Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

New ship role: Carrier

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Distant Worlds 1 Series >> New ship role: Carrier Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
New ship role: Carrier - 2/11/2011 6:50:24 PM   
OverlordCW

 

Posts: 88
Joined: 3/28/2010
Status: offline 		Please add a new ship role "Carrier". Whenever I try to create a fighter carrier it overrides the other design as the latest design in that role (e.g. in the Capital Ship role).
Post #: 1
RE: New ship role: Carrier - 2/11/2011 7:35:52 PM   
Data


Posts: 3909
Joined: 1/3/2011
Status: offline 		It's a good idea Overlord, you should wishlist it

_____________________________

...Igniting stellar cores....Recharging reactors...Recalibrating hyperdrives....

(in reply to OverlordCW)
Post #: 2
RE: New ship role: Carrier - 2/11/2011 8:58:04 PM   
Igard


Posts: 2282
Joined: 3/29/2010
From: Scotland
Status: offline 		Definately on my wishlist also. For now the best thing to do is to go to the design screen and select 'show non obsolete designs'.

_____________________________

The Picard Era for Distant Worlds

Igard's Romulan Stormbird

(in reply to Data)
Post #: 3
RE: New ship role: Carrier - 2/11/2011 9:13:05 PM   
Sabre21


Posts: 8231
Joined: 4/27/2001
From: on a mountain in Idaho
Status: offline 		I thought this was on the wishlist somewhere already. I would like to see several more types come out: Light Cruiser, Heavy Cruiser, Strike Cruiser, Escort Carrier, Fleet Carrier, and Missile Boat or Frigate. Probably also need another transport type like Assault Transport.

_____________________________


(in reply to Igard)
Post #: 4
RE: New ship role: Carrier - 2/12/2011 8:03:07 PM   
NefariousKoel


Posts: 2930
Joined: 7/23/2002
From: Murderous Missouri Scum
Status: offline 		A couple more roles would be nice. Yessss.

_____________________________


(in reply to Sabre21)
Post #: 5
RE: New ship role: Carrier - 2/12/2011 11:05:22 PM   
Bingeling

 

Posts: 5186
Joined: 8/12/2010
Status: offline 		More categories (that the AI respect) would indeed be beneficial when it comes to making some specialist types.

A local defense cruiser may want more speed, quicker jumps, more firepower, less defense, than a cruiser for the main battle fleet. You may want special ships as carriers as mentioned.

When I tried to do all designs myself, I started to want an inheritance tree (with multiple inheritance no less) for different lines of designs.

Auto upgrade is nice. Auto upgrade is not nice when the AI changes all civilian ships to a hydrogene based reactor and you want them on caslon. Lots of clicks to undo.

I know a fair bit about programming, forgive me...

Example:

An escort has two maxos blasters, a hab module and one reactor (and some more).
A frigate is an escort that has four blasters and an extra hab module.
A destroyer is a frigate that has 6 blasters and 2 reactors, and an extra hab module (for a total of 3 habs).

Change the escort blasters to shatterforce, and frigate and destroyer also changes, they inherit all info from the escort. Then you change the frigate back and instead of saying four blasters, you say 4 maxos blasters. Frigate and destroyer changes blaster type. The escort is overridden (and still has shatterforce).

Imagine at the very top you have type of vessel and role. Top roles are civilian and military, top vessels are ship and base.

An escort is military and a ship. Military tells it to have a blaster of some type given, ship tells it to have one each of a type of engines, shields, counter measures, targeting systems, repair bots, blasters, hyper drives... Some of these are also on civilian ships of course.

So when a new reactor comes, and I want to have the civilians on caslon fuel and the military on hydrogen, I modify civilian and military... And all designs are updates as long as they don't override their parent type (they can override the number and still swap reactor type).

I am afraid that such a system would confuse those that don't know object oriented programming, though :)

(in reply to NefariousKoel)
Post #: 6
RE: New ship role: Carrier - 2/13/2011 1:49:55 AM   
Simulation01


Posts: 540
Joined: 5/12/2010
Status: offline 		I would like more ship classes as well along the lines of Sabre21's suggestion, but accompanied by another change.....tonnage limits on each class.  Say an escort is limited to 100, a frigate 200, a destroyer 300..etc....etc...etc.    The numbers aren't my actual proposal they are just for example. 

