Home » Stars! Clones, Extensions, Modding » FreeStars » New Tech
Re: New Tech |
Wed, 05 May 2004 22:44 |
|
Orca | | Chief Warrant Officer 1 | Messages: 148
Registered: June 2003 Location: Orbiting tower at the L5 ... | |
|
It's an interesting game, but suffers from a number of deficiencies - excessive pointless MM, a poor UI, EXTREMELY LONG build times, poor PBEM mode support for large numbers of players, balance problems [these may have been solved; I haven't played in a few years and it was still under active development], among other things).
A few of us on the #Stars! channel played a PBEM - it lasted *maybe* a month before it fell apart as no one had any interest in continuing.
YMMV.
Jesus saves.
Allah forgives.
Cthulhu thinks you'd make a nice sandwich.Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: New Tech |
Thu, 06 May 2004 09:15 |
|
Crusader | | Officer Cadet 2nd Year | Messages: 233
Registered: January 2003 Location: Dixie Land | |
|
Sandman wrote on Wed, 05 May 2004 19:55 | We don't replace missiles or torpedoes after each battle do we?
I also think fighter bays could be put on bases for defensive purposes.
|
Good points! We do not replace "used up" components in the current game of Stars!. No reason to start with Freestars.
And if we can have carriers we most assuredly should be able to base them on bases. The equivalent of "land-based" fighters here on Earth. There is no reason to differentiate them in the game, however.
I can see Ultras and Death Stars becoming a bit more able to protect themselves, although it would still be fairly easy to overwhelm base defenses by simply bringing enough carriers along.
Also, how about another LRT to tie into this idea? No SuperCarriers would give points back to the player, but would not allow carrier hulls to be built, restricting fighter bays to being placed on Nubians, Galleons, Rogues, etc. Alternatively, you have one called Allow SuperCarriers which takes points away from the player (although I personally like the first option better).
As for all the references to MOO and Space Empires and so forth. Don't have 'em. I have downloaded demos and simply am unable to get interested enough to actually try playing them. I think I tried SEIV one day for a couple of hours and never got the first turn done.
I think I'm getting old and resistant to change.
The Crusader
Nothing for now.Report message to a moderator
|
|
| |
Re: New Tech |
Thu, 06 May 2004 18:03 |
|
iztok | | Commander | Messages: 1207
Registered: April 2003 Location: Slovenia, Europe | |
|
Hi!
Sotek wrote on Thu, 06 May 2004 21:19 | We don't replace used-up components, no.
But we replace used-up chaff and sweepers and the like.
I say fighters are closer to that than to a missile.
If you make them in any way fundamentally different in battle, as it seems we will... then yes, they should be replaced.
|
IMO fighters should be "one shot" weapon. Once launched they remain on battle board until destroyed or battle ends. After the battle they are automatically "rebuilt" in hangars to be used next turn.
I'd propose the following fighter "technical" properties:
- 3 levels of fighter bays, launching 1, 2 or 3 fighters (tokens);
- tech requirements for bays:
level 1: en-6/weap-8/con-5/prop-7
level 2: en-12/weap-14/con-11/prop-11
level 3: en-18/weap-20/con-18/prop-16
- speeds 2, 2.5, 3;
- armor 10, 30, 70; shields 20, 50, 100;
- R1 weapon 26, 66, 169 damage, at R0 ignoring target's shields
- immune to missiles/torpedoes, R3 weapons 5% chance to hit,
R2 10%, R1 20%, R0 60%, gattlings 25%.
Comments?
