I feel like command capacity isn't based as much on technology as it is on the resources of a faction to be able to support said fleet. Theoretically, if you're already at the point of being able to launch interstellar warships, it would have been able to command things like Sea Vessels effectively. Then there comes the issue of integrating the rest of the technology into this system. Some power systems don't require fuel for "100 years," specifically, Gen V Nuclear Reactors. Same with propulsion, QVT and QSD don't require any kind of fuel for propulsion, which would greatly lessen their resupply requirements out of combat, even in combat if they primarily use lasers as weaponry. And then there's the Slipstream Drive which essentially negates all non-combat resupply, and greatly delays maintenance from travel thanks to the time dilation effect. This is just my impression on the implications of implementing such a system.
Even in the darkest of night there is a light to the lost.
Post by Sliprunner on Sept 30, 2016 17:21:40 GMT -6
Just because I can spitball numbers, I shall (note-these numbers are completely irrelevant unless you are supplying deep space shipyards)
Mining Ship Efficiency: Processed Materials (1/2 ship size) @ Supply = Efficiency Battleships: 2.5 @ 16 = 6.4 supply per 1 materials Battlecruisers: 2 @ 8 = 4 supply per 1 materials Cruisers: 1.5 @ 4 = 2.6 supply per 1 materials Destroyers: 1 @ 2 = 2 supply per 1 materials Frigates: 0.5 @ 1 = 2 supply per 1 materials Corvettes: 0.25 @ 0.5 = 2 supply per 1 materials (This is easily fixed by a global rule of 2 supply per 1 materials, or could be kept as is)
Outside of this, I can also chime in the following.
In the current setup, supply requirements are quadratic, while ship capabilities are linear. While a Gen I Destroyer isn't as powerful as a Gen I Battlecruiser, as the later has heavier armor and firepower, but you can produce two destroyers in the time of the one battlecruiser. Under this supply system the 2 destroyers, with a supply of 2, only cost 4 supply compared to the battlecruisers 8. An additional 2 destroyers to match the supply and you have 4 destroyers facing a single battlecruiser. Supply wise this makes sense, but under ship design, the four destroyers while caring weaker armor and firepower, also are four separate targets to engage. Additionally the 4 destroyers can easily have enough variety to counter the single battlecruiser (See: E-War) which makes the battlecruiser a consistently poor choice. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it does bring to mind that once you've reached capital ships, the cost keeps doubling for supply, meaning 2 battlecruisers to a single battleship, when the battleship in question is only a minor improvement over the battlecruisers; however, having higher generation ships and even advanced shipyards can augment this (as in the ra-noth vs anything case)
Presently the absolute caps for DP per ship type, with all techs (normally, as in whats on the industry) available, and a best case shipyard, is as follows (Supply efficiency in brackets) Corvette: 75DP [150DP @ 1 supply] Frigates: 320DP [320DP @ 1 supply] Destroyers: 520DP [260DP @ 1 supply] Cruisers: 720DP [180DP @ 1 supply] Battlecruisers: 782DP [97.75DP @ 1 supply] Battleships: 840DP [52.5DP @ 1 supply]
In terms of Gen 1 ship types, without shipyard (but at max posts, including the 2 techs) Corvette: 75DP [150DP @ 1 supply] Frigates: 160DP [160DP @ 1 supply] Destroyers: 260DP [130DP @ 1 supply] Cruisers: 360DP [90DP @ 1 supply] Battlecruisers: 460DP [57.5DP @ 1 supply] Battleships: 560DP [35DP @ 1 supply]
While the larger ships (Battlecruiser/Battleship) have much heavier armor and weapons, making them harder to destroy while dishing out more damage, they also are far less efficient to deploy. Finally the efficiency with relevant supply tech. Corvette: 75DP [150DP @ 1 supply] | 75DP [150DP @ 1 supply] Frigates: 320DP [400DP @ 1 supply] | 160DP [200DP @ 1 supply] Destroyers: 520DP [325DP @ 1 supply] | 260DP [162.5DP @ 1 supply] Cruisers: 720DP [225DP @ 1 supply] | 360DP [112.5DP @ 1 supply] Battlecruisers: 782DP [122.1875DP @ 1 supply] | 460DP [71.875DP @ 1 supply] Battleships: 840DP [65.625DP @ 1 supply] | 560DP [43.75DP @ 1 supply]
Note: I'll edit this with more information after thinking on this more Edit: after having taken a week to think on it. I have additional input to give.
