Error in Component Enhancements file

[Nitram Draw]

How about scaling engines too. This would eliminate some of the complaints about engine size. DN engines that provide more power (movement) but guzzle supplies and take up a lot more space.

[Atraikius]

I think having different mounts for shields isn't really needed since the protection provided by shields stacks, in a way covering the heavier mounts simply by having additional shields. It would only really become useful if either the number of shields that could be placed on a ship were limited, or the protection did not stack.

[Suicide Junkie]

Hey, guys, if you want a mount for shields and engines, use a weapon mount with a "weapon type" of "none".

You can't restrict the mount to engines or shields specifically, but you could make the components smaller with an increased cost, then have 6 mini shields rather than 4 fullsize.

When component restrictions become available, you could have engines that are only legal on one size of ship, so you could have "Escort Engines" vs "Dreadnaught Engines", the latter being bigger, slower and more expensive (or whatever you feel like).

[Baron Munchausen]

Both of these "observations" are off the mark. The yield of shield strength per kt of component size is not improved by simply adding more shield components. And the "None" mount affects only the kt size and kt structure of non-weapon components. Also, the AI will use a "None" mount on EVERYTHING. Engines, Crew Quarters, ECM, everything. Ridiculous. But that's the AI. It will mindlessly use the 'best' mount available for anything.

We need a special mount that enhances shield power/size ratio just like weapon mounts enhance weapon damage/size ratio. This would reflect the same economics of scale that the weapon mounts are meant to reflect. Larger structures can be more efficient.

[This message has been edited by Baron Munchausen (edited 31 May 2001).]

[Nitram Draw]

How come there are no "negatives" to the mount sizes? The cost/damage ratio gives more bang for the buck but shouldn't there be some drawback for using the larger mount? As it is there is no reason not to use them.

[Suicide Junkie]

quote:

---

Both of these "observations" are off the mark. The yield of shield strength per kt of component size is not improved by simply adding more shield components

---

Yes it is. If your mount makes the shield component smaller, then you get the same shield strength but lower KT.
Thus yielding higher shield points per KT.

quote:

---

We need a special mount that enhances shield power/size ratio just like weapon mounts enhance weapon damage/size ratio. This would reflect the same economics of scale that the weapon mounts are meant to reflect. Larger structures can be more efficient.

---

That would be nice Ask MM to add more adjustment factors into the Mounts. As well as more types to choose from, rather than just weapon types.

quote:

---

How come there are no "negatives" to the mount sizes? The cost/damage ratio gives more bang for the buck but shouldn't there be some drawback for using the larger mount? As it is there is no reason not to use them.

---

I don't have the figures in from of me, and most changes to the mounts will screw up the AI's plans .
I would like to see the larger mounts cost much more than the smaller (mass produced?) standard mounts. I think large mounts burn supplies at a higher rate too, but I'm not sure.

[Nitram Draw]

I should have said size/damage. I'm not sure on cost.
Too bad you can't change the reload rate on a mount, that would give a distinct choice between sizes.