OK, so they've written the final exam, now I just have to mark it. And you know what that means...
procrastination!! 
So now that I finally have some spare time,
quote:
have you though about making it a PD repulsor? If it was a repulsor, firing a missile amidst a fleet of enemy ships would cause them to bounce it around inside, wasting a lot of PDR shots, thus enhancing the central "dead zone" effect even with fleets of ships.
That's a good idea. The player would start opting for the more spaced out formations - finally a reason for them (me, I'm a 'wall' formation kinda guy). I like things that make us play the game differently, so I'm sold!
quote:
Ok, so how much should the effect be, % wise? Also, should the effect be rounded down for the smaller ships?
My thoughts on this are that the "device" (even if built into the hull) should be able to 'negate' the effects of a finite amount of mass. (someone in another thread wondered how a single 10kt armour could protect a massive battlecruiser as effectively as it does a tiny escort - good pt.) So I think that these devices should actually have a greater mass neutralizing effect on the small ships than on the larger ones.
Your ratio seems to be a linear relationship of one 'movement point' per 50ktons (assuming the engines are the basic ones, no bonus movement).
Unfortunately, at the smaller sizes calculations get messy because fraction numbers are not allowed. So here is my suggestion...
....................Current....# Engines....# Engines
Ship.....Mass...# Engines...with IN 1....with IN 2
Escort....150.......3......2(=33% bonus)...1(66)
Frigate...200.......4.........2(50)........2(50)
Destroyer.300.......6.........4(33)........3(50)
LCruiser..400.......8.........6(25)........4(50)
Cruiser...500......10.........7(30)........6(40)
BCruiser..600......12.........9(25)........8(33)
BShip.....800......16........12(25).......11(31)
DredN....1000......20........16(20).......15(25)
Baseshp..1500......30........25(17).......24(20)
Thus there are diminishing returns as the ship gets bigger. I think this will encourage the player to play some of the smaller ships (Cruisers), which sort of get forgotten by most in the later game anyway. Again, I think that this would add something new to the game, the reuse of the small ship designs in the late game.
I'd also suggest distributing the various bonuses due to manouverability (ie defensive) in a similar manner, that the very small are now hyper manouverable (even if they don't have the high speed) due to their lowered apparent mass, while the larger ships would gain less manouverability, so should have less of a defensive bonus. The negative bonuses should be the same for all ship sizes because it affects the physiology/psychology of the crew.
Hope this is of some help,
[ 12 December 2001: Message edited by: jimbob ]
[ 12 December 2001: Message edited by: jimbob ]