Carrier Battles Mod

[Suicide Junkie]

BTW, the Null planets thing has already been fixed.

[Kana]

I don't know if these are bugs or not...but a few turns into the CB#2 i've noticed the following...

Most FTR weapons not using supplies...is this intended? IE Laser Cannons, Plasma Cannons...These same weapons also apply to regular ship weapons as well...

Multiple FTR enignes displayed...FCD 1,3,4 all at once...

Are FTR drive operating like ships engines...multiples of type allow faster in combat movement?

If FTR weapons/components are not using supplies (other than torps, missiles, DUCs), then what use is the required supply pod?

Kana

[Suicide Junkie]

Without supply you'll be stuck at one speed, even if your engines don't require supply.
Its a safety net so you don't design useless fighters.

Only one fighter drive is effective per vehicle.
However, the more powerful engines are also larger.
You will commonly wish to use an older, smaller drive on your heavy bombers in order to cram another missile launcher on them.

The energy weapons do not use supply, but have a correspondingly massive cost in radioactives to power them.
They are a bit weaker and more expensive, but will be pretty much required for any extended sortie into enemy space.
Meanwhile, if you are sitting on a resupply depot, you are free to expend the cheap and powerful ordnance without worring about running dry.

[Kana]

Then wouldn't the display progression be 2,4,6...if the next corresponding engine is slightly less space?

Also on the EM-Missiles...Yes they have supply cost...but I would see these as more of a one shot single missile, like a harpoon, or hellfire...especially considering their rate of fire...so why a supply cost? Seems redundant...just my opinion...

Kana

[Suicide Junkie]

On the fighter, perhaps. They are also usable on ships and bases, which need to account for the shots spread over multiple combats.

The EM-CSMs can be fired a second time in combat if you have enough supply points and survival time.

---

The fighter drives alternate bigger/faster, then smaller/tougher
They are grouped by speed. The level 2 is faster than level1, while the level 3 is the same speed as 2 but smaller.
Thus #3 obsoletes #2, but not #1, since #1 is still smaller than #3

[Fyron]

Wouldn't it be far, far less confusing to just have two separate lines of engines for that? Complete with different names...

[Suicide Junkie]

Its a progression...

level 1 = speed 2
level 2,3 = speed 3
level 4,5 = speed 4
etc.

Where the advanced version at each speed is miniaturized yet still bigger than the slower drives.

[Strategia_In_Ultima]

Only problem is, SSFs can't use anti-ship weaponry. Only Bombers can. I know I'm limiting players in their design choices, but it's what I want. I simply like it that way. It makes sense to me. This way, fighters are still useful in the late game (as Bomber weapons are simply too powerful to be true - did I point that out yet?) yet are still quite easy to counter. If an enemy kills off your fleets all the time because they've got a fighter base sitting on a WP launching flocks of Bombers every time, you can simply mass-produce entire clouds of dirt-cheap Interceptors and load them on Carriers. They'll be able to eliminate the Bombers quite effectively, and this'll leave the way open for your warships (or Bombers!) to destroy the enemy space station.