Balancing the missile load for starfighters

[Fireskull]

I have the WC3 manual in front of me right now. Here are the missile hardpoints for a Longbow bomber.

4x4

8 Friendly or Foe
8 Heatseeker

1x4 torpedoes
4 Torpedoes

16 missiles plus 4 torpedoes

Here are the hardpoints for the Excalibur.. which was the super starfighter of Confed, a extremely powerfull heavy fighter.

4x3

6 friendly or foe
6 Image recognition

And for the Thunderbolt.. another heavy fighter. Not as new as a excalibur, but certainly one of the most powerfull fighters IG

2x3

6 Heat sekeer

torpedoes 1x1

1 torpedo

Now...given the facts, let me bring my point.

Civilian ships in privateer can carry waaaaaaaay too many missiles!

Seriously.. my galaxy, a -merchant- ship.. carries 20 IR missiles! Thats a bigger loadout than the newest Confed super fighter... its just absurdly high. Civilian ships arent suposed to have more firepower than military ships

I know this goes completely against what we have in original privateer.. but heck, WCU has many different issues and a different focus. In order to have a better game balance, I believe we should lessen the missile loadout for civilian ships.

As a plus, we could use this to give people one more reason to buy a Orion, which is the least used ship.

My sugestion:

4 missiles in each launcher for the centurion. Thats powerful enough for it.. the centurion already has plenty of speed, can maneuver a lot and has a rear turret. The only reason I dont think it should have 3 missiles is because the thunderbolt has a hardpoint dedicated to military torpedoes and I think giving the centurion extra missiles sort of balances things out.

Galaxy: two missiles in each launcher. Its a merchant ship right? If someone wants to trade while fighting squads of Kilrathi they should get a Orion. Some merchants may believe this is crippling to the ship, but the ship can protect itself now because it has two very well placed turrets and the possibility of getting a level 3 reactor + ion cannons for a extra punch.

Orion: 8 missiles in each launcher... plus two torpedoes. Or perhaps just 10 missiles each. I do think a orion should have two launchers instead of just one, yes. It already has a turret for tractor beams anyway. The reason for this is because the orion is sloooow, and despite its heavy shields and armor, its hard to fight many enemies in it because you just cant dodge their blasts.. so if you are in a Orion you will want to bring the other ships down as fast as possible.

Tarsus: Only -one- launcher, with four missiles. This halves the firepower of each missile salvo while not crippling missile capabilities.

Demon: I think the demon is fine with 3 missiles in each launcher. Just because its a light fighter doesnt means it needs to have less missiles. As a example, an arrow has eight missiles and better speed.

[spiritplumber]

You have a point. Why don't you put those changes in and see what happens?

[Fireskull]

Okay then

If I dont manage, I will just bug you over and over in the same manner I did with ship scales.

[Fireskull]

Okay, time to bug you spirit ( anyone else is free to answer too )

i found the numbers I have to change... I think. There is the collum "mounts" then below it "type;ammo;volume etc"

I want to change volume.

Okay. But I remember you telling me to send you only the rows I have changed... how exactly should i go about this? Save as a new file?

And how do I change that collum without having to delete it and rewrite everything?

And last, more not less important: I am opening the cvs file in a openoffice spreadsheet, separating the collums by commas. Is that the right way to open the file?

Whats up with those dates that insist on showing up at unit_scale?

O_o

[spiritplumber]

The dates keep showing up because you need to tell OpenOffice to open units.csv using "text" for columns, not "default".

Just copy the whole line(s) into a new file and I'll gladly merge them or if it's easier for you you can send me the whole file and tell me what the lines are (with exact spelling so I can look for them).

[Fireskull]

There is a miscomunication here.

There is no "default" thingy when I try to open the file. There are

Separator options:

() fixed width

() separated by:

{}tab {}comma {}other [ lil box to write stuff ]

{}semicolon {}space

{}merge delimiters text delimiter [drop down menu]

[chuck_starchaser]

I found the best asset of the Galaxy, besides cargo space, of course, its speed. I could just run away most of the time. As far as fighting with it, it was too slow at turning. The fact it has turrets doesn't help that much, since the AI doesn't often shoot straight. When it comes to a fight in the Galaxy, take away one missile and I won't buy it. I don't think the argument about its being a merchant ship makes much sense. That a ship is "merchant" it means it has more cargo space. No other implications should be drawn from the categorization, except purely logical ones, like the fact it's more sluggish turning due to the larger size and mass to acommodate a cargo space. Fact is, if a kat attacks you, it doesn't attack you more softly just because you're in a merchant ship and not in a military ship.
And a merchant ship is not only sluggisher but also weaker in terms of armor and shields than a military ship, therefore, if anything, it should carry a lot more missiles than a military one. Just my .05.

[Fireskull]

Its okay, I can give a few more missiles to the galaxy... 3 missiles in each launcher for a total of six should be enough honestly, thats about as many missiles as a hellcat has. This is a major nerf on all civilian craft except the orion actually.

[BradMick]

the impression i always got was that the missiles were micro form. less accurate, less destructive, and in everyway inferior to military weaponry of the same type. so this is pretty funny, i'm agreeing with chuck...heheh...they don't need to be changed. make it so that the missiles purchasable don't fit in normal missile mounts, or the high power military missiles don't fit int he lanunchers. i never got the impression that the missiles were in the hull, that they all fit inside the launchers themselves and were auto-loaded.

[Fireskull]

There arent high military missiles The missiles the player uses are the same the military uses, and a well place IR missile usually takes out the shields of a fighter, another one and the fighter is usually down.The problem I see here is that military craft currently have less missiles than civilian craft.

Changing missiles around would also help balance out civilian craft. There needs to be a reason for people to buy a Orion, which is a pretty useless craft now even with the front turret.

Another reason is that I dont think you should be able to do everything in a single ship.

If you can fight kilrathi in a galaxy, bounty hunt in a galaxy, patrol in a galaxy, even engage small cap ships in a galaxy why would you bother to buy another ship?

If centurions and orions cant do good trade runs, galaxies cant do good fighting, thats just balancing things out.

And neither of those ships ( centurion and galaxy ) should carry as many missiles as a military last generation bomber, because a) they arent bombers b) they arent military craft.

The centurion is a heavy fighter, so I think it should have about as many missiles as a thunderbolt. I still find its too powerfull because this still means its faster and has about as much firepower than a thunderbolt.

The orion is a slow gunship. Its meant for b-hunting and stuff. So thats the reason i think it should carry a lot of missiles, so it can be effective at what its meant for: bounty hunting, possibly engaging multiple ships and just being a space faring tank.

The galaxy is a merchant ship, and I do believe there are LOTS of implications that come with it being a merchant ship. The guys who designed it wouldnt focus on giving it enough missiles to engage a squadron of fighters. its supposed to carry cargo around and defend itself, so it has two turrets and a small amount of missiles, so it can stay in one piece, but thats about it. It protects itself well and will continue to even if it has less missiles, the only thing is that if a player wants to do serious fighting he will have to buy another ship.

The galaxy was weaker than the other two ships in the original, simply because it was the only of the three not designed for fighting.Usually transport capships are weaker than destroyer and even frigates.. thats because they were designed to protect themselves and do cargo runs, not for big battles. A ship cant do everything well, it has to have some downs.

The galaxy inst a starfighter, and thus its not supposed to be good at "starfighting". Its a merchant ship and was designed for cargo runs. I dont think that necessarily means its a boring ship to fly... it just means that the word "talon" and "dralthi" have a -very- different meaning to someone whos flying a galaxy than to someone whos flying a centurion.

For a merchant ship who can both do cargo runs and engage squads of Kilrathi, there is a modified version of the Orion in game. It doesnt has a front turret, but has a bigger cargo hold ( though thats still smaller than the hold of a galaxy ) than the b-hunting one. It will also have the same amount of missiles the b-hunting orion has.

Of course... if you guys still find there is no reason for any of this... I will just throw the towel We are a team here. Though in this case I must suggest we just delete the orion merchant ship from the game, because the galaxy will do what that ship was supposed to and that we change the missile loadout of military craft to the same amount of missiles civilian craft have.

[chuck_starchaser]

What's funny about agreeing with me??!!!

