Return to “Suggestions”

Re: Missiles in the games

#166
Why not
-Exhaust Velocity
-Mass Ratio
-Acceleration
Together, these define the flight time and max speed (and thus the range), as well as agility, of the missile. You want all of those numbers to be bigger, which makes things easier on the player (for the same reason that you should place the "nominal ranges" of large numbers of dials in the same direction). When a missile runs out of remass (that is, its mass ratio falls to one), it checks for its locked target. As soon as the distance starts increasing (indicating that it's probably the closest it'll get), it detonates and thus removes itself from the pool. Lower-tech missiles might just blow up immediately. In this way, missiles are given a finite lifespan.
Launchers should also have traits regarding fire and reload rate. In this way, quantity of self-contained munitions is finite.
Missile control computers should have a limited processing power and/or comms bandwidth. In this way, quantity of remote-control and sensory munitions is finite.
Remote-control missiles should be worth their greater fitting costs and risks, perhaps by carrying bigger payloads or using smarter algorithms.
Extensive balancing should be done to ensure reasonable behavior. Then sliders.

Re: Missiles in the games

#167
Cornflakes_91 wrote:
Flatfingers wrote: 2. Require missiles (versus big, expensive torpedoes) to be controlled by the ship that fired them. (Torpedoes have onboard guidance.) If the firing ship is destroyed, or its targeting system is degraded, or the targeting signal is jammed or hacked or otherwise interrupted in some way, controlled missiles lose their target lock. After that, see rule #1 above.
so when i suggest it its evil and arbitary but when you suggest it its fine? :ghost:
You weren't just talking about arbitrary numeric limits on the number of missiles that can be released at any moment in time? That's specifically what I was talking about.

Of course there have to be some limits, for technical reasons as well as for gameplay fun. If there's an objectively plausible reason for them, they aren't arbitrary. ;)

These are a reasonable starting point:
FormalMoss wrote:
  • Flight time
  • Speed
  • Explosion radius
  • Explosion speed
0111narwhalz wrote:
  • Exhaust Velocity
  • Mass Ratio
  • Acceleration
0111narwhalz wrote:Then sliders.
Reading my mind. :D

Re: Missiles in the games

#171
BFett wrote:Okay, I have a quick question. What is the difference between rockets, missiles, and torpedoes?

I'd guess that rockets are dumb fire with no tracking capabilities, while missiles track their targets. Assuming this is true, what is your definition of a torpedo?

( Space game context obviously)
Rockets are basic dumb fire projectiles, cheep and plentiful, ant hard to hit stuff with,
and are easily shot down.
Missiles would either have very basic guidance or depend entirely on the ship that fired them for guidance.
and are easily diverted with the correct counter measures.
Torpedo's would be like cruse missiles, or the largest might be like ICBM's. and would contain advanced guidance and possibly their own counter measures.
but they would be very expensive, and could only be fired one or maybe two at a time. and can be countered by advanced counter measures.
"A sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
- Arthur C. Clarke

Re: Missiles in the games

#172
0111narwhalz wrote: -Exhaust Velocity
-Mass Ratio
Why dont just contract them into "burn time"?

We dont need to track isp and mass ratio calculations in for the player.

For the finished missile some contracted values for
-burn time
-top speed (theres space drag in LT, dont forget)
-maximum powered range with acceleration from 0 factored in.
-some time measure for doing 90°, 180° vector changes as measure for agility

to give actually useful values to the player instead of ways to calculate them.
the player doesnt care for ISP and mass ratios, they want to know what their missiles can and cannot hit.


For missile design theres more values needed of course.

Component masses, fuel amount in tank, fuel usage and thrust of thruster, rotation rate/acceleration and whatever else i forgot right now.
And of course the calculated end stats shown there as well.

Re: Missiles in the games

#173
Cornflakes_91 wrote:
0111narwhalz wrote: -Exhaust Velocity
-Mass Ratio
Why dont just contract them into "burn time"?

We dont need to track isp and mass ratio calculations in for the player.

For the finished missile some contracted values for
-burn time
-top speed (theres space drag in LT, dont forget)
-maximum powered range with acceleration from 0 factored in.
-some time measure for doing 90°, 180° vector changes as measure for agility

to give actually useful values to the player instead of ways to calculate them.
the player doesnt care for ISP and mass ratios, they want to know what their missiles can and cannot hit.


For missile design theres more values needed of course.

Component masses, fuel amount in tank, fuel usage and thrust of thruster, rotation rate/acceleration and whatever else i forgot right now.
And of course the calculated end stats shown there as well.
Well, you would expose those quantities to the player only if they ask for them. Otherwise, the player would get computed things like burn time, max speed (Urgh. I'm turning off space drag. :ghost: ), an agility quantity like angular acceleration, and linear acceleration (from a standstill, because space drag). Perhaps the player (or AIs) could develop omnidirectional missiles with slightly lower accelerations and mass ratios but which make turning obsolete.

Re: Missiles in the games

#175
Cornflakes_91 wrote:and even without drag i couldnt care less about the missiles mass ratio or ISP, i want to know its dv :ghost:
Well, sure. That's just Veln(MR). Should be one of the "computed" quantities shown to the player, but easy enough to Lua into the UI if need be. And you don't want to just research "more dv." What does that even mean? You want to research physical characteristics, like better structural engineering (which raises mass ratio, and thus dv) or hotter reactors (which raise exhaust velocity, and thus dv). Sure, you can hide those quantities from the player, but they should be the basis of the missile's stats.

Re: Missiles in the games

#177
N810 wrote:Rockets are basic dumb fire projectiles, cheep and plentiful, ant hard to hit stuff with,
and are easily shot down.
Missiles would either have very basic guidance or depend entirely on the ship that fired them for guidance.
and are easily diverted with the correct counter measures.
Torpedo's would be like cruse missiles, or the largest might be like ICBM's. and would contain advanced guidance and possibly their own counter measures.
but they would be very expensive, and could only be fired one or maybe two at a time. and can be countered by advanced counter measures.
This is also my working definition for space games, with the minor addition that torpedoes are slower and less nimble (turn more slowly) than missiles. This might be just a notional holdover from wet navy physics, but it's one of those things that feels right for a game.

On adjustable characteristics for missiles/torpedoes: how detailed does this need to be in default, out-of-the-box, LT v1.0?

I understand wanting lots of detail. But remembering that -- even with his 133t skillz -- Josh has to code every feature in LT v1.0, what missile/torpedo features are on the "must have" side of the line, and what features are on the "nice to have" side?

Online Now

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest