It appears that you have not registered with Aurora 4x. To register, please click here...
Fiction > Starfire
Draft Hull Table
crucis:
Hello all,
<< As with the Anniversary message, this was meant to be posted
to the List yesterday... oh well.... crap happens... >>
As mentioned in my "Cosmic Anniversary" posting earlier, I want to
share a significant piece of Cosmic content with you today... the
draft Hull Table.
But before I present the draft Hull Table, I want to give you some
background on how it was constructed. I did some serious analysis
of the old 3rdR sizes and not surprisingly discovered that there
is some inconsistency in those sizes. And the more I thought about
it, the more that I realized that it was these inconsistencies that
were often at the root of why certain hull types would feel relatively
and *proportionally* weak compared to other hull types.
Oh, of course, it's a given that one hull type will always feel weaker
in raw terms than the next larger hull type. However, certain hull
types were proportionally overly weak compared to the next type up,
or even the one below it.
The methodology used to produce the hull sizes was as follows. Using
the standard I/MP ratings, except for changing the FG's from 2/3 to 3/4,
I then set the hull sizes based on the assumption that one "I" was able
to move 33-1/3 HS at speed one, regardless of hull type. The result is
that certain hull sizes did not change much or at all, while others
changed more. The hull types that changed the most were the DD, CL,
and CA, largely because their previous sizes were "only" set to sizes
rated at 30 HS per "I", rather than 33-1/3 HS per "I".
By making all hull types proportionally sized according to their I/MP,
you end up with a set of sizes that should make all hull types feel
much more balanced vs. each other. BTW, note that this was really
only an issue for the hull sizes from ES thru BC. From BB and above,
the hull spaces were much more proportionally accurate.
A note on the FG size: Without going into a long dissertation, the
increase in size was necessary to make the FG more balanced in capability
between the CT and DD, and the increase in I/MP is simply reflective
of the increase in size (or rather, the 3/4 I/MP is what set the size
to 25 HS). Note that the I/MP=3/4 is intentionally halfway between
the CT's 1/2 I/MP and the DD's I/MP of 1.
Now, here's the Draft Hull Table for Cosmic...
Hull Type Max Size (I/Ic/J) I/MPES [1]111/3CT [2]161/2FG [3]253/4DD [4]331CL [5]501-1/2CA [6]662BC [7]832-1/2BB [8]1003DN [9]1334SD [10]1665MT [11]2006MH [12]2507-1/2SM [13]3009LN [14]40012JG [15]50015Hull TypeMax Size(I/Ic/J) I/MP
Note: the number in [] is the FT number.
Fred Burton
Lead Designer for Cosmic Starfire
crucis:
All these "views" and no replies?
Shinanygnz:
'k then...
Seems pefectly reasonable to me. Only thing is I'm not hugely keen on the "weird numbers", although (obviously) you're following a mathematical progression, so I might adjust things a smidge, so DD is 35, CA is 65 or 70, BC 85 - but it's no big deal really.
Are you planning any hull size progression tech like in Ultra? Before I pretty much gave up on 3rdR campaign (due to the end of SA development), I was retrofitting things like that in, adding some of the cool tech (e.g. dense armour/shields) and tweaking other tech (e.g. P became 3 HS)
Stephen
crucis:
--- Quote from: "Shinanygnz" ---'k then...
Seems pefectly reasonable to me. Only thing is I'm not hugely keen on the "weird numbers", although (obviously) you're following a mathematical progression, so I might adjust things a smidge, so DD is 35, CA is 65 or 70, BC 85 - but it's no big deal really.
Are you planning any hull size progression tech like in Ultra? Before I pretty much gave up on 3rdR campaign (due to the end of SA development), I was retrofitting things like that in, adding some of the cool tech (e.g. dense armour/shields) and tweaking other tech (e.g. P became 3 HS)
Stephen
--- End quote ---
Stephen, aka Shinanygnz,
Thank you for this first reply and comments/questions!
A. "Wierd" hull sizes: If you increase or descrease the numbers, then you screw up the balance of the hull sizes relative to each other... which only becomes more important when you factor in other drive types (which I haven't discussed). That is, if you decrease the CA to 65 hs, then you make it relatively smaller compared to the BC, and only moreso if you increase the BC to 85 hs. Or if you make the DD 35 hs, then you make it out of balance vs the 25 hs FG.
The whole point here is to balance all hull types relative to each other ... particularly the types below 100 hs. The types above 100 hs are largely already balanced relative to each other due to their relative sizes and I/MP's. But the sub-100 hs types were grossly out of balance relative to each other.
Besides, what's so "wierd" about them? Numbers are numbers. It's not like I'm saying that the, for example, CA is 66.19324589 HS.
B. Hull Size Progression tech: I'm not sure what you mean by "hull size progression tech". Could you please explain? (Do you mean tweaking of system sizes?)
C. Dense Shields/Armor: I've looked at Sd/Ad and have considered it. Frankly, as presented in Ultra, it really seems to be a rather bad value. Regardless, I haven't entirely dismissed Sd/Ad.
D. Tweaking tech system sizes: Absolutely 100% a possibility. I'm not sure that the P is likely to be reduced in size, but I expect that at least beam will lilely be reduced in size. Having said that, one has to be careful when tweaking weapon sizes, as even a single HS change up or down can have serious consequences in the relative "value" of the weapon. (Precision weapons, such as the Primary, are a bit more difficult to get a firm handle on their "value", compared to "regular" beams weapons such as lasers, force beams and E-beams which can be compared reasonably well.)
mavikfelna:
As far as the hull table sizes/MP ratios, I think it's fine. Looks like you fixed one of the real problems with the 3rdR table.
What about cost per HS? I really think the increasing cost per HS is a disinclination to building larger ships, at least as much as the MP rations caused some classes to be much less useful/desirable.
What are the MP limits and turnmodes? How will that affect other engine types, if they are included. Improving engine types (ala Ultra)?
How about fast hulls (carrier hulls in 3rdR)? Freighters?
Are you dropping Express Boats (EX hulls)? So long as minimum size is 3HS I don't see a problem dropping them. It's just nice having a cheap courier hull.
Are you planning on dropping the 4HS construction bonus for ships finishing construction? Please! That's the other disincentive for large hulls in 3rdR and Ultra.
Note, I think Ultra does alot right and it handles alot of things more eloquently than in 3rdR. But I still like alot of the 3rdR environment. My biggest complaint with both is not on the tactical side or with ship design but with R&D. It's too simple in 3rdR and too complex, takes too long and is often too hard to advance in Ultra.
Oh, and hull progression tech is the d~m hull sizes in Ultra in think. So as you improve in EL you can make larger hulls in the same class (IE, DD is 30, DDb is 35, DDe is 40 etc...) so that you are pushing larger hulls without increased cost per HS. If you go to a set cost per HS or even a very shallow cost increase per HS by class this isn't needed or is handled by improved engine tech. At least I think that's what Stephen is saying.
--Mav
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version