Off topic, how does the situation now compare with what used to be in effect? Have any affiliations successfully researched large ship classes from scratch as opposed to simply maybe just going up a ship class size?

I'm interested, because the impression I get now is that it would be virtually impossible to acquire large-size shipbuilding, from scratch, now, and I dont know how it was acquired originally - the impression I get is that it was simply built in to an affiliation profile and the research was a pretty noddy effort.

OK, so it's not IMPOSSIBLE now, but starting out by researching three or four individual principles required, from scratch, would be a real-life multi-generational effort, and I'm willing to bet ($10K) it never took place in BSE.

TonyH

- You are escalating your simple strong preference for extra-large ships to 'something stopping you'. Not suprising, given their overwhelming advantages - I'd use big ship too, if it wern't about 15 years solid research effort away. You mean the Flagritz CANT build 50-hullers? Or just choose not to?

So? It would take me 16 weeks to assemble 200 hulls. Takes you 8, as you say.

- Yes. Irrespective of ship size. My 10 HH yachts are a killer to maintain.

4 x 50 takes roughly the same amount to crew as 1 x 200, but needs only one officer. And there's less risk using AI navigators on a large ship. Piling on half-a-dozen would still a big enough crew complement to resist boarding attempts by the standard 200-400 strong boarding party. One AI navigator on a 50-huller either leaves you open to boarding or is a waste of space because you'd have the crew factors anyway

50 hullers are more easily destroyed. And baseships can divide their weapons into batteries to attack multiple targets. They dont, because it's far more effective to concentrate fire against one, isn't it?

This is another NEUTRAL proposal which will get shouted down because it mildly disadvantages the massive innate advantages of the megablocks. And before somebody comes back with 'Well join an aff with big ships then' - It doesn't appeal being a small cog in somebody elses war machine. I'm looking for something else in the game, and am beginning to think it's not there to be found - Phoeonix balance-of-power was pretty much set at the moment of conversion, and there are now far too many advantages to the big blocs: territory, technology, fleets, to even compete. It's just a case of seeing which one swallows all the others.

TonyH

The Flagritz started with baseships, true. But there are a lot of affiliations who have (or are) researching their way towards 200 hullers (and beyond).

So what in-game reasons are there for making this change? Im very much of the philosphy that "if it aint broke dont fix it" for this kind of thing. Ive yet to see swarms of 200hullers running amok...

Mark

- Anybody starting from scratch? Lets say I want my own 200-huller: What do I need?

Start with Small ship size principle: 5000 MU's research. Requirement for:
Medium ship size priciple: 5000 MU's research. Requirement for:
Large Ship size priciple: 5000 MU's research. Requirement for:
Huge ship size principle: 5000 Mu's research. Requirement for:
Ship building tech: 1000 MU's research. Requirement for:
Ship Blueprint: 100 MU's.

So, even if I could acquire a site to build a starbase large enough to support a MINIMUM four years solid research, I'd get a ship hull with no special tech whatsover.

Hmmm. Maybe some affs are using their gifted 'Huge ship size' Principle to research the next one along, but I'm sure nobody is doing it from scratch - OR EVER DID.

No matter - I'll live without. I just would like a little tweak in the game back in favour of the affs who have nothing. As I say: requiring you to spend $14,500 to officer your 200 huller, as opposed to $11K redresses the balance just a little way back - I'll still need $44k: Still a MAJOR advantage to you - just a very slightly less big one, and one which wasn't a factor eighteen months ago.

What it adds is a little 'Character'. Ship officers have to be worked up a little. there's an incentive to carry more than one on board. Maybe there'll be a market for experienced officers to be sold from the little guys to the big. And we get 'officer ranks' back with some impact in-game.

Against that theres the usual counter argument 'We deserve all our advantages because it's always been that way".

B****x.

TonyH

Actually I naval officiers on a number of small ships, admitially not all of them, but all that I would use for combat missions.

As to your 'isn't broken don't fix it' comment I thought you were against that mentality, which if you've read anyhing i've written i'm dead against too. It's not that this is a situation that is or isn't broken it's just one where the change you've suggested has minimal, if any, benfit for anyone other than yourself.

As to the comment on research I was mearly comparing the cost, a naval officer costs less to get than a blueprint.

Maybe there should be more officers on larger ship, but I havn't seen any sensible arguement to support it yet. Big ships don't have *that* many advantages over small ones in the first place.

Is cash flow really that big a problem?, 10k a week from the political would cover anything but large forces and research? I mean I know I have cash flow problems but I figured that was due to the starbases in sargasso running negative.

Inertial dampers which make a vastly bigger difference on small ships than large ships. With QJE and ID, 2 50HH ships can have a significant advantage over 1 100HH. And before you ask, we have quite a lot of 50HH.

Nik

Well, as put in an earlier post, large ships have the advantage of one Bridge, one Jump drive, one set of targetting sensors, one set of targetting computers... all adding together to make a far higher proportion of the ship filled with offensive weaponry at the same or higher targetting bonus as a small ship.

