Ah, what I meant was that, under the assumptions of massive inventories and device/block-only mass-based device limts, a cargo ship would have to handle moving around the extra mass of its cargo, but not get any benefit (extra device capacity) from carrying around all of this mass. The exact same ship with all that mass in armor instead would have the same maneuverability but vastly increased device limits. To me, this doesn't seem like a great situation. It's less arbitrary than a fixed class system, because you can freely choose the mix of devices up to the limit. But, I do understand your point that the CU system is an imperfect way to prevent extremely pathological ships from being built, and that we might need an additional mechanic to keep ships with hundreds of rocket launchers from being built until the game can handle such a situation. I'd note that mass-based device limits would run into the same problem eventually too. Maybe @Brimstone is right, and a hardpoint system for weapons is also needed in addition to something like CUs.
Of course I am I said at the getgo that the CU system and a hardpoint system were perfectly complimentary, as the combo imposes logical structural and component restrictions. I hate the damn death-bricks too
Would you mind sketching out the basic mechanics of your hardpoint system again (I forget if you've done this already, as I don't remember)?
There is no 'Over' only degrees of acceleration.... sufficient or not. *Sits patting a rolled up newspaper in his open palm* Thank you, we have heard that opinion, At Length. So, Academia muscle-flexing aside , The upshot I am getting here is CU needs some kind of 'Hard-point' qualifications to make it less of possible imbalance point?
Yes, it's sort of looking that way. Either that or weapons would have to consume quite a bit more CU than most other devices (which tends to screw over small ships). I don't have a good model for what a hardpoint system would look like (all I can think of is MechWarrior when I hear the term, which isn't very helpful at present), which is why I'm hoping someone like @Brimstone can provide a starting point for it .
In rough form, there is a new block, called "hardpoint", in 3 "flavors": small, medium, large. These should be included in the tech tree, but not at terribly high levels. The block provides integration into both the ship's structure and AI system. Based on a TBD calculation probably at least involving mass, power generation capacity, degree of mobility, and CU, a vehicle is allocated points. These points can then be "spent" on placing hardpoints by size. For the sake of example, a vehicle has 3 points available. It can place 3 small, 1 medium and one small, or one large hardpoint. Current HV/SV fixed weapons go to small blocks, as possibly could CM like chaff or flares Current HV/SV scaled turrets go to medium blocks Current CV/BA scaled weapons go to large Degree of mobility is a factor, as a BA should be able to mount more heavy weaponry than a ship of equal size. You can't place more weaponry than the vessel can support, but upgrades/reconfiguration can raise that limit- as damage could lower it, rendering weapons inactive. The calculation needs to be redone at intervals, especially during combat, so damage and repair can affect system availability and performance. So, my example with 3 points. It *could* technically be a small vessel mounting a full-size arty turret. But nothing else. It packs quite a punch, but is extremely vulnerable. It could be armored up, but then that begins to affect other systems- needing more thrusters/RCS/generators and therefore more resources pulled away from weaponry. Weapon placement and arc of fire become factors in design, as does proper mix. Miniguns and flak are better suited to point defense, for example. Obviously each tier of hardpoint takes more resources to build and maintain Anyway, there's a rough sketch. Discuss.
Thank everything Adequate that we don't need Heat Sinks and heat management..... Ugh. Like the rest of it. Don't like CV turrets on small/block structures.
Didn't specify structure block size, but IIRC, in my original proposal, large hardpoints went with large grid.... so a "CV" could mount x fullsize weapons, or 2x small turrets, with lower damage and range. The aforementioned small vessel with one arty turret isn't necessarily an SV in current terms... but TBH, I don't share the same distaste. Consider instead of the arty turret, you have a purpose-built fighter wrapped around a single CV-sized railgun. Plenty of examples of similar in military SF.
The first question that comes to mind is, could we switch out weapons in hardpoints without needing to deconstruct them with the multitool? Or did you envision hardpoint blocks to be more like fire-control computers? Anyway, I like the general idea; the main question, then, is how to design the formula for number of hardpoint points.
Given current game mechanics, I'm thinking either multitool or factory... at least I'm hoping that if we get physical factories, they can be used to upgrade/enhance a vessel as much as create or repair. There has to be a cost in time and resources to pull and replace any device. That being said, I would likely be a huge proponent of modular turrets, especially if they do eventually code multiple-muzzlepoint turrets I see HP blocks more as the structural end- they connect and integrate the turret to the hull and the actual AI systems of the ship, rather than being fire control directly. Perhaps they could be the mechanic behind firegroups, though
I'll concede the point and withdraw my objection. Still not down with Turrets though. It is one thing to make an A-10 Fairchilde, It is Wholly Another to make a Flying Battleship Turret from the U.S.S. Missouri. Or one that is borne on a land based carriage. It's Been Tried. The Vehicle isn't the issue. Ground pressure/Mass IS. There is my objection to large turrets on small blocks. The small turrets on large blocks makes sense from the point of view of Fire suppression vs fortification reduction.
It would be better for everyone's sanity if the block was simple to use. Perhaps placed under the center of the turret block or adjacent to the 'rear' block on fixed weapons? Simpler still just in the ship somewhere.
I don't disagree- but current CV arty isn't even remotely close to what Mo's packin' I'm hoping that current weapon systems are placeholders like many other things- and that factors like recoil, etc get developed more fully And yes, this is exactly what I was thinking
The significance of difference to the unfortunate that takes a direct hit is inconsequential to the point of becoming a Null set. And having a troll Armada for 20 Artillery SV's flying in and out of base range between loading phases is gonna happen. Just to point it out. Fixed weapons yeah that is not as bad. Gotta play chicken with the AAA.
Great discussion going on here, I salute you all! It's nice to see a set of decent ideas developing (or reintroduced) from my terrible starting point. Better than the typical internet forum responses of people expressing their horror at the main idea and not putting forth alternatives. I'm just sad I can't really partake fully yet, hoping to finish sorting out things this end and be back online properly this coming weekend.
Billion Homers needs a billion more Ammo Boxes to keep them Ammo'd unless one wants to fire massive barrages of Homers for about 30 seconds then be naked of defense. With more Ammo Boxes, less room for other things like Thrusters then this massive monster could find itself unable to catch Prey that'd take one look at the massive Monster & flee, then the massive Monster has killed nothing. *Brings my 2-Handed Great Axe to the "Long Knife Fight"...* But... but... but... it makes for fun Mental Imagery... *Imagines making SV using a CV Class Minigun Turret that looks & is shaped like a Huge Battle Chopper...*
