P&N Bucky Tube Gel Armor

[CombatSquirrel]

What you are proposing makes sense, but it seems like a lot of work to get the effect you want. Why not merely set a max limit on how many BTGs you may have for each vehicle type and possibly re-evalute the cost to build each BTG component. The max limit could represent the fact that although the BTG causes no relative mass increase, the basic hull of any ship still needs some percentage of non-BTG material to provide the skeletal framework.

But then again, I kinda wish no one had brought the darn thing up in the first place... I really enjoyed those darn BuckyDrones...

Combat Squirrel

[Spoo]

For ships, I think I'll allow the below-max BTG to cost a small negative in minerals

You can do that?

If so...

Can you have a ship/unit that costs a negative amount of resources? Could you then have nomads use their spacveyards to build something with negative cost and call it "gathering materials" or somesuch? How long does it take to build something with a negative cost? How many units with zero or negative cost get added to the build queue when you select "one turns worth"?

edit=UBB tags

[ October 25, 2002, 05:27: Message edited by: Spoo ]

[Fyron]

Originally posted by Spoo:

quote:

---

For ships, I think I'll allow the below-max BTG to cost a small negative in minerals

You can do that?

If so...

Can you have a ship/unit that costs a negative amount of resources? Could you then have nomads use their spacveyards to build something with negative cost and call it "gathering materials" or somesuch? How long does it take to build something with a negative cost? How many units with zero or negative cost get added to the build queue when you select "one turns worth"?

---

That was in the original P&N mod. Nomads could make bases that had negative resource generation, and get unlimited resources (eventually). The only limit is the max number of ships in the game.

[ October 25, 2002, 00:05: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

[Suicide Junkie]

Hrm, well. I can't remember exactly what happened with the negative cost components, but I do know that the only way to give a vehicle negative maintenance is to add a >100 maintenance reduction ability to a ship/base with a positive cost.

Making the inital BTGs cost zero minerals, and the extra ones cost plenty of minerals would be almost as good, though. It would get the same idea across, I think.

[Pax]

Originally posted by Suicide Junkie:
I need to come up with a good policy on BTG...
If I have a maximum BTG on ships, with BTGs beyond that costing 1kt, it would be worse than Armor 1's.

One BTG per ship/unit. Ship-size / Unit-size specific mounts. 0kT for the BTG, but, ludicrous costs (10,000 of each resource), and very high reduction rates (1% per 25kT, or fraction thereof, of the unit/ship's size).

Similar to how I'm doing engines for my mod, using "m/QNP" ... in fact, I may steal the BTG component, with the mount idea above ... heh!

For ships, I think I'll allow the below-max BTG to cost a small negative in minerals, since its replacing metallic bulkheads.
Beyond the limit (at which point your ship would be mostly composed of BTG), BTGs will cost more.

Hmm, negative costs WORK ... ?

BTG for Sats and Platforms seems fine to me, and can be allowed to stand as unlimited.

Troops and fighters, and probably drones, will not get regular BTG. Instead, I'll make it an upgrade component for something else, or a maybe a mount for major structural items (Cockpit, lifesupport, engines, etc). It would add some structural points, and slightly reduced mass if possible without going to zero mass.

The mount idea above, and one per ship/base/unit, would balance the fighters out fairly, IMO.

Also, of course, the mount would need to adjust the structure of the BTG component, I suggest a ratio similar to the 1%/25kT rate. Figure out how much extra hp you want each ship/unit to get, and determine the base component structure from there ...

[Suicide Junkie]

One BTG per ship/unit. Ship-size / Unit-size specific mounts. 0kT for the BTG, but, ludicrous costs (10,000 of each resource), and very high reduction rates (1% per 25kT, or fraction thereof, of the unit/ship's size).

Are you suggesting a 150Kt escort would get 6% off the cost, and pay $9400 for each BTG?

The mount idea above, and one per ship/base/unit, would balance the fighters out fairly, IMO.

I don't think you read that right...
EG:
BTG 1: gives BTG component for ships, and a mount for units: BTG internals - 2x hitpoints, affects non-weapon, non-armor components only.
There would be no BTG component available for units.