< Message edited by Simulation01 -- 2/13/2011 1:50:22 AM >

_____________________________

"Tho' much is taken, much abides; and though we are not now that strength which in old days moved Earth and Heaven; that which we are, we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts, made weak by time and fate, but strong in will." -Tennyson

(in reply to Bingeling)
Post #: 7
RE: New ship role: Carrier - 2/13/2011 2:58:19 AM   
Sabin Stargem

 

Posts: 140
Joined: 12/29/2010
Status: offline 		I like being able to use whatever weight I want for the classes. The game gives me labels, and I work within them without having to deal with I feel to be artificial restrictions.

(in reply to Simulation01)
Post #: 8
RE: New ship role: Carrier - 2/13/2011 6:36:28 AM   
Data


Posts: 3909
Joined: 1/3/2011
Status: offline 		Both options have merrits, having tonnage would certainly make the boundries between classes more clear and bring up new decission making. But I also like the system as it is now, I'm 50-50 on this one.

_____________________________

...Igniting stellar cores....Recharging reactors...Recalibrating hyperdrives....

(in reply to Sabin Stargem)
Post #: 9
RE: New ship role: Carrier - 2/13/2011 10:56:16 AM   
Bingeling

 

Posts: 5186
Joined: 8/12/2010
Status: offline 		I don't think tonnage limits is a stupid idea, but then we would need more categories.

The construction yards are:

230, 300, 400, 500, 650, 800, 1100, 1500.

Let me put up some random numbers.

An escort is max 100.
A frigate is max 180.
A destroyer is minimum 190 and maximum 300 (and can be made from start, and will grow with better yards by the auto design).
A light cruiser is from 301 to 499. "we have now research <somewhat bigger construction yards> and are now able to build light cruisers".
A cruiser is from 501 to 650 and is a powerful force.
A heavy cruiser is from 651 to 800 (decide if limits are up to value or inclusive).
A capital ship is 800 to 1100
A super dreadnought is above 1100.

I would be offended by an escort at the size 800.

This could be a sneaky way to limit our silly 800+ size troop transports from happening.

A sure weakness about the categories here, is that it does not make sense for a culture to develop light cruisers before they make their first cruiser...

(in reply to Data)
Post #: 10
RE: New ship role: Carrier - 2/13/2011 11:28:49 AM   
Carewolf

 

Posts: 61
Joined: 9/20/2010
Status: offline 		Don't use "show latest", only use "show non-obsolete". Especially military crafts are useful in several different versions. Versions to leave on auto, version for fleets, versions for invation fleets, etc.

(in reply to Bingeling)
Post #: 11
RE: New ship role: Carrier - 2/13/2011 11:31:47 AM   
Carewolf

 

Posts: 61
Joined: 9/20/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Bingeling

I don't think tonnage limits is a stupid idea, but then we would need more categories.

The construction yards are:

230, 300, 400, 500, 650, 800, 1100, 1500.

Let me put up some random numbers.

An escort is max 100.
A frigate is max 180.
A destroyer is minimum 190 and maximum 300 (and can be made from start, and will grow with better yards by the auto design).
A light cruiser is from 301 to 499. "we have now research <somewhat bigger construction yards> and are now able to build light cruisers".
A cruiser is from 501 to 650 and is a powerful force.
A heavy cruiser is from 651 to 800 (decide if limits are up to value or inclusive).
A capital ship is 800 to 1100
A super dreadnought is above 1100.

I would be offended by an escort at the size 800.


It is just a name. You can do whatever you want. Personally I have started using limits based on life/habitat units

Escort: 1-2 life-support/habitat
Frigate: 2 life-support/habitat
Destroyer: 3-4 life-support/habitat
Cruiser: 5-8 life-support/habitat
Capital: 6-10 life-support/habitat

(in reply to Bingeling)
Post #: 12
RE: New ship role: Carrier - 2/13/2011 12:19:57 PM   
Bingeling

 

Posts: 5186
Joined: 8/12/2010
Status: offline 		You are of course right, and the life-support/habitat limit is a good idea for a private system.

I have spare spots anyways, as I tend to avoid frigates and escorts. That is, when the tech level is high, the frigates start packing some punch.

I am a big ship guy ;-)

(in reply to Carewolf)
Post #: 13
RE: New ship role: Carrier - 2/13/2011 12:40:04 PM   
Data


Posts: 3909
Joined: 1/3/2011
Status: offline 		Based on this distinction I never go beyond destroyer class
that makes me a small ship guy? But offcourse size is not important....isn't it?

_____________________________

...Igniting stellar cores....Recharging reactors...Recalibrating hyperdrives....

(in reply to Carewolf)
Post #: 14
RE: New ship role: Carrier - 2/13/2011 4:51:57 PM   
Simulation01


Posts: 540
Joined: 5/12/2010
Status: offline 		Another thing I would like to see accompany tonnage limits is that component sizes would shrink as you advance them technologically.  This would then allow that escort of 100 to become much more deadly as you advance yet still remaining within the tonnage for it's class.

_____________________________

"Tho' much is taken, much abides; and though we are not now that strength which in old days moved Earth and Heaven; that which we are, we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts, made weak by time and fate, but strong in will." -Tennyson

(in reply to Data)
Post #: 15
RE: New ship role: Carrier - 2/13/2011 5:25:05 PM   
Data


Posts: 3909
Joined: 1/3/2011
Status: offline 		two comments on this as we could have two models for this:

1) the MOO2 model where researching a superior tech would also miniaturize the underlying techs

2) the SR2 model where there are several models for each component - a smaller but more expensive one, a cheaper but larger one and so on

_____________________________

...Igniting stellar cores....Recharging reactors...Recalibrating hyperdrives....

(in reply to Simulation01)
Post #: 16
RE: New ship role: Carrier - 2/13/2011 5:37:00 PM   
Simulation01


Posts: 540
Joined: 5/12/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Data

two comments on this as we could have two models for this:

1) the MOO2 model where researching a superior tech would also miniaturize the underlying techs

2) the SR2 model where there are several models for each component - a smaller but more expensive one, a cheaper but larger one and so on



You mean something like a commercial version of a component, a bare bones version, and a military grade or something? That has merits too and really either model would be welcome to me.

_____________________________

"Tho' much is taken, much abides; and though we are not now that strength which in old days moved Earth and Heaven; that which we are, we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts, made weak by time and fate, but strong in will." -Tennyson

(in reply to Data)
Post #: 17
RE: New ship role: Carrier - 2/13/2011 7:11:31 PM   
Data


Posts: 3909
Joined: 1/3/2011
Status: offline 		yes, well put
you should wishlist this

_____________________________

...Igniting stellar cores....Recharging reactors...Recalibrating hyperdrives....

(in reply to Simulation01)
Post #: 18
RE: New ship role: Carrier - 2/14/2011 7:42:56 AM   
RaffleSnaffle


Posts: 100
Joined: 2/12/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Data

Based on this distinction I never go beyond destroyer class
that makes me a small ship guy? But offcourse size is not important....isn't it?


No it is not! Spamming tons of small ships is super fun! Fast nimble and cheap!

(in reply to Data)
Post #: 19
RE: New ship role: Carrier - 2/15/2011 3:21:04 AM   
tjhkkr


Posts: 2428
Joined: 6/3/2010
Status: offline 		You can make these different classes now.

I have a special 'AWACS' Frigate with heavier shields and point defence weaponry, but carrying many different sensors including the crucial LR sensor... and different orders to stay away from all battle.
I have stripped cruisers down to get the construction limits...
The biggest problem with that is that I cannot easily tell them apart. My frigate looks like my AWACs and so on...

I agree that it would be ideal if the images available supported those different classes

IGard had an excellent idea of putting another family out there for extra ship hulls...

_____________________________

Remember that the evil which is now in the world will become yet more powerful, and that it is not evil which conquers evil, but only love -- Olga Romanov.

(in reply to RaffleSnaffle)
Post #: 20
RE: New ship role: Carrier - 2/15/2011 3:26:35 AM   
Igard


Posts: 2282
Joined: 3/29/2010
From: Scotland
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tjhkkr

IGard had an excellent idea of putting another family out there for extra ship hulls...


Thankyou tj. Yes, you can download my TRSE mod(link on my sig). There are instructions on the thread for what to do.

_____________________________

The Picard Era for Distant Worlds

Igard's Romulan Stormbird

(in reply to tjhkkr)
Post #: 21
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Distant Worlds 1 Series >> New ship role: Carrier Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.436