And having a single officer is an advantage in another way: Your best officer only has to command that one ship to impart his high-level bonus, in whatever category to all 200+ hulls, maybe more. Wheras my 4 x 50-hulls need four individual officers, each with their own +2 accuracy bonus, say. And, even if I were lucky enough to have four officers all with +2 accuracy skill, the financial cost of being trained up to that level further increases the 'cheapness' of ship officers for big ships. The officer needs an $18,500 investment to command a single large ship with a +2 bonus. I'd need $74,000 to have the same officer bonus on four 50-hullers.

I dont dispute that small ships maybe have some advantages of their own: Increased manouvrability, maybe. But these are equally accessable to all - Everyone who can build ships can build small ships. A priviliged few can build large ships, and CHOOSE not to, I assume because they consider them ineffective compared to where they can invest their effort - big ships.

Now, this change wont have mutch effect on the game. It goes a fairly insignificant way towards redressing the innate bias in the game towards power players, playing for total dominance and security. I want it because more it restores a level of 'character' in the game, which has been lost - 'ship' ranks.

It probably wouldn't happen, becuse even if all the megablocks wern't totally against it, there probably isn't the programming resource. But I am getting rather sick of particular powerful players saying "such-and-such a change is totally unfair because it diminishes us" - Good, about time. Or: "We desrve what we've gained by our own efforts" - b****x.

TonyH

PS Yes - small ships can have Quantum drives. But large ships can have hyperdrives. And I'm aware of one affiliation which claims to have a stock of several hundred of the latter, more than they know what to do with. Another advantage which can never now be redressed due to an in-game change (removing new Zionite deposits), even if I could 'Repeat' the several years research effort required to make the things. Several years effort which NEVER TOOK PLACE.

Big ships dont have that great an advantage over smaller ships - since the one-off items are fixed size, the benefit is not proportional to size; its roughly an extra 300mus "freed" by having a 200HH instead of 2 100HHs. 5%. Thats also ignoring the increased profile that make it very hard to actually miss. A single big ship can be in one place at one time. 4 ships can be in 4 places. Thats a big tactical advantage.

There is also the downside to only having one officer, bridge, jump engine, etc. If they get killed/destroyed in combat, your 200HH is stranded and easy meat. And youd be surprised how often those bleeping jump engines get hit.

Mark

PS Since its mainly Pedro and myself being outspoken about this, Im assuming you classing us (and our affiliation) as Power Players? Cool - just tell the Consortium that

And one which is equally accessable to YOU.

An auxiliary jump drive and a spare civillian officer or two would get you back to base for replacements surely? I'd be too busy trying to pick up survivors from the wreckage, or more probably fleeing in my sole remaining ship, while you did.

Yeah, pretty much. The DEN are another faction who like to crow about all their 'hard-earned' privilidges while dominating whith mega ships and secret systems. Been quiet recently though. I always think it a pity that the incredibly long odds of them actually finding away out of their home system came off, and they arn't just stuck in the DHP unable to interact with the rest of the game. WHAT are the odds on that, eh? One failed 'Stellar cartography' and they'd have been stuffed.

Frankly, I may just declare war on everyone by the end of the week. It worked for the Flagritz, as a new starter aff.

TonyH

There is a misconception here that if you have the technique to make a 200HH ship it means you have the techniques for every other ship size there is. This isnt the case.

So you wouldnt consider boarding it? if youve got 4 ships to one (no matter the size) you need to use tactics more - makes it more interesting dont you think? Once that 200HH is in a known position, you could move your ships off elsewhere to raid with impugnity.

You think Ive been crowing? Ok, Id better stop replying then!

Mark

The training of the officer is a fair point, maybe skill bounses should scale with the size of the ship, training costs are prohibitly high to be used on all small ship officers.

Alternativly going back to the suggestion of the maximum size of ship an officer could run, you could fix the stellar training costs based on which ship size they can do, and increase the training costs if they choose to run larger ships.

In my opionon scaling the bonus would work better, and give the feel larger ships need more officers to provide the same level of oversight to provide the same bonuses. (and probably reducing the cost so the cost for fully kitting a 100HH remains about the same and the others pivot on that)

It took us (IMP) the best part of seven years in BSE to get from Battle Cruisers (50 hulls) to Ships of the Line (100 hulls) via Patrol Cruisers (75 hulls). When I took over as IMP Patrol Commissioner in 1995 the IMP battle Fleet was 5 battle cruisers (two of them severely bent from a recent engagement with the RIP).

After more than two years hard researching we are getting closer to 150 HH ships in Phoenix, others starting from the same base have already got there but they worked harder at it .

There were no "Free Gifts" on conversion, everything affiliations got they had worked for in BSE. That small/new affiliations are disadvantaged is a fact of Phoenix Life. To put it in a real world context, how long do you think it is going to take a small and technologically backward country like Botswana to catch up with the United States? If they ever do get to where the US is now do you really think they will have caught up?

As Harvey D-L stated, the big affiliations cannot necessariy design all sorts of ships. Using our available techy points at conversion the IMP concentrated on 100 hulled ships, the max we qualified for, and heavy hulls. Consequently we could only design HH ships between 51 and 100 HH. Everyone knew that small ships had had there day (NOT). We have had to trade for BPs of ship sizes/designs we could not produce ourselves (Hint!)

