something I do not like in gold patch
 

Version 1.65:

"8. Changed - Ships and fighters with zero supplies will not be able to fire any of their weapons."

The idea is sound but it makes engine destroying weapons too powerfull. They were devastating even before by immobilising ships, but now... one shot from light cruiser and mighty dreadnought is useless chunk of metal. Supply storage (more is better !!!) is imperative. Even then, one or two lucky shots and ship is basicaly dead.

Since every military ship from now on must carry supply storagies, why not give this ability to ship hulls ? The basic idea that once ship runs out of supplies is useless will still work, but it will eliminate the russian roulette from battles. The hull's supply should be relatively small value of course.

Related issue : In standard SE IV, bigger ships have less engines and are much more fragile than say escorts. This is just plain wrong and completely rediculous, IMHO. SE IV should really be based on quasi-Newtonian propulsion, like P&N or Proportions.

Re: something I do not like in gold patch
 

This is true. in my current vsAI I can disable a large fleet of battlecruisers with a single escort. (with ECM, size bonus, training bonus and an events predictor it's virtually imposible to hit without seekers=-)

I like Oleg's idea of building supply storage into the hull (not too much). Obviously this is easily modded, but I think Aaron ought to address this in the official release in a future patch. While he's at it, maybe he could fix the "My engine is half as big as my fuel tank but holds just as much fuel" supply storage component. Maybe add in a 5kt supply box as well, to help balance those anti-engine-weapons.

Re: something I do not like in gold patch
 

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by oleg:
...
Related issue : In standard SE IV, bigger ships have less engines and are much more fragile than say escorts. This is just plain wrong and completely rediculous, IMHO. SE IV should really be based on quasi-Newtonian propulsion, like P&N or Proportions.<hr></blockquote>

As you can see in Proportions, I agree qNp is better. SE3, by the way, had crude qNp. Escorts through light cruisers required one engine per standard movement point, and could mount up to six. Cruisers and battlecruisers required two per, and could mount up to ten, battleships and dreadnoughts, if I remember correctly, were 3 per, up to 12, and I think baseships were 4 per, max I don't recall.

Interestingly, I heard that this was changed in SE4 in response to player requests (!). I think it was that some players didn't like having to pile 10-12 engines on a ship. (SE3 doesn't have a condensed design view.)

Personally, though, I don't think the supply component storage should be increased, regardless of the comparison to engine supply. This is because it makes sense to me that engines could create energy for the rest of the ship via their operation, and also I see component size rating as impact on ship capabilities, rather than literal size, so I think the direct comparison is invalid.

I would just recommend making supply components a lot cheaper, although that will affect the cheapness of supply ships, which is a big change to the standard set (presently, making a supply ship generally costs more than making a warship).

PvK

Re: something I do not like in gold patch
 

Baseships in SE3 were 10 Engines per move, max 30 engines.

This is because it makes sense to me that engines could create energy for the rest of the ship via their operation
Engines use supplies, they don't generate any.

My objection is because of the question "Why can't I replace that supply tank with two engines, and just unplug/not use those two? It would double my supply storage!

Re: something I do not like in gold patch
 

The point of this change was to make it where battles use up supplies.

Re: something I do not like in gold patch
 

Actually, I like the Idea that engine weapons made more devastating as it give those almost dead empires hope http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

And rightfully also, which gives you another reason to think and counterdevelop rather than keep building souped up dreadnoughts over and over again.

Re: something I do not like in gold patch
 

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by oleg:
Version 1.65:

"8. Changed - Ships and fighters with zero supplies will not be able to fire any of their weapons."

The idea is sound but it makes engine destroying weapons too powerfull... ...Since every military ship from now on must carry supply storagies, why not give this ability to ship hulls ? <hr></blockquote>

I think the move supplies to hull idea is good fix all around.
I use engine damage weapons because they are to powerfull to ignore. I know other players complain about them, and the sizing of the reserves.

------------------------------------------------

Damn, Another upgrade!!!

Re: something I do not like in gold patch
 

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Suicide Junkie:
...
This is because it makes sense to me that engines could create energy for the rest of the ship via their operation
Engines use supplies, they don't generate any.
<hr></blockquote>

In game terms, no, but in terms of what they represent, a propulsion engine can often generate power as a side effect. Since SE4 isn't detailed enough to model this, it can be represented fudgily by giving the engines more supplies, representing their ability to generate power from fuel.


<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>
My objection is because of the question "Why can't I replace that supply tank with two engines, and just unplug/not use those two? It would double my supply storage!<hr></blockquote>

My explanation is that the ship design system is obviously abstract rather than literal. If you did that, it would be a supply generator component, and rated as "larger" than the engine Version. My rationalization is that research of a vehicle size class allows a design with so many engines, with some trade-off if engine numbers are reduced, but deploying an engine system as a supply generator, on top of a full complement of engines that your designers can make work, would result in more space being taken away from the non-engine component ability of the design. I.e., it would count as a larger non-engine component. Conversely, an engine is probably larger than other 10kT components (hence its 20kT damage capacity), but costs the design less lost space. That is, supply storage _IS_ like an engine that just "generates" supplies. At least, that's how I try to make sense of it.

PvK

Re: something I do not like in gold patch
 

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Wardad:

...
I use engine damage weapons because they are to powerfull to ignore. I know other players complain about them, and the sizing of the reserves.
<hr></blockquote>

Seems to me that it would help (at least for mods) would be to make "damages engines only" and "damages weapons only" into separate abilities from "skips armor and shields." Since they're currently damage types, this would probably mean needing to make more damage types.

Re: something I do not like in gold patch
 

PVK:
"That is, supply storage _IS_ like an engine that just "generates" supplies. At least, that's how I try to make sense of it."

Ah HA!
I think I see our problem. You see supplies as power (reactors), while I see them as fuel.

I am curious as to how your reactor model explains "running out of supplies" and the fact that even one supply component can use all of its supplies anywhere from instantly to year-long spans.

There are mods which change supplies into reactor power, by having reactors that generate as much as they can store each turn.