?
Okay, let me be clear here since I am no longer 100% sure what we are even arguing. I still hold the position that racism is wrong.

Okay, seriously now, here is my now clarified position.

1. I am arguing IN FAVOR of capital ships needing to be researched before they can be constructed. In fact, I would even prefer to see capital ships need their own seperate research tree branch for each different type of capital ship (similar to the cruisers, possibly even on the end branches for the similar type cruisers).

2. I am arguing AGAINST the proposal that since real military vessels and civilian vessels share some equipment and design similarities, SoaSE Capital Ships should be fully available at the start of the game.

WHY am I taking the above position:

Capital ship functions are more complicated than cruisers. Not because they are bigger or hold more weapons, but because they house more special abilities than cruisers AND they also house/service strike craft.

Since cruisers need to be researched, I think capital ships shoud be as well.

The reason WHY we should have to research different capital ships for availability is to create more strategic choices for players = better strategy game (if done right, of course).

For example, one player can choose to research Sova Carriers to help support his fleet with strike craft and blockage seiged enemy planets, while another player can research KOLs for their sheer power/resistance. Both Capital Ship research paths will allow for different strategic/tactical possibilities = a game with more choices for players.

Last I checked, this is a good thing.

A valid point was brought up. The fact the Vasari are a nomadic faction that already had most of its cap ship fleet built by the time they invaded TEC space justify the use of cap ships from the beginning of the game. I agree with this. The Vasari should have their full cap ship lineup from the beginning of the game. However to use all of the ability's of these cap ships to full effect at least some research MUST be done.

That does not mean all of the factions should be able to use all of their cap ships from the get go. I also agree that some research should be required to use the more advanced TEC cap ships like the Kol. Along with the being able to use some abilities on the "older" cap ships like the Akkan, or Dunov. An Akkan or Dunov should be made the default flagship for flagship type games. The Akkan, and Dunov i have no issue using from the beginning of the game for TEC. Being as they look like the converted civilian ships of the lore. All of their ability's should have to be researched prior to being usable. So if i start a game with an Akkan as a flagship it should have no ability's at all until all of the research prerequisites are met. Then i would have to "upgrade" the ship (purchase a level perhaps? or bring it back to the space dock to upgrade? your choice). The Kol should be a high cost, and high tier research item (that is if in fact the Kol is the most powerful ship in the TEC arsenal). In any case if any TEC ship needs researching it is the Kol. If we must have all cap ships available from the start then at least research the ability's of the cap ships before they can be used.

I know nothing about the Advent except they use Psi powers, and mostly beam weapons from what little screen shots we saw of their ships. Again it looks like they jumped on the bandwagon with a full fleet lineup. As with the Vasari if all ships are available from the start then some of the high end ability's must be researched before they can be used.

TA, the fact that the oldest shipyard in the US is making the newest ships is because research was initiated to update it and make it better. Your argument is becoming more that the standard frigate shipyard should be upgradable to the capship yard.

@para, I don't think that anyone is arguing anymore about whether cap ships should be available at the start of the game, I think it's more about WHEN they should become available.

should you have to research cruisers and THEN research the corresponding capital ship? if so, this creates a balance issue since not all cruisers start on the same tech level and you can now pick ur ship at the start of the game.

or should it be that researching the cap ship factory should come a little later (possibly make it separate but let it increase the rate at which you research cruiser techs?) and say that after you research it all caps are available

@stress, I like the idea, but what happens when people want a 30 minute game and have to do all that research?

I don't think a 30 minute game was what the dev's had in mind for Sins. Any 4x type of game (GC2, MOO, Civ4, SoTS, ETC) lasts much longer than that. The only difference is Sins is not turn based. I notice many people think of Sins in terms of "Homeworld" where you can play fast 15-30 minute fleet frag fest's. Not that there is anything wrong with that. I like Homeworld as well. It's just Sins doesn't strike me as that type of game (Perhaps its the 4x element ).

Most of the Frigates already need research. The Cruisers need research. The Cap Ships should need research as well. However i understand why the dev's want cap ships in the early game. So the alternative is to research the ability's of the cap ships. Most games i play i have most of my research finished within 30 minutes. So adding a few more researches for cap ship ability's shouldn't slow the game down too much.

If people want a "fast" game an option could be added in like in Haegemonia where the research speed is doubled, or slowed down by half for people that want brutally long games.

Not exactly, That shipyard along with upgraded nonmilitary shipyards all use the same modern construction techniques. (outside game), so yes most any shipyard with the ability to build a large modern ships (say a LG tanker, or ice breaker) should be able to build a warship. Remember they do not make the guns, missile, launchers, radar, sonar, etc there . . so assembly and integration is needed.
Also “capship” has really no good meaning outside game and in a very artificial designation of 4 ships in game. “capship yard” just = big ship yard in game.

And I am not arguing that no research needs to be done in game for any ships. I am all for researching every ship (blue prints and such if you want) or just special ships. (I do not see large ships as special! Or higher tech - and probably this is where the problem lies)
My problem is that forcing the larger ships to the end of the game is unrealistic and problematic . .similar to other RTS and x4 games, it now becomes a mad rush to the "big powerful ships" and more or less the heck with "normal" ships late game. The ability to have a FULL fleet at the start (economies and resources being the limiting factors) is not only more realistic but also allows fleet tactics to be used (as they SHOULD be) and all units to be useful rather then uber unit rts guff.


Exactly, Once you can make the cap ship factory should be able to make the ships (minus a late game ship or two) . . otherwise it becomes another tech race and in a short game . . that is the same problem Supcom has.

ER . . .Er . . . ya what he said . . .or what I said two pages ago on post 16 ?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?? now that is frustrateing . . .

also please if we are talking reality say so and if we are talking in game say so . . because definitions are entirety different . .

Note. To further poke at the idea these hulls are “special” - ( back to reality)
Ticonderoga-class Aegis guided missile cruiser used a slightly longer version of Spruance class destroyer’s hull and propulsion system - This was originally a ~70’s destine (so much for super high tech Hull for our the ‘badest” ships the US makes?!) and in the 80’ they updated to it’s own hull desine but same basic shape that had problems (newer building techniques did them in, now they use the "new" techniques for these ships AND just about every other ship - industry wide change)
Also the Vertical Launching System was a LATER development (again dashing the idea modern ships are designed around the weapon systems, as these systems are easy to retrofit into older ships . . )
The Arleigh Burke class destroyer is 400-1285 less tons of displacement then the Cruiser (depending on the variant) also around a 60ft shorter hull, These ships have 32 less MK41 cells . . and most of the other armament is identical . . YES the destroyer is smaller then the Cruiser (this some times flipflops) and because it was make last it has some other tech enhancements (now that is the most common thing . . when it was made = different tech . . not size)
Also the I have a friend on board the USS Leyte Gulf (Ticonderoga-class Aegis guided missile cruiser) which I have visited for a grand tour (read better then the normal tours), and have been on 2 Arleigh Burke class destroyers . .
These are two of the most powerful ships in the US navy (other then the Carriers which are another beast entirely)
11 Carriers, 22 Cruisers, 51 Destroyers, 30 frigates make up the bulk of our navy . . The Cruisers and Destroyers ARE our capital ships. With frigates, Hospital Ships, Mine Countermeasure Ships and Amphibious Assault Ships filling in the corners.

I've considered your points carefully.

I can now see why some cruisers could be higher on the tech tree than certain Cap Ships.

I trust Ironclad will come up with the best tech tree structure.

capital ship is any ship that is very expensive comparitively speaking and is a military ship. ie age of sail it was the ship-of-line. ww1 battleship, battlecruiser.
ww2 battleship, carrier, today carrier.

that was random daniel... i (had nothing to do with me ofcourse, but im taking the credit) finally get this sorted out, and now you try to start another argument

that was random daniel... i (had nothing to do with me ofcourse, but im taking the credit) finally get this sorted out, and now you try to start another argument

IMO, a cap ship doesnt have to be expensive, it just has to be strong and sturdy (oh yah, thats real defined aint it?)

WHEEEEEE!!!!

i really dont know if im spamming at this point, but since the word spam was mentioned i guess i am... TWICE!!!

No. Its your understanding of the analogy thats off. And let me state, one last time, that it is an analogy, inherently inaccurate, there to help you comprehend my position not define the position for you.

