Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[arwan]

will there be any new ship models implemented in this release?

[Rygart]

I don't know if this has been brought up or not but a few missions (even very basic repeatable ones) would be nice.

[heuristicus]

As the game progresses, and non-combat elements are added, getting new ships will become a more and more momentous event.

If it's still as easy to lose ships in battle, then this could be extremely painful. I guess that there will be various improvements to this side of things in the future though.

[icepick37]

Just wanted to say that I agree with the sentiment that ships should be harder to get. It's easier right now, because combat is the only way to get ships OR money, and it's inherently risky, so can't make it too hard. Still, in the next version, it'll be a bit more difficult - in some yet-to-be-mentioned ways.

As the game progresses, and non-combat elements are added, getting new ships will become a more and more momentous event.

Bah. It's hard to fathom this game getting more fun, but it just keeps doing it.

[Gaizokubanou]

Just wanted to say that I agree with the sentiment that ships should be harder to get. It's easier right now, because combat is the only way to get ships OR money, and it's inherently risky, so can't make it too hard. Still, in the next version, it'll be a bit more difficult - in some yet-to-be-mentioned ways.

As the game progresses, and non-combat elements are added, getting new ships will become a more and more momentous event.

YESSSSSSSSSSssssssss

[Wriath]

.5b? I really like the ideas mentioned about ship maintenance/crew costs etc. As well as Repairing ships from scrapped being prohibitively expensive/not necessarily possible in deep space. The key to something like that would be to make sure the character can still run his fleet without having to constantly make money. Upkeep costs make a lot of sense, but they could be tedious and lead to things like forcing the player to farm a lot of cash in order to run a fleet he can't actually afford. This could probably be countered by having sources of income that don't require direct player interaction which I believe will be possible due to some stuff I read in the blog a while back about running trade fleets/miner fleets etc. Have patience dudes, the income models in this game are going to require a HUGE amount of balancing once they're actually implemented so, I'd expect that'll take a while to work out cleanly.

[Dante80]

I really love all the changes listed right now, keep the goodness coming guys...^^

Alex, a suggestion regarding fighters/bombers. If there are enough hangars to house all vessels, it is only logical to not have them impede the general fleet movement speed in campaign mode. After all, they are only deployed when the battle comes, and the rest of the time are stowed away.

I understand that there could be some issues with OP fast carrier fleets though, so some adjustments to ordnance points, cost or survivability would be due.

Just my 2c, cheers..C:
 

[Wriath]

There aren't fast carriers (as of now at least) outside of mods, so I don't think there's much worry of that kinda thing.
Edit: hangar space not flight decks, derp, disregard.

[stonehand]

not sure but hanger space may only be used then hyperjumping or what ever when u in a system u want your fights gaurding your ships there by slowing the fleet down if they slow. for example  "capt bring in the fighters we about to jump"
that might be the reason they slow you down but maybe if u have say 4 sets of fighter and 4 flight decks then you could get some sort of bounse becuase they could stay on the ships while still being rdy to defend in a hurry.

this is just what i came up with for how the fleets speed might be effected by fighters not anything Alex has said.

[Dante80]

Well, think of it this way. Fighters/Bomber launching-rearming-refitting is very fast in battle. If a captain can have an interceptor wing docked , rearmed , repaired and off to battle for wave 2 in a matter of minutes then why should he opt to keep them outside his bigger ships when not in battle? The only thing this would achieve is more fuel and maintenance costs for his light craft. XD

I agree though that not fitting hyperspace drives in small craft would be interesting. It would force commanders to maintain adequate hangar space for his fighter squadrons, because the alternative would be to scrap them before a jump.

[Alex]

I agree though that not fitting hyperspace drives in small craft would be interesting. It would force commanders to maintain adequate hangar space for his light craft, because the alternative would be to scrap them before a jump.

That's more or less the plan

[Nori]

So are you thinking that each ship above fighter/bomber size has three drives? One for combat, we'll call em thursters, one for inner-system travel, (impulse drives?) and one FTL drive for inter-system travel? Then the fighter/bombers would only have the first one, whereas all the other ships have all of them. That sort of idea would make sense.

[orion]

I agree though that not fitting hyperspace drives in small craft would be interesting. It would force commanders to maintain adequate hangar space for his light craft, because the alternative would be to scrap them before a jump.

That's more or less the plan

Nerd comment here: interestingly this is a dynamic used in the Star Wars universe. The Empire relied on relatively cheap TIE Fighters that were carried around in the carrier Star Destroyers. The Rebellion utilized the "more expensive" but more tactically capable X-Wings and Y-Wings which had built in hyperdrives (*push glasses up and snort*). It is an interesting, sort of David and Goliath dynamic where two sides approach the same problem in very different manners. It would be interesting to see a fleet composed of all fighters jumping all over the sector harassing everyone.

At the same time I think I prefer what Alex is doing, requiring the fighters to use a carrier craft for FTL. In the end I think that makes more sense anyway, since even if a fighter did have FTL capability it would really just end up being really expensive cannon fodder if it was far from any support ship.

[Anysy]

The Rebellion utilized the "more expensive" but more tactically capable X-Wings and Y-Wings which had built in hyperdrives

Strategically.

(it annoys me to no end)

[Themodtester]

Definition of Strategically according to the free dictionary..
1. Of or relating to strategy.
2.
a. Important or essential in relation to a plan of action: a strategic withdrawal.
b. Essential to the effective conduct of war: strategic materials.
c. Highly important to an intended objective: The staff discussed strategic marketing factors.
3. Intended to destroy the military potential of an enemy: strategic bombing.

Tactically
1. Of, relating to, or using tactics.
2.
a. Of, relating to, used in, or involving military or naval operations that are smaller, closer to base, and of less long-term significance than strategic operations.
b. Carried out in support of military or naval operations: tactical bombing.
3. Characterized by adroitness, ingenuity, or skill.

Personally, I think the latter and former are both applicable to it, although strategically probably is more applicable, yes.