Pig Skin Posted July 8, 2004 Report Share Posted July 8, 2004 It's pretty unbelievable that you can haul every item in the game in a freighter, except for fighters. That statement is not really true.... Ever tried to haul fuel in a Cargo Bay? Colonists? Imperial Guards Troops? Imperial Army Troops? Imperial Marine Troops? There are alot of items that cant be hauled in cargo bays. Maybe we should just do away with all bays and berths and make cargo hauling generic-like? why should fighers or drones get special treatment? Personaly, I dont care if RTG does change the rules to allow a 1 for 1 (but I do care if they give 2 for 1 specials) carting of fighters/drones (as long as the fighters/drones dont launch when being carted), but I think they could spend there time better on things that are broken rather than catering to people who dont want the (well described and clearly explained flaws before you researched them) disadvantages to these super weapons. There's too much of eating ones cake and having it too on this issue. If you dont want the resupply problems then instead of having fighters, you should have researched CIDS, and instead of Drones, go Missiles. They both are less effective, but then theres no resupply problems. -Pig Skin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
octagon999 Posted July 9, 2004 Author Report Share Posted July 9, 2004 I think the biggest question is... do you really want to make such a huge rule change 2 years into the game? I think not. Highly unfair to somebody at the least. Obviously there have been tweaks and additions as the time has passed, sometimes when its obvious that something isnt working like it was planned, or that the original idea was flawed. But a fundamental change like this I would think would require unanimous agreement to be changed fairly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ur Lord Tedric Posted July 9, 2004 Report Share Posted July 9, 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. :lol: Me too!!!! But where are these Combat Posts with Drones??????????? Chief Warmaster to Ur-Lord Tedric Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhaseDragon Posted July 9, 2004 Report Share Posted July 9, 2004 Octogon999 has it right; You need unanimous agreement to make this change....we don't have it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ur Lord Tedric Posted July 9, 2004 Report Share Posted July 9, 2004 And after more posts...... Pig Skin for Senator.......!!!!!!!! Someone we can relate to!!!! Drone Bays, Fighter Bays, Fuel Tankage, Colonial Berthings, Troop Berthings and Cargo Bays, all different and all choices.......I love it!!! Chief Planner to Ur-Lord Tedric Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paradigm Posted July 9, 2004 Report Share Posted July 9, 2004 Drone Bays, Fighter Bays, Fuel Tankage, Colonial Berthings, Troop Berthings and Cargo Bays, all different and all choices.......I love it!!! Drones and fighters are what we are talking about here so they are irrelevant to your point. Fuel is obviously handled special due to it's logistical nature and the way the thrust and action point equations work, so fuel is also irrelevant to this discussion. All of the people movers make logical sense and fit in with the traditional science fiction nature that this game is set in. Normally you don't stack people (alien lifeforms, whatever) in freighter holds; not people you like in any event. There has to be a reasonable level of logic to the game universe or what's the point? You should be able to move most of the equipment of a ground unit by regular freighters and only require special berthing for the actual soldiers (as is done in Starfire which is loosely based on the same premise as this game), but it's simpler to consider a ground division as an unbreakable item. It's logically ridiculous that I can load any of hundreds of ship components, weapons systems, machines of all types, shapes, and sizes, etc. on a freighter, but I can't crate up a fighter or a drone and do the same thing. It doesn't take much imagination to build a machine and a box and then put the machine in the box. They certainly shouldn't be launchable from the freighter, and could require special facilities or perhaps a ground base to uncrate and prepare them for use on a carrier, but moving a 100 ton fighter in the holds of a million ton freighter should be a no brainer for the technologically advanced race that built both. The argument that it's too late to add this feature to the game now is also specious. A lot of things that should have been in the game at start were not. New things are being added to this game all of the time. How is adding this ability going to cause undo hardship to the majority of non-fighter players? Is someone fighting a desperate war vs a fighter oriented race where this change would suddenly tip the scales? Pete added the ability of shuttles to be loaded in standard cargo bays and I don't recall howls of pain when he made that announcement. I've yet to be convinced that fighters are super weapons requiring weird illogical restrictions to reign them in. The few test battles I've seen with them so far are inconclusive. But if they are Ueberwaffen, then requiring the carrier fleet to go home for new fighters won't make any difference. It will only matter if the carriers are reasonably on par with gunships and they go toe to toe resulting in carriers with empty fighter bays and an enemy with gunships remaining. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paradigm Posted July 9, 2004 Report Share Posted July 9, 2004 why should fighers or drones get special treatment? Because they are presented as expendable munitions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turok Posted July 9, 2004 Report Share Posted July 9, 2004 There is one major problem that needs to be overcome before you can change the rules. Drones/fighters do have a re-supply problem (fact). There will be those players who deliberately steered clear of drone/fighter development because of this major weakness. Would it be fair on these players to now change the rules and allow ad-hoc re-supply? I suppose that really depends on just how effective drones/fighters are. Stares casually into space waiting for definitive information (please) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ur Lord Tedric Posted July 9, 2004 Report Share Posted July 9, 2004 Drone Bays, Fighter Bays, Fuel Tankage, Colonial Berthings, Troop Berthings and Cargo Bays, all different and all choices.......I love it!!! Drones and fighters are what we are talking about here so they are irrelevant to your point. Fuel is obviously handled special due to it's logistical nature and the way the thrust and action point equations work, so fuel is also irrelevant to this discussion. All of the people movers make logical sense and fit in with the traditional science fiction nature that this game is set in. Normally you don't stack people (alien lifeforms, whatever) in freighter holds; not people you like in any event. There has to be a reasonable level of logic to the game universe or what's the point? You should be able to move most of the equipment of a ground unit by regular freighters and only require special berthing for the actual soldiers (as is done in Starfire which is loosely based on the same premise as this game), but it's simpler to consider a ground division as an unbreakable item. It's logically ridiculous that I can load any of hundreds of ship components, weapons systems, machines of all types, shapes, and sizes, etc. on a freighter, but I can't crate up a fighter or a drone and do the same thing. It doesn't take much imagination to build a machine and a box and then put the machine in the box. They certainly shouldn't be launchable from the freighter, and could require special facilities or perhaps a ground base to uncrate and prepare them for use on a carrier, but moving a 100 ton fighter in the holds of a million ton freighter should be a no brainer for the technologically advanced race that built both. The argument that it's too late to add this feature to the game now is also specious. A lot of things that should have been in the game at start were not. New things are being added to this game all of the time. How is adding this ability going to cause undo hardship to the majority of non-fighter players? Is someone fighting a desperate war vs a fighter oriented race where this change would suddenly tip the scales? Pete added the ability of shuttles to be loaded in standard cargo bays and I don't recall howls of pain when he made that announcement. I've yet to be convinced that fighters are super weapons requiring weird illogical restrictions to reign them in. The few test battles I've seen with them so far are inconclusive. But if they are Ueberwaffen, then requiring the carrier fleet to go home for new fighters won't make any difference. It will only matter if the carriers are reasonably on par with gunships and they go toe to toe resulting in carriers with empty fighter bays and an enemy with gunships remaining. Irrelevant, no.... All the items that go into those special items are just 'Cargo', it's just that particular items require special carriage..... Not irrelevant as all are formed from similar amounts of the universal commodity, Steel. The choice comes from deciding just what you are going to use your steel for. Not irrelevant as they are indeed an expendable commodity just like Fuel is and are part of the logistical network each empire has to build. And people are concerned over game balance as they have indeed made choices early on to research Fighters and/or Drones, or neither, or none......based upon the fact that both need replenishing and both need carriage..... Fighters and Drones are obviously major advantages in combat as one can produce early tech carriers that will remain effective by loading up ever higher technologies of the Fighter and/or Drone tree, so at the the logistic effort needed to support their use will counter that strategy