The future of Combat (How to balance Shields and Energy weapons)
In many different fictions, shields are not the end all be all of defense in combat, nor are they a crutch to rely on. Shields are meant to be a tool to help combat last just that little bit longer.
My suggestions on how to implement everyone's two favorite part of combat: Shields and Energy Weapons
First of all, based on logic, things like steel have a very noticeable melting point, especially against things like Plasma Weapons. Unlike Kinetic weapons, when energy weapons make contact against the hull of your ship it will melt the armor of your ship, weakening it.
Secondly, everyone's true favorite part of Sci-Fi combat, Shielding Technology. Shielding depending on the fiction works by either absorbing the heat of plasma weapons striking your hull, or in case of Kinetic shielding it would disperse the kinetic energy, although realistically the final open seems a bit far fetched
How would I balance it?
How I would balance it is by splitting combat into specialties, What would that mean? Let me explain.
Armor is your primary defense against kinetic weapons, but very weak to energy weapons.
Shields would be very weak to Kinetic weapons, but would absorb the heat from Energy weapons, and would either store the heat or use a "Heat Sink" block to dispel the heat created from the energy weapons impacting the hull of your ship. Energy shields could be disabled by overheating the shield generator.
This system is pretty simple to be honest, but a pretty balanced method to introduce shields and energy weapons into the scene.
I like this feedback
Personally, I disagree for the most part with QualityPen and Semtex.
Why I think "Energy Shields" are realistically possible:
Although I'm obviously not an authority on this, I have done a decent bit of research into the topic of realistic energy shields for my own hard sci-fi universe, and have found a surprising number of realistically possible options. The most basic of which, and I think the only one good for Space Engineers as the others are very far future, is an electromagnetic field containing plasma. Such a field, depending on it's strength, could block various energy levels of light, as well as ionize neutral particle beams to allow for electromagnetic deflection. There are obviously a number of problems with this with current tech, but if there wasn't, we'd be developing them already. This is the case with any sort of futuristic technology. My point is that none of the problems that I'm aware of aren't theoretically solvable.
Realistic Energy Weapons:
While plasma "blobs" are very unlikely to be practical, plasma beams are a definite possibility using Z-pinch technology (running electricity down the length of the beam, creating a magnetic field to hold it together).
As for lasers and particle weapons, any sort of interstellar, or even quick interplanetary travel would require massive energy outputs already, and lasers could utilize this energy with far more efficiency than any kinetic energy, allowing for insane ranges that completely out-compete anything kinetic. This is why there is something called "The Laser Problem" in hard sci-fi. Personally, I think adding lasers would be a horrible idea as you can't dodge them and they have insane range, hence the "Problem", but just saying. Similar thing with particle beams, I see them being horrible for interesting combat.
I'm trying to keep this relatively short so I won't go into more detail on different weapons and shielding possibilities unless anyone asks, but as for how any of this relates to Space Engineers 2...
Modding in vs Out:
I have no idea what you mean by "It's a lot easier to mod something in than mod something out." As a SE1 modder, it's usually easy to remove vanilla blocks or change their functionality, and far harder to add non-vanilla functionality into the game.
How this all relates to SE2:
Personally, I'm kind of on the fence about whether shields should be added or not, as both scenarios are totally possible in hard sci-fi, it really just depends on the technology levels in different areas. So, it then goes to what would be the most fun, and I kind of think that shields are the most likely candidate here, as it adds another layer to the combat gameplay, assuming it's done right.
If they are added, the way I think it should work is similar to how Phoenix described them, but not exactly the same.
Kinetic weapons would be able to go through shields almost as if they weren't there, making them perfect for trying to take out shield projectors. Shield projectors would be some sort of module on the exterior of the ship which creates the electromagnetic field and supplies the plasma for the shields. Although from what research I've done both "regional" and "global" projectors are possible, I think regional would be more fun, as you could try to open up a specific region of the enemy's shielding to allow for plasma beams to get through.
