Tech Decisions

[unclejoe]

OK, with a few games under our belts, we've started looking at things with a more 'competitive' eye. In doing so, I'd like to provide some feedback on the Tech choices, looking at it from the mid-low Tech Level area (TL15).

Moving the Armor to Orbital Manufacturing DEFINITELY helps. Prior to that, OM was a VERY 'weak' tech.

A few others that dont appear to be overly attractive:

Fighter Tech: If you dont intend to use Fighters en masse, there is little here make you want to put points in the tech. Perhaps in keeping with the 'defenses keep on par with tech' idea, the bonus to PD could be moved here (out of Laser or out of Conventional Weaponry)? Of course if playing with the Optional Boarding rules, this looks a little more desirable as well.

Quantum Manipulation:This is a GOOD tech line at the upper ends, but it appears to be almost 'all or nothing' here. There are multiple options for higher armor penetration and the Disruptors, while nice, dont really offer a whole lot that you can't get out of the Torps or Mag Cannon (or even missiles up close). The Scout role is good, but it's high up the tree (as are the equally nasty Stealth Mines). The SD Torp is also hideously powerful, but again, it's high up the tree. Perhaps move the Scout role or the Mines down a level or so? This would help 'smooth out' the line a little bit.

Anyways, overall it looks really good but I find myself going to high levels in certain techs (usually the above) or going with zero in those techs (since there is no real 'penalty' for doing).

What are other people's thoughts on the 'balance' of the tech choices?

[TheDreadnought]

What would your suggested QM tech tree look like?

[unclejoe]

Quantum Manipulation
At the other end of the scale from orbital manufacturing is quantum
manipulation. This science deals with controlling matter and energy at the
subatomic level and even altering the fabric of space-time itself. Miraculous
things can be accomplished by a race with advanced understanding of this
technology.
Level 0 No effect
Level 1 Ion Cannon
Level 2 Disruptor, Stealth Mines
Level 3 Heavy Disruptor, Scout Role
Level 4 Spatial Disruption Torpedo
Level 5 Marines (T8), Advanced Stealth Generators

SD Torps are hideous enough IMO to be worth their own level. In fact, I could easily see them being the Level 5 tech and exchanging with Adv Stealth Gen. Unless using Boarding, I doubt I would go to Level 5 as is. So perhaps:

Level 0 No effect
Level 1 Ion Cannon
Level 2 Disruptor, Stealth Mines
Level 3 Heavy Disruptor, Scout Role
Level 4 Advanced Stealth Generators
Level 5 Marines (T8),Spatial Disruption Torpedo

[TheDreadnought]

What would you think of the following:

1. Change marines (Bx) to just Marines B, and get rid of the range extensions. Boarding torpedoes would always have a range of 4.

2. Rename Armed Recon (since it's now changed to all ftr types) to Nuclear Payload.

3. Rename Passive Recon to just Recon

4. Alter the tech tree to look like this:

1. Marines (B)/Interceptors
2. Carrier Role
3. Strike Fighters
4. Nuclear Payload
4. Recon

[TheDreadnought]

Jul 1, 2010 10:17:12 GMT -5 unclejoe said:

Quantum Manipulation
At the other end of the scale from orbital manufacturing is quantum
manipulation. This science deals with controlling matter and energy at the
subatomic level and even altering the fabric of space-time itself. Miraculous
things can be accomplished by a race with advanced understanding of this
technology.
Level 0 No effect
Level 1 Ion Cannon
Level 2 Disruptor, Stealth Mines
Level 3 Heavy Disruptor, Scout Role
Level 4 Spatial Disruption Torpedo
Level 5 Marines (T8), Advanced Stealth Generators

SD Torps are hideous enough IMO to be worth their own level. In fact, I could easily see them being the Level 5 tech and exchanging with Adv Stealth Gen. Unless using Boarding, I doubt I would go to Level 5 as is. So perhaps:

Level 0 No effect
Level 1 Ion Cannon
Level 2 Disruptor, Stealth Mines
Level 3 Heavy Disruptor, Scout Role
Level 4 Advanced Stealth Generators
Level 5 Marines (T8),Spatial Disruption Torpedo

What about?

Level 0 No effect
Level 1 Ion Cannon
Level 2 Disruptor, Heavy Disruptor
Level 3 Stealth Mines, Scout Role
Level 4 Advanced Stealth Generators
Level 5 Marines (T8),Spatial Disruption Torpedo

[unclejoe]

4. Alter the tech tree to look like this:

1. Marines (B)/Interceptors
2. Carrier Role
3. Strike Fighters
4. Nuclear Payload
4. Recon

Definitely better, but is still only necessary if you intend to bring lots of Fighters. There is nothing here for a non-Fighter race to want and I dont think Fighters are enough of an advantage to warrant being lower tech in other area.

I think it needs to include something that non-Fighter races would want as well (hence the original suggestion of the higher PD bonuses), at least to some small degree.

What about?

Level 0 No effect
Level 1 Ion Cannon
Level 2 Disruptor, Heavy Disruptor
Level 3 Stealth Mines, Scout Role
Level 4 Advanced Stealth Generators
Level 5 Marines (T8),Spatial Disruption Torpedo

Yep, that's really good too. I'd prolly go either Level 0 or 3+ though in this case (which isnt necessarily a bad thing). I just dont think Disruptors are superior enough to other weapons in other more 'necessary' trees to cause me to purchase just them. Ion Cannon are pretty handy though, so perhaps a point here might be good too.

[TheDreadnought]

Actually, I want to retain the ability to have boarding torpedoes w/o access to fighters, so it would have to look like this:

1. Marines (B)
2. Carrier Role, Interceptors
3. Strike Fighters
4. Nuclear Payload
4. Recon

I'm not sure I am uncomfortable with non-fighter races not having an investment in fighter tech. If they had access to fighter tech, they would tend to use it. There's no reason the rest of their fleet should suffer (from lower tech available) if they choose to concentrate on a batteline strategy.

Even so, I would imagine with this tree many people would at least buy TL2 so they can have a CAC in the fleet to provide a CAP.

[unclejoe]

Looks pretty good.

One thing to mention...would 'Interceptors' exist before Strikefighters? I could see them being reversed on the table since you prolly would not deploy a 'counter' to something until it is proven as a threat? Of course if you're just looking at them more as 'Light Fighter' vs 'Heavy Fighter' or something, then it makes sense as is.

It would also be interesting to have people want to make more of an investment if you want the PROTECTION vs Fighters and less investment just to get the 'entry level' in strike craft?

[TheDreadnought]

Yeah, I figure strike fighters require some specialized tech to cram that destructive a weapon system onto a fighter frame. Plus, I want people to be able to buy a CAP without having to use fighters as primary offense. I additon, some settings have fighters that really fill the interceptor role, without much in the way of strike capability.

[Jester]

I really like the revised QM tech tree. I agree that SD torps should be at level 5 (thats puppies are henious ).

I also like the Fighter Tech as well. Did I miss a thread...are we now thinking that Nuclear Payload will allow all fighters to be armed with Fusion Torps? I like it.

[TheDreadnought]

Yeah originally it was just interceptors. . . but I'm changing it in the update we're working on.

[theoz]

I like the revised QM tree. For the Fighters tech could there be a tech added concerning landing craft/assault shuttles for possible use in campaigns? If such specialised craft only become available at Fighter Tech 1 or 2 that might give non-fighter races some reason to spend points on this (or you might give them an option from the Orbital Construction tree to make starships capable of planetary landings).

I find myself thinking ahead to possible planetary assault scenarios.

[TheDreadnought]

I'll probably have "assault craft" as a separate role in the campaign setting.

[Jester]

Jul 1, 2010 16:57:01 GMT -5 TheDreadnought said:

I'll probably have "assault craft" as a separate role in the campaign setting.

Yummy...

[warchariot]

Yep, I like this a lot:

"Actually, I want to retain the ability to have boarding torpedoes w/o access to fighters, so it would have to look like this:

1. Marines (B)
2. Carrier Role, Interceptors
3. Strike Fighters
4. Nuclear Payload
4. Recon"

So nuke and fusion will be the same thing, or are they two different types of weapons? For example, with a nuke would you run the Flak/P Def, where fusion doesn't? If so, does fusion come in at tech 5?

That would give another reason to go up to tech 5.

[Jester]

Yeah, I think the idea was Nuke Payload would give both Intys and Strike fighters the ability to be armed with FT.

[warchariot]

Still, I think if nukes work like a normal attack for either, but raised the value of the attack, like was posted by Kashre on the fighter thread, then gave FTs at T5, that would give a reason to move up the tree and yet make fighters more valuable lower down the tree.