Skip to Content

Weapon cooldown, would you make use of it?

7 replies [Last post]
X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013

I play tested multi weapons. But also high AP cost weapons. This together with someone else. We both, absolutely loved it!!!

But here is my question. What choices would you make? Depending on the figures that I give here.

Weapon fast:
Damage 33%. (3 shots needed for a kill)
Costs 1 AP.
A player can shoot 6 times.

Weapon slow:
Damage 50%. (2 shots needed for a kill)
Costs 2 AP.
A player can shoot only 3 times.
The remaining 3 turns are by weapon A.

If I where to break it down into a direct combat between 2 squads.
Weapon slow, is certainly better. After 2 turns, the opponent looses an unit. While weapon fast needs 3 turns for this.

Why the "slow" then?
Well, after applying 3 times, this weapon needs to cool down. The fast weapon will continue firing.

If you think about it. The list goes like this:
33% - 50%
67% -100%
100% - 150%
133%
167%
200%
233% - 200%
267% - 250%
300% - 300%
333%
367%
400%

Every 100%, means a kill. But once killed, they will not return fire. I tested this out on normal riflemen and riflemen with a slow weapon. The riflemen with a slow weapon can gain an advantage, so big. That in the long run, they win by a big difference.

However, against a lot of hit points. The fast weapons still have a 50-50 chance. The slow weapons are actually weaker.

Since my health to damage ratio is only 3. The options that I have for these kind of weapons, are limited.
1 = 33.3%
2 = 50.0%
3 = 60.0%
4 = 66.7%
5 = 71.4%
6 = 75.0%
7 = 77.8%
infinite = 100%

As you can see, having higher options makes no difference. Yet costs a lot more. Of course, a difference in soldiers after one round shows more intel.

36 vs 36 (slower weapons)
1 = 24.0 vs 24, 100.0%
2 = 18.0 vs 24, 133.3%
3 = 14.4 vs 24, 166.7%
4 = 12.0 vs 24, 200.0%
5 = 10.3 vs 24, 233.3%
6 = _9.0 vs 24, 266.7%
7 = _8.0 vs 24, 300.0%
infinite = 0 vs 24, infinite%

The infinite weapons, are without health. These will only be 100% damage for a price. Like the Reaver and its Scarabs of Starcraft ;)
Although, an infinite cool down is impossible. It will be only 1 AP again, for 100% damage. You simply loose resources.

I can stack the effect. And say, let's pay 7 AP for that one time 100% damage. Or if I want to do 700% damage, simply pay 7 times more resources.

I see a bright future for this idea. But am also worried that I am missing something.
What do you guys think?

let-off studios
let-off studios's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/07/2011
Squadron Supremacy

When I see weapons with different levels of effectiveness versus different types of targets, I often wonder what would happen with a large squad of those units.

In other words, one weapon on its own may be ineffective, but what if there were even two soldiers armed with the weapons that needed cooldown? One could fire three rounds, and then while that first weapon is in cooldown the second soldier could fire their three rounds. Repeat the cycle and you have a constant barrage of that heavier weapon.

Maybe you've worked this out already, but what if you had a squads of five or six soldiers? How much damage can be done to a heavily-armoured target by each class of weapon? Do advantages/strengths still make themselves clear? Or is there now an amplification of the weaknesses inherent in the weapons with cooldown?

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
let-off studios wrote:When I

let-off studios wrote:
When I see weapons with different levels of effectiveness versus different types of targets, I often wonder what would happen with a large squad of those units.

In other words, one weapon on its own may be ineffective, but what if there were even two soldiers armed with the weapons that needed cooldown? One could fire three rounds, and then while that first weapon is in cooldown the second soldier could fire their three rounds. Repeat the cycle and you have a constant barrage of that heavier weapon.


Since it is based on AP. A constant barrage is not possible. Unless... Both sides have 12 AP to spend instead of 6 AP per round.

The list goes like this, but not 2 rounds, just 1:
33% - 50%
67% -100%
100% - 150%
133% - 200%
167% - 250%
200% - 300%
233%
267%
300%
333%
367%
400%

let-off studios wrote:

Maybe you've worked this out already, but what if you had a squads of five or six soldiers? How much damage can be done to a heavily-armoured target by each class of weapon? Do advantages/strengths still make themselves clear? Or is there now an amplification of the weaknesses inherent in the weapons with cooldown?

Good question.

I mentioned the conclusion.

X3M wrote:

However, against a lot of hit points. The fast weapons still have a 50-50 chance. The slow weapons are actually weaker.

But did not provide numbers.
Here is the 2 round list again. Only of infantry against infantry (The tank is literally the same, but even more health). This time both sides have 4 times more health. And remember, 100% means a kill. And a kill means less damage in the next round, from that side.

8.33% - 12.5%
16.7% - 25.0%
25.0% - 37.5%
33.3%
41.7%
50.0%
58.3% - 50.0%
66.7% - 62.5%
75.0% - 75.0%
83.3%
91.7%
100.%

With 12 AP, thus only 1 round:
8.33% - 12.5%
16.7% - 25.0%
25.0% - 37.5%
33.3% - 50.0%
41.7% - 62.5%
50.0% - 75.0%
58.3%
66.7%
75.0%
83.3%
91.7%
100.%

For destroying a tank with 75 health (light armor), 25 rifle men are to be used:
The normal need 3 turns. The "slow" need only 2 turns.

With only 5 rifle men. Things change. And the example is 6 AP (The basic game has 7) again:
The normal need 15 turns, which is 2.50 rounds.
The "slow" need 10 turns, but seeing as how you only have 3 turns each round, we end up with 3.33 rounds.

Seeing how the RPS effects work. After 1 round and 25 riflemen. The normal weapon will be able to kill 2 tanks in 1 round (given if all soldiers survive). The "slow" weapon is certainly to kill only 1.5 tanks.

***

If you wonder how a battle progresses with 2 big battalions. One side, normal weapons. The other side the "slow" weapons. 6 AP/round. Excluding sum effect of activity:

36 vs 36 slow
18 vs 24 slow
_6 vs 18 slow
XX vs 16 slow

let-off studios
let-off studios's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/07/2011
Pea-Shooters FTW

Hmm. Well, if you have both the AP mechanism and the longer cooldown rate working against the stronger weapon, as a player I would likely just stock up my armies with a bunch of riflemen with their quicker fire rate and hope for the best. There doesn't seem to be a need to diversify.

It seems to me (again, with a poor understanding of your numbers - I apologize) that by increasing the size of the forces in battle, you also amplify the weaknesses of the slower, stronger weapon. So what can effectively beat your riflemen within your RPS framework? Or would that be your ultimate dilemma here?

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Elaboration

let-off studios wrote:
Hmm. Well, if you have both the AP mechanism and the longer cooldown rate working against the stronger weapon, as a player I would likely just stock up my armies with a bunch of riflemen with their quicker fire rate and hope for the best. There doesn't seem to be a need to diversify.

I see. And the major diversity is only between the first (normal) and second tier (slow) of cooldown.
Paying 2 AP, only gaining 50% more damage.

let-off studios wrote:

It seems to me (again, with a poor understanding of your numbers - I apologize) that by increasing the size of the forces in battle, you also amplify the weaknesses of the slower, stronger weapon.
I understand that the numbers are hard to understand.

So I push this one forward. Re-explaining the results:

36 vs 36 slow
18 vs 24 slow
_6 vs 18 slow
XX vs 16 slow

What you see here is a start of the battle. We have 36 soldiers with normal weapons on the left.
On the right, we have 36 soldiers with the "slower" weapon.
Because of the kills that an army like this can make. Both sides loose units. (The resolution is simultaneously).

The normal side can kill 33%, equal to their number of soldiers.
The "slow" side can kill 50%, equal to their number of soldiers.

The result is that 18 normal and 24 slow remain.
Due to the mechanism of AP and such. The slow can still shoot this round.
And they are outnumbering the normal.
33% of 18 is 6.
50% of 24 is 12.
The slow even kill twice the amount now, than the normal.

18-12=6
24-6=18

Sure, the normal can shoot once more, according to the rules. But they would be killing only 2 more soldiers on the "slow" side. Which is reloading as we speak.
6 vs 16
And after this, 50% of 16 is 8. This is overkill now.
The end result is that the normal are wiped out.
The "slow" have 14 or 16 soldiers standing, depending on the rules.
Even 14 is a lot for a battle, where the only difference is that the weapon fires twice as slow, but 50% more damage.

***

The battle where the slow is not tier 2, but slowest tier 7 instead, gives even weirder results.

We begin with 36 normal vs 36 slowest.
Tier 7, does 77.8% damage. Which results in 28 kills!!
After one turn, we are left with:
8 normal vs 24 slowest.
Now, according to the rules. This small squad of 8 normal, may shoot 2 more times. And if we discard those rules. This squad actually may shoot 6 times.

Let's assume 6 times, since that one is strategical.
They may kill 16 soldiers that way. And the slowest remains with 8 as well.

8 normal vs 8 slowest.
The result in round 2 at turn 1 is:
2 normal vs 6 slowest.
And at turn 7 is:
2 normal vs 2 slowest.

I don't go into the detail of health and cover. But the numbers are close enough, that the randomness makes it almost a 50-50% chance here.

If we where to apply the "sum" rule. The slowest obviously win.
Even if we apply the bonus rule to the losing party. The slowest is still going to win.

***

The weakness of the slower and slowest weapons. Only come visible, if they are unable to kill. Thus the opponents can return fire.

let-off studios wrote:

So what can effectively beat your riflemen within your RPS framework? Or would that be your ultimate dilemma here?

I think that Snipers and such. Would benefit a lot of being able to fire slower. After all, you can gain +50% damage by paying only 1 more AP. And the decision is really only based on the fact. That you want to kill your opponent, before they return fire.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
This might interest you

When combining range and "slow". The unit has a boost on its effect of already being able to fire multiple times.

The very first level of +1 range, will double the amount of projectiles. This on top of +50% will create a 100% damage on average. This design is able to push back anything that is on equal terms in costs.

However, when dealing with a durable unit. Not only the "slow" will work against this. The range costs as well. Because +1 time shooting means nothing if the damage is too low.

I like this. Snipers can have little advantages on Range, Cool Down and RPS Attributes.
But these little advantages combined make a big difference on certain targets.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
This might interest you, part 2

Weapons that charge their energy. Take multiple turns. During this time, the target needs to remain within range and vision.
This way, I can create super weapons.
They cost 1 AP every turn. And it will be the only weapon charging.
Re-actions can be used to do other stuff with other squads.
Once the last AP is paid, the weapon fires.

The cost of the weapon is divided by the AP cost.

The best about this is that cool down and charging can be combined. The cheapest and most practical example has 4 charging rounds and 3 activation. It costs 1/9th.

Why a charging weapon instead of pea-shooters?
7 AP allows for one squad to fire 3 times a round. That is 3/7th of effectivness.
The charging weapon of tier 7, will be 7/7th effective.

Of course, having 7 squads of pea-shooters is a better solution. But they have to be in range as well. And they cost 7 times more to gather.

Super weapons that target a structure over time are the best usage for this.
Also a suicide unit that charges, can do a lot more damage at once.

A nuke could be a suicide super weapon. Having 21 times more damage than a normal equivalent. And less AP (only 7 instead of 15 due to sum rules)

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Coold down and Charging combined???

So, according to my own math......
Having to charge 6 rounds, for a 2 AP attack.
Or
Having to charge 5 rounds, for a 3 AP attack.

They cost the same in terms of resources.
And thus have the same weapon strength.

I can't help it. But I am sure I made a crucial mistake somewhere.
The weapon that needs longer to charge, should be cheaper?

I know that the cool down weapons are correct in design.
So, there is a part of the charging mechanic that I don't fully understand myself?

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut