Changes to Weapons and Armor

I've been beta-testing the game since last February. One thing I've never liked is the balance between weapons and defenses.. What's there was fine for beta, but I was hoping for a different balance for release.

My largest point of contention is that you research ~8 technologies to get an offensive capability of 1 (per component).. Then, it's almost the same amount of work for each defense line. Why work on both, when you still need to keep up with 'social' technologies?

Then, I was wondering why it takes 10 units of internal space to weld metal to the outside of your ship.. (Specifically, the Armor Defense line of tech).

Missles should be expensive, take up a bunch of room and pack a huge punch (more than 1 for the first X techs).

So, I'm assuming these bits (cost, size and firepower) are moddable, and I'll play with them when I can.

But, the question I have here is that in playing the game, I'm getting annoyed by dread lords firing their missles and hitting me before my lasers go off. I mean, there's some time to recognise missile fire and pushing the button to fire instantly.

I was wondering if there was a way to configure 'initiative' into the battle sequence? The person attacking gets +1, defending gets 0. Lasers get +1, Rocks get 0, and Missles get -1.. There might be other initiative modifers, but I really want my beams to hit before my ship disintegrates into dust.

I'm thinking that initiative would be part of the 'decision' of which weapon path to follow (along with damage, to hit?, space and installation cost)..
25,923 views 28 replies
Reply #1 Top
That sounds like a great idea to make into a mod, or incorparate into other, larger mods. If you can do it that is.
Reply #2 Top
Actually, there is initiative. Whoever attacks first, fires first. Missles, cannons or lazers.

Sorry if you were talking about something else, but if I want to win a nearly even battle, i have to attack first.
Reply #3 Top
I was also hoping for a bit of a different solution. I'll put together a mod when I have time, unless someone else puts together something good first. I'd really like to see less granularity - for example, attack values ranging from 1 to 1000 rather than 1 to ...15, or whatever. 'Fighter' (to be renamed corvette) hitpoints more in the low 100s range, multitype weapons and defenses (currently, no multi-weapon-type ship can be viable), additional ship modules that increase HP or even space (at the capacity of size), heavy armor that vastly increases HP at the expense of speed, and so forth. MOO and Space Empires -type special modules (aim and evade bonuses, anti-starbase heavy torpedoes, self-repair devices, maintenance-reduction components, quick-load missle racks and beam-doublers) would also be quite neat.

Having such things in the base game is so much better, though...
Reply #4 Top
Personally I'd agree with a lot of the first posters comments regarding how offensive and defensive technologies are handled in the game.

I'd like to alter the confines of the different defensive types to reflect there truer nature for example;

Armour is an external item and should NOT count as internal units, however the armour does have an huge mass associated with it and so should be classified as a movement limiter. So if you have a ship with movement of 10 and you have 4 armour you should have 6 speed. The armour should also cost a lot to show the material cost associated with its production, after all this material needs to be hyperdense to absorb damage.

I was wondering if multiple defence types can be assigned to the same object, imagine having a polarised hull plating with shield and armour protection. Or a directional shield that focuses power in one direction for lasers and mass drivers. Or a lightning field generator that acts like a shield and point defence, destroying missiles upon contact.

Nice little ideas there.

J
Reply #5 Top
I dunno, if all we can do is watch battles I prefer the simple rock/paper/sissors model that we have now. More detailed combat would make me long for tactical control too much.
Reply #6 Top
Yeah, I totally agree with Saber Cherry. But more options are pointless with the current battle model like Darkrenown2 said (but I certainly hope somebody can prove me wrong!).

In fact, the whole ship designing thing may look great but it’s nothing more than eye-candy. The appeal won’t last long I guess.

Then again, the real thing is coming up soon: SE V
I hope (but seriously doubt it) Galciv2 will hold my interest till june!
Reply #7 Top

For one thing, I'm pretty sure 'space' on ships is a means to limit the total mass of the ship. A ship with too much mass in a given ship class cannot enter hyperspace. More ship design technology allows greater mass to enter hyperspace and thus this limit is eased over time. That's my take on it based on reading the flavor text for the technologies as I research them.

