Re: Realistic Mothership Battles
Posted: Sat Oct 18, 2008 7:19 am
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:
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.
I don't quite understand your following point:
Lore wrote: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.