BR, Iztok
[Updated on: Thu, 06 May 2004 18:05] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: New Tech |
Thu, 06 May 2004 18:58 |
|
EDog | | Lt. Junior Grade | Messages: 417
Registered: November 2002 Location: Denver, Colorado, USA | |
|
iztok wrote on Thu, 06 May 2004 16:03 | I'd propose the following fighter "technical" properties:
- 3 levels of fighter bays, launching 1, 2 or 3 fighters (tokens);
- tech requirements for bays:
level 1: en-6/weap-8/con-5/prop-7
level 2: en-12/weap-14/con-11/prop-11
level 3: en-18/weap-20/con-18/prop-16
- speeds 2, 2.5, 3;
- armor 10, 30, 70; shields 20, 50, 100;
- R1 weapon 26, 66, 169 damage, at R0 ignoring target's shields
- immune to missiles/torpedoes, R3 weapons 5% chance to hit,
R2 10%, R1 20%, R0 60%, gattlings 25%.
Comments?
BR, Iztok
|
I like this idea. Maybe call 'em fighter wings instead of fighters (but that's just me bandying semantics). Is the % for gatlings a flat rate or is it +25% to hit for gatling weapons? I would assume a fighter bay will fit a GP or Mechanical slot. This brings a whole new level of usefulness to Privateers early-midgame and to Galleons late-midgame. It seems to me that fighters would be especially suited to attacking or defending starbases. They should probably have a targeting protocol to attack the largest, heaviest, or highest-rated opposing vessel/starbase. If this protocol is independent of battle orders, it could be used in conjunction with battle orders of the main fleet. It should also give all you math freaks more stuff to play with!
Iztok, what are your thoughts on the Carrier (mobile spacedock)?
EDog
http://ianthealy.com
Born, grew up, became an adventurer
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: New Tech |
Fri, 07 May 2004 02:00 |
|
iztok | | Commander | Messages: 1207
Registered: April 2003 Location: Slovenia, Europe | |
|
Hi!
EDog wrote on Fri, 07 May 2004 00:58 | This brings a whole new level of usefulness to Privateers early-midgame and to Galleons late-midgame.
|
You're correct, I intended to give some better use to Galleon hull, and to "punish" a bit the usual "IFE/NRSE/no higher prop research" path. Also, AR races would get a small bonus with high energy tech demand.
A 25% to-hit chance of gattlings is just that: a fixed number. With 60% chance for R0 weapons (let's say from area effect) I wanted to give them at least some use. BTW: maybe on-board computers should have some impact on targeting too.
Quote: | Iztok, what are your thoughts on the Carrier (mobile spacedock)?
|
With carrier hull I don't have real opinion. Maybe FreeStars developers should think about one more hull somewhere around con 18, like a super Galleon: a bit cheaper, some more elec/mech/GP slots? Could be used as a stealthy scanner/(anti/over)cloaker/terror ship before Nubians arrive.
I have mixed feelings with a mobile spacedock. With it you'd get more production for the cost of just the hull/part. So it should be balanced with the cost of race's factories, else -f races would get a big bonus with it. OTOH I like the idea of building in the orbit of remotely mined planet. But then the button Next planet should move to the next spacedock too. And mobile docks would allow a game-spoiling tactics of bringing spacedocks into enemy space and just continue producing warships there, without the need to move them to front from your core production worlds. Players without planets would be still able to produce ships. With all those complications I'd vote against them.
BR, Iztok
[Updated on: Fri, 07 May 2004 03:08] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: New Tech |
Fri, 07 May 2004 03:27 |
|
ForceUser | | | Messages: 383
Registered: January 2004 Location: South Africa | |
|
Remember that we can change anything to make them balance or plausable in the game. So With the carrirs and Spacedock thingy, we can make it fit into the stars! universe.
Some sugestion;
- You need pop on the carriers to make them be able to produce anything. Maybe build a carrier with the option of building faktories on them just like a world. Remember though that that should just be like 100,000 or 250,000 pop max with the races faktory settings. Also make them heavy, slow, few engines, expensive.
Lets say for example you take a normal HP 2000/15/8/20 with 100,000 pop on one of these mobile docks you can have 20*10 = 200 faktorys = 300 resourse + 100,000/2,000 = 350 resources per dock.
With 250,000 it'll be 20*25 = 500 factorys = 750 + 250,000/2000 = 875
That would mean you can only produce small amounts of ships. This would seem to make them useless but this means that those ships could be built right on the enemy's doorstep with salvage from a battle!
