Star Wars Mod - II (Sci-Fi Xover Mod)

Fyron · #1 February 2nd, 2002, 07:28 AM

I'm not sure about all of TerranC's modifications, but I agree with decreasing the Excelsior's size. It is an old ship. And besides, you have a HUGE 1300 point gap between the Intrepid and the Excelsior/Akira. You need something to fill in that gap.

Suicide Junkie · #2 February 2nd, 2002, 07:41 AM

Why would you need to reduce the size? If it is available early, but requires more crew and has a poor ECM hull rating, no worries.

I don't think you need to name the hulls that strictly, either: "Excelsior" is a class of ship, not a hull size.

You could encourage the use of hulls with newer images just by continually reducing the crew requirements, improving the base ECM, and basic supply/cargo storage.

Even if the ship is smaller, players will choose it for the side-effect advantages, and just build more of them

Andr�s · #3 February 2nd, 2002, 04:07 PM

That's what I suggested order them by tech and give big early ships some dissadvantage such as more life support/crew quartes more engines-per-move than other ships their size, to-hit penalties , ect. and go the other way giving some advantage to small high tech ships.
The sovereign can still be smaller than the galaxy but have advantages to make it better, or even have more usable space inside by using less crewq/lifesup.

Suicide Junkie · #4 February 2nd, 2002, 05:01 PM

Right. What about getting the AI to choose the best available hull from among the big old hulls...
Would a separate design for each hull, listed in the proper order in the AI_design_creation.txt work?

Andr�s · #5 February 2nd, 2002, 05:21 PM

Leave that problem until we want to patch the AI.
BTW, we still didn't try the "useless ability" for big engines.

TerranC · #6 February 2nd, 2002, 09:25 PM

BTW, There are some sites on the web that offer schematics, graphics and specs of Trek universe ships.

One of them is:
www.ditl.org

Just to let y'all know.

Andr�s · #7 February 3rd, 2002, 05:45 PM

This is an answer of what was posted in the B5 mod thread.

quote:
From what you posted before, and what I've translated, the difference between the Fission engines and the HKIDs would be the fact that the HKIDs can store 1000x more supplies

If you're talking about B5 fission engines, they have 0 supply storage. 1000*0=0
Their dependance on reactors is something I like and you were probably refeing to supplies stored in their reactors.

quote:
Atomic drives == fission engines.
Basic average engine.

Implosion drives == gravitic drives
More MP/KT, but much higher cost, maybe lower fuel efficiency.

HK Ion drives ?? fission engines
(SW only) Slightly more MP/KT than Atomic drive, but nearly unlimited supplies, and almost zero maintenance.

I'm revising numbers.

I'm not sure if a ship using implosion drives should be faster than one with ion drives. Maybe only sligtly more but consume much more supplies (making it require more reactors than usual).

BTW I couldn't find a way to make a Hyperdrive (emergency energy) + a Hyperdrive Motivator (0 building, 1 repair SY) consume a lot of supplies as they are supposed to.

Every turbolaser gun is fired by 1 or 2 exclusive gunners each with indipendent sensors and computer assisted targeting. (some even have their own small redundadnt power source to continue firing if central power fails)
As I see it every weapon should be able to target enything without a multiplex tracking. But that's impossible, so I'll give them a built-in insanely strong multiplex tracking (and ISD carries ~150 weapons) or maybe included in a targeting computer (combat sensor).