Ah, I see where you're going now. That does make a fair amount of sense. You'll still run into leading issues with anything short of instantaneous beam weapons (which I do not particularly like as a gameplay element) no matter the speeds or distances, but it can be a gameplay challenge rather than a crippling bug. AI's definitely still need the ability to calculate lead distances though, or they aren't challenging opponents.
Maybe at some point if any of these features are implemented I can experiment and get some feedback on what is fun vs frustrating vs boring.
I did some more playing around in VS and found that leading a moving target isn't has hard as I had projected it to be. In a fighter duel I found it quite possible to lead a small fighter well over a klick away, which I estimate was moving at around a km/s when it hit top speed (haven't seen the stats for the luddite redeemer yet, but it was really zipping!) And that was before you figure its speed relative to my own velocity. I could see the direction the target is moving, and sweep my weapon fire until the shield bubble lit up. You might only score only a few hits, but that's pretty good at three klicks and over 1000m/s relative velocity, and it was enough to quickly wipe the floor with the light fighter. It helps that bolt weapons have a muzzle velocity just over 3000m/s, so at 3 kilometers you only have to lead by a second. When the ships involved are larger, say 100-200 meters in length (reasonable for a light capital ship), I imagine that you could hit targets out to maybe 6-9 klicks, with difficulty perhaps. Maybe even farther if you increase muzzle velocities a bit, or the ships involved are even larger. So manual turret control isn't as difficult as I had thought it might be.
It remains a close range weapon (in relation to space distances) but thats the point. Missiles and torpedos should be good for engaging at extreme ranges, but limited in damage. At the moment they seem like basically an endgame weapon. The same redeemer I destroyed after a two minute dogfight, could be instantly destroyed by a single FOF missile at fifteen kilometers. A single torpedo destroys an Ox. Missiles should be expensive, and not quite so deadly; useful as long range fire to soften up a target, or as finishers once its shields are down.
Referring to ship velocity, we know the only realistic limitation in space is your acceleration, but past a certain point, you're moving too fast to do anything but a 180 and full burn to stop (relative to planet or sun ect.) VS has the smart and simple mechanic of a "combat computer" which caps velocity at controllable speeds for the ship's acceleration. However, It is logical for capital ships to want to go faster than 100-300m/s. So disabling the combat speed computer and accelerating to fighter speeds, then using a 180 and burn to come about is a valid tactic. In truth, short of placing huge engines on the bow as well as the stern, using the main engines to accomplish maneuvers is probably the most precise way to fly, even a large ship. This does require some way to tell your direction of travel so you can tell which direction to burn to stop or adjust trajectory. I think floating space particles, a common space sim mechanic, would probably be the simplest way to accomplish this.
Finding a gameplay direction is a difficult process, involving some experimentation and guesswork, and all of us have our own ideas. That's one of the reasons I'd prefer to work on my own mod rather than joining someone else's work. I want to experiment with my own ideas to find what I think is fun, then see if anyone else finds it fun.
Weapon's management wise, I favor the idea of managing weapon's firing based on your capacitors and reactor, as well as mass. Along the lines of what VS already has actually, but tweaked for better balance. Basically, your capacitors can handle so much, and your reactor can recharge your capacitors at such and such a rate. Continuous fire is not the point, but rather volleys. Fire a spread, spot your hits, then drain your capacitors where you find your lead point. Combat gets more complex if you're simultaneously under fighter attack. Point defenses must by necessity fire constantly if you are being attacked by fighters, placing a steady draw on your capacitors, with the net effect of reducing the recharge rate, and therefore how often you can volley your primary battery. This opens more gameplay options as you might choose to depend on escorts to handle point defense so you can maximize your fire rate, which is canonically a major strategy for one of my game-world factions. But what happens if you lose your escorts?
Strategies for military ships and civilian ships would really be quite different, since with a civilian vessel not intended for a primary combat role, how much mass you add in weapons and the reactor and capacitors needed to fire them is a serious consideration, particularly if you still want to haul cargo. Military vessels on the other hand are designed to carry a certain amount of weapons tonnage, and not to haul cargo. They are really built around their weapons. Their capabilities will naturally far outstrip any civilian ship of similar size, and defeating them without another military ship ought to be an advanced challenge. One of the game goals the player could have is completing campaign strings for major factions to gain access to military ships. This wouldn't break gameplay since when you pick a side you're going to be having bigger enemies gunning for you. This adds a whole new dimension to gameplay, and is the reason I so fell in love with Escape Velocity. I might start out as a small shuttle doing little hauls, work my way into a trade fleet flying a big freighter, then decide to become a bounty hunter and fly a fast gunboat, then finally start a campaign string and fly a big capital ship. This kind of open gameplay where one is free to choose their play-style, and then change it later at will, or to adapt to campaign challenges, is a huge draw for this type of game for me. Detailed and immersive gameworlds and campaigns is the other. Thats why when I found VS I was highly excited. I see the potential to use this engine to build just such a game, and that is my long term goal.
Right now I'm focusing on making graphics assets, and conceptualizing gameplay, until such time as the engine should have the full list of features I need. Also, my computer is a little behind the times to run VS very well.
I have some dozen models in various stages of completion, and many others in sketch art awaiting time to make them.
Just to put my money where my mouth is, these are the low poly models I've worked up over the past couple weeks to use as 3d concept art and scaling. Once I have an overall look I like I can cleanup and detail them. I'm also working on a ship that I don't particularly like for my proj, but which might fit well into VS.
