Missile Prototype 2

Tson

Walt
I think that maybe you should consider using all of them, they are all interesting, add depth to the game and new heights to ship design, and was it not William Cowper who said "Variety is the very spice of life, That gives it all its flavor".
This is the kind of variety along with the new multiplayer mode that will keep cosmoteer from stagnating like so many other good games, and that will bring new players to the game, there are very few games which have true variety, and they are all the worse for it, whether they be good games or not, as people will keep playing a game as long as there is more to discover, and that is just what these missiles would provide.

NullEndornSol

I pretty well agree with Tson. I tried mixing using these missiles in a few AI/me vs AI/me matches. (Sometimes the AI can be a bit stubborn about foolish choices.)

Sometimes the missiles did worse, sometimes better. Mostly better as support. I only found interceptors
under-powered.

Incendiary : With flanking, these have the possibility of being useful. Drilling was a good choice.

E.M.P. : Useful as supporting fire. Sometimes they're the right choice, other times not.

Dumbfire : Powerful, yes, but their slowness kept them from hitting smaller targets, and doing concentrated damage. Again, their usefulness variable depending on the situation.

Interceptor : Not so useful. They tend to steer around their target just as often as they hit it.

Clusters : Can't be sure as they currently directly damage shields. Effective against all but the fastest high firepower shieldless ships.

Most of my ships have pretty good PD. I found that the effectiveness of the missiles was fitting to the defenses placed.

Conclusion: Against fast, well thought out ships, purely missile ships will still lose. Missiles can, importantly, find their place as supporting fire; from a single ship or from a brawler. Missile ships will also be effective against turtle ships, railgun or no.

samepage

EMP missiles - They are strong, very strong. Not necessary a bad thing though. They are now the effective counters to shields-spam, forcing people to spent more resource on missile defence. I found that the interceptors are very good against them. I have only one suggestion: Maybe the power drain from the EMP missile should be reduced if the target is blocked by armor, like the damage reduction by armor when explosion happens.

Interceptor - Finally we have a decent anti-missile. Interceptors are very good against slow traveling EMP missiles, but not good enough to stop a real missiles-spam. Still, it's good to have more choice when it comes to missile defence. Just one more thing, I think the interceptor shouldn't be targeted by other interceptors or PDs, since they are not a theat to anyone and almost impossible to be shoot down.

HE missiles - Their buff in accuracy make them slightly stronger than the previous version. I am still worried that the missile-spam would become unstopable over a certain price range. I remember that there was a discussion about whether the missile's AOE should ignore shields. The conclusion back then was that they are the counters to internal shields, so having the AOE ignore shields seem reasonable. But now we have EMP missiles, which are far more effective at taking down shields. I think it's the time to give the shields what they should always have, the ability to reduce damage from missile's AOE. My suggestion is that when HE missiles hit the shield, the AOE damage becomes 200 instead of 800 (25% of the full damage, same way goes to Dumbfire). It would make a lot more sense that the missiles take down the shields first before destroying everything behind it.

Dumbfire - They are strong. But a weapon that can only be set in the front is not hard to deal with. I still prefer them to retain some of the home-in capability, making them more like torpedos than rockets. Is it possible to make them only partially guilding? Like having the guilding at the begining, then loss the guilding once the missile is 10 meters away from the launcher?

Incendiary - I still don't see any good use of them. Probably be overshadowed by all the other stronger missiles.

Conclusion - PD seems OK now. All missiles except the Incendiary have their uses depending on the situations. Cluster missiles are still too bugy to test on shielded ships. Will keep trying to see if there are any good missiles composition.

Dalas120

Walt
Dumbfire suggestion: what if dumbfire missiles became nuclear torpedoes? Some reasons why this might make sense:
- Dumbfire missiles are already big, slow, powerful weapons, like nukes are
- IMO dumbfire missiles should be slow to manufacture and fast to load, with huge alpha strike power but low sustained RoF. Nuclear missiles fit this concept perfectly.
- It helps differentiate from high explosive missiles, which so far has been an issue with dumbfire
- Different warhead from HE is a plausible explanation for being dumbfire
- Nuclear weapons are really cool

I also strongly suggest decreasing the range for dumbfires. We already have autofired HE missiles as long-range dumbfire artillery, and current dumbfire promotes kiting.

samepage Is it possible to make them only partially guilding? Like having the guilding at the begining, then loss the guilding once the missile is 10 meters away from the launcher?

I would support this for dumbfire. Not enough guidance that they can be fired from side-facing missile launchers, but enough that they behave more like a turreted cannon than an ion beam.

So putting it all together, my suggestion for dumbfire is:
- Rename to "nuclear torpedo"
- Boost damage and explosive radius by a lot per missile
- Reduce range, by a *lot* (more of a bombing weapon than an artillery gun)
- Possibly reduce flight speed
- Possibly increase HP
- Give minimal guidance for the first second or 2 after launching
- Make nuke factories extremely expensive and slow-producing
- Significantly reduce the number of missile parts required to fill a launcher with a nuke (this makes loading faster)
- Possibly add extra effects to the explosion, like EMP and/or fire (both of which are generated by real-life nukes)

The net effect would hopefully be a close range, massive burst damage weapon. They could be used on bombers to fly in, unleash a wave of nukes, then fly away and reload. Or, you could swap a normal missile launcher to fast-loading nukes in an emergency.

Vladislav

in my opinion, it is better to make a separate launcher for each rocket

Lafiel

I've noticed a problem with interceptor missiles: If two are fired at about the same time and are close together they destroy each other.

Walt

Dalas120 Dumbfire suggestion: what if dumbfire missiles became nuclear torpedoes? Some reasons why this might make sense:
- Dumbfire missiles are already big, slow, powerful weapons, like nukes are
- IMO dumbfire missiles should be slow to manufacture and fast to load, with huge alpha strike power but low sustained RoF. Nuclear missiles fit this concept perfectly.
- It helps differentiate from high explosive missiles, which so far has been an issue with dumbfire
- Different warhead from HE is a plausible explanation for being dumbfire
- Nuclear weapons are really cool

I also strongly suggest decreasing the range for dumbfires. We already have autofired HE missiles as long-range dumbfire artillery, and current dumbfire promotes kiting.

I'm generally in favor of this, though I feel like if it's literally "nuclear" then that demands some kind of fire-like radiation effect, which is kind of a big can of worms to open, both technically (need support for multiple kinds of fires) and design (how does radiation work? do fire extinguishers become hazmat suits?)

Even if not nuclear, making them much shorter range is probably a good call.

Dalas120 I would support this for dumbfire. Not enough guidance that they can be fired from side-facing missile launchers, but enough that they behave more like a turreted cannon than an ion beam.

I'm not a huge fan of partial guidance, only because that's kind of unintuitive. (Why is this missile suddenly not homing anymore?)

Something I could do to achieve a similar effect is give them permanent but very bad guidance (very low turn rate, low drag, low acceleration) and also reduce their targeting arc to something like 90 degrees (other missiles are currently 270) and require line-of-sight.

Dalas120 Make nuke factories extremely expensive and slow-producing

I smell a 4x4 factory coming...

Dalas120 Significantly reduce the number of missile parts required to fill a launcher with a nuke (this makes loading faster)

Not convinced 12 parts (what is currently required for the dumbfire missiles) is too much for an even-more-powerful nuclear torpedo.

Dalas120 Possibly add extra effects to the explosion, like EMP and/or fire (both of which are generated by real-life nukes)

Fire for sure, and probably radiation as I mentioned above. I'm a little skeptical about EMP if I'm also adding a dedicated EMP missiles, though I guess their use cases are so different that's probably not a big deal.

Oneye

Dalas120 This would add a lot of variety to the game and especially missiles, I really like this idea already.

Lafiel

IRL nukes are ten times faster than any ordinary missile. Nukes are worthless in space. Homing missiles are also 3-5 times faster than dumpfire missiles. Just pointing out people's misconceptions.

I agree the dumpfire missile needs to be different from HE. Making them short range and powerful seem logical but will lead to barrage type tank-brawlers. I'm not sure if that is desired. Making them one load / shot launchers would be a solution. But this would be a great disadvantage to the unlimited ammo of other weapons. Making them slow reloading would solve this issue.

thatPolarBear

Lafiel how are nukes worthless in space? the radiation would be devistating to humans and computers alike.

Dalas120

Lafiel IRL nukes are ten times faster than any ordinary missile.

I think that's more a range/size thing than anything specific to a nuclear payload. Modern nukes are designed to fly clear across the planet, so they'll definitely be faster than a ship-to-ship cruise missile or shoulder-mounted dumbfire.

Lafiel Making them short range and powerful seem logical but will lead to barrage type tank-brawlers. I'm not sure if that is desired.
Lafiel Making them slow reloading would solve this issue.

Yeah, I agree. That's pretty much what I had in mind.

Bombers and strike craft are a huge part of space fantasy, and having a super-powerful, close range, long-reloading weapon might make them viable. Or it might not, I'm not sure.

nop

Walt Not convinced 12 parts (what is currently required for the dumbfire missiles) is too much for an even-more-powerful nuclear torpedo.

If the weapon takes a lot of ammo work to reload, the "start empty" option has a bigger balance swing. Most of the other weapons don't have so much damage potential on a single magazine. I like the idea of a high alpha torpedo, just imagining what casual elimination MP games might be like.

Walt Something I could do to achieve a similar effect is give them permanent but very bad guidance

A sneaky thing about this is that it lets you focus multiple launchers on a single point, where complete dumbfire has the same limits (and advantages e.g. tunneling) as the other spinal weapons.

Walt "nuclear" then that demands some kind of fire-like radiation effect

It could be similar to the "stun" crew debuff, except turning their skin green is the visual indication we were looking for. Report to sickbay for a rad hypo, ensign.

Ultranova

Walt

I think that incendiary missiles, however cool they are, aren't exactly the best. For one, the damage they cause is often caused too slowly for it to be compared with the rest of the missiles, especially AOE missiles. For the incendiary missile to be useful, it would have to have it's own, separate variant of fire, which burns faster, kills crew faster and overall is more devastating.

Pros:

It would make sense lore-wise to make it that the fire caused by the incendiary missiles be more destructive because the chemicals used in fire-making weapons (specifically Napalm) typically cause fires that are more fierce than your normal kitchen fire.
It would require support for more fire, which is something modders have been wanting for a long time

Cons:

Support for more fire types might not be worth the time it takes, from what I gather from this comment:

Walt hat demands some kind of fire-like radiation effect, which is kind of a big can of worms to open, both technically (need support for multiple kinds of fires)

The incendiary missile has already proved not to be as useful in combat as other missiles because of the lack of damage it does. Buffing the initial damage it does upon exploding may also prove to be counter-intuitive.

Not sure what anyone else thinks, but personally, I'm not sure that incendiary missiles are needed in the base game at this point in time.

clojelo

Walt if it's literally "nuclear" then that demands some kind of fire-like radiation effect, which is kind of a big can of worms to open, both technically (need support for multiple kinds of fires) and design (how does radiation work?

off-topic: more-fire a pandora's box?

Currently (0.14.x), fire is a unique effect in its own render layer, indicator, and controlled by fire-specific parameters. It would be a deviously-delicious-can-of-worms if fire effect were converted to a moddable anti-crew event/effect type, similar to triggers or hit effects, with counter-event/effect mechanism.

Cosmoteer already has a versatile hit effect system -- maybe adding a HitCrew group?! On 2nd thought, , there might be a humane/rating factor in design decision where crew mortality is concerned.

Once the ground work is laid, additional crew event/effect like radiation damage, stunned, emo, etc might be within reach..

Walt

I'm currently leaning towards adding these missiles for 0.14.5:

Cluster missiles with reduced damage but with added fire. I'm leaning towards changing them back to their original "standard" size with 5 clusters per missile. Maybe increasing HP per mini-missile to 2 to make them better at distracting PD.
EMP missiles, more-or-less as-is.
Nuclear missiles/torpedoes more-or-less as described above.
And maybe interceptors, with their ability to be shot at by PD & other interceptors removed.

I'm wondering whether there should be two missile launcher variants ("standard" and "heavy") rather than having the one missile launcher physically transform to handle the larger missiles, which would be a bit weird.

I'm also thinking about consolidating missile factories into the following:

Explosive Missile Factory (manufactures both HE and Cluster missiles)
EMP Missile Factory
Nuclear Missile Factory (possibly combing HE+EMP missile parts?)
Interceptor Missile Factory

NullEndornSol

Walt I'm wondering whether there should be two missile launcher variants ("standard" and "heavy") rather than having the one missile launcher physically transform to handle the larger missiles, which would be a bit weird.

I'm also thinking about consolidating missile factories into the following:

Explosive Missile Factory (manufactures both HE and Cluster missiles)
EMP Missile Factory
Nuclear Missile Factory (possibly combing HE+EMP missile parts?)
Interceptor Missile Factory

An explosive EMP hybrid is a good idea for such high burst damage. If a nuke does too much damage to one area of a ship, it could make it useless. This would promote close range nuking with suicide ships. EMP hybridization is a way to keep the damage high and meaningful while avoiding this possibility.

For reasons of style and the like, Cosmoteer has slow, short range projectiles. Doesn't mean it should become a ramming fest.

Suggestion: Two nuke types. One for EMP damage, the second for fire damage. No need to make damage complex until most of the core of Cosmoteer combat is finished. Suitably, more complex options can be added in, to spice the game indefinitely.

samepage

Walt Should nuclear missiles always deal friendly fire? I mean it will be weird if they don't.

culanns_hound

So, I still can't seem to get the missiles to show up

Walt

culanns_hound So, I still can't seem to get the missiles to show up

Build a missile launcher, exit build mode, click (or ctrl+click) on the missile launcher, and you'll be able to change what type of missile it shoots.

culanns_hound

Walt It's so easy, why didn't I think of that 😛

Ultranova

clojelo Cosmoteer already has a versatile hit effect system -- maybe adding a HitCrew group?!

Initiate crew sniper towers

Lafiel

clojelo Currently (0.14.x), fire is a unique effect in its own render layer, indicator, and controlled by fire-specific parameters. It would be a deviously-delicious-can-of-worms

there might be a humane/rating factor in design decision where crew mortality is concerned.

This is ~~Spart~~a war simulation there's no place for ethics. The dogs of war are already on the loose here. And frankly the demons are just waiting for it to happen. And soon enough the cries of the female crew can be heard.
There's no reason to hold back now.

I think those specialized factories should just produce war heads to be combined with the ordinary missile factory parts. I would make more sense to have a larger factory for the larger missile parts, though. It would keep cost reasonable and allow reasonable expansion to an all purpose missile ship. Otherwise it would be prohibitive and ships would be more specialized in certain missile types.

That_Angry_Man

Oh wow cluster missiles are just like the Cluster Torpedo from EPD.