Fractal Softworks Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 11 12

Author Topic: Raids, Bombardments, and Planetary Defenses  (Read 44225 times)

Megas

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 9705
    • View Profile
Re: Raids, Bombardments, and Planetary Defenses
« Reply #120 on: August 22, 2018, 05:10:55 AM »

It seems tankers will become the Umgah drone.  All tankers need now is a ship system that zips it backwards.

Quote
imho it fails as a system that could represent something plausible in terms of verisimilitude and it also fails as a generator of interesting fleet vs fleet scenarios (something the game has desperately needed since .50 imo) as it will just be the same ol same ol "smash two fleets together until one wins" thing without any additional considerations, except you might have to bring a dram to win (which is something you probably do already anyway)
I always bring multiple tankers with my fleet because there is no way to reach fringe systems and back without them.  Fuel capacities of everything that is not a tanker are way too low.  I dislike this forced tanker dependence to do anything useful.  Even freighters are merely a good idea, not required.
Logged

erikem

  • Lieutenant
  • **
  • Posts: 76
    • View Profile
Re: Raids, Bombardments, and Planetary Defenses
« Reply #121 on: August 22, 2018, 08:20:31 AM »

in order to do a tactical bombardment you'd need guidance
You are bombing static targets at the surface of the planet. The only thing you need is to calculate a proper trajectory.
Logged

Alex

  • Administrator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 19397
    • View Profile
Re: Raids, Bombardments, and Planetary Defenses
« Reply #122 on: August 22, 2018, 08:57:56 AM »

Bombardment visuals could be cool, yeah. But it'd probably take like two weeks just to nail that down, minus any audio accompaniment - visuals can be slippery like that :)
Logged

Cik

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 607
    • View Profile
Re: Raids, Bombardments, and Planetary Defenses
« Reply #123 on: August 22, 2018, 09:20:57 AM »

in order to do a tactical bombardment you'd need guidance
You are bombing static targets at the surface of the planet. The only thing you need is to calculate a proper trajectory.

yes, obviously it's trivial to hit a target that isn't moving, from about 24,000 feet. how ridiculous of me to think that you would need either guidance or a giant formation of bombers carpet bombing entire cities.

i mean obviously look at these morons. just drop your unguided bomb. the target is stationary. shifting wind bands? uncertainty about your and targets' real positions, and efforts of defenders to kill you? obviously these are trivialities. target is stationary, therefore easy  ::)
Spoiler
[close]

but anyway that's a secondary concern, the real concern is that it isn't interesting tactically and doesn't add anything new or interesting to the flow of combat when it probably should considering raiding is kind of important mechanically, both as a means to an end and as an end in itself.
« Last Edit: August 22, 2018, 02:11:21 PM by Gothars »
Logged

Deshara

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1539
  • Suggestion Writer
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Raids, Bombardments, and Planetary Defenses
« Reply #124 on: August 22, 2018, 09:27:34 AM »

Bombardment visuals could be cool, yeah. But it'd probably take like two weeks just to nail that down, minus any audio accompaniment - visuals can be slippery like that :)

this reminds me of the 3 months I spent working on the sprite to a game I made for my finals, back when 800 x 600 was the standard resolution and the sprite came out to be less than the size of my pinky fingernail xD



in order to do a tactical bombardment you'd need guidance
You are bombing static targets at the surface of the planet. The only thing you need is to calculate a proper trajectory.


Thank you! I've dropped i don't know how many fuel pods from orbit in Kerbals, it'd only make sense that it'd be easy for the remnants of the galaxy-faring Human Dominion to be able to do it. I mean, there's scripts for it in the Kerbals modding community so you don't even need to do the work yourself. I'd imagine every cockpit in The Sector is programmed, from long long ago in a sub-routine nobody in a position to do anything about it is even aware is still there, to have a little Clippy pop up and go "It appears you are dive-bombing civilian infrastructure on a under-defended planet with poor redundancies to inflict mass casualties. Would you like some assistance? :-)" and then opens up a little payload guidance window on their screen with a ticker in the corner tracking the estimated body count, short-term and long-term, in the corner letting even an untrained pilot know how heinous an act it would be to drop a bomb right there.
(can you tell I've been re-reading starship troopers?)
Logged
Quote from: Deshara
I cant be blamed for what I said 5 minutes ago. I was a different person back then

SapphireSage

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 229
    • View Profile
Re: Raids, Bombardments, and Planetary Defenses
« Reply #125 on: August 22, 2018, 10:25:19 AM »

I'm not sure if this has been answered but I am curious about one thing.

