Shields and turrets

[Lecic]

Forward facing "mega" weapon. Turrets for everything else. Use your forward facing gun on the biggest target while your turrets do what they do and take out other targets.

If you make the ship big enough, whats wrong with this? But even among other sci-fi universes, ships actually are rarely both. Homeworld for example, there are no(?) ships that use a forward facing gun AND turrets, but you have ships like the Ion frigate and the destroyer, because putting both systems in a single ship just makes you a massive lumbering target.

So the boils down to if you want to make an anti-capitol ship with a big forward gun, or do you want a shit with big turrets.

I think the issue here is people want "all-in-wonder" ships, which has basically been deemed impossible as seen by modern Navy ship design. Sure you can make a ship that can carry strike craft, have a massive main gun, and several powerful turrets, all while covered in tons of AA, but how effective would it be? Not very.

Please name a single downside to using multiple turrets, compared to a forward facing gun, when turrets are protected by the mothership's shields. You can fire at multiple targets at once if need-be, and have to worry much less about your own turning rate.

Turrets being protected by mothership shields also removes any need to make a big turret, especially with the upcoming "bigger turrets have slower turn speeds" thing. Why make one big turret when you could make two half size ones with increased turning speed and the same damage thanks to linear weapons?

...do you want a shit with big turrets.

I'd prefer my shit without big turrets, thank you. That sounds like a serious medical issue.

 

[Hanspeter Schnitzel]

I want to make small turrets that can actually survive things, not because I want super-to-it-all ships, I simply don't like having turrets that are stupidly large. If turrets are not mothership-protected, I would simply give my turrets a huge body within the hull, so I can give them a lot of shielding and simply have barely or no forward facing guns, depending on what kind of ship I am making. The issue with trying to make big turret-bases within the ship is, that it makes it harder to put turrets on wing-like structures, except they are very thick. Of course you could simply give it a flat but broad base within the ship.

Honestly, I've no idea for which side I'm argueing anymore. I simply want turrets that can survive a capital's fire without directly being knocked out so that anti-capital turrets can be a thing and we can have ships that solely focus on turrets for fighting, but at the same time the turret should not be too big (Outside of the hull that is) so it doesn't look odd or even ugly. That's all I want, but I'm not sure if the 'make sinking turret-bodies into the hull easier, better and prettier' will be enough in order to raise their surviveability. Hrm.. the biggest issue isn't even beams or AMCs you can just give the turret a low profile to make it a hard target, the biggest issue would simply be missiles I think. I agree that there needs to be some way of making big ships not simple tanks that can withstand everything. I think being able to have a proper fleet in order to engage such ships would be good.

Being able to have such fleets would maybe make it more worthwhile to a single person to build multiple smaller ships instead of one big one. Is there any downside to having one big ship except maneuverability?

 

[toasts]

I think buffing turrets needs to be handled carefully if changes were to happen.

I'm perfectly fine with how they are now, but if I were to decide on how they were buffed I would do it this way: I would not allow them to benefit from the shield capacity that the mothers ship has, but I would allow benefits from the shielding regen. Furthermore I think turrets should also steal in a way shielding regen from the main ship, in turn decreasing the main ships shield regen and increasing the turrets. There would also have to be a limit to how much regen the turret can take from the main ship and this should be a ratio of the turrets on board capacitors, so let's say the turret has 10,000 shields worth in capacitors, I think I it should be able to steal 2,500 shield regen from the main or 1/4. This would allow for smaller turrets (because shield regeneration would not be needed onboard) and allow for more of something else, be it weapons systems or more capacitors. All of this being done without supply beams, because I think they're dumb.

My idea is probably dumb so don't make fun of me.

~Toast

 

[lazarus78]

Please name a single downside to using multiple turrets, compared to a forward facing gun, when turrets are protected by the mothership's shields. You can fire at multiple targets at once if need-be, and have to worry much less about your own turning rate.

Turrets being protected by mothership shields also removes any need to make a big turret, especially with the upcoming "bigger turrets have slower turn speeds" thing. Why make one big turret when you could make two half size ones with increased turning speed and the same damage thanks to linear weapons?

Easy enough. Assuming same size ships for comparison purposes.

Forward facing gun means the bulk of your ships mass is devoted to that gun, making it far more powerful than turrets. The role of such ships is purely as an anti-capitol ship weapon. Turrets can't hold the same amount of weapon blocks on their own as a ship can, so a forward facing gun will be superior in strength to even a turret mounted on that same ship instead.

A ship with turrets falls into the role of taking on smaller ships, be it with mass AA, or bigger guns for frigates, or just basic supressive fire. Turrets mean your weapons are able to track targets regardless of your actual orientation. (LoS and angle permitting), but as I said above, turrets can't hold the same amount of weapon blocks as a ship with a main gun.


As for the difference between one big turret vs 2 half sized turrets. Again an easy one. 1 turret can only engage 1 target. 2 turrets can engage 2 targets. ETC. The weapons scaling linearly is a completely different balance issue. I don't think they should work out in that way.

If you want both systems on your ship, you pay for it by having a larger target profile and slower maneuverability.


A castle is protected by its walls. Invaders must destroy the walls to reach the castle. Shields are the walls for ships. Take out the walls, you can get to the ship.

 

[Lecic]

Easy enough. Assuming same size ships for comparison purposes.

Forward facing gun means the bulk of your ships mass is devoted to that gun, making it far more powerful than turrets. The role of such ships is purely as an anti-capitol ship weapon. Turrets can't hold the same amount of weapon blocks on their own as a ship can, so a forward facing gun will be superior in strength to even a turret mounted on that same ship instead.

A ship with turrets falls into the role of taking on smaller ships, be it with mass AA, or bigger guns for frigates, or just basic supressive fire. Turrets mean your weapons are able to track targets regardless of your actual orientation. (LoS and angle permitting), but as I said above, turrets can't hold the same amount of weapon blocks as a ship with a main gun.


As for the difference between one big turret vs 2 half sized turrets. Again an easy one. 1 turret can only engage 1 target. 2 turrets can engage 2 targets. ETC. The weapons scaling linearly is a completely different balance issue. I don't think they should work out in that way.

If you want both systems on your ship, you pay for it by having a larger target profile and slower maneuverability.


A castle is protected by its walls. Invaders must destroy the walls to reach the castle. Shields are the walls for ships. Take out the walls, you can get to the ship.

Yeah, forward facing gun means the bulk of your ship's mass is devoted to that gun, but what's preventing you from making the bulk of your ship's mass turret? With the ability to sink your turrets into your ship with articulated parts, you can easily fit just as much weaponry on turrets as you could for a forward facing gun.

Turrets, without the need for their own shield blocks and with articulated parts, can provide the same firepower as a main weapon system, but with the ability to take down the now helpless fighters without fear of being destroyed, as well as deal appropriate damage for a ship of the size it's mounted to.

 

[lazarus78]

Yeah, forward facing gun means the bulk of your ship's mass is devoted to that gun, but what's preventing you from making the bulk of your ship's mass turret? With the ability to sink your turrets into your ship with articulated parts, you can easily fit just as much weaponry on turrets as you could for a forward facing gun.

Turrets, without the need for their own shield blocks and with articulated parts, can provide the same firepower as a main weapon system, but with the ability to take down the now helpless fighters without fear of being destroyed, as well as deal appropriate damage for a ship of the size it's mounted to.

Bigger turrets turn slower? Problem solved.

And why shouldn't a ship be able to have one big turret if the creator wishes? There is a reason turrets revolutionized warfare.

 

[Hanspeter Schnitzel]

I think you don't get what he's saying. 5 small, fast turning turrets are as strong as 1 big, slow moving turret. If you devote your ship mass to turrets isntead of a main weapon, you have many small turrets, which all turn fast, can track targets and yet do the same amount of damage as the main gun. They are just better in every possible way.

I do agree with this logic, but only partially, because it's not thaaaat simple. To have many small turrets, you need docking space ontop of the hull and turrets on your right side can't hit things on the left side, so while your main weapon can only fire forward, it will still be able to use it's full potential on a single target, while turrets can only use as much potential as can be aimed at the target, which is based on LoS and angle etc.

I really like the idea to give turrets at least the mothership regen. That way turrets need to have their own capacitors, but at least regen their shield as fast as the mothership. That would make it necessary to focus fire on a turret for a bit to take it out instead of just wearing down the shields by occasionally shooting at it. It would buff turrets surviveability, since they are small targets so they are not always hit, giving them time to regen some, while not giving them the huge shield the motership has.

 

[lazarus78]

I think you don't get what he's saying. 5 small, fast turning turrets are as strong as 1 big, slow moving turret. If you devote your ship mass to turrets isntead of a main weapon, you have many small turrets, which all turn fast, can track targets and yet do the same amount of damage as the main gun. They are just better in every possible way.

Which is why turrets are used for basically every form of mounted weapon possible since the concept came about. Turrets are indeed better in every possible way to a fixed gun.

If there is a discrepancy in the balancing of small turrets vs big turrets, then adjustments should be made to that in much the same way any other game balances fast attack vs heavy damage hitters. (IE dps vs tank classes in RPGs)

If a ship devotes all available space to a fixed gun, however, it will be superior in firepower to any turret mounted on the same sized ship. Yes, the turret has the advantage of being able to turn, which is again, why turrets revolutionized warfare, but a fixed gun is always stronger, you just have to move yourself to point it at your target.

Look at the Stugg tank destroyer from WW2. It had a powerful fixed gun, but it was unable to react well if flanked. The US had many tank destroyers that made use of turrets, and they proved to be superior, even though the guns weren't more powerful. That is the drawback here if you want to go fixed gun vs turret.

 

[Lecic]

Bigger turrets turn slower? Problem solved.

And why shouldn't a ship be able to have one big turret if the creator wishes? There is a reason turrets revolutionized warfare.

I'm saying big turrets are WEAKER than small turrets. Why do you keep responding as if I'm saying the opposite?

A ship should be able to focus on turrets, but there's a downside to that to make up for increased area of fire and turning speed. And that downside is separated shield pools.

Which is why turrets are used for basically every form of mounted weapon possible since the concept came about. Turrets are indeed better in every possible way to a fixed gun.

If there is a discrepancy in the balancing of small turrets vs big turrets, then adjustments should be made to that in much the same way any other game balances fast attack vs heavy damage hitters. (IE dps vs tank classes in RPGs)

If a ship devotes all available space to a fixed gun, however, it will be superior in firepower to any turret mounted on the same sized ship. Yes, the turret has the advantage of being able to turn, which is again, why turrets revolutionized warfare, but a fixed gun is always stronger, you just have to move yourself to point it at your target.

Look at the Stugg tank destroyer from WW2. It had a powerful fixed gun, but it was unable to react well if flanked. The US had many tank destroyers that made use of turrets, and they proved to be superior, even though the guns weren't more powerful. That is the drawback here if you want to go fixed gun vs turret.

If a ship devotes all available space to a fixed gun, it's going to be a glass cannon anyway, which excludes it from discussing the balance of an average ship design.

The discrepancy that would make multiple small turrets always better than one larger turrets could only be solved in one way- Weapon strength has an upward curve as you add more blocks. This, is, of course, a HORRIBLE idea. As if smaller guns weren't already weaker.

 

[BDLS]

tl;dr

Turrets shouldn't get mothership shields. Would further encourage gigantism and gigantic invinci-turrets with ridiculous DPS.

Once a good auto-repair system is in place it won't be annoying replacing turrets all the time.

Being able to actually pick off turrets is one of the cool things about starmade combat. Why would you aim at turrets if the main ship has dropped shields?

 

[lazarus78]

I'm saying big turrets are WEAKER than small turrets. Why do you keep responding as if I'm saying the opposite?

Must have interpreted what you said that way. My bad.

This is a balance issue with weapon scaling. If turrets are going to be penalized for being bigger, yes, you are correct they would be inferior to smaller turrets.

A ship should be able to focus on turrets, but there's a downside to that to make up for increased area of fire and turning speed. And that downside is separated shield pools.

Which makes zero sense. Intentional weak points is an stupid design choice. Its like putting your artillery in front of your defensive line. No one in their right mind would do such a stupid thing.

If a ship devotes all available space to a fixed gun, it's going to be a glass cannon anyway, which excludes it from discussing the balance of an average ship design.

Why is it excluded? 2 ships of the same size, one devoted to a fixed gun, the other devoted to turrets. The fixed gun will have more powerful shots, but the downside of maneuverability and defenses.

The discrepancy that would make multiple small turrets always better than one larger turrets could only be solved in one way- Weapon strength has an upward curve as you add more blocks. This, is, of course, a HORRIBLE idea. As if smaller guns weren't already weaker.

Then don't make small guns weaker. Make big guns stronger. With ships of the same size profile, turrets will never be as big or as powerful as a fixed gun that takes up most of the ships structure. Small turrets out performing bigger turrets (Power wise) is an imbalance with weapons, not with shield coverage.

 

[Lecic]

Which makes zero sense. Intentional weak points is an stupid design choice. Its like putting your artillery in front of your defensive line. No one in their right mind would do such a stupid thing.

Intentional weakpoints for the sake of balance by the game developer. You don't put something into a game with no downsides. See missiles, which have high alpha damage and can do huge amounts of damage to blocks. What is their downside? Increased travel time and vulnerability to PD.

What's the counter to PD? Fighters and drones, mainly. What's the counter to fighters and drones? Missiles, usually. Rock paper scissors balance.

You remove the need for fighters by shielding PD turrets, and now missiles are less useful with no counter to it.

Why is it excluded? 2 ships of the same size, one devoted to a fixed gun, the other devoted to turrets. The fixed gun will have more powerful shots, but the downside of maneuverability and defenses.

A glass cannon is not included in the balancing between two ships with more traditional block rations and overall viability for numerous situations because a glass cannon is a situational weapon and not a ship.

In two ships with traditional weapon ratios, including turret mass, the one that focuses on turrets will have the same DPS, while also having increased firing area and turning speed, for none of the current downsides that such a ship design has.

Then don't make small guns weaker. Make big guns stronger. With ships of the same size profile, turrets will never be as big or as powerful as a fixed gun that takes up most of the ships structure. Small turrets out performing bigger turrets (Power wise) is an imbalance with weapons, not with shield coverage.

Making bigger guns stronger makes small guns weaker.

Size profile doesn't matter, mass does.

Turrets can easily be as big and powerful as a main gun, especially when they don't need their own shield blocks. Do not underestimate what people will build. Shielding turrets will make turrets the most powerful weapon in nearly all situations.

I fear for the day that doomcubes can have a dozen turrets per plate and no weaknesses for doing do.

 

[EtherEel]

I personally hate the look of turrets and so far refuse to include them in my ship designs. I'm trying to devise a way for the ship itself to have point-defense-systems (GLWT, I know....) I'll very likely have to wait until AI capabilities have more options and, well, capabilities.

 

[keylan118]

Additionally, you can't expect to have powerful broadsides that can hit independently of your own, slower turning rate with no downsides. And that downside is you can get your turrets blown off.

Some other downsides include but are not limited to: Not very easily seeing the opponent and steering, not being able to take the enemy on the other side without adding more mass and more strain on power, not being able to attack enemy from the front or back (again, without adding energy strain, and whatever else the new turrets will have, such as slow turn rate), having a very slow attack rate (you have to turn!, or go back wards which still takes time and possibly could get you killed)

 

[lazarus78]

-snip-

But if everyone has shielded turrets, then how is it out of balance? The downside is you have to get through the shields before you can start damaging the ship.

Smaller craft should be held back till the shields are down, then they can pluck away at the turrets as normal.

As in the olden days, you take out the defensive walls before sending in your troops, otherwise its suicide for them.

 

[Lecic]

Some other downsides include but are not limited to: Not very easily seeing the opponent and steering, not being able to take the enemy on the other side without adding more mass and more strain on power, not being able to attack enemy from the front or back (again, without adding energy strain, and whatever else the new turrets will have, such as slow turn rate), having a very slow attack rate (you have to turn!, or go back wards which still takes time and possibly could get you killed)

You know what kind of ships people are going to build with shielded turrets? They're going to build flat-topped ships that can fit lots of turrets that can turn a whole 360*. You don't need to see the enemy, because you have AI that can do it for you coating your ship, at around half of them will probably be able to see and fire at said enemy. This is more of a downside to ships with forward weaponry than turrets.

Obviously if you build a turret ship you're going to have turrets that can hit things on both the left and right side, though if you were smart you'd make each turret able to hit things on both sides of the ship.

But if everyone has shielded turrets, then how is it out of balance? The downside is you have to get through the shields before you can start damaging the ship.

Smaller craft should be held back till the shields are down, then they can pluck away at the turrets as normal.

As in the olden days, you take out the defensive walls before sending in your troops, otherwise its suicide for them.

How is it out of balance if everyone has it? Because there's no counter for it! Remember the old Cannon/Pulse/Punch railguns that could instantly core a ship with 10x the mass of the ship it was housed on in a single shot? Where those not out of balance? I mean, everyone could have one, so it clearly wasn't broken.
That's not a downside to the system, either! That's an upside! You only gain bonuses for having your turrets protected by your main ship's shields!

Smaller craft won't be used at all, regardless of the enemy's shield state if turrets are protected, because at that point, why would you bother destroying some turret when you could fire a rapid cannon with pierce at their bridge until they're all dead?

Would you send any troops at all when you could just continue firing a catapult that is also rapidfire or fires powerful explosives at the enemy fort and kill them much more effectively that way?

 

[lazarus78]

You know what kind of ships people are going to build with shielded turrets? They're going to build flat-topped ships that can fit lots of turrets that can turn a whole 360*. You don't need to see the enemy, because you have AI that can do it for you coating your ship, at around half of them will probably be able to see and fire at said enemy. This is more of a downside to ships with forward weaponry than turrets.

Why is this a bad thing? That is exactly how modern naval ships operate. They can engage targets before you can even see them. If they are on your radar, why shouldn't the AI be able to attack them automatically? Phalanx missile defense system anyone?

Obviously if you build a turret ship you're going to have turrets that can hit things on both the left and right side, though if you were smart you'd make each turret able to hit things on both sides of the ship.

Naturally. That is the idea behind turrets.

How is it out of balance if everyone has it? Because there's no counter for it! Remember the old Cannon/Pulse/Punch railguns that could instantly core a ship with 10x the mass of the ship it was housed on in a single shot? Where those not out of balance? I mean, everyone could have one, so it clearly wasn't broken.
That's not a downside to the system, either! That's an upside! You only gain bonuses for having your turrets protected by your main ship's shields!

Because back then shields were shit, huge weapons could rapid fire like no tomorrow, and armor plating was a joke. The imbalance came from many things, not just the weapons.

Smaller craft won't be used at all, regardless of the enemy's shield state if turrets are protected, because at that point, why would you bother destroying some turret when you could fire a rapid cannon with pierce at their bridge until they're all dead?

Would you send any troops at all when you could just continue firing a catapult that is also rapidfire or fires powerful explosives at the enemy fort and kill them much more effectively that way?

If your intent is to destroy the ship, then yes, it doesn't matter about the turrets. If your intent is to capture or just disable in general, you would be more careful about where you shot. Not all battles involve ripping a ship apart block by block.

All this is akin to naval tactics where ships would bombard the coastline before they sent in the landing craft. You weaken their defenses so your smaller craft can get in and do their damage. In the case of starmade, you have your bigger ships bring down the shields so that the smaller, more maneuverable ships can get in and start disabling it.

 

[Hanspeter Schnitzel]

Who the heck would want to board in this game? You blow the other ship up, done. Or core them and salvage them and when the HP system is out you simply attack them until their HP is done, then salvage the rest.

Fixed guns are NOT more powerful than turrets. They can be equal in DPS, you just put as many weapon blocks into your turrets as you would otherwise into your ship.

Turrets and fixed guns have the same downside though, the area that they can actually take under fire, but that issue is way bigger for fixed guns.

 

[Lecic]

Why is this a bad thing? That is exactly how modern naval ships operate. They can engage targets before you can even see them. If they are on your radar, why shouldn't the AI be able to attack them automatically? Phalanx missile defense system anyone?

That's not a bad thing. The bad thing is there there's no weakpoints in it. If you design a system with no weakpoints to it in a game, it becomes OVERPOWERED. Disregard how designing something with weakpoints in it in real life is a stupid idea. Look at it solely through the lens of balancing a game.

Because back then shields were shit, huge weapons could rapid fire like no tomorrow, and armor plating was a joke. The imbalance came from many things, not just the weapons.

Shields were 50% of what they currently are, yes, but those railguns were nerfed long before we got doubled shields. Cannon/Pulse/Punch railguns did 60 seconds of DPS instantly (so, no, not OP from rapidfire), which made them extremely good at taking down shields, and then, with the massive amount of damage they did, instantly coring the ship if you were a good shot. Also, whether armor has 400 EHP, 1000 EHP, or 2500 EHP, it's not going to do shit to a punchthrough shot dealing 8,000,000 damage.

Really, though, C/P/P railguns weren't a good example, because even they had a downside and a counter- it was hard to one-shot a ship if it was moving and far away, and it had a 60 second reload timer. Splitting your main weapon up into 2 dozen turrets has no downsides.

If your intent is to destroy the ship, then yes, it doesn't matter about the turrets. If your intent is to capture or just disable in general, you would be more careful about where you shot. Not all battles involve ripping a ship apart block by block.

All this is akin to naval tactics where ships would bombard the coastline before they sent in the landing craft. You weaken their defenses so your smaller craft can get in and do their damage. In the case of starmade, you have your bigger ships bring down the shields so that the smaller, more maneuverable ships can get in and start disabling it.

If your goal is to disable the ship, you could just as easily do that without fighters. Just use your pierce cannons and rip the turrets to shreds instantly, instead of launching a smaller ship that is more likely to get shot down.

 

[lazarus78]

Clearly I have an unpopular opinion, so I will just back out now. Didn't realize wanting practical ship to ship combat mechanics would be such a bad thing.