And, furthermore, let me state again that military ships, as in space ships, would need to be designed differently than civilian ships. Yes, its true -- and I have never denied it -- that the same basic facilities can construct both types. But there is a major difference in design.

Your jeep example is slightly flawed because the jeep is a military vehicle translated to civilian off-road use (or maybe the other way around, been a while since I watched mail call last). The need for ruggedness is the same in both designs, all that needs to be changed is the removal of weaponry.

Are we discussing whether cap ships should be researched, or not? or are we going to keep bickering over every page of every damn edition of Jane's manual? Lets stick to the topic please.

Topic drift: Learn to love it. Its a fact of life. People get onto something related tangentially to the primary subject, then start tearing into each other over that. The only cure I have ever observed is moderator fiat. And the mods don't seem to be applying it for you, so... your stuck.

sorry i was just putting some filler in. besides most everything i do is random

in this case it would be software.


the case for military ships is that they have armor. and civilian ships don't. unless the civilian ship is built for a special purpose such as ice ramming.

For an analogy to work the relationship in the analogy has to work, if it does not then the analogy fails (I pointed out that the relationship in proposed analogy is wrong)


And I have stated in each post that design was not what I was talking about and design (unless so bleeding edge that forces everything to be custom and NOT mass producible) should not have any bearing on the discussion.


Yes software, manly a security spec. must be met. also workstations often have a peripheral or two for security (ID or session card - exactly what we use)


Yes but modern military ships have little armor (2x sheets of high grade steel with Kevlar) and the double hull of a tanker is harder to make.


Unless you are not reading, the issue was “whether cap ships should be researched and when they should be useable” strangely researched implied late game units only. The descent was that it had to be so (traditional in games) and also the fact that large military ships are “super hard” to make and need the research and also because of this be late game units.
The counter was, as I have stated over and over and given examples on, military ships are not necessarily the uber achievements untouchable by civilian manufacturing as it seems to be thought so here. bigger < > better and the fact that normal modern building techniques are used for both warships and civilian ships and that it is the weapon systems that really stands them apart. Also important ships being only late game, limits game play to a race to an uber unit as seen in so many other games and detracts to the epic fleets that could be had with this modification.
Additional points are that the background story line has given this faction the ability to build a massive civilian fleets, this backs up the ability for the faction to pump out ships (it is the military tech they need to work on) . This faction starts with a battleship (which strangely enough can’t be reproduced unless you RE-research it???? Really?) and that the need for a early fleet type of game play could out weigh the traditional march of tech - size - uberness.
To my eyes this all fits, the main argument that big ships inherently need far more tech and research then smaller but just as “new” ships and that a civilian factory already capable of building the same size (or larger) ships could not also construct military ships . . . Has been refuted by modern examples.
So, there is no good argument why once the weapon systems have been constructed a mainly civilian “shipyard” could not turn our military ships (when they can build the hulls regardless of size already)
Unfortunately what the game calls “cap ships” at is rather arbitrary (class wise) but can be though of the ships those need the largest construction facility.
Game play is another issue, and that is more a matter of the developers intended game play . . there is no “correct” or “incorrect” way, I have played games with both the tech leveling to the uber unit and the general unit spread with upgrades in games before and both work. And remember this will be they play style for only one faction/side of the game . . .
Since the “cap ships” already have a leveling aspect built in you NEED to get them out early to be able to level them . . if they are only late game then . . . why bother haveing that aspect?

Okay Ta_Erog, I get what you are saying.

Still, keep in mind that the Flagship games are a multiplayer/skirmish option for those that want instant power in their games. A hardcore 'realism' game would start with NO Flagships.

If you absolutely need a reason for why you get a Flagship, but have to research for more cap ships, it could be that your Flagship cost massive resources and it was decided it was too expensive to build any more unless your race/faction can raise their tech level up to the point where the cost isn't so harsh (congress won't pass funds  )

Also, ship design is more than you are taking into account. How a superstructure of something as big as a capital ship handles stress should also be considered. Sure, a supertanker is bigger than say, a battleship. However, if you were to stick a set of 16" gun turrest on the tanker and fire them, the stress would quickly warp/tear the superstructure. Beam weapons might require a powerplant beyond what the design of a civilian ship can house. Missile weapons...well actually, missile weapons would be much easier to install on a civilian ship.

My point here is that just because you can build something as big as a Supertanker doesn't mean it can be converted into a military vessel. There would be all sorts of achitech type research/testing required to just build the superstructure for military demands.

have you checked the damage stats on the capships?

sry for the short post

“If you absolutely need a reason for why you get a Flagship”
Why rationalize?
“A hardcore 'realism' game would start with NO Flagships”
“hardcore 'realism' game” funny . . really, I really do not see this game could be ever hard core, and realism well good that it is in quotes

To push the point home . .
Really the tech that goes into a Bulk and LPG tankers hull is far beyond what is use in any current military ship (which is currently built for speed and stability, even fuel efficiency contrary to what many believe). Bulk and LPG tankers have to deal with more constant stress and “hogging and sagging” flex stress, only made worse by massive weight of the cargo. Some of these ships are quite a bit larger then a super carrier, and some can CARRY as cargo more then 4x the total tonnage of that same super carrier’s displacement of only 102,000 tons (this does not include Bulk and LPG’s displacement eather). Yes, if you cut up ~4 fully loaded super carrier’s it could be halled by one of these ships! Keeping one of these together in bad seas is a much harder engineering problem then any weapon system hull integration problem. And is much more of an engineering marvel then any military ships hull yet made! No exaggeration!

That same cargo increases mass/stress without adding any structure. A gun emplacement adds mass and periodic stress spikes but also adds structure and rigidity, often quite allot. Also civilian ships often have hard points far surpassing most weapon hard points. Massive cranes come to mind first though massive cryogenic systems, pumps and winches (over sized equipment as big as a house) can make a BB's turret look small at around 134 tons (though the stress can be quite different a massive crane could easily be a harder engineering problem ). Yes, all of this requires allot of engineering but that is what they do on ANY ship regardless. The tech gap is just not here . . . it is common to all ships . .
I need to put X here and Y there with these parameters what X and Y are really does not matter much as long as you have the parameters requested, you adjust as needed, adding more structure is not hard part (putting more steel on a hard point or hull) the trick is adding less and keeping the same operational parimiters. . that is the hard part requireing high levels of engineering and material science. (air craft are a much better example there, maximum strength minimum structure.)
I guess there are not to many engineers out there . . and that is why people are having such a problem with that.

Ok, I am done with that . . . .but man it is hard to break misconceptions . .and there are allot out there . . Thank goodness for even the antics of Mythbusters even though they do not really do very good controlled experiments they are close enough to show how many lame myths (which people would fight tooth and nail over) are plan wrong, regardess of what people "think"

In the end there really needs a setting for early full fleets (again as economy allows) or the leveling up of ships will be wasted. The possibility of 'realism' goes down the tubes as far as given storyline goes (note. far as given storyline goes ). And game play overall (in my option) would suffer reverting to the mad rush . .

No, you jumped into dealing with military equipment, which had little bearing with what I was talking about in the analogy, unless I missed something.



Well, design is what *I* was talking about. Why I initially interjected it I don't even remember, but thats where I've been arguing about. Oh, here is your "one liner"



Go take a look at a low-end civilian computer, for example the pavilion a1220n desktop from HP. Low speed memory, and little of it, outdated processor, no video card slot. Decent HD, I will admit, though. You can find dozens (hundreds) of similar models with weak / nonexistent video cards, potentially missing video card slots, and hundreds of other flaws which may / may not be fixable.

when i was in the army i saw their latest communications equipment. it was lap top computers with gps tracking. i was in the army from june 82, to june 83. when did lap tops become available for civilian use and when did they get gps tracking.

.... Ages ago.



Again, ages ago -- though that isn't very common, they do have GPS. Its more common for cell phones, though.

try with in the last ten years for gps and 15 for lap tops.

Pleh, as I said, ages and ages ago

err, that is when they were made cost effective for mass production, we had gps back in the mid 70's and that was when I used it,(one was built into every parashute) it was around long before that. as to lap tops, we had them back then too... I saw one in use onboard U.S.A.F. "looking glass" at Offitt AFB in the fall of 1979 it cost about $60,000 and did little more than check the systems of other computers on the plane. (plus it had a picture tube) but it was a portable computer system with its' own power supply!

that is my point the us military gets tech at least 20 years before the civilians do.


remember the first pc didn't come out until the late 70's