octagon999 Posted June 29, 2004 Report Share Posted June 29, 2004 Pete, To summarize what I believe was consensus from an earlier thread, I believe most would agree with the following: 1. Damage Status would be nice to be shown on fleet report. 2. Some form of ship repair, other than scrapping and rebuilding would be nice. 3. Having a ship-board system to assist in accellerating innate fleet repair would be attractive. 4. Having existing shipyards, or a new ground/space facility, to effect repairs on a larger scale basis would be attractive. Question(s). Have you decided for or against any of these features, and if so, could you let us know what you have decided? If you have decided to work on them at some point, is there a time frame for any of the above? Thanks in advance, Tom Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clan Elder 'Keen Posted June 29, 2004 Report Share Posted June 29, 2004 If I may piggyback another battle damage issue, how about fighters and drones? Any additional thoughts on crating replacements into cargo bays? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hughestrog Posted June 29, 2004 Report Share Posted June 29, 2004 MkI Auto repair unit? Wouldn't it be difficult to incorporate the ship repair function? OK what I'm trying to say is, wouldn't it be difficult to fix ships at ship yards because damage will be to different items on the ship, would you need replacement finished goods or their components (i.e. Mk I computers or electronics)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
octagon999 Posted June 29, 2004 Author Report Share Posted June 29, 2004 MkI Auto repair unit? Wouldn't it be difficult to incorporate the ship repair function? OK what I'm trying to say is, wouldn't it be difficult to fix ships at ship yards because damage will be to different items on the ship, would you need replacement finished goods or their components (i.e. Mk I computers or electronics)? Right now, you can scrap a ship and completely repair it with no loss of components or the requirement to have replacement components. The only difference that people are looking for is not to have to scrap the ship, thus losing the experience and training of the crew. Now, if that happens after a battle, or with a special Fleet Repair order, or even just a little each turn, whatever, that is what we are asking Pete to look at. I'm not saying that my summary above encompasses every idea proposed, but it seemed to me to be the ones with the greatest amount of agreement by the largest number of players. Also, my posting was not to rehash everything but just get a quick read from Pete. On the other hand, any input is always valued, of course. So please don't take anything the wrong way. Regards, Tom Rathe Federation Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhaseDragon Posted June 30, 2004 Report Share Posted June 30, 2004 The only detriment to the repair ability is that the repairs will probably cost more materials while scrapping the ship and rebuilding it will not. A better solution to the whole ship experience thing is to require that a fleet have a Naval Commander as a requirement for gaining experience and the experience travels with that Commander. Then you could scrap the ship without fear of losing your experience levels. Still, I would also like some type of ship system that can assess damage and make repairs when you are far from a shipyard. Carrying around colonists and construction materials to set up temporary shipyards seems like the only way to go at this point and that route is very costly in terms of resources. Then, of course, the Fighter replacement thing. I think the "vision" of forcing the player to establish a resupply line is a good one...but again very costly. In that light I can only assume that a fleet with lots of Fighters of differing kinds would have a tremendous advantage given that the resource cost is so great. I would even go so far as to say that every empire in the game has at least 1 ship with a fighter bay. The shows from the past (Battlestar Galactica, Buck Rogers, Star Wars, etc) give us visions that fighters are almost required in a space engagement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hughestrog Posted June 30, 2004 Report Share Posted June 30, 2004 MkI Auto repair unit? On the other hand, any input is always valued, of course. So please don't take anything the wrong way. Regards, Tom Rathe Federation octagon999, no worries- not taken the wrong way! Quick question though. If the Naval Combat is geared towards big ships rather than small ones, Battlestar Galactica/Star Wars aside, what good would a few fighters be? Unless they were used en masse? I've only just started so haven't had the chance to blow anything up yet, so has anyone used fighters (and bombers) successfully? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowKitsune Posted June 30, 2004 Report Share Posted June 30, 2004 Fighters and Drones can do some serious damage if their targets don't have sufficient CIDS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
General Miles Avatar Posted July 1, 2004 Report Share Posted July 1, 2004 They will need not only enough CIDS but they will also have to be a at least the same quality of the attacking fighters or thier effectiveness may be less then what you may expect. I would think that several hundred dedicated fighters such as bombers or attack fighters or gunboats could easily overcome 1st generation CIDS's or at the very least suffer less attrition from them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ur Lord Tedric Posted July 1, 2004 Report Share Posted July 1, 2004 Still, I would also like some type of ship system that can assess damage and make repairs when you are far from a shipyard. Carrying around colonists and construction materials to set up temporary shipyards seems like the only way to go at this point and that route is very costly in terms of resources. Then, of course, the Fighter replacement thing. I think the "vision" of forcing the player to establish a resupply line is a good one...but again very costly. In that light I can only assume that a fleet with lots of Fighters of differing kinds would have a tremendous advantage given that the resource cost is so great. I must admit that I would be very disappointed to have the logistics aspects of the game further trivialised - it's one of the game's real strengths...... We have Fuel, Fighters/Drones and the need for repair. The first two are simply handled and require invesment and care, but that's all. It's just the repair, or 'how do we deal with damage', and/or not lose crew experience element that we want resolved. Chief Warmaster to Ur-Lord Tedric Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clan Elder 'Keen Posted July 1, 2004 Report Share Posted July 1, 2004 I must disagree- resupply of Fighters and Drones should indeed be an issue of concern, and not simply a case of "trivialised" logistics. To bring fighters and drones to a resupply base, you need as much tonnage dedicated to the resupply effort as the warships have themselves in fighter bays. This more than negates the inherent benefit of a slightly increased damage output per ton of fighter/drone, as that benefit is already compensated by incremental destruction of the fighter/drone assets in battle. Still, there is no reason why a resupply base could not be part of fighter resupply. I could see a system where partially disassembled fighter/drones are crated into cargo (at a tonnage ratio that is more attractive than fighter/drone bays) and brought to the front lines and unloaded at a resupply base. There they could be reassembled and be available for loading into fighter/drone bays. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowKitsune Posted July 1, 2004 Report Share Posted July 1, 2004 Personally, here are some things that I would like to see: Maintenance Bays/Modules - Allows for remote ship repairs. Roughly akin to machine shops that large warships currently possess. They would be fueled by Raw Resources. Why Raw Resources? Because it would be a mind-numbing exercise in code writing to figure out exactly what is needed to repair the damage done to a ship. You just set the ratio a little higher than for a standard conversion, say 25:1 (25 tons of Raw Resources garners you 1 ton of 'Spare Parts'). Each ton of 'Spare Parts' repairs one ton of damage to your Ship. [300 Steel - 100 Transaluminum - 100 Electronics ; 100 tons ; 50 'Spare Parts' / turn] Drydocks - The large industrial size version of Maintenance Bays. They have all the same requirements to build as a Shipyard, but can 'repair' 10000 tons of damage per unit. Ship Upgrades - I'd like to be able to improve my ships without sacrificing my hard won crew experience. M2CW, -SK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ur Lord Tedric Posted July 1, 2004 Report Share Posted July 1, 2004 I must disagree- resupply of Fighters and Drones should indeed be an issue of concern, and not simply a case of "trivialised" logistics. To bring fighters and drones to a resupply base, you need as much tonnage dedicated to the resupply effort as the warships have themselves in fighter bays. This more than negates the inherent benefit of a slightly increased damage output per ton of fighter/drone, as that benefit is already compensated by incremental destruction of the fighter/drone assets in battle. Still, there is no reason why a resupply base could not be part of fighter resupply. I could see a system where partially disassembled fighter/drones are crated into cargo (at a tonnage ratio that is more attractive than fighter/drone bays) and brought to the front lines and unloaded at a resupply base. There they could be reassembled and be available for loading into fighter/drone bays. Naughty Ken! :lol: I didn't say it was trivialised, but that I didn't want to see it further trivialised.... Personally I'd rather have crew that needed training, feeding and paying...... I'd certainly have ships that needed maintaining, although as using them requires whole heaps of fuel, then that goes a long way to helping.....but this doesn't apply to PDC's and Orbitals.... However, on the 'Spare Parts' idea, if that was to be introduced, then the use of Raw Resources would certainly bump the logistic effort way up there..... Pete has mentioned, however, that 'damaged' ships are not the norm. Mostly we should expect to see them destroyed. But the 'Upgrade' idea is one I put before, so yes please..... Mx Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pig Skin Posted July 1, 2004 Report Share Posted July 1, 2004 I already cut out about half of what I would like to do each turn just to keep things in check, I can't imagine what all of these logistical wishes, if done, would cost for the players in terms of more orders, and the lost time for RTG to test and code. Yes, it would be nice to have a way to quick and easyly repair damaged ships if they keep that damage, but it should not require even more orders to do. I'm just curious, are you guys privately rich? Or is this just a way to make combat even more costly to punish WHAPO members? Is this like imposing a tax on WHAPO? The Girl Scouts won't have to worry about repair because their shipss will be dust. -Pig Skin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurassier Posted July 1, 2004 Report Share Posted July 1, 2004 Yes, it would be nice to have a way to quick and easyly repair damaged ships if they keep that damage, but it should not require even more orders to do. I would agree, no more orders. What about utilizing the Shipyards? Put damaged ships in orbit around a planet with a shipyard, and the shipyard automaticaly repairs a set tonnage of damaged ships in orbit each turn? That way you just move your ships to the nearest shipyard and park them until repaired. Maybe later, with advanced technology we can build mobile shipyard/repair facilities? With as many ships as I have, I don't use enough orders to utilize them all fully, so don't want to waste more orders. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
octagon999 Posted July 1, 2004 Author Report Share Posted July 1, 2004 Yes, it would be nice to have a way to quick and easyly repair damaged ships if they keep that damage, but it should not require even more orders to do. I would agree, no more orders. What about utilizing the Shipyards? Put damaged ships in orbit around a planet with a shipyard, and the shipyard automaticaly repairs a set tonnage of damaged ships in orbit each turn? That way you just move your ships to the nearest shipyard and park them until repaired. Maybe later, with advanced technology we can build mobile shipyard/repair facilities? With as many ships as I have, I don't use enough orders to utilize them all fully, so don't want to waste more orders. I totally and completely agree. The LAST thing I think ANYONE needs is something that consumes more orders, or makes things harder. I mean, jeez, maybe we could have seven KINDS of raw resources, metallic, organic, sulfuric, etc, and then combine them to form RRs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.