Kosmor Forum Index
 Search Imprint      SearchSearch     Log inLog in 
 Search Legal      MemberlistMemberlist     ProfileProfile   

Small Hull Drive Upgrade/Target Acquisition

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Kosmor Forum Index -> Feedback / suggestions for improvement
View previous topic :: View next topic  

Balancing the drive restriction removal modification
All these sound great!
71%
 71%  [ 10 ]
I like #1 & #3
7%
 7%  [ 1 ]
I like #2 & #4
0%
 0%  [ 0 ]
They are all bad ideas!
21%
 21%  [ 3 ]
Total Votes : 14

Author Message
Lordling
Guest





PostPosted: Sat Oct 01, 2005 12:03    Post subject: Small Hull Drive Upgrade/Target Acquisition Reply with quote

I humbly submit the following suggestions:

1.) Do not make lasers susceptible to the new hull-size target penalty, only torpedoes. Logically, torpedoes should only be effective against slower moving targets, such as large combatants, systems & planets.

2.) Make the inclusion of high tech drives, in a small hull, decrease in proportion, the amount of armaments the vessel can be equipped with. For example, institute a "techpoint" system, by which, any hull from, say, size H3 contains (H# * 5) techpoints. Installation of a D12 drive subsystem on an H3 hull (H3 * 5 = 15tp - 12tp = 3tp) would give you a spacefighter with awesome range, and 3 techpoints left over to be split between L#, T#, and S#. (for example, L3 or L1/T1/S1 or L0/T3/S0, etc.). Ships could still be reconfigured later at the shipyard. You might also want to consider a variant or log progression of this for the other hulls as well, for example as an H10 would have 50tp, installation of T12 would give you (50tp - 12tp = 38tp) left over. Addition of D12, L12 & S12 would leave you with 2 techpoints (not much to do anything with anyway). Another idea inline with this, is perhaps including the existing "slot" system into this equation somehow, so that smaller ships have to make critical design choices based on those also. I would also hazard to suggest no torpedoes on anything below an H5, unless it is on a new class of ship (Bomber for instance). It could use the H4 hull, but have a different ratio of laser vs. torpedo slots.


3.) Remove the ability for armament completely from the H1 & H2 hulls, i.e. nothing but drives, which is much more realistic & logical. This class of units are intended by design to be used as utility class vessels, not combatants.

4.) Consider allowing large combatants (H5 & above) to host a small number of vessels of lesser size (H# -3), with the capacity determined by a formula based on their hull sizes. For example, an H10 (50tp) would be able to support quantity 2 H5 (H5 * 5 = 25tp * 2 = 50tp) . Small combatants should be able to host probes equal in number to one-half (1/2) of their hull size, rounded down (H1 = 0, H2 = 1, H3 = 1, H4 = 2). This would possibly lessen the perceived need for greater ranges on small craft. Range & speed are two very different things. Small craft, typically, should have shorter ranges due to their smaller capacity for energy/fuel, but as in point 2.) one could sacrifice other technologies onboard to increase that fuel capacity. There should be one exception to this: Probes, if sent on long distance missions, should be treated as "one shot" devices, with no navigational changes possible after the waypoint is set & the first turn has elapsed. They should be able to chart a course for deep space, but have a limited lifespan due to no support; for example, somewhere between 1 and 5 turns.

In summary, I'm sure some tweaking of the math in the above examples would be required, but I believe the concepts are sound. Thanks for listening! Smile


Last edited by Lordling on Sat Oct 01, 2005 17:11; edited 3 times in total
Back to top
Lordling
Guest





PostPosted: Sat Oct 01, 2005 16:42    Post subject: Ack for previous posts Reply with quote

After reading the older forum messages, I felt I needed to acknowledge others' past efforts to bring several of these same ideas to light:

Paveyj
Embrodak
Imperator
Skrubber
KrustyKlown

If there are others, I didn't intentionally leave them out; I just didn't see them Smile
Back to top
Locutus
Guest





PostPosted: Sat Oct 01, 2005 17:04    Post subject: Reply with quote

Very good ideas. I think I speak for all of us when I say that the latest updates need balancing.
Back to top
Shadowmaster
Guest





PostPosted: Sun Oct 02, 2005 11:38    Post subject: Reply with quote

i agrre that they will need to be modified to adjust for some balance...
Back to top
BattleKing
Guest





PostPosted: Sun Oct 02, 2005 13:43    Post subject: Re: Small Hull Drive Upgrade/Target Acquisition Reply with quote

Excellent,

You are a clever little devil aren't you? No offence, great idea!!!

Keep up the good work and stay cool++

Wink Cool
Back to top
Maelstroem
Commander


Joined: 30 Jan 2004
Posts: 430
Location: Munich, Germany

PostPosted: Mon Oct 03, 2005 04:35    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi there!

Thanks for the suggestions. All of these have also been there in kosmor.de for some time, lets break them down

1) I like the first point! Have to discuss this with the high council, though.

2) Slot system.
The drive limit removal is a first step into this direction. Suppose:
H1 has 18 slot points, consisting of 1D12, 1L3, 1S3 (12 + 3 + 3).
These could be used for a reconfiguration of this ship as
1D6
1S12
resulting in a relatively fast, cheap, shielding ship
or a
1D2
2T8
resulting in a small, slow, medium bomber.

This also implies a necessity to remove the simple combat logic (attack weakest/strongest enemy). It must be possible for ships
a) to try to shield other ships (as a strategic battle command)
b) to try to circumvent shielding ships and attack "combat power" ships
c) to have the chance to directly try to attack any given opponent (based on his techlevel)

---

3) this is possible with the venture of the slot system.

---

4) we have been thinking of carrier ships for a while. lets first see the effects of the other improvements to determine how we should do it.

Bye,
Maelstroem
_________________
Commander Maelstroem in the house Nemesis
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Shadowmaster
Guest





PostPosted: Mon Oct 03, 2005 16:57    Post subject: Reply with quote

ooo carrier ship.....yaya...=)
Back to top
BattleKing
Guest





PostPosted: Mon Oct 03, 2005 17:19    Post subject: Maelstroem Reply with quote

Now you are starting to talk sence!!!

Bravo, hope this will come true?!

Wink Cool
Back to top
Shadowmaster
Guest





PostPosted: Tue Oct 04, 2005 17:36    Post subject: Re: Maelstroem Reply with quote

like i said...me too
Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Kosmor Forum Index -> Feedback / suggestions for improvement All times are GMT - 6 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group