Author Topic: Mission pods and their feasability.  (Read 601 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline obsidian_green

  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • ******
  • Posts: 103
  • Thanked: 11 times
    • View Profile
Mission pods and their feasability.
« on: September 07, 2017, 10:06:31 PM »
Inspired by an older thread, I'm considering engineless pods for modular components (like sensors or flag bridges). I'm interested in hearing advice, especially if that takes the form of pointing out unexpected drawbacks like difficulty docking/re-docking when I park the host ship in a PDC hangar. I'd have to launch the pod before I dock the ship, but will the pod then execute a dock order to the PDC with no engines? I'm sure I could manually dock it and it'd be great to save that 1HS, but I might prefer a minimal engine to the hassle.

Other considerations I'm missing completely?
 

Offline Iranon

  • Captain
  • **********
  • Posts: 473
  • Thanked: 32 times
    • View Profile
Re: Mission pods and their feasability.
« Reply #1 on: September 07, 2017, 11:58:50 PM »
No problem with docking. Being engineless just restricts you to a speed of 1 km/s, no special restrictions. I don't really see how a minimal engine would help.

No considerations or major headaches I can think of, very much unlike tractored pods.
 
The following users thanked this post: obsidian_green

Offline obsidian_green

  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • ******
  • Posts: 103
  • Thanked: 11 times
    • View Profile
Re: Mission pods and their feasability.
« Reply #2 on: September 08, 2017, 01:44:34 AM »
Thanks, Iranon. 1HS saved and I'm thrilled!

I think I've noticed that about tractoring when I designed a class of fuel harvesting stations without engines. Correct me if I'm wrong: they can be tractored (via standard transit) through gates without issue, but don't try to use a jump tender. Bit of inconsistency there, since that tender should have been acting as a mobile jumpgate. I also think a tug/engineless-pod pair will transit if the combined mass of each pair is less than the tender's jump rating/size restriction, but that doesn't matter (combined mass of the pair can be larger) if each has engines and the individual ships fit under the tender's limits.
 

Offline Iranon

  • Captain
  • **********
  • Posts: 473
  • Thanked: 32 times
    • View Profile
Re: Mission pods and their feasability.
« Reply #3 on: September 09, 2017, 02:51:45 PM »
Jump issues wasn't what stood out in my memory, I don't actually recall them. Maintenance failures causing interrupts and breaking tractor chains was the major annoyance.
 

Offline obsidian_green

  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • ******
  • Posts: 103
  • Thanked: 11 times
    • View Profile
Re: Mission pods and their feasability.
« Reply #4 on: September 12, 2017, 09:45:58 PM »
Jump issues wasn't what stood out in my memory, I don't actually recall them. Maintenance failures causing interrupts and breaking tractor chains was the major annoyance.
I think I've seen a little of that too. I tried towing the only prize I've ever captured (combat interrupts to tell me how long it would be to an actual report didn't encourage me to try to capture another ship), but it's fuel tank was shot up. The tug did not prevent constant interrupts to tell me prize's fuel tanks were empty and I had all sorts of error messages popping up until I finally abandoned ship.
 

Offline Michael Sandy

  • Captain
  • **********
  • Posts: 487
  • Thanked: 15 times
    • View Profile
Re: Mission pods and their feasability.
« Reply #5 on: October 02, 2017, 07:22:05 PM »
Not just sensors and flag bridges, although those retain most of their functionality.

But you can turn a carrier into a collier if you have fighters that are nothing but magazine.  Or have fuel pods.

Makes it a little easier to have multi-role ships, when you can just switch out the fighter complement.

You can also have missile pods, ships with a missile FC, nothing but box launchers and no engine.  The missile pods are only going to be out of the parent carrier for long enough to launch and return to the carrier, so they won't be exposed to enemy fire.  That gives you almost the alpha strike that you would have if the carrier itself were a missile ship, but you can reload it much faster.
 
The following users thanked this post: obsidian_green

Offline Iranon

  • Captain
  • **********
  • Posts: 473
  • Thanked: 32 times
    • View Profile
Re: Mission pods and their feasability.
« Reply #6 on: October 03, 2017, 01:29:35 PM »
There's another bonus: these missile pods can be given many years of mission life for rather little overhead. You may plan to deploy them for a single tick to shoot... but if the need arises, you can dump them as a reusable minefield. Works best if you also use sensor pods.
 
The following users thanked this post: obsidian_green

Offline obsidian_green

  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • ******
  • Posts: 103
  • Thanked: 11 times
    • View Profile
Re: Mission pods and their feasability.
« Reply #7 on: October 05, 2017, 12:05:54 AM »
Oh, those are some good ideas. I have to weigh the obvious utility against the space I need to park the various utility pods when not in use. I might not ever design a traditional mine/buoy now.
 

Offline Michael Sandy

  • Captain
  • **********
  • Posts: 487
  • Thanked: 15 times
    • View Profile
Re: Mission pods and their feasability.
« Reply #8 on: October 05, 2017, 04:19:50 AM »
I recommend developing a probe engine, basically a very fuel efficient missile engine, that you can use with a sensor equipped missile.  It is very useful to send it ahead of your fleet, (although its slow speed can be a bit annoying), to serve as early warning, or to use to gauge when the enemy fleet has detected your own fleet and has started to move out.
 

Offline obsidian_green

  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • ******
  • Posts: 103
  • Thanked: 11 times
    • View Profile
Re: Mission pods and their feasability.
« Reply #9 on: October 05, 2017, 10:25:42 PM »
Currently using a recon fighter for that role, which also allows me to drop one through a jump point before I follow with the whole battlegroup. The idea does sound good for my new, armed explorers, but the probe will have to fit a size-3 launcher.
 

 

Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51