Now that bombardments are going to be a thing, will it be possible for NPCs to perform bombardments themselves and if so, what would be the purpose of player ground defenses in helping to hinder them since AFAIK AI don't care about resources at all?

I do understand though that orbital stations and fleets will also be there to deter them and that ground defenses will still be helpful against raids, but the major factor in limiting player bombardment(fuel cost) would not exist for the AI so if AI were able to perform them at some point fuel wouldn't necessarily stop them from doing it willy nilly like they do with E-burn currently which is almost a 5 speed buff to AI burn speed/acceleration right now.

Also also, about the campaign objectives such as the nav bouy aiding burn speed. Right now the burn speed differences between the average capital and average frigate is only 4 (7-11) speed. I have a bit of concern about an enemy faction owning a domain nav beacon in a mixed ownership system like Valhalla/Ragnar(Heg/Tri) since that would allow a cruiser fleet to keep pace with a frigate fleet burn wise on top of the AIs penchant for spamming E-burn which can really hurt a newer player's ability to avoid larger destructive fleets.

Thank you for taking the time out to answer these questions. I really enjoy the game and appreciate the effort you put into it!
Logged

Alex

  • Administrator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 19397
    • View Profile
Re: Raids, Bombardments, and Planetary Defenses
« Reply #126 on: August 22, 2018, 10:54:00 AM »

Now that bombardments are going to be a thing, will it be possible for NPCs to perform bombardments themselves and if so, what would be the purpose of player ground defenses in helping to hinder them since AFAIK AI don't care about resources at all?

I do understand though that orbital stations and fleets will also be there to deter them and that ground defenses will still be helpful against raids, but the major factor in limiting player bombardment(fuel cost) would not exist for the AI so if AI were able to perform them at some point fuel wouldn't necessarily stop them from doing it willy nilly like they do with E-burn currently which is almost a 5 speed buff to AI burn speed/acceleration right now.

In theory yes, they could bombard, but they currently don't, mostly due to a lack of scenarios/events where that'd make sense.

I think looking at whether the AI fleets track resource use behind the scenes or not is missing the larger point - that how they behave is much more important. So in the case of E-burn, they're a bit too liberal with it (iirc that's toned down for .9a? not 100% sure), but ideally they'd use it in a similar pattern to how they would if they were indeed resource-limited, so the thought "they don't use fuel, do they?" wouldn't really come into the player's awareness.

It still makes sense they'd use it more than the player, in many cases - especially patrols that have access to faction resources and usually stay in-system anyway.

Back to bombardments, if the AI were to start using them, defenses would factor into its evaluation of whether it's cost-effective, or even possible, to do so. For example, a very basic calculation might be "if fuel cost is greater than 25% of fuel capacity, don't bombard". Whether there's an *actual* fuel cost is pretty much irrelevant here, you know? It's an implementation detail.

Also also, about the campaign objectives such as the nav bouy aiding burn speed. Right now the burn speed differences between the average capital and average frigate is only 4 (7-11) speed. I have a bit of concern about an enemy faction owning a domain nav beacon in a mixed ownership system like Valhalla/Ragnar(Heg/Tri) since that would allow a cruiser fleet to keep pace with a frigate fleet burn wise on top of the AIs penchant for spamming E-burn which can really hurt a newer player's ability to avoid larger destructive fleets.

Hmm - we'll see, I guess! I think the player's more intelligent use of Sustained Burn gives them enough of an edge to deal with just about anything, and a new player generally shouldn't be hostile with a faction that owns a Domain buoy. But that it's a consideration/concern is arguably good, since it means the effect is enough to be strategically meaningful, and will affect the player's decision making, which is ultimately the goal.

Thank you for taking the time out to answer these questions. I really enjoy the game and appreciate the effort you put into it!

Thank you!
Logged

Deshara

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1539
  • Suggestion Writer
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Raids, Bombardments, and Planetary Defenses
« Reply #127 on: August 22, 2018, 11:30:07 AM »

in order to do a tactical bombardment you'd need guidance
You are bombing static targets at the surface of the planet. The only thing you need is to calculate a proper trajectory.

yes, obviously it's trivial to hit a target that isn't moving, from about 24,000 feet. how ridiculous of me to think that you would need either guidance or a giant formation of bombers carpet bombing entire cities.

i mean obviously look at these morons. just drop your unguided bomb. the target is stationary. shifting wind bands? uncertainty about your and targets' real positions, and efforts of defenders to kill you? obviously these are trivialities. target is stationary, therefore easy  ::)

Hypothetical; which is easier? Going from orbit to land, or going from the ground to orbit?
Which presents a follow-up question; which is easier; shooting a ship in orbit from the ground, or shooting a building on the ground from orbit?

In fact, you bring up an interesting example in WW2; they had the means to bomb with about as much accuracy as we do today. Malcom Gladwell did a thing on it. They spent millions on a device and then installed the device in every bomber. They trained every pilot in the fleet to use this device, and then noticed... nothing. People still couldn't hit crap, so they tested and re-tested and re-tested this device and confirmed that, no, the device works perfectly in calculating fall trajectory so well that you can hit a watermelon from the upper atmosphere, even usually without accounting for wind. So what was the problem?
People weren't using it.

The reason that bomber accuracy has increased since then isn't because the aiming techniques have gotten better, we've just removed people from the equation more and more.
I mean, today you could knock a person's hat off with a (unarmed) bomb from a passing jet in the upper atmosphere without hurting the person, consistently. Probably today it'd not even be that hard to de-orbit a bomb from outside the atmosphere (we already de-orbit stuff way more than you'd think (we've already de-orbited a space station, fun fact) and the reason you don't hear about all the satellites we drop is bc we're good at not hitting stuff with them by accident), and we're not even a space-faring civilization.
Logged
Quote from: Deshara
I cant be blamed for what I said 5 minutes ago. I was a different person back then

Cik

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 607
    • View Profile
Re: Raids, Bombardments, and Planetary Defenses
« Reply #128 on: August 22, 2018, 02:02:12 PM »

in order to do a tactical bombardment you'd need guidance
You are bombing static targets at the surface of the planet. The only thing you need is to calculate a proper trajectory.

yes, obviously it's trivial to hit a target that isn't moving, from about 24,000 feet. how ridiculous of me to think that you would need either guidance or a giant formation of bombers carpet bombing entire cities.

i mean obviously look at these morons. just drop your unguided bomb. the target is stationary. shifting wind bands? uncertainty about your and targets' real positions, and efforts of defenders to kill you? obviously these are trivialities. target is stationary, therefore easy  ::)

Hypothetical; which is easier? Going from orbit to land, or going from the ground to orbit?
Which presents a follow-up question; which is easier; shooting a ship in orbit from the ground, or shooting a building on the ground from orbit?

In fact, you bring up an interesting example in WW2; they had the means to bomb with about as much accuracy as we do today. Malcom Gladwell did a thing on it. They spent millions on a device and then installed the device in every bomber. They trained every pilot in the fleet to use this device, and then noticed... nothing. People still couldn't hit crap, so they tested and re-tested and re-tested this device and confirmed that, no, the device works perfectly in calculating fall trajectory so well that you can hit a watermelon from the upper atmosphere, even usually without accounting for wind. So what was the problem?
People weren't using it.

The reason that bomber accuracy has increased since then isn't because the aiming techniques have gotten better, we've just removed people from the equation more and more.
I mean, today you could knock a person's hat off with a (unarmed) bomb from a passing jet in the upper atmosphere without hurting the person, consistently. Probably today it'd not even be that hard to de-orbit a bomb from outside the atmosphere (we already de-orbit stuff way more than you'd think (we've already de-orbited a space station, fun fact) and the reason you don't hear about all the satellites we drop is bc we're good at not hitting stuff with them by accident), and we're not even a space-faring civilization.

ground to orbit assuming your termination criteria is "hit the ground" if we are talking about precision guidance, IE you want to hit a target smaller than a city with a craft that doesn't have an infinite survivability against heat and G, it's the opposite.
shooting a craft from the ground is much easier, because:
1. orbital motion is predictable, and confounding factors can be accounted for. the chief issue is accelerating the projectile and/or missile to such a speed that it is impossible to dodge considering the range of the target, and the target's potential for changing it's plane and degree of motion.
2. hitting a target on the ground from orbit has a number of very difficult confounding factors. your position and the target's position mandate the specific path it will take to get to the ground, many of these paths will not be survivable by the munition(s), in addition to this, wind bands are unpredictable and multilayered which means a guidance kit is going to be mandatory to put in corrections on the way down. a freefall projectile is simply never going to get to the target and destroy it, assuming the projectile requires hit-to-kill. if you had a 15 megaton projectile you could maybe do it assuming the projectile is moving very, very quickly and can somehow survive re-entry at speeds where wind and atmospheric disturbances are not a factor.

if you are talking about norden, it was a very effective tool but ultimately it was oft defeated by unknowable information. the squadron meteo says that winds are going to flow at 12kn 180 24,000 8 kn 140 12,000 and 0 kn groundspeed. by the time you get to hamburg, what are the winds like? who knows? you don't have anything to measure it with (well, maybe at exactly where you are) also, you are getting shot at the whole time. often the bombardier was killed or the formation was broken up or approaching the drop point there's 109s everywhere and you are focused on other things like the armor piercing incendiary rounds going through the midsection of your airplane and not on doing math to calculate the bomb release point. the reason bombers have gotten better is

1. better, more computerized gunsights
2. better visibility, enhanced ability to see and comprehend battlespace
3. the vast majority of bombs are guided now.

if you leveldrop an unguided ironbomb from 20k even with a "perfect" release solution, you still aren't going to get anywhere near the target. you might do slightly better than a B-17, but it is only because the computer is doing more math, better. ultimately the bomb is still subject to a large amount of unaccountable factors. without correcting on the way down most munitions are basically still a carpet bombing tool, at best.

but while i relish chitchatting about the history of strategic bombing, this is all mostly beside the point. the game is at it's heart world war II in space so it's tangentially related i suppose but for me the worst part is the lack of interesting tactical options and the missed opportunity of more interesting battles with more interesting objectives than "deploy as much as necessary, massacre them" I always considered how battles work out now as a placeholder but maybe that's not actually true? it seems odd to me to miss the opportunity to change combat into something more ~nuanced~

opinions though
Logged

Linnis

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 932
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Raids, Bombardments, and Planetary Defenses
« Reply #129 on: August 22, 2018, 08:42:42 PM »

I feel like all this possibility around bombing and stuff could really use a system for fleets to partially engage.

The whole thing that limits so many cool interactions between fleets is that the powerful always win. There is little to no reason for a smaller fleet to attack an larger fleet.

A simple fleet cohesion level could be added. Staying in orbit increases it over time, boosting or moving fast could lower it etcetc . A lower cohesion could have the opposing fleets to pick certain ships to be forced and only part of thr fleet fight. Instead of reinforcement low cohesion fights could be multi staged with the higher cohesion player picking out what ships to send against what.

Logged

Inventor Raccoon

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 393
    • View Profile
Re: Raids, Bombardments, and Planetary Defenses
« Reply #130 on: August 22, 2018, 09:01:01 PM »

I think your proposed system for fleet cohesion could end up encouraging some pretty unfun tactics in the name of minmaxing, like trying to purposely get fleets to search for your fleet to lower cohesion before fighting them or having to deliberately stop and wait for cohesion to refill once you travel to somewhere you’re going to fight at.

Why should small fleets be able to take on large fleets and win? Fleet size feels like something that should mean they’re more powerful, rather than being abled to get harassed by small fleets.
Logged

Igncom1

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1229
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Raids, Bombardments, and Planetary Defenses
« Reply #131 on: August 22, 2018, 10:40:28 PM »

Small hightech fleets can already beat larger lowtech fleets.

Tempests/Wolfs/Shades stomp on Lashers/Brawlers/Hound and even Enforcers once their own frigate escorts are dead. Unescorted Eagles are vulnerable with Dominators being dead meat without their escorting ships to protect their flanks.
Logged
Sunders are the best ship in the game.

Deshara

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1539
  • Suggestion Writer
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Raids, Bombardments, and Planetary Defenses
« Reply #132 on: August 23, 2018, 12:59:42 AM »

I feel like all this possibility around bombing and stuff could really use a system for fleets to partially engage.

The whole thing that limits so many cool interactions between fleets is that the powerful always win. There is little to no reason for a smaller fleet to attack an larger fleet.

A simple fleet cohesion level could be added. Staying in orbit increases it over time, boosting or moving fast could lower it etcetc . A lower cohesion could have the opposing fleets to pick certain ships to be forced and only part of thr fleet fight. Instead of reinforcement low cohesion fights could be multi staged with the higher cohesion player picking out what ships to send against what.



Ultimate General; Civil War does that and it's excellent. It does the Homeworld thing where you bring your army from mission to mission. Most missions have a maximum brigades you can bring, and at that usually only one army can be the first to arrive, and then another is a reinforcements army that shows up after half of the battle is already done.
And, because the game (which is linear, not open world) doesn't require you to win missions to continue the story but merely to draw the mission at least (most missions have at least 3 objectives; one you must prevent the enemy from achieving, two that the player needs to beat at least one of to draw, one of them usually easier, and winning both scores a win), it allows the game to hammer a player in some missions, and design the missions to be mostly unwinnable and require the player to not engage in some missions, sending in a slim profile of troops to contest the map, do enough not to lose or give an easy loss and then accepting losses and moving on, losing in the lightly contested loss less troops than you can replace after it.
It's... a really good way to make a game, it turns out. It gives you the freedom to not be required to go 100% in every map, so if sometimes you're feeling fatigued with long, drawn out punching matches you can just... not. Show up, let your AI allies take a hammering and then go "lol sorry" and basically just leave to fight another battle, and in doing so you are allowed to leave yourself enough breathing room to gather your troops into full strength for a big battle so that, instead of scraping by you can show up, beefy and bronze and punch them into the dirt in a way you couldn't do if the game mandated that you win every mission.
Logged
Quote from: Deshara
I cant be blamed for what I said 5 minutes ago. I was a different person back then

frogbones

  • Lieutenant
  • **
  • Posts: 55
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Raids, Bombardments, and Planetary Defenses
« Reply #133 on: August 23, 2018, 03:25:08 PM »

SO awesome Alex, yeah I'm longing for a release, but this read makes the wait soo worth it. Very excited I am.
Logged

Linnis

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 932
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Raids, Bombardments, and Planetary Defenses
« Reply #134 on: August 23, 2018, 10:50:07 PM »

I think your proposed system for fleet cohesion could end up encouraging some pretty unfun tactics in the name of minmaxing, like trying to purposely get fleets to search for your fleet to lower cohesion before fighting them or having to deliberately stop and wait for cohesion to refill once you travel to somewhere you’re going to fight at.

Why should small fleets be able to take on large fleets and win? Fleet size feels like something that should mean they’re more powerful, rather than being abled to get harassed by small fleets.

Certainly better then having 90% of the fleets running around either being impossible to fight or easy faceroll. Also I cant say pressing a button and waiting for 1 second is un-fun min-maxing.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 11 12