Supply limits for rockets, missile and torpedos


#1

So you’ve got these huge rockets, missiles and torpedos on your ship. They gotta be stored somethere, don’t you think?

I’ve been thinking. Maybe it is too complicated to implement, but what about a Supply limit for missiles/rockets/torpedos? So that you cannot fire an infinite amount of them. The game would ask how many salvos of those projectiles you woold like to store on your ship. Of course there should me a maximum, depending on the size of the ship’s hull.

If you choose to carry few salvos because you think it will not survive long enough to fire mor salvos your ship gets lighter (meaning it’s harder to hit) and cheaper. So it ads a tactic component to choosing how many rockets you should carry

When this should be implemented, these weapons should make more damage.

Think about it, you’ve got a devastating weapon, but it renders useless after it shot all it’s supply.
Similar to the behaviour of these weapons in MoO2.

Excuse me for my bad English, I am from Germany an it’s been a while since school, feel free to correct my language.


#2

There are similar limits on repair and carrier modules, so I think it could be implemented that way. Each missile module would have a limited number of shots before it emptied out.


#3

In programming terms its actually really easy, probably just a days work in total, for me to add ammunition limits to the game. The ONLY reason this is not already in the game, is that we have gone so long now without them, that there are literally thousands of challenges with ships designed based upon limitless ammo.
If I ever introduce any new, more effective missile-style weapons, they will have limited ammo, and then I can go the whole ‘ammo’ thing properly. I wish I’d thought to put it in from the very start :frowning:


#4

I don’t think it should be completely one way or the other. Maybe just the standard Missile and Rocket launcher stuff would have infinite ammo, while heavier weapons would have limits. Missiles are one of the most effective way of getting past cruiser shields, and what if you ran out and there were a few enemy cruisers left? Besides, missile fighters are way too inaccurate and most missiles would be wasted anyway making them useless when they ran out.


#5

Maybe some sort of fatty missile that does a TON of shield damage (probably not so good against armor), has buckets of decoys, and only fires like 5 times ever? A sort of thing where you decide “I’m willing to sacrifice a hardpoint for this to punch their shields in the face before our fleets engage.”


#6

Well, possibly you could “phase out” old weapons with better ones (leaving the old ones to collect dust), with a dash of arms race thrown in.

“Fighter Torpedo MkII:
It turns out, including a convenient heavy infinite torpedo fabrication plant with the Mk1 launcher wasn’t too good for pilot morale. The ones that survived, anyway.
This new version is lighter and cheaper, but requires a carrier to rearm”


#7

A survey of the six surviving Torpedo Fighter pilots from a prior engagement showed that having a fighter move as slowly as a frigate wasn’t such a good plan.


#8

I am on the one hand totally in favor of supply limits in modern navy & “space navy” simulations. Pound for pound, missiles are more effective than direct fire weapons. Playing Full Thrust or even SFB with factions that favor missile-heavy fleets can be an exercise in futility: turn 1, player A makes a move. Then player B plonks down 1,000 missiles. Use your imagination about what happens next. I’m FOR ammo limits because in any ONE battle, missiles SHOULD rule the battlefield. But they should impose a HUGE logistics cost on that fleet. Meaning that same fleet, in battle two, should have to worry a LOT about whether those missile magazines are full or empty or half-full. David Weber does an OK job of representing this concern in several of his Honor Harrington novels.

On the other hand, in GSB, I am against this kind of retroactive supply limit. As Cliffski noted, the entire game has been balanced predicated on some kind of “lets make missiles out of vacuum” projectile paradigm. True also for Tribe kinetic weapons, btw. If we were to make this kind of switch, the entire game would need to be rebalanced. Missile spam fleets, already a pain in the tuckus to deal with, become potentially overwhelming…or potentially foxable (“Here’s me with my Missile Attractor cruiser, sucking your ammo to zero and there’s nothing you can do about it because the AI isn’t smart enough to figure that out and not fire at it”). The Swarm’s missile futzer thing becomes that much more powerful. As-is, it is delightfully balanced in the GSB universe–missiles can still get through, but one can’t easily use missiles as a futzer-equipped Swarm player, and it all seems to work out in the end.

As Cliffski suggests, an entirely new weapon that has countable ammo is a possibility–and it shouldn’t be too hard to fit such a thing into our current mix of weapons and defenses.

But my first point is, I think, most salient. Ammo is a strategic consideration, while GSB simulates tactical engagements. I could see some kind of supply requirement in sequential battles in campaign mode–if one builds bases, then maybe X number of bases are required to fully arm Y number of missile launchers, and falling short of the needed bases imposes a supply limitation–but for any one GSB battle, I think we’re better off with infinite missiles, as essentially silly as that may appear.

IMHO,

RC


#9

Personally, I like the infinite ammo (they have miniaturized freeze-dried missiles in big cases down in storage, don’cha know). I could see new missiles/kinetic-type guns with ammo limits, but they would have to have some special perks to make BSU-style players like me want to use them.

And any fighter weapon with ammo limits would have to be fully rearmed by a carrier visit as mentioned above (if the repair crews have enough raw material and skill to rebuild most of the fighter hull, surely they’ve got a few spare magazines lying about); possibly requiring a new Reload order for fighters?

I have found that I only use the X2, X5, X10 missile launchers in MOO2 when I have enough fleet strength to know the battle won’t last any more turns than that. Otherwise I wait for the unlimited-shot torpedoes. Also, keep in mind that weapons in MOO2 don’t affect shields differently the way GSB weapons do. So it’s maybe not the best comparison to make.


#10

what about heavier GNM (galactic Nuclear Missiles) could have a ammo limit if you implement something similar (big, Hi-Damage, did i mention Radioactive) that could have a ammo limit.

or if you could do fighter projectile weapons that have a Limit on # Of Salvos which then could initiate a Reload sequence by either going back to a carrier hanger or flying around for # of time, this could show overheating (not really that much of a problem in space though, but on planetary battles it would be) or just simply running dry.

Rocket launchers (pods) could also use a ammo limit, say you equip you little fighter with a couple of rocket pods and they hold 40 rockets each, so when they use all of there rockets they have to wait for the nano-generators to generate some more, as it would be strange having a fighter flying 'round constantly fire fast-firing rockets

a ammo limit overall would be good with big guns, over powered guns etc…, not with standard guns


#11

Actually limiting supply would be a nice way to improve on Fighter torpedoes.

If you create fighter torpedo, which would be lighter, and more powerful, but will have only one shot, you could create a sort of real torpedo bomber type of usage.

Bomber, would attack enemy ship, and then it would have to return to rearm to carrier. Then they will strike again. It will really improve carriers, as the entire flock of fighters would be returning together.


#12

Probably the biggest problem with ammo/supply limits with GSB as it stands now is the lack of an Ignore order that will prevent your ships from taking pot-shots.

Example: Your single-shot bombers are winging through space on their way to lay the smackdown on an enemy cruiser. A squadron of enemy fighters pass by … causing all of your bombers to unload their weapons, all of which will miss because torpedoes are for hitting the proverbial broad side of equally proverbial barns and nothing else. And now your bombers have to turn around and head back to the carrier for rearming. My, that was effective, hmm?


#13

Ammo makes for interesting balance. Its like with the mechwarrior games.

Do you want missile or projectile weapons vs energy weapons? Missiles and projectile weapons, like guns, can dish out severe hurt and generate almost no heat while doing so. Just better hope you have enough rounds in your magazines.

Energy weapons can fire forever, but at a slower rate. Its basically just a tradeoff of all of your damage frontloaded at the expense of being able to do little damage later on when you run out of ammo, or being able to do a much lower but constant amount of damage forever.

I’m not sure if ammo really makes sense for this game though. With the mechwarrior games part of what made it interesting was deciding if you want to use your ammo or save it. If you use your bullets on a light mech you’re going to have fewer later on, in case you run into something really tough. This means that sometimes the best answer is to not shoot at all, or if you do shoot do so only when you’re absolutely sure you’re going to hit.

Gunners in GSB fire in a very gratuitous manner. With no regards for ammo conservation or even accuracy. Shoot enough missiles or lasers and some of them hit by sheer chance. :smiley:

HELMET: Who made that man a gunner?
MAJOR: I did, sir. He’s my cousin.
HELMET: Who is he?
SANDURZ: He’s an Asshole, sir.
HELMET: I know that. What’s his name?
SANDURZ: That is his name, sir. Asshole, Major Asshole.
HELMET: And his cousin?
SANDURZ: He’s an Asshole, too, sir. Gunner’s-mate, 1st Class, Philip Asshole.
HELMET: How many Assholes we got on this ship, anyhow?
ALL: Yo!
HELMET: I knew it. I’m surrounded by Assholes. Keep firing, Assholes.


#14

I think limits on expendables would add a realistic touch the sim lacks ATM, but I recognize it suggests a lot of additional, pre-battle configuration. Things that occur right off the bat are what ammo to use for which targets, target priorities, things to ignore, etc. Then, of course, you could get into diversifying ammo for weapons systems – penetrators vs. HE vs., I dunno, nanites, nukes, whatever. That sort of thing could get really confusing to direct in advance of a battle, come to think on it.

Still, that is about the only thing that doesn’t have a realistic punch in GSB – there’s all kinds of give and take in other aspects of configuration.