In the newly imagined hit-series Battlestar Galactica, the capital ship had a very sophisticated Flak defense array capable of projecting a dense Flak shield around the battlestar. Now, I have to ask the Ironclad developers, have they ever seen the Anti-SC capabilities of a capital ship in that series? Well it looks like this:
That is a lot of Flak. Also in the series, we've seen on television how effective these Flak shields can be taking down several cylon raiders on several occasions on television. Battlestars were equipped with hundreds... of point-defense turrents that created the lightshow you see in the above picture.
In Star Wars Episode III, we saw dense capital ship Anti-Aircraft fire from the first minute.
In any canon Star Wars hand-book of ships, it lists major capital ships such as Star Destroyer as carrying several AA-missile batteries and AA-Ion cannons in addition to its TIE squadrons for a secondary line of Anti-SC defense.
In real life, the battleship - the epitome of what is considered a "capital ship" - is literally a moving Flak platform on wheels. The largest battleship ever created The Yamato had over 150 Type 96 25mm cannons, and over 25 type 93 13mm triple AA machine guns, other ships indeed almost any ship worth anything in battle carried Flak guns. Naval battles in the pacific tended to be massive Flak vs. Strike Craft contests with a lot of puff puff clouds covering the sky for miles.
The question is why then can't Capital Ships get Flak in this game? Yes, there are several caps (1-2 for each each) that has an anti-SC ability such the Kol Flak Burst, or the Dunov's Magnetize but does that really make up for Capital Ships not even having a small built in Flak defense system? No, not really.
Yes, there are a specialized type of frigate: the Flak Frigate that is meant to be the primarily Flak defense for ships in SINs but does that mean unless you always bring along Flak Frigates your capital ships will always be completely defenseless against SC? Yes, it does (not counting the starting 1-2 strike craft your non-carrier capital ships get)
What I propose is: give all capital-ships a general weak Flak capability equal to 2-3 Flak Frigates.
Why we should give Capital Ships Flak. (And Starbases)
Capital Ships loved to be focused fired on by strike craft from all types of players. They see the biggest thing on the battlefield and want to take it out. This means, Capital Ships are always in near-constant danger of strike craft every game that goes onto the mid-game. You cannot count on your Anti-matter abilities because you may not have any, and your starting SC will not be able to really protect you unless you've spammed them in the form of light carriers. This extra protection however slight is needed.
The philosophical question really is: Why shouldn't huge capital ships (and even larger Starbases) that are very expensive and valuable not be able to protect themselves against SC without relying on abilities or your own SC - even slightly? They may not even good at it, they may not be effective at it, but they should be able to fire back. In WW2, Flak was nessecarily the best option for taking down planes, and options such as interceptors were better, but that is no reason to completely strip capital ships from having it.
Why Capital Ship Flak is balanced.
The weak to moderate strenght Flak equipped on Capital Ships would only be a second to third line of defense for the capital ships against enemy-SC. Mass Flak Frigates would still be much more effective than relying solely on a Cap's light Flak defense, and your own fighter SC would also be much more effective. Essentially the balance will be unchanged from what it is right now, it'll only be just that now Capital Ships can shoot back and lightly dmg enemy SC swarming around them. Flak Frigates will NOT be obsolete (agent of Karma), Fighter SC will still be more effective, and enemy SC focus-firing on capitals will still be just as effective. Like I've mentioned, this is a humble change.
"We can live without Flak for capital ships, but do we really want to? Also on very principle we shouldn't. We owe it to the Science Fiction Genre. "
Why Starbase Flak is needed.
Everything that applied to capital ships applies here, except that Starbases in addition to being huge, expensive, and valuable, they are immobile. Strike Craft could simply avoid them, and they will be a zero threat. Now, for players attempting to assault these structures, they could send SC but its perfectly flesible and realistic they will take losses. Carrier Strike Craft, should not be able to jump in on the other side of the grav well released their strike craft, wait for a few minutes while the strike craft do their dirty work (without taking any losses, due to the lack of flak guns) then jump out once the Starbase dies. Yes, Starbases can have up to several SC of their own, but that is only available after multiple upgrades you need to buy. Starbases should already start out with built-in Flak or at least make it a cheap upgrade.
Babylon 5 station's defense grid. Interceptor Station Point Defense Guns.
Specifics: Give the Akkan, Progenitor, and the Jarrasul a moderate Flak capability.
All the other capital ships and starbases will have a weak Flak equal to 2-3 Flak Frigates, however the Mothership type capital ship I adovcate for a moderate Flak ability equal to about 3-4 Flak Frigates.
The Akkan should receive moderate Flak abilities.
Again not much of a leg up, but still important. This makes these ships even better and helps protect your fleet in the immediate radius. The reasoning for this is, Flak is a support/defense ability these ships could have in contrast to the battleship capitals with their high hp + dmg and the command caps with their great abilities. This gives player an addition reason to go with these ships as their first capital ship knowing it will be very useful even in late-game battles vs. just slightly useful in combat.
PLEASE NOTE: This thread is not here to discuss Flak balance vs. Strike Craft Carrier balance. That is for another thread, and there are plently of them out there. Please do not post something like: "Great idea, but it's all unless without a carrier fix and a general buff to flak" [I actually agree with this, but keep it in another thread]
This is Silfarion's three criteria for adding in a change to the game. That I agree with.
1. It's balanced.
2. It fits the theme of the game and what the developers had in mind.
3. It works with minimal fuss or change.
---------------------
1. - Topic for debate. I say Yes.
2. - Yes, and double Yes. I have to ask, do the developers even watch BattleStar Galactica?
3. - Yes, and triple yes. It is easily implemented and won't create much of a fuss, (except for diehards out there such as Hack87, who won't like this idea no matter how humble)
I make sure to make all my trends very specific, full of examples, and with a Rebuttal section to combat the diehards out there, who hate new ideas no matter what they are. It is my hope that most people will see the merits of this humble proposal despite the over-the-topic critics that will surely seek to destroy this thread with everything they can muster.
Objections & Rebuttal COLUMN (read this first for all you diehards out there)
— "This isn't really needed"
Having cherry on a Ice-Cream Sunday isn't needed, but it's good and moreover it's "right". If we were to simply not do a change because it wasn't crucially needed and we only did things when it was absolutely nessecary in today's society then we would not have video games, ice cream, ... toilets. This change really implements the spirt of the genre and a humble change that will not cause any problems for balance.
— "Capital Ships already have 2 things to deal with squadrons ... It's a bad idea then, its a bad idea now."
Some Capital Ships have two thing to try to deal with SC, but with 1 they fail completely, the other is very micro/anti-matter dependent. I'm talking about of course their own SC, and their own capitial ship abilities that some ships have. The flaw in the first one is that the number of squadrons a cap carries (1-3 max) will almost never be enough to really protect it against enemy swarms. Second, the abilities are anti-matter dependent and highly situational. None of these 2 give a good reason why capitals shouldn't have a reliable built in Flak both in game-terms and philosophically.
— "Capital Ships aren't supposed to be a one-ship fleet, they support, and need support... they need Flak Frigates ad fighters already with them. Capital Ships are limited by hardcoding to three weapons systems..."
They're not. Capital ships will still very much need support to be effective. Giving capital ships a weak Flak will not by any means make them one-ship conquer all wonders. Flak Frigate support will still be very much desired, Fighter support will still be very viable. As for hardcoding, there are mods out there that already has this as a feature, so we know its all very much possible.
OK - lets put flak on the caps. This would mean that like flak frigates, they can shoot down SC AND other ships. So you have just boosted the DPS per second of all caps. Have you considered the following:
Good points, some thoughts
1 - Very valid concern, currently there is a toggle that determines if a weapon can hit strikecraft. The way to fix this problem would require switching it around if you want a weapon that hits strikecraft but not firgates.
2 - Honestly didn't even consider it, I think this is the first time it has been thought of in this thread. On the other hand, by the time a capital ships gets that strong there will be a lot more stirkecraft fighting.
3- Valid
Might want to add: 4 - the current engine only permits three weapons, adding a flak, fourth, weapon would require making a major change to it.
That aside, I think every good ship from fiction where there are strikecraft has flak of some kind. The problem is putting it into the game while balancing it to take into account your three points.
I think the best solution would be letting capital ships fire on strikecraft with their existing secondary weapons. This would keep current the current balance the same for frigates, cruisers, and capitals. Strikecraft should be the lowest priority for a capital to attack. A capital's levels could determine hit chance, base of around 25% and gaining 5-10% each level.
Real flak is probably something that we will have to wait for SINS 2 to get( Plus point defence/countermeasures for missiles)
I didn't mention it as it has been stated previously.
One issue with the secondary weapoins targetting SC is that they are then not targetting other non-SC ships. This means those cobalts etc... aren't getting targetted...
I proposed Point Defence ages ago, but it introduces issues which need to be worked through. Possibly it needs to be an ability rather then a normal "weapon".
CreditSuisse,
You can mod this, real easy!! That way people that want it can add it, those that don't won't have to.
Just my two cents but i have modded, and i am no great modder, just a file tweaker, this into a little bitty mini-mod of mine. You can do it too, i just took the lasers and made them able to target strike craft. If you want to add flak to those other ships, just add the ability in the ability slot, easy enough.
-Teal
True, but that should be solved by making the capitals have strikecraft as what their weapons deal the least damage to. Right now ships will auto-attack what they are best at fighting. Combined this would result in weapons not firing on stikecraft until there are no more non-SC left they can hit. ex in a capital vs capital carrier battle all of the first's forward weapons will be firing on the second. Strikecraft will only be hit by side weapons as they flypast in attack runs. If there are frigates occupying the side weapons, the strikecraft will be ignored.
But then you don't relly have flak do you - since it won't work until there are only SC left to target!!!
Hey, I noticed you guys talking about the "can target SC" toggle in the modable files. A few weeks back I tried to give bombers a tiny rear anti-verylight gun (anywhere from 0.8-1.7 damage each, depending on the faction; TEC flak guns do 17.5 per bank for reference) because I felt they were getting nerfed too much in Entrenchment and was finding it hard to justify building them. I thought the gun would make them compete somewhat better with fighters against siege, LRM's and building busters (which it does), and also fight back a small amount against fighters. However, what happened was I couldn't get the damn gun to fire on fighters unless I zoomed in on a fighter and told the bombers to attack, at which point they actually would fire their secondary AND primary guns until the squadron that the fighter belonged to was destroyed; then they would stop firing on SC again. Bombers actually have the "can target SC" toggle on by default, yet they still won't fire on SC unless ordered to. So apparently the toggle does nothing to allow a ship/craft to fire on SC automatically. Furthermore, this toggle doesn't appear to be associated with a particular gun, but rather the entire ship/craft.
As a side note, these guns look great on the TEC bombers and Advent bombers; any modders out there should give it a shot just to see what it looks like when a squadron sprays targets as it leaves the strike area.
Credit, flak on capital ships is a great idea, and I would like to see the developers implement it. I'm sure it's not that hard for them; the argument that it might be difficult to implement simply because it's hard to do with the official modding tools is bullshit. It seems to me that in these forums, when someone comes up with a creative idea and actually works at presenting it clearly and compellingly, the fuckin' termites come out of the woodwork and start shredding even more vigorously than normal. This is also bullshit. But hey, I guess creative ability or effort is probably a threat to those who havn't worked at that particular facility themselves. Go figure.
I think it's more about the aesthetic and less about balance, but it's still something I would love to see standardized in the game.
And guys, don't forget that fighters are not great at shooting down fighters. Flak would give caps a specific weapon to deal with fighters.
Well, first I agree that the whole carrier-flak dynamic appears in need of tweaking. Also the OP was well written and stated in fairly neutral terms giving his opinion, also very good. And many responses voicing several different viewpoints, very good.
Personally I don't compose fleets that have the low ratio of flak frigates I usually see from player fleets. Mine are on average 2-3 or even up to 10 times as large a group and I generally don't have issues. There is a natural trade off where I lose front line unit firepower, but I also see this as a natural trade off for my increased anti SC capability in that fleet. I also utilize formation and firing orders to get extra milage from my flaks, plus make use of repair ability ships to offset the damage SC are doing. I know this is additional micro, but I also feel that generally the players who get these 'unbalanced' results from using SC are also micro'ing to get said results. I don't want to paint with a broad stroke everyone who has ever thought things need to be tweaked and say they are expecting the same results from a said ratio of flak to SC, but I don't think it is impossible this could have something to do with it in some cases.
The OP did ask for debate and Hack did supply opposing views on the subject. I see nothing wrong with that, I've been around some time in the lifespan of the game to have seen the ebb and flow of balancing efforts and read many similar posts stating concerns about flak frigate effectiveness and other perceived imbalances per game patch release. I think disregarding a very experienced players opinion just because its in disagreement is as counterproductive as taking that opinion as being something no one should question. Debate is good and even if we're beating a dead horse the possibility that someone will come up with something different to add to the discussion makes doing it worthwhile.
