Return to “Suggestions”

Post

Re: Limited fuel and ammunition and the supply thereof

#16
The Hedge Knight wrote:Honestly the game sort of needs stuff like this, else the player will just keep getting an income until they buy the next ship without ever losing any money.
+1

This is exactly why I also suggested durability and repairing that as well.
Image
Early Spring - 1055: Well, I made it to Boatmurdered, and my initial impressions can be set forth in three words: What. The. F*ck.
Post

Re: Limited fuel and ammunition and the supply thereof

#17
JabbleWok wrote:How about a single-use jump module, which takes you back to the last system you came from? Maybe you should you start the game with one.

It makes sense that you have to charge it up for an while before you can use it, and/or the jump damages your ship to some extent. That would discourage you from using it unless you really have to. I don't like the idea of a "quick escape" as that could make you reckless about getting into combat. Plus, how would you feel if, every time you are about to kill an enemy and pick up a lucrative booty, they just disappear in a burst of shiny spacetime bubbles?

If you use it up and fail to replace it, then it's your own fault if you get stranded!

<and previous posts>
That's why I voted for wormhole generation as a stretch goal early on. But everybody else only seemed to want control over planets and factions.

Now you're getting the game you all wanted. Deal with it. ;)
Post

Re: Limited fuel and ammunition and the supply thereof

#18
Commander McLane wrote:Now you're getting the game you all wanted. Deal with it. ;)
Hehe!

Well, if you jump into a developed system, any JG or ferry service should broadcast its position as it wants customers. If there aren't any then you've just jumped into an undeveloped system, so you should have brought enough jump fuel to leave.

And if you didn't, then you have to go scooping/refining, taking ages. Do you think you'll make that mistake a second time? :)
Post

Re: Limited fuel and ammunition and the supply thereof

#19
One question to consider is what kind of power system do we have? If the power systems are fancy enough to power our weapons, shields, sub-lights, and JDs, then we are clearly using something more advanced than what we are capable of today. Assuming a fusion reactor (for the sake of a somewhat tangible example), it does use fuel, but we can lump that into a "maintenance" cost as the fuel required is easily available and relatively cheap. This assumes the ship requires regular maintenance anyway (which in reality they would). We could then use capacitor banks to store energy; the reactor provides energy at a certain rate, and each component consumes energy at a certain rate. During normal cruising, energy consumption could be low enough to allow the capacitors to charge at a slow, but reasonable rate, with lower consumption meaning higher recharge. During battle (or when jumping), demand would increase past supply causing the capacitors to drain at some rate. This allows ships to carry smaller and cheaper reactors yet still be capable of fighting when necessary. This would allow smaller ships to better be able to defend themselves without requiring them to buy a larger reactor just to run systems which are used infrequently, and maintain the fuel mechanic without the potential of trapping a player somewhere with no fuel.
Supply of fuel and repair parts at small scale can be rolled into a ships "maintenance" budget, at which point you just need to ensure you perform your regular maintenance to stay fully fueled. As for armaments, on the single ship scale, you would just purchase supplies from cargo ships (this could include maintenance supplies for those who DIY repairs and maintenance), or, if you had facilities aboard, you could manufacture your own replacement supplies from raw ores. These facilities could be relatively small (family owned mining vessel has small refinery and manufacturing shop to replace supplies) or large (fleet auxiliary with large ore bunkers capable of refining and producing supplies for a larger number of ships). This would allow the game to model an entire supply chain from raw material to finished good without the micro-managing required to manage each chain for each product. Supply cost would then be tracked internally by the engine without the user having to deal with anything more that either having enough money or enough of the right kinds of ore. You could even (if you chose) have ships whose purpose it was to recharge the capacitor banks of other ships between jumps/fights faster than the ship could have recharged them on it's own. Perhaps this function could be combined with the auxiliary's duties of resupplying the fleet.
Simple on the surface, and the backend can be as simple or complex as Josh desires, probably based on how simple or complex the economy turns out to be.
Post

Re: Limited fuel and ammunition and the supply thereof

#20
Why I severely despise, nay, loath fuel in a space game is:

Most importantly it doesn't feel futuristic. Many people could argue this point, but like the limit theorizers (after all if you go to the main website and read "about" you are a limit theorizer in the game) I'm an idealist, and to me anything physical is a bane to my existence (i.e cds, textbooks... and fuel is RIGHT OUT!)

