[madkillercat]

Originally posted by JLS:

quote:

---

Originally posted by madkillercat:
[qb] were the Scout, Escort, and Frigate hulls developed after the other hulls were finalized?

Excellent question

AIC *may* have taken some liberties and this also lends too some game play options and in game decision making as to the usage of some AIC Hulls:

- - -
Madkillercat, perhaps the 550kt Cruiser can use a little something else - this design is often neglected and she usually gets the pass with the Battle Cruiser next on deck - Perhaps we could better her defensive maneuverability’s. What do ya think?

---

Overall I find the automobile analogy reasoning contrived, and the liberties made mostly in order to counter the...stupid AI in SE4.

I can agree with your usage of those hull classes, yet I don't view ship design that way for the most part. For example:

Scouts could be used that way, however I find putting sick bays in ALL warships to be sufficient. The low cost and small size of the sick bay being sufficient to justify its use. So all warships double as low level medical ships.

I prefer designing with a completely flexible vehicle system in mind. That means I don't consider Carrier, Transport, Base, Satellite, Mine, Fighter, or Drone hulls to be anything but ways to force the AI to do certains things.

Customized designs is my joy in SE, and I rarely use transport or carrier hulls. (e.g. in AIC I use a BC w/ less engines, etc vs a MT.) The fine balance of AIC has allowed me to do this w/o as much cost as it would in most mods. However, this "hull type" contrivance for the AI is still there. I dislike designing with "pre-determined" efficiencies and specificity in hulls as was apparently done with those (3) hulls. (e.g. FF Def+=40 is due to assumed use of 5/5 engines. Using 4/5 should not give Def+=40, yet the bonus cannot vary. Thus the FF is much stronger than it should be otherwise. Despite high costs, I have a large FF complement in my fleets vs. DD&LC due to their high tactical capability).

Re: Cruiser. Yes, it has no strengths. If you graph Def+ vs KT you will notice an inconsistant drop in Defensive ability between LC and CA. So the CA has a higher than expected "Defensive minus" than expected or the LC has a lower than expected Def-. In terms of capability as a warship, the LC, or BC provide more cost effective delta Off/Def per KT than the CA (and DN) if you ignore engine costs. If not, the CA does require 1 more (expensive) engine and is 1 move slower w/ Quantum engines.

The CA is a relatively ineffective warship hull--more costly, less war capable than LC or BC. Whether you vary Def-, Off-, or Movement, the other hulls (besides LC & BC) should be taken into account to prevent unbalancing.