Modular Ship Design... a crazy idea that just might work.

[blue emu (OP)]

Tested in v5.53:



... looks like it works fine. I'm getting a pretty good turn of speed out of that arrangement... 85,180 kps... considering that the two 1,000-ton FACs are pulling 51,000 tons of dead-weight (a 26,000-ton Command Cruiser and a 25,000-ton BattleCruiser, neither of which has any Hyperdrive engines).

Here's how it works:

A ship with a tractor beam can have only one link, active or passive. A ship without a tractor beam can have any number of passive links. So a multi-module ship requires at least one module with no tractor beam mounted on it... ie: three tractor beam-equipped modules and one "deadweight" module.

In the example above, BC King Henry IV and both Hyperdrive Modules are tractor-equipped. CC President Abraham Lincoln has no tractor beam equipment... so all of the modules must link directly to it.

[jseah]

In my test, it was possible to chain tugs together so I've no idea what you're talking about. 

Tug A tractors Tug B
Tug B tractors Tug C
etc. 

You have to do this in order.  If you make Tug A tractor Tug B, nothing else can tractor Tug A.  But Tug B is still a valid tractor target and can still tractor things. 

[blue emu (OP)]

Ah, yes... I might have done it in the wrong order.

Still... I've found a formula that ALWAYS works: just daisy-chain everything onto the module with no tractor equipment.

[sloanjh]

Steve's design intent is "no tractor chains".  So if you're able to do it, it's a bug.

John

[blue emu (OP)]

Steve's design intent is "no tractor chains".  So if you're able to do it, it's a bug.

John

Spoilsport. 

Why no tractor chains? In real life, multiple tugs sometimes work the same load. Is it just a play-balance provision?

There's a bigger bug that that, hidden in the same code. I can use a Hyper-capable tug to boost a load into Hyperdrive, then detach the tug and send it over to grab the next load... while the original load continues moving in Hyperdrive, despite having only normal (non-Hyper) engines.

Steve should hire me to find these exploits. 

[Hawkeye]

Given that Steve wrote Aurore to provide a background for his story-writing, I don´t see a lot of harm done, if chain-tractoring stays in. If it suits your playing style, use it. If you think it is silly, don´t do it.
Yes, the AI won´t use it and so is at a disadvantage if you do, but lets face it, this would be one of the lesser problems, the AI faces vs. a player

[Yonder]

What was it about chaining tractor beams that was causing gameplay problems and labelled it as an exploit?

It seems perfectly natural to me for a tug with a tractor beam to grab a cargo pod, which grabs a cargo pod, which grabs a cargo pod, as long as the whole train is moving at the correct speed.

Or if the tug has n tractor beams for it to just pull n cargo pods without tractor beams directly.

[blue emu (OP)]

... Or if the tug has n tractor beams for it to just pull n cargo pods without tractor beams directly.

... or for two or more tugs to both work the same heavy load... as long as they are pulling it towards the same destination, and not fighting over it...

[jseah]

... or for two or more tugs to both work the same heavy load... as long as they are pulling it towards the same destination, and not fighting over it...

You can't have that.  Anything that tractors something must be in the same task group.  Leaving the task group breaks the tractor beam. 

[blue emu (OP)]

You can't have that.  Anything that tractors something must be in the same task group.  Leaving the task group breaks the tractor beam. 

Curiously, if the only Hyper-capable ship leaves a task force, that does not cause the task force to drop out of hyperdrive.

Sounds like another bug.

[Girlinhat]

So, to confirm, you can have an engine ship with no tractor beam.  Then have a point-defense ship with tractor beam, and a sensor ship with tractor beam.  Place them into 3 different task groups, and assign the PD and Sensor to tow the engine ship (assuming they're all at the same location) and you'll have a ship pulling defenses and sensors?

If you have one ship being towed and assign another to tow it, will that work, or does it need to use the "standing orders are never invalid" type workabout?

[blue emu (OP)]

Any number of tractor-equipped modules can lock onto a non-tractor module, yes. They will all end up in one task group.

A tractor-equipped module loses its lock if another tractor-equipped module locks onto it, so if you wanted:

A => B => C => D (A locked onto B locked onto C locked onto D)

... then you need to establish A => B first, then B => C, then C => D. If instead you established C => D first, C would lose its lock on D as soon as it was tractored by B.

[jseah]

... then you need to establish A => B first, then B => C, then C => D. If instead you established C => D first, C would lose its lock on D as soon as it was tractored by B.

Might be different in latest version, but in my test, if you do C=>D first, C doesn't show up on B's list of targets for tractor. 

[Thiosk]

I don't like the concept of tractor-chains, per se, simply because it doesn't seem like its supposed to work this way (especially with regard to hyperFACs).  As evidence, note the required order for tractoring things to get the desired result.  However, modular ships are intriguing, so perhaps steve would be willing to include a much more flexible system for modular ships (AND MODULAR STARBASES).  Consider that you could build a series of Core ships with engines, and then hook 2 modules to it (incresed to 3 and 4 with a line item) and then individual modules would have research lines to expand their absolute size restrictions.

I find modular starbases quite compelling.  Very large constructs are quite interesting from my sci fi perspective.

[dgibso29]

I would rather just have a "Starbase" or "(Space) Station" designation for the design screen.