Pseudo-Newtonian Movement

[Val]

SJ:

How did he move the planets?

[Elmo]

Can anyone explain what the "Engines per Move" parameter does in the vehiclesize.txt file? Thanks.

[PvK]

Originally posted by Elmo:
Can anyone explain what the "Engines per Move" parameter does in the vehiclesize.txt file? Thanks.

Yes. It's the number of STANDARD MOVEMENT POINTS needed per unit of speed the ship will have in strategic movement.

PvK

[Elmo]

thanks

[Captain Kwok]

The reason I don't like QNP without engine limits is that you can have ships that fly around at 20 sectors per turn. I think it hurts the strategic aspects and "epicness" of the game if you can whip across all your systems in three turns to respond to an invasion or whatever. Anything more than 10-12 movement points is too much.

I'm for more engines for bigger ships - just not lots of movement. Who was it asking MM remove the 255 limit? Why? There's no need to zip around like that - even if it is to "simulate FTL propulsion".

I kind of like plodding around the galaxy and trying to determine where to station my fleets to maximize my empire's defense. Even with 15 movement points - that's an extra planet or two destroyed in some systems in one turn.

[Suicide Junkie]

The reason I don't like QNP without engine limits is that you can have ships that fly around at 20 sectors per turn.

I have a ship or two like that in my game at home. They are DS, with basic C&C, a temporal sensor and 23 Gravitic drives.

Even with 15 movement points - that's an extra planet or two destroyed in some systems in one turn.

Perhaps new, undefended colonies, but not any world with a half-assed (even AI-generated) defense in place.
You have to sacrifice all of your defenses, and almost all of your weaponry in order to get those really high speeds, so a platform or a handful of sats will swat your ships like bugs.
Sure, if you send enough ships, you can do plenty of damage, but you are spending a huge pile of resources to maintain all those engines.

Anything more than 10-12 movement points is too much.

I totally agree. The warships I design move only 5 MP at the very beginning, increasing to 8 or 9 by the endgame as engines get more efficient.

The key point to the QNP system in P&N is that the limits are not arbitrary. They are economical. Top of the line engines can cost 1000 rads each.

You can make all of your ships move 20 sectors per turn, but they will be worth a king's ransom to build, and be worth squat in combat.
Special forces ships, spyships, and medical ships are potentially worth giving 20 MP. Their key abilities are concentrated into a few KT, and can afford the space.

Transports, ships of the line, and other vehicles are decidedly not worth the cost.
It is usually better to have a transport take twice as much cargo while taking twice as long to get there, and costing half as much.

The point is that the player gets to decide. I do not limit the number of engines because I hate the reason of:
"Because I said so"

[PvK]

Ya, I think that's entirely valid and interesting and not imbalanced, SJ. It's nice to be able to focus on certain abilities without it usually being a good idea, which is something I tried to put into Proportions in a number of ways, too.

The limits I have in Proportions are just a different system, not necessarily better.

In Proportions, the engine limits are supposed to represent the limits of a design, and to add some trade-off decisions between say, a slow but cheap transport hull, and a more expensive and faster one (such as a transport design on a warship hull). I gave maintenance bonuses to transport hulls, and made it possible to put several other types of components in the 50% requirement besides just Cargo Storage, so one of the trade-offs is that the design can't support enough engines to get up to as much speed as a warship can, although you could develop gravitic drives and emergency propulsion and still get something pretty fast.

PvK

(edited for typos)

[ May 15, 2002, 20:51: Message edited by: PvK ]