| Author |
Hull and Weapon System (long) |
Thrie
Fleet Admiral
Raven Warriors
Joined: October 28, 2002
Posts: 760
|  Posted: 2003-10-05 12:15
I was thinking of how Hull values take damage to the set value of weapons. After reading the statement Red made toward Battleships "You cant just "Sink" a battleship". It gave me an idea of a "Sustaining Fire" system. This could balance out the Ships of DS.
Time to Begin Defining. The term "Sustaining Fire" is Self-explainatory and unique(well under my thought i looks unique) Anyhow... Each ship has a certain Defence Hull values and as well as Weapons has a certain Offence values. For Example; lets say an Elite Assault Dread has 60 def Hull value and as we see today, a K'luth Dessie with 5 CL2k will have 25 Offensive Value, 5 Off value per Cl2k. (I'll just say 4 AM torps) 4 Am torps would have 12 Offensive Value plus 1 per quarter pie of the Splash(meaning the Splash radius is seperated into 4 pieces, Each piece is worth 1 Offensive point bonus. This would totaly up to between 30-38 Offensive Values.
With that set up, the UGTO EAD would not be "Sinked" by a Single K'luth Dessie. (although 60 Def value will deffinately not be "High" enough considering 2 Dessie can murder it then...) But anyway. That single K'luth Dessie would not be able to just Hide, sneak up behind the EAD, and Alpha it to death. All that will do will just Weakens the Armor of the dread (Battle of Attrition). It woudl require 2 Dessie to sum up enough Offensive points to equal the EAD's 60 def points or Over to do any damage.
Getting my drift?
Ship defence Values:
ICC:
Scouts = 8
Frigates = 12
Transports = 24
Destroyers = 40
Cruiesrs = 58
Dread = 90
Station = 200
UGTO:
Scouts = 10
Frigates = 16
Transports = 28
Destroyers = 45
Cruisers = 62
Dread = 100
Station = 225
K'luth:
Scouts = 7
Frigates = 11
Transports = 25
Destroyers = 37
Cruisers = 56
Dread = 80
Station = 190
As you can see, the hull defence values are Highest for UGTO for its Imperial quality, ICC in the middle for its traditional system, and the K'luth the lowest being organic like structures.
Weapon Offensive Values: (not yet completed, still formulating on each weapon's in-depth system so it would be most effective at whatever number set to it)
CL200 = 3 1/2
CL500 = 4
CL1000 = 6 1/2
CL2000 = 7
Disrupters = 8
F-Torps = 4 + 1/2 per Splash Quarter
P-Torps = 5 + 3/4 Per Splash Quarter
AM-Torps = 6 + 2 Per Splash Quarter
IT Missile = 8 + 2 per Splash Quarter
AR Missile = 4 + 1/2 per Splash Quarter
Sabot = 4 per rocket + 1 /12 per Splash Quarter
Rail Gun = 2 3/4 Per projectile
Particle Cannon = 2 per Energy bolt
Psi Cannon = 3
Sorry if i left out your Favorite weapon's Offensive Values, but i have not come determined how they could be set as. Besides, whatever Hull/weapon Point values I have just posted above could be changed as time passes when new thoughts appears.
Since it is a Sustaining Fire system, It does not require multiple ship to fire at the same time. The Sustaining Window, which i call it for a short period of sec or MilliSec where the Off points Totals up and stays at that height. That means 1 K'luth Dessie Makes a run and fires on an EAD followed by another K'luth dessie who makes a run and alpha on the EAD. The EAD will get the Total Offensive points of the first Kluth for at least 2 or 3 seconds, but before 3 second is up, the second Kluth dessie adds up to the Offensive Points made by the First Dessie.
This Surpasses the EAD's 60 Def hull values and therefore begins to take damages. But that does not mean it ends there. If no more Kluth is around, the EAD Will have a Good chance of Putting the 2 dessies out of commission. IF there are More Kluths around, You might want to kiss your EAD good bye.
This would involve a Fleet to do any damage to the opposing fleet. And a Good bye to Single Ship Wars.
What do you think?
_________________
[Fleet Admiral] Thrie \"The Tiger\" Barton of [C.S.S. Armor Tiger]
|
Max Kepler
Fleet Admiral
Templar Knights
Joined: March 08, 2002
Posts: 589
From: ICS Victory
| Posted: 2003-10-05 13:58
Firstly, this suggestion is rather... unclear.
Secondly, I don't think this suggestion is very realistic... if I'm reading it right. It throws the entire system of the game out of whack and turns the game into a game of numbers, rather than a game of skill.
Thirdly, the weapons and hull values and all that are being balanced anyway -- no need to create an entirely new system in the name of balance.
_________________
|
Eleda
Cadet
Joined: August 03, 2002
Posts: 438
From: Sunny ol England
| Posted: 2003-10-05 14:35
I like it, it would mean that smaller ships would have to operate in packs to take down the larger ships, and that their attacks would have to be highly focussed.
What i would suggest is a change in the way a ships defensive value is calculated.Rather than having a fixed value for each hull size per faction vary it based on a number of factors such as:-
ARMOUR/SHIELDS
Quite simply the more armour/shields the ship has and the greater their effectiveness the higher the ships defensive value. This would of course require giving ships four defensive values (one for each arc) that would each have to be overcome individually.If only larger ships were given four arcs (cruiser and above) and the smaller ships were given a single arc this would make the larger ships even harder to 'sink'.
If this was put into place then shields/armour would not absorb any damage inflicted once the defensive value was breached (they would in effect be doing this by upping the defesnive value), it would all be applied straight to the hull.Shield redirection could be represented by setting a 'primary arc' that gets a higher defensive value at the expense of the other arcs.
POINT DEFENSE
Im not talking about Beams set to PD but instead 'turrets'. Turrets would be a new weapon slot device. Rather than fire upon enemy ships these weapons would increase the ships defensive value as they shoot down incoming projectiles of all sorts.The flack and interferance from these would even disrupt beam targiting/coherance (for those of you who were about to say "but that wouldn't stop beams")
SPECIAL SYSTEMS
Rather than messing around with peoples signature ECM could radically increase the defensive value of the ship it is running on. ECCM would have the opposite effect on all enemy ships in the area and the ship running it.
Scanners could be used for cloak detection/long range detection (but i don't want to start another cloak post in this thread so lets skip this).
A ships defensive value would then be X+ Listed Variables for each arc (where X is a standard for hulls of that type for that faction)
_________________
|
$wiss
Admiral
Joined: November 08, 2002
Posts: 640
From: Prancing in the meadows with Jesus
| Posted: 2003-10-05 15:54
Well i'd personally be pretty pissed off if my EAD was 'sploded by 2 dessies!!!!!
_________________
|
NoPants2win
Cadet
Joined: February 23, 2002
Posts: 1275
From: Poorly ventilated paint storage facility.
| Posted: 2003-10-05 15:58
The problem
You lose eads to destroyers
Your thought process: must be something wrong with the game
The truth: if you lose ead to destroyer its a problem with you, not the game.
My thought process: Horrible idea that would be difficult to implement, lame and would force me to fly ships I find boring. It would also remove even more skill from the game. Seems to be the goal of most suggestions around here.
And you can just 'sink' a battleship. It used to happen a lot. Take the Arizona (hull size 60) for example. A fighter (hull size 1) dropped a thousand pound bomb on it. You may want to argue that the bomb hit in a very unlikely spot, and you would be right, but had it hit somewhere else it still would have sunk the ship, just not so dramatically.
_________________
You sir, have an incurable case of rationality. I'm afraid the only thing you can do is develop a deep cynicism before the stress of searching for something you cannot find causes a stroke.
|
Thrie
Fleet Admiral
Raven Warriors
Joined: October 28, 2002
Posts: 760
| Posted: 2003-10-05 16:51
Yes but it is too bad the fighters in DS are unable to do that 
Hey, I am not formulating this suggestion to level out this Dessie eats dread thing... I have seen people had trouble with "Cruisers" against Dreads, its about time to shwo the Dreads and STATION are to be feared when it appears in battle.... And heck, i would like to end the point where Any ship can take pot shots at stations.
And You may say a battleship can be Sunked by a Fighter, but Do not forget the point it took "Multiple" Jap bombers doing attack runs on Arizona before they sanked her. Yes, Will agree that it is very small with a good payload of a single bomb that ended up at a very unlucky spot of the battleship. If you recalled, it took quite a punishment before it went down.
_________________
[Fleet Admiral] Thrie \"The Tiger\" Barton of [C.S.S. Armor Tiger]
|
Fatal Command (CO)
Chief Marshal
Fatal Squadron
Joined: November 27, 2002
Posts: 1159
From: Back in Texas and noticing some ppl are like canoes.....they need to be paddled.
| Posted: 2003-10-05 21:30
that was a BAD example using the USS Arizona...as it was totally and completely unprepared to defend itself with a full ships compliment....had we known there was a chance that things would happen as they did......war would of been a lOT shorter..and it wasnt just 1 plane....over 300 launched and attacked.....who really did what will never be truely known.....
_________________
|
English
Deutsch
Nederlands
)
