Allow unarmed capital ships as transports

[lIceColon]

In house laws and/or rules

Or if I'll take Liberty carrier to haul ore it will count as trading vessel too?

Allow unarmed capital ships as transports by making the rule

Code:

A capital ship if unarmed is considered a trade vessel within the rules

why not? Even RL has heavy armored cars for their important stuff

as long as we define "unarmed" properly, then I don't see the harm in allowing unarmed caps to be transports and liners- it's not like the 800 cargo space can be abused or powertraded or anything.

Personally I am thinking about the zoner nodock restrictions with zoner caps, and no I am not suggesting Nephilims flying over Manhattan, but a trader cruiser for example seems reasonable

---

No atmosphere? GTFO.
The propeller is the greatest invention of all time.

[SnakThree]

Battletransports with CAU6.

/thread

---

[lIceColon]

Battletransports with CAU6.

Aha, not really.
Battletrans shoots things
Battletrans are less sleek
Battletrans are weaker shields and armor
Battletrans unsuitable for liner purposes

---

No atmosphere? GTFO.
The propeller is the greatest invention of all time.

[Echo 7-7]

You know what's less suitable than a BTrans for passenger transport?

A Battleship.

---

There was a sig here, once.

[Laura C.]

as long as we define "unarmed" properly

Unarmed has only one meaning. Equipped with no arms.

Problem is balance. Despite cap has quite small cargo hold (less than two thousands), it can be unbalanced because of their massive hull so they will laugh at pirates and continue on the way. Hard to guess.

But even if it would be added to rules, I doubt any house would allow that anyway. They have no reason to allow this.

---

On a ragebreak. Or ragequit. Time will tell.

[Technogeist]

No thanks!

[sindroms]

Yoda-T

---

--------------
PSA: If you have been having stutter/FPS lag on Disco where it does not run as smoothly as other games, please look at the fix here: https://discoverygc.com/forums/showthrea...pid2306502
----------

[P1vas]

Any unarmed cap would die a quick and horrible death to charon PT.

---

User was banned for: creating alt to circumvent a ban
Time left: (Permanent)

[lIceColon]

You know what's less suitable than a BTrans for passenger transport?

A Battleship.

not really. think every star trek enterprise ever built- quite comfy imo

it can be unbalanced because of their massive hull so they will laugh at pirates and continue on the way. Hard to guess.

But even if it would be added to rules, I doubt any house would allow that anyway. They have no reason to allow this.

And pirates can laugh at their immensly small profit. Goes both ways and most players will not use this, only factions
and players with RP.

As for houses, it would mean a more secure economy and no more reason for traders to QQ about high cost cargo being pirated. The security (and luxury) and cargo capacity would be a tradeoff - a choice instead of a forced
"use CAU6 Shire to not die"

Besides unarmed caps fitted for cargo should be harmless as well. They have no reason not to to allow this.

---

No atmosphere? GTFO.
The propeller is the greatest invention of all time.

[Highland Laddie]

Let transports be transports. Let liners be liners. Let battleships be battleships.

You want to transport cargo unarmed in your battleship...good luck with that.

Here's the HEART of this matter:

Personally I am thinking about the zoner nodock restrictions with zoner caps, and no I am not suggesting Nephilims flying over Manhattan, but a trader cruiser for example seems reasonable

Zoner crap. Fly the stupid whale when transporting...and keep your pacifist capships out in the Omicrons where they belong. Q_Q

Edit: Okay..that last part was a bit mean. Sorry. No offense to you Zoners who don't keep looking for excuses to fly your fancy capship line everywhere.