Firing arcs - for GSB 2

You think pulse lasers should be slightly more purple? This is the forum to spread your wise words
User avatar
Archduke Astro
Positech Staff
Positech Staff
Posts: 1654
Joined: Sun Aug 30, 2009 10:09 pm
Location: Building The Future.

Re: Firing arcs - for GSB 2

Postby Archduke Astro » Tue Jun 17, 2014 9:48 pm

cliffski wrote:Revisiting this so as to ask for some more opinions, as I am experimenting with it today :D I'm linking it to the slot, rather than the weapon, which I think makes more sense, and for some more interesting decisions about equipping weapons and selecting hulls.

I agree with you.

I can support that, as long as the total number of weapon slots aboard the majority of GSB2 hulls is high enough, and blessed with a useful enough array of overlapping firing arcs, as to allow a total number of installed weapons that's sufficient to minimize lethal blind spots. (I don't expect blind spots to be completely absent in GSB2; just minimized.) This is crucial because if firing arcs are truly being implemented for the sequel game, they absolutely should also be 100% applicable to Point Defense systems, EMP Cannons, Target Painters, etc. -- PD being the most important of these, by far! -- not just for the offensive devices that rack up actual damage points on the target.

That, coupled with the fact of some firing arcs will surely overlap with numerous others on a ship while other arcs will overlap only slightly (or even not at all???), is going to concentrate firepower along some angles while greatly weakening it on other angles. Therefore, in order to not be too dangerously limited, every hull class in GSB2 that also existed in GSB1 is going to need noticeably (in some cases significantly) more weapon slots than it had in the original game. Implementing that change will be a benefit to gameplay in general (after all, we're here in order to get the maximum extent of pew-pew-pew! :P ), but will also be enough to achieve the "economy of scale" needed for firing-arc intricacies to bring to GSB2 at least as many tactical rewards as well as boundaries.


A potential problem is that, if the ship is given an overly narrow gun traverse for each weapon slot, the ship is going to be much too easily pecked to death with impunity by any attackers. That runs a substantial risk of draining the fun out of the game via having too many cheap kills. Of course I haven't forgotten how one aspect of combined arms operations means bringing along enough specialized "wingmen" to cover you. I just want to make certain that you resist the temptation to design each individual ship's firing arcs too creatively in such a way that cuts too close to the bone. ;)

While GSB2's ship diversity should be broader than that of GSB1, I think that we shouldn't have a gamewide firing-arc environment where every ship's officers are overly busy fretting about their own ship's "unshielded thermal exhaust port" to be able to carry out a successful attack against another ship. Here's what I mean...Starship AI code will need to take into account in which angles the ship enjoys heavy overlapping attack firepower, in which angles there is dangerously weak defense firepower, and steer the ship in accordance with those factors while also overriding them when necessary as a result of applying the human player's exact Combat Orders. The AI will need to be really good at meshing those imperatives together, because it cannot plan ahead to the same extent that a person can, nor can it actually think -- only the human player in charge grasps "the big picture".


Cliff, we have not yet begun to discuss the relationship between the following inter-related things:

    1) The average traverse (width) values that GSB2 firing arcs will need;
    2) The different kinds of tactical roles ships will have based upon the width of their firing arcs;
    3) The average number of how many super-wide, wide, medium, narrow, super-narrow mounts will exist on each hull size;
    4) The average number of how many forward, aft, left side, right side, and 360-degree (if any) mounts on each hull size;
    5) Total number of all weapon slots per average hull size.
So that's some "food for thought" for us to ponder. It's going to have a major impact upon the game, so we'd best get it right.


Also, this entire subject relates to GSB2's new spinal-mount weapons -- which, at a minimum, should cause immense damage to their target (16-20X the damage from the strongest GSB1 cruiser-sized weapon, scaled-up to GSB2 levels) -- and the weapon slots into which they can be installed.

