I think the idea of having open-hulled "mega-carriers" is a good one because of the costs related to FTL drives. A mammoth carrier packed with four star system defense, battleship-sized monitors would allow the player to pack more weapons on those monitors, making them, in some ways, more combat effective than FTL-equiped battleships.
A mega-carrier could simply be one giant engine, shield generator, point defense beam weapons, and crew compartment. They would be able to protect their cargo with their shields rather than with their hull. They could go into a system, drop their monitors, and leave the system again for its own protection, and then, after the battle, pick up survivors and take them to the next battle.
Mega Carriers
Moderator: Oberlus
-
- Space Kraken
- Posts: 149
- Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 3:25 am
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
- Geoff the Medio
- Programming, Design, Admin
- Posts: 13603
- Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 1:33 am
- Location: Munich
His point, I think, is that once you say you can have separate FTL and in-system drives, people decide they need to extrapolate from this and come up with overly complicated suggestions such as those of this thread. It's not that having just FTL and in-system drives is so compliated; it's that having them makes people want even more.jmercer wrote:I didn't find this extra level of complexity confusing in MOO1. There you had Engine and Maneuver... FTL and normal-space engines.
you compared large ship vs. small ship. of course large ship is more econmical. you want to compare apples with apples, so large ship carrier with small ships and large ship loaded with weapons. In your analysis, you'll find carriers makes no sense.utilae wrote:Below I have both methods, a mega carrier and two small ships carried within and Just having a Large ship and two Small ships with best engines.skdiw wrote:see example.Having one 'engine' rather than an engine on each ship.
Mega Carrier carrying 2xSmall Ship. This method will have less weapons, but the cost per weapon will be less. The cost is equal to the space used by the contents of each ship. In this case the cost of the carriers engine, the small ships engines and weapons.
[9 Weapons Cost=12, 1.333 Per Weapon]Large Ship & 2xSmall Ship. This method will have more weapons, but the cost per weapon will be greater. The cost is equal to the space used by the contents of each ship. In this case the cost of the Large Ships engine and weapons, the small ships engines and weapons.Large Ship - Mega Carrier - Space=12
------------
Small Ship x 2 = 10 Space Used
L Engine x 1 = 2 Space Used
Small Ship - Carried In Mega Carrier - Space=5
------------
S Engine x1 = 0.5 Space Used
Weapons x4.5 = 4.5 Space Used
[16 weapons Cost=22, 1.375 per weapon]So you see, Carriers are more economical.Large Ship - Weapons - Space=12
------------
L Engine x 1 = 2 Space Used
Weapons x 10 = 10 Space Used
Small Ship - Space=5
------------
L Engine x1 = 2 Space Used
Weapons x3 = 3 Space Used
But you see, I proved to you all that it is NOT more combat effective.METhomas wrote:I think the idea of having open-hulled "mega-carriers" is a good one because of the costs related to FTL drives. A mammoth carrier packed with four star system defense, battleship-sized monitors would allow the player to pack more weapons on those monitors, making them, in some ways, more combat effective than FTL-equiped battleships.
A mega-carrier could simply be one giant engine, shield generator, point defense beam weapons, and crew compartment. They would be able to protect their cargo with their shields rather than with their hull. They could go into a system, drop their monitors, and leave the system again for its own protection, and then, after the battle, pick up survivors and take them to the next battle.
Yeah, IF we have them. And I guess we don't.[/quote]skdiw wrote:that's why supply ships (if we have them) are for.Carried ships could return to the carrier for repairs, more missiles, more crew and could keep returning for raids, etc.
I support no support ships just as with support ship. However, super carrier is even worst than support ships. In moo, the missiles recharge after the battle, there is no reason why FO can't do the same.
Except when you actually play the game, you'll find out there is a difference in annoyance. Say you want to move your ship from A to B, in moo, you can do that easily. However, in moo3 where there is distinqution between FTL and non- you have to manually pick out which ships that has FTL and which don't and then move your ship. That makes the game a lot harder to control. With maybe 20 different designs, that's a lot of memorization of what ship has FTL and what doesn't. Then with all the TF idea, you have to ungroup each time you decide to move. Even if you have AI assistance, it's not evident on the galaxy map so you have to do some micro. Bottom line, it's more headache than you think.jmercer wrote:I didn't find this extra level of complexity confusing in MOO1. There you had Engine and Maneuver... FTL and normal-space engines.
That's why I am in favor of moo's design of missile bases for defense and ships are all FTL capable, rather than system ships for defense, some natural defense, and FTL ships.
Last point, FO is not sum of its elements. How one element interact with another is very important and perhaps the most important. Meaning that if you design one element, it will affect how you need to design another. So it's important to constantly keep the big picture and our goals in mind. If you have a good idea, but it doesn't go with rest of the game, the idea is bad; either that or the foundation of the game is bad, hopefully that's not the case.
Last edited by skdiw on Tue Dec 06, 2005 5:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
For myself. The best reason not to have separate FTL drives is GUI. As pointed in other places. What appears on the main screen and what not?Geoff the Medio wrote:His point, I think, is that once you say you can have separate FTL and in-system drives, people decide they need to extrapolate from this and come up with overly complicated suggestions such as those of this thread. It's not that having just FTL and in-system drives is so compliated; it's that having them makes people want even more.jmercer wrote:I didn't find this extra level of complexity confusing in MOO1. There you had Engine and Maneuver... FTL and normal-space engines.
-
- Creative Contributor
- Posts: 441
- Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2003 1:00 am
Mega-Carriers
Why not have a "mega carrier" as a type of ship that ends up being researched in the 'Titan' class. This way you don't need to seperate FTL ships with non-FTL ships, and you satisfy the science fiction crowd who point that not all ships need FTL drives.
Simply put, mega carriers would shoot out frigates - but for all aspects the game would treat them in the same logic as a standard carrier would treat its fighters. No need to design the frigates, they just come with your best beam weapon and pretty much swarm the enemy. Only they are a lot bigger, take more damage, and you can lose a pocketload of them and don't care since the megacarrier just builds them all after a fight anyway.
Simply put, mega carriers would shoot out frigates - but for all aspects the game would treat them in the same logic as a standard carrier would treat its fighters. No need to design the frigates, they just come with your best beam weapon and pretty much swarm the enemy. Only they are a lot bigger, take more damage, and you can lose a pocketload of them and don't care since the megacarrier just builds them all after a fight anyway.
There are three kinds of people in this world - those who can count, and those who can't.
-
- Space Kraken
- Posts: 149
- Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 3:25 am
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
Precisely. If the technology for in-system and hyperdrive is the same thing (eg Honorverse) then there is no "fluff" reason to justify complex game elements like system ships and carriers that carry entire warships - which might be sub-carriers in their own right (oh, the horror...)Geoff the Medio wrote:His point, I think, is that once you say you can have separate FTL and in-system drives, people decide they need to extrapolate from this and come up with overly complicated suggestions such as those of this thread. It's not that having just FTL and in-system drives is so compliated; it's that having them makes people want even more.jmercer wrote:I didn't find this extra level of complexity confusing in MOO1. There you had Engine and Maneuver... FTL and normal-space engines.
If we really want to have some diversity in the two elements, have all ships equipped with both in-system and hyperdrive with Special Equipment available for ships with "Exceptional Maneuverability" and "Exceptional Hyperspace Speed". Like Augmented Engines from MoO II.