Starsector 0.97a is out! (02/02/24); New blog post: Planet Search Overhaul (07/13/24)
Did you guys request the WTF..? or did TB do it on his own ?
This problem doesn't seem to be technologically related, it seems to be a logistical one. One of which can be solved simply by using what people already have in a manner that's actually effective.
(This post is totally tangential; feel free to ignore it if you aren't interested in battletech setting stuff.)c) The nature of the drive itself means that you have to charge it up slowly or it breaks.
This was the part I found silly. The game had rules for how to do an emergency jump recharge from the ship's reactor - which was potentially far faster than charging from solar power, but could also break your drive. Except that, if you performed an "emergency recharge" at the same rate as solar power would have charged your jump drive... the chance of failure dropped to zero. Which meant that the entire solar charging mechanism was superfluous.
Why don't they just make the ships bigger, or bring tankers that would carry fuel to their next jump point, dump it to the fleet, and then have the tankers recharge? It seems horribly convoluted. If they can put all that armor, guns, and fighters into a workable ship, I believe it's quite possible for them to scrap most of that and just build a tanker or reactor ship for fuel. It's several days of waiting around we're talking about here.
That is of course, unless the jump drive gets prohibitively more expensive as the sizes go up or its area of displacement can only be made so big. But even then, tankers are quite possible.
well by that argument, fuel could be considered as part of "supplies" as well.Perhaps he has something in mind in which fuel has a special role on the strategic level where supplies isn't?
Heheh, you certainly couldBut there are significant differences between fuel and munitions which in my mind warrant one but not the other being separate.
For one, fuel is concerned with hyperspace movement only, and its consumption isn't related to combat or in-system movement. So, fuel determines how far you can go, while supplies determine how long you can stay on the field. Munitions (without additional mechanics), would introduce an additional layer of "how much you can fight" depending on weapons you have. Except that supplies, being used for repairs, also play that role. You could break it down further into "how much damage taken you can repair" (supplies) vs "how much you can fight" (munitions). That, to me, is getting too fine-grained.
Also, fuel adds a higher level strategic concern - movement among star systems - and, since that part isn't implemented yet, there's plenty of room to give it an even more meaningful role without retrofitting existing mechanics.
If this is a sandbox then plenty of scope for maybe colonization or exploration and expansion packs and other content as u go along
Well, I did notice when playing yesterday that the torpedoes are actually fairly durable and can sometimes breach the defences of even prepared targets with multiple point defence weapons pointed the way of a single incoming torpedo. Considering the immense damage torpedoes do, this to me sounds they don't need to be boosted - their current nature as extremely powerful but potentially interceptable weapons seems about right.
I think I'm the one who started throwing that phrase around, so I'll point out that while Alex thought the allusion was a good one, those weren't his words.
Entirely possible. I don't expect it to be a fully accurate description either, but it's a convenient shorthand explanation to establish a baseline for expectations.
I believe the intention has been described as "Mount and Blade with starships".
I don't see any reason for concern; the game we have right now is easily worth the ten dollars I paid for it, independently of promises of future releases etc.
