Loadout or More Ship Types?
- GrandpaTrout
- Topic Author
- Offline
- King of Space
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
_______________
It's my belief that these sheep are laborin' under the misapprehension that they're birds. Observe their behavior. Take for a start the sheeps' tendency to 'op about the field on their back legs. (off-screen baa-ing) Now witness their attempts to fly from tree to tree. Notice that they do not so much fly as...plummet.
_______________
Surgeon-General's Warning: Early test cases of Torn Stars have resulted in fatalities. The errors in the software should be gone by now. Hopefully.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- GrandpaTrout
- Topic Author
- Offline
- King of Space
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- GrandpaTrout
- Topic Author
- Offline
- King of Space
My first reaction was: Too complex. But really, it is very simple. And it removes the need to have a GUI. These two ideas work well together. 90% of the ship systems cannot be changed. But the weapons (the ones you really care about) can be changed.If the cargo is actually in minipods, how about going a step further and having weapons systems actually dock to the ship in game? An actual docking and attachment procdure? Perhaps depending on how the loadout is written, this could actually be a functional extension/requirement for it..?
For the sake of realism, I would prefer to limit the types of systems that can be switched out to those that fall within the bounds of reason. As you mentioned GrandpaTrout, replacing a system like aReactor Ring or something else that integral to the ship seems crazy. That might then limit us to things that could actually be docked externally to the ship.
And the code is very straight forward. Each weapon dock point must have an XYZ position in the ship INI file. And each weapon "pod" must have the XYZ position of the weapon subsim from the dock point. When the weapon pod is attached, a weapon subsim is added to the ship at the location of the addition of the two XYZ positions. When a weapon pod is detached, it removes it's matching subsim.
Only ship with these special docking points could change loadout, so it keeps the system controlled (we don't have to deal with testing this loadout on every NPC ship). Essentially, ships with a modular design can use modular weapons. Which is totally realistic.
Cap ship turrets would be handled by using dock on turrets. Essentially, all weapons become dock on turrets in a sense.
Can people live with the limitation of not changing all systems? I like the realism aspect of this idea. I can just see a loadout drone moving a subsim into attachment position.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
This just came to me: Suppose you don't make all external (and hence vulnerable =D) equipment weapons, eh? Why not, say, a powerful radar (or other sensor)..? Powerful ECM or maybe even ECCM, say (only fair if yer tossin' nukes methinks). Woo - makes me drool thinking about it! Mebbe external, dropaway (or not) fuel tanks, hm? I can see lots of stuff that could be coded as simple constants in the right place (ECM/ECCM range/power, fuel, radar range, etc. ), if I'm not mistaken. Perhaps instead of a weapon, you could choose additional hull armor for that area? I think that'd really make sense for a trader - lol.
On a less serious note, if you treat weapons as dockable... *sweat* You could pretty easily sim a "cargo" ship with weapons (missiles, fighters, guns, anything) at the cargo points instead of cargo, right? It's a mite extreme (and probably'd maneuver like a megafreighter with flu LOL) but the concept reminds me of both the old Starfleet Battles pencil & paper games and the "Honor Harrington" series of military sci-fi books by Louis McMaster Bujold. It's a pretty basic idea; just take any badass freight puller (or mebbe a capital ship) and tow or otherwise attach pods of fighters and/or weapons and/or ammo. Think of how many missile launchers a megafreighter would have o.O - eeeeek! It would make a LOT of sense for a smart freight-hauler to choose to replace some % of his cargo for additional protection. Especially those poor, raggedy independents out in the cold fringes...
I'd think that relatively few prospectors, tramp freighters, and the like would be satisfied without having at least ONE active weapon system under their personal control, you know? Especially with piracy rampant, it's human nature! Fighter escort's expensive, you always have trust issues (especially if yer a prospector =D ), and so on.
ANYway. I think that equipment "docking" change actually opens the game way, way up for current and future change. Thumbs up. ^^,
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- GrandpaTrout
- Topic Author
- Offline
- King of Space
I do like the idea of bulked up commercial ships as warships. Kind of like many of the first iron clads were often converted warships (and handled like it). Power generation and integration of targeting systems would be the main limitations. I could see such ships as being the only "capitol" ships availiable in The Barrens.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.