Forums » Suggestions
Spellcast... I like that idea a lot, and if you make it to use cargo space it would work really well. Say the lowest clase of battery would need 4 cargo space then add 1 or 2 cargo space per uprgade. That would make it impossible for fighters to have batteries and trade ships and bombers would be able to have an advantage they do not atm. However I would suggest limiting the ship to only having 1 battery otherwise a Maud would rule because it could equip a ton of energy storage.
I think we need better ship class definitions. For instance what is an "Attack ship" class? Is it a kin to Homeworlds corvette class? If they are then they should be able to take down fighter class ships. Then there would be a balance : Fighter > Bomber > Attack ship > Fighter. Although the valk would need to be made into a true fighter class rather than the figher/attack ship/bomber hybrid it is now.
The feeling I get regarding the ship classes are as follows:
Fighters--Highly maneuverable vessels used to take out other fighters, gunships, and bombers. In high numbers these are especially devastating to a fleet. These provide the grunt work of the military, with no other purpose but to blow stuff up.
Gunships (aka Attack Ship)--A multi-purpose strike fighter that can take both the role of a bomber and fighter, depending on the loadout. A middleground ship class that's balanced all around, yet not having the all the advantages of either a fighter or a bomber.
Bombers--Used to escort or destroy frigates, or lay down a defensive line while protecting an objective. If destroyable asteroid bases or communication towers are going to be implemented, they may destroy such large structures as well.
Frigates--Transporting immense amounts of cargo and troops across a sector, these provide the backbone of military power as well as a great source of generating a better economy for a particular nation. Keeping these intact may mean the difference between winning or losing a battle.
Agree? Disagree? Don't care? Comments. Let's hear 'em!
Fighters--Highly maneuverable vessels used to take out other fighters, gunships, and bombers. In high numbers these are especially devastating to a fleet. These provide the grunt work of the military, with no other purpose but to blow stuff up.
Gunships (aka Attack Ship)--A multi-purpose strike fighter that can take both the role of a bomber and fighter, depending on the loadout. A middleground ship class that's balanced all around, yet not having the all the advantages of either a fighter or a bomber.
Bombers--Used to escort or destroy frigates, or lay down a defensive line while protecting an objective. If destroyable asteroid bases or communication towers are going to be implemented, they may destroy such large structures as well.
Frigates--Transporting immense amounts of cargo and troops across a sector, these provide the backbone of military power as well as a great source of generating a better economy for a particular nation. Keeping these intact may mean the difference between winning or losing a battle.
Agree? Disagree? Don't care? Comments. Let's hear 'em!
First understand that this is all relative. I tend to think of everything we have now as a minor variation on the fighter concept. That is, a Centaur is a freighter built on a fighter hull, a Warthog is a strike fighter built on a fighter hull, a Ragnarok is a gunship built on a fighter hull, a Vulture is a fighter built with one 'strategy' in mind, and a Wraith is a fighter built with a different one. So understand that in alot of ways the following groups should be alot more diverse than anything we have now, but that there might be some overlap between them in particular areas. That is, some gunships might have less hull than some 'fighters' or the fastest gunship might be zippier than the most sluggish fighter, but by comparison to any fighter with the same ammount of hull the gunship will always be bigger, more sluggish, have more available power, (ideally) less vunerable to 'light weapons', have more weapons, and ideally have more 'crew' (represented by independent turrets which no fighter should have). On the other hand, no fighter should have as much hull or be as slow as the most 'tank-like' gunship. An average gunship might have a hull something like a Prometheus, but be larger, slightly less agile, and have more than twice the weapons and three times the energy. A 'tank-like' gunship - in the same way that the Prom is a 'tank-like' fighter - should have no much hull that it can survive two full sunflare tubes without cracking.
Fighters: Very difficult for a non-fighter to take down, but lack the staying power to seriously threaten the largest classes of ships and vulnerable because of thier fragility to single mistakes. Very much a player skill based weapon system, rewarding high skill and punishing low skill.
Strike Fighters/Bombers: Like fighters, but slightly less agility and slightly more firepower make them a bigger threat to large ships while only slightly disadvantaged vs. fighters.
Gunships: Lots of firepower on a comparitively weak hull. Enough manueverability to avoid weapon fire at long range, but vunerable at close range. Usually need escorts to protect them from fighters, but have enough firepower to really hurt a large vessel.
Assault Ships: Mini-capital ships. Enough armor and hull that individual fighters aren't much of a threat, but sluggish enough that groups of fighters have little problem taking one down with few or no losses. Like gunships, capable of really putting the hurt on a slow moving target, but unlike gunships have difficulty surviving to get to close range. Since this class of ship is vulnerable to both zippy fighters and hulking capital ships, they are often relegated to second line duties. On the other hand, because they are big and versital with expansive cargo holds but not nearly as expensive as capital ships, this class of ships is most often converted to civilian and paramilitary purposes, becoming small passanger liners, mobile refinaries or factories, research vessels, custom inspectors, mining vessels, luxury yachts, bulk cargo haulers, etc. In other words, the sort of ship a trader or politician dreams of owning, not necessarily one for a player that prefers fighting.
Capital Ships (corvette and up): Enough armor and hull to survive the attack of even a group of fighters, and enough firepower to destroy anything bigger than a fighter. Successfully attacking one depends on distracting it with skilled fighter pilots (who should have a weapon at least heavy enough to scratch the target) while bringing heavier ships into effective range. All things being equal, the side that gets the most value out of its fighters should win. To expensive in most cases to be bought by less than an organization of players. Capital ships primary advantage is the ability, through its long range weapons, to 'control' a large area of space and to serve as a mobile base for rearming and repairing fighters. Monatarily speaking, groups of smaller ships are more efficient means of blowing things up.
Fighters: Very difficult for a non-fighter to take down, but lack the staying power to seriously threaten the largest classes of ships and vulnerable because of thier fragility to single mistakes. Very much a player skill based weapon system, rewarding high skill and punishing low skill.
Strike Fighters/Bombers: Like fighters, but slightly less agility and slightly more firepower make them a bigger threat to large ships while only slightly disadvantaged vs. fighters.
Gunships: Lots of firepower on a comparitively weak hull. Enough manueverability to avoid weapon fire at long range, but vunerable at close range. Usually need escorts to protect them from fighters, but have enough firepower to really hurt a large vessel.
Assault Ships: Mini-capital ships. Enough armor and hull that individual fighters aren't much of a threat, but sluggish enough that groups of fighters have little problem taking one down with few or no losses. Like gunships, capable of really putting the hurt on a slow moving target, but unlike gunships have difficulty surviving to get to close range. Since this class of ship is vulnerable to both zippy fighters and hulking capital ships, they are often relegated to second line duties. On the other hand, because they are big and versital with expansive cargo holds but not nearly as expensive as capital ships, this class of ships is most often converted to civilian and paramilitary purposes, becoming small passanger liners, mobile refinaries or factories, research vessels, custom inspectors, mining vessels, luxury yachts, bulk cargo haulers, etc. In other words, the sort of ship a trader or politician dreams of owning, not necessarily one for a player that prefers fighting.
Capital Ships (corvette and up): Enough armor and hull to survive the attack of even a group of fighters, and enough firepower to destroy anything bigger than a fighter. Successfully attacking one depends on distracting it with skilled fighter pilots (who should have a weapon at least heavy enough to scratch the target) while bringing heavier ships into effective range. All things being equal, the side that gets the most value out of its fighters should win. To expensive in most cases to be bought by less than an organization of players. Capital ships primary advantage is the ability, through its long range weapons, to 'control' a large area of space and to serve as a mobile base for rearming and repairing fighters. Monatarily speaking, groups of smaller ships are more efficient means of blowing things up.
I like! Celebrim, I'm with you.
"""-- However I would suggest limiting the ship to only having 1 battery otherwise a Maud would rule because it could equip a ton of energy storage. --"""
I can see the batteries taking up cargo, but make the limit based on the cargo space of the ship, such as you can only use up to uhh 50% of your cargo to mount extra batteries, a small "battery" uses 3 cargo, medium 4, large 5)
of course the percent of cargo space and the amount of space each battery would need to be tweaked based on the different hulls.. dont have time to work out the math right now so the numbers are POOMA (pulled out of my ahem)
I can see the batteries taking up cargo, but make the limit based on the cargo space of the ship, such as you can only use up to uhh 50% of your cargo to mount extra batteries, a small "battery" uses 3 cargo, medium 4, large 5)
of course the percent of cargo space and the amount of space each battery would need to be tweaked based on the different hulls.. dont have time to work out the math right now so the numbers are POOMA (pulled out of my ahem)
"However I would suggest limiting the ship to only having 1 battery otherwise a Maud would rule because it could equip a ton of energy storage."
Which is just another reason why the Maud doesn't need to get any better. I'm not worried about the Maud ruling because of a veritably inexhaustible energy supply (when converted to fight rather than carry cargo). That would just make it interesting.
Which is just another reason why the Maud doesn't need to get any better. I'm not worried about the Maud ruling because of a veritably inexhaustible energy supply (when converted to fight rather than carry cargo). That would just make it interesting.
Celebrim, I'd be careful on your wording there. You have a class called "Strike Fighter/Bomber." A strike fighter is one thing, and a strike bomber is another thing. I'd hate to see the two merged in Vendetta, 'cause otherwise we'd have a Hornet and a Ragnarok in the same class. That would be bad.
What you probably meant was strike fighter, period. No bomber part. A strike bomber would be akin to the modern day F-111 or B-52. A strike fighter (ex: F/A-18 Hornet) does both tasks--fights fighters AND bombs small ground targets (SAM sites, radar installations, vehicles, etc.). It's a multipurpose fighter that's meant to have both roles, but usually not exceeding the advantages of a fighter alone (very high agility) or a bomber alone (very high weapon capacity).
I'd also consider editing two more things. The way you used "Gunship" sounds more like what current bombers/strike bombers should be. So that's where your strike bomber part would go. And "Assault Ships" could maybe be a cruiser or corvette class type of spaceship. Assault is a very vague word that can be used to describe many things, which may not necessarily indicate the size or capacity of such a weapon/vessel.
What you probably meant was strike fighter, period. No bomber part. A strike bomber would be akin to the modern day F-111 or B-52. A strike fighter (ex: F/A-18 Hornet) does both tasks--fights fighters AND bombs small ground targets (SAM sites, radar installations, vehicles, etc.). It's a multipurpose fighter that's meant to have both roles, but usually not exceeding the advantages of a fighter alone (very high agility) or a bomber alone (very high weapon capacity).
I'd also consider editing two more things. The way you used "Gunship" sounds more like what current bombers/strike bombers should be. So that's where your strike bomber part would go. And "Assault Ships" could maybe be a cruiser or corvette class type of spaceship. Assault is a very vague word that can be used to describe many things, which may not necessarily indicate the size or capacity of such a weapon/vessel.