There is a lot of flexibility built into the whole game. The points system is just a way to figure out construction cost and build times, as well as rough and dirty way to figure out battles. The big thing is how you describe and employ your ships. I have $50 destroyers that aren't very good against other capital ships since they're designed as flak ships to take out formations of enemy strike craft for example.
Another example is my Navalized version of the Thunderbolt fighter. The original Thunderbolt was designed for the Hiigaran Marine Corps and was a 3/$1 fighter. The Navy took the same basic design and made it hyperspace capable bringing it up to 2/$1, but if I had a Thunderbolt engage a Umerian cutter (also 2/$1) I would probably write the Thunderbolt as loosing after an intense fight since it's geared to engage other fighters not the more heavily armored and armed gunship style Cutters.
As for the 10-3/$1 fighters it once again really depends on how you write it. Since the Eoghans seem to be a smaller race it's quite conceivable that their 10/$1 fighters are manned. Hell you could even have 10/$1 manned fighters with humans or Bragulans piloting them, their just going to be really dinky fighters compared to a 4/$1 fighter.
Re: SDN Worlds 4 Commentary Thread IV
Posted: 2010-12-08 04:56pm
by Simon_Jester
Kartr_Kana wrote:Another example is my Navalized version of the Thunderbolt fighter. The original Thunderbolt was designed for the Hiigaran Marine Corps and was a 3/$1 fighter. The Navy took the same basic design and made it hyperspace capable bringing it up to 2/$1, but if I had a Thunderbolt engage a Umerian cutter (also 2/$1) I would probably write the Thunderbolt as loosing after an intense fight since it's geared to engage other fighters not the more heavily armored and armed gunship style Cutters.
There's a lot of overlap between the two roles, though. The Thunderbolt, almost inevitably, has to have the kind of resilience to do a gunship's job, since it is a gunship.
Against gunship types not intended for direct combat (ELINT and pursuit cutters), my money would be on the Thunderbolt. Against the types that are intended to engage small craft (customs and fleet melee cutters), I'd say it's even: the Thunderbolt's weapons are quite capable of knocking down the cutter's defenses, and vice versa; the Thunderbolt probably has an edge in mobility and small target profile, while the cutter is somewhat more rugged and carries significantly more ordnance.
Though you will note that the standard Umerian dogfighting missile, the Mk. V., has been explicitly presented as shitty. There's a reason for that; one reason is that it lets our cutters carry dozens of the things without being able to massacre dozens of enemy fighters.
As for the 10-3/$1 fighters it once again really depends on how you write it. Since the Eoghans seem to be a smaller race it's quite conceivable that their 10/$1 fighters are manned. Hell you could even have 10/$1 manned fighters with humans or Bragulans piloting them, their just going to be really dinky fighters compared to a 4/$1 fighter.
Or just not top-of-the-line equipped. Fighters equipped with little or no shielding might be at a disadvantage against those with it (X-Wing vs. TIE fighter), for instance. Fighters with more sophisticated and capable ordnance might do better in a missile duel, and so on.
If anything, physical size can be a drawback, as it makes you a larger target, easier to detect and easier to hit.
Re: SDN Worlds 4 Commentary Thread IV
Posted: 2010-12-08 05:08pm
by Kartr_Kana
Well my idea for the Thunderbolt-N as essentially a 3/$1 fighter still. The Navy just increased the power plant and added a hyperdrive, of course an increased power plant also means heavier shields and more powerful thrusters. The point I was trying to make is that it's a really flexible system and as long as people write reasonable stories that take into account the fluff they've written for their ships we can have a lot of variance in ships that are nominally equal.
Re: SDN Worlds 4 Commentary Thread IV
Posted: 2010-12-08 06:44pm
by Tanasinn
Shroom Man 777 wrote:Happy birthday Tanasinn!
Thanks, Shroom.
Re: SDN Worlds 4 Commentary Thread IV
Posted: 2010-12-08 06:47pm
by Simon_Jester
Thing is, a bog-standard gunship still has to accomodate the FTL drive and whatever other modifications make a 'fighter' into a 'gunship.' If you removed the drive it would lose point value too- probably at least 1/3 of its value for the average gunship design, in my opinion.
There might be some minor advantages from a "keel up" gunship design rather than a sublight fighter with hyperdrive attached, but they're not going to be reliably decisive.
Re: SDN Worlds 4 Commentary Thread IV
Posted: 2010-12-08 06:57pm
by Kartr_Kana
I think at this point Simon we're just nitpicking details. We both agree and have pointed out that the capabilities and outcome depends more on the writing than on the points system. We can geek out during the design of the Hiigaran and Umerian warships.
Re: SDN Worlds 4 Commentary Thread IV
Posted: 2010-12-09 12:37am
by Simon_Jester
Aaand on a saner note, I've finally got that skirmish out of the way.
I'm hoping the real Battle of Zebes will go faster, since I've got it planned out better. This kind of... spontaneously evolved while I was writing it.
Shroom, the Centralites could just kick Azamat out without a reason. You can do that to diplomats, just declare him persona non grata and be done with the poospionage
Re: SDN Worlds 4 Commentary Thread IV
Posted: 2010-12-09 02:13am
by Shroom Man 777
But then that would cause an incident, other folks would be curious as to why it happened, and:
"there was a chance that the international community might learn of their failed attempt to dissect the Bragulan poo. The Bragulans might even reveal that fact themselves. "
Would the CSB risk having the galaxy find out that they were caught poo-handed, in attempting to dissect poo and hilariously fail, and risk humiliating the glourious Central State?
I think not.
Re: SDN Worlds 4 Commentary Thread IV
Posted: 2010-12-09 02:20am
by PeZook
Frankly, that revelation would be so ridiculous that nobody would believe it
EDIT: And what about littering?
Re: SDN Worlds 4 Commentary Thread IV
Posted: 2010-12-09 02:31am
by Shroom Man 777
The Centrality was glourious in its leniency and mercy.
Re: SDN Worlds 4 Commentary Thread IV
Posted: 2010-12-09 08:07am
by Force Lord
Re: SDN Worlds 4 Commentary Thread IV
Posted: 2010-12-09 08:27am
by Shroom Man 777
Its either the CSB doesn't want to let the other nations know, or it doesn't want the other Central centers to know. I mean, if they kick out a foreign diplomat - even a Bragulan - they would have to explain to the other departments. So either a.) they tell their other Centrality guys that they tried to dissect Bragulan poo and crapped it up, which would be humiliating, or b.) they would make some story up, but then that means they would have to lie to their fellow Centralites and their comrades of the glourious Central State, and lying to their colleagues and superiors might be bad, because as CN so wisely stated: "My nation frowns on lying".
Re: SDN Worlds 4 Commentary Thread IV
Posted: 2010-12-09 08:28am
by Force Lord
I think the CSB will be more honest...after it gets its revenge.
Re: SDN Worlds 4 Commentary Thread IV
Posted: 2010-12-09 08:38am
by Shroom Man 777
There is still a bomb threat! You must find those bombs! Why didn't you find it? Because it's mimetic poly alloy, it's nanotech so it must be very small! Look harder!
Re: SDN Worlds 4 Commentary Thread IV
Posted: 2010-12-09 09:18am
by Shroom Man 777
God yes! YES! YES! Oh Force Lord, you!
This is perfect!
Re: SDN Worlds 4 Commentary Thread IV
Posted: 2010-12-09 09:19am
by Force Lord
Shroom Man 777 wrote:God yes! YES! YES! Oh Force Lord, you!
This is perfect!
Told you the CSB would have it's revenge.