It'll take some playtesting to bance these numbers but at least we have Iztoks tech lv that we could also use for space docks or mabey make a small one for lower techs or for AR (Why not
I for one would be first in line for playtesting with carriers and mobile space docks.
ForceUser
"There are two types of people in the world. AR players and non-AR players" Nick Fraser
Working on some new stuff: http://sourceforge.net/apps/mediawiki/stars-nova/index.php?t itle=Graphics
And the Mentor Database www.groep7.co.za/Mentor/ ZOMGWTFBBQ!! it still works lol!
Check out my old site with old pics at www.groep7.co.za/Stars/
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: New Tech |
Thu, 08 July 2004 00:12 |
|
Sandman | | Crewman 1st Class | Messages: 20
Registered: April 2004 | |
|
I still think that the idea of requiring pop on a ship strays too far from one of Freestars best features; Consistancy with original Stars. No other type of ship (except Colonizers) require pop to perform a task and making carriers have pop makes them too oddball imho. Also, requiring pop on a ship handicaps races with lower growth percentages.
The Fighters can be done any way necessary to make them balanced and playable. They would likely work best as one-shot items (as was mentioned before) or perhaps as a sort of "missile that hangs around until the end of battle" type of idea. This would eliminate the notion of them being very small ships and overly complicating the combat engine. Make the Fighter Bays components that build and launch fighters the same way that missile launchers launch missiles. If increased tech makes better fighters available, then perhaps the hangar bays would need an upgrade the same as Missile Launchers become obsolete now.
As for mobile bases or ship-building vessels of any kind; I'm all for them if the details can be worked out. Again, I don't think that they should require pop to function unless the builder is an AR and then extreme playtesting is needed. Some sort of mobile Spacedock that can build up to 200 tons doesn't seem to be too overbalancing to me especially in the endgame. As long as the size of the vessels being built is kept to a sane number I'm all for it.
While we're on the topic of new hulls, I'm still in favor of a new remote-miner as well. Some sort of big hull that contains some slots for its own remote miners and the capability to build more from mined minerals. Note that I don't think such a thing should be able to build anything but miners and perhaps freighters but that's just me.
"Fascinating Captain."Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Fighters |
Fri, 30 July 2004 02:55 |
|
Factor | | Chief Petty Officer | Messages: 80
Registered: April 2004 Location: Vancouver | |
|
i have 2 ideas...
1 is based on AAT/BNT etc...
maybe fighters should only be rebuilt/refilled at space docks that has a slot called assembly plant (sth that builds fighters).
the other is a more challenging one... mroe realistic one.
the hull bay should be used to store smaller ships. eg. a battle cruiser carrying a few destroyers/armed probes. this way, the users wont get unlimited fighters/bombers, and fighters/ bombers could run out. and also ships with bigger engines can carry ships with smaller engines w/o the smaller ship draining up fuel.
[Updated on: Fri, 30 July 2004 02:57] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: New Tech |
Fri, 30 July 2004 05:42 |
|
perece | | Crewman 1st Class | Messages: 20
Registered: July 2004 Location: Moscow, Russia | |
|
iztok wrote on Thu, 06 May 2004 18:03 | Hi!
I'd propose the following fighter "technical" properties:
- 3 levels of fighter bays, launching 1, 2 or 3 fighters (tokens);
- tech requirements for bays:
level 1: en-6/weap-8/con-5/prop-7
level 2: en-12/weap-14/con-11/prop-11
level 3: en-18/weap-20/con-18/prop-16
- speeds 2, 2.5, 3;
- armor 10, 30, 70; shields 20, 50, 100;
- R1 weapon 26, 66, 169 damage, at R0 ignoring target's shields
- immune to missiles/torpedoes, R3 weapons 5% chance to hit,
R2 10%, R1 20%, R0 60%, gattlings 25%.
Comments?
BR, Iztok
|
Why they need shields if they are immune to torps and get rebuilt
completely each turn? just give all dp as armour, it will be no difference, at least if they are one ship per token.
Also, this removes ener tech requirement. 4 tech items are good
for MT combos, but "regular" item must require at most 3 techs
Am I wrong?
SMTP /Perece/.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: New Tech |
Fri, 30 July 2004 06:58 |
|
perece | | Crewman 1st Class | Messages: 20
Registered: July 2004 Location: Moscow, Russia | |
|
Quote: | Iztok, what are your thoughts on the Carrier (mobile spacedock)?
EDog
|
Not Iztok, but...
What about making a spacedock just slot-placeable orbital device?
and what about allowing orbitals on ship hull (maybe still not fitting GPs, but special hulls with orbital slots)
stargate on mobile station will be also interested (imagine what if this ship has jumpgate device also)
Mobile spacedock also requires that some resources can be produced on that fleet. so, if colonists in cargo hold will be producing resources at, say, 25% of planetary rate, it makes possible to build ships on such mobsta, and makes even massdriver in mobile orbital useful.. maybe...
but here is a question:
if no "dock" (mobile base) ship present in fleet, will the colonists in it still be able to produce resources?
I think if yes, it will bring some imbalance into game
if no, what exactly will allow production?
I think these may be three types of "special" items:
one - orbital - space dock core, need to be placed on ship or starbase to built any ships at it;
another - mechanical - 20kt (or whatever) space dock additive component, increases space dock capacity by this amount
(also need at starbases)
and third - say, mechanical also, needed only on ships. It makes some amount of colonists in cargo hold on same fleet to produce resources. these are additive across entree fleet, while dock comps additive while they placed on the same ship. colonists maybe on any ship in the fleet.
Large starbases can contain unlimited dock capacity built in, while they still need dock core orbital device to utilize this capacity. This makes strarbases can carry only "2 of 3" orbitals, (dock, flinger or gate) which brings another dimension to starbase designs and tactics related to them.
Small starbases, in other hand, will need some elect/mech slots
(so these can be utilized even if base carries no dock, and base can have variable dock capacity, choosing between battlecomp (or jammer, but who uses that?) and dock component.
Dock core must, and dock comp may be zero tech, while production pod (making docks on ships really usable) must be available at high tech only
If dock component requires some tech, we can make 'space dock - like' starbase hull available just at the beginning, but it will act only as "Heavy Fort" until dock component becomes available
(or refuelling station? Is refuelling a function of "dock core" orbital?)
Short outcome... this all need to be checked upon hardly, since it can significantly alter the game balance...
but, in general, I'll like idea of making spacedock an orbital device and having ability to build various capacity docks...
but docks on the ships (or, in this concept, orbitals on ships) may be too unbalancing...
maybe allow them, but make them function only when ship orbits any (even uninhabited) planet? and only if there is no starbase...
(Side note: these fleets can use also miner included, making use of planet itself as mineral storage). this brings all races somewhat closer to AR...
Ouch...
Sorry for long post... Wonder if someone even read to this point
SMTP /Perece/.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: New Tech |
Tue, 03 August 2004 16:28 |
|
Factor | | Chief Petty Officer | Messages: 80
Registered: April 2004 Location: Vancouver | |
|
being able to carry smaller ships/fighter is good enough, no need to get too complicated. you loose fighters, you go to a nearby dock and restock.
[Updated on: Tue, 03 August 2004 16:29] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: New Tech |
Fri, 06 August 2004 01:48 |
|
Sandman | | Crewman 1st Class | Messages: 20
Registered: April 2004 | |
|
I like the thought of customizing anything so bases/forts/docks are no exception. Perhaps the Spacedock as a component thing but with varying sizes? I for one would like to see a 100 ton limit dock for an Orbital Fort perhaps.
Orbitals on ships might make things a bit wierd until extensive playtesting is done. I think such a thing would be better as a new hull instead of a component. Such a hull would have very few slots except for it's orbitals and thus be vulnerable to attack and need an escort. Something like the gate-building ships from B-5 or Jumpships from Battletech. Of course having more than one Orbital slot would make such a ship monstrous in size but I've always liked huge spacecraft ideas...
