Auto upgrade Flak

Creation, discussion, and balancing of game content such as techs, buildings, ship parts.

Moderators: Oberlus, Committer

Post Reply
Message
Author
Ophiuchus
Programmer
Posts: 3433
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2014 10:01 am
Location: Wall IV

Auto upgrade Flak

#1 Post by Ophiuchus »

Hi I was thinking we should auto-upgrade Flak so it is a bit more useful.

The simplest idea would be to scale up the number of shots when researching mass driver (or extra tech).
E.g.
MD1 2shots
MD2 3shots
MD3 4shots
MD4 5shots

Also maybe increase damage so the very small hulls get endangered (base with the +5 boost, small, flux hull, ). What you think?
Any code or patches in anything posted here is released under the CC and GPL licences in use for the FO project.

Look, ma... four combat bouts!

Jaumito
Space Kraken
Posts: 189
Joined: Tue May 16, 2017 3:42 am
Location: Catalonia, France, Europe, Earth, Sol, Orion Arm, Milky Way, Virgo Cluster

Re: Auto upgrade Flak

#2 Post by Jaumito »

Ophiuchus wrote:Also maybe increase damage so the very small hulls get endangered (base with the +5 boost, small, flux hull, ). What you think?
Don't see the point of this, flak being a fighter countermeasure. Think about naval fleets, they don't often use flak (anti-aircraft defenses) to sink light escort ships, do they? The smaller hulls will be endangered enough with your proposed increased fire rate, anyway.

I'd rather do the change this way: flak power starts at 2, and you gain 1 extra shot upon learning each Fighters category tech - so, up to 6. I think it makes more sense: as you learn to use fighters, you also learn how to defend against them.

EDIT: come to think of it, flak starting at 2 shots would make it a paltry 1 for bad pilots species. Better start at 3 and add 1 for each Fighters tech upgrade (Laser/Plasma/DR).

User avatar
MatGB
Creative Contributor
Posts: 3310
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 11:45 pm

Re: Auto upgrade Flak

#3 Post by MatGB »

I concur it shouldn't go up with MD tech, that'd mean it maxes out really early and cheaply. Linking it to either fighter techs or weapon techs makes more sense, and perhaps weapons better from a player choice point so if you don't want to use fighters you can get the anti-fighter bonus independently.

I've also come to the conclusion that we need to rework what does/doesn't get good/bad pilot stuff, Geoff put the changes to ROF in as a proof of concept and I didn't change it in the initial balance/playtest pass. I think we need to split up good/bad piloting from shooting, and also just make flak flak with no species affects, that would make it easier to reduce the initial ROF, etc (and also the PP cost, 20 is too hgih currently, it'd definitely be too high if you change it down).
Mat Bowles

Any code or patches in anything posted here is released under the CC and GPL licences in use for the FO project.

Ophiuchus
Programmer
Posts: 3433
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2014 10:01 am
Location: Wall IV

Re: Auto upgrade Flak

#4 Post by Ophiuchus »

Jaumito wrote:
Ophiuchus wrote:Also maybe increase damage so the very small hulls get endangered (base with the +5 boost, small, flux hull, ). What you think?
Don't see the point of this, flak being a fighter countermeasure. Think about naval fleets, they don't often use flak (anti-aircraft defenses) to sink light escort ships, do they? The smaller hulls will be endangered enough with your proposed increased fire rate, anyway.
I mostly agree with you, buuuut.. what i would like to shoot down with a single flak hit are the comsats.
Those are at 6 hitpoints in mid-game, so they soak six Flak hits for 1PP currently.

The 6 hitpoints are generally good because it makes them survive mines for a while. But maybe comsats should be useless at that point of game.
So maybe i would like to excempt the base hull from the +5 bonus?
Maybe lets gate the bonus up to doubling health like

Code: Select all

TargetHealth = Value + min(5, Value) 
Any code or patches in anything posted here is released under the CC and GPL licences in use for the FO project.

Look, ma... four combat bouts!

AndrewW
Juggernaut
Posts: 791
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2013 10:15 pm

Re: Auto upgrade Flak

#5 Post by AndrewW »

Jaumito wrote:Don't see the point of this, flak being a fighter countermeasure. Think about naval fleets, they don't often use flak (anti-aircraft defenses) to sink light escort ships, do they? The smaller hulls will be endangered enough with your proposed increased fire rate, anyway.
There is the case of the German 88mm anti-aircraft gun being used against tanks.

Jaumito
Space Kraken
Posts: 189
Joined: Tue May 16, 2017 3:42 am
Location: Catalonia, France, Europe, Earth, Sol, Orion Arm, Milky Way, Virgo Cluster

Re: Auto upgrade Flak

#6 Post by Jaumito »

AndrewW wrote:
Jaumito wrote:Don't see the point of this, flak being a fighter countermeasure. Think about naval fleets, they don't often use flak (anti-aircraft defenses) to sink light escort ships, do they? The smaller hulls will be endangered enough with your proposed increased fire rate, anyway.
There is the case of the German 88mm anti-aircraft gun being used against tanks.
True, and the Soviets also used their own against German tanks, occasionally. More to the point, it's even technically possible to use naval AA defenses against surface ships at (very) close range. I still don't think historical exceptions to a rule should become a rule in the game.

Ophiuchus
Programmer
Posts: 3433
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2014 10:01 am
Location: Wall IV

Re: Auto upgrade Flak

#7 Post by Ophiuchus »

Jaumito wrote:
AndrewW wrote:
Jaumito wrote:Don't see the point of this, flak being a fighter countermeasure. Think about naval fleets, they don't often use flak (anti-aircraft defenses) to sink light escort ships, do they? The smaller hulls will be endangered enough with your proposed increased fire rate, anyway.
There is the case of the German 88mm anti-aircraft gun being used against tanks.
True, and the Soviets also used their own against German tanks, occasionally. More to the point, it's even technically possible to use naval AA defenses against surface ships at (very) close range. I still don't think historical exceptions to a rule should become a rule in the game.
Just as reminder: Actual realism almsot no weight as argument for freeorion design.
Any code or patches in anything posted here is released under the CC and GPL licences in use for the FO project.

Look, ma... four combat bouts!

Jaumito
Space Kraken
Posts: 189
Joined: Tue May 16, 2017 3:42 am
Location: Catalonia, France, Europe, Earth, Sol, Orion Arm, Milky Way, Virgo Cluster

Re: Auto upgrade Flak

#8 Post by Jaumito »

Ophiuchus wrote:Just as reminder: Actual realism almsot no weight as argument for freeorion design.
Ahem, how does this follow? It wasn't an appeal to realism, quite the opposite: it was an appeal to simplicity - things should do what they're supposed to do and nothing else, even though "in the real world" exceptions exist.

Anyway, if you exempt the comsat hull from the armor bonus as you suggested (which I fully support), the point is moot.

Ophiuchus
Programmer
Posts: 3433
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2014 10:01 am
Location: Wall IV

Re: Auto upgrade Flak

#9 Post by Ophiuchus »

Jaumito wrote:
Ophiuchus wrote:Just as reminder: Actual realism almsot no weight as argument for freeorion design.
Ahem, how does this follow?
You guys were arguing about history.

Scaling up damage is also very simple.
Making an excemption for a specific hull is surprising.

I think gating a fixed bonus like I suggested is simple and unsurprising enough.

Im just waiting if the core devs have a opinion on this.
Any code or patches in anything posted here is released under the CC and GPL licences in use for the FO project.

Look, ma... four combat bouts!

User avatar
MatGB
Creative Contributor
Posts: 3310
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 11:45 pm

Re: Auto upgrade Flak

#10 Post by MatGB »

The 'comsat' hull is a workaround that creates several problems within the game, but no one has come up with a better solution for what it's actually for. Excluding it from certain techs is certainly acceptable, but if you remove reinforced hull I'd also want to make it not blown up by mines: we need an in system transport vehicle, which is what the hull is, but it doesn't need to be this implementation.
Mat Bowles

Any code or patches in anything posted here is released under the CC and GPL licences in use for the FO project.

Post Reply