Re: SDN Worlds 4 Commentary Thread IV
Posted: 2010-12-09 03:18pm
by Shinn Langley Soryu
Strike Witches! You never cease to amaze me, Shroom.
Now I have YET ANOTHER idea, involving a group of rogue Chamarran ESPers working with Belkan mercenaries to fight piracy and slavery in the Veil...
(=^_________^=)
Re: SDN Worlds 4 Commentary Thread IV
Posted: 2010-12-09 07:42pm
by fgalkin
So, I'm in, but won't be doing much for the meantime due to lack of time. You may all start rumors of a race living in the Expanse which no one has seen or heard from
Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin
Re: SDN Worlds 4 Commentary Thread IV
Posted: 2010-12-10 04:52am
by Dark Hellion
Well, as people can start to see pretty soon shit is gonna get real. Much like the Wu-Tang Clan I plan on bringing the motherfucking ruckus.
Re: SDN Worlds 4 Commentary Thread IV
Posted: 2010-12-10 06:08am
by Darkevilme
Shinn Langley Soryu wrote:Strike Witches! You never cease to amaze me, Shroom.
Now I have YET ANOTHER idea, involving a group of rogue Chamarran ESPers working with Belkan mercenaries to fight piracy and slavery in the Veil...
(=^_________^=)
Shinn, i'm sorry i must remind ya of this but uh. There are no Chamarran Espers, at least not by default. The Chamarrans as a whole have a psychic potential of -1, resulting in an odd form of natural resistance to mind reading and mental manipulation. Barring one being born with the predisposition genes corrected a chamarran can't be an esper. This choice was mainly to inverse the last version of the chamarrans where they were all mildly psychic.
Thus all Espers in the Hierarchy are human. The Esper Guild in the Hierarchy is an all human society that formed originally as a deal between the Espers and the Hierarchy that allowed the Espers to be less than cripplingly monitored and controlled by the state in return for the Guild being responsible for its own members transgressions and thus self regulating. The Guild over time though has gained some level of actual prestige at least in comparison to most human led entities in the Hierarchy due to its monopoly on psycher services and willingness to provide them to the powers that be.
Re: SDN Worlds 4 Commentary Thread IV
Posted: 2010-12-10 08:33am
by Shroom Man 777
Hey, shouldn't those exchanges be in the diplomatic communique thread?
Re: SDN Worlds 4 Commentary Thread IV
Posted: 2010-12-10 10:21am
by Ryan Thunder
I seriously thought the Orks were just around for kicking the shit out of... How far off the mark am I?
Re: SDN Worlds 4 Commentary Thread IV
Posted: 2010-12-10 11:16am
by Simon_Jester
I use them for kicking the shit out of and getting the shit kicked out of me by. Aside from that, to quote the wiki:
"In the larger scheme of things, Orks often fill the role of pirates, mercenaries, bar brawlers, biker gangs, sports hooligans, and, oddly enough, enterprising bartenders. This means that virtually every spacefaring civilization has met them, and is still debating wether they ought to be exterminated, uplifted, or used as guinea pigs. That Orks will gleefully agree to any of the options makes it even more awkward."
"Grizzled veterans of the space lanes tell the story of how, when space explorers found the first hyperspace junction, there was an Ork Bar & Grill waiting for them. Many laugh at this preposterous theory and suggest that it most probably was an Ork Pirate vessel wich promptly fell on the explorers. Of course, everyone agrees that the only practical difference between the two is the Dress Code and Happy Hour specifics."
...
"Historically, the greenskins have had unstable relationships with other civilizations. Their pirating, wanton destruction and recklessness is sometimes offset by their willingness to work for the highest bidder, as well as their ability to set up a bar in the most inhospitable locations. It is fairly common to have the greenskins involved in mercenary operations, privateering or smuggling, and although they are publicly condemned, most governments appreciate a bunch of lunatics with little regard for their own safety, not to mention confidentiality, due to how unrealiable Ork testimony is, even when sober."