Weapon Mounts and Firing Arcs

i like the idea with the firing arcs, but i´m not sure about the mount point stuff. that could get a bit complicated.

regards
Prankowski

Someone posted a graphic of a possible mod concept that would let you dictate the fire arc axis and width of the arc. I think this would be a fantastic idea, with a fair amount of potential. I can't imagine seeing something like this at such a late stage in the "development", but it would be an awesome addition.

Just to say that i myself am a strong supporter of firing arcs beeing implemented somehow!

I'm wondering how much support is out there for this, and if anyone could come up with a mod. I'm hoping the designer/programmer is taking a break.

The only way I can see weapon arcs being implemented in SE:V is via mounts - which is not yet possible by modding. Coding mounts to shipsets would be far too difficult to balance and so on...

-----

Space Empires Depot | Space Food Empires!

What is a firing arc. And I want more options with the weapon mounts!

well, ballancing is a whole different story. we could just mount them the same for every shipset but have them vary between the sizes. IF they could simply be coded that would be nice, balancing would come later.

Firing arcs are employed by games to simulate weapons which cannot be rotated 360 degrees. A weapon with a limited firing arc cannot fire in any arbitrary direction; instead, the weapon is limited to firing only within an arc, or range of directions.

For example, if your ship is facing due north during combat, but its weapons had a limited firing arc (say 60 degrees or so, mounted facing forward), then the ship would be unable to fire its weapons at a target directly behind it (to the south). The ship would be forced to turn and face the target before it could fire.

Firing arcs can lead to interesting (and somewhat more "realistic") situations in combat. If a ship is retreating from battle, for example, then it would be unable to employ its forward-facing weapons against pursuers. Similarly, combat tactics become much more complex, since you now have to worry about out-maneuvering your opponents such that their ships are in your firing arc and not vice-versa.

Firing arcs also add complexity to the design phase. The player must decide which direction their weapons will face. Foward-facing weapons may be preferrable, but should you keep a couple rear-facing weapons just in case you're outflanked?

However, for SEV, there are two good reasons why firing arcs might be a bad idea:

1. It will be difficult for the AI to exploit firing arcs correctly during combat. Since multiplayer games use strategic combat mode instead of tactical, meaning that the entire battle is controled by the AI, the effects of firing arcs are lessened.

2. The design phase, which is already fairly complicated, becomes even more complicated.

But fully working game (without any bugs) would be even better. So in my opinion - just finish the game first, then add (and balance) new improvements.

Okay, Yeah. Firing arcs would be pretty awesome. I've been wanting something like that in SEV for a while but never though It would be called that. Though, the game should be patched up a bit before such difficult additions should be made.

It is quite a simple matter to rotate a ship in order to get a target into any angle, and arcs provide preferred angles.

It seems like it would not be any harder than figuring out how far apart a ship wants to be from it's target.

Just figure out what angle a ship wants it's target in.

Okay, here is a quick and dirty way to do it. However, there is a little bit of work to be done:

Weapons fire:

Define a point, multiple points, or an area on a ship. Technically, define several. This sould probably be done in the modeling program, and can be done with simple helper placements.

Assign these points/areas an arc. So, this point/area is forward arc. This can be done through the name of the point/area itself. Helpers (points) in 3dmax can be named, for instance: "1_forward" (or "forward_1", or "scooby_doo", etc...)

When you place a weapon, player decides what arcs/how many that weapon can fire in. The more acs, the larger/more expensive/more power intensive/more purple (or whatever you want, for balance) the weapon becomes.

When the game calls for a weapon to shoot, it checks the shooter's arc(s) that are towards the target. Then, it activates whatever weapon(s) are assigned that arc.

The origin point for the shoot effect is from the point/points/area as defined in the first step. In the case of multiple points or an area of the model, the specific point of origin is determined randomly from those parameters (4 forward points, it picks one at random, or 2 forward areas, it picks one area at random, and then a random spot on the model within that area).

