Require minimum size for military class designs? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Distant Worlds 1 Series



Message

mordachai -> Require minimum size for military class designs? (3/19/2015 3:41:03 PM)

Is there a way to specify that a given class of military ship should not be allowed to be built unless their ship size capacity is at or greater than some minimum?

Frigates minimum 300?
Destroyers at minimum 400?
Cruisers minimum 500?
Capital minimum 600?

I keep tweaking the design files, but most times the auto-designed ships are coming up way too early - e.g. a 400 sized Capital ship. Just silly (no valid distinction from a DD).

Or can I mod the tech tree such that each class is tied to a specific tech?



Icemania -> RE: Require minimum size for military class designs? (3/20/2015 9:09:44 AM)

I'm not aware of any way to do that mordachai. Have you tried increasing the number of components on your Capital ship designs? i.e. so the default designs are larger. The game will allow shrinkage but only to a point.



mordachai -> RE: Require minimum size for military class designs? (3/24/2015 9:32:52 PM)

I haven't getting very far with modding yet... but I wonder how the "dedicated carriers" tech is handled? Or similarly, the "refueling" ships - they both have a specific tech that unlocks them. I wondered if I can do the same for DD, CR, DN?

I'll post back if I have any luck - but I assume the answer is "they're handled different / need hard-coded support"



mordachai -> RE: Require minimum size for military class designs? (3/24/2015 11:38:27 PM)

Found the setting in research.txt - the definitive answer is :NO. The ABILITIES line has two possible ship type values: carrier & resupply. So, would require engine support to allow DD or CR or etc. to be tied to a tech requirement.



Noble713 -> RE: Require minimum size for military class designs? (3/26/2015 11:32:48 PM)


quote:


I keep tweaking the design files, but most times the auto-designed ships are coming up way too early - e.g. a 400 sized Capital ship. Just silly (no valid distinction from a DD).


They are just titles to explain their tactical usage. They have no real impact on Naval Architecture. It absolutely makes sense to build two ship designs of roughly the same displacement but vastly different roles in the fleet. Real world example: Ticonderoga-class cruisers (primarily a fleet air defense ship) and the latest Arleigh Burke-class destroyers (general purpose surface warfare). Both are about 10,000 tons. To use Distant Worlds terms, the Navy copied their Spruance-class Destroyer design, renamed it to Ticonderoga, added a Fleet Targeting System component, and changed the role from "Destroyer" to "Cruiser".

I think this idea of rigid size requirements for things can be chalked up to:
1. Gamer OCD.
2. several decades of pen&paper RPGs/strategy games/etc. that have ingrained this way of thinking into minds of players.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.060547