Geoff

I try not to run any 200HH. I prefer 50LH. I have nothing personal to gain here. And the FLZ have nothing to lose by officer costs escalating (in fact, it would actually give us an advantage as we are somewhat richer than our enemies).

If you want the rank system re-introduced, with meaning, thats great and is certainly an area that would be interesting. Using it as a mechanism to improve the capabilities of small ships doesnt to me feel like the best approach - it goes against the basis of tech in the game (higher tech=better and bigger ship=higher tech).


Mark

Which affiliations started with the Titan ship principle? Which affiliations started with anything anywhere near that level?

What you are saying is that if an affiliation has the cash, the time and the player dedication to do research, then thats not fair?

Mark

Right, I have no dispite with the IMP having 100+ hullers. Sounds like it's completely justified to me. I am also less antagonistic to the IMP since they dont base themselves largely in invulnerable, inaccessable systems.

Otherwise - define 'Worked for'. I damn well know that the Flagritz didnt research baseships, and strongly suspect the DEN didn't research their 150 hh from scratch either, but would love to be advised otherwise, so I can give they the respect that they demand, but otherwise dont deserve.

I like your ideas around officers, and think that my proposal could mesh well with this. Having ship-size command ability might lend it'self to this - If an officer with a 150-hull command ability wasn't available for your flagship, How about a 75, a 50 and a 25. All with the corectly designated rank - 'commander', 'Lietenant commander' and 'Lieutenant'. Adds character, I think.

TonyH

Being Krell is less like being Botswana, and more like being Bantustan. Botswana has it's own territory, and control of it's own population and resources.

And you get yours straight.

- Maybe you dont have direct access to the EEM, but I'm sure it would be purchased on your behalf by those who do. All the current EEM techs would be covered by the market value of a couple of baseships. I'LL provide you one for the cost price plus 1%, OK? Delivered to any publicly-accessable system.

- Once possessing the tech, YES you need to research a blueprint. 100 MU's research. I know, I've done it. You do NOT need the underlying principle to research the blueprint.

- The smallest ship size principle can be researched at no penalty, with no prerequisits. 5000 Mu's of research. Quite daunting, but I'm sure a big aff like you can do it within a year.

The Krell need to do that amount of research simply in order to get fractional-ownership of a homeworld which would then have a breathable atmosphere. OK - My choice, at the time it it sounded more interesting roleplay challenge than pointless power gaming. but, do you mind if I express my impatiance with the endless whinging by players like yourself, against anything which might adversely effect their complete dominance of the game? You already have more, LARGELY UNEARNED, privilidges than I can ever hope to aspire to - mostly having been awarded at aff setup, or accumulated by paths which are now closed to those who would follow-on.

Cheers,
TonyH

If you have specific concerns about the FLZ - or any other affiliation - then I would suggest you take them to Mica, as he is one of the only people who can give you a neutral opinion. he does what he does for the good of the game.

But I would ask you to clarify your concerns :

- Which "largely unearned" priveleges do we have?
- What did the FLZ get on startup?
- what endless whingeing? You raised points which we disagree on.
- you previously claimed startup techs given of Titan principle - who got it? who got anywhere near that?

If you think the FLZ dominant the game, you are very much mistaken. We are a small affiliation, battling against overwhelming odds.

Mark

If I recall part of the original reason for introducing Naval Officers was to prevent small ships being used en masse in battles, where their impact is far greater than their size. it was a tactic widely used - bring in a fleet of 10HH ships and pin the enemy. A 100HH prevented from leaving battle by a tiny ship was unbalanced. But the pin rules have changed since then, so perhaps there could be a change to small ships.

Mark

I re-commend having 'ship size class effective' as an additional progressable skill for an officer, as it has the advantages of increased ship size cost, but overcomes all the problems I can think of, and adds depth to the game.

The objections of the mega-vessel operators that they would be "severely" disadvantaged by this change is not a problem - it is an opinion. One which should be treated in the same way as those of us who soley operate small and medium ships to the original officer charges was - i.e. totally discounted.

TonyH

Any change that makes the game ever more time consuming just to run a few ships is negative. And a change like this one would make it miserable just to run a minor fleet of warships.

I think I am not the only PD out here which think running an multi-player affiliation is time consuming as it is.

Keep it simple, keep it easy, keep it fun.

Well, I notice that.

I agree with Chris A and Clay, lower the initial cost and increase the cost to train skills. This allows all to run naval positions while those who is interested in developing their officers may do so. It cost a little extra but they also get to be the pros in the peripheries.

once again this thread was about the costs of navel officers yet it is getting hijacked


but i will answer this yes small players can advance and prosper under the current rules with out spending mega amounts of sterling each week(personnaly i play for less than £10 per week)


i dont consider myself a bit player in anyones games and i am starting to develope in all areas of the game i choice to play in.


chris a

I am very honoured if you mean me. I mean, the QNG is just about 9 months old...

