|
|
|
 |

June 18th, 2003, 10:05 PM
|
 |
Lieutenant General
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 2,592
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: Is "BattleCruiser" a relative size? -- discussion
Quote:
Originally posted by Atrocities:
I to have to agree with SJ. The cost should go up dramatically for larger ship hulls.
I also feel that Carriers are under used, under valued, and under powered. In a real NAVY a carrier is the key to the fleet, not the Dreadnought.
SEIV currently does not use Carries in the way that they should be used. You encounter fleets of carriers and a baseships and it should be one or two carriers to a fleet of Battle Cruisers.
|
But it is all because of completly different medium ships and aircraft are moving through. In space there is no difference whatsoever between large and bulky ship and small crats. Except Newton's laws of cource. Translating Navy carriers into interstellar battles is an utterly ludicurious idea, IMHO. The closest we can get from the naval history is small and agile torpedo boats and their carriers. It was a fashionable idea at the end of XIX centuary.
__________________
It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets. - Voltaire
|

June 18th, 2003, 10:07 PM
|
 |
Shrapnel Fanatic
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Southern CA, USA
Posts: 18,394
Thanks: 0
Thanked 12 Times in 10 Posts
|
|
Re: Is "BattleCruiser" a relative size? -- discussion
As I predicted, noone is arguing that BC has to be 600 kT. 
|

June 18th, 2003, 10:19 PM
|
 |
Major General
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 2,174
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: Is "BattleCruiser" a relative size? -- discussion
I suppose that technically the size is arbitrary rather than relative.
__________________
Of course, by the time I finish this post, it will already be obsolete. C'est la vie.
|

June 18th, 2003, 10:20 PM
|
 |
General
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Indiana
Posts: 3,229
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: Is "BattleCruiser" a relative size? -- discussion
__________________
Ragnarok - Hevordian Story Thread
-------------------
I think...therefore I am confused.
They were armed. With guns, said Omari.
Canadians. With guns. And a warship. What is this world coming to?
The dreaded derelict dwelling two ton devil bunny!
Every ship can be a minesweeper... Once
|

June 18th, 2003, 10:30 PM
|
 |
General
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Posts: 4,547
Thanks: 1
Thanked 7 Times in 5 Posts
|
|
Re: Is "BattleCruiser" a relative size? -- discussion
Quote:
Originally posted by Wanderer:
In 1805, battleships were still called 'ships of the line' and displaced roughly 2,000 tons. In 1916 the average displacement was roughly 25,000 tons and by 1945 there were battleships displacing almost 80,000 tons. To an SE4 race that's only discovered 200kT ships, 200kT probably looks like a battleship, not a frigate.
|
Wow... in 140 years, what was called a "battleship" got 40 times bigger...
That said, I like Soulfisher's original suggestion of ships getting gradually bigger over time - something like this stripped-down Version of the tech tree might work:
Tech Level 1
Escort I - 100 kT
Cruiser I - 400 kT
Battleship I - 1000 kT
Tech Level 2
Escort II - 120 kT
Cruiser II - 480 kT
Battleship II - 1200 kT
Tech Level 3
Escort III - 150 kT
Cruiser III - 600 kT
Battleship III - 1500 kT
etc.
where each hull size would maintain its maximum engines and other characteristics even as it gets larger and larger...
Oh, and I like SJ's proposal for maintenance costs... now all we have to do is bug Aaron to make maintenance independent of construction cost in SE5! 
__________________
The Ed draws near! What dost thou deaux?
|

June 18th, 2003, 10:36 PM
|
 |
Shrapnel Fanatic
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Southern CA, USA
Posts: 18,394
Thanks: 0
Thanked 12 Times in 10 Posts
|
|
Re: Is "BattleCruiser" a relative size? -- discussion
Too bad you can't make vehicle sizes obselete. 
|

June 18th, 2003, 10:42 PM
|
 |
General
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Indiana
Posts: 3,229
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: Is "BattleCruiser" a relative size? -- discussion
Quote:
Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Too bad you can't make vehicle sizes obselete.
|
I'm sure that's been posted in the wish list for SEV then, right? If not it should be. This would open up some more modding possibilities.
__________________
Ragnarok - Hevordian Story Thread
-------------------
I think...therefore I am confused.
They were armed. With guns, said Omari.
Canadians. With guns. And a warship. What is this world coming to?
The dreaded derelict dwelling two ton devil bunny!
Every ship can be a minesweeper... Once
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is On
|
|
|
|
|