
Balance vs Immersion is what this is all about.
If the game uses an Approximation of Newtonian Physics then Ballistics would almost always win.
Because in a Immersion scenario the Projectile can be dodged, a Laser/EW can't, However if the Ship that's trying to fire the Laser/EW IS hit by a Projectile it could (and Should) send the ship spinning making it unable to hit the enemy again right away. However the Ship firing the Projectiles CAN run out of Ammo. While a ship using Energy Likly Won't Using the current system.
I got more. But I'll wait for you guys to poke holes in this first
Anaris, at a couple points in your post you've referred to long vs. short range weaponry and other tactics.
You did so in a post to a newbie as well, below.
Now, having played SotS 1 through to the end many times, I have to ask - how did you manage to effectively use those things? I found that everytime I had long-range weapons on my ships, I'd get maybe a shot or two off before the short-rangers were in range themselves, and it become a slugfest. If I turned tail and tried to stay away, then I could not fire on them anymore.
If I had a screen, since I had divided my forces (short and long range) then unless the screen was 90% short range sluggers they'd get swamped.
Mind you, it's not like I was losing combat, but that I found it impossible to achieve anything elegant other than brutal short range slugfests.
I'd like SotS II to not be like that. Please eludicate.
You did so in a post to a newbie as well, below.
Now, having played SotS 1 through to the end many times, I have to ask - how did you manage to effectively use those things? I found that everytime I had long-range weapons on my ships, I'd get maybe a shot or two off before the short-rangers were in range themselves, and it become a slugfest. If I turned tail and tried to stay away, then I could not fire on them anymore.
If I had a screen, since I had divided my forces (short and long range) then unless the screen was 90% short range sluggers they'd get swamped.
Mind you, it's not like I was losing combat, but that I found it impossible to achieve anything elegant other than brutal short range slugfests.
I'd like SotS II to not be like that. Please eludicate.