Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

There are arcs worse than 180 degrees, though they are often more common on larger ships and stations, which have many weapon bays. The ship hulls with their design bays and arcs are moddable in the data, though the model meshes limit the external components.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

There are arcs worse than 180 degrees, though they are often more common on larger ships and stations, which have many weapon bays. The ship hulls with their design bays and arcs are moddable in the data, though the model meshes limit the external components.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

There are arcs worse than 180 degrees, though they are often more common on larger ships and stations, which have many weapon bays. The ship hulls with their design bays and arcs are moddable in the data, though the model meshes limit the external components.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jorgen_CAB

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

There are arcs worse than 180 degrees, though they are often more common on larger ships and stations, which have many weapon bays. The ship hulls with their design bays and arcs are moddable in the data, though the model meshes limit the external components.

Would it also not be interesting if the arc could change a bit based on the weapon size you put into them as well?

So you might have a 120 degree arc for a large and get +30 for medium and +60 for a small weapon in that slot. Could be on some slots not all, so it can differ between weapon bays.

Just a suggestion for some more tactical benefit of smaller weapons.

I probably still think that the arcs are a bit too wide on the smaller classes in general, especially for the larger bays. But I guess modding is ok to "fix" that for personal preference.

quote:

ORIGINAL: zgrssd

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jorgen_CAB

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

There are arcs worse than 180 degrees, though they are often more common on larger ships and stations, which have many weapon bays. The ship hulls with their design bays and arcs are moddable in the data, though the model meshes limit the external components.

Would it also not be interesting if the arc could change a bit based on the weapon size you put into them as well?

So you might have a 120 degree arc for a large and get +30 for medium and +60 for a small weapon in that slot. Could be on some slots not all, so it can differ between weapon bays.

Just a suggestion for some more tactical benefit of smaller weapons.

I probably still think that the arcs are a bit too wide on the smaller classes in general, especially for the larger bays. But I guess modding is ok to "fix" that for personal preference.

My understanding is that each Weapon Slot has a maximum Weapon Size. And slots with bigger sizes have worse arcs.

So if you got a 120 slot on a T2 Hull, it is likely a 90° at best. If you even have such a large slot on such a small ship (which is rare).

Also, have you considered that each race has different slot configuation for hulls?
Escorts: Mortalan have 2 heavy, forward. Ackdarian have 1 light, 1 heavy (I would guess the light is a 180° to 360°).

And once we get to the second hull, Ackdarians already start getting Fighter bays. While Mortalan get more weapon slots.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jorgen_CAB

quote:

ORIGINAL: zgrssd

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jorgen_CAB

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

There are arcs worse than 180 degrees, though they are often more common on larger ships and stations, which have many weapon bays. The ship hulls with their design bays and arcs are moddable in the data, though the model meshes limit the external components.

Would it also not be interesting if the arc could change a bit based on the weapon size you put into them as well?

So you might have a 120 degree arc for a large and get +30 for medium and +60 for a small weapon in that slot. Could be on some slots not all, so it can differ between weapon bays.

Just a suggestion for some more tactical benefit of smaller weapons.

I probably still think that the arcs are a bit too wide on the smaller classes in general, especially for the larger bays. But I guess modding is ok to "fix" that for personal preference.

My understanding is that each Weapon Slot has a maximum Weapon Size. And slots with bigger sizes have worse arcs.

So if you got a 120 slot on a T2 Hull, it is likely a 90° at best. If you even have such a large slot on such a small ship (which is rare).

Also, have you considered that each race has different slot configuation for hulls?
Escorts: Mortalan have 2 heavy, forward. Ackdarian have 1 light, 1 heavy (I would guess the light is a 180° to 360°).

And once we get to the second hull, Ackdarians already start getting Fighter bays. While Mortalan get more weapon slots.

I know this... my issue is that almost all heavy slots all the way up to at least destroyer seem to all be at 180 degree arcs, that leaves very little reason for manoeuvring thrustsers instead of just more speed in general.

quote:

ORIGINAL: zgrssd

I am 90% sure I have seen 90° Arks for both large Slots on the Mortalan T1 hull.

quote:

ORIGINAL: CapnDarwin

Jorgan, use post reply and not the fast reply to embed an image.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

You should be able to do JPGs.

Please also note that for military ships, the arcs for each hull vary by faction, so the arcs and component bay count for an Ackdarian Destroyer, a Mortalen Destroyer, a Human Destroyer, a Boskara Destroyer will all have some variation.

quote:

In general, given how the mechanic work ships are basically behaving as sea going ships. We should actually see more wet navy like configurations on the ships. From a tactical perspective it is not actually smart to put all or most of your weapons in a forward firing arc.. that means you have to move in the same direction you shoot. There is a reason why navy ship tended to put most of their firepower on the side of their ship and eventually used large turrets that could turn about 270 degrees for the main guns.

quote:

ORIGINAL: zgrssd

quote:

In general, given how the mechanic work ships are basically behaving as sea going ships. We should actually see more wet navy like configurations on the ships. From a tactical perspective it is not actually smart to put all or most of your weapons in a forward firing arc.. that means you have to move in the same direction you shoot. There is a reason why navy ship tended to put most of their firepower on the side of their ship and eventually used large turrets that could turn about 270 degrees for the main guns.

There are several reason for this, but none of them apply to space combat:
- ships at sea turn glacially slow. Rate of Turn Indicators list Degrees per minute, rather then degrees per Second. Without the water drag and with proper Maneuvering thrusters, ships will turn closer to airplanes then seagoing ships. Or maybe even more like tanks
- no way to place weapons forward. Sooner or later the citadel and smokestacks got in the way. And even if not, having a turret too far up is horror for durability and ship stability. Plus you wanted weapons on the aft, because sometimes you have to run from the enemy.
- it is still preferable to show only your front or your aft. It is a smaler profile, harder to hit
- unless you had some ideal case like "crossing the T" (Maxim 47. Don't expect the enemy to cooperate in the creation of your dream engagement), showing your front and being angeled just enough you could bring your aft guns to bear was the goal.

It happened as you say. But only because this as a Ocean Navy, not because it was some universal trught about navies

quote:

ORIGINAL: zgrssd
- it is still preferable to show only your front or your aft. It is a smaler profile, harder to hit

quote:

Don't care much about the details, the mechanic pretty much mimic sea going ships in general.

quote:

ORIGINAL: zgrssd

quote:

Don't care much about the details, the mechanic pretty much mimic sea going ships in general.

Ship combat in DW1 + DW2 does not mimik naval warfare. And enither should it.

This is space. You can cut your maing engine, turn yourself 180° and shoot backwards (compared to your direciton of movement) with no issuues.
But I understand if the Devs do not want to mimik space fighter combat, so they keep it on atmospheric fighter combat with large angles.

Also, funnily enough those Naval Turrets you want to emulate?
Yeah, there are 270° weapon slots. Large ones. But they might even round them to 360° for simplicities sake.
If you make it more like Sea warfare, you just threw any limited firing angles out the window. Pretty sure your goal was to make firing angles more important, not remove them completely?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cauldyth

Got it, Teekans = Spathi!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cauldyth

Yeah, a lot of things in the Distant Worlds universe are obviously nods to Star Wars...