somewhat.... And as for Shuttles, they always were 'ship' items that have to be built into ships like all the others, so addressing that rule 'bug'/anomaly was obvious.... And finally, as one who would support a whole lot more realism than we currently have, I'd put this change way, way, WAY behind asking for a maintenance regime for our ships. Currently the lack of such a system means we can run on ships ad nauseum far beyond the point when they would fall apart through lack of such care and attention - which to me is utterly ridiculous....... Wargame, Strategic Simulation or Empire Building Game - an 'army' marches on it's stomach; soldiers need ammunition, boots, uniforms, weapons, grog and money.......if that element isn't in the game, then it sure ain't realistic!!! Just take a look at the US Army decision for the last several years to put Gas Turbines in its tanks..... Excellent idea as they're smaller, lighter, great power output and are generally brilliant for the tank designer to use..... Result - 5 tanker trucks for every tank deployed.........gas turbines just suck it up! One reason the coalition didn't advance to Baghdad in '91 - no more fuel available...... Off my soapbox now, but making things easier isn't the way to go IMNSHO..... Chief Warmaster to Ur-Lord Tedric Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hobknob Posted July 9, 2004 Report Share Posted July 9, 2004 I think some miss the point entirely, but I suppose that is fine too. I don't really use fighters or drones yet, but I would love to see my enemies carting spares around in freighters. I have yet to see any evidence of this so called superiority of fighters and drones. In fact to the contrary this subject was addressed by Pete early on on in the game that the Uber cheese fleets of drones from SN II were a thing of the past and that pound for pound weapons are supposed to be relatively equivalent. The idea of transporting fighters or drones in freighters has very little to do with a perceived combat strength and a lot to do with being reasonable. As far as some suggestions that this could only change if there was unanimous approval is also a bit much. If the game needs this fix for the betterment of the game then the fix should be in. If RTG then feels that fighters are too powerfull it is a small thing to tweak some code behind the seens to make them a bit more fragile or to make CIDS a bit more effective. I also find it hard to believe that many people would have made any different choices about pursuing expendible munitions over other weapon systems even if this type of change had been in long ago. You are either of the mindset to use expendable munitions or you are not. As far as things be clear in the rules I would have to point out that there are very few things in the rules that portray actual game play. The rules point out a good view of how things should/could happen but reality is a bit different. In some cases it is very different while other cases it isn't very much different at all. ...ahhhh Friday Mornings, a good time for a rant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turok Posted July 9, 2004 Report Share Posted July 9, 2004 I think Ur-Lord Tedric has got things just about spot on. Going with drones/fighters does give an early advantage because you do not have to constantly update your warfleets. That rusting old carrier built in round 4, is now equipped with Mk VIII drones, and can take take on just about anything in the galaxy. Any other type of weapon would be next to useless by now. The drawback of course is once you have run out of drones you are pretty vulnerable. There should be some sort of in-house maintenance for damaged ships. I am no expert here but I would have thought it could be added fairly easily and I cannot think for the life of me why anyone would object. Ur-Lord Tedric Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurassier Posted July 9, 2004 Report Share Posted July 9, 2004 Drones/fighters do have a re-supply problem (fact). There will be those players who deliberately steered clear of drone/fighter development because of this major weakness Yep. that being said, there should be way to resupply without sending the ship all the way home. Also, one advantage of fighters and drones is that you can research items that automatically upgrade your fighters/drones. for Example, Nuclear Pulse Engines, don't have to be built, auto upgrade. Sooo, the turn before the big battle with your Carrier/Drone fleets you develop Mk I Nuclear Pulse Engines, your weapons just instantly got better. No need to go home and reload. However, your opponent developed Heavy Beam Laser at the same time. Ooops, his Medium Beam Lasers don't automatically upgrade, he would have to go home, scrap his ship, redesign a new ship, and then send it out to fight you. That is were the real advangtage of Fighters and Drones are. And yes I know you can build bigger and better fighters and drones, but they are the only ones (that I'm aware of) that can be automatically upgraded without refitting them. That having been said, I don't mind if there is a resupply problem for them. It shouldn't be impossible, maybe there should be advanced technology that has an Improved Fighter/Drone bay/carrier/storage or whatever, that carry these items. anyway, just my two cents worth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
octagon999 Posted July 9, 2004 Author Report Share Posted July 9, 2004 Obviously no issue will ever have everyone agreeing with it. My reason was stated because of the enormity, and fundamental nature of the changes being proposed. If the Gawds of the game decided that making fighter/drones transportable by cargo bays would not be unbalancing, I would bow to their wisdom. My reasoning, however is that if someone will be disadvantaged by a rule change this late into the game, that is patently unfair. It would be like changing the rules concerning bishops and knights halfway into the game, after choices had been made on exchanging a bishop for a knight. Good changes have been amending some facilities to require less of them, or reduced power, etc, or to make their yield such that building them actually makes sense. While technically this change affects non-colonizers better than colonizers, all people benefit, and it fixes something that is truely "broken" so I think it was a good change, regardless. If, in the wisdom of the game designers, fighter/drone cargo fits into the same category, then I will accept their judgement with no qualms. I just don't want these sorts of changes being taken lightly. In fact, ANY change in the rules/mechanics needs to be made with the greatest of caution with a view to its effect on all players. Personally, I would love for fighter/drones to be able to be shipped by cargo bay in some form or another, such as being crated (the WWII model) but forcing people to utilize Bogue/Casablanca model replenishment "carriers" is equally valid. Have fun, Tom PS And a GREAT weekend! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sssarass Posted July 9, 2004 Report Share Posted July 9, 2004 Three thoughtsss to add to thisss dissscusssssion. Firssst what makesss one think that you could break down a fighter to sssmaller partsss that would ussse 50% lesssss ssspace??? I would think it would take at leassst 2 timesss if not more ssspace, asss you would need to carefully pack each component part and the weaponsss mussst be (misssssslesss, lasssersss, etc) broken down and what about the fuel, would the cargo carrier have to ussse it'sss own fuel for reconssstruction? Or would you have to have a bassse or ssspecial ssship that could reconssstruct the fighter asss the carrier might not be able to. Gee I had to replace a tv the other day and the box wasss at leassst 50% bigger than the tv with all the packing materialsss, jussst glad trasssh daysss are Friday! (would you have to haul the fightersss packing materialsss back home to :lol: ) Remember don't pollute Never be a dirty bird Help keep our Sssyssstemsss looking good! Or option 2 it would require a large programming change to allow fightersss to be carried in cargo bays as not activate during a battle? Or finally what isss the point, 10,000 cargo baysss basssically cossst the same as 1 fighter bay or drone rack. Ssso inssstead of a 100,000 cargo bay carge barge you would have a 10 fighter bay or drone rack cargo barge. During timesss of war what elssse would you be hauling iron ore to throw at the enemy? CTO, Sssarasss Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EternusIV Posted July 9, 2004 Report Share Posted July 9, 2004 Kind of on the run so short and sweet thought on the subject(which is still epic-sized spam for some of us :lol: ) Using the rule set in place, I foresee resupplying drones/fighters like so: A battle fleet up at the front with tons of drones/fighters (say 5 systems away) A carrier resupply fleet with high APs that bring in fresh drones/fighters The Battle fleet drops a beacon on a nearby world and the supply fleet drops off the drones/fighters so that the Battle fleet can LC the fresh supply* *This will be moot once we can actually do ship-to-ship transfers. The carrier supply fleet should carry the drones/fighters in appropraite Bays/Racks anyway....why bother with cargo berthings? That way they can launch in case engaged on the way. Anotehr option is just to feed the Battle fleet with the carrier supply fleets - skip transfers and merge the fleets.....the drawback is that you eventually have a bunch of dead tonnage (empty drone/fighter space) The cost/time of building a resupply fleet to run new drones to the front would have to be weighed against the option of just merging multiple drone fleets...depends on the scenario. Do I think the rules need to be changed in some way to make drone/fighters easier to replenish? HELL no. Drones/Fighters need the supply issue to keep things in balance. You can overcome the resupply issue in a variety of ways....... 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.