Rebalancing

[Deus Siddis]

So I'm going to make a topic discussing all the aspects of my rebalance, so you guys can provide feedback on which parts should make it into 2.2.

SECTION ONE: MAJOR CHANGES

1. Adding Pulse Laser Tower, Lancer Tower, and/or Tank Killer Tower

This is mainly a personal thing - I've always wanted a pulse laser tower. The other ones also make sense, though - all light long-range weapons should get towers.

Good idea.

2. Double Pulse Laser ROF, set damage to slightly more than half

This will slightly lower DPS.

Also a good idea.

3. Make lasers and/or missiles able to shoot VTOLs (like machineguns)

I feel like people should have choices other than dedicated anti-air for dealing with VTOLs. Making a few more weapons versatile could help. (I'm going to use jargon from another RTS and say "V" when I mean "weapon that can hit either air or ground targets") Lasers and missiles seem like obvious choices for V weapons. Here are all the subclasses, and an analysis of how good they could be:

I agree, make both missiles and lasers anti-air, if for no other reason than because they already are in part, as their vtol-mounted version are so even though the afv versions are not. I would also add though auto cannons and rail/gauss weapons to the AA-capable mix. Gauss type weapons should be like your concept of lasers, extremely fast moving projectiles. This is not to say that all of these weapons should be very effective against vtols, but they should at least do something against them.

The point of all this from a balance perspective is too make vtols less of a trick weapon that you hit people with whenever their AA pants are down. There should be a variety of options to use against vtols just as there are against every other type of unit, plus you need to account for the variety within vtols with regards to sizes- poweful weapons for big tough bombers and fast weapons for small nimble fighters.

4. Rearrange the research tree a bit to make more sense

Some of my proposed changes:
- Make CB Tower require Mortar Targeting Computer instead of HE Mortar Shells Mk3 - a "targeting computer" sounds a lot more like the precursor to CB tech than higher mortar damage.
- Make VTOL CB Tower require Sensor Upgrade Mk2 instead of CB Tower - VTOLs are a different approach to anti-artillery that's different from using artillery, so it shouldn't require artillery. Other possible requirements: Cluster Bombs Bay.
- Remove the MG Guard Tower requirement from Sensor Tower - If anything, it should be the other way around. If you have enough tech to research an MG tower and a sensor, you have enough to make a sensor tower.
- Nerf Stormbringer and make it require Thermopole Energizer Mk2 instead of Mk3.
- Make Flashlight require NSRB Mk2, Sensor Upgrade Mk3 instead of NSRB Mk3 and Sensor Upgrade Mk2 - We shouldn't leave weapons like this so far into the end-game, since most games end before that. This will let more players use it.

No opinion.

5. Make MG Guard Tower require a Command Center

It's just giving too much power to the turtles for MG Guard Tower to be built so much earlier than Machinegun Viper Wheels. And it makes it impossible to defend against truck rushes without your own MG Guard Tower on small maps, and people shouldn't ever be forced to only one strategy.

I don't like it. Commanders are nonsensical crap, but beyond that a fundamental design theme of WZ is that to get research options you need to do research, not having lots of non-researching tech structures lying around. WZ is better for this, because it doesn't bog players down in base management anymore than it does resource management, instead letting you focus on managing battles and constructing defense grids and firebases (the fun, important and skillful stuff).

But beyond that, you have machinegun cyborgs for rushers, so I don't even see a problem here that would need fixing.

SECTION TWO: WEAPON BALANCE CHANGES

6. Put cannon power somewhere between 2.1 and 1.10

In 2.1, compared to 1.10, cannons have:
- 1.5x as much damage
- Slightly lower HP

Anyone who's played 2.1 would know that cannons are overpowered in this version. Aivolution uses cannons in late-game exclusively, for precisely this reason, and Aivolution is so effective, for precisely this reason.

I don't know, if you are going to buff the other weapons then I don't see why cannons should be reduced in power for balance reasons. The question to ask is more along the lines of 'how long should battles last'? More dangerous weapons in general relative to armor means shorter battles obviously, which seems to be the case in 2.1 relative to the earlier versions. I think this might be an improvement, even though I would hate to see WZ evolve into a twitchy starcraft-like micro-only high-speed rts/rtt, I don't think it is anywhere near there in 2.1 and battles in previous versions might have been just too slow.

7. Put rocket power somewhere between 2.1 and 1.10

In 2.1, compared to 1.10, rockets have:
- Half as much damage
- Much higher HP

Rockets are intended to be low HP, high damage weapons. The changes in 2.1 make rockets completely useless, as is obvious to anyone who's played. They do barely enough damage, and they're buried under a lot of unintuitive upgrades (no other non-rotary weapon requires ROF upgrades, and no other weapon requires Automated Factory Production except VTOL weapons). They should be reverted to closer to 1.10.

Definitely, unless we keep cannons at 1.5x power as I mentioned above, in which go even further with rockets and bring them all of the way back to their 1.10 setting of double firepower.

8. Put mortar power somewhere between 2.1 and 1.10

In 2.1, compared to 1.10, mortars have:
- 3x as much damage

I don't remember all that much consensus that mortars were underpowered in 1.10, but they are very obviously overpowered in 2.1. I think setting them at 1.5x as much would.

My thought is these are in the same boat as cannons- we don't need to reduce these for balance reasons if the other weapons get a buff.

9. Put flamer power somewhere between 2.1 and 1.10

In 2.1, compared to 1.10, flamers have:
- 3x as much damage
- 10x as much fire rate
- slightly higher HP

Everyone agrees flamers were underpowered in 1.10. But "30x more powerful" is enough to turn any weapon from massively underpowered to massively overpowered. And anyone who's been subjected to a flamer cyborg rush in 2.1 can tell you this. My current rebalance puts it at somewhere closer to 15x more powerful.

I don't agree, flamers were totally useless before and now are balanced. I believe if people feel they are overpowered, it is because they are unused to having to deal with them do to their uselessness in the past. We need to remember that these are very short ranged, fairly heavy weapons that are almost useless against armored vehicles, hardpoints and aircraft, all of which are very common on any battlefield between mediocre or better players/ais.

10. Put missile power somewhere between 2.1 and 1.10

In 2.1, compared to 1.10, flamers have:
- 1/3 as much damage
- significantly higher HP

See rockets. And as weak as rockets are in 1.10, missiles are worse. It takes nearly every single scourge upgrade before it's as powerful as TK is at that point, which is just not right.

Once again, I would go for a full revert to 1.10 when it comes to missile damages if the other weapons remain more effective.

SECTION THREE: MISCELLANEOUS CHANGES

11. Change tower sensors from 8 tiles to 10 tiles.

Currently, except for sensor turrets/towers, all structures have a sensor range of 8 tiles (including, I believe, satellite uplink center - the "reveal whole map" functionality is separate from its actual sensor range, which is why assigning artillery to it doesn't let you artillery-fire anywhere). Anyway, weapon towers need to be something other than weaker versions of hardpoints/bunkers, and it makes sense that a tower would be able to see further than a bunker or hardpoint.

12. Change fortress sensors from 8 tiles to 16 tiles.

Same justification as for towers. They're underpowered - increasing the range would help.

I like this idea, except I would give towers the same boost of 16 tiles that you give fortresses, since sensors will become the main advantage of towers, which previously had none.


Another couple things you may wish to consider for this rebalance, which are indirectly related to balance, are the relation between tech evolution and gameplay evolution, and also visual impact and intuitive appearances.

By the evolutions, I am talking about how, in most rts games, the more time that goes by in an individual game and the more tech tree that players unlock, the more the gameplay either changes or expands to keep things interesting. This is alot more interesting than an arm's race for the sake of an arm's race. Personally, I think WZ does this already, but to less of an extent than it could. It feels like in T2 alot of specialized weapons become available that greatly expand your strategic options and make macro-management more important, while T3 takes things from there to a more tactical and micro-management focused gameplay with more versatile units that are supported by a few new specialized weapons (NEXUS, EMP, Las Sat) that are more micro-heavy than the specialized weapons of T2.

