Ship Design

[mZhura]

thanks for quick response. i got your point and feel like agreed

[TerranStarCommand]

I suppose my confusion stems entirely from the logical disconnect between hull size and motive force.

If I research "Titan Class" hulls, but I only know how to build "Fusion Engines", it makes sense that I'd be able to put those fusion engines in my new hull class. I might want to research "Antimatter Engines" to make my ships go faster.

But what is the point of researching engines if you can't use them until you research a different hull type? Why should I have to research TWO technologies (Engine + Hull Type) if only one of those technologies is useful?

If we're tying speed to hull type, what's the point of refitting ships if you can't put better engines in them? Do you have to rebuild a completely new hull? If the player is allowed to refit engines, but not to build different hulls with different engines, why?

[Bigjoe5]

A natural consequence of integrating engines and hulls is that there are no engine techs, only hull techs. In other words, you only have to research one tech. Please explain what kind of strategic options are available with engines as separate parts that aren't available with engines integrated into hulls (please review some relevant discussions first). You mentioned that a hull could be refitted to become faster, but why shouldn't there be certain aspects of a ship that can't be adjusted by refitting the ship?

[Geoff the Medio]

But what is the point of researching engines if you can't use them until you research a different hull type? Why should I have to research TWO technologies (Engine + Hull Type) if only one of those technologies is useful?

Depending how the tech tree is set up, an engine tech or engine-related tech might be a prerequisite for several hulls, each of which would also have other prerequisites.

Or, as Bigjoe5 suggests, there might not be any separate "engine" techs, and there would just be a variety of available hull techs.

In some cases, having engine techs of some sort that unlock several hulls would probably make sense, though.

If we're tying speed to hull type, what's the point of refitting ships if you can't put better engines in them?

To update all the parts in the design. There's more to a ship than its engines.

[pd]

Just because we don't have engines as a separate part, doesn't mean there can't be parts that influence ship speed. Just like armor affects health, some other part could affect speed. There can even be parts, that affect enemy ship speed(I assume).

[mZhura]

Please explain what kind of strategic options are available with engines as separate parts that aren't available with engines integrated into hulls (please review some relevant discussions first).

easy: when i have separate engine i could decide to put several engines in one hull to speed it up.
yes, you can add set of hulls like
"one-light-engine small hull"
"two-light-engine small hull"
"three-light-engine small hull"
"four-light-engine small hull"
"five-light-engine small hull"
"one-medium-engine small hull"
...
"five-medium-engine small hull"
"one-fast-engine small hull"
...
"five-fast-engine small hull"
"one-light-engine medium hull"
...
...
...
"five-fast-engine huge hull"

but instead you need just 4-5 techs with different hulls and same quantity techs for engines!

Just like armor affects health, some other part could affect speed

so, why not call this parts "engine"?

[pd]

Please review this thread about how and why this decision was made.

[Bigjoe5]

What you propose, mZhura, this tradeoff of slots for speed, can it not be done just as effectively by simply choosing a hull with fewer slots and higher speed? You must not only explain why it will work your way, but why it will not work the way we have currently planned.

[mZhura]

What you propose, mZhura, this tradeoff of slots for speed, can it not be done just as effectively by simply choosing a hull with fewer slots and higher speed? You must not only explain why it will work your way, but why it will not work the way we have currently planned.

i didn't say it won't work your way. i just said that your way is either very complicated or very restrictive. your way you loose freedom or generate hundreds of different hulls

Please review this thread about how and why this decision was made.

thank you, now i understand. you simply ignoring players which likes freedom in ship design, because of some theoretic "balancing nightmare" and also because players in common are not smart enough to design proper ship.

so, why don't you go further and not bound all other options with hulls? what need in ship design at all? it's so complicated and hard to balance and implement...

[Bigjoe5]

i didn't say it won't work your way. i just said that your way is either very complicated or very restrictive. your way you loose freedom or generate hundreds of different hulls

Restriction isn't necessarily a bad thing. It forces the player to make strategic trade-offs in a way that total freedom of design wouldn't.

[mZhura]

i didn't say it won't work your way. i just said that your way is either very complicated or very restrictive. your way you loose freedom or generate hundreds of different hulls

Restriction isn't necessarily a bad thing. It forces the player to make strategic trade-offs in a way that total freedom of design wouldn't.

i'm sure not asking for absolute freedom. still there are ship cost and quantity of free sockets that limit variations quite tough. i receive explanations about why choice about engines was made, but i found no explanation about why engines are worse than weapons, shields and all-other-stuff. saying that ship without engines are useless is nonsense. useless for traveling? of cause! but useless for defending planet with shipyard? of cause not! ship without weapons also useless for some purposes, so let's bind some weapon to every hull and let the players develop their tactical skills...

so for now all choices sound to me more like "because we want so"

[Geoff the Medio]

[Making] engine techs integral to the hull type itself, instead of a separate design choice [...] would presumably make it easier to make 3D models that represent a particular engine type, and would make it much easier to balance engine characteristics against other hull properties. There could still be add-ons or other engine-related parts to alter engine-related ship characteristics. This also seems to fit fairly well with the plan to have various hulls have distinctive characteristics that affect their usefulness for particular roles, but which aren't specifically tailored to a particular role. Having all ship parts be separately selectable leaves not many options to distinguish different hull sizes or shapes from eachother.

(From here)

[mZhura]

[Making] engine techs integral to the hull type itself, instead of a separate design choice [...](From here)

and thanks again i already saw that topic with help of PD.

1."would presumably make it easier to make 3D models that represent a particular engine type" - not quite sure, but maybe
2."would make it much easier to balance engine characteristics against other hull properties" - please explain why number of free sockets and cost to build doesn't allow to balance ship properly? "much easier" - i'm ready to agree, but who said that easier - the better?
3."There could still be add-ons or other engine-related parts to alter engine-related ship characteristics" - that part looks to me like avoidable complication. if (2) would be "much easier" than (3) would be "much harder" and again we're back to where we start. only the concept of ship design receive some additional predefined restrictions that complicating original task
4. "various hulls have distinctive characteristics that affect their usefulness for particular roles" - and where the "chip defense", i mean engine-less ship just for defending shipyard system?
5."Having all ship parts be separately selectable leaves not many options to distinguish different hull sizes or shapes from eachother" - not agree at all. hull size easily differ by number of free sockets and their "mass" which require different engine power to propel to same speed. about hull "shape" - i think it must identify ship main role, but i see absolutely no reason why role must be bound with speed. what if i want some "fast colonizer" for my own tactical purpose, and no matter the cost?

[Bigjoe5]

3."There could still be add-ons or other engine-related parts to alter engine-related ship characteristics" - that part looks to me like avoidable complication. if (2) would be "much easier" than (3) would be "much harder" and again we're back to where we start. only the concept of ship design receive some additional predefined restrictions that complicating original task

I'm not quite sure, but shouldn't (3) solve your whole issue with ship design? It would make speed a lot like stealth; the ship has a base value which can be modified by parts. Unlike stealth however, where the main stealth modifiers would be negative with only a few legitimately stealthy hulls, and the majority of stealth equipment on a ship would be just bringing it above 0, speed will always be positive, and the engine add-ons relatively weak compared to the main engine of the ship itself. The fact that the bulk of the ships speed comes from it's hull makes it easier to balance, and the supplementary parts still allows for some versatility in design, IMO.

Of course, even if such parts did not exist, ship hulls are assigned their "role" only by the player. If you simply must have a fast colony ship, there will be a hull option for a fast ship with an internal slot. Since most fast ships won't have any internal slots, this will probably be its only slot, and the strategic tradeoff would be the lack of ability to use any defensive equipment.

[mZhura]

I'm not quite sure, but shouldn't (3) solve your whole issue with ship design?

yes, i guess it can, but all this:

Of course, even if such parts did not exist, ship hulls are assigned their "role" only by the player. If you simply must have a fast colony ship, there will be a hull option for a fast ship with an internal slot. Since most fast ships won't have any internal slots, this will probably be its only slot, and the strategic tradeoff would be the lack of ability to use any defensive equipment.

looks to me like unnecessary complication of design process as i already wrote before, i.e. at first you bind engine to hull "to avoid some difficulties" but as a result it brings much more difficulty than it solves...