hobknob Posted July 6, 2004 Report Share Posted July 6, 2004 I think the real question is whether ships main armaments are used to fire at fighters and drones as opposed to firing at other ships. I would hope that my plasmas torpedoes aren't going to be targeting a drone. :lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mechanica Posted July 6, 2004 Report Share Posted July 6, 2004 Sigh Hope David Weber doesnt play this game. We could have a weapons handling system module. 10,000 tons, x steel, x electronics, x transaluminum, x synthetic materials. A weapons handling module (WHM) is an integral part of the Weapons, Ammunition, Logistics, Materiel And Replenishment Transport. The WHM can rapidly and efficiently resupply expended muntions (fighters, drones, missiles) from crated munitions stored on board the WALMART. Munitions are transported disassembled and require the same amount of cargo space as fully operational versions require operational space. E.g. a 100t fighter would require 100 cargo bays. Replenishment could automatically take place at the very end of turn processing after all battles are completed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ur Lord Tedric Posted July 7, 2004 Report Share Posted July 7, 2004 Sigh Hope David Weber doesnt play this game. We could have a weapons handling system module. 10,000 tons, x steel, x electronics, x transaluminum, x synthetic materials. A weapons handling module (WHM) is an integral part of the Weapons, Ammunition, Logistics, Materiel And Replenishment Transport. The WHM can rapidly and efficiently resupply expended muntions (fighters, drones, missiles) from crated munitions stored on board the WALMART. Munitions are transported disassembled and require the same amount of cargo space as fully operational versions require operational space. E.g. a 100t fighter would require 100 cargo bays. Replenishment could automatically take place at the very end of turn processing after all battles are completed. Whilst no one would be unsurprised if I actually asked for more complications..... I'm afraid I don't get this at all. What is the big deal here? Especially if you would need just as many Cargo Bays as an equivalent 'cost' in Fighter/Drone bays. You just have bare-bones carriers delivering spare Fighter/Drones to the front and dropping them at an established depot. A fleet that needs replenishment then drops by and with an OC/LC set refills with what it needs. And bare-bones carriers can even be useful in a pinch, whereas freighters with 'crated' fighters are useless...... Chief Planner to Ur-Lord Tedric Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowKitsune Posted July 7, 2004 Report Share Posted July 7, 2004 I think the real question is whether ships main armaments are used to fire at fighters and drones as opposed to firing at other ships. I would hope that my plasmas torpedoes aren't going to be targeting a drone. :lol: I was under the impression that only Defensive Systems that had the feature "Counters: Fighters, Missiles and Drones" targetted such. Of course, I have no proof of this. -SK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mechanica Posted July 7, 2004 Report Share Posted July 7, 2004 My suggestion was to provide some sort of underway (frontline) replenishment of expendable assets ie Fleet train or ammunition colliers without diluting the combat capabilities of the fleet. Your method of Fighter Ferries, using actual carriers, is a viable option but I'd rather have my offensive capabilities able to do other duties than ferrying replacement fighters to the front lines. A drawback I could see to your method is that you may end up with only 1/3 of your actual carrier strength in actual combat if you run into a position that has strong anti-fighter defenses. 2/3's of your carriers might end up doing nothing but hauling fighters to the front and returning to base worlds to pick up replacements. As to space requirements that was just a rough example. I realize that operational space requirements for fighters include prep, launch, and service crew requirements. Maybe crated munitions would only require 1/2 the operational space requirements. 100 ton fighter = 50 cargo bays. BTW: My sigh wasn't directed at your wanting to add more logistics to the game. It was more to how much Starfire seems to influence some of our directions of thought; hence, the reference to David Weber. Wardawgz quote "Think War, Plan on it" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ali-t-akua Posted July 7, 2004 Report Share Posted July 7, 2004 My suggestion was to provide some sort of underway (frontline) replenishment of expendable assets ie Fleet train or ammunition colliers without diluting the combat capabilities of the fleet. Your method of Fighter Ferries, using actual carriers, is a viable option but I'd rather have my offensive capabilities able to do other duties than ferrying replacement fighters to the front lines. A drawback I could see to your method is that you may end up with only 1/3 of your actual carrier strength in actual combat if you run into a position that has strong anti-fighter defenses. 2/3's of your carriers might end up doing nothing but hauling fighters to the front and returning to base worlds to pick up replacements. Actually my thought has been to use older ships to do the hauling to the front in order to replenish Fighters/Drones and use the newer ships to do the actual combat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pig Skin Posted July 8, 2004 Report Share Posted July 8, 2004 Maybe crated munitions would only require 1/2 the operational space requirements. 100 ton fighter = 50 cargo bays. I dont know why people would want to crate around fighters and drones in cargo holds that cost the same as fighter bays, unless it is to avoid puting fighter bays and drone racks on exploration ships, that is about the only reason I can see for that. Man, the last thing I would do is have unlaunchable munitions sitting to be captured in route to a forward base. Thats one Crazy strategy. As for a two-for-one special on crating (only for fighters or drones)... that might unbalance fighters and drones too much since they do more damage than missiles so we would be back to what everyone mentions in the old games where drones dominate. -Pig Skin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ur Lord Tedric Posted July 8, 2004 Report Share Posted July 8, 2004 And one more thing may be worth considering..... I really don't think any of us has any experience at all to show that this might even be an issue....... Show me a goodly number of battles involving fighter/drone losses and I may start to think differently....... Chief Warmaster to Ur-Lord Tedric Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laserwolf Posted July 8, 2004 Report Share Posted July 8, 2004 Does anyone have any evidence that CIDS even work? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
