Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
C# Mechanics / Re: Fighter training fuel cost
« Last post by kilo on Today at 12:00:52 AM »
I think crew training should remain in the game, as it is important to familiarize with your equipment. It would feel wrong if a newly build ship with a green crew would be 100% combat effective. Maybe the crew training should simply be gained passively over time, modified only by commander and XO bonus. The ships status could be a factor as well, as a ship with her crew on shore leave should gain significantly less than a ship on active duty.
2
C# Suggestions / Re: C# Suggestions
« Last post by nuclearslurpee on Yesterday at 11:49:27 PM »
--- How about a type of Countermeasure for GSFs? Or two types, even! One that reduces the accuracy of incoming fire, like an ECM and one that increases a GSFs weighting for the random target allocation? So this way we can use the firs type of countermeasure to make our GSFs more survivable versus ground fire, while the second kind can be used to make "Wild Weasels" either with lots of speed and armor for tanking, or maybe with a powerful countermeasure system of the former type! Or perhaps even some blend of these attributes.

While I'm sure there's some potentially terrible way this breaks the game, I'm in favor of expanding the representation for non-combat ground force capabilities, and this would be a good tool to represent modern-style SIGINT or EWAR stuff.
3
C# Mechanics / Re: Fighter training fuel cost
« Last post by nuclearslurpee on Yesterday at 11:45:54 PM »
Could you perhaps build your fighters with slow/efficient/cheap "training" engines then after training completes refit them to combat engines?

Couple of problem with this. The obvious one is: refitting fighters requires a shipyard which eliminates a large advantage for using fighters which is the planet-based construction ability, not to mention needing a shipyard or constant retooling for each different fighter class you use if you're a variety lover. The less obvious one is that this doesn't actually work as well as you'd think, because faster engines have higher crew requirements - so after refitting a fighter, you add some new crew members and lose a large fraction of your crew and fleet training levels. This might change in 2.0 with the change to crew requirements for short deployment times, but I think at least some fighter designs would still run afoul of this mechanic.
4
C# Mechanics / Re: Fighter training fuel cost
« Last post by bankshot on Yesterday at 10:19:58 PM »
Could you perhaps build your fighters with slow/efficient/cheap "training" engines then after training completes refit them to combat engines? 
5
Darn so I'm really gonna have to burn 30 million litres of fuel just to tug an orbital habitat one system over, huh? And so many engines just to go 200km/s. . . .

Side note: fuel has become less of a problem after attaching one of my military tankers to the tug fleet whenever it has to tug a long distance.

Since large fuel tanks are fairly lightweight my tugs ARE my tankers.  I also put one cargo shuttle and a large maintenance storage bay on them so they can resupply as well as refuel. 
6
C# Mechanics / Re: Why Build Terraforming Installations?
« Last post by xenoscepter on Yesterday at 09:37:44 PM »
My terraforming ships tend to be large and slow. ~~Snippy Snips~~

 --- This. They only need to be fast enough to catch a planet. I typically make them with obscenely large engines relative to the payload and use 'em for years and years, until engine tech gets a good way further. Then they're replaced with more efficient vessels.
7
C# Mechanics / Re: Why Build Terraforming Installations?
« Last post by bankshot on Yesterday at 09:30:23 PM »
My terraforming ships tend to be large and slow.  I'll sometimes use terraforming installations when I have a colony on a fairly small world  (terraform speed 10x or greater) that is far from the primary.  Sending a fleet of 5 freighters on a long journey can be more convenient than typing up one of my tugs to pull a terraforming ship tens of billions of km.  But it's an edge case and I'd never use more than a handful. 

I've also once used them for drying out an ocean world.  As long as I'm increasing the population cap faster than they are making new colonists the speed of doesn't seem to matter much.  But in that case I usually just leave one or two terraforming ships in orbit when the fleet moves on. 
8
C# Mechanics / Re: Why Build Terraforming Installations?
« Last post by xenoscepter on Yesterday at 08:31:38 PM »
 --- So uhhh, I'm going to chime in here for a second. Planetside Terraforming Installations derive a benefit from the Governor, while the Orbitals derive a benefit from Naval Officers instead. I actually tend to use both to maximize the bonus, however I've never sat down to math out if this works properly or not. However, it works in my head and AFAIK it works in game too, so... for your consideration I suppose.
9
C# Suggestions / Re: C# Suggestions
« Last post by xenoscepter on Yesterday at 08:13:21 PM »
 --- How about a type of Countermeasure for GSFs? Or two types, even! One that reduces the accuracy of incoming fire, like an ECM and one that increases a GSFs weighting for the random target allocation? So this way we can use the firs type of countermeasure to make our GSFs more survivable versus ground fire, while the second kind can be used to make "Wild Weasels" either with lots of speed and armor for tanking, or maybe with a powerful countermeasure system of the former type! Or perhaps even some blend of these attributes.
10
C# Suggestions / Re: C# Suggestions
« Last post by ArcWolf on Yesterday at 06:01:39 PM »
This thread has an interesting conversation regarding Terraforming Installations and their utility compared to the ship-based component. Long story short, Terraforming Installations are wretched as they're a logistical nightmare (5 cargo holds per installation + infrastructure required for the population to run them) as opposed to orbital stations, which can be tugged into place much quicker and easier. The fact they cost more is just insult to injury.

I'd like to propose that the cost of Terraforming Installations be slashed, anywhere from one-half to one-quarter their current value. This would create an actual trade-off for the logistical headache they pose for use anywhere outside of Sol. It'd also be a lore-friendly way to explain how it takes a million people on the planet to do what a crew of hundreds can accomplish in orbit - i.e. automation. And as Jurassic Park taught us, that kind of automation is neither easy, nor cheap.  :)


As a counter point (as i said in the aforementioned post) making ground based terraformers more efficient or space based ones less efficient could be a good alternative.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk