1
Modding / Re: [0.9.1a] Rising from the depths: Ironclads re-imagined v0.1.2 (now with sound!)
« on: July 16, 2020, 06:28:10 PM »
First off, I'd like to say I am glad you're working to bring these ships and content of Ironclads to everything outside that mod! The balancing loads must be quite heavy, but I've wanted to play space America and step on the Hegemony for a while so I've taken to testing it out. Here's my feedback for you, I'll try to keep it organized.
Overall, Interstellar States (henceforth "ISS") ships are a bit quirky. Currently, they seem to be missile and squadron oriented ships whose turrets are quite short-ranged, being almost all 800su or less. I believe ISS ships could use a balance pass on: OP, Flux, and Crew. Most weapons and squadrons cost roughly the same, meaning there's not much variation in OP costs for various designs. Having fit each of the ships, I can say that there's usually not enough OP left remaining to put in the hullmods that I want. Flux seems off-balance, in part because of issues with weapons, however for the *most* part I believe that most ISS ships never need to see an OP sink in their Flux Capacitors or Vents. Exception to this is the New Mexico, whose intrinsic flux dissipation is so low (300, lower than any other) that she spends the better part of 30 seconds venting. For balance, I think that OP should be boosted on all ships by at least 15% to allow room for hullmods mods and capacitor/vent spending. Carriers should get a 25% boost, as I think squadrons should have an OP hike. I think flux values are currently fine, except that New Mexico needs a dissipation bump of ~200 to be in line with most other carriers. Regarding Crew; maximum crew values for ISS ships are incredibly low, so low that casualties from squadron losses mean I expect to be left with insufficient crew after most fights, and I've started bringing along Starliner's to ensure I have enough crew to keep the F-61's dying. I think giving specifically carriers higher maximum crew values will make up for pilot losses better.
I recommend OP cost increases on several squadrons, and also rethinking roles of several as some are very redundant with each other.
Bomber role:
B-202: The Hellfire torpedo range is too short to be effective and Piranha SRM's launch from too far away to distract PD. Overall, doesn't have high enough alpha to be worthwhile compared to the AC-300 and A-110. My thoughts: give it Phase rather than Shield, increase range and speed of Hellfire, boost damage of Hellfire, increase ordnance cost.
Assault role:
A-110: Well balanced. High damage, high casualties. Has a weird issue of firing rockets at enemy fighters, missing, and hitting friendly ships instead.
AC-300: Same rocket issue as above. Fills same role as A-110, but doesn't die as much. Considering the damage output and survivability differences, it's OP cost should be at least 16.
Fighter role:
F-61: Weaker than the Talon but at 2.5x the OP price. The Talon applies damage better, which I figure is because the Vulcan cannon fires at half the range (250 vs 500), does 25% more damage per shot (25 vs 20), and has 100 more shell velocity (800 vs 700). Watching the two, you see the F-61 spraying (its 300 round limited magazine) and usually inertia and shell physics results in it missing its target. I think the F-61 could be fixed by boosting the fighter-specific 20mm, or by giving the F-61 the Gunnery Control AI hullmod, or dropping the OP cost to 2 to be in line with the Talon.
F-135: Twin blasters. Unlike the 20mm which is fragmentation, this is energy, so does 100% damage, applying the pressure you need to shields. Personally, I'd replace the two blasters with a single centered autoblaster for aesthetic reasons and give it a Piranha SRM. At 8 OP, these are way too cheap; in testing, 6 squadrons of these from a New Mexico could easily take down a Paragon with minimal losses/impact to replenishment rate. These should be closer to the 12-14 point cost range.
MQ-90: Fills the same role as F-61 but significantly better; no crew casualties, losses don't impact replenishment rate, high recovery rate, blaster is better than 20mm at both anti-fighter and anti-ship, only 3 OP more.
F-171: Phase fighter with "support" role cannot distract opposing ships PD and only rarely uses EMP missiles against ships. As an anti-fighter support fighter, this fighter works great until its flux gets high, after which it spends more time trying trying to phase than it does shooting.
Otherwise: I think the F-61 should be assigned the support role; it's the only squadron whose gun does Fragmentation damage, and is equipped with anti-fighter missiles, so is relatively useless at anything but fighting other fighters. I also wonder if the MQ-90, being a "defense drone," was supposed to be support.
Weapons:
I believe ISS energy weapons are in a good place. Their ordnance cost, flux cost, damage, and range are all well balanced. I believe the missiles need another look, though. First, missiles; at the high end, many of the large missile slots have max ammo and reload times, except for Whaleshark and Tigershark, which only have 1-2 rounds each depending on the variant equipped. At 22 OP, 2 shots is not worthwhile. I think that they are missing a reload time. Going down to Medium and Low missiles, the max ammo/reload times are gone. Instead, each missile is relatively low OP, but has insignificant ammo and no reload time. Hellfire Torpedo Launcher at 12 OP with 4 shots doing 2k each, while Typhoon Reaper Launcher has 5 shots at 4k each at 10 OP. The Hellfire small torpedo, at 6 OP with 1 shot and 2k damage, compared to the Reaper at 2 OP, 1 shot and 4k damage, is probably the worst example.
I have mixed feelings towards the projectile weapons. They lack any flux cost, making ISS ships potentially quite flux efficient, and I think this could lead to wonky combo's, but that's not bad for the game.
Last thing; ship_data.csv shows the strikecraft as having "isa_bp, interstellarstates" in their tag field. I don't think either is necessary in the ship_data.csv file, since the correct field for that data is in wing_data. Because isa_bp is in the tag field, I am able to construct squadrons as "ship hulls" as well "fighters" as from the production menu.
Overall, Interstellar States (henceforth "ISS") ships are a bit quirky. Currently, they seem to be missile and squadron oriented ships whose turrets are quite short-ranged, being almost all 800su or less. I believe ISS ships could use a balance pass on: OP, Flux, and Crew. Most weapons and squadrons cost roughly the same, meaning there's not much variation in OP costs for various designs. Having fit each of the ships, I can say that there's usually not enough OP left remaining to put in the hullmods that I want. Flux seems off-balance, in part because of issues with weapons, however for the *most* part I believe that most ISS ships never need to see an OP sink in their Flux Capacitors or Vents. Exception to this is the New Mexico, whose intrinsic flux dissipation is so low (300, lower than any other) that she spends the better part of 30 seconds venting. For balance, I think that OP should be boosted on all ships by at least 15% to allow room for hullmods mods and capacitor/vent spending. Carriers should get a 25% boost, as I think squadrons should have an OP hike. I think flux values are currently fine, except that New Mexico needs a dissipation bump of ~200 to be in line with most other carriers. Regarding Crew; maximum crew values for ISS ships are incredibly low, so low that casualties from squadron losses mean I expect to be left with insufficient crew after most fights, and I've started bringing along Starliner's to ensure I have enough crew to keep the F-61's dying. I think giving specifically carriers higher maximum crew values will make up for pilot losses better.
I recommend OP cost increases on several squadrons, and also rethinking roles of several as some are very redundant with each other.
Bomber role:
B-202: The Hellfire torpedo range is too short to be effective and Piranha SRM's launch from too far away to distract PD. Overall, doesn't have high enough alpha to be worthwhile compared to the AC-300 and A-110. My thoughts: give it Phase rather than Shield, increase range and speed of Hellfire, boost damage of Hellfire, increase ordnance cost.
Assault role:
A-110: Well balanced. High damage, high casualties. Has a weird issue of firing rockets at enemy fighters, missing, and hitting friendly ships instead.
AC-300: Same rocket issue as above. Fills same role as A-110, but doesn't die as much. Considering the damage output and survivability differences, it's OP cost should be at least 16.
Fighter role:
F-61: Weaker than the Talon but at 2.5x the OP price. The Talon applies damage better, which I figure is because the Vulcan cannon fires at half the range (250 vs 500), does 25% more damage per shot (25 vs 20), and has 100 more shell velocity (800 vs 700). Watching the two, you see the F-61 spraying (its 300 round limited magazine) and usually inertia and shell physics results in it missing its target. I think the F-61 could be fixed by boosting the fighter-specific 20mm, or by giving the F-61 the Gunnery Control AI hullmod, or dropping the OP cost to 2 to be in line with the Talon.
F-135: Twin blasters. Unlike the 20mm which is fragmentation, this is energy, so does 100% damage, applying the pressure you need to shields. Personally, I'd replace the two blasters with a single centered autoblaster for aesthetic reasons and give it a Piranha SRM. At 8 OP, these are way too cheap; in testing, 6 squadrons of these from a New Mexico could easily take down a Paragon with minimal losses/impact to replenishment rate. These should be closer to the 12-14 point cost range.
MQ-90: Fills the same role as F-61 but significantly better; no crew casualties, losses don't impact replenishment rate, high recovery rate, blaster is better than 20mm at both anti-fighter and anti-ship, only 3 OP more.
F-171: Phase fighter with "support" role cannot distract opposing ships PD and only rarely uses EMP missiles against ships. As an anti-fighter support fighter, this fighter works great until its flux gets high, after which it spends more time trying trying to phase than it does shooting.
Otherwise: I think the F-61 should be assigned the support role; it's the only squadron whose gun does Fragmentation damage, and is equipped with anti-fighter missiles, so is relatively useless at anything but fighting other fighters. I also wonder if the MQ-90, being a "defense drone," was supposed to be support.
Weapons:
I believe ISS energy weapons are in a good place. Their ordnance cost, flux cost, damage, and range are all well balanced. I believe the missiles need another look, though. First, missiles; at the high end, many of the large missile slots have max ammo and reload times, except for Whaleshark and Tigershark, which only have 1-2 rounds each depending on the variant equipped. At 22 OP, 2 shots is not worthwhile. I think that they are missing a reload time. Going down to Medium and Low missiles, the max ammo/reload times are gone. Instead, each missile is relatively low OP, but has insignificant ammo and no reload time. Hellfire Torpedo Launcher at 12 OP with 4 shots doing 2k each, while Typhoon Reaper Launcher has 5 shots at 4k each at 10 OP. The Hellfire small torpedo, at 6 OP with 1 shot and 2k damage, compared to the Reaper at 2 OP, 1 shot and 4k damage, is probably the worst example.
I have mixed feelings towards the projectile weapons. They lack any flux cost, making ISS ships potentially quite flux efficient, and I think this could lead to wonky combo's, but that's not bad for the game.
Last thing; ship_data.csv shows the strikecraft as having "isa_bp, interstellarstates" in their tag field. I don't think either is necessary in the ship_data.csv file, since the correct field for that data is in wing_data. Because isa_bp is in the tag field, I am able to construct squadrons as "ship hulls" as well "fighters" as from the production menu.