Thoughts behind mounts
Hey all,
So some other comments by Users got me to thinking about mounts. Currently, I'm disatisfied with the way mounts are implemented. Basically, it's a "bigger is always better" syndrome, which doesn't make for good tactical consideration.
As an example, lets take "Large Mounts":
Cost x1.5
Tonnage x1.5
Damage x2
Supplies x2
So, basically what this amounts to is you get 2 weapons for the price of 1.5, as if getting larger hull sizes isn't enough of a reward in itself!
Mounts should not be a "no-brainer must use" thing as they currently stand. Take this counter-example for Large Mounts:
Cost x2
Tonnage x2
Range +3
Damage x1.5
Supplies x2
Ok, so now you get less damage per ton, but a better range. The better range results in the "first strike" oppurtunity, which can in some cases make up for the lost damage/tonnage ratio. This makes for a strategic consideration rather then a "must have, no brainer". Furthermore, you can remove any "minimum size" limit as the maximum hull space of the ship will eventually limit the mount you can put on it. Dreadnaughts are still better then 6 escorts for durability reasons as well as the sheer array of weapons they can use (Escorts lose a higher percentage of their space to engnies and bridge/crew/life support then a Dreadnaught will) but we haven't made escorts completly meaningless.
I really think the logic behind mounts needs to be reconsidered as the current model just falls prey to the "bigger is always better" mentality, and in a strategic game "no brainer" choices should be kept to a minimum.
Chris Woods
|
Threaded Mode