Component placement:

When you make a ship, you see a large "X" of the box screen, centered on the center of the box layout (technically, centered on a particular component box as defined in the ship file). Each corner of the "X" can also be a defined component box, or you could just make it a perfect 90 degree "X" (not sure how you would want to code it). You might also see a box a certain radius out from the center (a box outlining all component boxes within 2 of the center, or whatever, once again defined in the ship file). The "X" divides the ship in to fore, port, starboard, and aft arcs. The outlined boxes in the middle are full arc (point everywhere). when you place components, the part of the "X" or the center area determine from what directions that component gets hit. Objects constrained to an area (weapons defined as firing "fore", for instance), can only be placed in the area designated as the fore.

Damage:

Damage is applied to the side of the object that is hit. If no applical targets are in that area, then it carries to a random arc, and applies there. Continue carrying over, until ship goes "boom".

Exceptions:

Certain objects might not have arcs, or be concidered to be full arcs in every component box. Weapon platforms would fall under this categor.

Viola. Balanced, easy for the player to use, gets the job done, and (correct me if I'm wrong) probably not terribly difficult to code.

That's not what I was referring to. Yes, it's easy to just turn towards the target and shoot. But such a simple implementation adds so little to the tactical complexity of the game that it renders firing arcs almost insignificant.

What I meant by "exploit" was taking advantage of firing arcs in an intelligent manner. For example, taking advantage of tactics such as maneuvering behind opponents without being outflanked yourself, using pincer attacks, etc...

As for maneuvering to a weak arc, I would think that wouldn't be terribly difficult. Just give each ship an arc they want to bring to bear, and a target's arc that they want to be in. Then, tell it to turn the shortest distance (left or right) to get that result. After that, it's tweaking and addint little quirks to make the game interesting, like a timer for a random course direction change (left isn't working in X ammount of time, so turn right/fly straight/whatever), weighting the arcs (I want fore/port/starboard, but I want fore the most of all). Weights can be influenced by equipment (ammount of armor, ammount of shields, ammount of damage potential, presence of critical systems, etc), and by tactical orders that the player or AI can select, by ship or taskforce(frontal assault, broadside, retreat, dogfight, etc.). Such tactical orders could be in addition to formations, or a part of them.

Now, as for coordinated combat attacks...that takes a bit more work. Having the AI use such a routine is easy enough, and giving the player the option to give such an attack is also pretty easy (just select a taskforce, select a maneuver like pincer left, and select a target). However, having the AI utilize formations intelligently is a WHOLE different subject. While ships can dogfight useing arc value weights, etc, fairly autonomously, and likely with little difficulty, the AI would have to know under what circumstances to use which fleet maneuver. This is something that, I would bet, would be in a difficultly league all it's own. After all, there are whole colleges designed around training humans to perform such maneuvers, and it comes fairly naturally to us.

A bit unrelated: the only game i've seen a decent implementation of firing arcs in a tactical situation is the "Starship Unlimited" from apezone.

If anydoby thinks that firing arcs don't add much to the game, please try that game's demo for an hour or so........ you will change your mind.

NOTE: i am in o way afiliated with apezone. I simply loved that game exactly for its implementation of firing arcs...

Firing Arcs ... IMO the best implementation of those was in MAster of Orion 2 ...

Another example of firing arc is homeworld.

Firing arc is only usefull if you fight in a true 3D environment (that include above and below), and SEV isnt really 3D, its more like 2D.
Most ships are relatively slow, so its really hard to outmanouver (sp?) an ennemy to get a real advantage. And if it is doable, i dont find it that funny to micromanage every single ship to maximise their coverage or create complex 3D formations that will allow my fleet to use their abilities to their maximum.
Right now i know i can simply take my ships and tell them to shoot the ennemy when they are in range. Good. Simple. Same nice explosions when they get hit.

The AI will certainly be hard to program to use the weapon firing arc smartly and "creatively".

I fail to see the advantage of having firing arcs in SEV.
At best, allow it as an option. When everything else is done.

I do understand however, that it adds to the realism and so the designs have to be made very carefully... I do find it fun to build my ships carefully piece by piece in the right order.. But with firing arcs..
I would not care too much.. and use missiles instead on my ships. A lot simpler.

Fixed weapons will only be usefull if the ennemy is stupid enough to charge straight at you, if you got overwhelming numbers so you can cancel any serious attempt at flanking, or if you are shooting at stationary targets like space stations and planets.

