Page 1 of 1

call me stupid... but!

Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 4:52 pm
by Mika
Ok, I hope I have your attention

while reading all that stuff about new shiplists/weapons/engines/torps I had a strange idea.

The history of my idea is that I always hated that torpers simply SUCK vs big carriers. Having big guns/torps would iron out that problem in a new shiplist but the problem is that medium ships like a deth specula would really kill other ships like an Ill Wind that should win due to a higher mass.

Ok, I'm ready to get a straight no if that is not possible or just a completely stupid idea.

What if big guns have a negative mass?
If I mount extremely expensive and lethal guns on medium/small ships everyone can imagine that such ships are not made for. While reading the ship classification thread I imagined a little torpedo boat with three 320mm battleship guns on it (or how big they are... I'm no expert in such things).

BUT if I put 5 extremely deadly guns (500explosion/400kill or something like that) on my little BR4 gunboat and every of these 5 guns has a mass of -20 that would be a mass of less than 0. But if you make a new shiplist anway the mass of the designed ships could be adjusted. So if you give the br4 a higher mass of 110 and then the 5 big beams take away 100kt you can be sure that this ship is just useless and noone would spend the money and minerals (both has to be very costy) on a ship that will be destroyed with the first hit.

On the other side very big battleships like a Gorbie really don't care about 200kt mass less. If that is the same with big beams and really deadly torps you can find a new balanced shiplist.

And it would add something like "torpedo ships doing a kamikaze attack".
Imagine an Iron lady with more crew and a not too high mass. If you send them vs a carrier they will get destroyed pretty soon. But if they carry 4 BIIIIIIG torps they have 2 salvos with 2 launchers. Maybe that is a nice way to deal with carriers. On the other side there is no more reason why fighters have to be so expensive... let everyone build fighters... let everyone have a carrier. A good combination of torpers and carriers is the new way to win a battle.

A little example
look how many deth speculas you need to destroy a Gorbie. That number seems to be a big too high for my taste. The new torpedo/beam system could give smaller and medium ships a new meaning. In battle you always have to know what ships your enemy has. If you want to sweep away some fighters and bring down the shields of a big carrier you send in the one or other medium ship. BUT your wise opponent has the idea to send a few even smaller ships just to counter your idea. Even the smallest ship could decide such a fleet battle in the end.

Well... hard to explain but I hope it is more or less clear what I intended. Extremely good beams and torps that LOWER the mass of a ship. The rest of my posting should only show what kind of consequences I imagined.

The question is if that is possible or if it would cause some strange results when you load it... and of course you need to design new ships.

Well... I'm open for comments and can also live with "just stick with playing and let develop those who really understand what they do" :)

Going to have a cocktail now
cheers

Mika

Re: call me stupid... but!

Posted: Sun Jan 28, 2007 7:33 pm
by planetmaker
Hi,
Mika wrote: What if big guns have a negative mass?
IIRC, the host data files don't allow for that. Zero is minimum.

Besides that it helps to increase the bang of torps to balance the fighters.

Regards,
planetmaker

Posted: Mon Jan 29, 2007 12:27 pm
by hennef
increasing the torps damage is a nice thing. i felt that in SFB with Klausers ship-list. it is much fun. more medium t heavy cruisers complete that picture and carriers with less cargo do too.

i like the torpers very much. but in normal planets you often waste minerals on ships like the annihilation cmpared to the killing-capacity f a bio.

better torps would change that. maybe that is the same purpose the guys in alpha-quadrant are having such fun.

Posted: Mon Jan 29, 2007 2:20 pm
by planetmaker
hennef wrote:increasing the torps damage is a nice thing. i felt that in SFB with Klausers ship-list. it is much fun. more medium t heavy cruisers complete that picture and carriers with less cargo do too.

i like the torpers very much. but in normal planets you often waste minerals on ships like the annihilation cmpared to the killing-capacity f a bio.

better torps would change that. maybe that is the same purpose the guys in alpha-quadrant are having such fun.
Well, I play PList a lot. There the torps' damage is increased by about a factor of two compared to the standard ship list. With everything the same, an 18/18 torp ship is equivalent to a 20/20 carrier approximately (Borg Exterminator vs. Empire DeathStar). But of course this balance also involves the beamhitodds against a ship and against fighters and an adjusted recharge rate of the beams, torps and bays.
And yes, this way it IS more fun than to waste three Viccis on a Gorbi. Two D'Deridex (12/12 torper, = approx DarkWing) will mostly suffice in order to kill a DeathStar.

Also a good point you mention is, to destinguish between the fighting vessels, that don't need an awful lot of cargo room and the fleet tenders that (re-)supply the battle fleet. It adds definitely spice to the game.

Posted: Mon Jan 29, 2007 2:39 pm
by Julius Atreides
I gotta second how increased torp damage in SFB does wonders for balancing torp ships vs equal sized carriers (well, carriers in general).

hehe, maybe we should play a T-list game with Klausers SFB weapons arrays to see how it works out :)

Posted: Mon Jan 29, 2007 7:09 pm
by Klauser
Julius Atreides wrote:I gotta second how increased torp damage in SFB does wonders for balancing torp ships vs equal sized carriers (well, carriers in general).

hehe, maybe we should play a T-list game with Klausers SFB weapons arrays to see how it works out :)
I must give credit where credit is due. The excellent work done on the SFB weapons mix was done by Mark "Preator Spectre" Satchell.

And since the SFB races each had a distinctive Battle Tug, we made the distinction early on to have the Tugs be resupply ships with 1-2 fighter bays and deep cargo holds, and intentionally "shallowed out" the carrier hulls to at least partially off-set the carrier advantage.

Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2007 4:52 am
by hennef
lets setup such a game. i would love to see how it works. i will play either klingons, feds, or cyborg..... hmmmm, annihilation..... :roll: