Post reply

Warning - while you were reading 14 new replies have been posted. You may wish to review your post.

Note: this post will not display until it's been approved by a moderator.

Name:
Email:
Subject:
Message icon:

Verification:
Is Pluto a planet?:

shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview

Please read the rules before you post!


Topic Summary

Posted by: sloanjh
« on: October 08, 2018, 07:35:38 AM »

I've always found it annoying to have to stuff in a bunch of low cost/volume systems just to get up to a target size. 

John
Posted by: Steve Walmsley
« on: October 04, 2018, 09:24:31 AM »

Quote
remove the requirement for the jump ship to be as large as the jump drive capacity

I love the convenience that'd give but I think it would cheapen gate builders a lot. are those still a thing in c# aurora?

Yes, although they are now called Jump Point Stabilization Ships
Posted by: LoSboccacc
« on: October 04, 2018, 06:51:27 AM »

Quote
remove the requirement for the jump ship to be as large as the jump drive capacity

I love the convenience that'd give but I think it would cheapen gate builders a lot. are those still a thing in c# aurora?
Posted by: Adseria
« on: October 03, 2018, 03:16:02 PM »

I've been wondering whether to remove the requirement for the jump ship to be as large as the jump drive capacity. It would lead to smaller jump tenders and more tactical flexibility. However, it would also make large jump ships less critical than they are now.

Opens to comments on whether this would be a good idea or not.

Why not keep the limit, but add an option to remove it in the game setup screen? That way, it's the player's choice.

EDIT: if it makes any difference, I don't really care one way or the other. My warships tend to have short range anyway, so having a combination tanker/tender works anyway. That way, I can refuel, jump into combat, and then refuel immediately afterwards. So, even if you did remove the limit, I'd probably still add a ton of fuel tanks to my tenders later (come to think of it, it would probably be more than 1 ton :D), and maybe some MSPs and ammo too.

Of course, I should point out that I'm still only a couple of decades into my 1st game, so my priorities might change once I start getting bigger warships, and a bigger empire for them to defend. All I've said above is the way I see things at the moment; my shipyards and tenders can't handle big ships, so I make small ships with no fuel (not literally, obviously) and then use tanker/tenders to refuel every 2 months or so.
Posted by: Father Tim
« on: October 01, 2018, 06:43:41 PM »

I agree with you.  I probably should have said so to start my last post.  It would not take anything away from my game if jump drives could move slightly, moderately, or even significantly larger ships than the ones mounting them.

In my current games I'm 'guilty' of building 30,700-ton jumpships with 32,000-ton capacity drives -- wasted capacity, rather than stuffing a few more maintenance bays into them.
Posted by: Jorgen_CAB
« on: October 01, 2018, 04:08:01 PM »

While I don't find it overly problematic to match size of the jump ship with what it is suppose to jump I sometimes feel that I just stuff that ship full a things I would rather not have done otherwise.

I think it would give us a few more options for ship design if that restriction was gone... I mean you can still make that ship the same size as the jump drive capacity but you would not have to.

You would not take anything away from anyone's strategies... just add to them... in my opinion.
Posted by: Garfunkel
« on: October 01, 2018, 03:33:41 PM »

Yeah, same, so it's not really a problem for me either.
Posted by: Father Tim
« on: October 01, 2018, 03:05:15 PM »

I enjoy the added complexity, though instead of building a 22,350-ton jump ship from scratch, I tend to design a jump-version of my 22,350-ton Battleship.  The same for Destroyer Leaders, or Destroyer Tenders, or Jump Cruisers.  I'm not picking arbitrary jumpship sizes and trying to wrestle my other ships to fit, but rather extrapolating (and sometimes expanding) existing ship designs to create jump versions of the same.
Posted by: davidb86
« on: October 01, 2018, 02:46:29 PM »

I do not typically have a problem designing ships to a standard size.  With standard sizes and standard engines you can have consistent speeds across classes.  I use the extra space in my jump tender to add flag bridges, extra fuel, extra magazines additional missile defenses, or extra maintenance storage so these ships also serve as fleet support.  I have not yet had to build an assault jump ship to lead an opposed squadron attack.
Posted by: TMaekler
« on: October 01, 2018, 02:38:36 PM »

I found it to be a pain in the a... designing a ship with a fitting size for the jump drive. Wouldn’t mind if that limitation would be gone.
Posted by: Steve Walmsley
« on: October 01, 2018, 12:16:32 PM »

I've been wondering whether to remove the requirement for the jump ship to be as large as the jump drive capacity. It would lead to smaller jump tenders and more tactical flexibility. However, it would also make large jump ships less critical than they are now.

Opens to comments on whether this would be a good idea or not.
Posted by: Garfunkel
« on: October 01, 2018, 09:17:35 AM »

Yes, Father Tim is 100% correct. When you need to increase the size of the ship to match the Jump Engine, just put in more Fuel Tanks and tick the Tanker box in Ship Design Window. That way your ships can refuel while jumping. Or Maintenance Storage/Engineering Spaces, or Magazines. Better to have a Jump Tender that doubles as a resupply ship.
Posted by: Father Tim
« on: September 29, 2018, 03:04:01 PM »

No, not really.

No jump drive can move anything larger than the mounting ship itself.

No ship can jump if its jump drive (capacity) isn't large enough to move the ship itself.

There is nothing a three million ton commercial jump drive can do that a three million ton military jump drive can't also do.  Thus, putting one of each on your three million ton jump tender is an enormous expense for partial redundancy.  Fuel tanks and/or maintenance & engineering spaces would be a much better use of the volume.
Posted by: that one guy
« on: September 29, 2018, 01:41:16 PM »

Quote from: Father Tim link=topic=10159. msg109658#msg109658 date=1536292620
Sure.   As long as "small" is still large enough to move the jump ship itself.  .  .  thus making the commercial jump drive entirely extraneous.
I guess you could have the commercial jump drive in order to be able to tender larger commercial vessels rather than having a massive military jump engine that would be expensive
Posted by: Father Tim
« on: September 06, 2018, 10:57:00 PM »

Sure.  As long as "small" is still large enough to move the jump ship itself. . . thus making the commercial jump drive entirely extraneous.
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 52 53 54