Plasma beams, (again, I think beams, NOT blobs are potentially plausible by using a Z-pinch), would be reduced in strength, deflected, or outright blocked depending on the relative strengths of the shield and plasma weapon. They would be a very close range (under 2km) knife-fighting weapon that, if you can open up holes in the enemy's shields, would be more devastating than any equivalent kinetic weapon.
Optionally, kinetic weapons could be slowed and deflected by a small percentage proportional to the shield strength (I think a strong enough shield would be able to do this), but with a proportionality curve that never results in a complete 100% deflection.
Since a field of plasma around your ship would produce a ton of heat, and to address QualityPen's concern about lack of engineering, some sort of heat mechanic could be implemented into the game (Phoenix also mentioned this) that must be managed and considered in the design of the ship in order to not overheat your ship to the point that you either release the plasma or get cooked alive.
Final Note
While my own research has suggested the above, I don't pretend to be an expert, so if anyone does still dispute anything I've said, particularly relating to the plausibility of energy shields or weapons, I'll be open to it and quite curious as to what you have to say, as futuristic but realistically possible warfare tech is something I am very interested in.
Personally, I disagree for the most part with QualityPen and Semtex.
Why I think "Energy Shields" are realistically possible:
Although I'm obviously not an authority on this, I have done a decent bit of research into the topic of realistic energy shields for my own hard sci-fi universe, and have found a surprising number of realistically possible options. The most basic of which, and I think the only one good for Space Engineers as the others are very far future, is an electromagnetic field containing plasma. Such a field, depending on it's strength, could block various energy levels of light, as well as ionize neutral particle beams to allow for electromagnetic deflection. There are obviously a number of problems with this with current tech, but if there wasn't, we'd be developing them already. This is the case with any sort of futuristic technology. My point is that none of the problems that I'm aware of aren't theoretically solvable.
Realistic Energy Weapons:
While plasma "blobs" are very unlikely to be practical, plasma beams are a definite possibility using Z-pinch technology (running electricity down the length of the beam, creating a magnetic field to hold it together).
As for lasers and particle weapons, any sort of interstellar, or even quick interplanetary travel would require massive energy outputs already, and lasers could utilize this energy with far more efficiency than any kinetic energy, allowing for insane ranges that completely out-compete anything kinetic. This is why there is something called "The Laser Problem" in hard sci-fi. Personally, I think adding lasers would be a horrible idea as you can't dodge them and they have insane range, hence the "Problem", but just saying. Similar thing with particle beams, I see them being horrible for interesting combat.
I'm trying to keep this relatively short so I won't go into more detail on different weapons and shielding possibilities unless anyone asks, but as for how any of this relates to Space Engineers 2...
Modding in vs Out:
I have no idea what you mean by "It's a lot easier to mod something in than mod something out." As a SE1 modder, it's usually easy to remove vanilla blocks or change their functionality, and far harder to add non-vanilla functionality into the game.
How this all relates to SE2:
Personally, I'm kind of on the fence about whether shields should be added or not, as both scenarios are totally possible in hard sci-fi, it really just depends on the technology levels in different areas. So, it then goes to what would be the most fun, and I kind of think that shields are the most likely candidate here, as it adds another layer to the combat gameplay, assuming it's done right.
If they are added, the way I think it should work is similar to how Phoenix described them, but not exactly the same.
Kinetic weapons would be able to go through shields almost as if they weren't there, making them perfect for trying to take out shield projectors. Shield projectors would be some sort of module on the exterior of the ship which creates the electromagnetic field and supplies the plasma for the shields. Although from what research I've done both "regional" and "global" projectors are possible, I think regional would be more fun, as you could try to open up a specific region of the enemy's shielding to allow for plasma beams to get through.
