Attack of the Ankle-Biters - Replacment player needed.
 

Unfortunately, I don't have time for another PBW game right now, but I just thought of an idea for a game that might spark ideas for someone else. The idea is a normal game of SE4 with Ship Construction turned off or limited such that you only have Frigates (Ankle-Biters) and Colonizers as ship sizes available. That's right, no other ship sizes. Yes, there would be some components that you just couldn't put onto a ship - like spaceyard components. Minefields would now be much more of a threat because it would take a fleet of minesweepers to sweep them. Planet defenses would now be formidable. Defense bases would inspire the fear that they should. Basically you would have to use massive amounts of Frigates to overwhelm your targets. You would have to be very creative in your ship designs. Anyone wanting to use this idea, feel free.

edit: spelling.

Slick.

(Appolgies in advance to Slick for editing the thread title. Didn't want to start a new thread. I will switch it back when we get someone.)

[ February 06, 2004, 21:35: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

Re: Attack of the Ankle-Biters - Replacment player needed.
 

Interesting idea, but I'd set up for ships up to the destroyer size. They're a bit more flexible and will make this sort of the game more fun.

Re: Attack of the Ankle-Biters - Replacment player needed.
 

THE FIRST PERSON TO SAY IT GETS A HAMMER!

Re: Attack of the Ankle-Biters - Replacment player needed.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Say what? "It"? Are you a Knight of Ni by chance? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Re: Attack of the Ankle-Biters - Replacment player needed.
 

I'd allow warships up to destroyer size, light carriers, medium transports, colony ships, and starbases up to battlestation.

However, I would also trim off large fighters and large weapon platforms, as they might each in their own way pose too great a challenge to ships of destroyer size or smaller.

It sounds like a GRAND idea for a game, mind. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif

Re: Attack of the Ankle-Biters - Replacment player needed.
 

If you allow light carriers, they'll be used as warships. Half fighter bays still gives you 400kt weapons space, and enougg size to use Huge mounts (IIRC, at least Large)

Re: Attack of the Ankle-Biters - Replacment player needed.
 

You could create a 300kT "escort carrier", or increase the fighter bays requirement of carriers to something like 75%...

Re: Attack of the Ankle-Biters - Replacment player needed.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">It's huge mount, and they would RULE against destroyers. They rule in a normal game until the other player gets LC's. Against even numebrs they even kick LC butt, but LC's are cheaper by a decent amount so it's hard to keep even numbers using carriers.

Allowing carriers would most definetly break this idea.

Geoschmo

[ July 26, 2003, 19:42: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

Re: Attack of the Ankle-Biters - Replacment player needed.
 

Oops.

I had forgotten that LCVs were 800kT in the unmodded game; I was thinking they were 400-500kT.

So, drop the LCV to ~400kT, adjust remaining features to suit, and allow them in. Versus 300kT destroyers, the 200kT space not occupied by fighter bays isn't going to win the day.

And, keep in mind, that s NOT 200kT of weapons space, that space is also eaten up by engines, control components, sensors, ECM, shields, armor, etc, etc.

As for mounts .... just chop 'em out.

...

I may work up something for such a game, myself. Maybe. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[ July 26, 2003, 22:20: Message edited by: Pax ]

Re: Attack of the Ankle-Biters - Replacment player needed.
 

So, here's my idea for hull sizes.

ECM%'s were based on a combination of EpM and mass; 300kT and 3EpM were pegged as "nomodifier" (IOW, Destroyers). Every 50kT or 1 EpM difference was worth a 20-point shift in inherent ECM; higher EpM was worth a penalty, as was greater mass.

Base hulls (the Spacedock, Outpost, and Starbase sizes) were assigned a basic progression independant of their size; these hulls, by rights, would have far more efficient built-in active and passive ECM measures (different materials, lack of engine radiation, etc).

The differing EpM is not a stab at newtonian movement, it's merely meant to allow some hulls to get more out of a given engine component than others (the Fast-class hulls, including the PRobe), and others to get less (carriers, transports, the heavy destroyer).

There's no seperate colony ship hull; simply use a Light Transport hull for that.

I think it may be a good idea to cut the size of the Spaceyard ship component to 100 or 200 kT -- or else give it a (for it's size) small amount of cargo space (maybe 600kT, enough for one Large Weapons Platform), so that the 600kT Bulk Transport hull could use it. Thus you could still have spaceyard ships.

So. Thoughts, comments, ideas ... ?

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">| Hull | Short | Size (kT) | ECM% | EpM |
|----------------|-------|-----------|------|-----|
|Probe | PR | 50 | +140 | 1 |
|Scout | SC | 100 | +80 | 3 |
|Fast Frigate | XF | 150 | +80 | 2 |
|Frigate | FF | 200 | +40 | 3 |
|Destroyer | DD | 300 | +0 | 3 |
|Heavy Destroyer | HD | 350 | -40 | 4 |
|Fast Carrier | XV | 300 | +20 | 2 |
|Carrier | CV | 400 | -60 | 4 |
|Fast Courier | XT | 200 | +60 | 2 |
|Light Transport | LT | 300 | -20 | 4 |
|Bulk Transport | BT | 600 | -140 | 4 |
|----------------|-------|-----------|------|-----|
|Spacedock | SD | 200 | +50 | n/a |
|Outpost | OP | 500 | +0 | n/a |
|Starbase | SB | 1,000 | -50 | n/a |
|----------------|-------|-----------|------|-----|
|Satellites | | | | |
| Small | SSa | 60 | ? | n/a |
| Medium | MSa | 90 | ? | n/a |
| Large | LSa | 120 | ? | n/a |
|----------------|-------|-----------|------|-----|
|Fighters | | | | |
| Small | SFr | 5 | ? | ? |
| Medium | MFr | 10 | ? | ? |
| Large | LFr | 20 | ? | ? |
|----------------|-------|-----------|------|-----|
|Weapon Platforms| | | | |
| Small | SWP | 200 | ? | n/a |
| Medium | MWP | 400 | ? | n/a |
| Large | LWP | 600 | ? | n/a |
|----------------|-------|-----------|------|-----|
|Troops | | | | |
| Small | SFr | 10 | ? | n/a |
| Large | LFr | 20 | ? | n/a |
|----------------|-------|-----------|------|-----|</pre><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Some notes:
</font>

• <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> Probes are developed after Scout, perhaps after Frigate</font>
• <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> Fast Frigates are developed after Frigates, perhaps after Destroyers</font>
• <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> Heavy Destroyer, obviously, are developed after destroyers</font>
• <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> Carriers require both Ship Con and Fighter tech</font>
• <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> Fast Carriers require more of both Ship Con and Fighter tech than Carriers do</font>
• <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> Carriers must be 50% fighter bay or more</font>
• <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> Fast Carriers must be 30% fighter bay or more</font>
• <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> Fast Courier must be 30% or more Cargo</font>
• <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> Light Transport must be 50% or more Cargo</font>
• <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> Bulk Transport must be 75% or more Cargo
  </font>

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">

[ July 26, 2003, 22:18: Message edited by: Pax ]