Are Ginormous Ships Necessary?

For what's not in 'Top Priority Game Design'. Post your ideas, visions, suggestions for the game, rules, modifications, etc.

Moderators: Oberlus, Oberlus

Message
Author
User avatar
marhawkman
Large Juggernaut
Posts: 938
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2006 9:34 pm
Location: GA

#136 Post by marhawkman » Sat Mar 25, 2006 10:54 pm

Eddie wrote:You didn't get the point.
Generators would be much smaller than a whole laser. But to make it super clear, lets say its a stellar converter, not a laser. Do you get my point now?

In any case, if the slot weapon system gets used (which the generator idea is intended for), you will have a limit on how many weapons you can put on a ship. The generators should rival armor and shield for space. Or engine power.
You can use your hull space for shield generators, weapon power generators, more armor or more engine power.

And to respond to that gatling laser thing: There should be an upper limit for how many generators can effectively be used. I said this in another thread i think.

To remove all misunderstanding, here an example:
Your mark IV battle cruiser has 20 hull space left to outfit. Extra power generators for weapons take up one space, as do extra shieldgenerators, extra armor and extra engine boosters.
If you want a totally offensive ship, you'd put in 16 weapon power generators (more won't raise damage further). Then 2 extra shield generators and 2 extra armor.
For a defensive ship, it would be 10 armor and 10 shield.

Easy to understand system.
Hmm... the main issue I have with your proposal is it's useless unless we have "hull slots".
krikkitone wrote:I think my basic problem is with the slot system, I think it makes things too restrictive and necessitates us (as game makers) designing a bunch of Hull types to try and fit all the needs we think the game should fill. I think its far easier just to have lists
Stars! was like that. And it annoyed the crap out of me. I'd end up using Galleons for most of my designs simply because of the restrictions the other hulls had.
Computer programming is fun.

ewh02b
Space Kraken
Posts: 102
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 4:35 am
Location: Texas, USA

#137 Post by ewh02b » Sun Mar 26, 2006 10:32 pm

I think that instead of having slots for everything, we really only need to concern ourselves with two "space" concerns: hull surface and internal space.

Most weapons (lasers, missiles, gauss rifle) need a little bit of the real estate on the surface in order to fire (instead of simply shooting a hole in the armor). Turrets need more room, because they house the entire weapon on top of the armor, and need their own armor to protect them. Sensors probably work best if they don't have to operate through the armor, as well.

Internal space is used by the crew, power plant, and ammo storage space.

I think this system is much more realistic and acceptable--I mean, I really hate the weapon type restrictions in Mechwarrior 4.

User avatar
utilae
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 2175
Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2003 12:37 am
Location: Auckland, New Zealand

#138 Post by utilae » Sun Mar 26, 2006 11:21 pm

That would be cool.

To have two sections, surface space and inside space. And it does seem like you could give a bonus for equipment working better in one area or another.

Some equipment could only be on the surface. Since there is more space on the surface, you could put equipment there and as a result there is greater risk of damage, but the equipment on the surface is also much cheaper to refit.

User avatar
marhawkman
Large Juggernaut
Posts: 938
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2006 9:34 pm
Location: GA

#139 Post by marhawkman » Sun Mar 26, 2006 11:45 pm

This is sounding suspiciously like SE3....
Computer programming is fun.

ewh02b
Space Kraken
Posts: 102
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 4:35 am
Location: Texas, USA

#140 Post by ewh02b » Mon Mar 27, 2006 4:35 am

utilae wrote:That would be cool.

To have two sections, surface space and inside space. And it does seem like you could give a bonus for equipment working better in one area or another.

Some equipment could only be on the surface. Since there is more space on the surface, you could put equipment there and as a result there is greater risk of damage, but the equipment on the surface is also much cheaper to refit.
Actually, I think a cylindrical object would have more space on the inside. Turrets can only be placed so thick before they start shooting through each other, or bumping into each other. The outside could be easier to refit--as long as the connections (power) to the inside do not have increased requirements. The inner components would be the only ones repairable during combat.

orionzzz
Krill Swarm
Posts: 13
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 7:14 am

#141 Post by orionzzz » Tue Apr 18, 2006 3:54 pm

in terms of large and small ships maybe this mentality could be employed

large ships are basically large weapons platforms for weapons of mass destruction which would otherwise be unmountable on smaller hulls. these ships could be carriers or battleships with the power to destroy planets and armadas depending on the power of the weapon mounted.

as such how "powerful" a ship is is determined my the weapon mounted. of course a larger hull will mean more armor and shields which provide more protection for the weapon.

smaller ships should not be discounted as being useless against large ships. although they cannot wield such tremendous firepower as compared to the large ships, they could carry 1 or 2 single use weapons (e.g. torps) that could be employed against capital ships. of course their guns would be quite useless against the capital ship's shields.

basically what i am trying to say is smaller ships are more for engaging one-on-one battles and as the ships get larger, they take on more powerful weapons of dealing area effect damages. and large ships are sitting ducks for smaller ship's torps... which pretty much evens out the odds...

Post Reply