We need to nail down some kind of preliminary numbers for the spread/arc angle for this type of mounting; I don't think that limiting them to a ultra-narrow, 1-degree straight line is necessarily the best plan. But making spinal slots able to traverse across more than, say, 22.5 degrees (one-quarter of a right angle) might not be a great idea, either. I think there's a happy medium between those extremes.

As we ascend the scale of hull sizes, we come to the question of how many spinal-mount gun slots "should" a ship have, if it's designed as being worthy of having any at all?
Depending on the other stats of those giant weapons, I could easily see the biggest ships having several (5 ?), while cruisers might have only one or two at most.
And should they all have the "traditional" (but useful) forward centerline orientation???
Hell, I can even see some desirability for forward oblique (60-degree offset from centerline; front-left or front-right) spinal mounts, and even aft centerline ones!


Oh, and one last thing:
All firing-arc stats must be made completely moddable.
.
•• Positech Global Moderator & Forum Sheriff ••
GSB "Combined-Arms Combat" Advocate & Analyst
Enemy of Forum Lulz | Defender of Faction Diversity

∞∆……CURATOR OF CREATIVE CONCEPTS for GSB's Friendly Community Mod Squad……∆∞
Berny_74
Supreme Robot
Supreme Robot
Posts: 316
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2010 12:42 am

Re: Firing arcs - for GSB 2

Postby Berny_74 » Tue Jun 17, 2014 10:08 pm

If we have firing arcs - will we have the ability to control the ships better and to keep them in the proper firing angle? It is one thing to charge straight to your enemy but if we have arcs - and hopefully side arcs, can we then explain to our ships that they are to keep the enemy on one side and keep them there?

And there is a mention on minimum firing distance, I don't agree seeing as in real life many weapons have minimum firing distances - but I would ask while creating a challenge and the ranges are decreased, the minimum will be decrease as will. This will keep the annoying challenges where weapon ranges where smaller than they're minimum range.

Berny
It is way to hot.
User avatar
Archduke Astro
Positech Staff
Positech Staff
Posts: 1654
Joined: Sun Aug 30, 2009 10:09 pm
Location: Building The Future.

Re: Firing arcs - for GSB 2; why Minimum Range?

Postby Archduke Astro » Tue Jun 17, 2014 11:06 pm

Doctor Xenon wrote:I have somewhat mixed feelings about that. Mind you, most of these are positive, but I'm just a little uneasy.

What is it that concerns you? The stated grounds for your mixed feelings are very vague.

Doctor Xenon wrote:Somewhat related, the concept of "minimum range" doesn't really make much sense to me. I don't get what's preventing the ship from firing at another one nearly point blank. The concept of maximum range vs ideal range totally makes sense, but I can't imagine a reason why they wouldn't be able to fire at an enemy because it was "too close".

I am in favor of all weapons having a stated minimum range. Not only does it make the game more engrossing & immersive from a dramatic standpoint, but it's also a nod towards some small measure of realism. This is how minimum range manages to give us both:

The closer that the target unit gets to the firing unit, the more that angular velocity is going to be a factor in to-hit calculations. Here's one example. Ship-based anti-aircraft gunners discovered in WW2 (and GSB is based on some aspects of WW2) that it's much harder to successfully target an enemy fighter that's flying past you at 400 knots airspeed and at a close-in range of 100 yards, instead of one that's still carefully spiralling towards you at 400kts but is 2,000 yards away.

Sure, we do have a "Tracking" stat for weapons accuracy, but the Minimum Range stat goes a long way towards reflecting the difficulties of putting your ordnance on target when the target is close enough that angular velocity is basically tying your firing solution into a Gordian knot. In real wet-navy combat, that applied to ship-vs-ship fighting as well as trying to swat enemy planes. In the historical time period that I'm most interested in -- the Great War (which began 100 years ago this summer!) -- it was somewhat easier for the big ships' artillery to blaze away at each other when you and the enemy were some distance apart (as opposed to max range). Both sides were often approaching head-on or close to it, which did simplify the calculations in some ways even while complicating them in others (range-finding was strictly optical back then; no radar yet!).

But at very close ranges, such as one thousand yards (0.57 mile) or nearer? Not nearly enough time for a primitive analog fire-control computer (or the ship's Gunnery Officer) to work up a solution. Reaction time to even very small changes in target bearing simply becomes unacceptably long when the target is really close to the firing unit. Even in the modern era, it's not so easy; our computers are vastly more capable than any from 1914, but then again the closing speed of an aircraft or a missile is likewise much faster as well. If your computer ( or a shipboard AI, or a Mentat ;) ) can somehow create an accurate fire-control plot, your turrets themselves are even more limited by basic inertia: how many radians per second can the gun and its entire turret mount traverse from its current bearing to the correct bearing of the incoming target? Especially if you're involved in heavy combat and you may have a large number of hostiles opposing your smaller number of weapons and defenses? You get the idea.

If in WW1/WW2 you were really foolhardy at close range, you could try to aim your turrets visually and hope that the generally flat ballistic trajectory of your shells would reach the enemy's vital spots. It didn't always work out that way, and simply being at such close ranges was dangerous for other reasons (torpedoes). Better for GSB that cliffski removed that entirely, and abstracted such tedious yet dangerous guesswork into a hard limit of an inner weapon boundary that guns are just too myopic to ever reliably cope with.

Lastly, having a formation of small fast enemy frigates or a squadron of enemy fighters get "under your guns" is just plain exciting. :D
.
•• Positech Global Moderator & Forum Sheriff ••
GSB "Combined-Arms Combat" Advocate & Analyst
Enemy of Forum Lulz | Defender of Faction Diversity

∞∆……CURATOR OF CREATIVE CONCEPTS for GSB's Friendly Community Mod Squad……∆∞
User avatar
Archduke Astro
Positech Staff
Positech Staff
Posts: 1654
Joined: Sun Aug 30, 2009 10:09 pm
Location: Building The Future.

Re: Firing arcs - for GSB 2

Postby Archduke Astro » Tue Jun 17, 2014 11:46 pm

Berny_74 wrote:If we have firing arcs - will we have the ability to control the ships better and to keep them in the proper firing angle? It is one thing to charge straight to your enemy but if we have arcs - and hopefully side arcs, can we then explain to our ships that they are to keep the enemy on one side and keep them there?

That's a very good question, and touches upon a fundamental part of the entire firing-arc topic. Cliff's going to have to answer that one.

For my part, I would like to see some of the GSB2 races' navies have at least a few ships that are optimized in favor of broadside fire. Not a huge percentage of them; perhaps only two or three hulls -- enough to be an interesting alternative. Traditional wet-navy style, fore-and-aft turret slot layout will generally serve well in a broadside engagement if the firing arcs are wide enough from the ship's centerline. But ships which are specifically built to have the great majority of their guns firing only towards left and right -- or half the turrets only firing left, and half the turrets only firing right? -- would also be a fascinating layout to use. As far as actual hull-slot layout goes, I have no doubt that this can be done. What I am a bit nervous about is whether GSB2's ship navigator AI and ship gunner AI can intelligently handle control of such ships.

Berny_74 wrote:And there is a mention on minimum firing distance, I don't agree seeing as in real life many weapons have minimum firing distances - but I would ask while creating a challenge and the ranges are decreased, the minimum will be decrease as will. This will keep the annoying challenges where weapon ranges where smaller than they're minimum range.

Great idea for the online Challenges! It would be great to finally have that sort of maliciously unwinnable Challenge come to a permanent end. I'm tired of that.
.
•• Positech Global Moderator & Forum Sheriff ••
GSB "Combined-Arms Combat" Advocate & Analyst
Enemy of Forum Lulz | Defender of Faction Diversity

∞∆……CURATOR OF CREATIVE CONCEPTS for GSB's Friendly Community Mod Squad……∆∞
Berny_74
Supreme Robot
Supreme Robot
Posts: 316
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2010 12:42 am

Re: Firing arcs - for GSB 2

Postby Berny_74 » Wed Jun 18, 2014 12:13 am

Archduke Astro wrote:But ships which are specifically built to have the great majority of their guns firing only towards left and right -- or half the turrets only firing left, and half the turrets only firing right? -- would also be a fascinating layout to use. As far as actual hull-slot layout goes, I have no doubt that this can be done. What I am a bit nervous about is whether GSB2's ship navigator AI and ship gunner AI can intelligently handle control of such ships.


Considering the designs of two races, Empire and Order, why do we require symmetry in our firing arcs at all? Why not have asymmetrical designed vessels? With the order's strange design it could weapons only fire to one side and/or forward (A religious thing perhaps, shield on the left sword on the right?).

If an AI and driver AI could be designed it could change how battles are fought. Giving the ability for players to choose types of engagements, Straight down the middle charges, flanking lines of battle, a circling coracle. Right now we tend to have CHARGE, or slowly meander forward.

Berny
Archduke Astro wrote:Lastly, having a formation of small fast enemy frigates or a squadron of enemy fighters get "under your guns" is just plain exciting. :D

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_off_Samar
User avatar
Archduke Astro
Positech Staff
Positech Staff
Posts: 1654
Joined: Sun Aug 30, 2009 10:09 pm
Location: Building The Future.

Re: Firing arcs - for GSB 2

Postby Archduke Astro » Wed Jun 18, 2014 2:16 am

Berny_74 wrote:
Archduke Astro wrote:But ships which are specifically built to have the great majority of their guns firing only towards left and right -- or half the turrets only firing left, and half the turrets only firing right? -- would also be a fascinating layout to use. As far as actual hull-slot layout goes, I have no doubt that this can be done. What I am a bit nervous about is whether GSB2's ship navigator AI and ship gunner AI can intelligently handle control of such ships.


Considering the designs of two races, Empire and Order, why do we require symmetry in our firing arcs at all? Why not have asymmetrical designed vessels?


It's simple: because a symmetry of firing arcs simplifies tactics and reduces the number of variables that a player must juggle.

It does this in a way that also removes potential additional blind spots and lack of gun concentration / arc overlaps
that the symmetric-arc fleet is not burdened by. Those would otherwise weaken the asymmetric-arc fleet by offering
the symmetrically-arced enemy a potential pathway that is comparatively "under-defended" towards the asymmetric-arc fleet.

Or to phrase it differently:
This allows the player to avoid having units which function at what may very well be a drastically lower level of utility
than the rest of his fleet, thus narrowing any gap between his own fleet's performance and that of the enemy's fleet.

No, I agree it's not as cool as what you're advocating, but IMO this is where cosmetics should probably take a back seat to deadly efficiency. In games with discrete weapons-firing arcs that aren't all 360 degrees, everybody either lives or dies by establishment of local firepower superiority. I maintain that it's both easier and quicker to reliably attain that goal with symmetrical firing arcs. Asymmetry of turret placement on the hull, as well as with size and and orientation of those same firing arcs, makes the attainment of local firepower superiority a more unreliable, harder and slower process. That's what alarms me.


Berny_74 wrote:With the order's strange design it could weapons only fire to one side and/or forward (A religious thing perhaps, shield on the left sword on the right?).

I admit that there might be some latitude here for doing the cool thing instead of the efficient thing. If there's a way to make asymmetry useful for a ship's firing arcs, we should use it without hesitation.

I'm still not fully convinced such utility exists in meaningful quantities, though. I'm not a fan of asymmetry that exists solely for aesthetics' sake and might end up actually putting asymmetric ships & their asymmetric array of firing arcs in danger from the enemy. Likewise for my feelings about maybe putting an official unit into GSB2 that suffered from a seriously lopsided firing-arc array only because it was mistakenly believed that the Rule of Cool was more important in a battle than an effective set of firing-arcs. [-shrug-] Yes, fun is important in this game, but too much of this precise kind of fun here can get some ships needlessly blown-up. I hope that my attitude makes sense to everyone.


Berny_74 wrote:If an AI and driver AI could be designed it could change how battles are fought. Giving the ability for players to choose types of engagements, Straight down the middle charges, flanking lines of battle, a circling coracle. Right now we tend to have CHARGE, or slowly meander forward.

Honestly, I agree with you here. GSB2 would be great if we had additional valid maneuver tactics to choose from when compared to GSB1. The current menu is dismayingly short.


Berny_74 wrote:
Archduke Astro wrote:Lastly, having a formation of small fast enemy frigates or a squadron of enemy fighters get "under your guns" is just plain exciting. :D

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_off_Samar

Outstandingly awesome example of what I meant, Berny. ( "Damn it, boys, they're getting away!" ) You da man! :)
.
•• Positech Global Moderator & Forum Sheriff ••
GSB "Combined-Arms Combat" Advocate & Analyst
Enemy of Forum Lulz | Defender of Faction Diversity

∞∆……CURATOR OF CREATIVE CONCEPTS for GSB's Friendly Community Mod Squad……∆∞
User avatar
cliffski
Positech Staff
Positech Staff
Posts: 7975
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 10:27 am
Location: UK
Contact:

Re: Firing arcs - for GSB 2

Postby cliffski » Wed Jun 18, 2014 8:32 am

I admit that the topic of firing arcs fills me with panic because of the implications for AI. The AI for GSB is fairly complex (believe it or not) but the main problem is it has to be FAST. I'm aiming for 500+ ships per side at 5120 res on a reasonable gaming PC, with all graphics on insane levels, and that doesn't leave much time per-frame per-ship for any complex AI.

As a result, and partly because I want the game to be accessible to new players, I see firing arcs as something that affects a few slots, but not many. I haven't decided on spinal-mount new slot-types yet, but if they go in they will certainly be arc-limited.
My gut feeling is that the majority of slots could stay as they are now, with 360 coverage, but maybe restrict a few of them on each ship. My main motivation for that is this adds a new level of decision making to ship layout.
Right now, apart from the fact that turrets at the front have very slightly longer reach, exactly *where* you place a weapon on a ship is pretty much irrelevant. Having 4 weapon slots at 360 and 2 at 180 changes that. Suddenly you have to decide which weapon you can sacrifice some coverage with.

It also means a more interesting choice of hull. Fighter hull A has 10% speed boost, BUT it has only 90 degree forward firing lasers...oh the agony of decision. Suddenly fighters are less multi-role, and you need that combination of ships for specific tasks.

Also, I have to admit I see it as a modding boon. If arcs are in there, even if used sparingly, it allows modders to go nuts with them.
User avatar
ponyus
Positech Staff
Positech Staff
Posts: 865
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 1:45 am
Location: sweden
Contact:

Re: Firing arcs - for GSB 2

Postby ponyus » Wed Jun 18, 2014 9:19 am

cliffski wrote:It also means a more interesting choice of hull. Fighter hull A has 10% speed boost, BUT it has only 90 degree forward firing lasers...oh the agony of decision. Suddenly fighters are less multi-role, and you need that combination of ships for specific tasks.

Also, I have to admit I see it as a modding boon. If arcs are in there, even if used sparingly, it allows modders to go nuts with them.


Image

oh yes, i think we'll have quite a blast exploring all the new possibilities.
Gameplay Designer and balancing wizard for Gratuitous Space Battles 2

to me "gratuitous" means "awesome"

Winner of the 2011 community mod contest
User avatar
Archduke Astro
Positech Staff
Positech Staff
Posts: 1654
Joined: Sun Aug 30, 2009 10:09 pm
Location: Building The Future.

Re: Firing arcs - for GSB 2

Postby Archduke Astro » Wed Jun 18, 2014 9:33 am

cliffski wrote:I admit that the topic of firing arcs fills me with panic because of the implications for AI. The AI for GSB is fairly complex (believe it or not) but the main problem is it has to be FAST. I'm aiming for 500+ ships per side at 5120 res on a reasonable gaming PC, with all graphics on insane levels, and that doesn't leave much time per-frame per-ship for any complex AI.

Wow! With respect, I really hope that you were including "necessary airtight improvements to GSB2's AI relative to how it was in GSB1" was included in that before referring above to how little time per-frame per-ship is left over for useful AI weapon-arc interactions will require. I'd gladly part with some optional visual fluff if it meant having an AI that we could finally trust not to stab us in the back via its wasteful ways.

Considering how much serious discontent about GSB1's weaponry AI is still being voiced (even at this very late date), and the repeated clear statements from players who want that AI to never, ever again make the same boneheaded mistakes such as unleashing an entire bomber squadron's worth of anti-cruiser torpedoes onto the very first enemy fighter that sqdn. sees on the way to the enemy cruisers -- in spite of the human player having explicitly deleted the Attack Fighters and Attack Frigates orders from that sqdn. to keep that from happening -- please forgive me for saying that I'm more than a bit concerned at how little meat is apparently still left on the bone for, as you say, any complex AI in the sequel game. :O

cliffski wrote:As a result, and partly because I want the game to be accessible to new players, I see firing arcs as something that affects a few slots, but not many. I haven't decided on spinal-mount new slot-types yet, but if they go in they will certainly be arc-limited.

That's good to know; thank you for the clarifications. Hopefully the subject of firing arcs will not be diluted more than what we now know is how you intended it to be. I had definitely hoped for some more utility than that in the implementation, as have others.

cliffski wrote:My gut feeling is that the majority of slots could stay as they are now, with 360 coverage, but maybe restrict a few of them on each ship. My main motivation for that is this adds a new level of decision making to ship layout.
Right now, apart from the fact that turrets at the front have very slightly longer reach, exactly *where* you place a weapon on a ship is pretty much irrelevant. Having 4 weapon slots at 360 and 2 at 180 changes that. Suddenly you have to decide which weapon you can sacrifice some coverage with.

It also means a more interesting choice of hull. Fighter hull A has 10% speed boost, BUT it has only 90 degree forward firing lasers...oh the agony of decision. Suddenly fighters are less multi-role, and you need that combination of ships for specific tasks.

Interesting indeed. OK, it sounds that while discrete firing arcs are indeed a thing in GSB2, it's not going to be overly complex as far as the percentage of gun slots per hull that are anything other than 360-degrees. Somewhat disappointing, but I can live with that.

However, I would politely hold your feet to the fire when the time comes to decide exactly how far to take that feature. :P
If each official/vanilla ship is only going to have a relative few gun slots that are something other than 360 arcs, then setting up the way that each ship's firing arcs will overlap -- and in which directions those arc overlaps will extend! -- will become very important to the players. Let's make sure that all of those choices are tactically useful; not mere filler for the sake of merely making things look "different" from hull to hull, please.

Perhaps firing-arc orientation -- the default angle at which the entire arc is "pointed" away from the ship -- will be more prominent instead of fancy intricate mixtures of different arc traverses. Is that what you foresee happening?

And is the ability to rotate a weapon slot (in order to assign its arc some other orientation) a feature that will appear in the sequel's Hull Editor?

cliffski wrote:Also, I have to admit I see it as a modding boon. If arcs are in there, even if used sparingly, it allows modders to go nuts with them.

Agreed in full! That's the spirit, mate. ;)


A question:
Will a gun slot's firing arc be able to exist as a "fragmented" arc which includes two or three segments?

Imagine a gun emplacement that is located amidships on a hull. It has obstructions ahead of it that prevent it from firing forwards.
However, it can fire in a 120-degree arc directly to the left, as well as a similar arc to the right.
There are no surface obstructions directly aft of it, so it could also fire in a 90-degree arc astern.

