In the Alpha Version, i noticed a curious thing:

1)
<Custom2><![CDATA[Photon Torpedo]]></Custom2>

Why not rename it by:

<Custom2><![CDATA[Photon Torpedo Launchers]]></Custom2> since we talk about tube or launcher because many vessels have multiple launchers, and I think they should be written in the plural. (it's my point of view) Same thing for the Quantum Torpedo and all other Torpedo systems. WARNING Some minor races ships can also have only one torpedo launcher and phaser or all other beam type that can possibly write in the singular

2) Some vessels of the Federation and the Denobulan Frigate have this:

<Custom1><![CDATA[Phaser]]></Custom1> (I think they should be written in the plural and renamed by: Phaser Banks, Phaser Emitters or Phaser Arrays)

compared to other ships who are written as:

<Custom1><![CDATA[Phaser Banks]]></Custom1>

or

<Custom1><![CDATA[Phaser Emitters]]></Custom1>

3)

It Should be replace:

<Custom1><![CDATA[Phaser Array]]></Custom1>

by

<Custom1><![CDATA[Phaser Arrays]]></Custom1>

for the Federation Starbase II and the Frigate III because they have multiple arrays (and not just one)

I've already warned MoE of the singular/plural problem in weapons names, and their consistency regarding the tech levels. It's in his to do list, which he posted to some thread in the forums (my Feedback thread IIRC).

As for the Launchers/Tubes, I think the names will be too long, and the display will probably get weird, hence the short version.

Look this!! (error of my part, i forgotten the "s" at the end of Launcher)

In all honesty, I don't know if anything is going to change in combat, and if torpedoes will also get a Refire Rate or not. I was just commenting that it extends longer than normal, that's all.

No don't worry, it's simply a question of NAME of the weapon system only!!!

<Entry Key="FED_CRUISER_III">
<LocalizedEntries>
<LocalizedEntry Language="en">
<Name><![CDATA[Cruiser III]]></Name>
<Description><![CDATA[The Constitution Class has been refitted. Upgrades to all areas of ship systems will carry the Constitution into the next century and beyond. As well as being a multi-role cruiser, in which it excels, the Constitution is now a formidable all-round warship, capable of dealing with almost any anticipated threat. Her presence is intended to discourage and counter potentially hostile neighbours from further aggression.]]></Description>
<Custom1><![CDATA[Phaser]]></Custom1>
<Custom2><![CDATA[Photon Torpedo Launcher]]></Custom2>

As .Iceman said, this is in my to-do list. I'm going to work out a table of which techs the various weapons will be assigned to, and from that I will assign weapon names to all of the ships in the game. Just take the weapon names as they currently stand as placeholders.

As for the singular/plural problem, i'll be able to fix that when I give the weapons their names, since ALL weapons have manually-assigned names.

As for the name length, there's not much we can do about that because we're following canon. So unless people upgrade their monitors or Mike makes the information panel wider, it's a problem we're just going to have to put up with.

Hmm, you didn't understand. Look at the pic you posted. If torps get a refire rate, it *will* overlap the weapon name. It doesn't happen with 5x Phaser because it's a short name.

<Ship Key="FED_CRUISER_III">
<TechRequirements>
<BioTech>3</BioTech>
<Energy>3</Energy>
<Computers>3</Computers>
<Propulsion>3</Propulsion>
<Construction>3</Construction>
<Weapons>3</Weapons>
</TechRequirements>
<BuildCost>4420</BuildCost>
<RawMaterials>80</RawMaterials>
<MaintenanceCost>80</MaintenanceCost>
<PopulationHealth>2</PopulationHealth>
<IsUniversallyAvailable>false</IsUniversallyAvailable>
<ObsoletedItems>
<ObsoletedItem>FED_CRUISER_I</ObsoletedItem>
</ObsoletedItems>
<UpgradeOptions>
<UpgradeOption>FED_CRUISER_IV</UpgradeOption>
</UpgradeOptions>
<Crew>430</Crew>
<ScienceAbility>9%</ScienceAbility>
<ScanPower>2</ScanPower>
<SensorRange>4</SensorRange>
<HullStrength>140</HullStrength>
<ShieldStrength>680</ShieldStrength>
<ShieldRecharge>14%</ShieldRecharge>
<BeamType Count="5" Damage="30" Refire="77" />
<TorpedoType Count="4" Damage="42" />
<ShipType>Cruiser</ShipType>
<ClassName>Constitution</ClassName>



