+- Discovery Gaming Community (https://discoverygc.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Discovery Development (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Forum: Discovery Developers Forum (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=183)
+---- Forum: Discovery Unofficial Development (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=389)
+----- Forum: Discovery Mod Content Submissions (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=33)
+----- Thread: Firefly replacement. Done on 27.10.2013 (/showthread.php?tid=95363)
RE: Firefly replacement. Done at 27.10.2013 - Croft - 10-29-2013
Second draft of the infocards, a new direction and a bit more polish, any and all feedback is welcome.
Serenity
At the height of the Gallic Invasion Bretonia’s vital supply lines to Liberty came under fire by Gallic forces with the lumbering armoured transports quickly becoming fodder for the invader’s swift and agile fighters. To counteract the increasing number of damaged convoys a new type of blockade runner was required, one that was fast and could be easily repaired, the Serenity.
Adopting the mass produced pre-fabricated construction pioneered on the Tranquility, it’s freighter class cousin, the Serenity could be manufactured cheaply using scrap metal and with the ability to replace entire sections of damage, be spaceborne long before it’s heavily armoured contemporaries would be combat ready.
The Serenity soon became a common sight on both sides of the law, traders praised it’s survivability and low maintenance while smugglers found the plethora of hidden spaces to be invaluable.
Tranquility
Developed in Bretonia during the onset of the Gallic Invasion, the Tranquility represents a sizable departure from common freighter designs, chief among them, the weapon placement.
Forgoing the usual turret based defences, the Tranquility capitalises upon it’s unqiue fighter style structure by mounting a great number of forward firing guns. This however leaves the rear and flanks of the ship to be defended by a sparse few turrets forcing the pilot to adopt a flight style similar to that of a super heavy fighter.
Perhaps the most subtle difference of this ship lies in the method of it’s construction, the Tranquility pioneers a new technique by using cheap, mass produced pre-fabricated modules over standard component based manufacturing. This modular system allows damaged or faulty sections to be replaced rapidly and at a fraction of the cost, it is little wonder then that this ship has found it’s way to all the corners of Sirius.
RE: Firefly replacement. Done at 27.10.2013 - Highland Laddie - 10-29-2013
Serenity class transport. Good homage. I approve.
RE: Firefly replacement. Done at 27.10.2013 - Croft - 10-29-2013
The names are Swallow's, I just added the filler.
RE: Firefly replacement. Done at 27.10.2013 - kikatsu - 10-29-2013
Fantastic ship. And I am really liking the lore stuff you wrote for it, Croft.
RE: Firefly replacement. Done at 27.10.2013 - Croft - 10-30-2013
Cheers, I'm not 100% on how the cards read, they don't flow as well as I'd like.
The content seems to hit the targets I want, explaining who built it, why it was built and what it can do. The only issue in that department is explaining the modular construction, if I can find a more fluent way of describing it I think they'll be done.
RE: Firefly replacement. Done at 27.10.2013 - Syrus - 10-30-2013
I don't think a "modular" or "pre-fabricated modules" to be the best way how it'd be build. In a war where you lack materials damages would rather be patched out: a ship would have things easy to fix, easily reachable electronics and such for example, easy to replace hull panels and system parts. Replacing a whole module because of some damage sounds like a waste of materials / work and would probably rather be done in case of having way too much ressources, but not enough time to fix the issue properly on ships not made to be fixed by the crew themselves.
I'd consider the two ships (freighter and transport) to be rather ships which would be "patched up" rather than have "sections or modules be replaced". So, bit more like a Junker ship, who'd rather just weld on a new Hull Plate instead of replacing a chunk of their ship with a new part.
Pre-fabricated modules just sounds like a "massivly wasteful way of fixing stuff, when you got way too many ressources anyway and only care about the product being back up to 'looking like new' status in no time". That's at least how I feel about it. Overall I feel like the ship is a more cheaply, less "fancy" build ship, massproduced, easy to fix, but not the most "high-standard" vessel you can get. Bretonia would overall more focus on fixing old vessels, considering their much fewer ressources available per lore. In the war they'd probably resort to using parts of destroyed vessels for new ships and for fixing other vessels, as far as possible.
I mean, sure, in WW2 Germany also had prefabricated modules for U-Boats, but then again, they weren't replaced to repair them, but just used to build them in different places for various reasons, like enabling them to build the ships in many locations and assembling them quickly at the u-boat bunkers.
RE: Firefly replacement. Done at 27.10.2013 - Croft - 10-30-2013
Modular doesn't mean replacing entire sections of ship like chopping off an engine, it means modular in the same way a car body is modular. For examlpe if you get a scratch or small ding on a door you can repair it easily, if it's got mangled you can simply pop it off and replace it with one exactly the same.
Like I wrote, it has the ability to replace large sections of damage quickly, it doesn't mean you must remove huge sections to repair any damage.
RE: Firefly replacement. Done at 27.10.2013 - Syrus - 10-30-2013
It still feels more like Bretonia would rather try to fix stuff instead of having complete replacement modules just lying around in case that a ship gets damage: to replace the modules, modules must be available, lying around, stored away. Ressources unused. Hm...while I could imagine only in really heavy damage stuff getting replaced, I just can't think of them trying to replace anything "not ship-breaking" with a new module. As I said, I would rather imagine them try to fix it in any "cheaper" way possible than having lots of unused modules lying around for whenever a ship gets damaged.
Hull panels, electronics or other basic parts for example would be available more easily since "all ships" need them. Producing a module means only one ship can use them: either for the ship to be build, or for it to be fixed.
As I said, it feels wasteful to me.
RE: Firefly replacement. Done at 27.10.2013 - Echo 7-7 - 10-30-2013
I would actually suggest that a modular supply chain cuts long-term costs due to the expenses related to on-demand repairs. If the parts are available, you would just swap out the modules and go; damaged modules get sent back to the manufacturer or other third party for repair or recycling, thus re-entering the supply chain as a fixed component (at a discounted price compared to new module) or as raw material for new module production. Since module repair becomes somewhat independent of ship repair, the time that a single ship needs to spend docked is reduced - arguably the most valuable result for the Bretonian military.
That said, the Firefly has not been manufactured by the Bretonian Crown, or by a Crown-owned corporation. Provided that the design doesn't use parts only available in Bretonian factories, then the supply chain for associated repair materials would experience a degree of independence from the effects of the war (but not total independence - wars tend to have knock-on effects).
Croft, the infocard should avoid being too specific about turret placement and arcs, since they could potentially change in the future.
RE: Firefly replacement. Done at 27.10.2013 - Syrus - 10-30-2013
Trying to figure out what is actually cheaper ressource-wise or better is quite hard to be honest. Factors like "who builds the ship / modules" or "how many of those ships are there and who uses them" need to be specified first. That all defines whether it makes sense to have individuel repairs or whether partial replacements via modules is more useful.
The ships being build more independently is another factor ... if it is, modules could be exchanged easier without Bretonia suffering more ressource loss. I just feel like Bretonia would rather repair the bare minimum - or as much as necessary and as much as possible and then send the ships out again. A module-replacement also requires the industry behind it as well as the transport and supply line just for these specific modules. Unlike when having basic components ready, which could be used for different ships, even if they are not always absolutly fitting for it.
But heh, maybe I still see the modules as "big parts" and you consider them smaller or something. Maybe we just see it differently. I guess no matter if it has modules it could still be repaired as seen fit, just that if you have the modules needed available you can use that instead of slapping in some not so fitting replacement that you had to scavenge from some old other transport that was shot down two weeks ago. Anyway, just wanted to give some feedback on the card's text. Overall the freighter and the transport both look amazing (and not unfitting for Freelancer, since amazing ships quickly turn to "too much for good ol' FL"). And I guess the infocards can be "lived with", even if I feel like "modules are more a part of modern day wasteful car industry".