octagon999 Posted July 8, 2004 Author Report Share Posted July 8, 2004 BTW: My sigh wasn't directed at your wanting to add more logistics to the game. It was more to how much Starfire seems to influence some of our directions of thought; hence, the reference to David Weber. I think you are correct... but its a darn good model to go by. Their campaign is a fairly natural pattern. Start with exploration, gun em up a little bit, then research like crazy once you run into the Orions (or whatever, its been awhile). I still lean on SFB, although there doesn't seem to be as many parallels. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hobknob Posted July 8, 2004 Report Share Posted July 8, 2004 FWIW - I think that an option to use standard cargo to cart around crated fighters and drones has got to be more efficient than using fighterbays and drone racks. You should be able to move fighters and drones at 1/2 their deployable tonnage or better. This would then give the incentive to risk your freighters to move supplies around. There would also need to be some sort of mechanism to uncrate them and put them into service. This would be done by offloading them to a pop group where they would/could be converted back to functional fighters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pig Skin Posted July 8, 2004 Report Share Posted July 8, 2004 FWIW - I think that an option to use standard cargo to cart around crated fighters and drones has got to be more efficient than using fighterbays and drone racks. You should be able to move fighters and drones at 1/2 their deployable tonnage or better. This would then give the incentive to risk your freighters to move supplies around. There would also need to be some sort of mechanism to uncrate them and put them into service. This would be done by offloading them to a pop group where they would/could be converted back to functional fighters. I don't believe that the rules should be changed and fighter/drones to be given special two-for-one transport treatment, unless there combat value is also reduced. According to the Combat Posts, 10,000 tons of drones already pack more punch than 20,000 tons of any other weapon of the same generation. They already are half price for shipping, upgrading, etc. etc. People should have thought about the resupply issues before researching those paths, not try and change the rules afterwords. This part was clear in the rules, and if not people should have asked. If the rules change now making them even more powerful, then those who didnt research fighters/drones or CIDS should be allowed to go back and change their tech research around and get them as needed. -Pig Skin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
octagon999 Posted July 8, 2004 Author Report Share Posted July 8, 2004 People should have thought about the resupply issues before researching those paths, not try and change the rules afterwords. You have to admit, he has a point. I can't disagree with him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paradigm Posted July 8, 2004 Report Share Posted July 8, 2004 I'm afraid I don't get this at all. What is the big deal here? Especially if you would need just as many Cargo Bays as an equivalent 'cost' in Fighter/Drone bays. You just have bare-bones carriers delivering spare Fighter/Drones to the front and dropping them at an established depot. A fleet that needs replenishment then drops by and with an OC/LC set refills with what it needs. And bare-bones carriers can even be useful in a pinch, whereas freighters with 'crated' fighters are useless...... Chief Planner to Ur-Lord Tedric Freighters are general purpose. They can be servicing colonies etc. during peace time. During war, some can haul fighters to the front. Bare bones carriers don't make sense. You would be almost certainly better off putting those fighter bays in your carrier fleet. FWIW, I'm not researching fighters myself. I'm just looking at it from a game play perspective. It's pretty unbelievable that you can haul every item in the game in a freighter, except for fighters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ali-t-akua Posted July 8, 2004 Report Share Posted July 8, 2004 Freighters are general purpose. They can be servicing colonies etc. during peace time. During war, some can haul fighters to the front. Bare bones carriers don't make sense. You would be almost certainly better off putting those fighter bays in your carrier fleet. FWIW, I'm not researching fighters myself. I'm just looking at it from a game play perspective. It's pretty unbelievable that you can haul every item in the game in a freighter, except for fighters. I think you have to look at it from a game balance and philosophy point of view, not a game play perspective. I am not Pete or Russ but I suspect the reason for this exception is due to balance issues. As I understand it, SNII ended up being the "Battle of the Imperial Drones" making the rest of the technologies not as useful. I think in light of the rich technology trees and Pete's expressed desire to make this more than a wargame by encouraging trade, colonization, exploration, etc., this decision makes sense. 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.