Homing-Indirect improvements

[aubergine]

I love the homing-indirect missiles, however I think now we have them it would be nice to make a few changes, specifically:

1. CB towers can't detect their source

...because they don't follow a fixed trajectory.

2. Missile defence system

If CB can't determine their source, there needs to be some way to defend against them. So, something akin to a Patriot missile system which can shoot down homing-indirect projectiles.

Patriots would be ideal defence from Archangel's both as stationary base defences and as droid-mounted turrets.

From memory, a missile defence system has already been suggested, but perhaps not in the context of CB towers not being able to determine source of homing-indirect missiles.

[Lord Apocalypse]

Or instead of the Patriot system, something more akin to the anti missile system used aboard US aircraft carriers (Phalanx CIWS otherwise known as R2D2).

[Per]

Yes, a missile defence type system is sorely needed, but it should require skill either by the user of the system to successfully defend, or by the player attacking to successfully penetrate it, so that it allows missiles to play a role even though the enemy has researched and built a few of these defenses. Not sure how such a weapon / game mechanism could be designed.

[Avestron]

First resolve weapon accuracy

Then (regardless of success/failure) calculate countermeasure accuracy with negative modifiers dependent on offensive range to target and defensive range to target, firing the moment the projectile gets in range.

Much more effective against missile weapons than incoming mortar/ howitzer rounds.

CB Radar helps.
Placement will therefore be key. Also not ever a 100% solution. Chaos happens.

[NoQ]

Imagine sunbursts could shoot ripple rockets. They have small range, so they can only protect a small area, but they fire in bursts, so they could easily knock out the whole ripple burst. And flak cannons would be probably better against howitzers: their single shot will knock out a single howitzer shell.

[Avestron]

Perhaps that could be represented in a partial success scenario - where a ripple array would have, say, 60% of its fire power negated. Lasers and other single shot types could perhaps only take out the worst of the sting, being only able to shoot out one, maybe two units in any long range salvo.

Area of Effect shooting is a different matter - although I'd say it'd be almost impossible to nullify an entire salvo - maybe a more efficienct 'portion' of the salvo.

This would best be represented in two new virtual variables (salvo size and salvo density) The higher the density the more effective such weapons as counter misile defense would be.

Naturally a laser is a lot less effective against an incoming shell but could still be used to reduce the explosive force. And so there are two main contenders - anti-shell and anti-missile. Its not unreasonable to have counter weapons favour one or the other depending on type.

Of course I'd suggest that anti-missile be more effective, perhaps upping the power of missiles to compensate. Also, this could also result in a new tech branch specifically related to automated defense times (think of continually upgrading tech processors - where delays built into the response time of defenses, units, repair structures, etc, are reduced to nothing)

[Andrie]

Why not make this idea a mod?

[Stratadrake]

Because the current game engine doesn't support it. Projectiles are not acquirable targets.

[Lord Apocalypse]

Look at C-RAM tech based on what I posted above. It covers all types: Mortar, Arty, and Missiles.

I would think it should fall somewhere along the AA Flak lines. Since missiles travel at such high speeds the targeting accuracy should be fairly low. Same could be said for mortar rounds and arty, though not to nearly the same degree as that of missiles.

Remember, to track these types of targets requires a fast computer system capable to tracking multiple targets, and must track SMALL targets. Adding the change into the AA code may not be too difficult though adding the projectile objects into a destroyable classification may be.

Either way its a good idea but any C-RAM systems should only function within the range of a sensor. If the sensor gets knocked out then the C-RAM system stops working.

[aubergine]

I'm not sure having existing AA defences target indirect projectiles is a good idea - that would make using indirect weapons a PITA. So a new dedicated defence seems like a better way to go, to me at least (:

Love the C-RAM suggestion! Maybe just have the C-RAMs as big structures, requiring 2x3 tiles to build? They could have a radar, hidden away in a white dome thing so as to avoid the need to animate it, taking up 2x2 of the structure, then the actual weapon taking up 1x2 of the structure.

Code: Select all

RRW
RRE

R = Radar dome
W = Weapon
E = Eye candy to fill the remaining space

Or maybe a smaller 1x2 version:

Code: Select all

RW

With this special building, at least the opponent has something distinct to target if they want to maximise the effect of their indirect fire weapons.

[Lord Apocalypse]

I don't think C-RAM would really need anything larger than 1x1 like most other weapons. The idea of a 1x2 structure though does sound interesting though. Overall the idea is sound I guess its all a question now of if the devs want to code in the functionality of the new system for testing and exactly how they want to handle it. As I said, the code for AA defenses could be used to handle most everything or even altered slightly to handle both types Anti air and Anti RAM (or C-RAM).

[Stratadrake]

I'm not sure having existing AA defences target indirect projectiles is a good idea - that would make using indirect weapons a PITA.

I agree totally. Artillery and VTOL are completely separate combat theaters - VTOLs can penetrate dense artillery fields and artillery can penetrate dense AA fields. Making AA not just "anti-air" but also "anti-artillery" would be too powerful.

[aubergine]

@Apocalypse: I guess if C-RAM was just a turret, it could be mounted on hardpoints, etc. Would certainly look interesting in that configuration as the radar dome would be mounted on the weapon, so as weapon moves and tilts the dome moves around.

[Lord Apocalypse]

Could go that way.. but my thought was always having it as an emplacement only tied to a nearby radar tower. That would balance out the power difference. If someone has a ton of AA and C-RAM defenses as well as the normal bases defenses how could someone break through? So, tie the C-RAM into a radar. Knock out the local radar station and your arty has a chance to do its job.

Some of the weapon mounts for walls/towers has always struck me as being a bit odd. Why waste a wall slot for AA when you could place the AA 2 tiles back and use the wall for cannons or missiles.

[aubergine]

[Long post, summary at bottom.]

But then that's making the sensor struct an achilles heal. All the arty/etc is already dependant on the sensor - linking C-RAM to the sensor means that an attacker can just take out a sensor to massively impair base defences.

Also, I think the C-RAM should be focussed on defence against the longest range weapons - namely ripples and archangel.

There are tiers of indirect weapon that already have sufficient counters, but if a player gets ripples/archangel they can tear a base apart with little more than a few sensor droids.

Mortars and arty are already sufficiently countered with CB, and it's relatively easy to return fire that way. It's the ripples/archs that are the problem. I'd want to be able to build multiple C-RAM type structures, each with their own in-built sensor, so that if one gets taken out it doesn't leave the base defenceless from ripples/archs, it merely reduces defences in the area that the particular C-RAM struct was defending. But I could place several such structures in vulnerable places so if one gets hit there is still some coverage.

Thinking about this more, it's really just the archs that are the problem, particularly now they are set to homing-indirect in combination with their long range.

In the late stages of the game, a base can withstand a fair amount of arty and even ripple hits, and it's fairly easy to rebuild or repair the damage, or fight back using CB. The real problem comes when someone has herds of archangels and their opponent isn't able to build sufficient archs of their own for their CB to be effective, so they end up being a sitting duck. The C-RAM would increase chances of the victim being able to research and build their own cluster of archs so that they can start fighting back using CB.

As for placing AA behind walls, later in the game it needs to be in front of the walls. Even AIs such as NullBot are able to send up to 50 VTOLs at a base, and once they have nexus bodies with all the armour upgrades plus plasmite bombs, even dozens of well placed fully-upgraded Stormbringers struggle to protect the base from such an onslaught. There are many occasions where I wish I had Stormbringer hardpoints to place in the gaps between missile fortresses, in addition to building rows of Stormbringers in front of that defence wall!

Summary

* C-RAM is mainly to protect against an enemy that's built vast numbers of archangel missiles.
* CB is already generally good enough at dealing with mortar/arty/ripple attacks.
* C-RAM should have it's own radar, so I can place several in vulnerable area and if one gets taken out the rest are still operational
* In late game, AA defences need to be in front of walls, not behind.