.com.unity Forums
  The Official e-Store of Shrapnel Games

This Month's Specials

Raging Tiger- Save $9.00
winSPMBT: Main Battle Tank- Save $5.00

   







Go Back   .com.unity Forums > Shrapnel Community > Space Empires: IV & V

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old May 31st, 2001, 09:47 PM

Nitram Draw Nitram Draw is offline
First Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Randallstown, Maryland, USA
Posts: 779
Thanks: 8
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Nitram Draw is on a distinguished road
Default Re: Error in Component Enhancements file

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.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old May 31st, 2001, 10:24 PM
Suicide Junkie's Avatar
Suicide Junkie Suicide Junkie is offline
Shrapnel Fanatic
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 11,451
Thanks: 1
Thanked 4 Times in 4 Posts
Suicide Junkie is on a distinguished road
Default Re: Error in Component Enhancements file

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.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old May 31st, 2001, 10:46 PM

Nitram Draw Nitram Draw is offline
First Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Randallstown, Maryland, USA
Posts: 779
Thanks: 8
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Nitram Draw is on a distinguished road
Default Re: Error in Component Enhancements file

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.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old June 1st, 2001, 12:42 AM

Baron Munchausen Baron Munchausen is offline
General
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Ohio, USA
Posts: 4,323
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Baron Munchausen is on a distinguished road
Default Re: Error in Component Enhancements file

SJ, you've skipped the reasoning in my post to make your own reasoning look better. The "None" mount cannot be used because of the disadvantage I described, unless you want the AI to have entire ships filled with reduced size components. We need a type of mount dedicated to shields only. If the "Damage" modifier could be made to apply to shield points instead of weapon damage when the type is a shield, I think it could be done without any other major changes to the format of the file.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:45 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1999 - 2025, Shrapnel Games, Inc. - All Rights Reserved.