By visual impact and intuitive appearances, I mean that weapons and units should generally look and feel impressive (higher volumes of fire, more barrels firing, big splash-damaging explosions, etc.) and more powerful weapons should look and feel more impressive than weaker and more primitive ones. Currently, it feels like T3 weapons fall short on both of these points; where as I would expect to see the weapons of the future unleashing huge quantities of force and energy everywhere, the current T3 weapons stats make them seem more like they are taking very expensive potshots. Their fire is just too slow traveling and slow reloading to be anywhere near as impressive as the T2 counterparts they should be replacing. I think you are on the right track with pulse lasers, but I would apply the same sort of changes to the wider laser line and the gauss line as well. (And bring back plasma artillery.)

[Zarel]

I agree, make both missiles and lasers anti-air, if for no other reason than because they already are in part, as their vtol-mounted version are so even though the afv versions are not. I would also add though auto cannons and rail/gauss weapons to the AA-capable mix. Gauss type weapons should be like your concept of lasers, extremely fast moving projectiles. This is not to say that all of these weapons should be very effective against vtols, but they should at least do something against them.

The point of all this from a balance perspective is too make vtols less of a trick weapon that you hit people with whenever their AA pants are down. There should be a variety of options to use against vtols just as there are against every other type of unit, plus you need to account for the variety within vtols with regards to sizes- poweful weapons for big tough bombers and fast weapons for small nimble fighters.

The problem is, VTOLs have less HP than other units, and adding that many V weapons would seriously mess with game balance.

I don't like it. Commanders are nonsensical crap, but beyond that a fundamental design theme of WZ is that to get research options you need to do research, not having lots of non-researching tech structures lying around. WZ is better for this, because it doesn't bog players down in base management anymore than it does resource management, instead letting you focus on managing battles and constructing defense grids and firebases (the fun, important and skillful stuff).

But beyond that, you have machinegun cyborgs for rushers, so I don't even see a problem here that would need fixing.

I think you're misinterpreting. I said Command Center, not Command Relay Post. Command Center is the structure that lets you design and gives you minimap. You know, the one everyone builds first, unless you're min-maxing, in which case you build research facility if you're planning on or anticipating rushing, or factory/generator if you're not.

Machinegun cyborgs are way too late-game compared to MG guard tower. Ever played Rush?

I don't know, if you are going to buff the other weapons then I don't see why cannons should be reduced in power for balance reasons. The question to ask is more along the lines of 'how long should battles last'? More dangerous weapons in general relative to armor means shorter battles obviously, which seems to be the case in 2.1 relative to the earlier versions. I think this might be an improvement, even though I would hate to see WZ evolve into a twitchy starcraft-like micro-only high-speed rts/rtt, I don't think it is anywhere near there in 2.1 and battles in previous versions might have been just too slow.

Personally, I'd like weaker weapons, for longer games. It makes the game seem less "twitchy", like you say. Battles in previous versions never seem too slow to me.

I'm buffing the other weapons back to lower than 1.10 levels. Cannons would be reduced in power, but would still be higher than 1.10. So cannons would still be noticeably stronger than the other weapons than in 1.10.

I don't agree, flamers were totally useless before and now are balanced. I believe if people feel they are overpowered, it is because they are unused to having to deal with them do to their uselessness in the past. We need to remember that these are very short ranged, fairly heavy weapons that are almost useless against armored vehicles, hardpoints and aircraft, all of which are very common on any battlefield between mediocre or better players/ais.

Have you ever tried to repel flamer cyborgs? They don't just feel overpowered compared to before, they're actually overpowered. No mobile unit is strong against them (even tracks get destroyed relatively quickly), and the only anti-personnel weapon in early game is the MG, and HMG track tanks are still too weak to take them out. Aircraft would probably do decently against them, but aircraft are offensive, not defensive, and can't do much to stop a flamer rush.

I like this idea, except I would give towers the same boost of 16 tiles that you give fortresses, since sensors will become the main advantage of towers, which previously had none.

The problem is that it would make them longer-range than Sensor Tower, and nearly as long-range as WSS. Maybe 12 tiles.

Another couple things you may wish to consider for this rebalance, which are indirectly related to balance, are the relation between tech evolution and gameplay evolution, and also visual impact and intuitive appearances.

By the evolutions, I am talking about how, in most rts games, the more time that goes by in an individual game and the more tech tree that players unlock, the more the gameplay either changes or expands to keep things interesting. This is alot more interesting than an arm's race for the sake of an arm's race. Personally, I think WZ does this already, but to less of an extent than it could. It feels like in T2 alot of specialized weapons become available that greatly expand your strategic options and make macro-management more important, while T3 takes things from there to a more tactical and micro-management focused gameplay with more versatile units that are supported by a few new specialized weapons (NEXUS, EMP, Las Sat) that are more micro-heavy than the specialized weapons of T2.

By visual impact and intuitive appearances, I mean that weapons and units should generally look and feel impressive (higher volumes of fire, more barrels firing, big splash-damaging explosions, etc.) and more powerful weapons should look and feel more impressive than weaker and more primitive ones. Currently, it feels like T3 weapons fall short on both of these points; where as I would expect to see the weapons of the future unleashing huge quantities of force and energy everywhere, the current T3 weapons stats make them seem more like they are taking very expensive potshots. Their fire is just too slow traveling and slow reloading to be anywhere near as impressive as the T2 counterparts they should be replacing. I think you are on the right track with pulse lasers, but I would apply the same sort of changes to the wider laser line and the gauss line as well. (And bring back plasma artillery.)

I've applied the changes to heavy laser. I don't think the rails need that, it's more of a slow-loading high-damage type weapon.

[Deus Siddis]

The problem is, VTOLs have less HP than other units, and adding that many V weapons would seriously mess with game balance.

Only if those weapons are significantly more effective at AA than assault guns are currently.

For those who actually bother to spend the few seconds needed to manage them during an attack, VTOLs make excellent tank busters when given HPV, Pulse Laser or, to a somewhat lesser extent for microing reasons, AT missiles as weapons. But unless you have at the very least, 6 or 8 dedicated AA AFVs placed in a tight formation, a good commander can waste your column with VTOLs and suffer nothing for it. And if the VTOLs come in fast and hard against the AA first with AT missiles, when they come back they can basically finish the rest of the column.

As the VTOL AI gets better to become better at more attack roles with less micro-management on the player's part or when general AI begins using its VTOLs with better loadouts and more wider roles (like tank busting) more aggressively or when VTOL weapons all get a rebalance so that AI VTOLs become much better regardless of the ordnance, this problem will become more obvious in a big way.

So there needs to be alot more weapons that can do something to VTOLs. Even if say, 10 Gauss cannons firing on a gunship-loadout VTOL that makes more than one attack run on them, works out to have only a 50% chance of taking down that VTOL before it can retreat. So as you can see from this example, I'm thinking of these V weapons as being like assault guns- somewhat capable of defending themselves from VTOLs and nothing more do to their limited range and lethality against such evasive units.

I think you're misinterpreting. I said Command Center, not Command Relay Post. Command Center is the structure that lets you design and gives you minimap. You know, the one everyone builds first, unless you're min-maxing, in which case you build research facility if you're planning on or anticipating rushing, or factory/generator if you're not.

Heh, sorry didn't see that, and I use small bases by default, so the CC is already there. Still, I stand by what I said that you shouldn't tie research requirements to structures. Plus, why should you need a CC to have a minimap, which is a purely GUI feature? Seems like a gimmick left over from the original Command & Conquer that could be done away with now that RTS is a genre rather than a handful of clones.

Machinegun cyborgs are way too late-game compared to MG guard tower. Ever played Rush?

Well if they are, then why should they be? Why not make MG borgs the first combat unit available, since they are certainly the simplest and weakest? Seems logical to me.

Personally, I'd like weaker weapons, for longer games. It makes the game seem less "twitchy", like you say. Battles in previous versions never seem too slow to me.

Fair enough.

Have you ever tried to repel flamer cyborgs? They don't just feel overpowered compared to before, they're actually overpowered. No mobile unit is strong against them (even tracks get destroyed relatively quickly), and the only anti-personnel weapon in early game is the MG, and HMG track tanks are still too weak to take them out. Aircraft would probably do decently against them, but aircraft are offensive, not defensive, and can't do much to stop a flamer rush.

They are a specialty weapon, so to keep them interesting, I feel your best option might be to reduce their versatility, not their raw power (which should be extreme, but only under the right circumstances). Here are your best alternatives imo:

1) Increase weight, flamers are slower allowing more time to get a leg up on killing them before they can respond.
2) Decrease range, same as above, plus making larger masses of flamers less effective as they "trip over each other's feet".
3) Increase half-track and track resistance to thermal damage, creating a harder counter to them.

I would prefer the first and/or second option be experimented with first, as flamers I think should be only a little if any lighter than MGs, which they currently are by a wide margin. Flames can only reach so far, so if you are relatively fast enough to maintain your distance, your mobile units wear them down.

But imo, flamethrowers should remain an awesome and vicious battering-ram type weapon for close-range frontal assaults against things not too extremely durable, a role which requires alot of raw power stats.

Might be worth considering anyway.

The problem is that it would make them longer-range than Sensor Tower, and nearly as long-range as WSS. Maybe 12 tiles.

Well then you might want to consider not making the fortresses that all-seeing either, unless you mean for them to become an all-in-one defensive structure.

I've applied the changes to heavy laser. I don't think the rails need that, it's more of a slow-loading high-damage type weapon.

But why should the gauss line be slower reloading than the cannon line it replaces? And doesn't a very long ranged, very powerful, very slow reloading, lightweight weapon that the gauss line currently is sound alot like it is intruding on the role of direct-fire missiles/rockets, and then usurping them with its greater hit points?

Also consider that the 1.10 to 2.1 laser line replaces the fast firing MG line with slower, more powerful-shot anti-cyborg weapons, thus making them better AT weapons like you said ealier. This makes them more versatile, and makes T3 much more about versatility as a result (which imo, is a cool part of its theme). So if lasers are being made a little less versatile, why not make the gauss line a little more versatile to compensate somewhat, by making it a little faster reloading as well.

And again you have the impressiveness factor of more shots in the air.

[Zarel]

Only if those weapons are significantly more effective at AA than assault guns are currently.

For those who actually bother to spend the few seconds needed to manage them during an attack, VTOLs make excellent tank busters when given HPV, Pulse Laser or, to a somewhat lesser extent for microing reasons, AT missiles as weapons. But unless you have at the very least, 6 or 8 dedicated AA AFVs placed in a tight formation, a good commander can waste your column with VTOLs and suffer nothing for it. And if the VTOLs come in fast and hard against the AA first with AT missiles, when they come back they can basically finish the rest of the column.

As the VTOL AI gets better to become better at more attack roles with less micro-management on the player's part or when general AI begins using its VTOLs with better loadouts and more wider roles (like tank busting) more aggressively or when VTOL weapons all get a rebalance so that AI VTOLs become much better regardless of the ordnance, this problem will become more obvious in a big way.

So there needs to be alot more weapons that can do something to VTOLs. Even if say, 10 Gauss cannons firing on a gunship-loadout VTOL that makes more than one attack run on them, works out to have only a 50% chance of taking down that VTOL before it can retreat. So as you can see from this example, I'm thinking of these V weapons as being like assault guns- somewhat capable of defending themselves from VTOLs and nothing more do to their limited range and lethality against such evasive units.

Still, that's too much change to the game's current balance.

Well if they are, then why should they be? Why not make MG borgs the first combat unit available, since they are certainly the simplest and weakest? Seems logical to me.

Well, MG tanks have traditionally been the first. I'm not sure I want to mess up the game balance that much.

They are a specialty weapon, so to keep them interesting, I feel your best option might be to reduce their versatility, not their raw power (which should be extreme, but only under the right circumstances). Here are your best alternatives imo:

1) Increase weight, flamers are slower allowing more time to get a leg up on killing them before they can respond.
2) Decrease range, same as above, plus making larger masses of flamers less effective as they "trip over each other's feet".
3) Increase half-track and track resistance to thermal damage, creating a harder counter to them.

I would prefer the first and/or second option be experimented with first, as flamers I think should be only a little if any lighter than MGs, which they currently are by a wide margin. Flames can only reach so far, so if you are relatively fast enough to maintain your distance, your mobile units wear them down.

But imo, flamethrowers should remain an awesome and vicious battering-ram type weapon for close-range frontal assaults against things not too extremely durable, a role which requires alot of raw power stats.

