Bad Weapon Design Logic

I agree with you about the weapons, I like to use the Organic tech and it sorta bugs me that the initial weapons just go on getting better and better making the new versions useless.

That said i disagree about the sheilds. Phase sheilds are better than ordinary in that there are no weapons that bypass them. Getting even better ordinary shields fits fine into this IMHO as they may provide more protection against normal weaposn they provide non against Phased weapons. This allows the intelligent person (and much wished for intelligent AI) to make a concious choice as to what sheilds they need / want.

A problem with shields is that you can't mix them together - all points in that case would be normal. So in some ways Phased-Shields needs to be roughly equal to normal shields or the AI is at a disadvantage.

Even if the AI did analyze a player was using PPBs against them, do they flat out use only weaker Phased-Shields even if it causes them problems versus their other opponents?

-----

Space Empires Depot | SE:V Balance Mod

I think there is a typo in the Wave Motion Gun's data:

Weapon Space Min Damage Modifier Formula := *snip* iif([%Range%] > Min(160, (([%Level%] - 1) * 0) + 80), 10000, 0)
Weapon Space Max Damage Modifier Formula := *snip* iif([%Range%] > Min(160, (([%Level%] - 1) * 0) + 80), 10000, 0)

The (([%Level%] - 1) * 0) + 80) section means that the range starts at 80, but doesn't increase per level. The Level should be multiplied by 10 or 20, which would allow the WMG's range to increase to its maximum of 160.

So I'd have to say this is just a bug.

-----
Give me atmopshperic manipulation cannons, or give me death!

Not necessarily a bug, but maybe. Aaron used a lot of cut and paste for the weapon formulas, so that's why you see lots of 0 multiplications for attenuation or range etc.

-----

Space Empires Depot | SE:V Balance Mod

I agree on the weapons, stuff doesn't seem as varied as in 4, that said, however, I don't know where to begin for suggestions to alter several tozen viable weapon technologies. it often is a problem in games that one thing will end up better than something else, and everyone will use it.

Shields though, I think are fine as is. Phase shields are a sophisticated technology with the added benefeit of not being pierced by certain weapons, so it makes sense it won't have AS many shield points as a regular shield generator your race has been researching for years.

Though what someone said, that regular and phase shields don't stack; how's that work? hehe, I actually put on half and half not knowing there was a problem, does that mean I don't have phase shields? or it's all phase shields, or what?

It means you don't have phased shields. I complained to MM about this considering we have all this fancy damage types and shield/armor layers, so they need to be treated separately like armor is.

-----

Space Empires Depot | SE:V Balance Mod

So just make differen't weapons that hve differen't roles... big hitting, inaccurate, slow fire for the bigger ships, faster firing, lighter, more accurate guns to hit smaller ships... give some long range power at cost of short range "punch"...

And whatch what happens

Ideally, you should end up with a situation that requires combined arms tactics (mix and match = better than any one type).
_______________________
There are 10 types of people in the world:

Those that understand binary, and those that don't.

With mods, you can allow unlimited engines... just need to do some balancing by changing engines per move or the size of engines or soemthing
_______________________
There are 10 types of people in the world:

Those that understand binary, and those that don't.

More engines would be neat, although trying to mod accurate mass-to-thrust speed conversions would be tricky, seeing as several functions appear to not work and just return 0 every time. Because driving at unsafe speeds is fun. Although that just would mean I would make ships that not only outrange you, but also drive too fast.

Mass-to-thrust is easy!
Set all ships to have Engines Per Move equal to their size (in VehicleSizes.txt).
Now fiddle with the engines - take, say, light cruisers as a baseline for your average ship, so if a LC is 400kT like it was in SE4 (never managed to research them in SE5 ) then your typical engine should produce 400 standard movement for every move point you want to get out of it. So if you want a typical light cruiser using CT engines to be able to move at speed 8 with 4 engines (I never liked SE5's "throw on a dozen engines" mentality, it just made designing ships tedious ), you give each ion engine 400 * 8 / 4 = 800 standard movement. (I like to say "generates 800kT of thrust" for the ability description ) Then you scale the other engines accordingly - maybe ion engines produce 600 thrust, photon engines produce 1000 thrust, and quantum engines produce 1200 thrust?

~~~
Mr. Flibble says...
Game over, boys!

Shion Kreth wrote:

I agree on the weapons, stuff doesn't seem as varied as in 4, that said, however, I don't know where to begin for suggestions to alter several tozen viable weapon technologies. it often is a problem in games that one thing will end up better than something else, and everyone will use it.

There are only two beam weapona with range: the anti-proton beam, which has a range equal to the Meson Blaster (90) and the Incinerator. Is this what the ancients used? Is this the best that any technology can achieve? I'm convinced the Meson blaster is inaccurate and would prefer a more accurate beam weapon. But the Meson Blaster makes up for it's inaccuracy by its power and size.

I experimented with all beam weapons by creating two Cruisers (900kt). I researched each beam technology in turn until I had a beam weapon level that matched the Meson Blaster level; in this case level 26. One ship was created with Meson Blasters and the other with a beam weapon. The results were very discouraging and disappointing. Heavy and Light weapon mounts were used to maximize these weapons capabilities. The ships were still outfitted with armor and shields as well as a few extras like med labs and security stations to name a few.

The standard Cruiser with Meson Blasters amounted to 6 total blasters. Four were Heavy and two Light. This ship design allowed for additional shields.
My first Beam ship was with Incinerators. I just skipped Rippers as my goal was a long range beam weapon. This is the only beam weapon that has any decent range. It is actually quite impressive when used on a Space Station (160). Anyway I was only able to outfit the cruiser with 4 incinerators (two heavy mounts and two light mounts).
Even though the Meson Blasters can clearly be seen to miss quite often, when they hit it hurts! And the increased numbers of weapons makes a significant difference. The 4-Incinerator ship was impressive but too slow. When it hit it also destroyed the enemy Light Cruiser. Misses were rare.

A note on the AI. While I was doing all this research the AI was doing what? To test my designs I warped into a system with these two cruisers where ~20 ships and a dozen satellites were camped. These two Cruisers decimated the enemy fleet.

The Subspace Rupture Beam was promising but again it is bigger (40kt), slower 3s (acceptable), and has a shorter range than the Meson Blaster (unacceptable). Arrrgh! Even getting to the point where you can focus on increasing weapon levels requires an enormous amount of research points. Points that your enemy are spending on Meson Blasters. Two Meson Blasters can be equiped for every one Subspace Rupture Beam. The Subspace Beam does NOT do double the damage of the Blaster. The weapon accuracy cannot be determined. If such exists it is not in the report.

The Null - Space Projector is a glorified Meson Blaster that has almost half the range and more than double the size (50kt). In addition the refire rate is ludicrously slow (6s). This weapon could never hope to compete with the Meson Blaster. Furthermore, this weapon is severely crippled in that a weapon mount cannot be equiped (v5.1.17).

The Incinerator does impressive damage but again at increased size (50kt) and weapon refire rate (4s). Increased size means fewer additional components like shields. It has the best default range of all beam weapons (120) yet is described in the manual as a medium range weapon. Be sure to set your strategy to maximum range and hope you don't warp into the center of an attack fleet. Even at range you'll get only a single first shot before the enemy has closed to its weapon range and they will. Maybe not their entire fleet but they will get in range of their weapons. This means you'll miss more but so will they. Comparably, the Meson Blaster model at Optimal range devistates the enemy fleet quicker even if it does miss more... So imagine a ship with Meson Blasters that are of greater level becuase you didn't waste your research on the Incinerator.

I finally researched enough to get the Wave Gun. How incredibly disappointing. At levels one to five it's range is less than the Meson Blaster and its power less than the Ripper or Incinerator. Maybe the initial version should be under-powered as it is a new discovery after-all but it is ridiculously impossible to increase the capabilities of this weapon. I didn't bother researching any further and there was no point in equiping this weapon. Even more disappoinyting is the Manual describes this as a Long range weapon. Just what I was looking for! This would be the only Long range Beam weapon. Perhaps the only long range weapon in the game... If a range of 80 is long range then the Meson Blaster and all other weapon descriptions need to be changed.
The Wave Motion Gun will NEVER match the capabilites of any other weapon. Its starting weapon damage is stupidly small. Its range (80) is less than the Anti-Proton; so disappointing. Its size is ludicrous (75kt). Its refire rate is pathetic (6s). Almost 4-Meson Blasters can be equipped per single Wave Gun. Here's your new weapon General. Oh by the way it's bigger, has shorter range, is weaker than all other weapons, and it costs more. Have fun. That scientist needs to be publicly executed.
The Wave Motion Gun should have a separate research path after its initial discovery. Its research cost is otherwise prohibitive. Over 100k research points for a 5 point weapon strength increase!? What's the point? We've got this kewl weapon at the top of the tech tree. It's useless but it's there. If I actually managed to reach level twenty with this technology my enemy would be at level 80 with Meson Blasters...

It didn't matter what beam weapon I tried. Nothing could compare to the Meson Blaster. So disappointing.

As was mentioned by Omnius the law of diminishing returns does not apply to weapons (any) technology let alone peak. So while I am trying to increase the capabilities of say, the Wave Gun, the Incinerator continues to outpace the Wave Gun making the Wave Gun consistently useless! So why don't research upgrades focus on size, range, and acccuracy as well as damage? Increase the cost if you want it would be worth it. Why don't technologies peak and drop off the research tree?

Why do weapon mounts improve range only when equiped on space stations? I'm not interested in hearing about how Space Stations are inherently more stable...

In conclusion, technically there are only two energy weapons in the game, the Anti-Proton beam and the Meson Blaster. Any research points spent on any other weapon is wasted as those points could be spent on one of these weapon technologies. This means the tech tree could be simplified furhter to a single energy weapon; the Meson Blaster because of its distinct advantages is the only weapon choice. How boring.

I hate this conlcusion. I want a decent beam weapon!

I hoped for maybe an ancient BEAM weapon technology with double the range and damage... Evidently they also couldn't figure this one out. I think they vanished from the galaxy because an upstart race used Meson Blasters on 'em.

---
-my "Ministers are more sinister than Ministers... But who cares?"

Amusingly, in an interesting reversal, a meson fleet will stomp, or at least run off, a CSM fleet because meson research also unlocks PDBs, and PDBs are the supreme antimissile defense.

Bottom line: Any 120-range weapon will defeat meson blasters, but CSMs will defeat those, only to be in turn defeated by meson blasters. A working WMG would have potentially broken the cycle, as 160-range beam would have turned the tables on 120-range guns and be able to defeat even CSMs, as seekers can be shot down, beams cannot.

The argument of "Range beats everything else" assumes that you're fighting while flying backwards. In SEIV certainly this was viable, but SE V has finite turn speeds. Thus, under-ranged weapons will get a chance to fire, assuming your ships survive the first volley of long-range beams (use decoys).

Besides, if the enemy really does do nothing but run backwards, you do flanking maneuveurs such that you try to force them to turn. Or better - surround them from beyond their range, then close in. Yes, they can always run away - that just means you have a set of ships in the sector they will run to so that as soon as they run away they're at point-blank range to your ships in the next sector (on a non-simultaneous turn game).

Oh and to the original question - yes that's one reason I play Balance Mod, which puts the Wave Motion Gun in its proper place.

Finite turn speeds are irrelevant, as the longer-ranged opponent will simply pick a more tangential approach, so that you still cannot close, or already will be turned to fight backwards. Given the margin by which weapons tend to outstrip defenses, you will be annihilated before you can close the gap this way.

Have to agree range trumps all, thats why CSM (and racail long range misslies) are so powerfull. Especaily when the AI doesn't use PD, and even if it does it can be overwhelmed.

My biggest problems for my missile ships isn't getting bracketed, or the enemy get the occasional angling shot in, its keeping enough ordinance it my ships to kill the waves of enemy dross armed with beams.

I really think that some of the beam weapons need to be upranged, certainly at higher levels. I am not sure about a range 16 beam weapon unless it has a shockingly poor reload time and or accuracy penalties. After all missiles are still subject to PD.

My post was not intended to be a personal attack on anyone or the game. It is a huge concern of mine in that I hoped others felt the same way and that there might be some resolution to this perceived problem. Granted my tirade may not have been clear and far too many of my points were lost. It also doesn't mean I know what I'm talking about. Please don't assume all posters are familiar with SE IV or previous incarnations of weapons, shields, engines etc. Guess what? I NEVER played SE I, II, III, or IV. Although SE I does seem somewhat familiar... I'll have to look in my closet.

That being said, let's have some fun.

---
-my "Ministers are more sinister than Ministers... But who cares?"

Yes, I play Balance Mod. Mmm, I can see why damage caps out so low in it now.

I have yet to see the AI use phased beams, but I have seen them use null space weapons. (stock with Maran's AI)

To make the game fair to the AI phased sheilds should match (or replace) normal shields point for point, at least untill we get an AI that can handle such a complex design choice wisely.

I'm seeing a fair amount of complaints about gameplay issues as the game compares to SE4. This isn't SE4. Things are going to be different. Part of the challenge is learning the tech tree, and figuring things out.

Maybe it's just me (and I apologize), but this (SE5) seems to be a massive, space game toolkit, allowing you to build whatever game you could want. Hell, the modding is pretty easy (If I can do it, most people can). You don't like how the WMG works? Change it. More has been written here than it would take to actually do the change.

If you don't like it, fix it. If you're feeling bold, post it. Let the community see it, and if others like it, it will get incorporated into other mods.

Some people actually want to play the game they have bought rather than mod it. Strange as that may seem.

Most of the comments here tend to become discussions about what people and don't like, and suggestions about how to make it better. Which modders read and use as inspiration on their mods.

This game is nowhere near as good as SEIV at the moment in terms of game play, and it probably won't be for at least another couple of months (more if you don't use mods and other goodies provided by modders). However it ahs the potential to far exceed SEIV given time and support, by not just the modders but all the people who whine and complain and say what needs to be improved and maybe give suggestions about how to do ot, but will never touch a line of code.

I would agree with that as in my opinion a phased shield replaces an ordinary one when you develop them and should at least be as good (shielding points wise) as the normal shield it replaces

It should be possible to get the Ai to do this as it already does it with hull sizes where it arguably need not

Okay, so everybody agrees the WMG is bugged PLEASE MM FIX THIS
Next up the Ionic Disperser Doesn't work....
The Tachyon Projection Cannon Doesn't work either...
The tractor Beam is over-powered, you just slingshot the other his ship to the other side of the map...this is funny but not very productive...

And as for fighting strategy's Put all you research in Stellar Manipulation and Blow up the entire system!!!!!!

I agree, the WMG bug is fairly annoying, and easily fixed. It is also easy to work around.

Are you sure the Ionic Disperser and Tachyon Projectors don't work? I seem to remember hearing that shields have to be down before they function like they should. Personally, I think that makes them worthless...

Yeah, the tractor beam is a bit powerful for its size.

And as for blowing up systems... I always felt getting to that level was the point of the game

-----
Give me atmopshperic manipulation cannons, or give me death!

Okay I just tryed it on a:

Test-1

Frigate with A master computer, 1 quantum engine and an Depleted Uranium Cannon.. And they worked...

Test-2

Frigate with A bridge, Basic sensor, Combat sensor, Crew Quarters lif support, 10 Supply Storages, 3 Proton Beam Cannons, 18 Armor plates.. And they didn't work

Test-3 Same as above only without the armor..
And it works!!!!

I used a Cruiser that was Equiped with:
-3 Ionic Dispersers
-1 Shield Depleter
-1 Shield Disruptor
-2 Tachyon Projection Cannons

Conclusions:
It doesn't go trough the armor.... Please tell me that this is a bug or you have alot of useless weapons.....

Brought to you by the Space Simulator Great Feature!!!

Ionic dispersers should slow ships regardless of armour or shields
Shield depleter should only cause damage to shields
Shield Disruptor should damage shields and then destroy the shield generators
Tachyon Projection Cannon should go through non phased shields to damage armour and damage phased shields as if they where a non shield piercing weapon.

At least that’s how I think they should work

The shield Disruptor Doesn't do damage to shields just to the generator... Maybe A point for improvement....

And the Ionic D Destroyes engines and that something I like

Yes, anti-specific component weapons have a default setting saying they can't do anything to shields and armour. I changed mine (see DamageTypes.txt) so that they can at least damage shields and armour first. It's also easy to make them ignore shields and/or armour.

WMG is even more trivial to fix. Personally, I view the stock game/datafiles to simply be examples of code which we then use to actually make a game that we like. If you don't feel like modding, go grab CaptainKwok's Balance Mod which will fix a lot of these problems. The stock isn't playable IMO for far too many reasons to list that modders can and have fixed.

In early versions of the game there was a problem with crystal weapons which skip armour, they couldn't destroy ships as they skip armour. Check that when this was fixed it didn't have a ripple effect.

I think the fix was to say ships where dead if they had armour but no internal structure, rather than the opposite which was the cause of the problem, though I dont know how that change was coded

I heartily disagree with you on this point and it has been a beef of mine with most games with a tech tree. Why would a totally new development suddenly be superior to exisiting technology. There are very few precedents for this is real history. Take the gun for instance when it was first developed it was competing against the crossbow, the longbow, siege engines, etc. The early guns were terribly inferior to existing technology. The were large, heavy, cumbersome, inaccurate, were useless in the rain, expensive, required complicated and mysterious manufacturing processes, special training, etc, etc, etc. It took many decades and significant improvements before the gun was superior. The same can be said of most (but not all) new technologies. Sometimes newer technologies never fully replace the former technology for many reasons; maybe the new technology is only better in certain aspects (like the shields for example), maybe there are other considerations such as size or power requirements, manufacturing expenses, etc. that keep a newer technology from being the best. To use the example of the gun again why are we still using 800 year old 'gunpowder weapons' when we could be using laser beams, particle weapons, railguns, etc. Its because the process of refining these old 'gunpowder weapons' (lets call it Gunpowder Weapon Level 78) that still keeps them vastly superior to the other choices available.

I like the fact that I dont feel like I have to 'jump on the new technolgy bandwagon' when a new tech is available. I really like the fact that I can continue to develop my existing technology to keep pace with newer weapon types. The tech tree is huge and I like that I can continue to focus on some other line of development rather than be forced to rush for the next uber technology because if you dont get the next weapon tech your ships will suddenly be totally outclassed in combat. The new tree design lends itself to exploring other tactics and strategies beside getting the biggest hull with the biggest gun and the biggest shield for the win. The new tech tree style is much more 'logical' and 'realistic'. I hope they keep it and I hope other developers start to use the same idea.

I agree with most of what you say, the problem that I see (have) is that the AI isn't really capable of dealing with this effectively. At the moment it jumps straight from normal shields to phased shields whether it needs them or not, and these are fairly puny in comparison.

Yes I know the problem here is the AI, but realisticly its going to take one hellofa AI to take full advantage of this and be able to use them as we players can. (I am can't think of any game AIs that could handle this as it is now)

There are also other issues that arrise in this, in the Organic Tech tree in SEIV it used to be that the earlier guns stopped advancing after the newer ones where introduced, not imediatly but after a few levels it became a no brainer to swap from the older guns to the new ones. Now the old guns just keep on getting better as well making the new guns pointless until they have reached really high levels when there extra range bonuses actually start to do enough damage to make them worth using.

If you want some fluff, then its quite simple to say that at level 30 they actually started researching the Lightning gun as well as the Electrical Discharge gun, and at level 35 when the LG was a comparable (or slightly better) weapon than the EDG they started to produce them on a scale that could be fitted to ships, some of the developement features of the EDG where still added into its design before it was retired at lvl 40.

I do really like the expanded tech tree but it does need prunning to make it truely effective. Oh and they need to do something about levels 2-10 of colonies, they are hugely expensive techs to research that give no bonuses of any note, and whilst us humans will ignore them the AI will research them as it is quite rightly told that researching new colonising techs is important.

I have to disagree. It is my opinion that the best weapon tech for your empire should be the one you have spent the most ammount of research on. Players should select what weapon they spend the most ammount of research on based on the form of combat they wish to commit (long range, short range, rate of fire, accuracy, etc). Making a clear cut "best weapon" negates the need for ANY other weapon, and makes research simply a game of optimizing your spending to reach that final weapon as quickly as possible, rather than providing for multiple methods and styles of play. Thusly, having an "omega" weapon diminishes the potential variety of gameplay, thusly diminishing the game as a whole.

I think you have missed the point Its not about having a single omega weapon, its about in having 100 tech levels of weapon research some weapons become available at higher levels in a particular tech branch, these are then improved from that point, "unfortunatly" the older "weaker" weapons are left in and carry on increasing in power making the newer "better" weapons never quite matching the older weapons.

This simply doesn't make any sense, imagine that after the invention of the flint lock musket they carried researching the older matchlock models (that couldn't fire in windy or rainy conditions) and when automatic rifles where invented they carried on upgrading the old flint lock and match lock muzzle loading muskets, and that the matchlock and flintlock muskets where as good as or better than automatic rifles... It just wouldn't make sense or work that way. These advances changed the weapon in a fundemental way and whilst they might have taken a little while to become reliable and a little longer to prove their worth, the newer design won out and the old was resigned to the history books.

The same should apply to weapons in SEV, the new weapons are the successful evolutions of the old weapons and should retire them. Yes we could make a matchlock musket now that would be far better than the matchlock of the 1500s but it would still suffer the same problems of needing a lit match, non windy and non wet / raining conditions so it could be used, and it would still be muzzle loading using a powder horn a bit of felt or cloth a ball and rod to ram them down, taking the user minutes to reload for a 2nd shot, if you changed any of these draw backs it would no longer be a matchlock musket, it would be an evolutionary weapon of a different type.

I hoep I haven't gone on too much, but this is a fairly regular topic of conversation with some of my mates about what constitutes a new weapon.

cordas wrote:

I think you have missed the point Its not about having a single omega weapon, its about in having 100 tech levels of weapon research some weapons become available at higher levels in a particular tech branch, these are then improved from that point, "unfortunatly" the older "weaker" weapons are left in and carry on increasing in power making the newer "better" weapons never quite matching the older weapons.

This simply doesn't make any sense, imagine that after the invention of the flint lock musket they carried researching the older matchlock models (that couldn't fire in windy or rainy conditions) and when automatic rifles where invented they carried on upgrading the old flint lock and match lock muzzle loading muskets, and that the matchlock and flintlock muskets where as good as or better than automatic rifles... It just wouldn't make sense or work that way. These advances changed the weapon in a fundemental way and whilst they might have taken a little while to become reliable and a little longer to prove their worth, the newer design won out and the old was resigned to the history books.

The same should apply to weapons in SEV, the new weapons are the successful evolutions of the old weapons and should retire them. Yes we could make a matchlock musket now that would be far better than the matchlock of the 1500s but it would still suffer the same problems of needing a lit match, non windy and non wet / raining conditions so it could be used, and it would still be muzzle loading using a powder horn a bit of felt or cloth a ball and rod to ram them down, taking the user minutes to reload for a 2nd shot, if you changed any of these draw backs it would no longer be a matchlock musket, it would be an evolutionary weapon of a different type.

I hoep I haven't gone on too much, but this is a fairly regular topic of conversation with some of my mates about what constitutes a new weapon.

I see this a bit differently. Just to take your analogy, flint lock rifle and modern day assault rifle are of the same "tech tree". They are all "slug throwers". I game term the old flint lock might be a level one weapons in projectile, the assault rifle maybe something that appear at level 40 from the same tech line. It's obvious that the assault rifle should be better than the flint-lock rifle (and there are several other variant of the slug throwers in between that have already suplanted the flint lock).

Now if we compared "slug throwers" with "particule beams", it's like orange and apple. They are not of the same tech tree, don't work on the same principles and don't behave the same in the field. If one is better than the other is more a question of how much research you invested in either of thoses tech tree and if you truly want to keep updating them (at least, it's how i see it in my mod).

The problem isn't that there are 100 levels of Meson Cannons. The problem is twofold:

One, every level increase of Meson Gun/Incinerator Beam/WMG does the same thing: Bonus to Range and Damage, and an increase in size and cost.

Two, the Base Damage Value of most newly discovered beam weapons are inferior to the damage stats for the prerequisite level of the weapon tech that unlocks them.

Instead, look at the MOO2 model. As you got additional levels of Technology, Plasma Cannons supplanted Laser Cannons in damage, but Lasers got cheaper, or more adders (Continuous, Armor Piercing, Heavy Mount). Now, this cannot be ported directly into SEV, nor should it, but the idea that increases in technology result in different refinements unique to the original field rather than a flat increase in the same Stat gives each weapon a better identity. More flavor, if you will.

Imagine that Anti-Protons got better damage and range per level, as well as a bonus to hit (continuous beam). Damage plateaus at the high end, but range increases and size/cost begin to decrease. Near the highest tech levels they unlock a new field (Modulating Anti-Proton) that keeps pace with Anti-Protons other Stats but does double Damage to Shields as well. The Tech is high level and expensive, but the player may have to forego other weapon fields to concentrate on getting this weapon.

Contrast this to Meson Blasters. Make this technlogy the premier in Miniaturizaion. It dosen't increase in Damage or Range as quickly as Anti-Protons but refinements in the system mean it gets smaller and less expensive quickly.

Incincerator beams should be the archetypal Heavy Beam Cannon, firing slower but doing much more damage. Its not a subtle weapon, more reseach means much more damge, but a much bigger and more expensive component.

However, balancing weapons dosen't mean much if tactical combat remains so simple. It still comes down to Range Range Range in your weapons because its always a chase, and outranging your opponent is the order of the day. What can change this would be making max tactical speed and turning radius a function of Mass/Engine Tech + introducing a Manuvering Thruster tech field. Lower Mass fleets (taking advantage of engine tech and weapons that miniaturize) can outmanuver more lumbering fleets. Manuvering Thrusters could also add to this, though their increased mass gives diminishing returns. Implementation of firing Arcs (I think beams can only fire 120 degrees forwards, maybe?), allow faster/more agile ships to get in behind and out of the primary field of fire for bigger ships, and make differnt weapons have different firing Arcs.

Deamon_Knight : That's pretty much what i'm trying to do in my mod. Well, most of it, i might even consider a few of your points i haven't implemented yet (my weapons don't shrink in size ala Moo1, but i might consider it). You should take a look at my Alpha version of my Inter-Related mod. The current version lack quite a few things but you can see what i have in mind... And battles in my mod are much more fun .