That's a good idea: Just separate missiles into civilian and military types.
And it's very true, the military guns, specially capship turret guns, are so powerful, the normal, civilian missiles wouldn't be worth launching.
Missiles are an obstacle to gun use, as you have to be watching out for the missile, make sure you don't hit it before it hits the target. If your guns are powerful and have long range, waiting while the missile is in flight is a waste of time; --counterproductive.
What I would agree, though, is that missiles are a bit too cheap. I mean, why do militaries not use missiles exclusively? Well, because a bomb you drop from a plane either has a lot more punch, or you can drop a lot of them at a fraction of the cost. Same thing in Air to Air combat. Anyone can wait for the beep and press a button. There goes $100,000... But a real ace knows how to use the guns, and save the AIM9's for when they are really needed.

[Fireskull]

I always thought it was because a f-16 could carry only so many missiles before it was unable to get off the ground.

And then there are other factors like maneurability, top speed, acceleration....

[chuck_starchaser]

Well, the Orion, nobody buys it because it's a piece of crap. A flying metal coffin.
Sure, it has more armor and more shields. And the first time I played Privateer I went against an Orion and got my rear wiped, and I said "I'm going to buy that ship!", and then I bought it and it was for the birds.
More missiles would be a good start, but if you want to make the Orion worth its pricetag in a way that is Orion-like, then give it 5 times MORE armor. Make it so strong it takes 3 talons 20 minutes to wear you down if you're sleeping at the wheel. And increase its turning rate so you can actually aim all that gun power.

[BradMick]

i seem to remember privateer being really well balanced. there was no need for any kind of changes.....maybe going back to that and figuring out how to convert armor values from the other games over....that'd probably go a long way towards balancing. just an idea. and if you want to know what i'm talking about....check the attachment. i'd also see about unifying weapons and stuff as well (sorry, i dont have a nifty chart for that)

and, again...also, the whole turret on the orion thing is just....gah, anyway....won't go there. if you really want to go and make civvie ships have realistic missile mounts...then it'd be more like for the centurion under its wings.....say, 4 to 6 missiles. for the galaxy, all of 2 mounted where the launchers go. the tarsus, 2 where the launchers go. the orion would mount all of one missile under the cockpit, or....you guessed it, where the launcher goes. thats the only really logical way i could see it working. ultimately though, i'd keep it the way it is/was.

[Fireskull]

Chuck, I think we have completely opposite views on how to balance the ships out. I absolutely would never give the orion more armor than it already has.

We wil be at a complete stalemate if deciding this is just between us I need to wait for spirit to tell me how to change the missilies anyway, so thats what I think the whole issue should do.

[chuck_starchaser]

Well, it's not like militaries are going to advertise on TV that they use bombs because they are cheaper than missiles... But money IS a factor, believe me.
And missiles are unbelievably expensive. I mean, at the start of all these gulf wars, when the submarins and destroyers start launching cruise missiles, the amount of money per second being spent, you wouldn't want to hear the figures. And each of those is delivering a puny little 500 pounder. Enough for the job, if it's to take a radar, a telephone switching center; but ridiculously expensive in terms of the cost of what you're throwing, versus the cost of what you're destroying. That's why that's only done the first few nights, when sending planes would be too risky. But the brunt of destruction during an air war is delivered in the most economic possible way.
But yeah, weight is a factor too, but AIM9's aren't that heavy a load. When I was playing TFX I used to load 2 AMRAAMS, 2 heatseeking and 2 radar-guided AIM9's, typically, just for self-defense, in addition to the air to ground stuff, because I was a chicken; but I don't think they'd give you that much in real life, unless you were flying interception.

EDIT: Well, I'm not your boss. To me though, you wouldn't want to equalize the worth of ships by equalizing the ships. You want each ship to remain distinct; perhaps even make it more distinct.

[spiritplumber]

I don't know anymore. I can't even compile vegastrike now. Whatever good thing I had going, I think I lost it.


If you need to change the missile damage and size in the weapon slot, it's in weapon_list.xml and if you need to change the flight characteristic, it's in the unit line in units.csv

[Fireskull]

Bleh

Lets try a different approach to this.

I will do the changes and send them over to spirit.

If it just doesnt works well in game, you guys tell me and we change it back to how it was.

spirit: Dont worry. Some days are tough, others go quite well.

Just look at the amount of stuff you did so far

[Fireskull]

Sorry for my post above... i was just tired of the discussion not going anywhere.