Plasma beams, (again, I think beams, NOT blobs are potentially plausible by using a Z-pinch), would be reduced in strength, deflected, or outright blocked depending on the relative strengths of the shield and plasma weapon. They would be a very close range (under 2km) knife-fighting weapon that, if you can open up holes in the enemy's shields, would be more devastating than any equivalent kinetic weapon.
Optionally, kinetic weapons could be slowed and deflected by a small percentage proportional to the shield strength (I think a strong enough shield would be able to do this), but with a proportionality curve that never results in a complete 100% deflection.
Since a field of plasma around your ship would produce a ton of heat, and to address QualityPen's concern about lack of engineering, some sort of heat mechanic could be implemented into the game (Phoenix also mentioned this) that must be managed and considered in the design of the ship in order to not overheat your ship to the point that you either release the plasma or get cooked alive.
Final Note
While my own research has suggested the above, I don't pretend to be an expert, so if anyone does still dispute anything I've said, particularly relating to the plausibility of energy shields or weapons, I'll be open to it and quite curious as to what you have to say, as futuristic but realistically possible warfare tech is something I am very interested in.
Hear, hear!
Hear, hear!
Who is "everyone"? There are plenty of people who don't like energy shields, while energy weapons is a very broad term which includes everything from laser weapons (realistic already today) to plasma weapons (not realistic with near-future tech).
Energy shields aren't science fiction, they are just futuristic fantasy. They are bubbles of magic which works however we decide they work, but that's not really my problem. My problem is this - having energy shields in the default game wouldn't really benefit anybody because people who want energy shields can have them as a mod. However, it would degrade the experience for people who don't want energy shields and prefer a harder scifi combat like that in the Expanse. It's a lot easier to mod something in than mod something out.
This is a game which is marketed as being related to engineering. Where's the engineering in magic bubbles? You're trying to take what is a vaguely hard scifi pseudo-engineering game with realism concessions for gameplay due to game engine limitations (jump drive, artificial gravity, industrial efficiency) and turn it into Star Wars or Stargate or Stellaris for everyone, when you could just turn it into that for yourself with a mod once one exists.
Who is "everyone"? There are plenty of people who don't like energy shields, while energy weapons is a very broad term which includes everything from laser weapons (realistic already today) to plasma weapons (not realistic with near-future tech).
Energy shields aren't science fiction, they are just futuristic fantasy. They are bubbles of magic which works however we decide they work, but that's not really my problem. My problem is this - having energy shields in the default game wouldn't really benefit anybody because people who want energy shields can have them as a mod. However, it would degrade the experience for people who don't want energy shields and prefer a harder scifi combat like that in the Expanse. It's a lot easier to mod something in than mod something out.
This is a game which is marketed as being related to engineering. Where's the engineering in magic bubbles? You're trying to take what is a vaguely hard scifi pseudo-engineering game with realism concessions for gameplay due to game engine limitations (jump drive, artificial gravity, industrial efficiency) and turn it into Star Wars or Stargate or Stellaris for everyone, when you could just turn it into that for yourself with a mod once one exists.
I've played on servers for months with DarkStar's shields and various variations there of made by folks trying to 'balance it' in other ways.. I can't say i've ever seen them do anything more than make fights take far too long and encourage the use of spamming a bunch of blocks to maximize the shield potential of their vessel.
I'm sure theres plenty other ways we could implement or test various shield systems but i don't think space engineers wants to associate itself with force fields, then again they did implement 'safe zones'.. Idk, I for one tend to avoid shield mods whenever I can.
I've played on servers for months with DarkStar's shields and various variations there of made by folks trying to 'balance it' in other ways.. I can't say i've ever seen them do anything more than make fights take far too long and encourage the use of spamming a bunch of blocks to maximize the shield potential of their vessel.
I'm sure theres plenty other ways we could implement or test various shield systems but i don't think space engineers wants to associate itself with force fields, then again they did implement 'safe zones'.. Idk, I for one tend to avoid shield mods whenever I can.