Meh, flamers are meant to be lightweight. I'll do both 2 and 3.

Well then you might want to consider not making the fortresses that all-seeing either, unless you mean for them to become an all-in-one defensive structure.

I know, I know. I think fortresses should be all-in-one defensive structures, though (their name even implies that).

But why should the gauss line be slower reloading than the cannon line it replaces? And doesn't a very long ranged, very powerful, very slow reloading, lightweight weapon that the gauss line currently is sound alot like it is intruding on the role of direct-fire missiles/rockets, and then usurping them with its greater hit points?

Missiles are long range, high damage, fast reload, lightweight, low HP weapons.
Rails are long range, medium damage, medium reload, heavy, high HP weapons.

I've been slightly lowering rail range, but I think they're pretty well balanced. Rails are significantly later game than rockets.

Also consider that the 1.10 to 2.1 laser line replaces the fast firing MG line with slower, more powerful-shot anti-cyborg weapons, thus making them better AT weapons like you said ealier. This makes them more versatile, and makes T3 much more about versatility as a result (which imo, is a cool part of its theme). So if lasers are being made a little less versatile, why not make the gauss line a little more versatile to compensate somewhat, by making it a little faster reloading as well.

Lasers are versatile in another way, they'll be one of the few weapons that can hit air.

And again you have the impressiveness factor of more shots in the air.

No, no, no anti-air rails! There's a reason there are SAMs and AA lasers but no AA rails.

[Deus Siddis]

Still, that's too much change to the game's current balance.

Alright then, maybe we'll see something like this experimented with in a later mod.

Well, MG tanks have traditionally been the first. I'm not sure I want to mess up the game balance that much.

Fair enough.

Meh, flamers are meant to be lightweight. I'll do both 2 and 3.

I forgot another option- decrease their damage per shot and increase their rate of fire. The point would be to make tracks/armor more resistant to them without being more resistant against lasers, which you'd already be making less AT.

I know, I know. I think fortresses should be all-in-one defensive structures, though (their name even implies that).

In that case, and I know this is starting to make me sound like a broken record, make the second more advanced missile/rocket fortress/bastion (can't remember the exact name) AA-capable like the first missile fort is. The point being to both make more sense than taking an important capability away from a more advanced and expensive variant, and to make fortresses more of the standalone that you are envisioning, where you put one of these things down someplace and it takes care of itself from most anything.

This appears to be pumpkin's original concept for the fortess, as evidenced by much of their concept art, so you are on the right track with this I think.

Missiles are long range, high damage, fast reload, lightweight, low HP weapons.
Rails are long range, medium damage, medium reload, heavy, high HP weapons.

Did you miss-type or do you feel that missiles are/should be faster reloading than rails?

Anyway, my point is rails replace cannons, but their stats move much closer to those of AT missiles than cannons had.

Rails are significantly later game than rockets.

But rails replace cannons, not missiles, so what replaces missiles then in the late game? Or do you feel rails should replace both?

No, no, no anti-air rails! There's a reason there are SAMs and AA lasers but no AA rails.

I was talking about rate-of-fire there, not AA capability for rails. By "shots in the air", I meant the number of shots traveling through the air [towards ground targets].

Just curious though, what is the reason you refer to?

[Zarel]

I forgot another option- decrease their damage per shot and increase their rate of fire. The point would be to make tracks/armor more resistant to them without being more resistant against lasers, which you'd already be making less AT.

Well, flamers are a different subclass than lasers, anyway, so making flamers do less to tracks wouldn't affect lasers (they're both thermal, but multipliers are based on subclass).

In that case, and I know this is starting to make me sound like a broken record, make the second more advanced missile/rocket fortress/bastion (can't remember the exact name) AA-capable like the first missile fort is. The point being to both make more sense than taking an important capability away from a more advanced and expensive variant, and to make fortresses more of the standalone that you are envisioning, where you put one of these things down someplace and it takes care of itself from most anything.

This appears to be pumpkin's original concept for the fortess, as evidenced by much of their concept art, so you are on the right track with this I think.

Whoa, I didn't know Rocket Fortress was anti-air. I don't think it should be, but Missile Fortress should be anti-air.

