|
Post by valthonis on Nov 3, 2010 16:09:15 GMT -5
Ok, I've been pouring over the rules and will be getting a chance to play in a week. ;D
But I have two questions.
1. Is it generally assumed that most ships will have shields? It seems like shielded ships versus non-shielded ships have a much larger advantage over non-shielded ones. Is armor difference enough to overcome this?
2. Is it normal to build a ship with left over unused mass? IE Maybe you have laser tech up to Heavy Lasers, but can build very large ships (just think race/tech possibilities) but obviously you cannot fill up the entire mass of the ship either due to design limitations (IE it's slow ship) or just can't fill it up due to the 6 weapon slots and limits on weapon numbers per slot (unless I'm using the ship builder wrong).
IE I could build a battleship with a lot of left over mass because I keep its delta low and weapon tech is low thus not taking much space. Is it 'wrong' to have all that unused mass or is it just a matter of wasted points?
Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by warchariot on Nov 3, 2010 19:22:31 GMT -5
1. shielded ships do have an advantage, but not that big of one. dread has a cross-over game post elsewhere at pits BSG (non-shield) against SW Empire ships. It is a close battle.
2. Most people try to use up the mass. You can add sec forces or add marines as equipment if need be to use up those last few mass.
|
|
|
Post by TheDreadnought on Nov 4, 2010 8:28:58 GMT -5
Generally its a good idea to try and fill it out completely. But there is nothing "wrong" with having an underbuilt ship. In fact, in some cases like Federation starships, I might consider "underbuilt" to be the normal state of affairs since mass represents weapon systems, and a lot of their mass would be consumed by useless science laboratories! LOL!
|
|
|
Post by admiralgrafspee on Nov 4, 2010 8:33:24 GMT -5
So, what is the "point value" of a ship? Is it the "base mass" or the "base mass - unused mass"?
-Tim
|
|
|
Post by valthonis on Nov 4, 2010 9:05:00 GMT -5
I would guess that the base mass is still the point value as you do gain the additional hull points correct?
|
|
|
Post by fastgit on Nov 4, 2010 15:50:49 GMT -5
I would guess that the base mass is still the point value as you do gain the additional hull points correct? Sounds right to me. Although... perhaps "empty space" could play a roll in a campaign game where the different factions can research new tech as the game goes on? Something similar to Imperial Starfire?
|
|
|
Post by TheDreadnought on Nov 5, 2010 10:34:28 GMT -5
Point value is the base mass of the ship. How you choose to use that mass is up to you.
|
|
|
Post by jchen101 on Nov 5, 2010 13:14:31 GMT -5
Sounds right to me. Although... perhaps "empty space" could play a roll in a campaign game where the different factions can research new tech as the game goes on? Something similar to Imperial Starfire? Your post got me thinking - if you had a campaign system where you were allowed to build X tons of ships a campaign turn (or Y number of new designs), you'd have limited opportunities to deploy new techs as you developed them. However, if you'd left empty tonnage in some ship designs, you could use that extra space to retrofit older ships with new tech. Now I'm really wanting to see the official campaign rules for CB!
|
|
|
Post by TheDreadnought on Nov 6, 2010 16:15:18 GMT -5
That is an interesting point. I had imagined a scenario where ship classes were gradually retired and new, more advanced ones phased in. But that is an interesting idea to consider as well.
|
|
theoz
Lieutenant
Armored and Ready!
Posts: 54
|
Post by theoz on Nov 7, 2010 10:33:18 GMT -5
In real life ships are often designed with what's called "reserve" tonnage. It serves as additional buoyancy in the event of battle damage (not something space warships would have to worry about) and gives space for refitting new systems into the older ship. The American "Spruance-class" destroyer being redesigned to the "Ticonderoga-class" cruiser is an example of this.
|
|
|
Post by fastgit on Nov 7, 2010 15:11:19 GMT -5
That is an interesting point. I had imagined a scenario where ship classes were gradually retired and new, more advanced ones phased in. But that is an interesting idea to consider as well. I guess it would depend upon where the majority of the cost came from... a shell one stuffs with expensive systems might be attractive to those funding construction if it meant you could re-use hulls. So far as I understand things... some (many?) navies see upgrading systems as a cost-effective measure.
|
|
|
Post by jchen101 on Nov 7, 2010 21:32:48 GMT -5
I think it'd be interesting to give players the option. Do you design your ships to max capacity, optimizing their effectiveness now? Or build in reserve tonnage, lessening their firepower now, but extending the service life of the class?
When they first were rolled out, the Spruance class DD's were roundly criticized in Congress as "undergunned", especially compared to the Russian designs of the time. An apt analogy, theoz.
|
|
unclejoe
Lieutenant Commander
Posts: 199
|
Post by unclejoe on Nov 9, 2010 21:46:08 GMT -5
If anyone remembers 'The Cosmic Balance' from the 80s (SSI space tactical PC game based loosely on the Trek universe), it allowed you trade remaining 'empty' space for 'efficiency'. I guess the idea was that it was spend on crew quarters and amenities that improved morale and effectiveness and it translated into better 'to hit' and/or damage control etc.
Maybe something like that could be interesting for CB? Not sure if it's as viable in a streamlined table-top game compared to a PC game though.
|
|
|
Post by warchariot on Nov 9, 2010 23:09:15 GMT -5
Nice Idea, Uncle Joe, and welcome back!
|
|