Could Tactical Missles be ballanced differently?

Presently, only stationary Tactical Missile Launchers (TMLs) have an economic drain (8 mass, 250 Energy).. What if all Tactical Missile platforms also had a cost while firing? I think this would add a bit of realism, spam dis-interest, and strategic value. Especially, it would encourage more barrages of missles, and not mean loosing navy = free missle bombardment.

Considering the UEF for example, (assuming NO STALLING, NO ASSISTANCE)
T2 TML "Aloha" - 800 mass, 4k energy to build, deals 6000 (300 dps) damage, range of 15-256

Other UEF tactical missile platforms are:
T2 MML "Flapjack" - 200 mass, 1.5k energy, deals (60 dps) 300 damage, range of 5-60
T2 Cruiser "Governor" - 2000 mass, 18k energy, deals (120 dps) 1200 damage, range of 13-150
T3 SMS "Ace" - 9000 mass, 80k energy, deals (200 dps) 2000 damage, range of 15-256

Using the TML as a basis, suppose the other platforms had lower production cost and an economic drain WHILE FIRING. For instance,
T2 MML "Flapjack" - 100 mass, 1.5k energy, deals (60 dps) 300 damage, range of 5-60, drains 0.25 mass, 90 energy while firing
T2 Cruiser "Governor" - 1500 mass, 12k energy, deals (120 dps) 1200 damage, range of 13-150, drains 2.5 mass, 300 energy while firing TM
T3 SMS "Ace" - 7500 mass, 60k energy, deals (200 dps) 2000 damage, range of 15-256, drains 3.5 mass, 750 energy while firing TM

I was in Discord with an long time player who was talking about a number of changes and on his suggestion, just posting this here to see if there's interest.

Other thoughts:

1. I don't know if the engine can handle this,
2. Hold Fire could be used to prevent wasting missiles on TMD
3. Some races could have more efficient missiles (seems Nomads would, Seraphim cost more Energy, less mass)
4. In many cases not much of a production discount makes sense as the unit serves other roles
5. This would strengthen the value of lobbed projectile and energy weapons with less of a cost
6. Engineers could assist or perhaps not, I don't know.

Why do you want that ? Is it for realism ? In this case, why ML doesn't pump up 2000 e/s when fire its laser ?
Another issue is that mml/cruiser will often fire at random unit, that are moving and will most likely dodge, so you are effectively wasting mass/e.

This is a terrible idea. MMLs are already bad enough and don't need a nerf.

1. The engine can do this easily.
2. Would be better to simply require manual targeting for all missile weapons, like current TML.
3. Of course.
4. What?
5. It would be a huge nerf to all weapons that had this mechanic because you would be losing mass every time they fired.
6. Yes they would.

The main problem I see with this is countering pd creep/turtles becomes much more difficult.

Right now the mass cost of MML vs PD and TMD is well balanced so MML can overcome a turtle base, if all else is equal.

If missiles suddenly cost mass, the turtler will always win (again, all else equal). Which means all games become astro.

As I see it, tac missile launchers (the buildings alone) are cheaper than they are worth, so you pay extra for the missiles. This allows for tactics like building one and then not using it (to trick your opponent into prioritizing it or making TMD), reclaiming it after launching, etc. etc. Sort of an a-la-mode unit to increase flexibility. MMLs and other tac-missile-launching-units are paid in full up front. Because they are moving, it would be a pain to also micromanage the cost of missiles.

And if your opponent builds a torrent and you have no TMD, you've already lost anyway.

@keyser
Realism isn't a high priority for me, like sprinkles on donuts, it's a "nice-to-have", not a "need-to-have".

@Pearl12

The main problem I see with this is countering pd creep/turtles becomes much more difficult.

Right now the mass cost of MML vs PD and TMD is well balanced so MML can overcome a turtle base, if all else is equal.
And if your opponent builds a torrent and you have no TMD, you've already lost anyway.

I agree that Turtles & Creeping PD need to be countered. With a mass cost, it's just more of level playing field.

I almost exclusively play Setons, and once getting locked out of navy, non-Sera players are effectively broken. IT seems wrong to me that a player can just spam missile launchers (which counter Air), with near perfect accuracy and an unlimited supply. It's a walk-in-the-park, while your opponent is fighting for their life inside a land locked rape-cage.

Maybe just naval gets production cost, and maybe it could be 1.5 mass/sec. But some sort of cost is all I am asking for.

I am sure people made the same argument relating to Artillery costing energy when firing, yet it's balanced.

@FunkOff said in Could Tactical Missles be ballanced differently?:

This is a terrible idea. MMLs are already bad enough and don't need a nerf.

1. The engine can do this easily.
2. Would be better to simply require manual targeting for all missile weapons, like current TML.
3. Of course.
4. What?
5. It would be a huge nerf to all weapons that had this mechanic because you would be losing mass every time they fired.
6. Yes they would.

What if it was just naval missle platforms then? They have much greater ROF, DPS, and Range.

2. I think manual targeting would be too much of a nerf. But what many players already do with MMLs and so on is "Hold Fire" and once enough units are in place, barage. Making missles cost something would encourage this, and reward skill over stubborn ineptitude.
3. What I mean is, a MML only fires missles. A Cruiser fires missiles, but also does TMD, and AA. So that's why making I wouldn't discount the same as an MML.
4. It could be, but that would mean more use of the weapons like artillery.
5. Really? Not if it's considered a reload behavior vs a production behavior

Again the main thing I am asking is NOT for a huge nerf but a tuning of Tactical Missles. What about 0.25 mass + 100 energy /sec for a cruiser .

More strategic use of missiles, less spam, and a better chance for navy denied players is all I'm asking for.

What is the problem you are trying to solve here? That losing navy on Setons means you lose your base? Same thing exists with battleships, just takes a little longer. Either way you're out of the game. Whether it's destroyers, battleships, or cruisers, if you lose navy you will lose. Just like if you lose land you'll lose your base if you're front.

It is indeed hard to come back from losing navy on a naval map (or the naval portion of a map if you are the "navy" player). Isn't that how it should be, though?