v17 Discussion

[boggo2300]

hmmm I've been thinking,  would it be worthwhile to have a cruising speed/combat speed for ships similar to how Starfire did it (and how it is in the real world) so that you ships aren't zooming around at flank speed over interplanetary distances,  from memory strategic cruising speed in Starfire was 66% for I,  possibly a bit trickier in AI as your possible speed ranges are much more variable,  possibly even have a tech in there to increase cruising speed but with a drawback(like extra size perhaps since we don't model fuel) as a balance,  and make your default cruise speed say 75% max thrust,  with a minimum of 1?

also some stuff I posted in other threads,  brought here so all in one place;

Question about the Engine Tech tree,  I would expect the higher tiers of this to have pre-req's of some of the Energy tech trees;  for example Engine Tech V (Plasma Torch) you can develop these as N-space engines even without beginning on the Plasma Tech tree.  Engine Tech VII is the same not requiring knowledge of Fusion Tech.

Admittedly it will make the tech tree a little trickier and will make things like,  Fusion Tech pretty much requires Plasma tech as a pre-req if you want to develop the Engines.  gameplay wise it's not going to be any advantage to do what I'm talking about,  it just seems weird to me that I could theoretically have Anti-Matter Pulse engines,  but have never researched Antimatter Tech.

Actually another way of doing it, the names Nuclear Pulse, Plasma Torch etc are really just flavour,  so maybe making the engine names more generic,  or using different names not tied in so closely with the reactor tech's would be a thing.

how about Triple Mount hardpoints?  recently re-watched the live action Space Cruiser Yamoto movie, and triple mount turret lasers FTW!!

[Erik L (OP)]

Engines have an innate thrust compensation equal to their thrust rating. Adding Inertial compensators allows them to exceed that. (This is a change from AI 1). So your flank speed would be engine thrust + IC rating. Sort of already in there in a way.

[Erik L (OP)]

Question about the Engine Tech tree,  I would expect the higher tiers of this to have pre-req's of some of the Energy tech trees;  for example Engine Tech V (Plasma Torch) you can develop these as N-space engines even without beginning on the Plasma Tech tree.  Engine Tech VII is the same not requiring knowledge of Fusion Tech.

Admittedly it will make the tech tree a little trickier and will make things like,  Fusion Tech pretty much requires Plasma tech as a pre-req if you want to develop the Engines.  gameplay wise it's not going to be any advantage to do what I'm talking about,  it just seems weird to me that I could theoretically have Anti-Matter Pulse engines,  but have never researched Antimatter Tech.

Actually another way of doing it, the names Nuclear Pulse, Plasma Torch etc are really just flavour,  so maybe making the engine names more generic,  or using different names not tied in so closely with the reactor tech's would be a thing.

I can see what you are saying here. Tying it to the power tech to open the necessary engine tech. That will slow down research in those trees though. You'll have to research up to the necessary Physics level, then the power level, then the engine level. Is the added "realism" enough of a benefit for this change?

Or should the engine techs be integrated into the necessary power techs? Probably at level 2.

[boggo2300]

I like option 2 there actually,  change the engine tech tree to only have thrust efficiency and engine classes, and move the individual engine techs into the power tech trees. Basically in for example the Fission tree have two levels in there one for Torch and one for Pulse.  and 3 of the tech trees are already in the Physics tree (Plasma, Ion and Grav are missing I believe, Plasma in Astrophysics and Ion and Grav without trees,  though I could see some other things you could add for Ion and Grav trees, like Ion Cannon, and Tractor/repulsors in grav maybe?)

though this is now turning into a lot of work, it feels more logical to me,  and I don't think it would cause too much of a restriction in research,  but do you think it's worth it to rejig the tech rules to that degree?

[Erik L (OP)]

One thing I have always tried to maintain is "your empire, your way". The biggest thing would be to keep the prospective weapons in-line range/damage/power consumption-wise with the rest of them so there is no flavor of the month or golden gun.

And as a side, regarding the triple-mount. It's doable. But then why not quad? Or quint? Or 257? Have to draw a line someplace.

I might go with up to quad since you see a lot of quad-mount turrets in movies.

[Erik L (OP)]

Rough idea. No numbers yet...

Engine tech 1 - Torch & Basic
Engine tech 2 - Standard
Engine tech 3 - Improved
Engine tech 4 - Enhanced & Pulse
Engine tech 5 - Advanced

Nuclear engines are under Fission 1 (only because you wouldn't have engines otherwise) requires Physics 1
Ion engines
Grav engines
Plasma engines are under Plasma 3, requires Astrophsyics 2/Physics 4
Fusion engines are under Fusion 3, requires Physics 2
Anti-matter engines are under Antimatter 3, requires Physics 3

Looking at that, I can see it is harder to get plasma engines now than it is Fusion/Antimatter. Those might have to be swapped around a bit. Ion could fit under Astrophysics 1 which gives particle weapons. Grav... That's the outlier.

[boggo2300]

I like that,  though as you considered yourself swap fusion and plasma engines in table 41 and 70,  and maybe put Grav drives as Astrophysics 1/Physics 2  which would slot it development wise between Ion and Fusion?


Maybe instead of Dual, Triple, Quad mounts  a Multiple Mount,  with Power, Tonnage & LP cost +50% and double cost per additional weapon, with each weapon allowing an additional shot.

hmm no thinking that through that's very exploitable.  maybe a sliding scale second weapon is +50% third is +75% fourth is +100% etc that makes it not as efficient to keep piling on the weapons, or possibly leaving the 50% just making it cost more per additional barrel,  like +100 for second, +150 for third, +200 for fourth

[boggo2300]

Engines have an innate thrust compensation equal to their thrust rating. Adding Inertial compensators allows them to exceed that. (This is a change from AI 1). So your flank speed would be engine thrust + IC rating. Sort of already in there in a way.

oh ok,  I misread that then,  so a ship with thrust 3 and Compensators 3 could actually hit thrust 6?

then that makes it easy to do a cruising/flank speed by doing something like having a burnout chance on the Compensators for long term use or something,  ie If you use your compensators for more than 24 hours theres a 5% chance per additional hour of use that they go foom!

[Erik L (OP)]

I like that,  though as you considered yourself swap fusion and plasma engines in table 41 and 70,  and maybe put Grav drives as Astrophysics 1/Physics 2  which would slot it development wise between Ion and Fusion?


Maybe instead of Dual, Triple, Quad mounts  a Multiple Mount,  with Power, Tonnage & LP cost +50% and double cost per additional weapon, with each weapon allowing an additional shot.

hmm no thinking that through that's very exploitable.  maybe a sliding scale second weapon is +50% third is +75% fourth is +100% etc that makes it not as efficient to keep piling on the weapons, or possibly leaving the 50% just making it cost more per additional barrel,  like +100 for second, +150 for third, +200 for fourth

I'm thinking of tying Grav drives to Warpspace power. That just leaves ZPT with no associated drive. Most likely the numbers will remain the same, and just the descriptive text will change.

Dual mounts are standard mounts with increased capacitors and emitters to allow an additional shot per turn. Power and tonnage requirements are increased by 50%, and cost is doubled. Dual Mounts increase the Logistic Point Cost by 50%. Dual mounted weapons may target separate targets with each shot.

That is the dual mount text on page 31. I might reword it to Power and tonnage requirements are increased by 25% per additional mount, and cost is increased by 100% per mount. Each additional mount increase the Logistic Point cost by 50%.

[Erik L (OP)]

oh ok,  I misread that then,  so a ship with thrust 3 and Compensators 3 could actually hit thrust 6?

then that makes it easy to do a cruising/flank speed by doing something like having a burnout chance on the Compensators for long term use or something,  ie If you use your compensators for more than 24 hours theres a 5% chance per additional hour of use that they go foom!

Relevant rule section

Compensation
Ships have a Compensation rating equal to the Thrust of their engines. To exceed this rating, a ship must have Inertial Compensators. The maximum Compensation Rating is equal to 150% of the Thrust of the engines. This value may not exceed the maximum rated thrust for the hull material.

Also check page 16. I had to go digging. I knew it was in there at some point.

[boggo2300]

ok, so thrust 4 and compensator 2 is ok,  and would allow thrust of?

I have to admit I've always struggled with the way thrust and compensators work together, plus I just realised I've been cocking up my designs by paying for the free compensators (of the thrust value of the engines, oops)

[Erik L (OP)]

ok, so thrust 4 and compensator 2 is ok,  and would allow thrust of?

I have to admit I've always struggled with the way thrust and compensators work together, plus I just realised I've been cocking up my designs by paying for the free compensators (of the thrust value of the engines, oops)

Cruising speed of 4 and max speed of 6. Well, technically 9, but at severe penalties. It is also dependent on the hull materials. They limit your speed too.

[boggo2300]

the way I've read it, with thrust 4 & comp 2 your max thrust is 4, but you can travel at speed 6 (safely),  still only accelerating and decelerating at 4, and to keep that speed 6, you aren't constantly using the 4 thrust? as you only coast when you have no engines?  so if you've built your speed to 6 do you need to use all 4 of your thrust to maintain that? or would you be using 1 every 5 turns to stop the slowing?

If that's correct it may be worth re-wording page 8 to Bearing and Vector and reserving the word Thrust for actual application of the engine to change speed and or bearing

[Erik L (OP)]

the way I've read it, with thrust 4 & comp 2 your max thrust is 4, but you can travel at speed 6 (safely),  still only accelerating and decelerating at 4, and to keep that speed 6, you aren't constantly using the 4 thrust? as you only coast when you have no engines?  so if you've built your speed to 6 do you need to use all 4 of your thrust to maintain that? or would you be using 1 every 5 turns to stop the slowing?

If that's correct it may be worth re-wording page 8 to Bearing and Vector and reserving the word Thrust for actual application of the engine to change speed and or bearing

It used to be that way. You spent your thrust to maintain speed. There was no inertia. Now you spend your thrust as before for speed changes, but once you've reached a speed, you maintain that speed. You just need to spend extra thrust to accelerate/decelerate. Along with facing changes.

So without IC, your normal, non-penalty speed is 4. With IC 2, you have a speed of 6. Assuming your hull materials allow it. So turn 1 you can go from 0 to 4. Turn 2, you can hit 6 and have 2 thrust left over for additional maneuvers. In the 2 turns, you've moved 10 hexes.

Does that clear things up?

[boggo2300]

yup

unless you lose your engine then you decelerate 1 per 5 turns,  I'd actually be tempted to drop that,  let inertia be a pain for engine disabled ships!

I'd definitely change the wording on page eight though and not use the word thrust, as effectively you are using that word for both thrust and vector.