The cargo capacity of 300cus for the Trident seems very low for a ship of its size that several Behemoths park inside of. 1000-1500cus would be a bit more realistic.

Is it 300? The wiki says 360, and 1500 for connies.

Anyway, I would also like to see more goodies inside tridents. So far I haven't seen any tridents that I was actually motivated to kill for their contents. The only ones I've attacked were out of boredom.

Though I suppose you could argue that the tridents are with the convoys more as a defensive measure than for cargo transport. They shoot at aggressors and provide repair services for the convoy (granted, the convoy ships themselves never use it, but player escorts can). Their low capacity vs. size could be explained by how much space is used to accommodate the turrets and shield generators. Also, for it to accommodate docked ships it has to sacrifice cargo capacity.

The Trident can get away with just 360cus (although I'd personally prefer it to be closer to three times that). Constellations, on the other hand, have no excuse for such anemic cargo holds.

You can add their cargo, but it is more important to limit its docks.

Example, dock limited to 800cu can hold 2 moths OR 8 hogs/buses/etc.

+1

Also, trident should hold AT LEAST 4 behemoths or 4 x 300 cu cargo.

I mean this is BARE MINIMUM.

What is the point of having a capship, if it has shitty load capacity ?

Give us the capships, and make them powerful/useful.

The problem is, the only ship designed for transporting cargo is a TPG Constellation Heavy Transport. A Trident, in my view, is more of a small multipurpose military/escort cappie, not a full-bore cargo transport.

We need more cappies, that are more specialized (Not very likely, as the devs are so busy).

EDIT: Tridents need more guns, perhaps some neut turrets around the front and dock such as those mounted upon Teradons.

+1 Tarenty.

Trident should have a small storage area, severily limited dock and add at least 2 more turrets. As now it only have one turret more than a Moth (and shield+armour).

Connies are great. That is the smallest ship that can be called "Capital Ship". (Very interesting reading in link, check!)

Personally, I think there ought to be a civilian 'cargo hauler' variant (basically the one we got right now, only with more cu's), and a militarized version with the appropriate up-gunning of the number, quality, and placement of turrets.

And I stand by my statement that The TPG Constellation has a *pitifully* small cargo bay for its size. Seriously, XCs look like mosquitoes next to the thing, and yet a mere squad or so of them edge out the Connie in terms of capacity. It needs a cargo increase by an order of magnitude or more.

i must say, the amount of cargo that tridents carry, compared to a behemoth is a joke.
so..
+1 to that.

stfu nahin
stfu alloh

Exactly.

Keeping small cargo capacity just for the sake of game balancing seems idiotic for me.

There has be some other way to balance the game, than keeping the cargo capaticities of large ships small. That is just plain ridiculous.

Make the big ships have big cargo hold, damn it !

[K]eeping the cargo capaticities of large [non-trade] ships small . . . is just plain ridiculous.

Sure it is, Polelickin'Lancemelots, sure it is. Maybe a less armed and more lightly armored 'trader' version of the trident is what you should be considering?

Connies are great. That is the smallest ship that can be called "Capital Ship". (Very interesting reading in link, check!)

taken from wiki; There is usually no formal criterion for the classification,

reading comprehension fail.

+1 to OP

@Dr.Lecter

[[[Polelickin'Lancemelots]]]

If You were trying to insult me, then sorry. It just came out plain stupid.

Try increasing Your IQ license first.

A word of advice Paladin: one of the first things I learned around here is that arguing with Lecter is an exercise in futility. For one thing, he's a Lawyer in real life, so he's probably smarter than you think he is, and for another thing, his moniker is named after primary antagonist in Silence of the Lambs. Let the implications of that sink in for a bit.

Sure, lots of things Lecter says are stupid, but most of the time he's trolling you. The sanest course of action is to ignore him entirely.

That said, I do disagree with his assertion. Only the Tridents used in a military role can really be pegged as 'non-trade' ships (the ones in Convoys are lousy escorts, and tend to carry cargo on them), and Constellations are *implicitly* trade ships. The cargo capacity of both, compared to their cost and volume, is too disproportionately small to be considered even remotely sane.

i must say, the amount of cargo that tridents carry, compared to a behemoth is a joke.
so..
+1 to that.

stfu nahin

I never said not to increase the cargo.

@vIsitor

[[[A word of advice Paladin: one of the first things I learned around here is that arguing with Lecter is an exercise in futility. For one thing, he's a Lawyer in real life, so he's probably smarter than you think he is, and for another thing, his moniker is named after primary antagonist in Silence of the Lambs. Let the implications of that sink in for a bit.]]]

Well You're completely correct, however somehow sometimes i like arguing with trolls. A little excercise makes life interesting.
.
.
[[[That said, I do disagree with his assertion. Only the Tridents used in a military role can really be pegged as 'non-trade' ships (the ones in Convoys are lousy escorts, and tend to carry cargo on them), and Constellations are *implicitly* trade ships. The cargo capacity of both, compared to their cost and volume, is too disproportionately small to be considered even remotely sane.]]]

You are completely correct. And You gave me an idea:

What if all the cargo variant ships in the game have capacity which is more-or-less directly proportional to their physical size in cubic meters ? That would be much more logical than handicapping ship's capacity for the sake of game balancing, which i find disgusting.

Free-thinking:

And if larger ships - to avoid 'capital' - are made in two basic variants, the civilian ones have a big storage bay sacrificing shields, while the military ones have "huge" shields generators using most storage space?

* Civilian tridents have no shield and 600cu storage (EDIT: 1200cu)
* Military tridents have shields but only 200cu storage (EDIT: 300cu)
-- Both have a docking bay limited to 800cu (=8xHog or 2xMoth)

Same principle applies to Constellations, holding 3000/1000 without/with shields. (EDIT: 6000/2000cu) and docking bay of 1600cu (16xHog or 4xMoth)

One more step towards player-flown tridents&connies?

---//---
@Peypey: Read whole paragraph next time:
There is usually no formal criterion for the classification, but it is a useful concept when thinking about strategy, for instance to compare relative naval strengths in a theatre of operations without having to get bogged down in the details of tonnage and gun diameters.

But really, from 1st phrase, any ship can be a capital ship, even a hog, as long as it is leading (strategic level) a fleet (or convoy, scaling to VO).

A capital ship is generally a leading or a primary ship in a fleet.

Maybe single-seat and multi-seat? Then a moth is a slightly smaller - in weapons - than a trident, while cargo capacity seems balanced.

@Alloh

[[[* Civilian tridents have no shield and 600cu storage
* Military tridents have shields but only 200cu storage
-- Both have a docking bay limited to 800cu (=8xHog or 2xMoth)]]]

Are You calling this "big" storage capacities ?
I sincerely hope You are kidding.

Really, please understand, that Capships (like Tredent) just CAN'T go under 1200-1500cu capacity EVEN in military version. That would be just... immoral.

Large ships are large. Small ships are small. Please don't even compare moth to trident in matter of cargo capacities.

Also, constellation should have MINIMUM 8000cu capacity for civilian and 3000cu for military version. Don't make this game irrationally illogical. If a ship is big, then it is big and it has large cargo hold. Limiting everything for the sake of game balancing is just plain stupid.

Cargo capacity should be **directly and linearly** proportional to the size of the vehicle

"Cargo capacity should be **directly and linearly** proportional to the size of the vehicle"

There are factors other than size that determine cargo capacity. For example, a Behemoth with 2 large weapon ports has 120cu cargo, whereas a Behemoth XC with no weapon ports (but the exact same size) has 200cu cargo.
That being said, I agree that Tridents should still be in the 1000+ range at least.