Cargo/launch bays

[Jeb]

I would imagine the rule that cargo ships must have 50% of their space devoted to cargo bays is a play balance issue. When everyone else is flying around in escorts, a small transport hull filled with weapons would be extremely powerful, even if it would be a tad slower than military ships. That said, it is too bad that satellite bays and minelayers don't also count as cargo. This isn't much of a problem, though, because you can also put mines and satellites in regular cargo bays, so you really only need one mine layer or satellite bay per ship.

I also like the idea of Q-ships, which would be especially nasty against someone who has a "don't fire on" order about transports. Still, since transports are cost half as much per kT of space as military ships, there needs to be some restrictiont that prevents all of a player's transports from being Q-ships. A limit on spaces that could be devoted to offensive systems would prevent you from building Q-ships just as much as the current system, and in fact might be even more restrictive.

[wingte]

Well,, the game balance should be maintained since a transport with a lot of weapons should have prohibitively high maintanance costs.

The other way to achieve game balance is to follow the real world example. Until very recently ,, warships were almost always larger than merchant ships during time of war. The super tankers and super container ships didn't become technically feasable until the military had build the first super carriers. A war would likely result in the military ships again surpassing the merchants.



------------------
Wingte

[Jeb]

quote:

---

Originally posted by wingte:
Well,, the game balance should be maintained since a transport with a lot of weapons should have prohibitively high maintanance costs.

---

I don't know about you, but I don't pay much attention to maintenance costs. At least so far, I don't usually have much trouble getting enough resources to pay for my fleet. (Sometimes, my problem is to use them all up because I don't have room to store the excess!) Nowadays I avoid this by turning all but the best (140-150%) mineral planets into research stations and the like.

At any rate, if there were no component restrictions, a heavily-armed transport would still be cheaper to maintain than warship of equal tonnage and armament, because the transport hull is cheaper. Admittedly, the transport is a tad slower than a warship. However, as I said, in the early game when you otherwise wouldn't be able to build a ship that big, being able to make a transport that's armed to the teeth would make it hardly worth the effort to build escorts.

[Taqwus]

Heh. I did run into resource trouble in one max-tech/max-power game -- not due to ship maintenance, but because of the simultaneous construction of many, many Atmosphere Converters. Had to suddenly halt ship production (fleet was already sufficient, anyway, so not a problem) and start cranking out org/rad facilities like crazy (minerals were never a problem. IIRC, one usually starts with more mineral-producing facs than org and rad). Came within several turns of running out of those two before the trend reversed. ;-)

[ But I *did* end up with ca. 130+ planets, almost all with oxygen atmospheres by game end, for perhaps many, many turns of potential pop growth]

------------------
-- The thing that goes bump in the night

[Paladin]

I perfectly agree about the necessity of restrictions on CargoVessels, and would definitely prefer a restriction on the weapons than % of cargo holds... On the other hand, I would use it to make self-sustaining (many solar collectors), long-range-scanning transports, or even colony transports (wait, cruisers allow for a starting pop. of 94M ;-)

It would deballance things a bit... Perhaps the best way is to have Satelite/mine launchers count as cargo holds...


BTW, how can you research Atmosphere converters? Is it in the demo??

[Taqwus]

Re: converters (Atmospheric Modification Plant the official name, my bad) --

They're in the demo, at least 0.56, The slowest Version needs level 7 Planet Utilization (9 max) and 15k each resource, and 30 turns; Version III takes the same resources, +2 tech, and 20 turns. Very nice if you can afford it and start early enough (that's at least 20% of the demo's length...), since it can make even the smaller worlds useful.

------------------
-- The thing that goes bump in the night

[Noble713]

"I perfectly agree about the necessity of restrictions on CargoVessels, and would definitely prefer a restriction on the weapons than % of cargo holds"

I like the cargo hold restriction, but think it should be altered so supply storage components counts are cargo for this calculation.

"It would deballance things a bit... Perhaps the best way is to have Satelite/mine launchers count as cargo holds..."

They do. Go into the ship designer and add 14 Cargo Storage III components to a medium transport. When you add a fighter, mine, or satellite bay, the 50% requirement disappears.

A Medium Transport with the following:

Bridge, 2 Life Support, 2 Crew Quaters, 1 Shield Generator V, 15 Fighter Bay I, 4 Jacketed Photon Engine I, and 1 Cargo Storage III

has room for 40 fighters, meets all design requirements for a transport, and costs 400 minerals less than a light carrier with the same amount of cargo space (of course, the CVL has room left for more stuff, but that's besides the point).