Another thing important to note, is that all I want is to float around in my custom starfighter "Shadow" (tm) hiring my services to the guy with the largest virtual account. Anything that forces or encourages me to work with anyone I don't have too (i.e gas station, oiler ship, ect.) usaully finds a lot of dissipating ionized plasma atoms in their hull, fuel and ionized gases don't mix very well.

To me, any fuel management, is micromanagement.. Furthermore, I don't want to waste my hard-earned credits on fossil-fuels. I built my spaceship using cutting-edge nanotechnology by myself, can I at least build one that uses solar panels, electric, hybrid, solar currents, heck if you don't think renewable power is possible in the distant future what about nuclear? I don't think in the future anyone will use fossil fuels except maybe factories. But were talking faster than light travel, so i expect some renewable power here.


To sum it all up, I think fuel and space games are horrible. Even for jumps there should be some kind of nuclear device you need that has to cool down before jumps (like back to the future.) +1 to anyone who got my Holy Grail reference
Post

Re: Limited fuel and ammunition and the supply thereof

#21
To save this I put this as part two: Why I hate (most) ammo in a space game (hopefully shorter):

Like fuel I imagine a universal renewable energy (that defies newtons laws, which is possible; newton has been wrong before) that powers engines guns, and the ship's electric generators (like a car.) If not renewable than is a 24,000 year nuclear battery okay (+1 to whoever first guesses which nuclear fuel has about this long of a viable life.)

I said most cases because I believe ordinance (bombs, missiles, torpedos, ect.) should be limited and had to be purchased. While anything energy should be generated.

I don't believe in space ammo mostly because it sound's ineffective. Looking at current bullets, the only thing I would even think about aiming at a battle ship would be a 50 calibre (hint not a mini-gun, an HMG) and that probably wouldn't penetrate a fully armored battleship. Now looking lets be generous and say an average shield negates 25 percent momentum from an average bullet. A battleship of today has a lot more than 75 milimeter armor plating, so if we took a futuristic alloy with twice as much plating for your average space battleship, your most powerful NATO round wouldn't dent it, maybe ap round would scratch it. So let's take an unconventional bullet, an elephant round 100 calibre, maybe this round would break halfway through, or maybe three quarters realistically. Problem is, an standard 50 calibre cost 4 dollars around. Let's guve credits a very generous 2.5 inflation. So 10 credits for a 50 cal. Elephant round is twice as big so it is 25. A general encounter sees around say 10,000 rounds in a large ship fight (one side) that is actually not a lot of bullets, about 100 HMG belts. That is already 250,000 credits. After a more realistic fight you are more likely to pay 2,500,000 to restock. That is only 100,000 rounds. That means to not micromanage you need to stock by the millions. Obviously to by 1 or 10 million round you will have to pay 25 or 250 million respectively. It's a lose-lose, you either pay all your hard earned credits or micromanage rounds.

I've probably gone too realistic for what ammo in-game would look like. But ammo is realistic limiting for me anyways
Post

Re: Limited fuel and ammunition and the supply thereof

#22
@starpilotnoc: the answer, in two words: mass driver. The U.S. military already has experimental railguns capable of firing 2kg tungsten rods at 3km/s, enough to pierce tank armour. Current railgun designs are very primitive, I'm sure within many of our lifetimes we will see advanced designs capable of rapid fire and even greater muzzle velocity. This also solves the problem of expensive ammo. As stated above one can pierce tank armour with a solid metal rod even using current railgun technology. Given a high enough muzzle velocity one could do devastating damage firing almost anything - block of ice, carbon rod etc.
Experiencing a significant gravitas shortfall
Post

Re: Limited fuel and ammunition and the supply thereof

#23
Personally I tend to enjoy some micromanaging. At least when it can be automated.
In my X3 games I love to create factories and transporters that automatically refill my fleet. True, I wouldn't enjoy manually refilling my fleet when it gets to a certain size, but I still like the mechanic of it. So I'd love the inclusion of missiles & ammo based weapons, besides the energy based weapons.

Concerning fuel... I'm a bit torn. I'm thinking fighters might be too small to carry a fusion reactor. On the other hand, while flying a fighter I don't want to be bothered every 10 minutes that I need recharging... So for this I'm thinking perhaps fighters do need a fusion reactor and fuel shouldn't be a problem.
Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.
Post

Re: Limited fuel and ammunition and the supply thereof

#24
Katorone wrote:Personally I tend to enjoy some micromanaging. At least when it can be automated.
I agree, when I'm a lone wolf. If managing a fleet, it's a huge chore. Thus there should be auto-management features available, particularly for fleets.
Concerning fuel... I'm a bit torn. I'm thinking fighters might be too small to carry a fusion reactor. On the other hand, while flying a fighter I don't want to be bothered every 10 minutes that I need recharging... So for this I'm thinking perhaps fighters do need a fusion reactor and fuel shouldn't be a problem.
The current idea is that flying in space doesn't use fuel as it's a carefree and easy activity :) , but making jumps probably should because it isn't.
Post

Re: Limited fuel and ammunition and the supply thereof

#25
JabbleWok wrote:The current idea is that flying in space doesn't use fuel as it's a carefree and easy activity :) , but making jumps probably should because it isn't.
I agree.

Though I'd like to make a difference between a carrier which can replenish it's own fighters (unmanned drones?) or a fighter you're flying yourself over large distances.
It would be logical to keep the first kind of fighter as cheap as possible. I'm guessing batteries are cheaper than an unlimited power source. Personal fighters could be a bit larger and warrant the need for a unlimited power source.

This could add some nice gameplay where a carrier has a "readiness" level. Where it would display the amount of fighters and how charged they are. Of course, the carrier could only use it's surplus energy to recharge fighters. So, this again opens tactical options.

Just brainfarting. :)
Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.
Post

Re: Limited fuel and ammunition and the supply thereof

#26
So I was wondering, will we have procedural ammunition to go with our procedural weapons? How will ammo dependent guns function in LT? Will there be certain ammo types which are incompatible with certain guns? Or will any round be able to function with any gun that mounts on a particular class of ship?

Will there be a dedicated research branch for development of ammunition types, possibly sorted by classification, or some other filter? How will we know what guns are compatible with what ammo?

Diagrams might be helpful here. I'm interested to know how people would sort weapons and ammo types along with the corresponding gun (or launcher in case of missiles) which fires the rounds.
Image
Post

Re: Limited fuel and ammunition and the supply thereof

#27
I wonder whether the lack of individual ammunition and the boundless energy (for energy weapons) in the Limit Theory Prototype is how LT 1.0 is planned to work as well.

Even if it is, I suppose that's a mod someone could write. Presumably it would start with basic categories: energy weapons use energy; simple kinetic weapons use rocks (nice and cheap); advanced kinetic weapons (railguns / linear accelerators) use jacketed slugs. From there you could make it more complicated, but it's a starting point.

Also, nice necro. :)
Post

Re: Limited fuel and ammunition and the supply thereof

#30
BFett wrote:So I was wondering, will we have procedural ammunition to go with our procedural weapons? How will ammo dependent guns function in LT? Will there be certain ammo types which are incompatible with certain guns? Or will any round be able to function with any gun that mounts on a particular class of ship?

Will there be a dedicated research branch for development of ammunition types, possibly sorted by classification, or some other filter? How will we know what guns are compatible with what ammo?
Does the concept of "actual ammo as items" even work with PGC where you can get 371395681 different guns?

What if "ammo" is more of a blueprint that you "load" into the weapon?
You cannot switch weapons between mounts (that's a yard job, cap'n!) but you can switch those BP around and then the weapons will fire this modified ammo.

This way a ship's "ammunition" could still be magic goo that fits into every weapon and you can see the supply status of a fleet at a glance instead of having to dig through 7 pages of spreadsheet to check on every dinky fighter's special ammo needs.

Of course, some compatibility limits can still apply so maybe you need at minimum a size 3 ammo blueprint of certain maker or gun type.
There is no "I" in Tea. That would be gross.

Online Now

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron