After thinking about it, my reason for wanting an internal section was based on a realism thing. I guess that would complicate things but I still think it would add a little more of a challenge to ship design. Since most people seem to disagree with it though, I'll drop it.
utilae wrote:Prototypes sounds like an unnecesary hassle. Why bother.
This was a different approach to Impaler's suggestion of having to research hull designs. I would actually prefer to be able to use the ship immediately, but if we have to have some method of cost associated with new designs, I'd rather have a prototype than extra research.
Ranos wrote:Basically, the internal space is for additional expendables. This allows for more missiles, more fighters, etc. You can install more fighter bays allowing for multiple waves of fighters. For energy weapons, instead of saying no internals are needed, maybe you would need power plants. These are completely different from the engines which give a ship its propulsion. This is just something to allow people to customize their ships more and add a challenge into the design part of ship building.
Unnecesary and a hassle.
Hopefully you are talking about the power plants when you say that.
Ranos wrote:When you install a missile rack, you select how many tubes there will be. Lets say each tube takes 2 space that has to be mounted on one of the external areas. The missile loading systems take up 2 internal space and each missile takes up 2 internal space. So if you install 1 missile tube with 1 round, it takes up 2 external and 4 internal space. You can install more rounds for that singe tube which only costs and additional 2 internal space each or you can install additional tubes which take 2 external and 4 internals a piece. You have to weigh the benefits and make sure everythin fits together.
I think we shouldn't go into this kind of detail with missiles and missile tubes (choosing what weapons go on a fighter is ok, maybe).
So you think missiles should have a set number of racks and a set number of missiles? Being able to select the size and reloads adds more of a customizable aspect to missiles. MOO3 used it and I think it worked well. Let me explain it without all of the internal/external stuff.
You want to put a missile rack on your ship. First you select the type of missile. Next you choose what rack size you want. Does it fire 1 missile, 2 missiles, 4 missiles or 8 missiles at a time? this is the rack size. Next you select how many salvos there are. If you make a missile rack with 2 tubes, you automatically get 1 missile for each tube. Selecting how many salvos adds missiles. So you fire your missiles, wait for them to reload and then fire again. Why do this? Adding a single missile tube with one missile takes up more space then a single missile reload. There should be a ratio of how much space the basic rack takes compared to how much space reloads take. Something like 2:1 or 3:1. So if the basic missile you start the game off with takes 4 space for the rack, the realoads would take 2 space. Or with the 3:1 ratio, if the rack takes 6 space, the missile takes 2 space.this does two things, allows for space saving and gives missiles a greater role in combat. IIRC, MOO2 just had missiles which were all fired at the start of combat and that was it. There were no reloads.
I would like fighters and projectile weapons to be the same. You can install the basic system and then have additional ammo for the projectiles or additional waves of fighters.
Zpock wrote:First of all I think you get this feeling becouse Impaler did a very detailed explanation of his thoughts. For example, if he had just said:
I guess I was misunderstanding slightly, but your explaination makes me like it even less. From what I'm understanding about the system, you're saying new hull sizes are useless until you design a hull setup. So you get hull size 7 but you have to put these stack slots in and you have to decide what type of equipment goes in what slot. This IS
very limiting. It would also make ship design far more complicated than it is now. Instead of just having the hull size and being able to load whatever you wanted into it, allowing you to easily make different types of ships (recon, Direct fire, PD, Missile ships, carriers, etc.). With what I understand from your system, we would have to first design a recon hull and then we would actually have to design the ship. Now that hull is good for the whole game and you can put new systems on it, but it is basically the same exact recon ship, just with newer systems.
You would have to go through that whole process for every hull size and for every style of ship you wanted. That would lead to a couple of hundred hull designs and the player would still have to design the actual ship. This puts far too much focus on ship design and takes away from the rest of the game. Half of the time you spent playing the game would be designing hulls and ships. This makes the system too complex and too limiting.
Zpock wrote:Again, this is just an unmotivated gut feeling I think. Realism and such isn't worth considering but if that comment is refering to researching a design being unrealistic I really disagree as there's a LOT of development and engineering involved in making new vehicle models in the real world. Just becouse you know how to make all the engines, tires, steering-wheels etc doesn't mean you can immedietly have a new car model. Isn't that obvious?
Nowhere in my post did I say anything about realism and I am getting sick and tired of hearing all of this realism BS. (Pardon my language Aquitaine, I'm just getting sick of listening to that broken record) I said this because it seems to me to be an unnecessary complication. Now granted, I suggeted using prototyping but to me, that would be better than researching new designs.
Since you brought up the realism aspect, here is what happens in real life: Somebody developes an applied technology and now it has to be put into use. Lets go with jet fighters since that is as close to a comparison as we will come. When a ship is designed, all of the technology to build it is known, the engineer is just puting it all to use. He sits at his table and draws everything out. That is basically what the player does when designing a ship, they become the engineer. Once the design is complete, the design has to be reviewed by important people and decide whether it should be used or not. You also fill this role in the game and since you are designing it and like the design, it obviously gets implemented.
Now that the design has been approved, it goes to Area 51 or whatever other super secret aircraft development facilities we have in th US and they start working on the prototype. This costs more and takes longer to build than the fighter will when it goes into full production. This is because the molds for the parts have to be made, they have to figure out the processes of shaping the metal to what it needs to be and they have to work out the kinks in the whole design.
The system may be more comples than that, but not much. No where in there is any extra research required to get the fighter into production. With that said, lets get off of this realism aspect and back into the unrealistic world of galactic empires and FTL travel.
Zpock wrote:Now for the second argument against Impalers idea (or more the general star! system). That it's limiting. First of, the idea was that you would get to do a few hulls but not as many as you want (limited by research, not har limits). So you get to choose for example to have your battleship designs with lots of guns, lots of armor, cheap or whatever. You then make different design's limited by the limits you strategically choosed.
Do you realize that within that paragraph you stated that it was limiting? You get a few hulls with a set configuration that you have to work with for the rest of the game. Limiting.
Zpock wrote:If you just pile in stuff into your ships as you wan't then there's not much strategy involved and more of just doing the good old cookie cutter design putting in whatever makes your ships more effective.
There is strategy involved in puting stuff on the ships because you have to put the right things in to make your combat strategy work. In this way, there are no "cookie cutter" designs. Those would develope if your system was implemented. With the "put whatever you want on the ship where you want it" design, you can design a ship and if you fin it isn't working well in combat, you can design a new one in the hopes that it will be better. With the set design template way, you wouldn't have this option. You would still be forced to put the same equipment in the smae places and that accomplishes nothing.
Impaler wrote:It sounds like a Ratio to me, basicaly their are "bags" that can be filled with stuff the internal bag and the external bags, if the player has 10 size external Bag and a 10 Internal Bag then its a 1:1 Ratio. I think its better make this a "Is this Thing Hitable from this direction?, check all that apply" So if the Component is able to be hit from the rear and the Starboard side then its esentialy IN both of thouse catagories. Likwise if I have some Wide Arc turrets they should be able to Hit from any direction it can Fire from. Firing Arch can never exceed Hitable Arc, Internal is just having none of these checked. If combat in a 2D plane you can think of turrets on the top and bottom of the ship as having all 4 directionals For/Port/Starboard/Aft checked
But how do you limit the player on where something is? They could, by checking the boxes, put everything on top of their ship and then be able to fire in every direction all the time.
Maybe having Top and Bottom sections would still be a good idea, they would just be smaller. Shields would only be mounted on the 4 sides but you could mount weapons on top. That would work better IMO.
Impaler wrote:I will probly do an update to show how Facing Directions work, as for now let me just describe the UI. Their would be a Set of 4 Radio Buttons for each of the 4 faceings that can be turned on and off individualy (and possibly a Big "All On" "All off" button in the middle for speedyness). The player selects a Device type off the Scroll List, clicks on/off the facings they desire and then highlight a Size 1 - 8 off a key pad like menu. Now when they move the mouse into the design area they see the outline of the Stack they can place. Depending on what facings they have active the shape of that stack will be different (unless its a very small stack which are ofcorse too simple to have much variety) Left Clicking once places a stack of size 1, additional clicks anyware on the stack raise the hight by 1. If the Shift Key is Held down durring either of these then 10 is added instead of 1, Ctrl + Shift gives 100. Right clicking removes the stacks and lowers their Hight. The player can select a previously placed stack and change its Type (like Engine to Weapon) by reselecting from the menu. Stack height can be adjusted with Mouse Scrolling + Shift and Ctrl for 10/100 stuff as before. Facings can be changed with the buttons as well unless this would result in a overlap with something else due to the shape change. If this is the case then the Stack will "lift off" the map and attach to the mouse so the player can find an empty place to put it. Double clicking on stacks will also lift them. Lifted Stacks can be thrown away by droping them into the Component Type Menu.
I got lost in the complexity of the above description. I would prefer it if wepons would be able to fire in all directions and there not be directional mounting. That only complicates things in the design process and puts limits on the ships. Having single direction firing weapons was fine in MOO2 since everything was turn based and all that was required was rotating the ship. In FO, I would like to see ships have to arc around to face an opposite direction instead of being able to turn on a dime like in MOO2 and 3.
Zpock wrote:1. You will need some engines for the cruiser of course. Let's say a few smaller engines are less effective then one big but more durable, so you decide to have a 5x small slot for engines.
2. Your research strategy is to focus on electronics a lot so you think it would be a good idea to put in 3 slots of 2x medium size. You want 3 slots for flexbility becouse then you can use different electronic systems in each instead of all the same in a 6x medium slot. On the other hand, a single slot would have been cheaper.
3. You want to use your cruiser as the backbone of your fleet, so you decide to have a large weapons slot instead of many smaller.
Can't you see the complexity in that? Instead of just puting the engine on your ship and maybe selecting the allowed speed, you have to decide how big it is and how many you put in. Now you have to decide on a stack size and what will go in it and move stuff around and blah, blah, blah.
Then you still have to do the actual ship design where you install the stuff.
How about this. I have my cruiser. I put the newest engine on and I want it to go as fast as possible because this is a war ship which I want to be able to move when it needs to. This takes up 75% of the Aft section. I put on the best sensors I have which take 10% of the Forward section. I now put 2 Shield Generatos in each section, Forward, Aft, Port and Starboard to help protect my ship. I put 3 PD Phasors in the aft section which takes up the rest of the Aft space. Now I put 2 Plasma Cannons in each of the 5 remaining sections except the bottom. I put 2 PD Phasors in all sections exept the Top where I put 5, filling up the rest of the space there. On the Bottom, I put a Fighter bay holding 10 fighters on the Bottom which fills that up. I now only have Forward, Port and Starboard with any space left. Forward has less because of the sensors. I decide to put 2 more Plasma Cannons on the front and now that space is full. On the last two sides, I put a missile rack which has 4 tubes and 3 relaods. Now my ship is full. and an effective fighting machine. Maybe I discover during the course of battle that I need more PD on the ship. I can go into the design and take of a Plasma Cannon or two and load in PD.
With the Stars! system plus the add-ons for location or directional firing or whatever, I have to design the hull which takes a while. Then I have to actually install the systems which also takes a while. Since I've never used the system, I don't know how long it would take, but it seems to me like it would take at least 50% more time if not twice as much. Then if you find the design isn't working, instead of just being able to slightly alter the plans, you have to deign a whole new hull.
Thats the problem I have with it, its nothing but pictures. You have to know what each picture is instead of just being able to read what the name of the item is. And of course there is still the problem of the limitation of certain things having to go in certain places.
Zpock wrote:Yes, and the main idea is to build on the stars! system by allowing designing the hulls themselves. The benefit of this is that the different hulls will fill different roles and the player would actually decide on what role he wants for the different hulls. Thus you can get away from the bigger is better problem in a VERY nice way, much better then the crude "small ships are hard to hit" that we have seen so far in 4x not working very well.
I would prbably be very restrictive on how many hulls the player can design, maybe so far as only a single hull design for every new hull size, maybe letting the player have a secound at huge costs. To prevent one from using the same size for all roles.
One word: LIMITING
200 and still a Wyrm!?! I don't want to be a Wyrm anymore. I've been a Wyrm for 100 posts now.