Print

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

[theShadow]

in that case, it seems that the pilot skill could become a factor in determining how many ships make it back. if the only ship left has a novice pilot, he wouldn't be able to wrestle as many ships back as an experienced one.

[tinsoldier]

in that case, it seems that the pilot skill could become a factor in determining how many ships make it back. if the only ship left has a novice pilot, he wouldn't be able to wrestle as many ships back as an experienced one.

Perhaps, but that is one detail I'd happily overlook (cuz it sound awful, no offense  )

[Alex]

I have to say, the arms control + field/master blueprint explanation is growing on me, since it's actually believable in terms of people  building things that way.

[Apophis]

I know what you mean, I was sad to see "Munitions" go. At one point, I was thinking to have "Parts & Machinery", "Supplies", and "Munitions" all be separate resources but... well, they all fit under the heading of "things you need to recover after combat", and making the player keep track of stocking up on all those just seemed cruel.

Edit: It might make sense to do if there was a reason to stock up on more of one vs the other, if that was a meaningful choice - but at this point, it'd just be adding complexity without getting a return on it.

Supllies and munitions should be separate resource, not all ship have military equipment. For example attacking civilian ships should give only few munitions as loot, while low tech warship many. It would be too much to have different munitions for each type of weapon. Manage post-combat results is part of the fun, is not a burden.

[Dark.Revenant]

I agree; if you have both, the game makes a lot more sense.  You cited the final reason you decided against having both munitions and supplies as it would be two different things that the player needs to have enough of to keep at the status-quo.  Well, you can offset that by giving incentives/rewards for having surplus munitions and supplies.  If you have lots of supplies, the reward is what's already being used: building new stuff.  Lots of munitions on the other hand: perhaps combat bonuses to ballistic weapons (reload rate, etc.) or missiles/torpedoes (damage) for a munitions cost, amongst other things.

[Alex]

Supllies and munitions should be separate resource, not all ship have military equipment. For example attacking civilian ships should give only few munitions as loot, while low tech warship many. It would be too much to have different munitions for each type of weapon. Manage post-combat results is part of the fun, is not a burden.

That's an definitely a point in favor of having them be separate. I just don't think that's enough. For one, hardly anyone travels through the sector unarmed, so the "I looted a civilian ship to restock ammo" scenario is extremely unlikely. There's still plenty to manage post-battle (crew, fuel, supplies, marines) - all of which are substantially different from each other. "Munitions" don't seem to stand apart from "Supplies" nearly as much as crew and fuel do.

I agree; if you have both, the game makes a lot more sense.  You cited the final reason you decided against having both munitions and supplies as it would be two different things that the player needs to have enough of to keep at the status-quo.  Well, you can offset that by giving incentives/rewards for having surplus munitions and supplies.  If you have lots of supplies, the reward is what's already being used: building new stuff.  Lots of munitions on the other hand: perhaps combat bonuses to ballistic weapons (reload rate, etc.) or missiles/torpedoes (damage) for a munitions cost, amongst other things.

In other words - extra features just to justify the presence of having these two be a separate resource. Extra complexity for the sake of justifying other extra complexity

I'm only half-serious, of course - but one has to be careful about adding features that require somewhat unintuitive changes to existing mechanics to work. It seems like an indicator that the new feature isn't a good fit.

And you do have both, conceptually. It's just that as fleet commander, you let the quartermaster take care of it.

[theShadow]

well by that argument, fuel could be considered as part of "supplies" as well. 

[Flare]

Perhaps he has something in mind in which fuel has a special role  on the strategic level where supplies isn't?

[Zarcon]

Indeed, and I would also desire to have special fuel for my ammo actually, how else are those missiles going to go shooting off toward my enemies!?!?!?   

And the more supplies and fuel that an induhvidual ship carries the heavier it now is, and thusly the more fuel it will burn to travel in the spaces of darkness.

So in order to conserve fuel and keep costs down, you must min-max your fuel levels on an ongoing basis to optimize both ideal ship performance and the economics of your particular venture.






Man on second thought....thank goodness for the quartermaster.   

[Alex]

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 could But 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.

[Zarcon]

So, fuel determines how far you can go, while supplies determine how long you can stay on the field.

Ohh, that is pretty cool, I had not even considered that sitting out there in space literally eats up supplies, hmm. 

Awesome, most games that I've played, like for instance Space Empires IV or V only kept track of supplies in regard to overall movement, if you wanted to sit still then you never had an issue with supplies running out.  However, I really like the idea of having supplies be used over time even if you sit still, makes a ton of sense cause your crew has got to eat.   

[Alchenar]

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 could But 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.

You could just go with the Battletech solution (or a common varient):  you can jump wherever you want up to 50ly but then you need to sit at your destination for a couple of days while you recharge your drive with solar energy.  The fuel is completely free and collection can be abstracted to something that can happen without player input, but there's a rational in-universe explanation for why ship ranges are limited.

Say that one of the ships in fleet has a hydrogen scoop and skims a gas giant or star when you get in system or something.  If the system is contested and you didn't bring enough fuel then perhaps the player has no choice but to fight his way in and fight his way back out again.

[Flare]

You could just go with the Battletech solution (or a common varient):  you can jump wherever you want up to 50ly but then you need to sit at your destination for a couple of days while you recharge your drive with solar energy.  The fuel is completely free and collection can be abstracted to something that can happen without player input, but there's a rational in-universe explanation for why ship ranges are limited.

Why didn't these battletech guys just carry their own fuel to make rapid jumps instead?

[theShadow]

there wouldn't be enough space on the ship to carry enough fule for a long trip. it's would make a lot more sense to pick up fuel as you go.

[Flare]

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.