Update on Progress

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

I've updated Diplomacy Part 2 as a result of play test. As with the update to Part 3, this should make the mechanics cleaner and clearer.

http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=8495.msg118318#msg118318

[DFNewb]

If the end of March release isn't a goal anymore can you possibly add in Spinal Rail-guns before the first release?
I don't see why they would be a big deal to add in and test.  I rather wait an extra week and have spinal railguns if that is a possibility.  Halo style ships.

I'm super excited for the release and I can definitely wait for you to be satisfied with the initial release.

It's looking great so far I really can't wait to play.

Best wishes goes out to everyone reading this and living through the current crazy times we are experiencing.

[JacenHan]

I think (based on what has been said previously) that the delay on non-laser spinals is more because Steve hasn't decided how he wants them to work yet rather than the time it would take to implement.

[Kristover]

I would support a sooner release than waiting another week or two for an optional pet feature.  Fact is I think anyone who plays and has been following the current feature set has a feature that would have liked to see in for this release.  Mine include combat air patrol/interception for fighters (including A2A combat) and peace treaties in diplomacy.  BUT, I think it has been clear what the release criterion are at this point - polish diplomacy to designer satisfaction, obfuscation, install program and release.  Everything else will/should come after.  My opinion for what it's worth.

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

I think (based on what has been said previously) that the delay on non-laser spinals is more because Steve hasn't decided how he wants them to work yet rather than the time it would take to implement.

Yes, this is correct.

I might even make particle lances a spinal weapon if they seem too powerful as a normal weapon.

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

I would support a sooner release than waiting another week or two for an optional pet feature.  Fact is I think anyone who plays and has been following the current feature set has a feature that would have liked to see in for this release.  Mine include combat air patrol/interception for fighters (including A2A combat) and peace treaties in diplomacy.  BUT, I think it has been clear what the release criterion are at this point - polish diplomacy to designer satisfaction, obfuscation, install program and release.  Everything else will/should come after.  My opinion for what it's worth.

Yes, that is my intention. Install seem to be done now, so I need to finish testing Diplomacy (I am making progress) and implement obfuscation. I am throwing in one or two extra features as I go when they are quick (like the mineral search) or I need a break from the more complex areas.

[Jarhead0331]

Apologies in advance for what may be a stupid question...

What is "obfuscation" in relation to finalizing the development of the initial release? 

[Bremen]

Obfuscation is a way of making a program harder to reverse engineer. It's basically to keep any unscrupulous programmer from stealing it.

[Tikigod]

<snip>
I might even make particle lances a spinal weapon if they seem too powerful as a normal weapon.

Don't you dare!

*growls*

[Desdinova]

It never really made sense to me why 1 8,000 ton ship can have only 1 spinal mount, but 4,000 ton ships can each mount the same weapon. Why not make max spinal mount size scale with ship size, or allow multiple spinal mount weapons up to some multiple of ship tonnage?

[Jorgen_CAB]

It never really made sense to me why 1 8,000 ton ship can have only 1 spinal mount, but 4,000 ton ships can each mount the same weapon. Why not make max spinal mount size scale with ship size, or allow multiple spinal mount weapons up to some multiple of ship tonnage?

I agree with this sentiment... a ship might be able to carry a total spinal weapon weight based on ship size, but you don't want it to be a linear...

Perhaps something like...

Ship Size in HS (ShHS), Weapon Size in HS (WpHS)

ShHS^0.5*10=WpHS

A 500 ton fighter could mount max spinal weapons of 220t size
A 5000 ton frigate could mount a maximum spinal weapons of 700t size
A 50000 ton battleship could mount a maximum spinal weapons of 2250t size

Just as an example...

[papent]

How many spines do these ships have?

I always imagined a spinal mount is like a HALO Mac cannon or the Gau-8 in the A-10. You designed the craft around the weapon not vice versa.

[Gladaed]

How many spines do these ships have?

I always imagined a spinal mount is like a HALO Mac cannon or the Gau-8 in the A-10.  You designed the craft around the weapon not vice versa. 

This is a fair point.  (Super)Capital class vessels should have a dedicated class of very large (capital) mounts that is similar but inferior to spinal mounts.

[alaysian]

How many spines do these ships have?

I always imagined a spinal mount is like a HALO Mac cannon or the Gau-8 in the A-10.   You designed the craft around the weapon not vice versa. 

For the record regarding halo, Infinity has 4 super-MAC cannons.

That's why I think it makes more sense to have larger spinal mounts as others have said.    Either have multiple sizes restricted based on class, or autoscale them based on hull size of the ship, or even both. 

I love my giant ships and just want to build my death star 

[Father Tim]

How many spines do these ships have?

I always imagined a spinal mount is like a HALO Mac cannon or the Gau-8 in the A-10. You designed the craft around the weapon not vice versa.

I think if you want more than ONE spinal-mount weapon, your ship should be a catamaran or even trimaran design (which could be a simple tech line).