So, i dont find it a good idea in the end. I Like SEV the way it is now. But if it is an option, i would use it from time to time.

Without ammo, nice guns are just sophisticated clubs.

If I remember right it having been a long time since I played MOO2 didn’t these arcs just amount to a rear ark blind spot as shops could not fire through their own drive wake and it did work and it was simple and made a tactical difference. Though I found fights in MOO2 tended to be a bit one sided as Higher tech trumped Higher numbers if lower tech and most of my battles ended up with me massacring them or them massacring me the determinant being the difficulty level of the game with me doing it to the Ai up to the difficulty before Max and them doing it to me at Max difficulty and occasionally at the one below if I messed up or there where a lot more of them.

I think the AI could be made to cope with that just by having it point its ships at the enemy in combat. It would also hinder shooting whilst running away since the runner would have to tack left and right to fire which would slow it down in effect

As for MoO2- the implementation of firing arcs was rather good.
Not any ship could change its facing more than 120 degrees per turn, so if your ship is fast enough to be at the enemy's back - you'll be safe from most its weapons. In large battles it could be the last chance to survive agains more powerfull enemy

In MOO2, if I'm not mistaken, it was a bit more complicated than evilginger describes: you could choose one of 5 arcs:
F: fires in 120 degree arc forward
R: fires in 120 degree arc backward
Fx: fires in 240 degree arc forward; cost and space +50%
Rx: fires in 240 degree arc backward; cost and space +50%
360: fires in all directions; cost and space +100%

Combined with the four 90 degree shield arcs, this made for some interesting strategic and tactical decisions - do you focus all your weapons on the forward arc, doing lots of damage as you approach the enemy but rendering you vulnerable to faster ships (or in the later stages, Subspace Teleporters)? If MOO2 had direct fire weapons that took more than one turn to charge (even the Stellar Converter charged in one turn! Only torpedoes, oddly enough, fired every other turn), that would be even better - do you fire right away at the target's strong shield, but possibly miss an opportunity to get a hull hit on the shield you've already weakened, or wait for a chance to go for the kill but possibly waste time while the other enemies are pounding away?

