+- Discovery Gaming Community (https://discoverygc.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Discovery Development (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Forum: Discovery Mod General Discussion (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=37)
+--- Thread: Armour upgrades (/showthread.php?tid=21993)
Armour upgrades - Stoat - 06-18-2009
Just a thought, but after seeing so many transports with Cap VII or VIII upgrades, how about restricting what kind of ship can mount certain upgrades? It doesn't make sense that all it takes up is cargo space. The sheer mass and volume of some of the larger cap upgrades should surely mean they can only be fitted warships that have the engine power to still manoeuver after they are fitted. So maybe
VIII - Battleships and Battlecruisers only
VII - Cruisers/Destroyers and above
VI - Gunboats and above
V - Liners and above
IV - Transports and above
III - Freighters and above
II - No restriction
I - No restriction
Go ahead, shoot me down.................
Edit: Slight change to the list to make what I mean clearer.
Armour upgrades - jammi - 06-18-2009
Sounds good, but that would add another layer of bureaucracy to the admin's job, because no doubt unless this was enforced people would just ignore it.
Anyway, if there's a trader fitted with a VIII it's their loss. I mean, they just wasted a silly amount of money and lost a lot of cargo space. There's also exceptions though, like for example Bowex's flagship. It's a Royal Liner and we intend to put a VIII upgrade on it at some point because it's not exactly a trade ship and it is our flagship which is supposed to have the CEO onboard.
Armour upgrades - Divine - 06-18-2009
' Wrote:...
VIII - Battleships and Battlecruisers only
VII - Cruisers/Destroyers
VI - Gunboats
V - Liners
IV - Transports
III - Freighters
II - No restriction
I - No restriction
...
Good idea, I actually support this.
Can we have a poll to vote?
Armour upgrades - n00bl3t - 06-18-2009
The cargo loss for the trader is compensated by the capital armour' extra protection. (Also, vice versa.)
Armour upgrades - tansytansey - 06-18-2009
Unless it can be implemented in a way that does not introduce new rules, then no. Meaning a Trader will be physically unable to mount a cap 8 armour even if he owns one.
But honestly I don't see why it's a problem if a trader mounts a cap 8. If a Gunboat captain can afford a cap 8 then sure, he can use one, same with a Dessie captain. Some Battleship captains can't afford cap 8 armour right off the bat, would they be allowed to mount cap 7 and 6 still?
So no, I don't think this is a good idea at all. Mostly because it needlessly nerfs Capital ships, and as a bomber pilot I like a challenge.
Armour upgrades - Divine - 06-18-2009
' Wrote:...
But honestly I don't see why it's a problem if a trader mounts a cap 8.
If a Gunboat captain can afford a cap 8 then sure, he can use one, same with a Dessie captain.
Some Battleship captains can't afford cap 8 armour right off the bat, would they be allowed to mount cap 7 and 6 still?
So no, I don't think this is a good idea at all. Mostly because it needlessly nerfs Capital ships, ...
So a truck with a tank-plating is a normal sight in your neighbourhood? (Trader)
Or you ever have seen a Police SWAT truck with the ability to gun-out a tank? (Gunship)
And yes, you would still be able to use as Battleship and Battlecruiser captain all Upgrades available.
As far as I read it, it is compatible downwards but not upwards.
Capship-nerf because of the Armour-plating restriction?
I dont think so, you may elaborate on an example why you think that way please.
Armour upgrades - ophidian - 06-18-2009
' Wrote:So no, I don't think this is a good idea at all. Mostly because it needlessly nerfs Capital ships, and as a bomber pilot I like a challenge.
Ermm... you want to challenge a battleship on one on one with a bomber o.O
Armour upgrades - Stoat - 06-18-2009
' Wrote:And yes, you would still be able to use as Battleship and Battlecruiser captain all Upgrades available.
As far as I read it, it is compatible downwards but not upwards.
Yup, that's the idea. I could have made that a bit clearer I guess
@ N00blet. I disagree. On a 5000 unit transport, the loss of a few hundred units to mount a cap VIII is nothing. Now if they lost half their cargo space, that actually might be something worth thinking about. You up for that happening? I'm not. I just don't think they should be physically able to mount them.
So here comes the poll...........................
' Wrote:Sounds good, but that would add another layer of bureaucracy to the admin's job, because no doubt unless this was enforced people would just ignore it.
Anyway, if there's a trader fitted with a VIII it's their loss. I mean, they just wasted a silly amount of money and lost a lot of cargo space. There's also exceptions though, like for example Bowex's flagship. It's a Royal Liner and we intend to put a VIII upgrade on it at some point because it's not exactly a trade ship and it is our flagship which is supposed to have the CEO onboard.
It may be your flagship, but it's still a Liner, not a Battleship. A Royal Liner should be a thing of luxury, not a clunking great uber-tank with walls 20' thick. In my opinion, of course!
Armour upgrades - Tomtomrawr - 06-18-2009
I like the sound of the idea, but implementing it will be hard.
More role-play is gained through the idea, but people will just ignore it.
Armour upgrades - Divine - 06-18-2009
@jammi:
Stoat has the point here regarding the Royal Liner.
A Capital Armour Upgrade 5 would be fine enough.
And as you said it is the ship where your CEO would be aboard, it should also be grouped with escort Fighters.
I f.e. will use a CAPAU5 on my Battleship, because there is really no need to build it much more heavier as it would be used for.
That said, I voted of course Yes.