If no one else agrees with me on this, I wont continue to try to have the changes done. Even if I really really feel they are necessary for better gameplay.

[chuck_starchaser]

Well, Fireskull, I play at the easiest level already, and you want to make the game harder for me? I'm all for increasing the missile loadout in the Orion, but not decreasing it except in the Talon and Dralthi, if any.
When fighting demons all I can do is throw missiles after them, and the problem is I run out. That's what I hate about missiles: The always run out.

[Fireskull]

I play in Insane difficult and I have no problems.

Just yesterday I engaged two Gratha alone in a Galaxy. I killed them before they could bring my shields down.

Heck, I remember that once I took a talon out with a single salvo from my guns. I was lucky enough to shoot at it at the same moment both of my turrets were fully charged and aimed correctly. four tachyon shoots + two ion shots = booooooom.

This is not about making the game challenging to me though, I can just buy a demon and take missions on Kilrathi capships. It just feels VERY wrong that civilian ships have more missiles than confeds very best heavy fighters.

This is not about making the game harder for you either, you are looking at things from the worst angle possible. Its just about having it make sence.

The civilian ships shouldnt have the same missile load of the latest confed bomber. Why dont confed just uses civilian craft if they are a lot better than their own?

I really mean no offense with this, so I am sorry if I do, but being unskilled in a game doesnt means that balance must be throw off the window. It just means things must be different in easiest mode, like your guns do double damage, enemies do half the damage and other stuff which players need when they are learning a game.

[chuck_starchaser]

Well, maybe you're using a joystick? I can't do that, as I use my computer at work for gaming. I can't imagine how someone could play at insane level. That sounds insane.
But besides a bit of carpal tunnel syndrome, and being close to age 50, even when I was in my 20's I never liked having to stress myself full of adrenaline just to follow along a main story. I never liked arcade games.
As I've argued at the VS forums, a universe in which you die and have to reload the game all the time is not believable. I'd rather the game was hardcore but easy.
You speak of the need to "balance" the game, but what kind of game balance is it, where you're often up against multiple enemy ships?
Like a lot of games, this is an imbalanced philosophy at the core: You're always outnumbered and outgunned, but you have unlimited lives??!!!!
Why not just have one life, but make the environment more realistic?
I'm not suggesting, just pointing out the absurdity at the basis of WC and many other such games, and how meaningless, therefore, I regard the question of balance. But frankly, when I get the Escape-Q I don't reload the game; I get so frustrated I just start up Firefox and go browsing the web or make myself coffee and get to work on texturing.

I liked Privateer because of the trading and upgrading and the art and the story; and of course a bit of challenge I don't mind; but I did find the original too hard, and always had to cheat to finish it. And I hate that: It's totally anathema to immersion.
My favorite game of that era was TFX, a flight sim that was *TOTALLY* realistic in every aspect, generally pretty easy, as you were flying the best planes against enemy planes with lesser technologies on them, but the game was hard core. If you died, you had to start again in flight academy.
That could mean 2 months of play wasted...

I mean, you're saying that civilian ships having more missiles than military ships makes no sense. Well, I think it makes perfect sense, and I gave you an argument, and you just didn't answer my argument.

[spiritplumber]

My current favorite setup is a Galaxy with neutron guns (yes, neutron), two laser turrets, and a full load of proton rockets. I'm becoming a better shot.


What I was thinking about was, especially since we don't have missile launchers, keep the missile strength as it is but raise their cost a lot.

[chuck_starchaser]

I'm all for that idea. I mean, this IS a war of attrition environment, for christsakes; you find more kats in New Detroit than you find in Perry; and where civilian ships logically are allowed to have all kinds of armament it doesn't make sense to say "this ship is civilian, should be less powerful than a military ship". Either civilian ships are allowed weapons or they aren't. If they are, they'll make sure they got the best weapons money can buy. The difference is the confeds have a big slice of the federal budget, wheras merchants are the ones paying for it through taxes. IMO, missiles should be powerful and plentiful, particularly given the limitations of shield, armor and maneuverability of cargo ships like the Galaxy; but they should be expensive enough to make the player think twice before clicking on the mouse middle button.

[Fireskull]

Okay, my arguments have been beaten down to a pulp

I will increase missile cost. How much? four times?