Personally I'd like to see hulls with completely or nearly completely adjustable slots. Would require MAJOR playtesting but I think it would be worth it. Imagine a Destroyer with no Armor slot but an extra Mech or General slot? I might like my Frigates to have three single Gen slots, not three lumped together. That way I can take an extra fuel tank, some cloaking and an Overthruster to get out of danger. And I'd kill for a Battleship hull with Mech slots for Overthrusters as well.
"Fascinating Captain."Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: New Tech |
Fri, 06 August 2004 03:27 |
|
perece | | Crewman 1st Class | Messages: 20
Registered: July 2004 Location: Moscow, Russia | |
|
Sandman wrote on Fri, 06 August 2004 01:48 | I like the thought of customizing anything so bases/forts/docks are no exception. Perhaps the Spacedock as a component thing but with varying sizes? I for one would like to see a 100 ton limit dock for an Orbital Fort perhaps.
Orbitals on ships might make things a bit wierd until extensive playtesting is done. I think such a thing would be better as a new hull instead of a component. Such a hull would have very few slots except for it's orbitals and thus be vulnerable to attack and need an escort. Something like the gate-building ships from B-5 or Jumpships from Battletech. Of course having more than one Orbital slot would make such a ship monstrous in size but I've always liked huge spacecraft ideas...
Personally I'd like to see hulls with completely or nearly completely adjustable slots. Would require MAJOR playtesting but I think it would be worth it. Imagine a Destroyer with no Armor slot but an extra Mech or General slot? I might like my Frigates to have three single Gen slots, not three lumped together. That way I can take an extra fuel tank, some cloaking and an Overthruster to get out of danger. And I'd kill for a Battleship hull with Mech slots for Overthrusters as well.
|
1) As I said before, dock IS variable-size thing on low bases. It just matter of additional component needed (but right, this mechanical "dock capacity item" may be leveled with better tech, like cargo pod or fuel tank).
Why not make "dock orbital" just capable to build up to some mass itself? for 2 reasons. 1st - to allow higher starbases to have unlimited dock capacity while low ones has only limited, and other reason is to not allow orbital fort to build anything (it's really only weapon/gate platform) while stil allowing it to refuel ships (using dock orbital) and keep only one slot type for orbitals (otherwise You need slots like "light orbital" on fort and spacedock, and "orbital" on higher bases. I don't like this).
2) Sure. We talked about new hull, with slot of "orbital" type. same devices fit this slot on ship and on starbases. Yes, this hull must not have GP or weap slots. We can also restrict it to "no shields" - like mining ships are. but some mech, some elect/mech and even armour/elect/mech must be there.
3) too many flexibility, especially in early low-tech phases will wreck entrie thing. I think even armor but not shield/armor on destroyer hull is correct. one GP on destroyer is much enough already. I think it may be even wise enough to restrict shield/armor on freighter hulls (sma/m/l/sup) to shield only.
Game already has a "model line" of flexible general-purpose ships - privater, galleon (is flexible enough already), nubian. SS have their rogue, HE have theirs metamorph. everyone can fetch minimorph. I think this is plently enough. making anything too flexible will wreck the whole thing up.
and, about thrusters on BB... BB is heee-avy battlecraft, armored and armed such as it barely can move at all - that's the original idea. I think Stars! creators allow only one thruster on it for exactly that reason - matching the picture. Only beamer BBs can run at 2S (oops, 2.5. I like that font thingy). 2 must be absolute limit for heavy missile op torp BB ships.
SMTP /Perece/.
Ouch.. Spelling...
[Updated on: Fri, 06 August 2004 03:30] Report message to a moderator
|
|
| |
Re: New Tech |
Mon, 09 August 2004 07:09 |
|
Downsider | | Crewman 1st Class | Messages: 35
Registered: June 2003 Location: Derbyshire, England | |
|
In a thread about new tech and splitting onto fighters, I cannot beleive no one has even mentioned SSG!
SSG has fighters as ships with no fuel. They have to travel with other ships to get around, but don't specifically need hangers to do this.
Fighters were introduced in SSG to remove the need for Chaff and to implement a Rock-Paper-Sissors (RPS) system. <beamers beat fighters> <missiles beat beamers> and <fighters beat missiles>. Or something like that (I haven't played the beta)
IMO the battle engine for freestars should be completely redesigned; if not to the newtonian model of SSG then to a model that doesn't rely on stacks (so much).
However, to fit fighters into the current model, you need to give them high speed, high init, intrinsic jamming and make them cheap. They need to be able to hit a ship on the other side of the board on the first turn, usually the missile BBs which they are designed to take out (I would imagine 200+ fighters would do this no problem). Beamers would cream them, but your Anti-beamer missile BBs will take care of them. Of course, you still have to defend these against enemy fighters, but your beamers take care of them. But then, what about those missile BBs again.....
All makes for more interesting battles that you can't fully predict no matter how many times you simulate 'em (a freestars battle simulator would also be a good idea; as part of the game or a freestanding program, but that's another matter).
"Violence is the last resort of the incompetent" - Salvor Hardin Report message to a moderator
|
|
| | |
Re: New Tech |
Mon, 06 September 2004 21:39 |
|
LEit | | Lt. Commander | Messages: 879
Registered: April 2003 Location: CT | |
|
Downsider wrote on Mon, 06 September 2004 20:47 | Should not a smaller force have the chance of beating a superior one based on the conditions of battle (tactics, terrain, positioning, etc.)? I beleive it should.
|
Yes, but not by
Downsider wrote on Mon, 06 September 2004 20:47 | I would much prefer a more fluent and random battle model where you couldn't predict fully what was going to happen.
|
More randomness helps the bigger side more then the smaller side.
Example: If 2-1 odds gives 100% chance of winning with no losses, and you're outnumbered 2-1 then you need to arrange 4 battles with 1/4 of the enemy fleet and all of yours to win.
If instead 2-1 odds gives 70% chance of winning with no losses, 20 % chance of losing half your force, and 10% of losing, then arranging those 4 battles gives you a 24% chance of winning the war.
Note, it isn't easy for the smaller side to win a war, but it is possible, if they play better.
- LEitReport message to a moderator
|
|
| | |
Re: New Tech |
Tue, 07 September 2004 02:19 |
|
iztok | | Commander | Messages: 1207
Registered: April 2003 Location: Slovenia, Europe | |
|
Hi!
Downsider wrote on Tue, 07 September 2004 02:47 | 1) Should not a smaller force have the chance of beating a superior one based on the conditions of battle (tactics, terrain, positioning, etc.)? I beleive it should.
|
Why do you think that is not implemented in current Stars!? I've won a small sparse slow-tech game against an opponent, whose ships had almost tree times the firepower mine had (he was using Dooms and Disruptor BBs, me MarkIV blaster dreadnoughts and lots of chaff), 30% more capital ships then I had, but not enough time to play properly.
Everything you mentioned was involved:
- intelligence (I knew all his designs for more then 20 turns, and what he'll have in battle),
- tactics and positionning (I testbeded that decissive battle several times, and made proper token sizes and orders),
- terrain (we fought on my planet, to save all salvage. But that has not been my merit - I've been on defensive for 10-15 turns and already lost 1/4 of planets).
The end result was I lost 1400 chaff, he 70% his capital ships (complete attack fleet but some SFX), and soon after this his core planets.
All that couldn't happen if Stars! would strictly favour bigger/stronger fleets. To be completelly honest, that also wouldn't happen if my race wouldn't be a WM, as I could not be able to make a BB that would have first shot, move 2.25, be less attractive to missiles then chaff even without shields, and go 1_on_1 against ship with three times its FP and win (90% damaged).
My .