I actually suspect one of the major culprits for the feeling that 'it needs to be fixed' is tied to the ability to regenerate those squadrons quickly and without resource cost. If the carriers couldn't do laps around a grav well continuously throwing waves of SC into the thick of it that would automatically affect the perceived ability of flak frigates to counter them. I don't think it is something that should be too radically altered because carriers are expensive and we should see a benefit to investing in them. I don't think flak frigates should be too efficient in taking out SC otherwise they negate them too strongly, thereby creating another 'imbalance'... not really fixing an issue, just moving it to another section of the rock-paper-scissors(excuse the simplification, I don't mean for these words to be microscope nit picked, only an analogy) combat model.
I can think of several ways to address the issue but the simplest one that comes to mind that doesn't involve changing many units balance or behavior would be to look at the carriers themselves and their ability to pump out SC replacements as quickly as they do at the time of this post (1.14). Either increase the replacement anti matter cost, add a resource cost or modify the minimum time amount a squadron can be replaced? Thoughts? Could it be really that simple? Even a minor speed change could drastically alter the outcome of a medium or long running battle. I invite any opinions or facts I may not be fully aware of to flesh the idea out or to refute it.
I apologize to everyone if saying this is out of place, but I would really like to hear other points of view rather than Hack87 and him trolling this thread. We've all heard what Hack had to say about this topic and I really feel he needs to move on to other people's ideas he can shred.
Anyone agree?
Developer's implies ownership. Kindergarden mistake.
What this will do when colonising. You will be able to do MORE damage to militia frigates while your primary weapons engage the primary target - e.g. kill the Garda/Cobalts quicker while focusing on the kodiaks. Is this a good idea?Cap weapons increase as they level up. Keeping this in mind, what start out as 2-3 flak early game could quickly become 6-7 equivalent when the cap gets up to Lvls 8-10? Don't believe me? Look at the stats on a Lvl 10 Kol vs a level 1 one. 1 Lvl10 Kol will be able to take out 2 Lvl1 onesFinally, you have removed the advantage that someone may gain by being bold and getting carriers early as they cannot get the numbers required to kill your cap. A person will just build LRM and fly under the cap's protection. This is just helping to bring back the LRM rushing from the early days. And if this happens, the flak isn't really required anymore is it? Kinda a catch 22. If you have it, people will change how they play = 1.05 carrier secnarios again. Currently I must make a CHOICE to get a Kol or Dunnov (assuming TEC) to get some anti-SC ability. The cost of this is not getting a coloniser cap or a Marza to experience up to Lvl6 quickly and early. Further, one of the ADVANTAGES a coloniser cap has is the SC they get at Lvl 1. Kol/Marza get them at 3-4. Its now useless if the other person's cap comes to the fight, whereas before it was only in danger if they had a cap with anti-SC abilities and/or carriers.
Alright Hack, you really must be determinded to shred this idea, as with all my ideas.
1. Militia Frigates will lose to a vanilla cap regardless. Defeating neutrals is not the most unbalancing thing in this game, you are blowing this out of porportion. I guarentee you a cap sent alone with not defeat the militias surrounding a Terran planet with with Flak guns. This is not really an argument. (It's something we call in debate, a 'hot-air point' to distract and make the opposition waste time defeating it rather than addressing your primary argument.)
2. My intention is to keep the Flak gun power the same. The Capitals can get other abilities as they level up. I'm sure the developers can code it so the capital's Flak guns don't increase with levels. This is not really an argument also.
3. I can't say I feel sympathy for the person who fast-techs for the carrier to spam it asap; however, a single cap with just the Flak equivilent of 2 Flak Frigates will not by any means remove that advantage. Furthermore the Flak power of a capital ship or even two or three capital ships is not going to provide this Flak "umbrella" that will be the saving grace of LRF spam against carriers. Not by a long shot.
Hack87, you never brought up these ideas in your initial posts. You see the public support and now you're desperate to shred this idea no matter the cost. You're pulling half-baked baised ideas out of your ass, as fast as possible. People will see this, please, don't pretend otherwise.
About game mechanics, I feel I've addressed that in my original post. Flak Frigates will not be obsolete, This will not be the saving grace of capital ships, capital ships will still need support, and this will not significantly affect the balance.
Adieu.
Thank you! Termites out of the woodwork analogy is very true. Thank you very much.
Hack trolls this thread intentionally to artifically make it seem there is a lot of opposition when in reality it's mostly him who completely rejects the idea. Hack believes spamming posts makes it seem he is right.
Hack87, I asked for feedback - not trolls. I really hope the rest of the community see Hack for what he really is: a hack.
Um no - the argument is that it is hard as the game engine has a limit of 3 weapons per cap and they are currently allocated. To add flak means removing a weapon and therefore rebalancing OR changing the engine to handle more weapons. Both are not quick fixes. This has been posted numerous times. Please don't presume you know how easy that change is to make. The issue is not the modding tools in this case.
Lol - I love how Credit does his little [Reserved] while he compiles something.
Yay you got someone supporting you Credit. Woohoo - I got this one
You asked for debate - people opposing you are not termites. As a debater I would assume you understand this concept.
You still have not responsed to my post about the game mechanics. It is straight up about Sins. No more going back and forth about Sci-Fi and WWII stuff. I cut that out since people asked for the debate to be about Sins only. Awaiting your rebuttal.
You can add in AA for cap ships easily even with the 3 weapon limit. It however takes a little restat work. Take a cap ship like the Kol and re-arrange the weapon damages but keep the overall dps the same. By re-arranging i mean make the autocannons less damaging but lets say increase the damage on the beams to compensate. Once you got a good number on the autocannons, make them able to target SC. This way does not require a engine overhaul or anything of that sort, just would take a bit to gameplay test it.
With all due respect, that's because you completely lost that argument. If you haven't noticed, its one of Silferion's criteria.
Furthermore, I've already addressed the game mechanics many times over. Getting desperate? troll.
Helpful tip for arguing in the future: when you demonize other people by calling their arguments against your idea "trolling" and act as if everything is a personal attack, you're the only one that looks bad. If you can't counter someone's points except by whining about how they're all out to get you, it's not them that suffers.
the debate is not going far I think.
For example : Sins is based on WWII, is it really the case?
I never see carrier of WWI with submarine grenade, torpedo...only some small flak....and if you compare to capital ship Carrier they also possess some main weapon (beam, laser, aso)
Stop compare Sins to modern, WWII, Battlestar galactica, Star wars, Wing commander (even from my side) warfare. Sins is Sins. I guess it's having its own balance, that suits me well.
Question is : what could do Ironclad to renew its game? Upgrade game mechanics?
An answer will save us from steril arguing.
Ok, so since this debate is on its 4th page, I've decided to add my own Carrier I made in Maya. This carrier has 28 AA turrets with two guns each. They would be able to attack anything but better against fighters/bombers. It also has two Ship-to-Ship missile launchers on the top. This is my alien carrier demonstrating it's AA capabilities. This is one of the frames from a 175 frame animation I made (and compiled into Flash). I see the need for flak on Cap Ships/Starbases (but not all of the cap ships).
Enjoy the fireworks,
-Phalnax
Oh yeah, and if you copy my design I kill you!
First it is Hack78. Secondly - I READ the other posts. They asked for the arguments to be about Sins ONLY. No Star Wars or WWII etc... So I did that. You just call me a troll again and again. I hope you don't call your opponents trolls when you debate them. Or are you just letting your standards slip for me???
Your latest idea is that flak weapons don't upgrade like the others do. This is another change to the game engine. That is not a humble change. Do you even know anything about programming?
you know why dont we make a 6th cap that is made to kill SC and just murders them but does nothing to ships
and btw this looks like battlestar glactica
Hack, first of all, we can change the Capital ships flaks to attack strikecrafts only. So your point is completely invalid in first place.
Hmmm, that already takes out your stupid first two 'concerns', right?
Now third one: No it is not, even with 2~3 to 6~7 flak power the fighters will tear aparts LRMs before you blink.
Guys, don't deceive yourselves; strikecrafts ARE FREE. I wonder how many you guys ever understand this very crucial issue here.
Finally, we are indeed talking about SOASE, but Hack, so you are saying that SOASE is something completely new?
Hmmmm, why then we don't have some weird 8-legs ships shooting carrots to kill each other?
See, while new IP, SOASE uses many concepts from other things, such as WWI/II. The argument that flaks are bad and not needed because SOASE is different from WWI/II is seriously flawed, and you keep using this flawed logic.
You are a fine troll.
hmm if only a thing existed, but you know, maybe a capital ship slot might be too big for it. maybe a frigate, solely devoted to killing strike craft. "anti-strike craft frigate" sounds a little lengthy. maybe it could be called the "flak frigate". what a wonderful idea.
I said 'such as'.
Please reread his posts. You get the idea.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