Do you understand what I am asking for? As a modder, I would indeed love the freedom to specify that a single gun slot could have a firing arc made up of at least two non-contiguous areas of space. Three or four would be great, but having at least two would still offer a lot of creative potential -- such "crenellated" firing arcs could allow modder-made ships to do some funky things even with only a small number of individual weapons on board. Please tell me that such a thing would be possible in GSB2.
.
•• Positech Global Moderator & Forum Sheriff ••
GSB "Combined-Arms Combat" Advocate & Analyst
Enemy of Forum Lulz | Defender of Faction Diversity

∞∆……CURATOR OF CREATIVE CONCEPTS for GSB's Friendly Community Mod Squad……∆∞
Berny_74
Supreme Robot
Supreme Robot
Posts: 316
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2010 12:42 am

Re: Firing arcs - for GSB 2

Postby Berny_74 » Wed Jun 18, 2014 10:44 am

cliffski wrote:It also means a more interesting choice of hull. Fighter hull A has 10% speed boost, BUT it has only 90 degree forward firing lasers...oh the agony of decision. Suddenly fighters are less multi-role, and you need that combination of ships for specific tasks.



Fighter AI will have to be revamped. The current fighter vs fighter creates what was known as the "Death Spiral" as they constantly circled each other until gooey explosive death occurred. A narrow arc means fighters will be turning constantly never having the ability to fire because they keep sliding out of their firing arcs.

WW1&2 Created a whole schlew of ways of dealing with it - much on 3rd dimension which would not apply to GSB. But perhaps an AI that will not just blindly circle - or a player chosen method of engagement? The perpetually circling method works great if their are front and rear arcs and fighting on the defensive. An attack run which the squadron will setup a distance away - run straight to the target pass the target reassemble and fly back? Etc.

Berny
AC-130 Gunship - now that is completely asymmetrical
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AC-130
User avatar
cliffski
Positech Staff
Positech Staff
Posts: 7975
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 10:27 am
Location: UK
Contact:

Re: Firing arcs - for GSB 2

Postby cliffski » Wed Jun 18, 2014 11:26 am

Don't get me wrong, there is definite scope for improving the AI from the version in the base game. I just don't want to make too many promises I can't keep. Also GSB is actually multi-threaded, at least for some graphics, which does free up time for AI in the main thread.
I'll probably work on the AI a bit later this year. Right now I'm quite graphically focused because I'm about to commission the new GUI, and I need workable graphics for that, and also I will be showing GSB2 at the UK eurogamer show in London this September, where graphics will be more important than the deeper AI for snapshot playing.

AI might not be worked on until then.
I'll definitely be doing a lot of AI consultation with players, including a lot of pesudocode. It's a big part of the game.

Multiple-arcs for a slot does complicate things more than you might think.
User avatar
darkstar076
Supreme Robot
Supreme Robot
Posts: 2200
Joined: Sun Feb 28, 2010 2:14 am
Location: Lurking somewhere in the Forum

Re: Firing arcs - for GSB 2

Postby darkstar076 » Sat Jun 21, 2014 12:49 am

My 2 cents . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I really like the idea of Firing arcs as it helps add a new dimension to help separate the ships. I would imagine inside the module or weapon slot icon, you will see either a full circle or a segment showing the orientation and size of the area where the slot can traverse.

Also I like the idea that turrets are not symmetrical in the firing arc. Modding wise you would specify the center line (0 - 360) and the angle it can traverse (0-180). (Suggestion: With Turret Traverse, even if the number is equal to 180, the turret still swings back past the centreline should a target move through its "blind spot")

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cliff I do hope that you implement the suggestion of an additional new type of slots, as it would:
- Constrict the locations where you can deploy powerful spinal-mounted weapons.
- Add another consideration for ship selection
- Open a new dimension for modding
- Bring a healthy amount of diversity to the old hull-loadout dynamic

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A questions which is somewhat related to Firing Arcs and Ponyus' suggestion:
While I am not keen on having a damage multiplier (up or down) for arc restricted weapons, how about this for an alternate suggestion

Arc Restrict Multi Link turrets, but have each turret in the array deal damage.
That way you get
- A damage boost from an array of turrets,
- Another dimension to ship selections and loadouts

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wisdom is something you generally obtain around three seconds after you needed it the most
-=Modding Guru & Egon Spengler of the Friendly Community Mod Squad=-
User avatar
dafrandle
Supreme Robot
Supreme Robot
Posts: 439
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2012 8:04 pm

Re: Firing arcs - for GSB 2

Postby dafrandle » Sat Jun 21, 2014 5:27 pm

I was thinking what if we let the player specify how big the arc is, and the bigger it is the more money it cost, but (if I understand you idea right) I like yours too, Darkstar.
having a job has allowed me to understand why Archduke Astro has no time to work on his mods
Doctor Xenon
Type I Robot
Type I Robot
Posts: 47
Joined: Thu May 29, 2014 12:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Firing arcs - for GSB 2

Postby Doctor Xenon » Sat Jun 21, 2014 10:19 pm

A weapon slot having either a fixed position or a limited amount of degrees seems interesting, but I'm not sure how having the area size being fixed to that slot makes any sense at all.
User avatar
darkstar076
Supreme Robot
Supreme Robot
Posts: 2200
Joined: Sun Feb 28, 2010 2:14 am
Location: Lurking somewhere in the Forum

Re: Firing arcs - for GSB 2

Postby darkstar076 » Sun Jun 22, 2014 1:16 am

Doctor Xenon wrote:A weapon slot having either a fixed position or a limited amount of degrees seems interesting, but I'm not sure how having the area size being fixed to that slot makes any sense at all.

Personally I think it makes perfect sense that the Module Slot determines the Firing Arc of the weapon that is placed in it. Below are a few examples

Exhibit A: Iowa-class battleship
The Iowas carried ten twin 5 in/38 caliber Mark 28 Mod 0 guns, the mounts closest to the bow and stern could aim from −150 to 150 degrees; the others were restricted to −80 to 80 degrees. They could be turned at about 25 degrees per second.

(There are plenty of Real World examples but since its Gratuitous Space Battles we should look much farther afield)

Exhibit B: Venator-class Star Destroyer
Armed with 8 Heavy Turbolaser Turrets. As you can see from the schematic, the turbo lasers would not be able to fire through the full 360 degrees as they would start punching holes in their own ship.

Exhibit C: Star Wars Superlaser
One of the most powerful weapons in the Starwars universe, this weapon system would be similar to the proposed GSB Spinal Mount weapons, where the entire ship becomes the turret. (therefore the spinal mount has a very narrow firing arc)

In all cases mentioned above, the location of the weapon port on the ship will determine the Firing Arc of that weapon. Therefore I think it makes sense in GSB II to have the individual slot to determine the Firing Arc of the weapon.

dafrandle wrote:I was thinking what if we let the player specify how big the arc is, and the bigger it is the more money it cost,

hmm, in this case I disagree for the same reasons above. No matter how much money you throw at it you cant increase the field of fire. However maybe you could alter how quickly the weapon moves through the angle (ie tracking speed)

dafrandle wrote:(if I understand you idea right) I like yours too, Darkstar.

In other words, if you look at the empire ships with their triple turrets, in GSB 1 they cause the same damage as if the weapon was on a single turret slot. What I am proposing is that in multi turret slots each turret deals damage. So if the Multi Turret slots have 3 turrets then a weapon would do 3 times the damage if you placed it in a single turret slot. (which would be really awesome for when you have a convergence beam) To counter what may be overpowered (as your gaining extra firepower for no cost in crew/power), you could restrict the angles at which they could fire.
Wisdom is something you generally obtain around three seconds after you needed it the most
-=Modding Guru & Egon Spengler of the Friendly Community Mod Squad=-

Return to “Suggestions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest