you know, that might be very hard. as the AI code is disgusting.

If it is too hard, then don't do it. The "shoot only bombs" one I don't think should be too hard, though. I don't know, though. I've never seen the code. And I don't know much coding.

Isn't this just for primaries?

It's like make a flag that causes the weapon to never attack missiles or bombs.

I know how to do that. Label it a "huge" weapon, then make an ai_profiles.tbl and add:

So basically what I'm saying is that if the CIWS can't shoot the fighters, and the CIWS are the primary anti-fighter weapons, split the two things. Have a dedicated anti-missile gun, and a dedicated anti-ship gun. That way they can effectively engage both maneuver craft and bombs without having major gaps in coverage on either of those areas.

Yes.. that would be all nice and cool, but in FS all the ranges are very short when measured by any modern standard and happens to be the only single reason why modern CIWS are used primarily against incoming missiles. It would be utterly idiotic to have CIWS that would shoot only missiles in FreeSpace type environment. Any such anti-missile gun should atleast have a secondary targeting option (to target fighters) which by would exactly the same thing as a gun with 'small only' option currently is.

Or would it be logical for a capship boasting huge batteries of anti-missile turrets to shoot at the fighters bearing down on her with single twinkler bank while leaving the dozen or so dedicated anti-missile turrets silently waiting for their destruction?

And that huge option also causes weapon NOT to target fighters/bombers.

Isn't this just for primaries?

This would be for all weapons. If the code is too strange, it's not mandatory.

So basically what I'm saying is that if the CIWS can't shoot the fighters, and the CIWS are the primary anti-fighter weapons, split the two things. Have a dedicated anti-missile gun, and a dedicated anti-ship gun. That way they can effectively engage both maneuver craft and bombs without having major gaps in coverage on either of those areas.

Yes.. that would be all nice and cool, but in FS all the ranges are very short when measured by any modern standard and happens to be the only single reason why modern CIWS are used primarily against incoming missiles. It would be utterly idiotic to have CIWS that would shoot only missiles in FreeSpace type environment. Any such anti-missile gun should atleast have a secondary targeting option (to target fighters) which by would exactly the same thing as a gun with 'small only' option currently is.

Or would it be logical for a capship boasting huge batteries of anti-missile turrets to shoot at the fighters bearing down on her with single twinkler bank while leaving the dozen or so dedicated anti-missile turrets silently waiting for their destruction?

And that huge option also causes weapon NOT to target fighters/bombers.

Remember, these aren't modern CIWS. This takes place over 1000 years in the future, and with space combat, not sea naval. This isn't really that much of a freespace type environment, either. Of course, I'm not entirely sure of what you mean by that. And just for clarification, since all of the ships speeds are moved up, the field of engagement will be larger, and the weapon ranges farther.

And the ships won't have huge batteries of them, just enough to pick off what wasn't gotten by the intercept escorts, and they would naturally be placed at place that have a wide area of coverage. At most there would be three or so on a ship.

And your point was?

Any short ranged defensive weapon falls into the CIWS category.. Heck even the 'all knowing wiki' reports CIWS as

A Close-in weapon system (CIWS) is a naval shipboard weapon system for detecting and destroying incoming anti-ship missiles and enemy aircraft at short range (the threat(s) having penetrated the ship's available outer defences).

My main - and only - point is that we already have the tools to do what you wanted to do without any new features - that most likely wont get much usage. Weapons already prioritize bombs and if you want to change that use the 'turret-set-target-order' SEXP. Hence 'small only' with relatively short range... As for targeting in (real life) it probably wont matter a least bit to anything (lets say targeting CPU) whether the target is a fighter or a missile.

And your point was?

Any short ranged defensive weapon falls into the CIWS category.. Heck even the 'all knowing wiki' reports CIWS as

A Close-in weapon system (CIWS) is a naval shipboard weapon system for detecting and destroying incoming anti-ship missiles and enemy aircraft at short range (the threat(s) having penetrated the ship's available outer defences).

My main - and only - point is that we already have the tools to do what you wanted to do without any new features - that most likely wont get much usage. Weapons already prioritize bombs and if you want to change that use the 'turret-set-target-order' SEXP. Hence 'small only' with relatively short range... As for targeting in (real life) it probably wont matter a least bit to anything (lets say targeting CPU) whether the target is a fighter or a missile.

Okay, if it really means that much to you, I won't call these guns CIWS. I'll call them... AMMs, Anit-Missile Munitions. And anyways, can you prove that the defanition for CIWS won't change withing the next 1000 years? And do you know how long it would take to reprioritize every turret in every mission via sexp?

And keep in mind, we can't really compare this game to real life, as it takes place over 1000 years in the future, and doubtlessly a lot of tactics that were used today will be changed an unfathomable amount to conform to the technology we have then. I mean, your essentially expecting horsemen and spears and stuff to still be a viable combat weapon today. I am to, actually, but I'm allowed to.

Ok.. You missed my point kinda completely

Think very hard just WHY would there be purely 'anti-missile' weapon system that is build to be completely unable to shoot or even target anything else even when there aren't any missiles anywhere?

Actually, Only thing that reminds me of is 'good old' D&D priest weapon handling (where sword couldn't even stay in priests hands - not even with glue etc.).


On the other hand i really hope for a feature that allows modder to preset the targeting preference per turret basis in table files in addition to SEXP. Perhaps via subsystem flag...

Think very hard just WHY would there be purely 'anti-missile' weapon system that is build to be completely unable to shoot or even target anything else even when there aren't any missiles anywhere?

You don't need to use an 80mm round to take down an incoming missile. Those would be the primary anti-fighter defenses. The AMMs would be very tiny metal slugs, ineffective against ships armor. You don't need much to detonate a warhead that's designed to explode, but you do to damage a ship that's designed to repel much, much larger ordinances. You could have it have a fighter as targetable and shoot at it, but it would be a waste of ammunition.

check your pm's.

Now i'm just ****ing confused.

I'll hold off on my coding until this issues is resolved.

That would be best for now. I'll PM you when I come to a conclusion on this issue.

30 bucks says tak will try out as a modeler/effect artist

Huh, that's like betting on the sun rising tomorrow.