BeamType is the Phaser Bank Number
TorpedoType is the Photo Torpedo Launcher Number
Damage and Refire are

BEAM / DAMAGE: The two figures represent the number of Beam Arrays, and the maximum possible damage inflicted by the Beam Arrays during an attack.

TORP / DAMAGE: The two figures represent the number of Photons Tubes the ship has and the inherent damage inflicted during such an attack. (NOTE- I may change this to alternatively represent the number of PHOTONS THAT CAN BE FIRED in a single Photon burst (rather than individual tubes.)

BEAM REFIRE: (experimental idea). This determines the ability to recharge the Beam Weapons to total effectiveness and efficiency between turns. The Refire rate is a percentage figure (say 80% for a standard cruiser), and that after one shot (Turn 1), that Refire rate will determine that the Next Shot (on Turn 2) in the following turn will be fired at only 80% power. After that shot, the power returns to 100% again (Turn 3). So every other shot (and hence Turn) you suffer a power drain in your beam weapons array, which takes one turn to recover. Such Refire rates if this is how it could work would add another level to empire ship strengths, and be tailored to each empire accordingly (maybe the Dominion could have lowest Refire to slightly offset their many Beam Arrays, etc).

each weapon class should have a separate refire rate.

i.e Beam Refire, Projectile Refire, Pulse Refire.

In my view it adds more variation to the ships and also stops the effect of a ship offloading everything at once.

Regards Wolfe

Forget it, we're having a communication problem here. I didn't say they *will* have, and I know how Refire "works" (though I don't see how it'll be controlled by the player...). I said, *if*, for any reason yet unknown, torps *also* get it - regardless of what is written which does not necessarily translate into law just yet - *then* there'll be a display problem. Sorry, can't be any more clear than that.
I'm sorry I commented.

The communication problem is because there is a mismatch between the options available in the editor and the settings included in the combat system.

To clear this up, here's a summary of the mismatches. I apologise if what I state here seems obvious but i'm doing this to make sure everyone is on the same level.

With the current Supremacy editor options, each ship can only have two types of weapon, that is, EITHER a beam weapon OR a pulse weapon AND a torpedo weapon OR missile weapon. This is because in the Supremacy editor, there are two weapon slots; one where you choose either beam or pulse weapon; and a second one where you choose torpedo or missile weapon. The name of the weapon is a manually-editable field so you could call it anything at all.

Note 1: There is the first mis-match between Supremacy and the combat system. There is no way to manually select the specifics of a weapon in the Supremacy editor, ie. its colour, visual style, etc, so essentially there are currently only four weapon types available in Supremacy, regardless of the name for the weapon that you enter. I have notified Mike of this issue. This isn't a problem in the combat system since you can set the visual style. These options will need to be added to the editor once the combat system is added so that such specifics may be covered.

With the current Supremacy system, ships that have multiple weapons, such as the Defiant class, cannot have their full complement of weapons, that is, Phasers, Pulse Phasers, and Quantum Torpedoes, because there are only two weapons slots, not three. So with ships like this, we will be forced to choose Phaser vs Pulse Phaser. (Obviously the Defiant will get Pulse Phasers since those are the weapons it is known for)

Additionally, with the current Supremacy system, the energy weapons are the only weapons with a refire rate; torpedoes/missiles do not have one.

The refire system simulates the effect of energy drain and recharging on the weapons. Therefore, a weapon that is recharging is capable of doing doing only a percentage of its maximum normal damage amount if fired again during the same combat "turn".

Note 2: Since the combat system is real-time instead of turn-based, for the sake of argument, we have agreed in the past that a turn equals 10 seconds.

A weapon will not fire three or more times during this 10 second window. Weapons will not necessarily fire twice during a turn either, since the weapons also have firing arcs, that is, the field in which they are capable of firing at. If the weapon does not fire a second time during the same turn, then the next time that it does, it will fire at full strength, and a new turn will start.

Note 3: Weapons should also have maximum firing ranges. This is the second mis-match between the editor and the combat system. The Supremacy editor does not have a way for you to specify the weapon range, but the combat system does have this setting. A weapon firing range option will need to be added to the editor once the combat system is added so that the range may be selected.

Off Topic:

In Starfleet's post, third from the top in the image of the Enterprise - TOS movie version, the transparent ship image phaser fire cuts off before the edge of the background. Is there a missmatch of image size?

The png on transparent background ship images are set at 270w x 225h. Looking at the original png you can see the framing is off in game.

I'm not sure this makes any sense... in a real time system.

I know it doesn't, I just meant it as a compromise between the turn-based mechanics that the refire rate was originally based on, and the real-time mechanics of the combat system.

The 10 second "turn" is the compromise. It's something that players wouldn't consciously notice, it would simply be measured by the computer. if a weapon fires, then it would count 10 seconds. If the same weapon then came into firing arc (And range) or the enemy, then it could fire again, but would only do so at the refire strength. Once the turn is complete, the weapon would be fully charged again.

Also remember that 10 seconds isn't a definitive amount of time, it's just the figure we've been using on the forums. It could be any chosen time period.

Though it is not currently set as that .

At the moment the phaser array energy cells need to recharge before firing so to speak , and therefore the refire rate acts as a simple time gap between firing beams, pulses or projectiles.

I know that Dafedz work generally requires refire rate to effect the power of the shot as well however I'am not sure it would work in a realtime system.

Regards Wolfe

Then perhaps we need to change the refire rate to mean time between shots, rather than actual damage caused? So instead of percentages, we need to come up with time in seconds.

Hmm, if the combat system is going to be RT, then I don't see why the Refire Rate hasn't been made into a recharge/reload time... it's kind of logical. For all weapons, each having its own. Torps can be made to have longer reload times, beams shorter. No need for 10 sec turns or whatever. Much easier to balance too.
Also, there's no magically recharging of weapons at the end of turns.

That settles it then. Wolfe, can you add it to your list of things to do? I'll send Mike and Dafedz a PM about this as well.

eh? It already does this , each ship has an energy cell, which is filled up incrementally over time and depleted when a shot is fired etc. The speed of recharge is also dependent on a separate variable.

Now each weapon has a fixed damage and fire rate so to speak. Experience plays a role in recharge rate but currently it is a crappy adaptive modifee algorithm.

If you want we could look into allowing experience to effect the amount of damage, perhaps like something done in WOW with critical strikes doing more damage etc?

Regards Wolfe

Hehe I play WoW. I'm a level 70 Warrior.

Anyways, yes, I personally would like it if experience played a role in determining the outcome of a battle. We've discussed this in a number of threads of the years, but off the top of my head, these are what people have asked for experience to have an effect on:

Shield recharge rate (Frequency of recharge and/or amount recharged)
Hull repair rate
Weapon damage (Critical hits)
Weapon accuracy (Reduced weapon misfire, chance of a critical hit)
Weapon range
Weapon refire
Improved anti-cloak detection
Faster reactions vs cloaked enemies
Improved tactics (Available options, tactical flexibility, reaction speed, target choices, etc)
Manoeuvrability (High-speed turns and fancy manoeuvres)

Obviously the size of any benefits (Or disadvantages due to green crews) will be something that will need to be playtested and tweaked over time, and chances are there are other factors that could be affected that i've forgotten about.

By the way, i've had a PM off Dafedz. He's returned to the forums and will be implementing the myriad of database updates I sent him during his hiatus. I've notified him of this thread so he might post here soon. Any changes to the combat system may affect the stats system he has devised so he needs to be kept in the loop.