|
Re: Weapons, engines and mods, Oh my!
Quote:
Better than nothing. I still think there need to be some more comprehensive changes to make smaller ships worthwhile (e.g. Proportions mod). Quote:
Mostly sounds good though. PvK [ June 13, 2003, 23:17: Message edited by: PvK ] |
Re: Weapons, engines and mods, Oh my!
Quote:
Better than nothing. I still think there need to be some more comprehensive changes to make smaller ships worthwhile (e.g. Proportions mod). Mostly sounds good though. PvK</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Smaller ships also should have a good Combat To Hit Defense Plus as well |
Re: Weapons, engines and mods, Oh my!
Lone scouts are one of the few realistic roles left for small ships.
In SE4 you never need to transport a few people or small amounts of cargo. There are no limited-conflicts or wild space where you'll have to defend with small weapons, you have either safe systems or heavily defended enemy territory. Small lone combat ships are pointless because they are only likely to face massive enemy fleets. IMHO Proportions overcompensates this lack of roles for small ships forcing the player to use small ships to make his as massive as possible combat fleets. I like that there is more contrast between large and small ships. IMHO torps need a better damage ratio in adition to that to hit bonus. Either decrease their tonnage or increase their damage. |
Re: Weapons, engines and mods, Oh my!
I'd like to add to the original topic. While many (esp. fyron) will argue with me there is no useless weapon in this game. Let me review some:
Torpedoe weapons - that tech tree is available early and starts off cheap but goes up to level 10. Initially same points put into DUC will give you a better result. Torpedoes are generally useless untill Quantum. Then the weapon becomes quite the useful. True, it doesnt have the best dkt ratios and ROF 2 but its one of only three heavy-duty weapons. It has an advantage over WMG for coming earlier, IIRC being easier to research and having lower ROF and tonnage. Those things, when put on large or better - massive - mounts they can down ships with few shots. Those weapons are also the ultimate long-range because they lose no damage. In my tests a LC with torpedoes and shield depleter beats a LC and sometimes a CR armed with PPM and NSP. Overall it provides a relatively unique strategies that can give great benefits in the long run. Never a short-term weapon. Graviton Hellbore - tell me what you want about how weak and useless it is, two salvos done in short range and your all-powerful APB killer-ship is toast. ROF of 2. This one is ultimate melee weapon, but especially fefective at WP defense - you get to fire and move first, and you're up close already. Just set appropriate strategy, back it up with some lower ROF weapon and it'll take some effort to breach those WP's. Besides researching Astrophysics 2 gives some other benefits, and GH is cheap to research or build. Anything more? |
Re: Weapons, engines and mods, Oh my!
Quote:
|
Re: Weapons, engines and mods, Oh my!
Quote:
PvK |
Re: Weapons, engines and mods, Oh my!
I just don't like arbitrary unrealistic rules that make large ships a poor choice only to make smaller ships more used.
As I had tried to explain smaller ships are not used because there is no role for them in late game, and that cannot be changed without chaging the whole game structure. |
Re: Weapons, engines and mods, Oh my!
What's arbitrary or unrealistic about Proportions' settings for ship sizes?
I still don't see why you wouldn't use large ships in Proportions - I know I do when I play. PvK |
Re: Weapons, engines and mods, Oh my!
i think hes saying the other thing, that smaller ships are useless
|
Re: Weapons, engines and mods, Oh my!
I think there is some misunderstanding here about small and big ships in Proportions/AIC mods. PvK simply made smaller ships harder to hit than bigger ships - perfectly sensible idea ! Also, Proportions uses QNP, hence smaller ships can run faster and use less supplies. Otherwise, large ships are still better than smaller ships. It is just there are some roles that smaller ships would perform better even in late game !
|
Re: Weapons, engines and mods, Oh my!
He may have been refering to things like maintenance penalties on large ships, which realistically do not make sense. Why would something cost more to maintain just because it is housed in a larger hull? It would not. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif
Also, with proper QNP, small ships do not actually go faster, they go the same speed with the same fraction of hull space devoted to engines. They use the same fraction of total fuel per turn for that movement too. They do use more supplies per sector of movement, yes. But, they also store more supplies. A ship 2x the size uses 2x the supplies. But, it also stores 2x as many supplies, so it evens out. The advantages of small ships are that they require fewer resources spent on engines to get the same speed and they require fewer solar collectors to get infinite range (or fewer solar collectors to extend range by the same amount), although again, the same portion of hull space is required to get the same effect on max range of the ship. Here is an example: 2 ships size 300 and 600 require, say, 10% of hull space to get 6 movement from engine type X. 6 engines x 10 supplies used = 60 supplies per sector 6 x 500 supplies stored = 3000 supplies 3000 / 60 = 83.3 sector range 12 engines x 10 supplies used = 120 supplies per sector 12 x 500 supplies stored = 6000 supplies 6000 / 120 = 83.3 sector range So as we can see, you can get the same speed and range out of any two different size ship hulls in a QNP system. Of course, there will be very slight variations due to rounding in integer math, but those are not significant in the big picture. |
Re: Weapons, engines and mods, Oh my!
I'd like to hear what Andres meant.
Fryon, your two points are just insisting on simplifications where I intentionally added more detail: Small ships are cheaper to maintain because that's how they are in real-world engineering, which is massively more complex than SE4. Maintaining a massive vehicle is more expensive than maintaining a bunch on smaller vehicles. This is one of the major reasons why smaller ships are more common in real-world naval and commercial fleets. Large ships are more powerful, and can win battles by their presence and over-powering the enemy large ships and then stomping on the smaller ones, but a fleet that only builds large ships is probably going to be less efficient on a cost basis. As for speed, yes a simplified system could do that, but it's not by mistake that I made smaller ships capable of greater speeds. It's entirely reasonable that engineering limits would, for any level of technology, be able to make something smaller go faster than something larger. That is, if you accept the premise that building a working enormous ship is an engineering problem (the existence of the Ship Construction tech), then it is reasonable to assume that if your technology lets you make the largest ship you can build go at speed X, that you could use engineering trade-offs to achieve a higher speed with a ship that isn't so large. Again, there are tons of real-world and sci-fi comparisons where the same is true, and I think most consistent and detailed physical models would bear this out. PvK Edit: Oh, and Fryon, Proportions does meet your criteria for "proper" QNP. The only difference is that the maximum proportion of engines allowed to ship mass is greater for smaller ships, for the reasons mentioned above. [ June 16, 2003, 01:31: Message edited by: PvK ] |
Re: Weapons, engines and mods, Oh my!
The first "point" was just positing an example of what the problem might be. If you take a look at Adamant Mod, you will see that larger ships have increasing maintenance penalties. I believe that speaks for itself as to my position on that issue. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif
Actually, with QNP, there should be no limit on how many engines you can put on any ships. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif This is why Proportions does not use QNP, it uses pseudo-QNP (wow, that name is getting really really clunky... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif ). I don't recall saying that that was a bad thing at any point... although, the term "proper QNP" does connote that if you take it the wrong way, so I can see where the problem arises. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif [ June 16, 2003, 03:18: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ] |
Re: Weapons, engines and mods, Oh my!
Yes it was something about those lines.
It may be related the only time I tried to play in proportions I went bankrupt under the manteinance of my ships and the micromanaging hell pf my colonies. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif But no, larger sizes should REDUCE, not increase cost and manteinance. Of course that building and mantaining large ships cost much more than building a small one. And in many cases using a ship only as big a needed is a good way to save. But in real-world economies, large scale does significantly reduce costs. For example jumbojets and supertankers. Why do you think they keep trying to make those things even larger? They may be harder to build, require more technical refinenemts than smaller vessels, and of course each one needs a much larger inVersion to be built, but in the large picture they save money. |
Re: Weapons, engines and mods, Oh my!
Quote:
|
Re: Weapons, engines and mods, Oh my!
"Actually, with QNP, there should be no limit on how many engines you can put on any ships."
QNP..quasi newtonian propulsion. Why would there not be any engine limits? the Shuttle runs under newtonian system, and you can't go strapping 30 engines on. Engineering limits. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif |
Re: Weapons, engines and mods, Oh my!
That's cause the shuttle is a really small ship. That's where the engineering difficulty lies.
Check out the shuttle on launch... its a little teeny bridge, a cargo bay to make it useful, and the rest is all engines. There is no reason why you can't have a ship that is a little bridge/lifesupport/crewquarters combo, sitting on top of a huge pile of engines. Just look at any Earthly launch vehicle these days. 95% engines. Even with a low-surface area ship, you can put the fuel tanks in the middle and have lots of tubes running to the nozzles at the back http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif |
Re: Weapons, engines and mods, Oh my!
Quote:
Oleg: See SJ's post. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif Specific hull-based engine limits are counter to the goal of QNP, as they strictly limit the possibilities for propulsion designs for your ships. [ June 16, 2003, 20:03: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ] |
Re: Weapons, engines and mods, Oh my!
We likely could strap 30 engines on the shuttle if we assembled it orbit.
Actaully in reality I think their would be no concrete limit to the number of engines you could put on a ship. Although what would happen, and I think this is what Fyron and SJ were trying to say, is that putting an engine on a ship by itself increases the mass of the ship. In SEIV terms there is a limit to the number of engines for a specific hull size becasue once you reach a certain number of engines you have in effect changed the hull to the next size up. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Geoschmo [ June 16, 2003, 20:10: Message edited by: geoschmo ] |
Re: Weapons, engines and mods, Oh my!
Quote:
Yeah, many players get surprised/disappointed by the smaller fleet size that is maintainable in a standard Proportions game. Ideally, there should perhaps be two Versions, or altered settings for people who want to be able to have massive fleets. Actually it's a simple change which I did mention in some long-lost thread: just increase the planet values by say 10x, or whatever increased bankroll you want everyone to have. (Ideally, the resource storage values would be increased similarly, but that's not that big a deal, nor hard to do). Quote:
Mainly, reality is much more complex than SE4, and it seems to me from considering real-world examples, that one of the constants is that bigger is almost universally more expensive per unit measure rather than less - it's up to the larger and more expensive designs to realize their worth through even better performance. Detailed rambling musings on same, for those interested: Smaller ships can use many more standard components, while larger ones require much more specialized large-scale equipment and infrastructure to build and maintain, as well as special skills and technologies developed to deal with their special problems. For example, when the US re-commissioned WW2 battleships in the 1980's, there were many specialized skills for using their equipment which had been completely lost. Building and maintaining a brand new fleet of gunboats of equal mass to a single battleship would be much less expensive, because it can be done with relatively standard industry and equipment. Whole new facilities and technologies need to be developed and supported in order to build and operate massive ships, in part because many of the required items (materials, facilities, know-how, and technologies) don't exist for any other purpose. Also, in reality, the more times you build the same device, the less the total effort, and not only are small ships generally built in more numbers, but there would be more of the required items that duplicate with existing non-military items. Such things can't be directly represented in SE4, but the maintenance cost seems like the most applicable place to me. PvK |
Re: Weapons, engines and mods, Oh my!
Well yes, that's sort of my view, as well. Ship classes don't just represent to me the ability to build a ship of a certain size, but the ability to build a certain design, or which size is only one part. I have 1800kT colony ships available from the start, but I don't think that includes the ability to build a 1700kT propulsion system for a 100kT command module, and have it be linearly efficient compared to a more reasonable design.
I did consider adding a "Faster Ships" tech area, to allow developing engineering for ship designs with more propulsion capacity. I also considered other tech areas for other types of ship classes. However SE4's interface starts getting clunky when there are tons of ship classes, so it seemed like more clunk than it was worth, although I did add a couple of areas for specialized "Fast Colony Ships" and carriers, due to fan requests. There are also issues to consider from the very abstract SE4 movement and combat systems, as well as from a game balance perspective. Most basically, if a ship design has enough of a speed advantage over its enemies, it can do silly things in combat compared to weapon ranges. This can cause imbalances with unrealistic tactics that take advantage of the lack of opportunity fire in the combat engine, such as ramming or hit-and-run without the enemy being able to fire back at all. Moreover, it can imbalance the need for research into (and ship design related to)propulsion if speed increases can be acquired by tacking on an extra engine for 10kT, compared to having to do extensive research and costly deployment of advanced engines. Now, there might or might not be a way to re-design the entire set of values for combat and propulsion components in order to address all of this in a different way, for the purpose of satisfying a desire for more flexibility in the number of engines that can be stacked on a design, but that wasn't what I was trying to do. PvK Quote:
|
Re: Weapons, engines and mods, Oh my!
PvK, in mods like P&N and Adamant (those that use full QNP), researching more propulsion technology is certainly necessary. It takes a large chunk of hull space to even go 6 movement. More propulsion means you can lower the amount of space needed to get going at 6 movement, or you can make the ships go faster, while still taking up as much space for engines. Just tacking on one more 10 kT engine often has no effect because it requires several of them to get one movement point on all but the smallest of ships. In P&N, a Destroyer requires 12 Ion Engine Is to get 6 movement points, which takes up 120 kT (40% of the hull). Researching Contra-Terrene Engines means that you only need 9 of them to get 6 movement. So as we can see, researching more propulsion technology is certainly a very good idea. With large ships, the amount of kTs freed up only gets larger.
|
Re: Weapons, engines and mods, Oh my!
Thanks. I haven't really absorbed much of what P&N does, though I think it's really a wonderful mod. I haven't yet studied much of Adamant mod either, though I will one of these days. What you say demonstrates that yes, unlimited QNP engines can avoid some of the issues I mentioned, with certain values.
Certainly that sort of system has some advantages, but I think using engine limits also has some of its own, as I've rambled about enough. I still like the trade-offs and limits created by Proportions. I'd probably sooner add more engine types and variants, or go to a scale-mounted engine system, rather than unlimited QNP, because that would allow me to retain more appropriate to-hit modifiers for engines. Scale-mount engines is a cool alternative, but not entirely perfect either. Ah well. PvK |
Re: Weapons, engines and mods, Oh my!
Well, P&N and Adamant use small numbers for Standard Movement (3-7 or so), whereas Proportions uses big numbers. Engines per move for a ship size is equal to tonnage structure / 50 (which you have in Proportions). If you double (or triple) both of these sets of numbers, you can get slightly more precise movement scales for ship sizes, but you hit the 255 cap on max standard movement points much more quickly. Basically, it boils down to whether you want to require a handful of engines to go "fast" or if you want to require a lot of engines to go "fast".
|
Re: Weapons, engines and mods, Oh my!
Quote:
40%? ... 20%? How much will you use for engines, supply tanks, defenses? Quote:
Sure, you can fly circles around the enemy, but you can't do much damage, and your ships will drop like flies as soon as the enemy gets a chance to fire on you. PS: Don't expect super-speedy rammers to be very effective, since you'll have no armor to bulk up your impact damage, and you just spent thousands of radioactives to build those precious engines. In any case; I played many games like this at home with two other people... Each liked their own tactics, and are solidly convinced theirs is best. (Me = big on defenses - if you can't kill me, I can't lose) (Brother = Big on Weapons - boom, you die, I win) (Father = Big on engines/speed - weak attack, and no defense, but if you can't hit, it don't die.) |
Re: Weapons, engines and mods, Oh my!
this topic deserves a rename
|
Re: Weapons, engines and mods, Oh my!
In Adamant, colony ships are 3300 kT and the colony module is 3000 kT. I treated them as roughly 900 kT mass ships for purposes of engines per move, mostly just to make them slower than if they were 300 kT mass (without having no chance to move, as 300 kT is not enough to move much with a mass of 3300 kT). http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif
|
Re: Weapons, engines and mods, Oh my!
Again, from what SJ says, it sounds like it is possible to get around most of the issues I anticipated with unlimited-engine QNP, if you use different sorts of values from the ones I used in Proportions. P&N seems like a great mod - I'm really hope I get more time so I can give it more of a shot (I've only started one game of it so far, though I've been tempted by the mentions of replacement players needed for PBW games).
I wouldn't say either system is better - they're both good and interesting (way more so than the unmodded system). I still rather like the results of the Proportions QNP. I wouldn't change Proportions to unlimited-engine QNP, although it might make an interesting racial advantage. Proportions offers a nice range of propulsion designs possible with different combinations of engine types, with interesting trade-offs in cost, speed, fuel consumption, and combat mods. Those things could still exist without engine limits, but the engine limits add some baseline abilities to ship classes which give the classes themselves performance differences to consider. I like that small ships can go quite fast with just a few low-tech high-output engines (but can't go insane speeds by tripling the number of engines, even though they have "room" to do so), while massive ships take a lot to keep up to speed, and usually can't keep up with the fastest small ships. If you really want a fast large ship, though, you can spend a lot and develop gravitic drives (which isn't as efficient for smaller ships, so there is an interesting backwards efficiency effect there if that tech is developed) and/or deploy scale-mount emergency propulsion (which can be a nasty surprise for enemy light ships if mounted on a heavy interceptor ship). PvK |
Re: Weapons, engines and mods, Oh my!
Quote:
Also, I never said that either system was intrinsically better, just that I prefer unlimtied QNP. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif I think that all resulted from a word being taken differently than it was intended (proper-QNP). http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif |
Re: Weapons, engines and mods, Oh my!
Quote:
I think you may be comparing a group of tiny ships that is actually smaller than the massive one. If they are enough for the job, then yes the big ship would be overkill, but that does not make it less efficient. That logic does not make any sense. In general bigger designs are more efficient BECAUSE they are bigger. Buying a large bottle of Coke is cheaper than buying many small cans. Installing central air conditioning in a building is cheaper than installing an individual unit in every room (specially when it comes to usage and mantenance cost) The same goes for ship systems. Building a heavy baseship must be much cheaper than an equivalent tonnage of frigates. Frigates will have their advantages, harder to hit, can be built faster by using many SYs. When it comes to use they can be much more flexibe being able to operate in many places at once. Heavy baseships advantage is only being cheaper and more efficient. Yes there are many technical details such as specialized parts, facilities, and support know how and technologies. That is what's why you have to research to get larger hull, anyone that can design a certain ship can easily design something twice as big, research means solving all those technical issues involved in the larger design. |
Re: Weapons, engines and mods, Oh my!
I tried looking for cost figures today, but haven't found a great source yet. My impression mainly comes from various books and discussions of naval design, which have often mentioned the great expense and difficulty of producing capital ships, which could only be justified by their ability to deliver ship superiority (usually, for semi-modern navies, by virtue of superior range).
I am entirely certain of it being true for the example of WW2 tank design. Both the Germans and the Americans considered different designs which were either relatively small weak and cheap, or large and powerful but much more difficult to produce and maintain. Coke bottles and Coke cans are both common and cheap. The six-pack is a little more like the battleship anyway, because it's got slightly more complex and expensive ingredients and manufacturing process. Knowledge is only part of the challenge of producing something. Here is a good example of the sorts of problems that appear when building building massive ships, from an excellent web site describing the Japanese Yamato class battleship: Quote:
PvK |
Re: Weapons, engines and mods, Oh my!
Surprisinly, nobody mentioned yet the wonderfull idea of using engine mounts insted of engine numbers to achieve "realistic" ship movement.
I forgot what mod uses this idea, but I really like it ! |
Re: Weapons, engines and mods, Oh my!
Good point.
There is also the mQNP system, which uses mounts to decrease the size of engines for small ships. You get almost the same physics, with engine space used <--> speed, etc... The only differences are: 1) players MUST remember to use a mount when adding engines. 2) damage to engines is not as smooth, but with a 1 engine = 1 MP, the differences will be relatively minor. (Although for large ships, the engines will act like armor) 3) The 255 MP limit is no longer an issue. Instead, you have to worry about the 1%-100% range of possible engine sizes, and the prevention of players from using unmounted engines accidentally... 4) And stuff like supply storage, repair rates, etc... In addition, there is also the Hybrid-QNP option, which has yet to be developed fully. 1)a) Use the mQNP to make engine classes (Light, Medium, Heavy) b) Use Engines Per Move to separate ships in each Category, and give them whatever values result in the correct momentum. 2)a) Use mQNP for light to medium ships, and then start cranking up the EPM for larger ships, which can use the unmounted engines. [ June 17, 2003, 17:49: Message edited by: Suicide Junkie ] |
Re: Weapons, engines and mods, Oh my!
Hey, I mentioned scale-mounted engines as an option. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif
SJ, I don't quite follow all of the details you mention. Seems to me though that one basic way to do it would simply be a scale mount (like Proportions uses for several types of components) which have size/cost/structure proportional to ship mass, and the unmounted Version is so large that it either can't be used, or is really impractical except for large ships. That's an elegant idea that has several benefits, but it seems like there are a few issues to get around, too. * One is the size range that can be supported using scale mounts - it's pretty big, but might keep a mod from having really distant extremes. * Another is that IIRC, mounts can't change supply storage, so if your engines carry supplies, the smallest one will carry the same amount as the largest one using scale mounts. * Another is the hard-coded repair system, based on number of components repaired per turn. If an escort and a battleship have the same number of engines, then they'll take the same time to repair or retrofit. PvK [ June 17, 2003, 16:41: Message edited by: PvK ] |
Re: Weapons, engines and mods, Oh my!
FYI:
The (unpublished) mod I am working on is based around 100 kT/2 MP engines. It uses a mixed system to scale the engines: The baseline is a 1000 kT ship. Mounts for ships ranging from 10 – 900 kT. Engines numbers/Engines Per Move for ships ranging from 2000 - 9000 kT. I removed the supply storage ability from the engines so that a ship’s supply capacity was smoothly scalable and more under player design control. To compensate, I added more supply storage component options (normal, conformal, and drop supply storage) and in a variety of sizes. I also tweaked the kT/supply storage ratio for supply components. The % of kT and other attributes to move any ship speed = X is constant through all the ship sizes. I also did the same for the vehicle control components. I am happy with this approach as it meets most desiderata. Very minor problems with this approach: Some casual (to me) rounding errors. The hard-coded repair system does not scale. You need to scale-up engine damaging weapons w/mounts for them to work against all but the smallest ships. The ship design process is more challenging and intolerant: you need to remember to use mounts for ships <1000 kT and to add supply storage to all designs. I have done everything I can to minimize this issue, including extensive documentation. The idea is relatively mature at this point in the mod process, so I would be open to sharing specifics and accepting criticism if anyone is interested. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Gecko |
Re: Weapons, engines and mods, Oh my!
Quote:
|
Re: Weapons, engines and mods, Oh my!
I have never attempted a mod, and so I have no clue if this is even possible, but I thought I would toss out my idea anyway. I'm sure you'll let me know if it's impossible. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif
Could you keep the number of engines the same for all ship sizes but add another component that is necessary for them to work? Perhaps this component could be called an "ion generator," and you would need more of them to power the larger ships (one for an escort, two for frigate, three for a destroyer) etc. Each one would cost a certain amount of resorces (perhaps high on rads, medium on mins, and low on organics) and take a certain amount of supply. They could be part of the propulsion tree, and they could become more efficient at higher levels (Ion Generator I costs more resources and uses more supply than Ion Generator II). That would give players an incentive to move up the propulsion tree - otherwise you would be powering your larger ships with fuel-hogging low-tech "ion generators." |
Re: Weapons, engines and mods, Oh my!
How would those "ion generators" be any different from the current engines, then?
|
Re: Weapons, engines and mods, Oh my!
You could make engines store no supplies, which would force players to use supply storage comps (and can add a lot more design options). Check out Adamant, which has engines at 5 kT and then reactors that are 5 kT and store supplies (supply pods are gone). The B5 Mod does something similar, except that it's reactors generate something like 3000 supplies per turn and store 3000, so supplies are changed to power per turn instead of feul.
I don't think there is a way to make your idea work that is any different than just using engines as they are now (or in a QNP system). [ June 17, 2003, 21:32: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ] |
Re: Weapons, engines and mods, Oh my!
Well, maybe if you did something with the life suport, bridge and/or crew quarters components, because those affect movement if they are missing. You could decide one or more of them was unnecessary, and then use that ability as a required widget for the engines, probably.
Or you could use bonus movement for your engines, and standard movement for your widget-that-makes-engines-work, because the ship needs to be able to travel at at least speed 1 via standard movement, before it will move at all via bonus movement. PvK |
Re: Weapons, engines and mods, Oh my!
Quote:
Fyron, from your description of Adamant, it sounds like you've already got something like this working. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif PvK, that's a fascinating idea about the crew quarters, bridge and life support. Crew quarters could be modded to include life support (can't really have crew without it), and the life support could be changed to the engine widget. Perhaps one of these days I'll give in to my temptation and dig into the data files... |
Re: Weapons, engines and mods, Oh my!
here goes the realism.... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
|
Re: Weapons, engines and mods, Oh my!
You can't give the LS ability to the CQ, or else the engines will still function normally without ion generators/reactors. IIRC, complete loss of LQ only drops engine movement by half; complete loss of CQ by half; and loss of bridge by half; and all three modifiers multiply.
|
Re: Weapons, engines and mods, Oh my!
Well... sorta. Having none of them gives 1 movement no matter how much movement you generate. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif
|
Re: Weapons, engines and mods, Oh my!
Lifesupport loss gives 1/4th normal speed, only 1/2 speed for the other two.
Also, though you can require a design to have any number of widgets, the ship will not lose speed until ALL the widgets are dead http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif It sounds to me like you want the effects you get with simple mQNP |
Re: Weapons, engines and mods, Oh my!
Taera, you have a good point.
Quote:
Ah well, I guess my idea really won't work. But thanks for giving it thoughtful consideration; I do appreciate it. |
Re: Weapons, engines and mods, Oh my!
Quote:
PvK |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:09 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1999 - 2025, Shrapnel Games, Inc. - All Rights Reserved.