Realistic Mothership Battles

[Wolf359]

I didn't bypass your reasoning or question at all. I simply think that it is logical that if you add more systems to a ship - and let's get real here for a second, we're talking about hundreds of thousands of weapons, shields and hangars in some cases - then it will significantly increase the size and/or detectability of that ship, in turn making it easier to target and hit.

I don't quite understand your following point:

All MS are the same price and have the same cost so I always assumed they were of basicly the same size and do not change sizes, if that were the case then why is there not a MS size tech like there is on planets?

Yes - I would agree, all MS are the same size when bought - but to suggest something doesn't change size when you add thousands upon thousands of weapons systems to it is ridiculous. Don't see what a size tech has to do with anything - it is not the basic structure of the MS that changes - it is the addition of the thousands of additional weapons that increase the size and configuration - although - maybe there should be a size tech to allow you to add additional weapons.... that makes perfect sense and should probably be implemented. However, the other argument could be that size tech is essentially the cost of the 'weapons capacity' or 'hangar' - the very names 'weapons capacity', 'shield capacity' and 'hangar would tend to imply that you are modifying the size and configuration of your mothership in order to accommodate more weapons systems and ships.

Frankly - I think it is more than reasonable to assume that a MS starts out looking like a bare ship (because there's nothing to suggest otherwise), and gets bigger the more weapons you add to it. It isn't really a MS until you start adding hangars is it?

Again - injecting realism - if you add a weapon to a ship - although the actual weapon itself may only be '10 feet long' on the surface - you need to add power systems, targetting systems, support systems etc. This is why in a lot of today's military ship's and aircraft end up a lot bigger than originally intended, because of the weapons systems and capabilities that are required, and the support systems for those capabilities. Sometimes there is a trade off and militaries' decided not to add certain things, in order to keep size down.

All this aside - my original point still stands - just because something is more powerful, it doesn't mean that it should necessarily have less damage done against it, as we can reasonably assume that (because technologies are considered comparable) that a more powerful ship = bigger ship - and something that is bigger (and logic would dictate that a ship with more weapon/defensive systems, and more hangars is bigger than a ship with fewer of those capabilities - and more detectable, irrelevant of size) is easier to hit than something that is smaller - and therefore it is reasonable to assume that more hits will be scored against it. Where it perhaps goes wrong is in the way in which it is implemented.

[ramen07]

It kind of makes sense - smaller armies being more difficult to hit than bigger ones - i.e. if you had an army of 1 man running with machine guns blazing towards an army of 10,000, the chances are that he'll destroy more of the enemy before they actually destroy him.

Then again, the army of 10,000 could shoot a quarter mile spread with their guns and kill him before he has time to kill many.

[Wolf359]

Assuming he was detected - and detecting one man is harder than detecting 10,000 - as proved time and time again in REAL combat!

[Lore]

I guess my sticking point is all tied up in

1 What size is a bare MS?
2 What size are weapons?
3 What size are shields?
4 What size are Hangers?

Right now I still see your agrument resulting in a MS with 10K weapons on front, 10K shields on back, and 1/2 mile of open hull in the middle.

I also dont understand your thinking on "shrinking" MS. Using your own example, do military plains and equipment come back from war 1/2 the size they were to begin with? or simple come back with holes in them and systems not working due to damage recieved?


Gues my point is, isnt a MS so large and massive upon building that it can accept the weapons and shields and hangers? I mean I assume it would be build with these things in mind. I seriously doubt the militart takes a 1 engine sestna(2 man plane) and adds weapons to it to increase its size, on the contrary to start with something big enough to accomodate what your adding to it. So you would start with a 747 not a sestna.

Look at a troop transport, it has no weapons, but a storage area. Add one man with a gun, it is now armed, but size has not increased. Now add another armed man, weapondry has doubled but size still has not increased. Now ad 2 armed men, again weapondry has doubled but size has remained constant.

Guess its just our thinking about MS size and weapon size. To me your adding a bump to the hull, not adding 10 foot to the overall length.

I conclude my argument.

[Morbius2271]

Look at a troop transport, it has no weapons, but a storage area. Add one man with a gun, it is now armed, but size has not increased. Now add another armed man, weapondry has doubled but size still has not increased. Now ad 2 armed men, again weapondry has doubled but size has remained constant.

I hardly consider a man with a machine gun much use in combat tho, its a weak weapon. A MS is using powerful and most likely large weapons. Think more of the WWII Flying fortress. It carried many large AA turrets, increasing it's size. We have similar aircraft nowadays that carry large weapons, such as howitzer canons, and other large and powerful weapons. would not a weapon that could do so much damage increase the size of the vessel? it may not make it longer, but it will make it bigger. Don't think of length only, MSs are 3d, they expand in all directions

[Lore]

Look at a troop transport, it has no weapons, but a storage area. Add one man with a gun, it is now armed, but size has not increased. Now add another armed man, weapondry has doubled but size still has not increased. Now ad 2 armed men, again weapondry has doubled but size has remained constant.

I hardly consider a man with a machine gun much use in combat tho, its a weak weapon. A MS is using powerful and most likely large weapons. Think more of the WWII Flying fortress. It carried many large AA turrets, increasing it's size. We have similar aircraft nowadays that carry large weapons, such as howitzer canons, and other large and powerful weapons. would not a weapon that could do so much damage increase the size of the vessel? it may not make it longer, but it will make it bigger. Don't think of length only, MSs are 3d, they expand in all directions

So the original size of the ship cant compensate for 1 single weapon?


Like I said, the difference seems to be everyones idea of the original MS size is different

[Wolf359]

I guess my sticking point is all tied up in

1 What size is a bare MS?
2 What size are weapons?
3 What size are shields?
4 What size are Hangers?

Right now I still see your agrument resulting in a MS with 10K weapons on front, 10K shields on back, and 1/2 mile of open hull in the middle.

I also dont understand your thinking on "shrinking" MS. Using your own example, do military plains and equipment come back from war 1/2 the size they were to begin with? or simple come back with holes in them and systems not working due to damage recieved?

Gues my point is, isnt a MS so large and massive upon building that it can accept the weapons and shields and hangers? I mean I assume it would be build with these things in mind. I seriously doubt the militart takes a 1 engine sestna(2 man plane) and adds weapons to it to increase its size, on the contrary to start with something big enough to accomodate what your adding to it. So you would start with a 747 not a sestna.

Look at a troop transport, it has no weapons, but a storage area. Add one man with a gun, it is now armed, but size has not increased. Now add another armed man, weapondry has doubled but size still has not increased. Now ad 2 armed men, again weapondry has doubled but size has remained constant.

Guess its just our thinking about MS size and weapon size. To me your adding a bump to the hull, not adding 10 foot to the overall length.

I conclude my argument.

Lore, without wanting to sound derogatory - I'm not sure what your argument is - and I think you've misunderstood a lot of what I've said.

Length has nothing to do with it - adding weapons systems etc increases overall size - not just length. That is a fact. Add something to something and it's size becomes bigger - laws of physics and all that gubbings! Additionally - these things require power - making it's electromagnetic signature (or equivalent) bigger, meaning it is more detectable.

I also dont understand your thinking on "shrinking" MS. Using your own example, do military plains and equipment come back from war 1/2 the size they were to begin with? or simple come back with holes in them and systems not working due to damage recieved?

What the heck are you talking about? Who mentioned shrinking MS or half size military planes? I was talking about in teh design and build stage of military planes/ships (of which I have been involved in twice for UK Naval warships). You start off with a basic ship or plane shape. You then decide what weapon and defence systems you want to add to it - in an ideal and perfect situation. Ideally, we'd want to add everything we could to it - but this would mean having to build a plane or ship that is considerably bigger (not just size increased by the additions of all the additional systems, but increased size of the actual basic shape in order that these systems can be added). Eventually, a compromise is reached in which we have a reasonably armed ship/plane, without having to significantly increase it size - it's a trade off - lose some systems to keep the size as small as possible. Nobody said anything about a plane coming back half it's size because of firing weapons - that's just ridiculous. The size of equipment such as ships and planes is based on the capabilities it can deliver. therefore, it is logical that if you add more capability, i.e. more weapons, defensive systems and hangars, then the base size of a MS increases.

Gues my point is, isnt a MS so large and massive upon building that it can accept the weapons and shields and hangers? I mean I assume it would be build with these things in mind. I seriously doubt the militart takes a 1 engine sestna(2 man plane) and adds weapons to it to increase its size, on the contrary to start with something big enough to accomodate what your adding to it. So you would start with a 747 not a sestna.

That might be your point - but I would disagree - and once again you have missed the point by what you say about adding weapons to increase size. Equipment is built to accommodate a limited capability; therefore, if you want to increase this capability, the dimensions and configuration of that equipment (plane or ship) need to change significantly. As far as I can tell - MS capability is unlimited, which would imply that to add further weapons, shields, hangars, you would also increase the size of the MS. Otherwise we are talking about MS that is unlimited in size and internal space - which is impossible.

Look at a troop transport, it has no weapons, but a storage area. Add one man with a gun, it is now armed, but size has not increased. Now add another armed man, weaponry has doubled but size still has not increased. Now ad 2 armed men, again weapondry has doubled but size has remained constant.

Guess its just our thinking about MS size and weapon size. To me your adding a bump to the hull, not adding 10 foot to the overall length.

That seems to be backtracking massively as it was you who brought up adding 10 feet to length, nobody else. I would agree you're adding a bump to a hull - but add a few hundred thousand bumps to a hull and you're telling me that that would not significantly increase the size of the vessel?

As I said before - I view the adding of slots/hangars as being the same as increasing the capability, and thus size of the vessel. You cannot add further wepaons etc beyond the capability until you further upgrade the capability. Increased capability => increased size => easier to hit.

I think this whole argument has got massively out of proportion now to tell the truth.

[Lore]

Lore, without wanting to sound derogatory - I'm not sure what your argument is - and I think you've misunderstood a lot of what I've said.
No worries mate, and I'll agree there is either a misunderstanding or we just simply see things differently in the "base" argument.

Lets break this down because some of it is incorrect
Length has nothing to do with it - adding weapons systems etc increases overall size - not just length. That is a fact.Incorrect, perfect example is the troop transport. adding 4,6, or 8 armed men does not increase its size at all, it does increase its "mass". Look at a refrigerater box. You can add alot of "stuff" "in" it but its size does not increase Add something to something and it's size becomes bigger - laws of physics and all that gubbings!Explained above this therory is completely incorrect, IF, notice the big if, IF the original size of the MS is great enough to house the weapons capasities Additionally - these things require power - making it's electromagnetic signature (or equivalent) bigger, meaning it is more detectable.Now this point I can fully see and agree with

I also dont understand your thinking on "shrinking" MS. Using your own example, do military plains and equipment come back from war 1/2 the size they were to begin with? or simple come back with holes in them and systems not working due to damage recieved?

What the heck are you talking about? Who mentioned shrinking MS or half size military planes? I was talking about in teh design and build stage of military planes/ships (of which I have been involved in twice for UK Naval warships). You start off with a basic ship or plane shape. You then decide what weapon and defence systems you want to add to it - in an ideal and perfect situation. Ideally, we'd want to add everything we could to it - but this would mean having to build a plane or ship that is considerably bigger (not just size increased by the additions of all the additional systems, but increased size of the actual basic shape in order that these systems can be added). Eventually, a compromise is reached in which we have a reasonably armed ship/plane, without having to significantly increase it size - it's a trade off - lose some systems to keep the size as small as possible. Nobody said anything about a plane coming back half it's size because of firing weapons - that's just ridiculous. The size of equipment such as ships and planes is based on the capabilities it can deliver. therefore, it is logical that if you add more capability, i.e. more weapons, defensive systems and hangars, then the base size of a MS increases.Again its the beginning size that is the desrepancy,,, I look at MS like those on independancy day the movie. Truely massive to begin with and able to house the systems inside with no signifigant increase to overall size.

The shrink part comes from your thinking. If increasing weapons count increases size then why does decreasing weapons count decrease the size?

The entire problem being discussed is when a weaker ship destroys more shields then it has weapons because the stronger ship "has so many"

May be my way of thinking seems to me more shield versus the same attack power should equal Less damage, not more. i always kinna felt like 1 shot took out 1 shield, but thats not the case, 1 shot can take out multiple shields

Gues my point is, isnt a MS so large and massive upon building that it can accept the weapons and shields and hangers? I mean I assume it would be build with these things in mind. I seriously doubt the militart takes a 1 engine sestna(2 man plane) and adds weapons to it to increase its size, on the contrary to start with something big enough to accomodate what your adding to it. So you would start with a 747 not a sestna.

That might be your point - but I would disagree - and once again you have missed the point by what you say about adding weapons to increase size. Equipment is built to accommodate a limited capability; therefore, if you want to increase this capability, the dimensions and configuration of that equipment (plane or ship) need to change significantly. As far as I can tell - MS capability is unlimited, which would imply that to add further weapons, shields, hangars, you would also increase the size of the MS. Otherwise we are talking about MS that is unlimited in size and internal space - which is impossible.Well again my point is, the ship is so big to begin with that the small addition don't change the overall size signifigantly

Look at a troop transport, it has no weapons, but a storage area. Add one man with a gun, it is now armed, but size has not increased. Now add another armed man, weaponry has doubled but size still has not increased. Now ad 2 armed men, again weapondry has doubled but size has remained constant.

Guess its just our thinking about MS size and weapon size. To me your adding a bump to the hull, not adding 10 foot to the overall length.

That seems to be backtracking massively as it was you who brought up adding 10 feet to length, nobody else. I would agree you're adding a bump to a hull - but add a few hundred thousand bumps to a hull and you're telling me that that would not significantly increase the size of the vessel?if a few hundred thousand bumps did not make up 25% of the "bare" hull then yes exactly

As I said before - I view the adding of slots/hangars as being the same as increasing the capability, and thus size of the vessel. You cannot add further wepaons etc beyond the capability until you further upgrade the capability. Increased capability => increased size => easier to hit.
if that is true then explain the troop transport senerio.

I think this whole argument has got massively out of proportion now to tell the truth.

I just think our thought pattern and reasoning are totally different, and neither is right or wrong. If conclusive proof is offered as to size and what it takes to put systems on then it will be clearly defined and visible and all is good.

[Wolf359]

LOL - this is really getting out of hand now!

Incorrect, perfect example is the troop transport. adding 4,6, or 8 armed men does not increase its size at all, it does increase its "mass". Look at a refrigerater box. You can add alot of "stuff" "in" it but its size does not increase

we're not talking about a troop transport and putting guns inside it, are we? We're talking about adding limitless weapons and defence systems and hangars to a MS without it seemingly increasing in size. You seem to forget that a troop transport is designed to carry troops and their weapons - therefore, one would expect it's size not to increase; in opposition, the MS is not designed to have limitless weapons systems etc added to it - if it was, you would not have to buy additional weapons capacity, shield capacity and hangars. You buy a MS as bare bones - you then have to add the capacity to add weapons etc before you can actually add them - this implies modification to the ship itself. And since the number of weapons you can add appears to be limitless, it would imply that the modifications are limitless, and thus the increase in size is limitless.

Explained above this therory is completely incorrect, IF, notice the big if, IF the original size of the MS is great enough to house the weapons capasities

You've shot yourself in the foot there - the MS original size IS NOT enough to house the weapons capacities - the very fact you have to purchase the weapons capacity before you can add the weapon indicates that.

Again its the beginning size that is the desrepancy,,, I look at MS like those on independancy day the movie. Truely massive to begin with and able to house the systems inside with no signifigant increase to overall size.

But as said above - if the original ship is big enough to house these things already, why do we need to purchase further capacity first? Your reasoning would also suggest that the MS is infinitely large, as there would appear to be no limit as to the capacity of a MS.

The shrink part comes from your thinking. If increasing weapons count increases size then why does decreasing weapons count decrease the size?

Show me any part in any piece of text where I said about an MS shrinking in size.... I stated that in design stages of building real warships etc - you start off with a basic platform, then you think about what weapons systems you would like - and you add those. Then you need to think about what support systems and power systems those weapons have - and you realise that actually, the original size of the vessel you envisaged is not big enough. You calculate how much bigger the ship needs to be in order to properly house the weapons systems, and find that it will need to be (for example) three times the size as originally envisaged. This is deemed as unacceptable - for a number of reasons, amongst them being the fact that it will present a bigger visible target. Somebody then suggests that at the most the ship can be twice it's original design size. So the designers and capability boffins then need to decide which systems they are going to sacrifice, i.e. do without, in order to limit the size of the ship within the required size.

I never once mentioned motherships shrinking. They can only ever get bigger - and that is through the purchase of additional capacity, rather than weapons.

The entire problem being discussed is when a weaker ship destroys more shields then it has weapons because the stronger ship "has so many"

I know - and I simply pointed out that it kind of makes sense if you think about a smaller ship being less difficult to hit than a bigger one - i.e. the smaller ship should be able to land more hits on the big ship (and can't actually believe it has led to this). Additionally - I don't believe it is 'more shields than weapons', as the weapons you buy on an MS are not individual weapons, but weapons systems. If they were individual weapons, then we'd have to constantly replenish them all after every encounter. A weapons system is capable of firing over and over again.

May be my way of thinking seems to me more shield versus the same attack power should equal Less damage, not more. i always kinna felt like 1 shot took out 1 shield, but thats not the case, 1 shot can take out multiple shields

As I said above - it is weapons systems, not weapons. But I do agree that whatever it is, the coding of how MS battles works is flawed.

Well again my point is, the ship is so big to begin with that the small addition don't change the overall size signifigantly

if a few hundred thousand bumps did not make up 25% of the "bare" hull then yes exactly

But again - in this case of this game, this would only work if the MS was infinitely big - and I go back to having the need to purchase capacity before purchasing weapons.

if that is true then explain the troop transport senerio.

I have - troop transports are designed to carry troops and their weapons - however, if you wanted to add attached weaponry to a troop transport then you would have to either:

a) increase it's overall size to mount the weaponry and house the weapons support systems/ammunition cache.

or,

b) house the supports systems, ammunition cache within the existing structure of the troop carrier - which would reduce it's effectiveness as a troop carry, seeing as though it would not now be able to carry as many troops. It's like i was talking about for warship design - it's a trade-off/compromise between size/capability.

I just think our thought pattern and reasoning are totally different, and neither is right or wrong. If conclusive proof is offered as to size and what it takes to put systems on then it will be clearly defined and visible and all is good.

I agree as to the first bit. But conclusive proof? Difficult either way mate, but I'd say that the most tell-tale sign that a MS does not have the capacity to house all these systems inside it from the time it is purchased, and thus that it does increase in size the more weapons you buy, is that you have to purchase the capacity before you purchase the weapons.

[TheRook]

Hyperion uses its Nuclear Volley to inflict 2,624,550,000 damage, destroying 13 Energy Shields on sempifi!
Blowing through the extended shield defenses, it also destroyed 18 Energy Volley, and totally destroyed 1 fleets!
CommandoDude's Hyperion adds 454,093,000 additional attack onto their ground troops!

sempifi uses its Energy Volley to inflict 649,467,000 damage, destroying 6 Energy Shields on Hyperion!
Blowing through the extended shield defenses, it also destroyed 53 Nuclear Volley, and downed 20 fleets!

^ 359,280,000 Additional Defence

I mean, Common! Look how much more damage I delt then them, and I took worse damaged every time. Add the fact that I'm Tuari, and the others weren't Asgard.

You need more shields... if you had more shields he would not have blown through your extended shield defences and hurt your weapons/fleets... perhaps reworking your MS is in order rather than changing the whole system?

TheRook

[Colton]

I think motherships need to be majorly changed. Today I got hit by a mothership with 1/5 of my strike/defence.. It killed off more of my stuff than I killed of it.. So I spent however many trils on my MS while he spent maybe 300b on his, but I'm the one who lost more? I think if you have 1/5 or some percentage of their MS you shouldn't even be able to touch their MS >_>