I like big letters, they're easier to read. 
How about making Cloaking Devices a checkbox on the Class Design? Checking it would dedicate a percentage of the ship's tonnage to the Cloak.The Techs would then be:Cloaking Efficiency =
Same as before.Mount Efficiency =
Reduces the percentage of a ship's tonnage required for a cloaking device.Minimum Mount =
Minimum Tonnage that a Cloak can be mounted on.Maximum Mount =
Maximum Tonnage a Cloak can be mounted on.Additionally, although this might cause too much bloat, techs could dictate the maximum and minimum size of the device itself. I.E. a 10% Cloak on a 1,000 Ton ship would weight 100 Tons, thus requiring the 100 Ton Minimum Device Size Tech. While the same 10% Cloak on a 100,000 Ton ship would require the 10,000 Ton Maximum Device Size Tech.
So you would have:
Cloaking Efficiency =
Same as before.Mount Efficiency =
Reduces the percentage of a ship's tonnage required for a cloaking device.Minimum Mount =
Minimum Tonnage that a Cloak can be mounted on.Maximum Mount =
Maximum Tonnage a Cloak can be mounted on.Minimum Device Size =
Minimum Size of a Cloaking Device in HS.Maximum Device Size =
Maximum Size of a Cloaking Device in HS.Alternatively Cloaking Efficiency Tech could be a Ratio of Mount Efficiency instead of a flat percentage.So a 1,000 Ton Ship with a 25% Mount Efficiency Tech and a Cloaking Efficiency of 2 to 1 would have a 250-Ton Cloaking Device operating at 50% Efficiency, due to the 250-Ton Cloaking Device being able to completely Cloak up to 500-Tons worth ship, resulting in a 500 Ton TCS. However the same 1,000 Ton ship with a 2 to 1 Cloaking Efficiency and a 10% Mounting Efficiency Tech would be operating a 100-Ton Cloaking Device capable of cloaking only 200-Tons worth of ship, equivalent to an 80% Cloak, or an 800 Ton TCS. A 100,000 Ton ship could do exactly the same, but would simply cost 10x more to do it.
I might suggest a hard cap on efficiency if invisibility is not desirable, maybe 1% or 10% or something, however:
To achieve a TCS of 0 a 1,000 ton ship could use a 10% Mounting Efficiency Tech and a 10 to 1 Cloaking Efficiency Tech. Since Mounting Efficiency would need to start high, like say 75% or more, then drop down; while Cloaking Efficiency would ideally start low at 1 to 1, this would mean such a ship would be at the top [or very nearly the top] of the Tech Tree to do so. Meanwhile a ship of the same tonnage with a 25% Mounting Efficiency and 4 to 1 Cloaking Efficiency Tech could also become invisible, but at a cost of a quarter of all available tonnage. As a matter of fact, tonnage doesn't make a lot of difference under this system, but 1,000 and 100,000 were easy numbers to work with. So this would be the tech tree with all of it:Cloaking Efficiency =
Ratio of the Ship's HS Cloaked per HS of the Cloaking Device mounted on the Ship.Mount Efficiency =
Reduces the percentage of a ship's tonnage required for a cloaking device.Minimum Mount =
Minimum Tonnage that a Cloak can be mounted on.Maximum Mount =
Maximum Tonnage a Cloak can be mounted on.Minimum Device Size =
Minimum Size of a Cloaking Device in HS.Maximum Device Size =
Maximum Size of a Cloaking Device in HS.EDIT:Addendum, the Techs suggested would scale as follows:Cloaking Efficiency =
Starts at 1 to 1, scales up from there, maybe with 10 to 1 at max or 100 to one if you're feeling a lil' looney. 
Mount Efficiency =
Starts low, maybe 75% or even 80%, then scales down to maybe 10% at max or 1% if you're feeling even loonier. 
Minimum Mount =
Starts out somewhere between 7,500 to 5,000 or something medium like that, scales down to fighter sized, maybe even Cloaked Missiles! 
Maximum Mount =
Starts out at something modest (again), like between 75,000 and 50,000 or whatever, scales up from there; possibly could end with a No Limit Tech for billion ton invisible Orbital Habitat Super Dreadnoughts or something equally stupid.Minimum Device Size =
Same as Minimum Mount, scales accordingly.Maximum Device Size =
Same as Maximum Mount, scales accordingly.EDIT: ---
I want to include some of the arguments here in the OP, along with my answers to them:Firstly, the maths for clarity.
Under the system of ratios, the math looks like this: ---
A Cloaking Efficiency Tech of 10 to 1 hides ten tons of ship per one ton of Cloak. So a 10 Ton Cloaking Device at 10 to 1 Tech will hide 100 Tons of ship. The Device Efficiency is how much tonnage of Cloak you get on a given ship It goes by percentage, so a 10% Tech on a 1,000 ton ship will only give you 100-Tons of Cloak, while a 25% Tech will give you a 250 Ton Cloak for the same tonnage (1,000 Tons). At the same Cloaking Efficiency tech, a 25% Device Efficiency gives MORE Cloak than a 10% Drive Efficiency, but at the cost of more tonnage required. The current cloaking Efficiency tech works via percentages, and this is fine too, although I like the ratios idea better.-Father Tim
I think most people assume making a million-ton ship look like a hundred-thousand-ton ship is pointless, as we desire making a ship look small enough to disappear rather than to fool our opponents about our capability. Human-vs-Human I can see why you'd want to disguise your 54,000 ton super-battleship as just another one of your 36,000 ton regular battleships, but against the Aurora AI it will have virtually no effect.*
- - -
*Okay, generally the AI will target the largest ship -- or the largest ship with active sensors, or the largest ship firing at them, etc. -- but otherwise it doesn't care about ship size.
---
So what can be gained is potentially smaller Cloaks for Fighters, making stealth Fighters an actually useful thing to have. The checkbox system works for Missiles, although I don't know how that will work mechanically in C# Aurora. Mechanically you could get 1,000,000 Ton monstrosities down to a humble 1,000 Tons worth of TCS, but under the ratios system this would require a hefty investment in Technology. Likewise the checkbox system MIGHT be easier to implement code-wise, but I know jack-all about coding much less how Aurora is coded, so I'll point out here that I think building Components is still a better use of these rules. With a Minimum and Maximum Hull Size, building the Components are earstwhile and flavorful, since a Cloaking Device that is designed to weigh 1% of a ships mass, that provides 90 tons of hidden ship for every ton of Cloaking Device Mass that can be mounted on Fighters or billion ton Super-Dreadnoughts is gong to be costly to research AND build. ---
Also, Min / Max Hull Sizer tech could be multiples of HS or Tons, like down to x1 HS or up to x1,000,000 HS, although I think it would work better in Tons.
-Xtrem532
what advantages does this have vs the normal "cloak is a component" approach? cause inventing a whole new system for nothing is a waste of time. Also, you can currently build components with your industry and then build ships who use them, this new system would make this impossible cause every ship has its own cloaking device type. I don't see an advantage.
---
Here is a list of Pros and Cons:Cons: - More complex.
- If implemented as a checkbox, it becomes an integrated system requiring a dedicated class.
- If implemented as a component, the number of meaningful cloaking device designs will be reduced.
- If implemented as a component without the ratios system, the number of meaningful cloaking device designs will be even further reduced.
- May prove difficult to balance, ratios and being to tied hull tonnage could lead to shenanigans of biblical proportions.
- Depending on the mechanics of C# Aurora, Fighter-Sized and Missile-Based Cloaking might be just as pointless as it was in VB6 Aurora.
- The checkbox implementation method would exhibit problems in execution, as Armor is set to the highest available tech, so only the highest available Cloaking Tech could be applied without further complications.
- Adding both implementations (checkbox and component-based) could lead to shenanigans of extra-biblical proportions.
Pros: - If using the ratios system, Cloaking Tech would exhibit a Bell Curve, requiring relatively little to get something "effective" in the relative sense while requiring substantially more to get something "excellent".
- Under the ratios system, tonnage also exhibits a Bell Curve Model, with diminishing returns for larger ships. Likewise certain techs are more useful at the extreme ranges of size than others, making the Cloaking Tech more dynamic, and offering a greater variety of applications.
- If for some Lovecraftian reason both the checkbox method AND components are implemented, the checkbox implementation could serve as a Spinal Mount / Advanced Spinal Mount style of Tech, which would further diversify and increase the usefulness of Cloaking Tech by providing an incentive to build dedicated Cloaking Ships through the use of bonuses granted to the use integrated Cloaking Devices.
- Integrated Cloaking Tech could potentially be a Component Option like Spinal Mount / Advanced Spinal Mount, although potentially far more complicated to implement, or be implemented as a separate tech line altogether, potentially of Spoiler origin or even vice versa.
- Under the system that uses percentage of HS to dictate the size of the Cloaking Device, Fighter-Sized and Missile-Based Cloaking becomes a viable tactic, particularly with Stealth Fighters and Stealth FACs in that they won't need to dedicate much tonnage at higher tech levels.
- With a component-based implementation, the design of Cloaking Devices become more meaningful, particularly in the matter of costs. Since the amount of materials required to build one would need to scale with the size of the device, older and newer tech designs could have benefits and advantages, again exhibiting a Bell Curve whereby a certain ration of percentage of mass, ratio of cloaking efficiency and min/max size of the vessel that it is capable of being mounted on would produce an "optimal" cost-efficiency model, with diminishing returns on either side.
- These Bell Curves could be cajiggered with by changing the technology used in the components, if a the system was implemented through them, since cost could scale not only to size, but also tech level and a smaller ship with a higher tech level might get more out of one then the other.
EDIT: This would allow Fighter-Sized Cloaks that aren't too cumbersome, with 12.5 ton cloaks on a 125 ton fighter at a 10% efficiency tech, while also allowing cloaks that could hide a million ton ship as if it were a thousand ton ship with a 90 to 1 (90% under the current mechanics) cloaking efficiency tech. The idea behind ratios is that my logic is bigger ships should be harder to hide. I will leave up to Steve to balance it how he sees fit, if he sees fit to implemented this suggestion, but I don't think 1,000,000 million ton ships should be able to have 99.9% Cloaking Devices. With the cloaking bug, they can have that and pay a pittance for it too. Steve could just fix the bug and it would be WAY easier, but this system is more dynamic and makes Cloaking Devices give diminishing returns on tonnage. It also makes the Cloaking Technology more dynamic, affording lower tech Cloaking Technology be more viable in the early game. Low efficiency Cloaks give more device tonnage which requires less Cloaking efficiency tech to hide the ship. It ends up following a Bell Curve model.