(Man, I forgot completely about weapons arcs in MOO2 - that was such a great game it's probably only for the lack of moddability and PBEM I don't play it anymore; the basic single player game got kind of boring after a while! Too bad MOO2's "strategic combat" mode wouldn't let you design ships - that REALLY sucked, and while playing with tactical combat on in multiplayer sounds like fun, it could also take a really long time since combat was turn based!)

~~~
The power of the ancients is now yours to command. You are truly the Master... of the obvious

Firing arcs make little sense. Remember the ship can roll on it's axis in space. Any weapon can be brought to bear pretty easily and quickly this way unless it a completely fixed facing weapon (i.e. not in any type of turret.)

They would if implemented pose an interesting tactical complication and would I think add to the game even if it was somthing basic like not being able to fire through the rear arc. Of course it wouldent matter that mush outside of tactical combat.

Thank you for reminding me about the MOO2 arcs its all coming back to me

i like this idea, it adds even more usefulness for smaller/faster ships as well.

I would also like it if the weapons fired from the point on the ship where you place it as well, its silly when you have like 8 weapons all coming from the same point.

There should be weapons that come default with different firing arcs for some variety. Large weapons like that crystaline beam should have a small firing arc where smaller ones like DU and mesons should have a wider firing arc. This pretty much could all be done with mounts which is allready in the game as well. Like the mount could say "inceases firing arc by XX% off of its base" or if all weapons work the same just set a degree. Seekers and PD should obviously fire 360 though.

Since ships have degrees for their heading as it is now i'm sure they can set a firing arc degree with a little work.

edit: MOO2 worked best, most weapons had a set degree and a few rare ones had 360 degrees always. Plus there were componeants that helped the ship turn at a faster race "inertial dampeners" and "inertial nullifiers" which helped as well.

I do agree...we have to remember that flying in space is not like flying a plane around in the atmosphere.

eg We are being chased by another ship in space. We turn on our engines to make a run for it.

Once we reach a high speed or max speed we can then turn off our engines...our speed will stay the same. Oh no! all our weapons are forward facing! No problem...we use our side thrusers to turn our ship around so that we are in fact flying backwards...with our weapons pointing at the ship chasing us....FIRE.

If you are worried about dodging enemy fire we can still use the thrusters to move up down left and right without reducing speed even flying backwards.

The things that then become important are the power of the thrusters and the mass of the ship...so the bigger the ship the more firing arcs would be important...though bigger ships could have bigger thrusters...eeerrrr I'll levae that there.

Anyway I think that firing arcs would have their uses in certain situations but that they would be limited and that the game as it is, is quite realistic in this sense...by allowing 360 firing of weapons.

You assume that ships use newtonian movement. But if they use some kind of reactionless movement (more fi than sci) then they probubly need their engines to keep moving (that answers why ships have max speed and not only max acceleration).
So in this model, turning around means changing flight direction.
In more realistic setting you would be １００% true, but in SE it can be different.

Arguing realism is a game unless it’s a SIM is seldom wise.

My point about simple firing arcs and ships having a blind spot was that it would provide an interesting tactical combat option which could be justified by fluff and would have the effect of making the run away shooting tactic about which many have badgered on less powerful. I quite like the way tactical combat works at the moment without them.

It's not a bad idea.

While a ship could rotate lengthwise in order to bring the opposite side weapons to bear, doing so would also move the weapons currently facing the enemy out of combat. Refer to the Honor Harrington series of books if you want an example of why this could be good.

Although, I would not see having PD weapons as full 360 degree weapons. Seeking weapons (which include one type of PD weapon, the bomblet thing) should be 360 degree - the assumption is that they're launched clear of the ship before they start seeking the enemy. Beams and Projectile weapons, however, have to actually aim at the target (or, for longer ranges, that volume of space where the target is going to be when the beam or projectile gets there) and as such ought not be able to have a 360 degree firing arc, simply because a sizeable portion of that arc is firing through its own ship!

To use a real world US Navy example, the "PD" weapon of today is the CIWS, that white "R2" looking thing on some ships. Shipbuilders attempt to put these units where they can fire on anything coming in - but they don't have a full 360 degree firing arc. They'd be able to tear holes in the ship they're mounted to if they did.

There really isn't much point in implimenting firing arcs. If firing arcs were in the game, the best ship configuration would be to design the ship as a tube with weapons mounted along that tube and have the ship rotate as appropriate to keep presenting fresh, ready to fire weapons to the enemy. One could, in theory get in front or behind the ship into one of it's blind spots, but at the ranges involved in space combat that would likely involve taking a lot of hits.

If anyone ever read some of the Star Wars books in print a few years ago, you may remember a ship called a Hapan BattleDragon. Essentially, as described, it was mostly a saucer shape with a killer feature of a rotating belt around the rim that just bristled with turbolaser batteries. I don't know the specifics of powering it, but it was essentially a rapid fire anti-ship cannon with enough speed to handle a fighter swarm, but with enough firepower to outgun ships more than twice it's size. Think a frigate being able to take out a cruiser you designed. Just by sheer weight of damage rate.

Another ship idea was a literal sphere. Add in some turrets on short tracks, and you have a sphere with the capacity to bring no less than half of it's armament to bear in any XYZ direction. Again, could take on ships bigger than it's class and win.

There are a million and two ways to go about ship design to make the weaponsystems capable of hitting all angles. It is simply left up to ship designers how they want to implement anything, and whether they are sacrificing any capability to make it look pretty. Of course, in space, with no aerodynamics to speak of, just windows (if any) and engines...turrets could technically be placed anywhere they could be powered. Once you leave behind any hinderance of thinking of atmospheric combats under the effects of gravity, ship design can become a whole new game.

Hopefully I will learn to use Blender before the year is out (really busy right now, with helicopter school and a wedding coming up, and works sucks too but everyone knows that x.x). At the very least, I'll make models for ships and coerce someone to skin them for a joint set effort.

"Once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been and will always long to return." ~Leonardo DaVinci

that could lead to some nice ship ideas and weapons like Backwards Utilized Tracking Torpedoes

fast ship with long range torpedoes or missiles