Page 17 of 19

Re: Draft Hull Table

PostPosted: Sun 07 Apr 2013 07:17
by Crucis
OK, here's where the hull table stands at this moment.

NOTE 1: The Corvette would be an IND-2 hull, *IF* there's IND-2 drive. Otherwise, it'd be an TL1 hull.

NOTE 2: I'm uncertain about hulls larger than SD. Or for that matter hulls larger than SMT, though those are quite high in TL and can be ignored for now.

NOTE 3: The TL's for the Warship types generally look pretty good. There's a nice progression to them. OTOH, the TL's for the Carriers are rather iffy, and probably should be left up in the air for now.



Hull TypeTech LevelMax Size(I/Ic/J) I/MP
Warship Hulls
CTIND-2 or TL1151/2
FGTL1301
DDTL2451-1/2
CLTL3602
CATL4752-1/2
BCTL5903
BBTL61204
DNTL81505
SDTL101806
MT ?TL122408
SMT ?TL1430010
Hull TypeTech LevelMax Size(I/Ic/J) I/MP
Carrier Hulls
CVETL8 ?451-1/2
CVLTL8 ?602
CVS (Strike Carrier)TL9 ?752-1/2
CVTL9 ?903
CVATL10 ?1204
CVH (Heavy Carrier)TL12 ?1505
Hull TypeTech LevelMax Size(I/Ic/J) I/MP


That's all for now...

Re: Draft Hull Table

PostPosted: Sun 07 Apr 2013 07:31
by AlexeiTimoshenko
The carriers up to CV look good IMO. The hulls that they are based on can hit speed 6 with (I). CVA and CVH may need to be looked at, but I for one would rather concentrate on things up to HT9 now, in order to get the system rolling.

Re: Draft Hull Table

PostPosted: Sun 07 Apr 2013 16:32
by SCC
Shouldn't Carrier hulls become available at the same time as the Warship hulls their based on? Or at least not so long afterwards

Re: Draft Hull Table

PostPosted: Sun 07 Apr 2013 17:08
by Dawn Falcon
I'd prefer a basic principle that they became available at base SL+2/3 for the hull type myself.

(The technology to create them might be an item of research in itself of course...)

Re: Draft Hull Table

PostPosted: Sun 07 Apr 2013 18:22
by Crucis
SCC wrote:Shouldn't Carrier hulls become available at the same time as the Warship hulls their based on? Or at least not so long afterwards


Dawn Falcon wrote:I'd prefer a basic principle that they became available at base SL+2/3 for the hull type myself. (The technology to create them might be an item of research in itself of course...)



If you don't know the slightest thing about fighters or the fact that such a technology existed, why should a DD-sized CVE be available at the same TL as a DD or even +2 or +3 EL's after that? In either case, you're talking about knowing how to build a ship for a technology that you don't have the slightest knowledge about, or what requirements such a technology might place on a new ship type.

NOTE: I'm only talking about Fighter carriers here, not jump carriers. IMO, Transit carriers and fighter carriers are two completely different animals.

That said, I'm also not a big fan of transit carriers because unless jump drives have the range to jump into the system at a fairly considerable distance from the WP, jumping into the teeth of a WP's defenses makes jump carriers into rather suicidal ships to use, depending on how much of the ship is left to mount defenses and weapons, after mounting engines and transit racks. They also seem as though they'd place a great cost burden on anyone trying to use them in this manner. OTOH, if one is just mounting jump drives onto the warships themselves, this calculus is very, very different, since the user doesn't need to pay for a separate carrier ship to make the jump.

But I digress...

If Transit Carriers are in the mix, their existence would have to be limited in the same way as fighter carriers. You would have no knowledge of the requirements of a transit carrier prior to the existence of jump engines and/or transit racks.

Re: Draft Hull Table

PostPosted: Mon 08 Apr 2013 10:37
by Dawn Falcon
Crucis wrote:If you don't know the slightest thing about fighters or the fact that such a technology existed, why should a DD-sized CVE be available at the same TL as a DD or even +2 or +3 EL's after that?


Again, carrier hull tech in general would need specific research.

Re: Draft Hull Table

PostPosted: Mon 08 Apr 2013 15:47
by AlexeiTimoshenko
If we're going to stay close to Classic then there isn't much difference in hull form between carriers and non carriers. The big change is with CVA/CVH as those base hulls are slower. Remember that any race building carriers already has experience with launch/landing smct via boat bays. I would say that carrier hulls would need to be prototyped though.

Re: Draft Hull Table

PostPosted: Mon 08 Apr 2013 17:58
by Crucis
AlexeiTimoshenko wrote:If we're going to stay close to Classic then there isn't much difference in hull form between carriers and non carriers. The big change is with CVA/CVH as those base hulls are slower. Remember that any race building carriers already has experience with launch/landing smct via boat bays. I would say that carrier hulls would need to be prototyped though.



A. I wouldn't say that there isn't "much difference" between carriers and non-carriers. A lot of the difference will be unseen and internal. But generally, Classic SF's carriers have been portrayed as looking rather similar to a certain famous sci-fi carrier, complete with hanger bay "pods" extending from the sides of the ship.


B. CVA's and CVH's may or may not be slower. If they are, that honestly doesn't bother me greatly. Even if there's something akin to Ultra/Solar's "fast hull" concept, CVA's and CVH's would still be slower than smaller carriers, if all were built on "fast hulls". Honestly, this is one of those things that I'll worry about at a later date.


C. I am not a fan of the prototyping rules. I've said it before and I'll say it many times again, I'm a fan of a faster paced game than many people, and I find the prototyping rules to serve one purpose and one purpose only ... to slow the game down. Overall, I find the idea that I'm gonna spend something like 15-20 turns to get to a new EL/TL and THEN have to build a prototype at half the build rate (or double the size, which amounts to the same result) of a normal ship build amazingly annoying.

Re: Draft Hull Table

PostPosted: Mon 08 Apr 2013 19:41
by AlexeiTimoshenko
Increased build time for prototype hulls isn't something that I'm fond of. Somewhat increased costs OTOH for the hull itself (not the systems installed) would seem to be reasonable.

Re: Draft Hull Table

PostPosted: Tue 09 Apr 2013 11:35
by Dawn Falcon
Crucis wrote:C. I am not a fan of the prototyping rules.


So push out the hulls a bit further :P

Honestly, there does seem to be a clump at TL2-6, which is why some types like CL won't be built much if you don't need to prototype. Remember, if we're not following the cannon history, we don't need to use quite the same tech progression either, and I'd argue for pushing some items back and forward too.