BR, Iztok
Report message to a moderator
|
|
| |
Re: New Tech |
Sun, 10 October 2004 15:26 |
|
|
[quote title=iztok wrote on Thu, 06 May 2004 15:03]Hi!
Sotek wrote on Thu, 06 May 2004 21:19 | We don't I IMO fighters should be "one shot" weapon. Once launched they remain on battle board until destroyed or battle ends. After the battle they are automatically "rebuilt" in hangars to be used next turn.
I'd propose the following fighter "technical" properties:
- 3 levels of fighter bays, launching 1, 2 or 3 fighters (tokens);
- tech requirements for bays:
level 1: en-6/weap-8/con-5/prop-7
level 2: en-12/weap-14/con-11/prop-11
level 3: en-18/weap-20/con-18/prop-16
- speeds 2, 2.5, 3;
- armor 10, 30, 70; shields 20, 50, 100;
- R1 weapon 26, 66, 169 damage, at R0 ignoring target's shields
- immune to missiles/torpedoes, R3 weapons 5% chance to hit,
R2 10%, R1 20%, R0 60%, gattlings 25%.
Comments?
BR, Iztok
|
While we're playing around w/ pipe dreams, I might as well spew some nonsense since I have nothign better to do right now.
In theory, I like this idea. However, I would suggest a couple changes. Gats act more like beams, only they are better at point defense. Gats should get just under 100% near range 0, IMO.
Since you are creating ships, have a mineral cost for fighters produced. Say 1I,1B,1G, per ship. Fleet must be carrying minerals to produce fighters. And since this is a wish list, fighters should have a secondary battle order selection screen.
However, Orca's right on in that this is adding a monumental level of complexity when it comes to coding and balance. This has all been rehashed thousands of times on rgcs, years ago. Most people stopped discussing it long before Stars! 3.0 ceased to materialize in 1997,98....SNG failed to cohere out of vapor in 99, 00, 01, etc.
Now that we're intent on reinventing the wheel so that we can go about actually tryng to go forward w/ designing a car instead of this damned 10 year old rusty, 3 wheeled wagon, we should probably focus on the basics.
On a more realistic note, I do have a suggestion.
See that big, bad-assed missile boat? Well that is your your "carrier." See those gi-normous armageddon missiles that devoured your planets' iron. Well, basically, it's an anti-capital ship fighter...that your ship builds and fires out every single turn in battle. See that chaff? That's your interceptor-fighters. Deal.
IMO, no less logical than all the aforementioned systems mentioned in this thread.
my .02 USD
g.e.
g.e.
====
"When the newspapers have been read, the TV sets shut off, the cars parked
in their various garages. Then, faintly, I hear voices from another star.
(I clocked it once, and the reception is best between 3:00 A.M. and 4:45
A.M.). Of course, I don't usually tell people this when they ask, "Say,
where do you get your ideas?" I just say I don't know. It's safer."
-P. K. DickReport message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: New Tech |
Mon, 11 October 2004 03:24 |
|
iztok | | Commander | Messages: 1207
Registered: April 2003 Location: Slovenia, Europe | |
|
Hi!
SinicalIdealist wrote on Sun, 10 October 2004 21:26
(fighters) | In theory, I like this idea. However, I would suggest a couple changes. Gats act more like beams, only they are better at point defense. Gats should get just under 100% near range 0, IMO.
|
Since gattlings are quite common I wanted to make them a bit less usefull. Regarding the proposed fighters' firepower and defenses it looks like the beam accuracy should be significantly increased (by about factor 2), and maybe add 5% accuracy to torpedos. IMO computers should help with accuracy too.
Quote: | Since you are creating ships, have a mineral cost for fighters produced. Say 1I,1B,1G, per ship. Fleet must be carrying minerals to produce fighters. And since this is a wish list, fighters should have a secondary battle order selection screen.
|
Here I agree. But then the missiles/torps should have some cost too.
BR, Iztok
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Tue May 14 22:19:44 EDT 2024
|