More missile technology

Ideas and suggestions for how to improve the Warzone 2100 base game only. Ideas for mods go in Mapping/Modding instead. Read sticky posts first!
Post Reply
rockking
New user
Posts: 3
Joined: 23 May 2011, 14:26
Location: India

More missile technology

Post by rockking » 26 May 2011, 08:40

I think deferent Types (not only one -- many types---include science fiction fantasy type) of Missile technology .... will make this Game more attractive and interesting.....

User avatar
Zodiark77777
Greenhorn
Posts: 6
Joined: 19 Jun 2011, 18:35

Re: More missile technology

Post by Zodiark77777 » 27 Jun 2011, 05:21

you mean like, player guided missles or mini nukes? cause thats not a bad idea. have the ability to make a missile silo and produce expensive missiles for use. like heavy EMP's, or tactical nukes. or even anit-spacecraft....this idea could get very far. i mean, the missile silo itself is already partially coded in game...

User avatar
Shadow Wolf TJC
Regular
Regular
Posts: 1047
Joined: 16 Apr 2011, 05:12
Location: Raleigh, NC

Re: More missile technology

Post by Shadow Wolf TJC » 29 Jun 2011, 00:43

Personally, the only kinds of missiles that I would want to add to this game would be tactical ballistic missiles. These missiles would belong in the middle of tier 2 technology (possibly requiring Ripple Rockets as a prerequisite, though a tier 3 variant could also be developed that could require Archangel Missiles as a prerequisite), travel a long distance (longer than even Ripple Rockets!) and deal large amounts of splash damage over a wide radius. (V-2 rockets and SCUD missiles would fit this category.) These missiles would be so large, that they could be targeted by any weapon that can target air units.
Creator of Warzone 2100: Contingency!
Founder of Wikizone 2100: http://wikizone2100.wikia.com/wiki/Wikizone_2100

User avatar
Corporal Punishment
Trained
Trained
Posts: 291
Joined: 28 Aug 2009, 12:29

Re: More missile technology

Post by Corporal Punishment » 29 Jun 2011, 23:11

Did you think about the consequences of more long-range high-damage and even splash weapons? MASSIVE artillery turteling in T2 & T3 games, that's what.
Qui desiderat pacem bellum praeparat
Flavius Vegetius Renatus, De re militari

User avatar
Shadow Wolf TJC
Regular
Regular
Posts: 1047
Joined: 16 Apr 2011, 05:12
Location: Raleigh, NC

Re: More missile technology

Post by Shadow Wolf TJC » 30 Jun 2011, 01:50

I would imagine that they would fire only 1 large missile per salvo instead of the Ripple Rockets' 8 missiles, and I'd also imagine that it would take longer to reload than the Ripple Rockets (which already take about a full minute without upgrades). Also, I'd imagine that, compared to other rocket-based weaponry, these missiles would be easy to target and shoot down with ordinary weaponry given how big they are. (I'd imagine that they'd be the same size as a cyborg, if not even larger.)
Creator of Warzone 2100: Contingency!
Founder of Wikizone 2100: http://wikizone2100.wikia.com/wiki/Wikizone_2100

User avatar
Corporal Punishment
Trained
Trained
Posts: 291
Joined: 28 Aug 2009, 12:29

Re: More missile technology

Post by Corporal Punishment » 30 Jun 2011, 22:07

Well, then, what's the point? You spent resources big time, get a puny cadence and then your missile is shot down by a stupid mini-rocket guard tower. Only way to make it useful is spamming launchers. This leaves you deprived of the resources you'd need to support your field army. Turtle mode engaged.
Qui desiderat pacem bellum praeparat
Flavius Vegetius Renatus, De re militari

User avatar
bendib
Regular
Regular
Posts: 1006
Joined: 29 Aug 2010, 05:22
Location: Imeuta
Contact:

Re: More missile technology

Post by bendib » 01 Jul 2011, 05:27

I'd love to see a real nuke. It should destroy most of the enemy's base and critically damage everyone else's, including the launcher's units and structures.
Image

User avatar
effigy
Regular
Regular
Posts: 1217
Joined: 22 Jan 2010, 03:21
Contact:

Re: More missile technology

Post by effigy » 03 Jul 2011, 03:41

bendib wrote:I'd love to see a real nuke. It should destroy most of the enemy's base and critically damage everyone else's, including the launcher's units and structures.
...and then the launcher receive both the Mission Success and Mission Failure screens.
This is why some features aren't implemented: http://forums.wz2100.net/viewtopic.php?f=30&t=7490&view=unread#p87241

User avatar
Zodiark77777
Greenhorn
Posts: 6
Joined: 19 Jun 2011, 18:35

Re: More missile technology

Post by Zodiark77777 » 08 Jul 2011, 20:10

its understandable that missile tech could be EXTREMELY overpowered. this is why these missiles must be VERY expensive.

User avatar
Corporal Punishment
Trained
Trained
Posts: 291
Joined: 28 Aug 2009, 12:29

Re: More missile technology

Post by Corporal Punishment » 09 Jul 2011, 20:17

I can not stress enough that very expensive equals very useless, no matter how powerful. The almighty battleship Bismarck, that ate the resources to produce 2000 U-boats, was taken out by a squadron of measly Swordfish. Translated to WZ terms this means the proposed super-missile must offer a weakness that allows to defend against it. In the above scenario this is it's vulnerability to regular air defense. So you would spent the resources to produce 50 tanks on a missile that gets shot down by a cyclone site that cost as much as one tank. No serious player would employ such technology and those who do will find it necessary to turtle, as explained above. These are two very valid reasons the dev team will not bother with such a super-missile.
Qui desiderat pacem bellum praeparat
Flavius Vegetius Renatus, De re militari

User avatar
Shadow Wolf TJC
Regular
Regular
Posts: 1047
Joined: 16 Apr 2011, 05:12
Location: Raleigh, NC

Re: More missile technology

Post by Shadow Wolf TJC » 04 Sep 2011, 09:27

You guys bring up valid points, but maybe the ballistic missiles could have enough HP and/or evasiveness (due to its speed or armor) to reach its intended target before being shot down? If that's still not a good idea, then what about a MIRV: a type of ballistic missile that splits into multiple smaller missiles to saturate a wider area while making itself more difficult to shoot down? (Perhaps these smaller missiles would be too small to target, like Ripple Rockets?)
Creator of Warzone 2100: Contingency!
Founder of Wikizone 2100: http://wikizone2100.wikia.com/wiki/Wikizone_2100

User avatar
Corporal Punishment
Trained
Trained
Posts: 291
Joined: 28 Aug 2009, 12:29

Re: More missile technology

Post by Corporal Punishment » 07 Sep 2011, 10:35

You guys are missing the point. We're talking a game here, not real warfare. The big difference is that everything here is supposed to be fair. And you can't balance a very expensive weapon that fires from across the map to be both cost-worthy (does good damage) and fair (can be taken out). If you want something like it no matter what, play a small map and use Ripples.
Qui desiderat pacem bellum praeparat
Flavius Vegetius Renatus, De re militari

User avatar
Shadow Wolf TJC
Regular
Regular
Posts: 1047
Joined: 16 Apr 2011, 05:12
Location: Raleigh, NC

Re: More missile technology

Post by Shadow Wolf TJC » 08 Sep 2011, 03:04

Corporal Punishment is right. We're talking a game here, not real warfare, which is why I proposed that we could add tactical ballistic missiles to the game as an IDEA. I proposed this because I thought that they would introduce a unique mechanic (namely that they would be devastating in power per cost, but could be shot down unlike all other missiles in the game) that would encourage the adoption of new countermeasures (such as using anti-air turrets to shoot down said missiles). I thought that to balance out the fact that tactical ballistic missiles could be shot down with anti-air, they would've needed to be much more powerful than Ripple Rockets while costing at most only slightly more. We just needed to find the right balance between the missile's HP, turret cost, and power (like how we recently tried to make the Plasmite Bombers more balanced by slowing them down in patch 2.3.8).

I also proposed a T3 tactical ballistic missile launcher (with more HP and damage for the missiles) because I would've expected the missiles to be shot down more and more easily as the battle went on and more powerful anti-air weaponry (such as Avenger SAMs and Stormbringers) is researched.
Creator of Warzone 2100: Contingency!
Founder of Wikizone 2100: http://wikizone2100.wikia.com/wiki/Wikizone_2100

ScUD
New user
Posts: 3
Joined: 28 Sep 2009, 06:15

Re: More missile technology

Post by ScUD » 08 Sep 2011, 04:20

The above two are right. What we have to do is look at the game and see if missile/rocket technology lacks at some point, and then we can fill that void. Early in the game, lancers, rocket pods, and mini rockets all pretty much fill out great niches, with rocket pods perhaps being outclassed by their more expensive cousins. Later in the game, however, I see a gap not in what you've suggested 'Large, long range missiles' (parables are the scourge or tank killer, even ripples) But I do see an issue with late game missile weapons and the high ROF/ burst attacks provided by rocket pods and mini rockets early on. A short-range rocket battery akin to a cheaper, lower range, lower accuracy ripple rocket system for dealing with tank/cyborg swarms (Especially cyborgs, missile and rocket tech is very weak against them, which is part of the point, but it's such a blind spot in missile tech I'd imagine giving the line an at least mediocre counter to borg spam would be beneficial) Still, missile tech is pretty good where it is, though an anti-turtle, more tank applicable indirect fire rocket system other than the ridiculously huge and unwieldy ripple rockets would be helpful as well.

Post Reply