Re: Carrier Battles Mod
 

Thanks to Geo, the Carrier Battles Mod is installed and playable on PBW already!

I'm going to open a couple small PBW games for people to join.

NOTE:
Be sure to play single player against the "AI"s in order to get yourself aquainted with the system.

They won't offer any resistance, but make sure you can get a new colony established, and design a warship capable of moving to, and attacking a neutral planet.

And read the Important!Readme.txt http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif It has many tips, and lists the pitfalls you are likely to encounter.

----

Carrier Battles #2
==================
- Four player slots.
- Medium tech start to get things moving.
- 2000 racial points.
- Small map, 5-10 systems per player.
- # of homeplanets, value to be determined by players. Probably either 1 good planet, or 3 medium/poor planets.

Re: Carrier Battles Mod
 

I have posted a review of the Carrier Battles mod on my site http://www.secenter.org/

Re: Carrier Battles Mod
 

BTW, the Null planets thing has already been fixed.

Re: Carrier Battles Mod
 

I don't know if these are bugs or not...but a few turns into the CB#2 i've noticed the following...

Most FTR weapons not using supplies...is this intended? IE Laser Cannons, Plasma Cannons...These same weapons also apply to regular ship weapons as well...

Multiple FTR enignes displayed...FCD 1,3,4 all at once...

Are FTR drive operating like ships engines...multiples of type allow faster in combat movement?

If FTR weapons/components are not using supplies (other than torps, missiles, DUCs), then what use is the required supply pod?

Kana

Re: Carrier Battles Mod
 

Without supply you'll be stuck at one speed, even if your engines don't require supply.
Its a safety net so you don't design useless fighters.

Only one fighter drive is effective per vehicle.
However, the more powerful engines are also larger.
You will commonly wish to use an older, smaller drive on your heavy bombers in order to cram another missile launcher on them. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

The energy weapons do not use supply, but have a correspondingly massive cost in radioactives to power them.
They are a bit weaker and more expensive, but will be pretty much required for any extended sortie into enemy space.
Meanwhile, if you are sitting on a resupply depot, you are free to expend the cheap and powerful ordnance without worring about running dry. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Re: Carrier Battles Mod
 

Then wouldn't the display progression be 2,4,6...if the next corresponding engine is slightly less space?

Also on the EM-Missiles...Yes they have supply cost...but I would see these as more of a one shot single missile, like a harpoon, or hellfire...especially considering their rate of fire...so why a supply cost? Seems redundant...just my opinion...

Kana

Re: Carrier Battles Mod
 

On the fighter, perhaps. They are also usable on ships and bases, which need to account for the shots spread over multiple combats.

The EM-CSMs can be fired a second time in combat if you have enough supply points and survival time.

---

The fighter drives alternate bigger/faster, then smaller/tougher
They are grouped by speed. The level 2 is faster than level1, while the level 3 is the same speed as 2 but smaller.
Thus #3 obsoletes #2, but not #1, since #1 is still smaller than #3

Re: Carrier Battles Mod
 

Wouldn't it be far, far less confusing to just have two separate lines of engines for that? Complete with different names...

Re: Carrier Battles Mod
 

Its a progression...

level 1 = speed 2
level 2,3 = speed 3
level 4,5 = speed 4
etc.

Where the advanced version at each speed is miniaturized yet still bigger than the slower drives.

Re: Carrier Battles Mod
 

Right, it is a progression... it would still be a progression with two separate lines of components. You have your big, cutting edge engines for blazing speed and your smaller, more efficient engines. Is something wrong with giving them separate names and families to make the distinction more clear? The same goal would be achieved, minus any possible confusion.