Error in Component Enhancements file
 

The Component Enhancements file lists an incorrect value for Massive Ship Mounts. This file lists the minimum tonnage as 1100 kT. The correct number should be 1200 kT.

Grogard

Re: Error in Component Enhancements file
 

There are no 1100KT ships.

Thus, a DN (1000kT) can't use the mount, only baseships(1500kT) can.
Changing the value to 1200 will have absolutely no effect on your game

In fact, any value from 1001 to 1500 inclusive would not change your game, unless there are modded shipsizes.

[This message has been edited by suicide_junkie (edited 30 May 2001).]

Re: Error in Component Enhancements file
 

Actually you forgot about the Heavy Carrier SJ, I think it's 1200kt in the basic Version.

Re: Error in Component Enhancements file
 

Thanks, I've never actually used a heavy carrier, so they slipped my mind http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif.

I wouldn't expect a Massive mount weapon on a carrier though, I would think extra fighter bays and shields and PDCs would be most popular.

Still, that leaves any number from 1001 to 1200 having no effect on the game. So the Heavy Carrier still gets to use those Massive mount weapons like it used to.

Re: Error in Component Enhancements file
 

I don't consider this an error. That seems a reasonable point at which to allow 'massive' sized weapons on a ship. If there isn't a class at exactly that size right now, so what? A small change to VehicleSize.txt and there would be one. Actually, in my personal mod the Dreadnought is 1250kt so it qualifies for massive mounts. (Battleship is 1000kt and all the rest slightly larger, too.)

The only 'error' I can think of in the compenhancement fle is that there's no way to give SHIELDS a mount. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif If we could have scaled shield generators in the same way we have weapons for larger vehicles the system would be perfect.

Re: Error in Component Enhancements file
 

How about scaling engines too. This would eliminate some of the complaints about engine size. DN engines that provide more power (movement) but guzzle supplies and take up a lot more space.

Re: Error in Component Enhancements file
 

I think having different mounts for shields isn't really needed since the protection provided by shields stacks, in a way covering the heavier mounts simply by having additional shields. It would only really become useful if either the number of shields that could be placed on a ship were limited, or the protection did not stack.

Re: Error in Component Enhancements file
 

Hey, guys, if you want a mount for shields and engines, use a weapon mount with a "weapon type" of "none".

You can't restrict the mount to engines or shields specifically, but you could make the components smaller with an increased cost, then have 6 mini shields rather than 4 fullsize.

When component restrictions become available, you could have engines that are only legal on one size of ship, so you could have "Escort Engines" vs "Dreadnaught Engines", the latter being bigger, slower and more expensive (or whatever you feel like).

Re: Error in Component Enhancements file
 

Both of these "observations" are off the mark. The yield of shield strength per kt of component size is not improved by simply adding more shield components. And the "None" mount affects only the kt size and kt structure of non-weapon components. Also, the AI will use a "None" mount on EVERYTHING. Engines, Crew Quarters, ECM, everything. Ridiculous. But that's the AI. It will mindlessly use the 'best' mount available for anything.

We need a special mount that enhances shield power/size ratio just like weapon mounts enhance weapon damage/size ratio. This would reflect the same economics of scale that the weapon mounts are meant to reflect. Larger structures can be more efficient.

[This message has been edited by Baron Munchausen (edited 31 May 2001).]

Re: Error in Component Enhancements file
 

How come there are no "negatives" to the mount sizes? The cost/damage ratio gives more bang for the buck but shouldn't there be some drawback for using the larger mount? As it is there is no reason not to use them.