The system as it is, works in theory but not practice. It promotes value in ships by limiting how many ships you can have, so each battle you know what you're commuting; However, what it fails to cover is that the value of a ship is irrelevant after the battle, as it is simply a matter of time to replace losses. I feel that in this sense what you want to accomplish is better suited by limiting the means of production, that is, how many ships you can produce at a given time. Maintaining fleets is rather minimal compared to the effort required to build them. For example, my Rak'Toras battleships are considerably valuable not because of time to build them or how few I have, but because I can ill afford to replace them. Each one lost is lost for some time due to material shortages. Meanwhile, things like my Rak'Skar, a cruiser built with a cheaper more affordable armor composite are far less valuable, as I can afford to replace them several times over compared to even a single Rak'Toras.
As such, I do offer this line of thought. (These numbers have not been fully evaluated yet)
Base Resource Income (In Units): 30 (Provided by Homeworld) For Each Coreworld: +6 For Each Shellworld: +3 You can only receive additional income from 10 additional worlds/systems. A special 'repeating' technology can increase this limit. This largely represents how your empire can only use so much of its available economic power before logistics breaks down.
Stellar Logistics Tier N/A | Post Count 5 + (5 per time taken before) | Prereq: N/A Improvements to logistical structures, by both government work and civilian investment, have improved your empires ability to route supply lines. You may receive income from 1 additional world.
Income from Mining Ships-(In Units) Corvette: 0.25 Frigate: 0.5 Destroyer: 1 Cruiser: 1.5 Battlecruiser: 2 Battleship: 2.5 Dreadnought: 3
Last Edit: Oct 7, 2016 21:56:56 GMT -6 by Sliprunner
If you have questions regarding the DP system, Contact Me If you want to lodge a complaint about something, Contact Deshara If Des is unavailable for lodging complaints, Contact Pierre If you are hoping for sane conversation, Contact your Therapist
augh no do we really need another system in GC and there's the issue of implementation i don't think anyone wants to research battlecruisers and have to spend another 45 posts researching the technology that allows you to use them to get a decent supply system we'd need to set up a colonization system and by then we'd just be doing play-by-post spreadsheet spaceships instead of an RP
Post by Lord Kyle Deshara on Oct 20, 2016 11:49:30 GMT -6
A nice alternative presented in that edit, slip. It probably would've been better to actually make a second post for people to actually see it.
The issue with actually doing that alternative however is that it's got a heavier workload to it. A lot of our logistics system ideas have boiled down to the construction of vessels before - but I believe this is probably a bit easier for one to maintain than most of THOSE ideas. I'm already looking into writing proper fluff for Cali's technologies and re-weighing the numbers for it thanks to your non-military fleet..but you need to present a little more on it...and show that it's worth the actual effort this would have over the ship cap logi.
GC Series Director Deshara
Always look to the stars, you may find more there than you have ever dreamed of. Beyond our own star is a beautiful world, an infinite expanse for us to explore and view ever full of wonders.
Post by flightoficarus on Oct 20, 2016 22:14:51 GMT -6
I like this idea. However, I noticed there's no discussion of mothballed vessels. There's two things we could do with this. Mothballed vessels could cost 0 points while not in service. Or they could have a cost reduction. I think we should do the former so people can build a reserve. Also, maybe add a rule where it takes posts to put a ship back into service so people can't just instantly replace losses.