Carrier Battles Mod

[Suicide Junkie]

Without supply you'll be stuck at one speed, even if your engines don't require supply.
Its a safety net so you don't design useless fighters.

Only one fighter drive is effective per vehicle.
However, the more powerful engines are also larger.
You will commonly wish to use an older, smaller drive on your heavy bombers in order to cram another missile launcher on them.

The energy weapons do not use supply, but have a correspondingly massive cost in radioactives to power them.
They are a bit weaker and more expensive, but will be pretty much required for any extended sortie into enemy space.
Meanwhile, if you are sitting on a resupply depot, you are free to expend the cheap and powerful ordnance without worring about running dry.

[Kana]

Then wouldn't the display progression be 2,4,6...if the next corresponding engine is slightly less space?

Also on the EM-Missiles...Yes they have supply cost...but I would see these as more of a one shot single missile, like a harpoon, or hellfire...especially considering their rate of fire...so why a supply cost? Seems redundant...just my opinion...

Kana

[Suicide Junkie]

On the fighter, perhaps. They are also usable on ships and bases, which need to account for the shots spread over multiple combats.

The EM-CSMs can be fired a second time in combat if you have enough supply points and survival time.

---

The fighter drives alternate bigger/faster, then smaller/tougher
They are grouped by speed. The level 2 is faster than level1, while the level 3 is the same speed as 2 but smaller.
Thus #3 obsoletes #2, but not #1, since #1 is still smaller than #3

[Fyron]

Wouldn't it be far, far less confusing to just have two separate lines of engines for that? Complete with different names...

[Suicide Junkie]

Its a progression...

level 1 = speed 2
level 2,3 = speed 3
level 4,5 = speed 4
etc.

Where the advanced version at each speed is miniaturized yet still bigger than the slower drives.

[Fyron]

Right, it is a progression... it would still be a progression with two separate lines of components. You have your big, cutting edge engines for blazing speed and your smaller, more efficient engines. Is something wrong with giving them separate names and families to make the distinction more clear? The same goal would be achieved, minus any possible confusion.

[Puke]

i dont see any confustion, nor do i see how you could seperate it into two trees.

speed and size are both variable, so you would need a seperate branch for each speed. which is what there is, for fighter engines.

[Suicide Junkie]

There aren't two branches to work with here...

It is simply a semi-QNP system for the fighters.
You can get 2 speed with 3kt of engine, or 6 speed with 9kt of engine, or various middle options.

Only the best engine of each speed is shown. Pick your fighter speed from the list of options, and pay the tonnage cost.

[Strategia_In_Ultima]

Only problem is, SSFs can't use anti-ship weaponry. Only Bombers can. I know I'm limiting players in their design choices, but it's what I want. I simply like it that way. It makes sense to me. This way, fighters are still useful in the late game (as Bomber weapons are simply too powerful to be true - did I point that out yet?) yet are still quite easy to counter. If an enemy kills off your fleets all the time because they've got a fighter base sitting on a WP launching flocks of Bombers every time, you can simply mass-produce entire clouds of dirt-cheap Interceptors and load them on Carriers. They'll be able to eliminate the Bombers quite effectively, and this'll leave the way open for your warships (or Bombers!) to destroy the enemy space station.

[Suicide Junkie]

Strategia_In_Ultima said:
Only problem is, SSFs can't use anti-ship weaponry. Only Bombers can. I know I'm limiting players in their design choices, but it's what I want. I simply like it that way. It makes sense to me.

Ah, but see? If you put anti-ship weapons on it, then it is by definition a bomber If you don't put anti-ship weapons on, then it becomes something else, SSF or interceptor or something else depending on the configuration and the mood of the player

In CBmod, SSFs can't use anti-ship weaponry simply due to the fact that by definition, a SSF needs to have shields, armor and efficient guns, leaving no room for the bulky and inefficient anti-ship cannons and missiles.
All of the weapons you would consider for a fighter that will attack ships have to be high damage per shot at the expense of all else (reload, cost, ammo use) just to overcome the leaky shields on a warship. CSMs combine that with quad-to-shields damage for massive penetration of leaky shields, keeping them effective even at high tech, with shields reaching the hundreds of points.