Mega fleet! Wow! You must mean my starting broadsword.. or the carrier I have...

as to the answer to this tony it dont need to be private and i appologise to every one for going off thread.

as a bhd player i had a fall out with the pd of the time at a blackpool pub meet and mica asked me if i would like to run one of the inner confed noble houses, after getting all confederate pds permission i was ALLOWED to run house liquan as a trusted confederate player.

as to the growing undisturbed to a degree that has been correct, but these systems are not secret they are just not for public access due to the location, just the same as the inner empire systems are not for public access. as to the uniques i had 1 source of 1 steller basic value uniques up till 2 months ago. what i did was not have that unique as my main trade item but to buy from others and take to the base as we all can do.

i also have built 2 bases from scratch and worked my butt of to get 2 noble houses to amalgamate thus developing and enhancing house liquan to the stage its at today.

i Will not deny thats its been easier to build in safe systems but the disadvantage of this is that there are no public starbases to trade with and all goods have to be bought in to the systems to help expancion.


any way thats how i got what i have today and its through hard work good game play (in my opinion) and doing the right deals with the right people. as to expanding i still have to ask permission to build a starbase on any confederate planets just like all the little players in the game.


chris a

That's suddenly three or four or more orders for what I can do today with one order. Why is it needed? And as you talk about skill increase it also means that I must use them a long time in a small ship before I can train to them use a large ship (experience don't come quickly). This also means transferring officers between ships. Which also means that you must pick up a new crew to make into a new officer in the small ship. Which require a political order. You must move your small ship to the same location as the big ship to do the transfer.

Yes, I object to all this when I can do all this in one single order today. Create officer and tick the naval officer box.

You assume much. Facts will help you better.

You are a Krell spin-off. I assume you have all the needed Krell tech.

No - its the same order as now, with an additional skill value selectable:
'Train officer - #? (Ship rank size)'
- which of course would be a civilian skill.

To reduce impact on the current situation, at conversion, I would of course make the lowest-numbered officer on a vessel high enough 'skilled' to command that vessel. And there is also the prospect of having several officers 'pool together' to make enough 'ship class' levels to command a larger vessel than any one of them individually could do (although not get the benefits of other skills unless all of them had the required level).

- This last point is key: It's yet another unfairness in the current system that a big ship gets the same benefit to a 200-hull megavessel for paying $500, as I would for paying 4x$500 for four 50-hullers. This measure adresses that inequity. And before anyone mentions it - I dont consider the argument that 'I'd have to pay more' a valid argument as long as they still pay less than I have to. Paying proportionately more for small ships wasn't a counter to the original 'Navel officer' changes, so I dont see why it suddenly gets to be one now for large ships.

Complication isn't a counter either. It's nowhere near as complicated as the myriad of combat changes introduced over the last few years, which I have to get to grips with. Making big fleets too complicicated for a single player to manage would be a MAJOR game advance, in my opinion - and multi-player affs can devolve a bit, cant they?

- The danger of assumption! While there is rumoured to be some Krell tech, All I got was a part-finished tech, a part-copied tech (I have to return the original when finished) and a part-finished bluepint (sector decontamination - which is of course destroyed, when used). At the end of 60 weeks dedicated research I will be able to produce unlimited quantities of the 'sector decontamination' BP, which is a good ting, as more than a thousand are needed.

I have other stuff, but it was all bought in at full price, or researched, at -7, over the last few years.

TonyH

Sounds like you have a good thing going there, and something that I'd like to emulate: I empathize with having to haul in development materiel from out-system, It's something I'm going through, although maybe not as far though; Balanced against that, i'm having to import the planetary population, too. Finding anything useful on a planet consisting of 'flat' and 'molten rock' has been a (so far) unsucesfull venture too! Just imagine - this is the most hospitable planet in the entire system! It's a wonder that so many affs chose to set up and rip everything worth having before I got here - not a problem you have, I assume? And the defences - five months effort, and I still havn't got anything that will stand up to the GTT for more than two rounds. Hiding will be a better bet.

I'm moving to your viewpoint on trade too. I'd like to directly control my uniques production and distribution, and object to only getting about 45% of the potential maximum I could get for hauling objects from inner-empire, to darkfold (Outer Capellan to inner empire in my case).

Can somebody pass some relevent system knowledge to enable this please? Not one of you affs that have researched it, of course. One of those who got it free - like the RIP, DEN, FLZ, GCS, etc...

TonyH

yet another player that cannot distinguish between an OOC discussion and IC action.

I was discussing the opinion of all the human affiliations within the Inner Empire, the SMS is probably the miniority faction within that area of game play.
Others feel free to correct me, but this topic is drifting off its point again.

During my discussions with the other parties involved in the exploration it was a general opinion that this was considered the human home systems and as such exclusive to them.
Call it xenohpobic, call it bloody minded big affs keeping things to themselves but it is the way of things. Its policy that was proposed to me not vica versa.

I will not even respond to your comment about Storm, try to keep your toys in the pram.
I'm not trying to be the big aff bullying the small, I was just discussing my opinion of the game and the point of this thread.
Try to remember this is a discussion board where all are free to express, some continually more so than others, points about game mechanics and its development.
Not for IC threats and comments save that for the forum that I quite happily left quite a while ago due to rubbish being posted on it, don't bring that here please.

