www.ditl.org

Sonic Glitch wrote:Another general question: In the "real world" is there any particular standard or near-standard ratio for Battleships/Battlecruisers/Cruisers/Frigates/Destroyers/etc? I.E. 5-10-15-20 etc?

In general I think the ratio should be as follows Capital Units (Carriers/BB/BC) to Cruisers to Destroyers in a battlefleet

1-2-4

Meaning a typical battle-group would be comprised of say 50 battleships, 100 cruisers and 200 destroyers. There is no real reason or rhyme to this excepting that it allows a fleet to be simply broken down into contingent parts. Mostly that is old naval thinking though. What you practically need is just enough light ships to screen your heavy units and keep them relatively clean in a battle.

Frigates are a different matter in my view. They are mission driven as, again in my view, Frigates are more of a presence ships designed to deter pirates, let others know you are around, do some scouting and generally do all the odd jobs you don't want to waste a major fleet unit doing. You need as many as you need to do the jobs you have. If you are having to escort trade and have huge borders it might be a lot. If you aren't then you may not need any.

Deepcrush wrote:

stitch626 wrote:In Beta, the Ferengi would certainly approve of supporting jump gates fro freighters. That would cut our antimatter use by 90%.

However, I could see these gates being prime military targets... ones whose locations are known to everyone.

Well to be fair, trade ships are already military targets.

I'd be willing certainly in Alpha to sponsor the development of jump gates for freighters, only if significant safeguards about identity codes and also the ability to fortify them is given. Maybe make a starbase network with the jumpgates, sorta like how B5 is situated on a jumpgate.

I've got a question. I just took at look at the upkeep expense for some of my ships. The cost of a mothballed ship is still 90% of a fully operational one. Is that right?

The whole point of mothballing a ship is to put it in a condition that you can just leave it to sit for years just in case you need it. It takes a full year in the sim to return a ship to service so these ships are obviously not being kept in ready to roll condition. With that kind of delay for that minimal a cost savings I can't see any reason to keep a ship in mothballs as backup. Pay the extra 10% and keep it fully up to speed for frontline service.

Tyyr wrote:I've got a question. I just took at look at the upkeep expense for some of my ships. The cost of a mothballed ship is still 90% of a fully operational one. Is that right?

The whole point of mothballing a ship is to put it in a condition that you can just leave it to sit for years just in case you need it. It takes a full year in the sim to return a ship to service so these ships are obviously not being kept in ready to roll condition. With that kind of delay for that minimal a cost savings I can't see any reason to keep a ship in mothballs as backup. Pay the extra 10% and keep it fully up to speed for frontline service.

It should be 10%. That is how it works on my sheet in Beta and how it appears to work on your sheet for Alpha...

It should only be 10%

It's because I keep sending black ops teams to steal the rims while they're unattended.

Oh for the love of... I'd delete that post if you assholes hadn't already quoted it.

Tyyr wrote:Oh for the love of... I'd delete that post if you assholes hadn't already quoted it.

I haven't even brought up the sound system!!!!

Hey guys, I didn't get to see but how did people think about the whole civilian warp "gate" network idea for transporting civilian traffic around?

I like it, and Deep likes it.

That's all I can remember.

I like it. It would make life simpler for a lot of people. Reduced cost for trade, ability to quickly move ships through your empire, and it provides fixed strategic locations to fight over.

As long as you had the discretion to choose where to place them. It would stupidly suicidal to have gates all over your empire to allow any other power to get through. Unless...maybe the game rules stated that you'd have to take them over conventionally before you can use them? That way, you fight for a beach-head.

Maybe we should take the discussion in game?

If you guys would wait to do that it might be beneficial. This is something that will need to have the rules set down on from the get go and between Big's Schedule and my own we haven't had time to discuss it much.

If this is an idea you want to pursue, you are free to do it in Both SIM's I just don't want to see everyone making plans to create them, and then decide they don't want them after we lay out the rules, benefits, and limitations of the technology for game purposes.

Well, I think that this sort of tech would be one of those rare universal things, (like the Beta SIM station), that we'd all be working on, so if we're all pursuing it and investing in it, we're not gonna drop it.

The advantages I see primarily are for trade. The AM cost is gonna drop to just getting goods to a jumpgate. It'll also create commercial districts, as systems with jump gates will be getting a greater influx of trade.

I'd say it works something like this.

Each investing power will recieve one jump gate at the end of the R&D period, in a system they choose. Jump gates will come in different classes, which will restrict the amount on trade going in and out each year. You can build more than one, or upgrade your existing one, but that would be at your own expense.

You wouldn't be able to sneak through a gate, so its military applications would be limited, and you could always deactivate yours, but it would take some time to reactivate.

What do you guys think?