Shps scales, list one

[Fireskull]

Here we go..

What did I do? I checked the capships size IG, then went to crius.net and checked the size they should be at. I divided their real size, by their IG size and came up with a number which is what their scale should be multiplied by.

ie: A paradigm multiplier is 3,11. This means that the scale we have for it -now- at unis.cvs should be multiplied by 3.11. I believe the current scale for a paradigm is 3,1, so the new scale must be 9,641 or anything close to that. There are also a few minor changes that should be done which I will list here.

The list, for now.

Confed

Paradigm - 3,11

Carrier - 8.89 ( Change its name to Concordia class )

Caernaven - 4,72

Sheffield - 4,1

Dreadnought - 6,04 ( change its name to Confederation class )

Venture - 1,7

Exeter - 4,35

Diligent - 1,7

Draymaster - 1,6 ( I didnt find a "draymaster" in any WC ship list, the closest I found was "Amadeus" )

Clydesdale - doesnt shows IG for me

Bengal - 4,58

Kilrathi

Kamekh - 2,1 ( yes, the kamekh -is- a very small Capship, only 130 meters )

Snakeir - 1,85

Dorkathi - 2,43

Fraltha -2,8

Dorkathra, transporter and tanker - 1,18

Fralthi ( do not confuse this one with Fraltha! Alike names, but very different cap ships ) - 4,37

Lumbari - 1,97

Ralari - 4,39

-----

I know the victory class carrier and the Brantkara kilrathi carriers are missing for now. There is also the confed corvette ( the one that uses the dostoievsky mesh ) and Waterloo cruisers. Those are the ones I couldnt get to spawn with bigbattle.bat. I will configure a system to have the ships I need to check once I am aware of all of them.

So, guys and gals, if you notice your fav capship inst listed here please tell me.

[spiritplumber]

awesome, thanks! will punch in.

[Heltarawa]

something needs to be done about space stations they are going to start looking very small compared to some ships now

*edit*

Also with this inrease in size turret coverage will be greatly reduced.

[Fireskull]

Yes, actually I thought about those two points.

1) Planets will be increased 10x. I dont see anything wrong with space stations though...Big Cap ships ( cruisers, carriers, destroyers ) are only meant to dock on naval bases anyway. One way or another, we can just scale the space stations up a bit too.

2) At first I thought the same you did. "Turret density will be a problem". Actually, some capships arent meant to be killers. Kamekhs, as a example, are just corvettes and are meant for patrols and cannon fodder, a fighter can take it out and its ok. Destroyers and others need plenty of weapons yes... I thought this could be a problem until I saw a carrier in a fight.....

Seriously, try getting a confed carrier angry. You will see they have more than enough turrets, and more than enough fighters, honestly. Not only that, but in privateer flak guns lower your speed, a few hits and you wont be able to accelerate to escape. If we also add a script so capships target torpedoes.. well

I also thought we were using sort of the same amount of turrets capships had in the other games where their size is set correctly. So, right now what we have is a overdensity of turrets.

[Heltarawa]

I think its more of an overdensity of high power turrets. Like the destoryer should have one turret dedicated to capships the others smaller antifighter turrets.

[Fireskull]

Possibly.

Well, the only ship I remember the -exact- turret placement is the Kilrathi Corvette from WC3

It had two top lasers, two botton lasers and a rear tachyon canon, it was about the size of our current IG Gilgamesh... a bit bigger I think.

And things arent really simple as just placing one anti-capship turret and leaving others for fighters. Some ships are meant to engage other capships in combat, others are meant to work as anti-fighter platforms while others are a mix of both...

Truth is we havent even seen how capships are going to work IG with a lower turret density, but I really believe they will do fine. All IG corvettes seen to have a fine amount of turrets ( about 3 or 5 ) so I believe other bigger capships are kinda balanced as well. After the changes are done we will test them of course If cap ships all of sudden become bunnies, we can place more turrets. I am almost 100% sure they will be fine, I could even place a bet on this.

But I wont ^_^.

There -is- one thing that needs to be checked with capships, which I cant do now because I dont have time.. and thats shield vs armor strenght. WCU seens to have things reversed.. capships have less shields than armor. Usually in WC ships have more shields than armor, usually at a 2x ratio. Next time you are playing WCU try firing a few missiles at capships, a destroyer should not lose its shields with about 5 missiles. I dont remember how many, I have to check the older games for it, but it shouldnt be easy to destroy one.

I remember quite clearly a mission in WC3 where you had to engage a kilrathi destroyer.. the only reason I did it was because WC3 capships had many blind spots.

[klauss]

What I did experience is that turrets are a little useless. They don't aim at the ITTS, they only aim directly at you, and that makes them miss all the time. If they were made to aim correctly, even low density turrets would be very dangerous.

[chuck_starchaser]

I totally agree, but they'd be so dangerous as to make it almost impossible to approach and fire at a capship. Unless we somehow make a major revision of keybindings and fit in the ASDW thruster controls... --i.e.: make it like Descent.

[spiritplumber]

Right now the turrets DO miss a lot since they don't correct their aim. I had them follow ITTS and it DID make capships unapproachable... what I will do is change the xml script a little bit so that they occasionally follow itts and occasionally they don't. Is that acceptable?

[klauss]

Why don't you make them aim at the ITTS, but badly? Is that possible? If not, a change in the hardcoded scripts would be in order, IMO.

Meanwhile, what you said seems like a nice approximation of the ideal behavior. But I still would like them to aim at the ITTS always - only not infallibly.

[chuck_starchaser]

Right; this is probably for jfbenck to answer; but if we try to simulate the fact that a human being is aiming that turret, and he or she is trying to aim for the itts, probably the beam would accelerate rotationally towards the ITTS, than go past it, then start coming back. I'm not sure a random descision 50% chance straight, 50% ITTS will be much of an improvement; more like switching between two extremes: One being super-stupid aiming, the other super-intelligent; almost the equivalent of just using ITTS and lowering firing rate by half. But if the firing direction is actively adjusted and there's a delay getting to the ITTS aiming, and then an overshoot and then a correction the other way, that would feel much more natural, I'd say. Maybe this could be simulated by it aim for ITTS *but* reducing turret angular acceleration and speed considerably.

[spiritplumber]

It's possible and it works, I'm considering hardcoding it anyway because it might be a bit expensive cpu wise to do it from xml. anyway, i'm doing it right now ^_^;

[klauss]

Yay! You're the best, spirit!

[Fireskull]

Dont forget that flak shoots follows its target like a missile. And dont forget that if you take enough damage in WCU your ship will lower its speed and you will have to accelerate again.

No arguments in this post of mine, i actually agree with what was said, just things I feel are important to balacing capships out.