This is an in-game rationalisation of why the costs should be the same.

But, what is being discussed is a game mechanic. The issue is... is it appropriate that it costs so much more to have hulls invested in smaller warships than in large warships? Should it cost $110,000 for 10 10-hulled warships, in comparison to $11,000 for 1 100-hulled warship? Does the current system discourage the use of smaller warships? I think it does.

Does anyone think it unreasonable that the 'additional cost' for the privilege of having warships could be changed to be based on the number of hulls rather than the number of ships?

Sorry - you were saying that, if I put in the "work" to find a way into the inner empire... out of character... you will ban me from it... out of character? And we're not just discussing 'inner empire' as such. I'm talking about all the meta-affs with secret hidaways, some of whom started there. And some of whom have just acquired a whole new trache, at negligable cost.

Just treat the SMS as banned from Storm until further notice, in-and-out. And Yes, I know who you're allied with; and yes, I am aware that the SMS just knocked off several multi-hundred hull platforms for the loss of one bunk. This is one of the reasons I've decided that it's not even worth building up anything in publicly accessable systems, and dont have the option to do anything else. And being crapped on by a 'multi player' aff that I didn't even know I was at war with, but taking 2000 enemy soldiers with me in the prossess was one of the least boring events in my personal experience of the last five years.

btw Paul - which SMS players put in the work to find the way into the inner empire? I might have known them. Did you?

Now, officers - yes, it might be preferable to have proper ranks governing numbers of individuals commanded - but a simple command skill integrates with what's in place now, and therefore might be implementable within a year or three.

TonyH

No it isn't. A newly-comissioned officer, straight out of Annapolis (?), would not be put in charge of the USS Nimitz, would he?

He'd start off on a minesweeper... maybe second or third in command of a destroyer within a few years... gaining experience (= spending skill points?). His command of the Nimitz (= 300 hulls) would come at the end of a long navel career (= level 5 skill in 'ship command').

TonyH

Actually it would be massivly limiting because most people have probably already used the 'easy-to-get' training points. Furthermore what if your smallest shipsize is larger than 50 hulls? Why would your newly commisoned officers not beable to run the smallest ships in your fleet.

Maybe if it just cost more money for the higher ranked training and not 'points' (personally I dislike the point system, far too rpg, should just get better in skills based on what they got the point for, but anyway thats another story) then it would make sense and be a plausable idea.

I'd suggest you should reduced base cost of the naval officer a little to compensate as well.

No, sorry. The whole detail of the proposal is now spread over several posts, so probably wasnt't amenable to a quick put-down without some effort.

No. The default unskilled officer would of course be able to command the smallest class of vessel, because it would be bloody stupid otherwise. If you are saying that the SMALLEST vessel in your fleets is 50 hulls I'm saying this just proves how crap being limited to 50 hulls or below, IS, and is an additional incentive to introduce the change. In my opinion. Of couse the people who actually pay for 90% of the game would disagree, but it's a free forum isn't it?

As stated. I'd propose that the lowest numbered officer on each vessel be awarded sufficient 'ship rank points' in order to command that vessel. Nobody but a knob-head would turn down free compensation for a game change! OK, I did for the shipbuilding changes, but wtf, eh?

TonyH

We got no system knowledge for free.

Mark
FLZ

i am aware of several 'plotlines' that have been discovered by non-power bloc players in the central areas. Are you actively going out to find them?

Mark

No I was saying the smallest ship size some people can build is larger than 50 Hulls, I know a number of affiliations who your suggestion would make it impossible for them to use any warships without years of research into smaller ships.

It has nothing to do with how bad or good small ships are just with what tech they have.

As for myself I can and do build small HH ships, but my comment was how it would effect everyone not just from my persepect.

Twilight? The Flagritz STARTED in there, so presumably didn't research themselves into existance ex-nihilo? Or did you have to research the system you were in before you realized you could return? I'd like to know more.

You've just acquired, and seamlessly integrated, the Flagritzi seeded systems - havn't you? Or is all this barney with the FEL taking place in Inferno? And the IRS 'independent' systems, one of which, according to a Flagritzi memeber, was discovered through stellar cartography which the GM set up FOR him. Now Flagritzi-claimed - or am I wrong? I certainly dont have access, do you?

As for GM plot lines in the central area - yes. I do at least one SA/surface exporation every week, or two if I think I may be onto something that may have been missed over the last 12 years or so (i.e. once in a blue moon). I'm fed up of paying for results that say. 'It looks like this was cleaned out x... years ago'.

Tried starting some things myself. Just did a sequence of three SA's to attempt to aquire the knowledge of an item, commonly known to more than one affiliation. listed in the open rules. In order to be able to start research on the blueprint, at -7. That was a waste of time.

As for spending £3.60 to discover a source of some puny trade goods, the production of which wouldn't even cover the cost of the complexes to exploit them.... Too many times.

Although, to be honest, I did discover something of interest yesterday. How the **** I could ever make use of it, I dont know, but it has engaged my interest.

TonyH

Well, If some affiliations CANT build ships less than 50 hulls, they should be made to start. They could buy a courier for training - hang on - Dont all new starters START with a courier? An incentive to devolve some power to the underlings, perhaps, once they'd shown the dedication to acquire their first three officer skill points (A month or so?).

If an aff is really generating enpough newly-built 51+ hullers that they cant generate enough officers to crew them under this proposed change, the shipbuilding changes need to be re-examined. Because in that case they would have been totally ineffective in stopping massed-fleet building by the existing megablocks, while nobbling the attempts by anyone else to get on the ladder.

Lets face it - destroyed ships should be a good source of recycled/reclaimed officers. They always seem to be left in the debris. I gained three that way! (not my debris). And, if you're really short - buy them in! Just imagine - a market for civillian officers with 3/7/15 skill points for the megafleet operators to buy, make navel, and train up - $1K per skill point maybe? The cost of the officer might actually become a measurably large fraction of the cost of the vessel it'self!

You know. I'm beginning to suspect that at least some of these 'too much hassle', 'unfair on large ship operators' etc responses are because it would make it slightly more difficult to knock out the guaranteed 1-300 huller every 1-12 weeks or whatever. As opposed to impossible, for me. Or am I just being cynical?

TonyH

Hi Tony,

as one of the three players who originally took the FGZ into player control I can say that they were not originally set-up in Twilight. Indeed all the three start-up bases were in Inferno.

The original entry point to Twilight was a special action which involved overloading Jump Engines. Research had to be carried out to set-up the Stargate between the systems - though I believe it did precede Stellar Cartography.

Inferno was exposed, and with the three initial bases being pretty limited (I'd previously run an SSL base in Schrike that had more production than two of the three) , and with uncertainty about human-flagritz relations after the initial war (when they were still under GM control) Twilight was seen as an obvious choice to colonise as a retreat.

New Officers start with zero points don't they?

If they start with points then I take back my comment about some affiliations needing to be able to put officers on larger ships as they don't have smaller ones.

If not then we still have the same issue.

But I do as I believe $10k is a little much to train 1 naval officer, especially if additional costs are introduced as you propose.

I also dislike any changes that will make officers more complex and time-consuming to manage. This is, after all, a game. I do not mind if there is depth and advamced options for those that wants it but personally I prefer they way it works now.

Yes read above.

Also the answer "If some affiliations CANT build ships less than 50 hulls, they should be made to start" isn't a good solution. In the same way I don't think you should be made to start larger ships even though you don't have them.

All these arguements re: naval officers and using rank for ship size have been covered elsewhere on other threads. To my knowledge

- ship officer costs were introduced to circumvent possible abuse with tiny ships which everyone could mass produce.

- Any reduction in costs for small ships would be a bigger benefit for the bigger affiliations, whose cash tends to be more stretched than the smaller, generally more efficiently run affialitions. This seems to be the opposite of what is intended (ie.help the little guy and not the big players).

- Any increase in costs for big ships simply penalises them for no real reason (besides to penalise them!). If Mica believes big ships are an issue, then he would do this change regardless as a game control method.

- Rank based on ship size is relative. The FLZ build 200 hullers. If we had 150 of them, but few other ships then our cadets would have been trained (in boot camp via the Crew BP) to fly them.

If ranks were to be introduced I would prefer them to be based on a proper command structure, based on personnel. The more crew you have, the more officers you need and a rank structure to command them. Same for GPs too. In theory, this would mean bigger ships would need more officers/higher ranks, but allows you to offset that by having the risk of using AI instead. But then this would add complexity for only a roleplay gain - which is subjective, so would sit on the long wish-list already being worked on by KJC :-)



Mark
FLZ

The FGZ started in Inferno. The FLZ started elsewhere. The FLZ did not start with any system knowledge and no system links. We had to research everything - from a starting position of zero research complexes.

We did not acquire the FGZ and nor has it been seamless so far :-) Which IRS independant systems? Twinkle? That is a public knowledge system and always has been.

I have a similar track record - dont think I have ever discovered a trade good worth exploiting!

There you go then - something to aspire to :-) Ive found similar things too - plot lines I wont be able to make use of for years, but I like that, gives me something to aim towards.

Mark
FLZ

I find this hard to reconcile with the 'not everyone has ships less than 50 hulls' posted earlier. And with the fact that everyone gets a courier. Can anyone further aid my understanding.

Nobody would dispute that not everyone can produce ships ABOVE 75 hulls, right?

This is so completely wrong as to not even be worth countering. One difficulty - how to make cash when the maximum multiplier I can acheive on low-volume uniques is... x8? Inner capellan to Inner Capellan. Of course, bigger profits could be achieved by selling to a third party with a presence in a far away periphery. So I'm forced into a solution which is innacceptable to at least one larger aff - actually selling to a position outside my own control!

The problem with bigger affs being short of money is over-large battlefleets. Pure and simple. This is a problem for large, pre-existing affs. If the problems of newstart and developing players were address for a change there might not be such a shortage of new players to go around - (according to a slightly earlier post by PTB). Please accept that NOT eveyone wants to run a fleets made up of so many 200+ hullers that they couldn't keep track of their officer requirements for them, which is your issue, if I'm understanding right? Or is it that you couldn't handle the extra expense of paying $7.5k extra to officer a ship worth over a million stellars?

TonyH

Maybe not. But everybody can produce ships up to 75 hulls by using EEM technology. Even the KRT.

A whole x8.. best I manage at my starbases with markets is x3, a whole x3 from any where, however far away it is....

Fun no? and you think you have problems making money...

The objection is not that it's impossible but that it's silly.

Consider an affiliation with two players involved who can't build ships other than 200 hulls, which could happen for a number of historical reasons.

Their fleet might be say fifty 200hull ship and two couriers they started with (which if destroyed would mean no small ships), now it is ridiculus to suggest that officers out of bootcamp would be put on the couriers and not go straight to work on the 200hullers, or that basic training would not cover the ship that makes up over 95% of their fleet.

The most sensible suggestion I've heard would be the one where you need officers per x number of crew, everything else suggested just has massive flaws with it.

I agree trade is broken, although i wish i even got a x6 multiplier for goods sold

Right - so the lack of small ships is a problem that's been overcome by the IMP, you're just voicing concerns for other people? Like me? Thanks!

Now, you're accumulating other skills into the mix, other than the proposed 'ship size class' attribute, proposed. The standard 100-hull IMP SoL would be commandable by a single extra training point spent - you're thinking of other people again, arn't you Geoff? Nice.

Just for argument.... I mean THOUGHT EXPERIMENT! . The 150-Hull DEN 'Dire Wolf' class of ships; I'm reasonably sure they are in common usage, having been c*****d on by eight of them against one broadsword (the DoW was lost in the post).

Would require three skill points to command that ship class, because they are 'Large'?

Eight officers... Lets say they have.. three? skill points in other things, like dodge, or accuraccy?

So six points in total. That's: 8 x (11K + 500 + 1K + 2K + 4K + 4K + 4K).
= $212K. ie: Less than a half the worth of one of them.

I'm going to take them out next time. Going to build 16 broadswords, and match them, hull-for-hull. Luckily, I only need ONE command point for a 75 huller! And my guys can beat any DEN, with our secret advantage - Thumbs!

That's: 16 x (11K + 500 + 1K + 2K + 4K) = $296K!

Yes, sorry. I can see how paying 80K Less would be seen as grossly unfair, by some people.

And once you're in the 4K plateau, adding equal skills to both sides increases the disparity in favour of large ships.

Conceeded. But i was thinking of your OWN aff as well. Surely you can recover officers when you loose a ship but WIN possession of the field? And, if not 'Prisoner exchange' becomes a nice little sideline, maybe? - should imagine it would be, already (do officers loose skills if captured?)

And, I was thinking, selling civilian officers with 3 unallocated skill points for $2-3K, to commission and put into newbuild dire wolves, might be a nice little earner. Damn. My complete self-interest has been found out!

TonyH

Not as silly as requiring the same price to command a yacht as a megavessel. MTB vs Nimitz argument, again.

Yes, there are disagreements over whether it's 'fair', and disagreements over whether it's 'silly'. Which are still, and will always be, unresolved.

I'd say, that any affiliation which devotes ALL it's resources to building 200-hullers, to the extent that it cant build anything less and looses it's entire stock of starter couriers, Deserves to not be able to command them. It would force them to engage with elements of the game beyond contructing and manouvring mega-vessels. After all, they'd get freebie points to run what they've got now. It's just the new stuff rolling off the production line, which they couldn't handle.

This isn't a serious problem surely? I thought the shipbuilding costs had nobbled you guys on that? It did for me! how many 200-hullers are these guys still growing their fleet by? Two a month? I could generate the officers to supply that demand. On my own.

If it's twelve a month, no. But in that case they need knobbling again anyway.

Tonyh

Just because you consider this a large ship they might not. The QNG, for example, do not consider 150 hulls to be very large. 400 hull, now we are speaking about large ship.

There is a big difference between the affiliation failing to build smaller ships and it just not being capable of doing so. Why should they be FORCED to research small ship tech just so you get things the way you want.

The prefectly reasonable alternative of just requiring more officers for large ships, either by crew or hull numbers, you seem to ignore totaly in preference to a system which could be impossible for certain affiliations to exist within.

Because it's simpler, and is a fairly minor adjustment to a new 'skills' mechanism which has been relatively recently introduced, rather than completely superceding it.

I appreciate some aspects wont be liked - you'd no longer be able to get away with having to get half as many officers to '+1 accuracy' to get that benefit for similar-sized fleets, as ship size is doubled, for instance.

I'm working my proposal details, because it's my proposal. Other avenues hold interest - such as being able to command bigger vessels with more than one zero skill point, newly-created, officers. Please propose detail - I like the concept, and would propose refinements - As long as all met the requirements for the vessel for one. All 'navel'. All having '+0.5 accuracy' skill to get that skill benefit. etc. Actually... Wouldn't that work out WORSE for the poor guys who only have 200-hullers?

It's just that the skill 'command ship class' seems closest to what we've got.

And, there are plenty of elements of the game I hate, but am forced to engage with. I'm trying to be constructive by proposing game developments which I like, and sounding out the details of. Open to constructive criticism.

And... I dont think the standard "we worked our butts off to get large ships over ten years, so deserve to totally dominate against players who's only been in (in my part the best part of five) years". So spent only a quarter as much, maybe?

I'm proposing a change to a rule that was introduced only... eighteen months ago? Which, incidental to it's designed effect (something to do with pinning?) partially but not wholey, counters a large advantage it confers on operators of large vessels. And understandably the beneficiaries of that incidental change are very keen to retain it.

Of course, if the purpose WAS to further increase the advantage of large ships, could somebody confirm this?

TonyH

In the same way it's perfectly fair to expect some affs to do 250 weeks of research to gain the advantage of running ships half the size of those that the people running 200-hullers will only consider (we've already covered the fact that everybody can have 'small' ships at a cost which is small compared to the price of a single 'large' vessel). Despite the fact that they started the game with those ships, and still acquire small ships, for free, on a regular basis.

[hint - What we might need, in game, is some sneaky trader types to swap about three copies of 'EEM courier ships' tech for a single flagritzi baseship (a single ship, not a blueprint), and pocket the several-hundred-thousand stellar profit].

If you are putting forward these arguments because you feel that it is unfair to stop adding further advantage to affs with massive ones already, just because those players have been in the game longer (or more likely players simply sharing the same three-letter aff code as the original)?

And before you accuse me of it again - I dont want what those players have, for free. I want to spend five years researching 'medium ship size' and then 'Krell kamakazi vessels'. I just dont want to spend the next ten years paying to more and more disadvantaged, with the stuff I'm stuck with in the meantime.

And if you say, by the time you have your own 150-hullers, we'll have 400-hullers, so you will be even further behind- I'd hope not. The tech development effort should get steeper, not allow inflationary acceleration. If it doesn't - where's that 'Phoenix II' thread gone? Or should I go for WoW?

TonyH

It does get steeper, you need advanced racial techs as well as structrual and material bps.

Although i'm not sure it's steep enough.

On the other hand I know a number of affiliations that havn't bothered to build larger than 150/200 ship tech because there is little point. In fact lots stopped at 100hulls mearly because the peformance benifits of large ships is practially zero compared to the expense of research, the easy of being targeted and the loss of manouverablity.

Agreed!

OK. So - in ten years time I may have...ships up to 150 hulls? Wheras the Flagritz will have gone from... 200 to 300? Sounds fair.

I'm a bit worried about the QNG though - an aff that claimed, only a few days ago, to be tiny/newstart is also claiming to consider 400-hull vessels as 'just about big enough to be worth bothering'. I'll have to ask privately.... so much about this game still to learn...

TonyH

I'd be worried about them too...

nasty bugs!



Doug.

I pointed this out at the time I think. I believe your suggestion of putting all your thoughts on the subject together and proposing it direct to Mica would be good and see what he thinks.

Mark

Baseships and Baseship BPs are traded to others - for the right price - already.

Mark

The QNG was created on star date 205.25. We had 1 starbase and a couple of outposts on Mobile Bay. The only warship was my starting broadsword (the Caravel had been destroyed some time before). I had a few smaller freighters though, perhaps even a baseship or two. Can't remember.

I am NOT the one saying that it is impossible to do anything just because you are a small tiny affiliation.

BUT we are Hive and we have a history. Before we were crushed by the ARCs we considered Baseships to be small.

Oops, not saying that you shouldn't have 200-hullers, just couldn't reconcile the 'we consider 200 hulls small' and 'we are a new aff'. I consider 200 hulls small. We just use the 50-hullers because it's either that or try to hitchhike through interstellar space.... Although DTR ships are probably numerous enough for that to work, they are just like buses. You wait for ages, then 250 come along at once.

Anyway... You'd get free officer skill points to command your existing fleet, and cant actually build any new ones anyway... I cant see any major problems really, can you? You're just boasting about the size of your assets!

All this is just a play to find a niche for the KRT, running swarms of 10-hullers to train newby civilian officers to sell on. It can be a bit limiting being small - Out main military project has not advanced much beyond the initial planning stage at the moment (i.e: got the objective and the punchline, still working on the code name and the... means).


TonyH

Since the changing of the pinning rules which now, if i recall correctly, take ship size into account and stop the swamping effect. I'm not sure the naval officer offset to is needed at all, and would suggest that naval officers are just reduced to a nominal fee.

A minor cost for officers would offset the lower profile and increased manouverablity of small ships as well as account for specialised tech. For example the fact noone that doesn't have a stockpile can ever build hyperdrives.

This of course causes issues with training costs but then i'm not conviced those are needed anyway just increase an officers wage slightly if you need the stellar sink still.

Wouldn't the classification of who controls what change from affiliation to affiliation. Some affiliations standard 'fisher protection' would be 200hulls.