The Missile Crisis in Balance Mod

As good AI more difficult to get missile weapons and they are better balanced due to the fact that every one has and uses PD well before any one develops missile weapons as each weapon type includes a multi role quick fire version of the heavier gun. Even when you get missiles the standard running fight with missiles seldom works usually resulting in an indecisive action.

There is a slight problem in the current version in which the AI is building lots of ships with no PD, but I believe that's been fixed. Even with that minor glitch, missile boats and DUC ships are closely matched. In fact a frigate with just 1-2 missiles generally needs escort by a direct fire ship. Plus there are many more weapons to use.

If i may direct you to my thread?
http://www.spaceempires5.com/en-US/node/2260

I think it is a little odd that the game starts with access to the longest-range technology (missiles)

I dont know so much about balance, but in stock it occaisionally builds missile ships- pretty much i agree, anyone using "parthian shot" tactics is pretty untouchable - and the tech to do this ddoesn't even require a research...

i think this is a big part of why PD is upped in kwok's balance mod.

Anyone who wants power; by definition, cannot be trusted with it...

Unfortunately, there's a big issue with point defense: it's effectiveness varies with time compression. At 8x alot more missiles will get through than at 1x. Definitely a huge problem with the combat engine. It's even more apparant if you boost PD firing rate up to like 50ms so that they destroy every missile sent at them in 1x speed, while missiles sent at 8x *still* get through.

I had noticed in one of my games that whenever I watched the combat at 1x none of my missiles got through unless the PD missed. When I went to 8x it always seemed like I was hitting more... guess this is why.

But that's not the only problem. As far as I know, PD will still target only one target despite how many PD are on the ship, and they won't target anything if autotarget is off. PD also used to only fire once despite how many PD you had, but that may have been fixed by now.

-----
Watch for my mod - codename: Dimensions - coming by Summer, 2007!

Missiles ought to consume a greater amount of ordinance, as part of a balance issue. One missile, after all, has a warhead, a propulsion system, a guidance system, and enough armor that it can can withstand some small firing. A bullet has a simple charge and a slug. The difference in volume alone is huge.

they do , don't they?
i believe the csm takes 10 of each
versus... what? 1 ordinance for d u c?

Anyone who wants power; by definition, cannot be trusted with it...

The AI in the mod does better once it gets a couple of ships together in a fleet - which will usually include a PD Frigate, making enemy missile ships far less effective.

At some point I will have to mod in a design type for the dual CSM frigate which is popular for players but not with the AIs. It's a difficult area to balance effectively because you don't want too many AI attack ships mounting dual CSMs which the player could easily counter with good PD ships. A good candidate for modification would be the Defense Ship design which currently mounts a single CSM.

-----

Space Empires Depot | SE:V Balance Mod

How about having the AI lower/raise the number of CSM ships built depending on how PD-heavy its enemy's ships are? So if the player, or another AI for that matter, is neglecting PD on his ships, the AI would come barging in with dozens of missile ships, while if the player had sufficient PD the AI would go for the usual mix of ships.

Unfortunately, implementing such a scheme would be very difficult if not impossible to do with the current tools. A mix of varied attack ships will probably be the safest approach for now...

-----

Space Empires Depot | SE:V Balance Mod

CSM vs. CSM is not a draw. A human controlled ship will win if the proper tactics are used. When the enemy closes in you have to turn your ship and flee, but still maintain the enemy ship at your maximum range. When you fire the missile will travel for a short time and in that time the enemy ship would have closed in and will get hit by your missile. When the enemy fires at you, you will be traveling away and in that time it take the missile to travel you would be out of range and it will miss you.

Make (multiple) weapon mounts for PD that would decrease range a bit (eg. -5, -10, -15).
That should allow to stop wasting all PD on single target (and would be advantage for bigger ships, becose only bigger ships can have many PD).

Wonder if there is a way to make maximum weapon range longer than the range it will start to fire at..... so you can't just outrun them like that,....

Anyway, in my current BM game, the computer is using PD, heavily on some ships, I come up against ships with 6 PD weapons..... And some of their fleets(of about 6-8 ships) I can toss 12 missiles at in a salvo and not one will get through their PD screen. Unfortunatly..... their DF weapons outrange me, damn Crystal Shard Cannons, so it's outright suicide to try and take them on with DF weapons given that despite me having better hit and defence bonuses they still shred me at about a 3 to 1 hit ratio

the first thing to do, even if you choose to disagree with(or ignore)my assertions that missile / torpedo definitions are BACKWARDS,

is NOT give the longest-range werapon in the game as a STARTING TECHNOLOGY...

Once one has CSM's, there is very little reason to research any other weapon, particularly of that category...

So I say, the first thing to do is to say the Missile Launcher (see muy torpedo/missile thread) is merely a MEDIUM range weapon, and greater range is a result of research...

WHy start the game out with what should be an END RESULT?

Anyone who wants power; by definition, cannot be trusted with it...

It should be considered that a longer range for a missile is not necessarily a good thing as it gives more opportunity for PD systems to destroy the missile... any in this case it's really more of a strategy issue than a weapon's stat issue. A better solution for the 1-1 situation is to have the AI use a short range or point blank strategy with its direct fire ships. That would create more of a 50-50 situation for the combat result.

-----

Space Empires Depot | SE:V Balance Mod

C'mon , Captain!
The only strategy anyone needs is Parthian Shot:
fast CSM ships that stay out of non-csm range and fire, and thats fairly apparent, and in fact The Missile Crisis in Balance Mod is in no way limited to your mod.

As for range
whether medium- or long- range, seekers do not come into range of (almost all) PD's until near the end of their run, so to claim range is a Disadvantage is to me, a mistake.

Anyone who wants to run a fight between ships armed with CSM's vs quantum tropedoes is more than welcome to watch.

The botttom line is this:

CSM's are the BFG of this game.
Capital Ship Missiles is a term i remember from Starfire Empires, and it DID mean only capital ships, and it WAS a nasty tech you had to research.
Giving out the BFG as a Starting Tech is a MISTAKE.

Anyone who wants power; by definition, cannot be trusted with it...

CSM's are ok, but they are almost the most expensive weapon in the game. A level 100 CSM costs almost as much as an entire point defence frigate!

For the cost in Minerals of one Stock Destroyer with 8 CSM's, you could easily have 4 point defence Frigates which are more than enough to stop 100% of your CSM's.

Not that the AI is smart enough to know this, but the cost of CSM's stops them from being the BFG, imho.

i think the solution isn't PD but fighters.

Csm's are unbalanced long b4 anyone THINKS of getting to Level 100.

Anyone who wants power; by definition, cannot be trusted with it...

I like playing high research cost with no or low starting tech, so more important for ME is low tech balance. And in this area CSM and Plasma Missiles (bit later) rocks.
lvl1 frigate with engines, bridge+crew, sensors can have 2 CSMs and one armor.
Thats not much, but DU+PD ship have no chance aginst this, becose DU+PD never get into range, and 2CM is enough to get et least one through PD.

btw, someone mentioned starfire, where to get more info about this (if i'm not mistaken, based upon this D Weber wrote some books. I read (some of? (don't know how much of them there are)) them.

First of all, the 1 VS 1 basis is not correct: a missile frigate is more expensive than a DUC/Beam frigate, so maybe we should talk in 1.2 Vs 1 terms.

CSM may be the BFG of the game at first sight... But use it against a frigate with High level combat sensors and two point defence cannons (high level too): Your missile frigate just does NOTHING.

You can make the test. Get a game whit all techs. All tests have been made using tactical and strategical combat, leaving both ships under computer control. Just as happens when playing multiplayer games.

- Make one ultra-maxed CSM frigate:

2 max level CSM, Max level ECM (105% defence bonus!!), and 1500 armor. Max weapons range (partisan shot)

- Make one maxed APB frigate:

3 APB (max), 1 Max level combat sensors, 2 poin defence cannons (Max, but have in mind this is the most basic PD weapon...), 750 armor. Short weapons range.

It is easy to see that the CSM frigate has huge advantages: double armor, 105% evasion bonus, higher range... It will lose always. Even using 8x time (that seems to make PD fail more often), the APB frigate wins all combats without a scratch. Not a single missile hits it.

Put 3 CSM, lowering armor: one missile will be able to hit the APB frigate, before the CSM frigate dies.

Same with Plasma Torps: they are worth nothing when you get high level combat sensors.

Same design, but with 3 Quantum Torp and 1000 armor. The best I´ve found. Results are the same, missile frigate loses. But, at least, this time it takes most of the APB ship´s armor.

So, in my opinion, CSM are fine. Higher level torps should be made more effective.

Maybe DUC should be made a bit more powerful. Their low bullet speed usually allows "partisan shot" users to get out of range, thing that doesn´t happen whe you use beam weapons, so increasing a bit their damage could compensate this. Or, simply, make them cheaper.

This all in BM. I don´t play stock, it´s simply too unbalanced to think about it.

and if you're using parthian shot (not partisan, but i like that), the missile ship should, even if its missiles fail to do damage, never get HURT- it can still speed away. Unless there is a huge speed disparity against it, it never has to - nor SHOULD - deign to allow a shorter range ship to fire on it.

This is (was) actually a real-life naval concern- harpoon fans know what i'm talking about- with american ships vis-a-vis their soviet counterparts.

If the Ai is Too Stupid to pull off the Parthian shot in your experience ( i have had SOME luck with Maximum range setting)... that is an AI issue, NOT a defense of the CSM balance...

i mentioned that kwok's balance Mod (which I play b/c i like his AI that actually fights back) is one solution to the stock which you called too unbalanced to think about...

I have my own suggestion:
and that is i'd like to see a small change - that "missiles" be medium, not long, range , with longer - range "torpedoes" being a researchable improvement.

In short - don't START with a maxed-out (range) technology.
the only defense I've heard that you would research torpedoes is that they are cheaper.

Anyone who wants power; by definition, cannot be trusted with it...

First (and last) time I played stock, I killed one destroyer with 2 DUC fighters.

Wanna talk about BFG? Fighters are the BFG in stock. Even with shitty DUC, they are faster and pack much more firepower than a frigate or even a destroyer. They have a ridiculous 80% evasion and 50% aim, so they can work even without armor and combat sensors. And all this, just for 10% of cost.

It simply makes no sense to talk about stock.

I gave my opinion just because we are supposed to be talking about BM.

Isn´t all this about The Missile Crisis in Balance Mod, after all?

We're also talking about a limited situation here as well with a 1-on-1 frigate encounter versus the AI. Throw in a few more ships and it can become a much less effective tactic unless your have numerical superiority. Or even when I make the AI's local fighters more aggressive (ie attack targets in the AI's systems) in v1.03, you'll see that CSM ships will be useless against them unless they have some other sort of supporting ships with them.

-----

Space Empires Depot | SE:V Balance Mod

I said somewhere else, seperately, that i consider properly Fighters to be thse solution to CSM.
Notice thatfighters are toned down in balance Mod, as well.

additional ships doesn't change that a flotilla of fast csm ships - "Parthians" (or pick a nomadic equine people, but the tactic of firing from horseback while retreating was originally called the 'parthian shot'. It gave Roman Hvy Infantry fits since they had no way to MAKE the Parthians come to grips... not tactically that is.)- have an advantage over other vessels.
I wouldn't call it a "CRISIS" but it is enough of an imbalance that its been commented on, even by multiple players who said it makes the game too easy! hell, i think its a VALID strategy - i just think it should require RESEARCH to get access to the longest range component.

and the biggest DISADVANTAGE of a ship that has to retreat to stay out of reach of its opponent should be self-evident - 9see above comparison)- strategically.

but to claim csm-ships "archers", "missile boats", etc..
DON'T have a tactiacl advantage - with a starting Tech, Nacht! - flies in the face of the experience of everyone who has used it!

worse, perhaps, is that it leaves no real reason to research other seeker technologies, at least in the early game.

Anyone who wants power; by definition, cannot be trusted with it...

You are basing your assumption CSMs have a tactical advantage based on an exploitation against the current AI. It can be an effective tactic, but it can be countered and so I wouldn't say it was a must-use to win tactic at all, which would be a major factor to precipitate changes. Right now a few changes to the AI should help reduce their weakness in countering this strategy.

-----

Space Empires Depot | SE:V Balance Mod

Its not an "assumption":
after all, you helped me ananlyze the numbers originally. CSM has the advantage over other seekers at the early game particularly, and has the range advantage consistently.

best range + speed to decide range of a combat is a pretty serious tactical advantage...of course it is not "must-use" but it is such an easy use that most of the AI complaints I've read somehow go back to this gameplay/balance issue. Sure, the AI can work some more PD - or, like your balance mod, CSM's get a little less hard to shoot down.

Or, if the AI EVER used any strategy besides "run" or "charge" (optimal weapons setting?, it could give players the same treatment.

The fact that players can so easily destroy the computer opponent with a starting tech doesn't bode well...

again, make them RESEARCH long range.

Short of fighters- or researching faster ships to CATCH these ships, you can't force them to fight a losing battle- the Crusader Quandry. Pd can neutralize their attacks - if you're lucky ( i use a group of PD/beam destroyers to beseige SB's - but if the starbase had my same move and didn't let me close to beam range that wouldn't work, would it?)

But please don't act as though I'm the only one to notice!
My suggestions on fixing it are the only difference.
This is neither entirely an AI problem, NOR entirely a balance problem, but clearly as both ends of this keep coming up, something IS worth examining.

In your Credit, most of this discussion did NOT involve the Balance Mod - but many of the Balance mod changes You and I have discussed WERE made because YOU saw these imbalances in SE5.

Anyone who wants power; by definition, cannot be trusted with it...

Badger, not to be cheeky but rather than trying to convince someone to change their mod or to change stock (which really isn't going to happen...) why not mod it in yourself?

You're Not Cheeky - You're Right
and it is that simple!

actually, i haven't messed with any programming in years and was more or less fishing for help when all this became a real 'conversation'-

part of why this has gone on tho is that it is as much an AI problem as an issue with one or the other balance-

the question FOR THIS is really whether the AI can take advantage of or deal with such "imbalances"...
a pretty smart fella said he was goig to be rid of csm's altogether ---

I pointed out that just moves the question down a step to the 120-range weapons. I can always hope someone with morerecent computer skills will see it my way, tho, RIGHT?

and I happen to think stock will change quite a bit...
what is it, Version 1.25 the scuttlebut refers to releasing b4 Feb?

This is the place for it, and, frankly, i think Kwok is one of the guys for it (influencing how "Stock" develops), his own mod or not.

But yeah, currnet skill level considered, I can only try to influence more-capable executors of the ideas...
Anyone who wants power; by definition, cannot be trusted with it...

I never said it couldn't be a good strategy, I just said it is not the sort of strategy that is overly difficult to counter and is mostly taking advantage of an exploit against the current AI. If it was another human player, he would simply throw 3 fighters your way and laugh at the helpless Missile Ships with little protection.

Here are a few other situations where you would lose effectiveness, even against the AI. In a multiple ship situation say the AI has a Point-Defense Ship or two, more or less none of the missiles are going to get through but your ships will keep firing them off until they have no ordnance remaining. You're just lucky their is a retreat option in SE:V and no corners like SE:IV, but if the AI is fortunate enough to close range with the fleeing ships then it will be a massacre. Another situation is when you come through a Warp Point, the AI ships will be in direct fire range and will easily take out your ships assuming approximate equal numbers...

The AI in the upcoming version will hopefully be using their loose fighters for defense in their systems along which will at least work toward an improving defense against this tactic. Another area to work on will be strategies, but it will be somewhat hard to counter all the possible player strategies if you're going to micromanage your ships in combat...

-----

Space Empires Depot | SE:V Balance Mod

going thru a warp point is like the crusader issue:

all that mobility means nothing in a seige - which effectively is what you're doing in a warp point-- exactly the kind of situation we're looking for

most "parthian" designs - starfire on - are heavy on PD, and fast so they can fight that way (missile duels)- not helpless against fighters - well, no more tahn other ships...

i happen to think fighters are a bit over-powered in stock... big surprise, you already thought of that...

experimenting with the maximum range setting, i have found the Ai - well, UI, i suppose, runs them serviceably...
SO there should be no need to micromanage that tactic nor exclusive of the AI... BUT the stock Ai simply doesn't use that setting (or, so i hear, any but "optimal"), at least so far as I can tell...

So, so far as I'm concerned, it's still a question of whether the AI can handle missile-range warfare...
which means building ships with decent PD and long-range capabilitites..

Anyone who wants power; by definition, cannot be trusted with it...

To clarify I was speaking specifically about CSM Frigates in the mod, which was the original concern in this thread. Once you get to larger ships, different rules apply for comparison...

The AI is not too bad at using Missile Ships effectively even with the default Optimal range strategy, which is more or less the same as max range for missile-only ships.

-----

Space Empires Depot | SE:V Balance Mod

With optimal, misile frigate will START turning away when it get close to enemy range, so it get inside it (esp. when i had lvl1 ions and he had lvl2 ) and get killed.
On max range it starts turning sooner, so it can perform turn before it is in enemy range.

If i let AI controll my ship in combat (with Max range setting), it can sucesfully defeat DF+PD frigate, but strugles to actualy kill it.
If first hit through armor knock out weapons, but not engines, enemy start running and AI will turn to follow AFTER it get out of range, so i manualy send ship directly towardss enemy (this way i can get one more salvo out and it destroy that ship or damage engines).
(In bigger battle it is not so important, becose there are other ships so Missile frigate must continue running).

Moral:
There is big difference between Optimal and Max for missile ships
AI can handle Parthian shot using Max Setting, but human can handle it better.

NOTE: this post is related to Balance Mod only.

Projectile weapons is a dead tech in BM. Why spend 20K RP (research points) when I can get superior CSM? or even better, Phisics ( that allow me to get Meson Blasters, shields and APB) for 60K RP?

Phisics Tech is a must. You get shields, Meson and APB reseaching it, so the faster, the better. And it is obvious that DUC sucks, it is (mostly) the main reason for all this thread: the huge difference in effectivity between DUC and CSM.

Let´s make a serious comparison between DUC and CSM (basic level):

Dam: Range: Firerate: Dam/sec: Max.DamW/StoredAmmo: Supply/StoredAmmo: weight: cost:

DUC: 23 80 2s 12 1150 300 30KT 100/30

CSM: 100 150 5s 20 2000 200 50KT 400/100

In addition to the usual values (damage, rate, etc.), I´ve added other interesting data:

- Damage/second: this is the average damage that can be dealt with a 100% hit basis. As you can see, CSM has double dam/sec rate (20 vs 12), this meaning it can destroy a ship in half time when compared with DUC.

- Max.Dam with stored ammo (100% hit): this is the maximun damage that can be dealt without the need of extra ordinance storages. Again, CSM makes double damage than DUC (2000 vs 1150), making it double efficient.

- Supply/stored ammo: This is the amount of extra supply spent to shot all ammo in the weapon. Again, CSM is more efficient (200 vs 300, lower is better). Furthermore, if we cross data with max. Damage, we´ll see that a DUC needs 600 supply to make 2000KT damage (200 for CSM), this meaning it is 3 times less efficient than CSM.

This is why I don´t spend a single RP in DUC. CSM is a very effective weapon, useful even in the late stages of the game. Furthermore, it allows you to get Small rocket pods, another must have for fighters. For direct fire, I go to Physics, and then APB or Meson, both with nice advantages. And I get shields by the way. No use for DUC.

My suggestions:

1) Improve DUC, making it lighter (20KT instead of 30) and cheaper (10/20 instead of 100/30). Have in mind that DUC needs combat sensors to do something, and you need extra ammo storages in the long way, so in the end you spent more KT and resources in these "extras" that you don´t need when using CSM.

Another option, instead of making it lighter, is to give it 200 ammo or make it spent 1 ammo and 3 supply per shot, and making it cheaper too.

2) And make CSM more expensive (500/200 instead of 400/100).

This way, you will have a noticeable cost difference between CSM and DUC, allowing the choice between two strategies: Cheap shitty DUC ships or better and more expensive CSM ships.

In the long way, this CSM cost increase also means more benefits for researching superior seeking weapons (Why research plasma missiles when a maxed CSM does the same job quite efficienly for less RP?).

I think this could help to give a solution to this thread. At least, AI ships would be better, having in mind that AI seems to love DUC.

I am not so sure this thraed is REALLy about DUC vs. Csm...

That tactical issue runs thru real life, thru other time periods, thru the navy, and DON'T get the STARFIRE fans going about point defense and datalink

DON'T get the SFB fans started: This was a huge issue of contention in SFB, too- Drones. Drones and Lyrans, drones and Lyran area- affect, drones and hydran "gatling phasers"...

drones against Plasma seekers-
arguments about HOW a ball of Plasma can intelligently CHASE you...

If I may - the real issue was that the AI wasn't handling a metagame trend very well...
You can tell me CSm isn't an uber-strategy - I say any "longest-range" weapon Is...

It's like BlackVise in magic the gathering...

we're talking metagame here. certain situations arise where if something can't deal with it - a tactic, a card, a WHATEVER-
you can consider it a game balance issue, or you can handle it.
Do you know all the whining we heard with the Jittu in magic?

Yes, longest-range is an issue. MISSILE-DUELS are an issue.
This stuff is the reason the crusaders increased xbowmen in recruits, and why the french hired Genoese xbowmen to face the english... It's why the US counts on fighters and upped our Aegis & Phalanx , anPOINT DEFENSE SYSTEMS...

Regardless, it's NOT about DUC:
the moment higher tech weapons are researched,
DUC should be a dead technology...
... UNGUIDED PROJECTILE weapons - IN SPACE?

at those speeds?
You're kidding me - right?
consider the EFFECTIVE range...
duc is like unguided rockets - for strafe/dogfights!

you ARE right tho - the computer loves 'em. I believe BOTH DUC and CSM are "padded" a bit to make up for weak AI research - which i think is the real issue.

Certainly, Stuka's ORIGINAL point in this thread was that even KWOK's SUPERIOR AI just wasn't handling the "Parthian" trend very well. Other players have pointed out that using that tactic, the stock AI is even MORe helpless- give me a flotilla of CSM or G-P Torp ships and i will ravage a system -even with them on max range setting run UI.
Kwok made the point that a human player would throw some fighters or drones at them, and their speed would no longer let them CHOOSE the range of the fight.

And he's right.

this wasn't really about CSM IN PARTICULAR, it was about BFG(biggest, or longest, or whatever -est) vs. DEFENSE - the metagame, the black vise-
and how to make the AI HANDLE that. Point Defense was the immediate issue only.

keep in mind- no matter HOW good you make your DUC, unless you change the range to 160, your ships will have to survive on PD until you can close that range, and if you're NOT faster, those boats should NEVER let you, my Crusader friend.

Anyone who wants power; by definition, cannot be trusted with it...

I have a thought to add here, what about making the ordinance for CSM much higher, say 20 or 25 as opposed to 5? This way there they would have a distance advantage early in battle, but would run out quickly. As a result you would either have to add other weapons systems to your design, or they would simpy run away from battle after they were empty.

as Kwok says, properly PD'd ships CAN stand up to CSM - this would just make them finish sooner...
Ships that CAN'T pd those missiles, as hard as it hits, aren't going to live long enough for that supply question to matter.

Dare I assert again that the "REAL" question becomes whether the AI can balance PD vs. the CSM ship?
Anyone who wants power; by definition, cannot be trusted with it...

Grendel, the picture is not as bleak as you portray.

In terms of pure dmg/kT/sec ratios, DUC actually tops CSMs:

DUC = 0.42 – 1.25
CSM = 0.40 – 1.20

Of course, I have a weighted rating statistic that takes into account range, accuracy modifiers, and 1st strike stats as well. In that case, CSM trumps DUC by a fair margin:

DUC = 0.58 – 0.99
CSM = 0.99 – 2.50

But that second statistic doesn’t consider the effect of PD on CSMs. If we guess that the success rate of PD is 50%, then the two weapons come out more or less equal. The ordnance/supply washes out (can’t use 1 supply with DUC due to truncation to 0 with supply conservation trait) but the cost difference I believe typically gives you ~10% advantage in numbers with the smaller ships. I will say again the current results a more from a flawed AI then actually inequity.

But why bother with a long DUC tree? The idea was that the tech area was cheap enough that if you choose to bypass either MBs/APBs/PPBs, it would give you a good chance to research one of the other more specialized weapons earlier while keeping competitive with low to mid range energy weapons in the mean-time.

In terms of seekers, I would rate the Plasma Missile, Seeking Parasite, and Crystalline Torpedo* as the top rated ones.

* Depends on target ship composition

---

Badger,

The AI can cope with PD versus CSM ships. I think the more appropriate question is that can the AI catch up enough to CSM ships to destroy them with direct fire weapons?

-----

Space Empires Depot | SE:V Balance Mod

I try to see it in a simple way, and give a solution then.

- You say that range is an issue. But I demonstrated how APB frigates rape CSM ships (ships do have to turn to run away, they don´t just travel backwards), so I could say that the issue is DUC bullets travelling too slow (Again, DUC is shit). That doesn´t happen with beam weapons - at least with APB.

- We(and AI) have two weapon choices to start with. DUC is shit, CSM is very good.

- AI, as You correctly say, is unable to handle enemy CSM "parthian shot" frigates. And it loves DUC in their frigates.

- The other option against CSM is using fighters. Again, AI doesn´t handle this very well.

So I think like the programmers of FEAR: You can program an awesome AI or give the AI what it needs to work more efficiently. Making DUC cheaper and more efficient, and CSM more expensive, can help the AI to build more cheaper and efficient frigates, giving it some advantage and making game more interesting. If the AI builts DUC frigates, let it build lots of them, so it can, at least, try to overwhelm CSM users with numbers.

1. The CSM ship should already BE turning to keep you at range- a player run ship will.

Yes - i can tear them up with beam frigates - but ONLY because the UI lets me get too close-
expect that to change-

even now, ships set on max weapon range are decent about getting away as range drops 160 to.. whatever!

and yes, the ships can certainly fire "parthain" - over the saddle - straight back as they run. MIne do all the time .

(some starfire versions ruled out the rear 60^ firing arc as being blocked by engines)

The point here is that IF you are closing with better range ships, it shouldn't be letting you. If they get tactical peer to peer going, I will gladly demonstrate...

In the meantime, just run it yourself- AS the parthians. at what point did you let the shorter-range ship get close?

I like 160range fly-bys...(or "serpentine" if you like naval history)

2. Your point about the AI is valid, tho' -
and i think was the reasoning behind CSM and DUC being made "foolProof" weapons...

But i take the opposite path - just make the ai research other weapons. If the AI won't, thats going to be a problem REGARDLESS as far nastier techs become available. An AI that insists on DUC and CSM (and ignores fighters)is fine for backwater neutrals, but is simply not going to be a challenge for any player, in any game, in a longer run.

3: BTW : the AI in my game -which is stock - that i posted about
(http://www.spaceempires5.com/en-US/node/2261)
that keeps stealing tech by FORCING me into the alliance?

Is now building BEAM weapon attack ships - with weapon mounts - which are a fair run for MY close-combat vessels
sure, it forgot to put PD on them so i can parthian kill them at leisure, but knowing i can, i don't - i fight them with real ships.

and another empire came at me with SHARDS! i cheered when i realized it wasn't a DUC i was seeing!
of course, i then sent 1 missile destroyer and killed his whole flotilla of crystal ? light cruisers ?

BUT my point there was, at least it's not TOTALLY hopeless that it will develop other weapons (I assume these X. moles will ... ultimately... hit me with SOME kind of quantum technology... maybe?)
but, really, without pd, as Stuka said originally, the computer can SWARM you with crappy DUC gunships...

it won't matter
a player-run (or max weapon range UI with luck) missile frigate - even against the larger destroyers the ai is throwing out now- is looking at 14 Kills.
14.

from 1 ship.
You're right - with different ord/supply i'd run out of shots sooner.
Or i'd sacrifice another armor for an ordnance box. Not as if i get hit.

Anyone who wants power; by definition, cannot be trusted with it...

But the problem isn’t ship numbers or DUC stats… it’s getting in range of the CSM fire and flee ships. The only time the CSM ships really do well is when they have more launchers than their target’s PDCs. Outside of that situation, by themselves they are not very effective. But since they are difficult to catch and destroy, it becomes easier for the player to manipulate the AI into a battle where they can take advantage of it.

How do we counter this? Well, getting the AI to use it’s fighter groups to protect it’s systems will help – the fighters already exist in the mod, so it’s just a matter of setting up the attack routines. A dual CSM frigate is an easy target for even a small fighter group. Another counter is to increase the CSM’s supply usage. Since the CSM ship wastes a lot of missiles against a typical AI frigate hoping to get one through for the critical hit, it will lose supplies much quicker. This makes the tactic less sustainable because once the ship hits no supplies, it’s easy to catch. A smaller tweak would include ensuring the proper use of PD Ships in fleets as well. And lastly, you could reduce the CSM’s range in lieu of the other changes, but that could have an undesired affect of nerfing CSMs completely for PBW games where players can use the fire and flee tactic effectively but not overwhelmingly.

-----

Space Empires Depot | SE:V Balance Mod

I don't think there IS much of a "missile crisis" in the balance mod. In stock, it's a complete joke of course.
I think fighters is a great idea.
Making missile ships burn up more supply so they can't get away is, i think , completely unnecessary -
and won't work against a human running tactical anyway.

messing with csm is unnecessary (except...i still say the longest-range hsould not be a starting tech)>

If a player sets up a situation where his ships can out-gun the defenses, well, he SHOULD win.

the UI being dumb enough to keep chasing ships that tear it apart might be an issue - a valid issue - and that could bring up morale, which i for one would like to see...

I still say the only real question is if the AI can handle that specific tactic - the stock clearly CAN NOT.
but the greater question remains, can it handle meta-game defining abilities? the ability to fire outside of an opponent's strike back range IS - and there will be others.

It IS fairly difficult to build an adaptive AI - Grendel's point about F.E.A.R. - but you simply have to admit Balance's does a better job.

I wonder how effective missiles are in space. They are deadly in atmosphere because they can manouvers easily and even if they miss, the explosion can still destroy the target. But in space, the missile (or some of it's parts) need to contact the target to cause damage, the kinetic impact is what cause most of the damage (but the explosive might be needed against an armored target). I heard that missiles have been used already to kill satellites (I read the chineses did not long ago), but t might be another story against a military space craft that can attempt to evade or jam the incomming missile.

As for bullets, it's still possible to use them in space, though fire rate might be much slower than on the ground to keep recoil manageable.

oNCE AGAIN i HAVE TO AGREE, AND HAVE TO SAY I REALLY ENJOY THE DISCOURSE!

Almost all AA are basically proximity shot-guns, this is true..
I can also see this is going to turn , soon, into the- i predicted this- inevitable discussion of
Absolute Range vs. Effective Range

Has everyone read The Mote In God's Eye? (are the Xiati the Moties?)

I believe it was in that that they would hang out at the edge of systems and accelerate debris at immobile (or at least completely-predictable motion) targets like planets... in which case the range is effectively INFINITE.
On the other hand, against a moving-reacting target, one that moves 12km/s, all but the fastest weapons (anyone want to do the spped of light calc for time to target on this? seen it done before in these ...discussions...) give sufficeint tme to react that they will NEVER hit anything...
EXCEPT at DOG-FIGHT range

...something SFB pointed out and Kwok eluded to-
and that I keep trying to point out about UNGUIDED projectiles...(like "rockets" pods)...

btw, Stukes: there ARE beam Point-defense systems (one in a Plane!) that work very well... IN TESTS.

Troll? No, Sir, I am a BADGER!

Yes, they use sharpnels, but it's still short range (sharpnels aren't very useful if the missile is missing by a km). Also current aircraft and missiles are fairly fragile, they can't take much abuse. Once you add armor to the equation, small debris aren't as effective. Sure in space velocity is a factor, as long as you can actually use it (acceleration take time and manouvring is trikier in space)...