Author Topic: Fuel consumption change suggestion with ramscoop  (Read 350 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline serger

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • Posts: 164
  • Thanked: 14 times
Fuel consumption change suggestion with ramscoop
« on: March 11, 2019, 05:37:35 PM »
People, I have a dream!

Related to those posts: http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=9841.msg113130#msg113130

That is my solution of the problem of unrealistic fuel consumption and unreasonable rigid arbitrary civil/military division of engines in Aurora:

1. Ramscoop drive tech line
The only propulsion tech line permitted for civil designs, but can be used for military ships too.
Mandatory crew need, no fuel or supply consumption, optionally - EM-noise (in addition to thermal it will be beautiful).

2. Military jet drive tech line
(Instead of fuel consumption modifiers tech line.)
Fixed huge fuel consumption, supply consumption, crew need OR sufficient extra supply consumption (fighters, returnable recon drones) OR disposable (unmanned one-use ordnance, such as missiles or probes), can be used with (capships, cruisers, scouts) or without ramscoop (jump point monitors, FACs, fighters, recon and survey boats, missiles and probes).

3. Thermal signature lowering tech line
Fixed power lowering on any engine, extra cost, extra crew/supply.

4. EM signature lowering tech line
(Instead of VB cloaking device.)
In addition to hull cross section, it can be used for ramscoop EM noise (if any, but it will be beautiful) - extra cost, extra crew/supply.

5. Combat vulnerability lowering tech line
Can be applied for any military component - it will be more solid, than VB damage control techs.
Extra cost, extra crew/supply.
 
The following users thanked this post: JakeLoustone

 

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 55