@DaLintyGuy what are the advantages of choosing reduced mutability when making new ship designs in the design phase?
For example, if we designed a frigate that could only mount macrocannons, would it get any benefits other than being less difficult to design?
My mind works in weird ways because this sentence drove into an off-tangeant track almost completely unrelated to Bagalog.
So, um, could we work to try to imbed the Savior or any of our good stuff into an actual STC? Not the fancy ones that do all the work for you, but the ones that simply include the steps to make the tools that makes the tools up until you actually get to the thing.
My mind works in weird ways because this sentence drove into an off-tangeant track almost completely unrelated to Bagalog.
So, um, could we work to try to imbed the Savior or any of our good stuff into an actual STC? Not the fancy ones that do all the work for you, but the ones that simply include the steps to make the tools that makes the tools up until you actually get to the thing.
Truth be told, me neither. But it is a thing that happens and so knowing if it's possible for us and furthermore if it has any practical use for us would be cool. At the least, I think it would be useful for prestige or for use in the greater Imperium whenever we make contact with them.
@DaLintyGuy what are the advantages of choosing reduced mutability when making new ship designs in the design phase?
For example, if we designed a frigate that could only mount macrocannons, would it get any benefits other than being less difficult to design?
Less mutability can be used to offset difficulty increasing items that give flat bonuses to a Hull's modules. The most default is a +1 to the rating, but more things can be done.
So, um, could we work to try to imbed the Savior or any of our good stuff into an actual STC? Not the fancy ones that do all the work for you, but the ones that simply include the steps to make the tools that makes the tools up until you actually get to the thing.
An "actual" STC? Not particularly even if I can only imagine that Forge Worlds mimic them for their hard records.
And by "actual" I am referring to my view on how Ancient STC templates are a recording of the atomic placement inside the item. Explaining why the things are so difficult to decipher when discovered, above and beyond the differing technology levels.
Less mutability can be used to offset difficulty increasing items that give flat bonuses to a Hull's modules. The most default is a +1 to the rating, but more things can be done.
Okay, so for example what would the difficulty be to make a design like this: Eagle-Class Frigate Hull: A successor to the War Hawk Mk2 Frigate hull, the Eagle-Class Frigate is dedicated to defeating enemy escorts, sacrificing flexibility and utility space for enhanced macrocannon loaders and additional armor (3 Weapons (Macrocannon only, +1 Damage), 3 Defense (1 Armor only, 1 Shields Only, 1 PD only, +1 Armor rating), 1 Engine)
It depends on how many +1s you are stacking. Locking two slots to a single category gives you a bonus of one to the Design. Specializing a slot to be more effective in that category gives you a penalty of one to the Design.
Modifying an existing hull to get a bonus... The same -1 penalty per slot/item (giving a Hull the Reinforced tag, for instance).
It depends on how many +1s you are stacking. Locking two slots to a single category gives you a bonus of one to the Design. Specializing a slot to be more effective in that category gives you a penalty of one to the Design.
Modifying an existing hull to get a bonus... The same -1 penalty per slot/item (giving a Hull the Reinforced tag, for instance).
1. So if it is an entirely new design, it would have +3 from locked in slots, and -2 from specializing slots, right?
2. Would the +1 damage only apply to 1 of the weapon slots, then?
3. what sort of Tags could we have on designs?
1. So if it is an entirely new design, it would have +3 from locked in slots, and -2 from specializing slots, right?
2. Would the +1 damage only apply to 1 of the weapon slots, then?
3. what sort of Tags could we have on designs?
I believe it's still -4 from the four specialized slots (weapon, weapon, weapon, armor) and +1 from the two locked non-specialized slots.
I wouldn't be opposed to an upgraded War Hawk hull with a specialized macrocannon slot, but all three seems both too inflexible and too big a penalty to the design roll. Maybe weapon (specialized), weapon, defense (armor), defense (shield), defense (pd), omni?
I believe it's still -4 from the four specialized slots (weapon, weapon, weapon, armor) and +1 from the two locked non-specialized slots.
I wouldn't be opposed to an upgraded War Hawk hull with a specialized macrocannon slot, but all three seems both too inflexible and too big a penalty to the design roll. Maybe weapon (specialized), weapon, defense (armor), defense (shield), defense (pd), omni?
It would have +3 since every 2 locked slots give +1, and there are 6 locked slots (3 Weapons, 3 Defense slots). But yeah, if we wanted all 3 weapon slots to be specialized I guess it would be a -4 from specializing and a +3 from locking slots. That is a -1 total, which could be countered by getting help from Lexicalum. I do think it would be worthwhile since it would give us a frigate with 3x 4 damage macrocannons, and 2.5 or 3 armor (perhaps more depending on the armor we get from repairing the Octan Platform).
It would have +3 since every 2 locked slots give +1, and there are 6 locked slots (3 Weapons, 3 Defense slots). But yeah, if we wanted all 3 weapon slots to be specialized I guess it would be a -4 from specializing and a +3 from locking slots. That is a -1 total, which could be countered by getting help from Lexicalum. I do think it would be worthwhile since it would give us a frigate with 3x 4 damage macrocannons, and 2.5 or 3 armor (perhaps more depending on the armor we get from repairing the Octan Platform).
As I understand it, specialized slots with a bonus to the module don't count towards the locked slot design bonus. And again, I think a hull that can mount macrocannons and nothing else is just too specialized, since it would literally only be able to do one thing. One specialized macrocannon slot is almost pure upside; we put macrocannons on just about everything. But specializing every slot seems like a bad idea.
As I understand it, specialized slots with a bonus to the module don't count towards the locked slot design bonus. And again, I think a hull that can mount macrocannons and nothing else is just too specialized, since it would literally only be able to do one thing. One specialized macrocannon slot is almost pure upside; we put macrocannons on just about everything. But specializing every slot seems like a bad idea.
Most of our ships only use macrocannons. The resolute class, the warrior class, the Indomitable class
The entire idea was that it was a dedicated brawler, being able to beat any enemy escorts at close range. After all, we put macrocannons on everything because they are our battery type weapon, the weapon meant to deal sustained DPS and batter enemy ships into submission. Lances don't deal as much damage as macrocannons, they just have more range and are better vs heavy armor. Eventually, I imagine we would also build a design that is specialized in using lances.
The entire idea was that it was a dedicated brawler, being able to beat any enemy escorts at close range. After all, we put macrocannons on everything because they are our battery type weapon, the weapon meant to deal sustained DPS and batter enemy ships into submission. Lances don't deal as much damage as macrocannons, they just have more range and are better vs heavy armor. Eventually, I imagine we would also build a design that is specialized in using lances.
I understand the role, but we're not made of design actions, you know. Much better to have a hull that can do two or three things than a hull that can only do one. And in any case -3 is just too much on an escort.
On another note, @DaLintyGuy, the Trench-class defense platform is noted to have a "hangar spire", but I'm having a hard time figuring out what that would look like or how it would work. Spires don't seem like a good shape for hangars. Perhaps a good shape for launch rails, but you'd want to be able to point launch rails at the enemy, not the planet you're orbiting. What's up with them?
On another note, @DaLintyGuy, the Trench-class defense platform is noted to have a "hangar spire", but I'm having a hard time figuring out what that would look like or how it would work. Spires don't seem like a good shape for hangars. Perhaps a good shape for launch rails, but you'd want to be able to point launch rails at the enemy, not the planet you're orbiting. What's up with them?
I am thinking two cylinders, one inside the other, with the "door" basically being the inner cylinder rotating to allow the fighters or transports to fly out. The entrance being a really long slit with rails running it's lengths and parasite craft being hung from "shelfs" in zero g to allow quick launching. The "bottom" of the slit is clear and empty to allow craft to land and be rolled up into their shelfs to be worked on.
I have absolutely no idea how doable that is, but that's my guess.
On another note, @DaLintyGuy, the Trench-class defense platform is noted to have a "hangar spire", but I'm having a hard time figuring out what that would look like or how it would work. Spires don't seem like a good shape for hangars. Perhaps a good shape for launch rails, but you'd want to be able to point launch rails at the enemy, not the planet you're orbiting. What's up with them?
It's a planetary defense platform, it only has short launch rails or even open hangar bays because everything its parasites do is going to be in the frame of reference of the world it orbits.
In shape the overall thing looks like a mushroom with a tapered stalk and a cap.
It's a planetary defense platform, it only has short launch rails or even open hangar bays because everything its parasites do is going to be in the frame of reference of the world it orbits.
In shape the overall thing looks like a mushroom with a tapered stalk and a cap.
With the spire pointing down and the dome (being heavily armored) pointing out at space where enemies will come from, right? That's what I was thinking, but I'm having a hard time figuring out how hangars go on a spire. Maybe I'm just imagining too long and thin a spire? If its a squat pyramidal thing, then hangars could go on okay-ish. I've just been imaginging, like, the Space Needle.
With the spire pointing down and the dome (being heavily armored) pointing out at space where enemies will come from, right? That's what I was thinking, but I'm having a hard time figuring out how hangars go on a spire. Maybe I'm just imagining too long and this a spire? If its a squat pyramidal thing, then hangars could go on okay-ish. I've just been imaginging, like, the Space Needle.
It's a matter of scale what with this being a small platform with a single squadron rather than having and needing gobs of space, but slightly more squat works.
It's a matter of scale what with this being a small platform with a single squadron rather than having and needing gobs of space, but slightly more squat works.
Like, a stack of small hangars, all on top of each other? That sounds like a logistical nightmare, especially if there's also some kind of launch rail that the craft need to get to (and we're using Coves, so there is). I think I'm going to go with a bit squat.
Anyway, I am pretty sure that we are all more or less on the same boat regarding what shape our navy is going to take in the future. Light Cruisers aside, I am pretty sure that we are going to keep cranking War Hawk Frigates until we basically have one in every squadron. And there are some incredibly obvious upgrades to the torpedo boats that we can take whenever we get around to them.
What about our aging stock of Resolutes? So far, we only have a single Warrior in our whole fleet despite the Sparta hull being outright superior to the Saber hull in most direct engagement roles. Most of our escort carriers are still modified freighters, although that's honestly not a detriment per se, but the Sabers at this point would outshine them as escort carriers in all regards.
Of course, we can't do everything at once but assuming that our repair bills aren't too onerous....when do we plan on reorganizing our corvettes?
Anyway, I am pretty sure that we are all more or less on the same boat regarding what shape our navy is going to take in the future. Light Cruisers aside, I am pretty sure that we are going to keep cranking War Hawk Frigates until we basically have one in every squadron. And there are some incredibly obvious upgrades to the torpedo boats that we can take whenever we get around to them.
What about our aging stock of Resolutes? So far, we only have a single Warrior in our whole fleet despite the Sparta hull being outright superior to the Saber hull in most direct engagement roles. Most of our escort carriers are still modified freighters, although that's honestly not a detriment per se, but the Sabers at this point would outshine them as escort carriers in all regards.
Of course, we can't do everything at once but assuming that our repair bills aren't too onerous....when do we plan on reorganizing our corvettes?
I'd say we replace all the Resolutes in the fleet squadrons with Warriors or other better ships and push the Resolutes into the patrol squadrons. Its been increasingly apparent that our AMM are not cutting it for the patrol squadrons for much longer.
Plus we need to increase the number of patrol squadrons as our area of influence increases.
We have 5 or 6 Resolutes. To replace them all we need something like 250~ M. We can easily get that done in a turn or spread over 2 turns.
I'd say we replace all the Resolutes in the fleet squadrons with Warriors or other better ships and push the Resolutes into the patrol squadrons. Its been increasingly apparent that our AMM are not cutting it for the patrol squadrons for much longer.
Plus we need to increase the number of patrol squadrons as our area of influence increases.
We have 5 or 6 Resolutes. To replace them all we need something like 250~ M. We can easily get that done in a turn or spread over 2 turns.
Well, for ease of tracking, I was considering just suggesting reorganizing one squadron per turn. Like, we have one freighter hull escort carrier and two Resolutes in Squadron 1, right? So, assuming that MKII Macrocannons have had their Artisan requirement done away with this turn, this is what we are looking at:
We would need 88M for the two Warriors. If we were inclined to just replace the corvettes with Heavy Frigates of the same stripe it would be around 102M.
As for the escort carrier, a Saber hull replacement that has been modernized would look like:
Assuming that we are moving the Saviors here in exchange for the Furies and Starhawks in our existent escort carriers, the price remains the same.
Essentially the same as one of our freighter carriers but infinitely better at being boarded and just generally superior. We COULD just replace all our freighter carriers with Courantes, but those are 46 a pop and can also double as passable frontliner reserves. Well, we already have one in the 1 Squadron so I think it's unnecessary for the 1 Squadron at least.
Anyway, if we replace Corvettes with Corvettes, replacing the 1 Squadron should run to just about 122M.
Mind, there is also the train of thought that we should just go Heavy Frigates all the way for our Escort Carriers. Which, to me, is such a novelty for an Imperial navy that I think is also worth considering.
We would need 88M for the two Warriors. If we were inclined to just replace the corvettes with Heavy Frigates of the same stripe it would be around 104M.
That's about a sixth more cost, for half again the firepower? Plus we can use the old ships to escort convoys. Sounds like a definitive bargain to go with the new builds, if you ask me. Derp
Essentially the same as one of our freighter carriers but infinitely better at being boarded and just generally superior. We COULD just replace all our freighter carriers with Courantes, but those are 46 a pop and can also double as passable frontliner reserves. Well, we already have one in the 1 Squadron so I think it's unnecessary for the 1 Squadron at least.
Almost half again the price is admittedly a slightly harder sell. The added durability from the second defense slot and the ability to defend itself with the added macrocannon might make it worth it, but it's not an obviously superior choice.