Also, if you have a thicker hull, you have less internal space, not only because of the plating itself but because of the necessary structural reinforcement. It won't matter if that ball of matter moving at relativistic speeds is stopped by your armor, if the ship snaps in two or the crew are jellified by the shock.

I also find that different weapon and armor technologies also advance differently, it isn't always 8 techs per weapon upgrade. For instance missile technology seems to almost immediately get to 2 damage per unit BUT is always very bulky, mass weapons on the other hand don't get more damage for a long time but allow you to mount almost twice as many of them; the slight deficit in damage/space ratio is offset by the increased flexibility of only needing 6 or 7 space free to add another gun.

And, I think the apparent futility of trying to get both attack and defense technologies, while keeping up on social technologies as well, is because the AI whoringly trades technology with itself. Everytime you want something, you need to give them 2 or 4x the value of the desired tech; but I think what happens with them, they take turns being the aggressor and so are able to combine their research. I'm playing a game on Normal difficulty right now where this is obviously happening, even the most pathetic AI empire is mostly keeping up on the other AI's best technologies.. there couldn't be any way for them to be doing that on their own with just one or two planets to their name, so they're obviously getting a sweetheart deal from the other AI.
Reply #8 Top
And, I think the apparent futility of trying to get both attack and defense technologies, while keeping up on social technologies as well, is because the AI whoringly trades technology with itself. Everytime you want something, you need to give them 2 or 4x the value of the desired tech; but I think what happens with them, they take turns being the aggressor and so are able to combine their research. I'm playing a game on Normal difficulty right now where this is obviously happening, even the most pathetic AI empire is mostly keeping up on the other AI's best technologies.. there couldn't be any way for them to be doing that on their own with just one or two planets to their name, so they're obviously getting a sweetheart deal from the other AI.


I have not found this to be the case AT ALL. Perhaps you haven't been researching Diplomacy bonuses enough, or your alignment is at odds with everyone else's?

I've found that aligned AI's are quite willing to trade me what I need, and tend to ask a fair price for it. The exception is minor races, who can be utterly exploited, because my Diplomacy is generally light-years beyond theirs. In fact, my preferred tactic is researching planet improvements and research techs, and getting weapon and armor techs from the minor races.
Reply #11 Top
BTW, don't get me wrong. I'm not in any way 'against' Galciv!

Both SE and Galciv2 are great games. They just take a different approach.
Which one you like most is up to personal prefferences. I know I will like SE more because of the tactical combat, but having played Galciv (2) I know I'm going to miss the graphics (there, I admit it ), the diplomacy,...

Reply #12 Top
Everytime you want something, you need to give them 2 or 4x the value of the desired tech; but I think what happens with them, they take turns being the aggressor and so are able to combine their research. I'm playing a game on Normal difficulty right now where this is obviously happening, even the most pathetic AI empire is mostly keeping up on the other AI's best technologies.


Yeah, I think you need to try sinking some points into Diplomacy skills and playing a game. With a moderate to high diplomacy skill, I can usually trade 1 or 2 techs for at least 3 or 4 techs from another civ, and I've been playing on Normal as well. They are a lot more stingy with military technology than the other techs, though... which seems to me a strength of the AI, since even in the real world, countries aren't exactly open to sharing their latest weapons with everyone else.

Reply #13 Top
Why trade for tech, focus on spying bonuses and steal the whole lot.



Why waste time of researching, let the alien pets do it for you then take it all.

J
Reply #14 Top
Back to the initial topic we go, because I find that more interesting than "Is the computer cheating?!"

I'm suprised no one came up with this comparison: it's a Sirlin thing if you've read anything by him. Anyhow, here's the quote from the article.

"A simple rock, paper, scissors (RPS) system of direct counters is a perfectly solid and legitimate basis for a strategy game provided that the rock, paper, and scissors offer unequal risk/rewards.

Consider a strictly equal game of RPS. We’ll play 10 rounds of the game, with a $1 bet on each round. Which move should you choose? It makes absolutely no difference whether you choose rock, paper, or scissors. You’ll be playing a pure guess. Since your move will be a pure guess, I can’t incorporate your expected move into my strategy, partly because I have no basis to expect you to play one move or another, and partly because I really can’t have any strategy to begin with.

Now consider the same game of RPS with unequal payoffs. If you win with rock, you win $10. If you win with scissors, you win $3. If you win with paper, you win $1. Which move do you play? You clearly want to play rock, since it has the highest payoff. I know you want to play rock. You know I know you know, and so on. Playing rock is such an obvious thing to do, you must realize I’ll counter it ever time. But I can’t counter it (with paper) EVERY time, since then you could play scissors at will for a free $3. In fact, playing scissors is pretty darn sneaky. It counters paper—the weakest move. Why would you expect me to do the weakest move? Are you expecting me to play paper just to counter your powerful rock? Why wouldn’t I just play rock myself and risk the tie? You’re expecting me to be sneaky by playing paper, and you’re being doubly sneaky by countering with scissors. What you don’t realize is that I was triply sneaky and I played the original obvious move of rock to beat you.

That may have all sounded like double-talk, but it’s game theory (in the mathematical sense) in action. And it had quite a curious property: playing rock was both the naïve, obvious choice AND the triply sneaky choice."


www.sirlin.net

A way to incorporate that into Galciv would be along these lines:

Missiles are high damage, Point defenses are cheap, take up little space, but don't really do anything against lasers or mass drivers.

Lasers are medium damage, shields are moderately expensive, take up a moderate amount of space, but can block a modest percentage of the other two weapons.

Mass drivers are low damage, armor is expensive, takes up a lot of space, but in addition to blocking bullets nigh completely, also shield your ship against lasers and missiles decently.

My opponent has mass drivers. Do I have enough health on my ship to ignore their low-damage cannons? Or should I invest in shields to take the edge off them(and be prepared for any neighbors with lasers). My neighbors are making missile ships. I'll almost certainly need point defenses there. Can my point defense ships be used on both fronts, if I split between point defense and shields? What about the weapons I choose? The enemy on one side is using armor... so I'll need missiles to take full advantage of them. But the other enemy has point defenses. Lasers would be the best choice there. Yet another enemy has shields! Lots and lots of mass drivers are the obvious choice... and so on.

I think this would add a little more strategy than the current "If defense = attack, attack is thwarted... if defense !=attack, defense = square root protection." It'd give all of the defenses pros and cons, instead of making it a guessing game.
Reply #15 Top
Looking through GC2Types.xml , I don't see anyway to change initiative, accuracy, whatever. It looks like all weapons are defined only by Class (G, M or B), Size, Size Mod, Cost, Damage and graphic/sound effects. Armor is defined similar to weapons but with an S, A or PD for Class. I'm assuming the Class is hardcoded into the engine, making it hard to do something like make an armor give one absorption for all 3 weapon classes, though it may be possible to give items like weapons or armor positive/negative modifiers to speed, range, sensors, HP, and logistics. I'll screw around with it later.
Reply #16 Top
I must agree with DeviousToast (love the name btw )

That's kinda what MOO3 was trying to do, I think, except they forget to make point defense work So missiles just wiped out your whole fleet again and again . . . (or fighters) . . and all those lovely beam weapons just went to waste.

GalCiv2 has a much easier design to manage (which I am grateful for!!!) but a touch of variety in the weapon choices could make for some more interesting options.
Reply #17 Top
Actually PD did work in MOO3 just not like it was mostly likely intended. I always found that if you started off the combat round with trying to seek out and destroy your enemy your PD switched from defence to offence. So if you and counting on the PD to defend you you had to start off the round by sitting tight. This switches your PD/Lightning field generators into defence mode. After the first attack your PD mop up the attack like it is suppose to and leaves you with just the offence weapons left to destroy the enemy fleet.

I won no end of battles that way. I use to load up with PDs escort ships and Huge carriers. When the game started I'd always let the enemy waste all their missiles and fighters trying to get the Alpha Strike, but to no avail. Then I'd counter their attack and they'd be all out of weapons to save them. LOL!

MOO3 had strategy, but it with fleet strategy, its similar to GC2, its all about what you put on the ships and what ships you send into battle. The difference being that at least in MOO3 I could tell my fleet not to act like a bunch of w@nxers and do a Kamikaze run into a swarm of missiles.

I hate GC2 ideal of auto resolute combat, it removes that all important luck and skill factor from war. How can I be a good admiral if I can't have a say in what my fleet does in a fight, what if I want my fleet to target all the fighters and leave the battleship alone for my Dreadnaught? What about retreats or flanking? At least retreating should be there!

J
Reply #18 Top
I tried to post something on this a little while ago, but it seems to have lost my post in the eather.

My big question is, is there any point to spending any tech of defense at all? At least in the simulator, a 4-0 is an even match for a 2-2 of the appropriate defense, and completely sweeps anything that doesn't have the right defensive type, and it does it for half the tech. Why do anything other that ram one weapon, and pack your ships full of the best smallest weapons you can get?

Those of you who played Eve may recognise this as the "gank-a-geddon" scenario, though it was from different reasons.

Harry Voyager

And now my old post re-emerges from the void. Strange forums...

Addendum: A rough proposal for removing the "gank-a-geddon" scenario: Instead of defense types have a sqrt penalty when facing the incorrect type, give them a 50% bonus when facing the correct weapon type. This means a 2-2 becomes a 2-3 when facing its 4-0, giving it a better than even chance to win the battle, but it still retains an even chance when facing a different type 4-0.

The net effect is that someone who has researched both a defense and an offence line will be matched with someone who has only researched an offense line of a differing type, and they will have an advantage when facing someone who has researched an offense line of their defense type.
Reply #19 Top
DeviousToast eloquently nailed something I assumed would be part of the game:
"Why would you choose one weapon type over another?" Why would your opponent? How do you stop them?

Then, there's the question of defense.. I just finished a game where my ship had 2 beam defense (shields) and 1 rock defense.. 6 beam offense (plasma III) (Mini II, of course). That ship could pound, and take a pounding. I tech-whored to get the defense technologies, but I may actually try them again. There were several times when the opponent ship would hit for 0 pts damage.. Instead of taking 17, the ship took 5-9..

a fleet of two would take down 4, because I would get 2 shots and several of the return 4 would be zero's..

However, in examining the weapons/defense balance, we can definately answer the question of whether or not 1 offensive damage is better than 1 defense..
Reply #20 Top
I looked through the XML files. It looks like some minor things are possible, but generally, advanced modding (regarding combat) cannot be currently done. For example, it is possible to change the damage values of weapons or health of ships, but starbase HP is hard-coded. Any major changes that adjust everything *except* starbase HP would utterly break game balance. Starbases are pretty much unmoddable as far as I can tell. You can adjust their components, however.

Hopefully starbases will get an XML file soon.
Reply #21 Top
By the way, I made a better tech tree. It fixes several tiny bugs (Terraforming was missing an AI value, Harpoon was misformatted, New Propulsion was not listed as a type of propulsion, etc). Also, the technologies are now grouped by their type, with types in alphabetical order, instead of being kind of random. I put it here:


www.geocities.com/saber_marionette_cherry/Files/TechTree4.xml
Reply #22 Top
Devioustoast made some exelent points and the model he describes would be a great asset to the current way battles are handled.
The question remains: can we create defenses like 2PD + 1S + 1A (for example) or something along the line. If so we could re-create Devioustoast’s model of ‘RPS with unequal payoffs’.
Reply #23 Top
What an interesting thread. it started on initiative, and I agree with what Levolun said. it would be nice if the weapon techs were a little more than paper/rock/scissors. at the same time, too much more would complicate this game. i don't think the emphasis with this game is the battles. still, i agree that there should be a little more informing my decision that what my enemies have and what i know about how the techs space/damage ratios work. Devious Toast, your analysis was excellent. i think if we want to give ourself nerdy problems to balance this paradigm, we should also consider space-to-damage ratio (...the acronym for that is STD) and also tech tree progress. in other words, the other major "tactical" calculation is how the weapons work in time.

i like the idea of initiative modifiers for the weapons. i don't remember if anyone's mentioned this yet, but we could also consider recharge rates. for instance, it seems like it wouldn't take much time at all to fire off an initial volley of missiles - just the time it takes for two officers to turn their keys. but reloading a missle rack takes a good amount of time since it'll probably need to be manual, at least at some stage. bullets need only to be aimed, but beam capacitors must be charged. okay, but take a step back. when you can detect potentially threatening ships at least a sector away, your military forces will be on alert long before they enter weapons range. by that measure, pretty much all weapons' first rounds would fire at the same time. the only probably thing that would prevent this would be... cloaking. that's a cool idea for a mod. another could be line of sight. what if we took fog of war to the next level, somehow? now THAT would be awesome. in the center of an empire, there will be lots of ships and bases, making blind spots few and far between, but on distant outposts and isolated planets, blind spots are boing to be much more significant regardless of your sensor range. we could throw in the caveat that as sensor tech progresses, sensors can see through different opjects (mk2 sensors can scan through planets, mk4 through stars). yes, that would all probably be hard reprogramming, but i havent got much into modding in the first place. i found this threat looking to fix a bug with my high end beam weapon stats, which i think might represent loss of file integrity during download (see linked post if you're curious (hopefully i did that right (ah, i'm lost in my own parantheses))).

anyway, that was a tangent. i still think reload rate could make an interesting addition to battles. moreover, someone else, maybe in a different thread, mentioned hating that attackers' missles hit their own ships before beam weapons even fired. i haven't been able to tell: does the game account for damage delay? missiles take a while to hit, and the tech report info says so ('the largest challenge with missiles is their speed"). anyway, my point with this is that a few subtle changes to the way weapons and defenses work in battle could make the strategic aspects of this game's battles a lot more nuanced. StarDock kind of touted the triple weapons system during development, and it's not bad. could be better.

anyway, those changes are more significant than something else i wanted to pontificate on regarding "the war machine in time" was how the technology groups progressed throughout the game. i'll get more in depth with weapons and defenses, but i want to talk about engines with my first point, specifically the values of engine comps and how they relate to techs. i'm sure we've all noticed that within a tech branch like engines or beam weapons, there are 'original' techs and "mark X" iterations. however, it seems strange to me that there isn't a uniform corelation between whether you've researched a completely new tech or an iteration. example: the first time you get impulse engines, you get 2 movement for 9 space (i think... i don't feel like checking). impulse mark2 reduces the space by 1, but mark 3 increases the movement and sets the space back to 9. i can't remember if it works like that for every uniquely named engine tech, but i know i noticed it for several. personally, i just think it's more intuitive that all impulse engines should have the same movement, the later iterations being smaller. ditto for the weapons, though in the case of say phasors, which has like 7 iterations, one could probably make an exception if needed.

though, i don't think it's necessarily needed in the case of phasors. (that paragraph, with no planning whatsoever, led really well into this one). in the case of weapons and defenses, a few people have all ready talked about part of the stategic decision making being related to the STD ration (heh). i also talked about how this could be interestingly complicated by adding reload rates for different weapons, if that isn't all ready there. Devious Toast wrote very well about how defenses could be made more interesting; i.e. adjusting their relative defensive powers individually, so that some defenses are a little more "all-around" than others, and this makes especial sense with respect to their existing STDC (size to defensive capability). but one other thing to consider is how these things might be made to change over the course of the game as a whole, with regard to technological development. there's no reason the different ratios and behaviors of the offensive and defensive systems shouldn't change over time; in face, i think there is a good reason it should. it would keep the games more varied from one to the next. here's what i mean.

a couple hypothetical scenarios. number one. you've had a bit of a touch time getting off the groud because a minor civ shot down a couple of your early colony ships and gave you problems. you invaded them and got it taken care of, but it had its toll, but now you feel like you're setting yourself up for a strong comeback. but here come the drengin. the vagans were using mass drivers, so all you've got is armor. and you went with missiles for their early bonus. your scouts saw two medium sized ships, and you're no where near having the tech for it. here's the good news: you had all ready researched lasers 5, and you got the full series of miniballs when you had the vagans on their knees (as a part of a peace treaty you immediately broke). bad news: the drengin are using beams too, and their two medium ships have deflectors, and it seems most of their earlier model fighters are outfitted with early stingers. i've seen this happen. thankfully they have no armor, and early deflectors barely defend against mass drivers at all. so you can hit them. but the problem will be hitting them enough before they kill you completely. thankfully it's a bit of a voyage they're on, so you have some time. why not go with deflectors, since that's their main weapon? well, the thing is, deflectors are bulky, and you definately don't have time to match their medium ships or get enough miniaturization to fit shields and leave room for more then one weapon on a small ship. armor is about the same cost and offers okay back-up defense to beams, plus you can make it smaller by quickly researching the last iteration of armor left in the current sub-series. you have chaff fully researched. chaff isn't especially effective against anything but missiles, but ECM could probably be researched in time. ECM represents a critical turn in missile defense, since it affects targetting systems, and it's also a bit cheaper than deflectors. it's especially good against missiles, but also offers decent jamming to targets further away. and it's small, so you could fit two ECMs on a small ship to defend almost completely against 40% of their outdated firepower. regarding the rest, they should be well enough defended to at least give 'em a bloody nose. if you focus on small (not tiny) ships with this kind of defense, against their first wave and send a couple high-speed fighters behind their line to take out the transports, you probably have a good chance at getting them to leave.

scenario two. you're a charmer, and no one really hates you. yet. plus you just happened to find yourself early game seculded in a corner (there's a big gap between your few systems and anyone else, making war hard at this point. the obvious strategy is to plan for war. but how? i'm only going to look at weapons in my hypothetical universe, in this hypothetical tangent. even early on, there isn't a clear choice. the weapons you pick are kind of personal taste until you have an enemy. i read a post, maybe in another threat, that making ships with multiple weapons systems is valueless. i haven't found that at all, but i haven't played enough to have a clear sense of it. either way, i don't think it should be that way. it'd be nice if the interface tallied total simple offense and defense values for you. it'd be even nicer if you had a quick screen or a simulator of some kind that could do a simple defense adjustment before you enter battle (in other words, somehow "average out" the defense multipliers against the various weapon value types in the enemy fleet... it wouldn't have to account for proposed reload and damage delay; i'm only imagining an tool to get a better sense of combat outcome, but there still should be certain things that seem to be up to chance).

anyway, getting back on track, you decide to plan on focusing on two types of weapons to offer better all around offense. missiles are pretty consistently bulky and powerful, and their qualitative changes tend to be reload and damage delay (let's say the jump to photon torps represents a major breakthrough in damage delay and reload rate, but sets back the work you've put into reducing missile STD). very early mass drivers are weak, but have very low delay and get smaller and smaller, and early drivers also have excellent reload rates (by far the best in the early weapons generations). but the change to exotic particle bullets changes mass drivers significantly. suddenly they start doing a lot more damage, but at the cost of a higher reload rate and bulkier components, though they retain their low damage delay. at first, beam weapons are pretty bulky for their damage. beams always have virtually zero damage delay, their major advantage (presumably anyway, see next paragraph). beam damage itself makes acceptable jumps with plasma and 1st-gen phasors, keeping them competative, but phasors represent a major turn for beams. phasors don't make major strides in damage dealing capability, but rather they become smaller and faster to reload (recharge) with each generation. so the strategic functionality of mass drivers and phasors flips mid game. i'm not even going to speculate on what happens late game. i think you get the idea.

but i'm making an assumption that seems to contradict an apparent observation. it seems that in battles when the deadly shots are fired on a ship, it just sits there and waits to die even if it's weapons were going to fire soon. if delay is going to mean as much as i think it should, that needs to change. Goatride mentioned SE. in Space Empires ships of different size got defensive bonuses (fighers even got offensive). i think that makes perfect sense, or at least implement a D&D-style size modifier. that way having varied fleets becomes more than just a matter of economic ability.

there's one other thing i'm a little fuzzy on. it seems a little a-priori to assume that a fleet of 15 fighters could take out a single huge capital ship, even with what i mentioned about size modifiers. simply put, even if such a fleet could usually take out a capital ship due to the difficulty such a ship will have hitting them, and the number of guns they can individually offer in return, i'd like to see it play out, at least if anyone takes all of what i've written about delay and recharge to heart. adding a little bit of well-planned asymmetry can open up a world of strategy that isn't there now. it doesn't need to be perfect or perfectly balanced. anyway, i'm thinking i should repost this as a suggested change.

PS: Goatrider, SE4 was a great multiplayer game, but the AI was atrocious.
Reply #24 Top
forgot the link:
https://forums.galciv2.com/?ForumID=162&AID=106729
Reply #25 Top
okay.. i was also wrong about the impulse engines. but you get it.