Author Topic: Weapon Reliability  (Read 7595 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline TheDeadlyShoe

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1264
  • Thanked: 58 times
  • Dance Commander
Re: Weapon Reliability
« Reply #30 on: February 12, 2016, 12:11:46 AM »
IMO: The purpose of the commercial designation is to prevent players from going crazy over having to micro freighter maintenance, not to reflect any kind of reality.  A ship with military purpose (like a fleet tender) should indeed be subject to military maintenance rules.

it would be nearly impossible to find a balance between pointlessly tiny armaments and a game-breaking maintenance free Commercial Navy.

 

Offline sloanjh

  • Global Moderator
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • *****
  • Posts: 2805
  • Thanked: 112 times
  • 2020 Supporter 2020 Supporter : Donate for 2020
    2021 Supporter 2021 Supporter : Donate for 2021
Re: Weapon Reliability
« Reply #31 on: February 12, 2016, 07:06:59 AM »
IMO: The purpose of the commercial designation is to prevent players from going crazy over having to micro freighter maintenance, not to reflect any kind of reality.  A ship with military purpose (like a fleet tender) should indeed be subject to military maintenance rules.

it would be nearly impossible to find a balance between pointlessly tiny armaments and a game-breaking maintenance free Commercial Navy.

Well said.

John
 

Offline Paul M

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • P
  • Posts: 1439
  • Thanked: 63 times
Re: Weapon Reliability
« Reply #32 on: February 12, 2016, 07:30:05 AM »
In starfire a ship is civillian with up to 20% military hardware onboard.  The civillian designation reduces maintenance costs and construction costs but at a serious (x2) combat penalty to internal damage.   I've never seen it abused frankly BUT clearly the limit has to be lower (2% in aurora).

45,000 tonne freighter could have 900 tonnes of military hardware and still be considered civillian.  That is about an armed pinnace worth of weapons.  The trouble is a 450,000 tonne freighter could mount the weapons of a DD (9000 tonnes, actually since the DD looses space to fuel, lifesupport and engines it would be a substantial weapons package) and have no maintenance.  I'm pretty sure that is one heck of a Q-ship.

I think I tend to go along with the Shoe on this.  It is a fine topic for theoretical discussion but I suspect its practical application to the game would be migraine headache inducing.
 

Offline bean

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • b
  • Posts: 921
  • Thanked: 58 times
Re: Weapon Reliability
« Reply #33 on: February 12, 2016, 09:13:32 AM »
Might be a bit of an interesting change. Afterall, I really don't understand why 250kt freighters get whiny over 100t being devoted to a size 2 sensor.
5% might be a little high though. As lets face it, despite a 250kt "freighter" being termed a "freighter" I really don't see why it should be able to pack, 12kt worth of box launchers, and still termed civilian. Thats a pretty high powered freighter.
Though, as it is a "commercial" ship. With the exception os specifically trained crews, perhaps they could just get a "poorly trained" penalty to combat with the exception of CIWS (as those are fully self controlled)
Hmm.  I picked 5% out of a hat, with an eye on smaller ships.  It might have to be scaled down some on larger ships.

And how expensive is that big commercial ship going to be, anyway?  I can't see lack of maintenance offsetting the extra costs of a really big ship.
This is Excel-in-Space, not Wing Commander - Rastaman
 

Offline TheDeadlyShoe

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1264
  • Thanked: 58 times
  • Dance Commander
Re: Weapon Reliability
« Reply #34 on: February 15, 2016, 04:57:42 AM »
i loaded up a random game of mine.

A 9000-ton 1550-bp frigate's missile armament amounted to 2800 tons and cost about 540 bp, including all necessary components for independent operation.

a 127000-ton 1276-bp freighter design from the same game could mount that, upping its tonnage to 130,000 and its cost to 1816 bp. That is a 2.2% armament.

Although the freighter has no armor its huge engine array gives it many times the HTK of the frigate.  (Huge engines could do with less HTK, lol.)

You could say go to a 1% armament, a 1300 ton weapons array in this case but then you are looking at pointlessly-small armaments for all but the largest commercial ships.  And further complication as you set up Freighter Leader classes that use all their military space for actives.

But a lot of that is besides the point. The problem with maintenance free warships isn't necessarily cost, it's logistics concerns.   Maintenance concerns place significant limits on the ability of empires to project power and conduct vital tasks like wormhole blockades.  Even the new 7.2 remote maintenance stations require delivery of MSP from an industrial center.  In contrast a 'commercial auxiliary' could - paired with a rec center - maintain an indefinite wormhole blockade until the heat death of the universe.
« Last Edit: February 15, 2016, 05:02:51 AM by TheDeadlyShoe »
 

Offline Marski (OP)

  • Commander
  • *********
  • Posts: 390
  • Thanked: 139 times
Re: Weapon Reliability
« Reply #35 on: February 19, 2016, 09:44:33 AM »
Why is this now in a separate thread and with my post as the OP?

Oh well, I take it as an indication that someone took an interest in my suggestion about the potential for politics in the gameplay.
 

Offline Erik L

  • Administrator
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • *****
  • Posts: 5658
  • Thanked: 374 times
  • Forum Admin
  • Discord Username: icehawke
  • 2020 Supporter 2020 Supporter : Donate for 2020
    2022 Supporter 2022 Supporter : Donate for 2022
    Gold Supporter Gold Supporter : Support the forums with a Gold subscription
    2021 Supporter 2021 Supporter : Donate for 2021
Re: Weapon Reliability
« Reply #36 on: February 19, 2016, 10:25:01 AM »
Because, the Forum Deities willed it that way.

Offline boggo2300

  • Registered
  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 895
  • Thanked: 16 times
Re: Weapon Reliability
« Reply #37 on: February 21, 2016, 02:54:14 PM »
Because, the Forum Deities willed it that way.

Quick, someone sacrifice a goat!
The boggosity of the universe tends towards maximum.
 

Offline iceball3

  • Captain
  • **********
  • Posts: 454
  • Thanked: 47 times
Re: Weapon Reliability
« Reply #38 on: February 21, 2016, 06:39:46 PM »
Quick, someone sacrifice a goat!
I'm on it.

The blood price has been payed.
 

Offline QuakeIV

  • Registered
  • Commodore
  • **********
  • Posts: 759
  • Thanked: 168 times
Re: Weapon Reliability
« Reply #39 on: February 21, 2016, 10:01:48 PM »
Ten thousand survivors?  The hell was that thing?
 
The following users thanked this post: MarcAFK

Offline iceball3

  • Captain
  • **********
  • Posts: 454
  • Thanked: 47 times
Re: Weapon Reliability
« Reply #40 on: February 22, 2016, 02:29:56 AM »
Ten thousand survivors?  The hell was that thing?
Really big goat. I didn't blow it up hard enough.
 
The following users thanked this post: MarcAFK

Offline Marski (OP)

  • Commander
  • *********
  • Posts: 390
  • Thanked: 139 times
Re: Weapon Reliability
« Reply #41 on: March 01, 2016, 01:13:03 PM »
Really would like that possibility of planets seceding on their own though, managing the population in tropico was hell of a fun and I wish I could enjoy it in a grand manner such as in Aurora.