Reply to Thread
Return to thread view
Return to main page

Forum: SC General
Thread: AP costs- torp values
Post by: Little Sister(34495)
2005-02-15 10:03:14
The following is a convo, and is just a thought, but we would like feedback on it.

Clams says:
think of some good ideas
Nikki says:
i have 1...
Clams says:
Clams says:
what is it
Nikki says:
the more ships you have the more APs a hit should cost
Nikki says:
the more "action" the more Action points
Clams says:
Clams says:
that could be interesting
Nikki says:
if youre attacking with 50k ships you should be paying 50 APs
Clams says:
plus you'd have to count torps as ships
Clams says:
or double ap for torps
Nikki says:
good point, i hadnt gotten that far yet lol
Nikki says:
a torpedo shouldnt be valued at 4
Clams says:
every 100 torps = 1 ap
Nikki says:
4 attack value that is
Nikki says:
it shouldnt be more than a fighter SHIP!
Clams says:
no they shouldn't
Clams says:
I agree
Clams says:
they should be .5 attack

It could be a whole new ball game, if APs were spent according to how many ships were actually involved in the action.

1k ships in an action.. 1 AP
10k ship in an action.. 10 APs
50k ships in an action 50 APs
(just for example)

Of course the numbers would have to be worked on... but you get the idea.

As for the torpedos... were do they get off being an attack value of 4, when a fighter SHIP is only an attack value of 1!!??

Just tossing out ideas here, as opposed to the usual whining that goes on in the last week of every round. All numbers mentioned above of course are adjustable- so dont freak...
Any thoughts on this?
Post by: golchasr(44184)
2005-02-15 11:03:39
I have a thought :-)

You are on a very good track. But to be honest with you, Peter doesn't seem to anxious to fix anything :-(
Post by: Little Sister(34495)
2005-02-15 11:05:01
Now tell me something I DON'T KNOW
Post by: dwp(51152)
2005-02-15 14:05:40
First impressions:

Interesting idea I think. Not sure if I agree or disagree so far.

I quite like the ap cost being determined by your scores - would this new system mean that you could build 200 fighters and hit ANYONE for 1ap? It would be like going back to the co-ordinate system with a slight twist.

Or would you have the standard ap cost of hitting but an added penalty for having a large fleet?

Hmmm, towards the end of round some people have 200k ships - not very exciting battles if two hits and you're out :-(

I know the values are just for demonstration, but the gaps in fleet size are soooo huge that to spread 3ap = 200 ships 30ap = 200k ships its not much of a spread.

As for torp values - if we compare it with naval ships of today:

A single ship-to-ship missile can destroy a ship. Frigates and destroyers are easy pickings for a cruise missile and they ARE a fraction of the cost AND a single ship can carry hundreds of them AND a missile is far cheaper than the effective defense to that missile.

At least mg's are 100% effective against torps - what 'real-world' defensive system can say that?
Post by: sparkles(18049)
2005-02-15 15:51:20
OH man, i found a huge flaw in that ap concept...

Please peter change it loool.

The torp value is a problem thou, if u lowered it, really, how do u expect to take down someone if the attacker doesnt have some advantage?
Post by: philldodilldo(22259)
2005-02-15 18:30:43
how bout you just ask peter to have notorious only allowed 50% attack and defence values.. then maybe the ...waaaa i cant winidis... .will stop.
Post by: Little Sister(34495)
2005-02-15 22:48:26
After looking at this again, yes, its flawed, it was just a thought like I said. Thanks for the feedback.
Post by: Opacus Mortu(61923)
2005-02-16 04:44:31
no comment
Post by: jddegraff(43958)
2005-02-17 12:12:15
ok, the unofficial us navys perspective: yes fighters, frigetes and destroyers are easy pickings for missles, and are soooooo much cheaper to build, but on the same note, cruisers and such should under that theory be much less vulnerable to attack then, right?
Reply to Thread

Total Users: 571
Total Forums: 20
Total Threads: 2076
Total Posts: 21663