I've created content for games for over 20 years now, with some of my most recent stuff being for SE (no i'm not a keen dev). Some of those games include Star Trek Armada 2 and other games that involve shields and I can safely say ALOT of people are severely overthinking the concept of shields far as a potential SE game mechanic goes. There is an extremely simple way to balance shields without a bunch of extra under the hood mechanics to overly complicate it.
First bit of balancing, make them a prototech block (SE1) or the equivalent of one (SE2). This makes them much harder to come by and incentivizes going out into the world.
Second, you balance around singular blocks. In other words, how much damage from each weapon type do you want the shield to be able to take before it drops? EX: how many shots from a singular gatling should it take before the shield fails (assuming no regen)? We talking 100 shots, 1000 shots, 10,000 shot, or we talking say 50 or less? Now you've defined the first of 3 variables which is total health X. The second variable to define is regen rate Y. In Star Trek Online as one example you naturally regenerate a specific amount of shields every 6 seconds in addition to dedicated shield heals you may have. For an SE shield once you've defined the total health X, you say "I want it to regen at a rate of Y per second" just to keep it simple. Your last value is defining power draw Z to keep the shields active and for them to regenerate. In other words, you define total health X, regen Y, and power draw Z. There you have your baseline default values for a potential vanilla shield.
If the shield fails you can have one of two things happen, you can have it not come back up until the shields have fully recharged, or you can have it try to regenerate only to be knocked back down again. mechanically either is valid and doesn't change the overall function.
In terms of simplicity, Cython's shields are the best example you're going to get. They're easy to install, easy to run, and you can add "upgrades" to increase the capacity of the shields and/or recharge rate of the shields to your liking. Power draw increases accordingly. There's no need to make it anymore complicated than it needs to be. Start with something simple like Cython's shields. From there they can give folks sliders to increase/decrease the effectiveness of the regen rate, power draw, and total health granted for the shield. Or a toggle to just turn them off. If keen wants they could have a couple servers with shields on and a few with shields off if/when they get there in SE2, or should they implement in SE1 (seriously do both please). They already turn lightning damage and meteors off on official servers but still leave it there for everyone else who wants it. No reason they can't do the same with shields. For everyone else you can mod them to be weaker/stronger based on your preferences if you want or turn them off. This way you're only as effected by shields as you choose to be at that juncture.
As for me I've wanted to see shields for ages and it's a little ridiculous to me at this point we have to write these large script files or depend on 3rd party scripts just to make them work. I liken shields as similar to food systems or ammo racking mechanics. In most games I'm not fond of food systems as they're often just "eat/drink this or die" and it's all negatives if you don't interact with the system but no positives or benefits to interacting with it. Such as temporary buffs like you see in minecraft s one example. I also HATE ammo racking with a burning passion and think it's one of the most unfun/unskilled ways to win/lose a fight in every game that has it. So for me I would likely turn off ammo racking in SE2 if it has it, and already have disabled ammo racking in SE1. For a food system if it's purely "eat/drink or die" then I would likely turn it off or try to mod in a buff of some kind. Folks that like food systems and ammo racking can still use it, and because I can disable or mod it I do. Both sides win.
Shields hurt no one just by existing as you either have them or you don't. You'll either use them or you won't. Unless folks intend to play on a server that uses them, which why would you if you don't like them, you don't have to be effected by them unless you choose to be. If this were something like a Jump Inhibitor that can shut off jump drives and actually CAN harm someone just by existing, then this would be a different argument. The game is 10k years in the future, and although their tech may not have advanced from being in cryo sleep. precedent is set to have them "discover" the tech from someone else that was already there before.
In other words, define the default values of the shields, let players adjust them or turn them off from there. Folks are not harmed by the ability of others to use a shield. Some people prefer their flavor of SE to be without shields, I prefer mine with. Both playstyles are valid. I shouldn't have to rely on a mod for a block that harms no one purely by existing when the other side just has to turn them off. For that matter they can stick a 4th slider on the shields that says you can't use more than X shield generators per grid. This solves the shield stacking issue.
Lastly it boggles my mind how so many claim (not saying anyone specific here but speaking generally) they want more engineering challenges, yet when the potential to have to deal with a shield generator enters the picture and them having to adjust their tactics, people whine about it. If the only difference between you fighting someone the first time vs the second is them having a shield, and you lose purely because they have that shield, it means your build and/or tactics aren't good enough and you need to change. Far too many blame the shield for their not being on the level they think they are. Heck leave the shields off on official servers for all I care, but give me my shields already. Keep it simple like Cython's and lets get rolling.
I've created content for games for over 20 years now, with some of my most recent stuff being for SE (no i'm not a keen dev). Some of those games include Star Trek Armada 2 and other games that involve shields and I can safely say ALOT of people are severely overthinking the concept of shields far as a potential SE game mechanic goes. There is an extremely simple way to balance shields without a bunch of extra under the hood mechanics to overly complicate it.
First bit of balancing, make them a prototech block (SE1) or the equivalent of one (SE2). This makes them much harder to come by and incentivizes going out into the world.
Second, you balance around singular blocks. In other words, how much damage from each weapon type do you want the shield to be able to take before it drops? EX: how many shots from a singular gatling should it take before the shield fails (assuming no regen)? We talking 100 shots, 1000 shots, 10,000 shot, or we talking say 50 or less? Now you've defined the first of 3 variables which is total health X. The second variable to define is regen rate Y. In Star Trek Online as one example you naturally regenerate a specific amount of shields every 6 seconds in addition to dedicated shield heals you may have. For an SE shield once you've defined the total health X, you say "I want it to regen at a rate of Y per second" just to keep it simple. Your last value is defining power draw Z to keep the shields active and for them to regenerate. In other words, you define total health X, regen Y, and power draw Z. There you have your baseline default values for a potential vanilla shield.
If the shield fails you can have one of two things happen, you can have it not come back up until the shields have fully recharged, or you can have it try to regenerate only to be knocked back down again. mechanically either is valid and doesn't change the overall function.
In terms of simplicity, Cython's shields are the best example you're going to get. They're easy to install, easy to run, and you can add "upgrades" to increase the capacity of the shields and/or recharge rate of the shields to your liking. Power draw increases accordingly. There's no need to make it anymore complicated than it needs to be. Start with something simple like Cython's shields. From there they can give folks sliders to increase/decrease the effectiveness of the regen rate, power draw, and total health granted for the shield. Or a toggle to just turn them off. If keen wants they could have a couple servers with shields on and a few with shields off if/when they get there in SE2, or should they implement in SE1 (seriously do both please). They already turn lightning damage and meteors off on official servers but still leave it there for everyone else who wants it. No reason they can't do the same with shields. For everyone else you can mod them to be weaker/stronger based on your preferences if you want or turn them off. This way you're only as effected by shields as you choose to be at that juncture.
As for me I've wanted to see shields for ages and it's a little ridiculous to me at this point we have to write these large script files or depend on 3rd party scripts just to make them work. I liken shields as similar to food systems or ammo racking mechanics. In most games I'm not fond of food systems as they're often just "eat/drink this or die" and it's all negatives if you don't interact with the system but no positives or benefits to interacting with it. Such as temporary buffs like you see in minecraft s one example. I also HATE ammo racking with a burning passion and think it's one of the most unfun/unskilled ways to win/lose a fight in every game that has it. So for me I would likely turn off ammo racking in SE2 if it has it, and already have disabled ammo racking in SE1. For a food system if it's purely "eat/drink or die" then I would likely turn it off or try to mod in a buff of some kind. Folks that like food systems and ammo racking can still use it, and because I can disable or mod it I do. Both sides win.
Shields hurt no one just by existing as you either have them or you don't. You'll either use them or you won't. Unless folks intend to play on a server that uses them, which why would you if you don't like them, you don't have to be effected by them unless you choose to be. If this were something like a Jump Inhibitor that can shut off jump drives and actually CAN harm someone just by existing, then this would be a different argument. The game is 10k years in the future, and although their tech may not have advanced from being in cryo sleep. precedent is set to have them "discover" the tech from someone else that was already there before.
In other words, define the default values of the shields, let players adjust them or turn them off from there. Folks are not harmed by the ability of others to use a shield. Some people prefer their flavor of SE to be without shields, I prefer mine with. Both playstyles are valid. I shouldn't have to rely on a mod for a block that harms no one purely by existing when the other side just has to turn them off. For that matter they can stick a 4th slider on the shields that says you can't use more than X shield generators per grid. This solves the shield stacking issue.
Lastly it boggles my mind how so many claim (not saying anyone specific here but speaking generally) they want more engineering challenges, yet when the potential to have to deal with a shield generator enters the picture and them having to adjust their tactics, people whine about it. If the only difference between you fighting someone the first time vs the second is them having a shield, and you lose purely because they have that shield, it means your build and/or tactics aren't good enough and you need to change. Far too many blame the shield for their not being on the level they think they are. Heck leave the shields off on official servers for all I care, but give me my shields already. Keep it simple like Cython's and lets get rolling.
One such logical problem: how do you want to use weapons and shields at the same time? Your own weapons will have to pierce your shield.
Do you stick another crutch on the crutch? Will you declare that the shield has friend-foe recognition? Declare that the shield shuts down at the moment of firing?
One such logical problem: how do you want to use weapons and shields at the same time? Your own weapons will have to pierce your shield.
Do you stick another crutch on the crutch? Will you declare that the shield has friend-foe recognition? Declare that the shield shuts down at the moment of firing?
Good. I wanted to comment on the subject of shield type nonsense and the like.
Understandably - many will disagree with me. It's soo tempting candy...
Now I'll write something on the subject of how to get out of this quagmire.
The technical speed limit for ships is supposed to be 300 m/s. It's obviously a barrier to the capabilities of the game engine. It doesn't matter if it ends up being 200 or 2000 m/s - it's just that such a barrier exists.
Realistically, current space rockets fly at 12-15km/s. Let technical advances make it possible to increase their speed to 30 or 100km/s. Probably not more, because the energy...
Realistic current weapons fire projectiles at about 1500 m/s (APFSDS). The limit of chemically powered projectiles is around 2000 m/s, no more. The fastest anti-aircraft and anti-missile missiles reach speeds of around 2500m/s. ABM missiles are faster, but also dimensionally larger (up to tens of tons). From electromagnetic weapons designers promise speeds of 5 to 10 km/s... Much more is impossible to achieve due to barrel length and energy...
What do we see? Space rockets or future spaceships are faster than projectiles from cannon. And it will always be so, because spacecraft can accelerate for long periods of time, seconds, minutes and hours... whereas a projectile has only a finite (and not great) barrel length of a gun.
How to solve it? How to solve it so that the nonsense disappears?
In my opinion, simply.
Reduce the speed of projectiles in the game. Significantly.
Make a rule that the maximum velocity of a projectile fired from a cannon must be no more than, say, 150 m/s (or else - half to a third of the maximum speed of the grid), and the velocity of a guided missile 150-200 m/s (half to two thirds of the maximum speed of the grid).
Make a rule that the maximum speed of the ship in the atmosphere is 100-150m/s (and 50, 75 or 100m/s is already the speed of sound).
Such a reduction should make sense on planets too - the planets in the game are scaled down considerably, so reducing the atmospheric flight speed gives the planets more realistic sizes and flight times. And it also gains the sense of soaring high above the atmosphere and flying to your destination "through space" (as balistic missile).
Of course, this will have its consequences. Fighting fast-moving ships will be much more difficult. So much so that ships flying at top speed won't be able to fight each other. It will be much harder to hit targets, because one will have to take into account fire overtaking (firing aimed far ahead of the target), the long flight time of the projectile to the target, and other circumstances.
It would probably also require some interventions in the game engine calculations - for example, adding the velocity of the firing ship and the fired projectile, calculating the impact energy of the projectile from the sum of the velocities of the projectile and the target, terminating the existence of the projectile according to time rather than distance or trajectory length (and this projectile existence time should be relatively long, at least 10-15 seconds for small projectiles and 30-60 seconds for "main caliber" projectiles).
Translated with DeepL.com (free version)
Good. I wanted to comment on the subject of shield type nonsense and the like.
Understandably - many will disagree with me. It's soo tempting candy...
Now I'll write something on the subject of how to get out of this quagmire.
The technical speed limit for ships is supposed to be 300 m/s. It's obviously a barrier to the capabilities of the game engine. It doesn't matter if it ends up being 200 or 2000 m/s - it's just that such a barrier exists.
Realistically, current space rockets fly at 12-15km/s. Let technical advances make it possible to increase their speed to 30 or 100km/s. Probably not more, because the energy...
Realistic current weapons fire projectiles at about 1500 m/s (APFSDS). The limit of chemically powered projectiles is around 2000 m/s, no more. The fastest anti-aircraft and anti-missile missiles reach speeds of around 2500m/s. ABM missiles are faster, but also dimensionally larger (up to tens of tons). From electromagnetic weapons designers promise speeds of 5 to 10 km/s... Much more is impossible to achieve due to barrel length and energy...
What do we see? Space rockets or future spaceships are faster than projectiles from cannon. And it will always be so, because spacecraft can accelerate for long periods of time, seconds, minutes and hours... whereas a projectile has only a finite (and not great) barrel length of a gun.
How to solve it? How to solve it so that the nonsense disappears?
In my opinion, simply.
Reduce the speed of projectiles in the game. Significantly.
Make a rule that the maximum velocity of a projectile fired from a cannon must be no more than, say, 150 m/s (or else - half to a third of the maximum speed of the grid), and the velocity of a guided missile 150-200 m/s (half to two thirds of the maximum speed of the grid).
Make a rule that the maximum speed of the ship in the atmosphere is 100-150m/s (and 50, 75 or 100m/s is already the speed of sound).
Such a reduction should make sense on planets too - the planets in the game are scaled down considerably, so reducing the atmospheric flight speed gives the planets more realistic sizes and flight times. And it also gains the sense of soaring high above the atmosphere and flying to your destination "through space" (as balistic missile).
Of course, this will have its consequences. Fighting fast-moving ships will be much more difficult. So much so that ships flying at top speed won't be able to fight each other. It will be much harder to hit targets, because one will have to take into account fire overtaking (firing aimed far ahead of the target), the long flight time of the projectile to the target, and other circumstances.
It would probably also require some interventions in the game engine calculations - for example, adding the velocity of the firing ship and the fired projectile, calculating the impact energy of the projectile from the sum of the velocities of the projectile and the target, terminating the existence of the projectile according to time rather than distance or trajectory length (and this projectile existence time should be relatively long, at least 10-15 seconds for small projectiles and 30-60 seconds for "main caliber" projectiles).
Translated with DeepL.com (free version)
If shields are added there needs to be some kind of counter. A special kind of weapon that is adept at killing shields but that otherwise does minimal damage to regular blocks would be one solution. It should come in a variety of formats ie mounted weapons, warheads etc and have it own drawbacks such as either being expensive, very large to mount, uses a lot of energy etc.
If shields are added there needs to be some kind of counter. A special kind of weapon that is adept at killing shields but that otherwise does minimal damage to regular blocks would be one solution. It should come in a variety of formats ie mounted weapons, warheads etc and have it own drawbacks such as either being expensive, very large to mount, uses a lot of energy etc.
Replies have been locked on this page!