"Missiles are long range, high damage, fast reload, lightweight, low HP weapons."
"Rails are long range, medium damage, medium reload, heavy, high HP weapons."

Did you miss-type or do you feel that missiles are/should be faster reloading than rails?

Anyway, my point is rails replace cannons, but their stats move much closer to those of AT missiles than cannons had.

Whoops, my bad. I'm just used to think of missiles as faster since they have twice the ROF of Gauss. Still, missiles still have "lightweight" and "higher damage" advantage over rails.

But rails replace cannons, not missiles, so what replaces missiles then in the late game? Or do you feel rails should replace both?

Nothing replaces missiles. Rails and missiles are both T3. You can get Scourge earlier than Gauss, and Gauss is slightly more powerful, but they're otherwise well-balanced.

Just curious though, what is the reason you refer to?

Rails are slow-loading and precise weapons. They wouldn't be able to keep up with air.

Sure, missiles are also slow-loading, but they're also homing, which makes up for it.

[Deus Siddis]

Well, flamers are a different subclass than lasers, anyway, so making flamers do less to tracks wouldn't affect lasers (they're both thermal, but multipliers are based on subclass).

Ah, good thinking, I keep forgetting about that feature of the damage reduction system.

Whoa, I didn't know Rocket Fortress was anti-air. I don't think it should be, but Missile Fortress should be anti-air.

Yeah, it is very counter-intuitive the way it is now. In 2.0 and I think older versions, the rocket fortresses' rockets really were dumb fire, unguided rockets, and they fired them futilely at vtols and missed almost every time (they had too much damage reduction against vtols to do any damage as well for some reason) alot like a cyborg with an AT missile does. Now they are homing rockets and are an effective item of an anti-bomber screen, and yet their successsor, the missile fortresses, cannot attack vtols with its homing missiles, which sucks.

Whoops, my bad. I'm just used to think of missiles as faster since they have twice the ROF of Gauss. Still, missiles still have "lightweight" and "higher damage" advantage over rails.

They do, that is correct, they just have fewer differences than the cannon line did versus AT missiles. I'd like to see gauss follow cannons more closely and leave ATMs their space, but maybe this is more of a personal gripe of mine than a priority balance issue at this time.

Rails are slow-loading and precise weapons. They wouldn't be able to keep up with air.
Sure, missiles are also slow-loading, but they're also homing, which makes up for it.

This is somewhat OT, since as I already agreed, making the gauss line a 'v' weapon is too much of a jump for an already wide ranging rebalance.

But just on the realism side of things, I believe that alot of theorized future rail and gauss weapons are meant to deliver most of their damage through kinetic energy alone, rather than explosives. Their rounds would be traveling much faster than anything we've ever fired up to today. So if the barrel of one of these things happened to be pointed directly at a fairly fast-moving but low-flying aircraft at the moment it fired, it is conceivable that that aircraft would have absolutely no chance at evasion or just getting lucky. This could easily be just as good as a high rate of fire or a homing weapon.

The other theory I was basing the higher rate of fire for the rail/gauss line, versus its current stats or those of the cannon line, on, is that while rail guns have direct contact between the weapon and its ordnance while firing, much like a conventional cannon, a gauss gun does not, which should relatively decrease the waste heat building up in the system greatly, which would otherwise warp and destroy the precise system as is a problem with rail guns (and chemical accelerators). So since gauss doesn't have the same heat problem, it could fire much faster without melting, which could be its primary advantage over the ealier, smaller version in its line (needlegun and railgun)- while not much more powerful per shot, it fires faster. (The reason for why the needle gun would be slower firing than the larger railgun could be explained by the railgun having heat sinks, which while large and heavy, allow it a much better ROF). The non-realism reasons for going this route would be that it'd give this line a twist from the cannon line it replaces, make it more versatile to fit in with the more versatile laser line (that is, lasers being more versatile than the machinegun line they replace) and just to make them and T3 look more impressive.

Again though, the changes you've already planned are quite extensive and balancing is a small-strokes sort of thing, I just wanted to explain better where I was coming from so that it didn't look like I was making these sorts of suggestions while on one or more control substances.