quote:
Originally posted by suicide_junkie:
1) seems ok on the surface, but more engines reduces efficiency. (1 QE gives 4 (1+3bonus), but 3 QE gives 6(3+3bonus). Adding those two engines reduces the power of individual drives by half!
2) Silly, reducing size is pointless. As drive tech goes up, you increase their thrust. You get the same effect. (thust per KT improves) Also, offering larger engines as tech goes up would be good.
EG: By the time you get up to an LC, you're putting 20 engines on your ship, but we can replace 7 10KT engines with a 65KT Capital Ship Drive. Less clicking when building a ship.
3) Rather than bonus movement, which applies to straight-line strategic map flying, add the Afterburner ability from fighters, so they only get the bonus in combat. However, like bonus movement, it is not affected by ship size, so beware large values like three.
1) Right. The cost doesn't have to be much higher, but this bonus move would give older races a little edge that the young races don't have.
2) I was thinking about making engines at 5tn instead of 10tn so we can have a bit more varience in the different hull types for speed. 1 Bridge/LS/CQ & 24 Engines on a Destroyer gives you a speed of 4 and only 30 tns left for other stuff. We could accomplish the same thing by halving the number of engines required though.
65 Ton Capital Ship Engine : Can you give me an example component? How would this work when you require X # of engines/move? If you lowered the # of required engines per move then people would use the smaller engines, wouldn't they?
3) Sounds like a reasonable idea.
Finally, does anyone know if we can require ships to have a different component? If so we could require the ship to have a reactor (and a set type or number if possible) and then just use engines as thrusters.
[ 06 December 2001: Message edited by: Val ]