R&amp;D and building times...

R&D and building times...

Forums
Role Playing
OOC Discussion
R&D and building times...

Posts: 3599

Personally, I'd have no problem with a heavily regulated and restricted civilian station of approximate size, but it would still take your slot for a Death Star....

Although, ultimately if it meant I could build something like that, then fair enough, but I do have to ask, why?
...Since a DS is entirely a tool for destruction, and thus should be treated with caution, and of course not every Tom, Dick, or Confederate General Grevious should be allowed to have one willy nilly.

I don't see why, (as long as you have the resources to support it / them) perhaps why you could not build more than one Civilian space station. Since they would not be for anything offensive, and thus would not be anywhere near as dangerous as something like a DS.

(obviously I think a fair catch to this would be to say that building something like this would mean it would have to have NO WEAPONS). Apart from just a shield maybe.

If you wanted to design something as destructive as a DS, then yes, certainly, you should not be allowed to have more than one, and yes, it should most definately take up your 'DS-Slot'

As to Trinity's input, I agree mostly with what you say, I have always thought CY's were a little ....undervalued, and expensive, for what they can actually do.

Now this:

People would still only be allowed to have one of those, period, but they could build Executors in addition, as long as they could support them.

...I think is just asking for trouble, heh...

Trinity

Posts: 405

Well, there would be a required number of planets per ship, like we have for ESD and SoSDs. i.e., one Executor per 5 planets, or something to that effect.

Seth Vinda

Posts: 3599

Just a note, I think a set rule system for civilian desgns should be emplaced.

I agree with you there Kamon, I think it would be agood idea too...

I could go away and rustle something up if people were interested.

I always thought it was strange how we weren't able to construct something like; (for example) another Version of Cloud city or an equivilant.

As far as the civilian stations are concerned , Its not to gain any unfair advantage here, I just want to make that clear, its mainly to expand the horizons a little bit. Ultimately it gives more scope for Role-plays and the like, I think.

As for the designing ships over 8000m , as long as they are subjected to the same checks and rules as those which already exist over the 8000m range ,and which can be built, conditionally, (appropriately I might add), then I don't see why they cannot be R&d'ed.

Heir Raktus

Posts: 2915

I don't see why, (as long as you have the resources to support it / them) perhaps why you could not build more than one Civilian space station. Since they would not be for anything offensive, and thus would not be anywhere near as dangerous as something like a DS.

Becuase of the size of the thing, the amount of resources required to build it, the amount of people required to man it, the upkeep it must require to keep going. Just becuase its non-military doesnt mean the requirements arn't still there. The fact its civilian might get you past the "No two at one time" rule, but at the most thats it.

Well, there would be a required number of planets per ship, like we have for ESD and SoSDs. i.e., one Executor per 5 planets, or something to that effect.

Well, the Empire did own a couple of SSD's, but then again it was also a billion star spanning empire, you got an idea how to slap those numbers into your TRF calculator and get 5 SSD's for TNO, do so and show the math ^_^

As for civilian R&D rules, throw us out some ideas and lets see what we can do people!

Seth Vinda

Posts: 3599

Becuase of the size of the thing, the amount of resources required to build it, the amount of people required to man it, the upkeep it must require to keep going. Just becuase its non-military doesnt mean the requirements arn't still there. The fact its civilian might get you past the "No two at one time" rule, but at the most thats it.

Yes, these thoughts crossed my mind too, but the exact reasons that you gave me above, made me realize that such a rule would not be necessary, mainly because of the resources involved.
If a group or faction wanted to build lets say 3 of these type of stations (civilian , but still around the scale of a DS), then as long as they have the resources to do so, I don't see why it would be a problem.

But, what they would have to bear in mind, is that if they wanted to build nothing but these stations then, ultimately, it means they would not have as much resources to use to , say, build a defense fleet to protect them. Which would effectively make both their Stations and their own planets entirely, defenceless.

Which , IMO, kinda makes for a fair compromise, no?

..and as a result, IMO makes the 'slapping' of a cap on the building of these Civilian stations kinda pointless.

If someone wants to spend all their resources building nothing but these types of stations, I don't see why not, in the end they'll only be shooting themselves in the foot.

Then again, perhaps a faction which is entirely peaceful , might decide to actually do this?, who knows?...

I don't think it would be a problem, as long as the faction involved has the resources at their disposal.

..and I have something in mind, so I'll go away and draw something up, and then see what you all think.

Trinity

Posts: 405

True. But at TRF, a government spanning ten worlds can build an Eclipse SSD. And one spanning 20 or 30 worlds can build a Death Star...

Heir Raktus

Posts: 2915

Same reason I keep throwing at Trinity, the Empire only built four of these things with the billion star empire. What makes you think even TNO could build more than one?

Trinity

Posts: 405

If you remove the "only one Death Star at a time" clause, TNO could build 8-9 Death Stars under the rules. Simply put, TRF's rules overshadow Star Wars canon as far as fleets go. It's stated somewhere that it took more resources than an entire planet had to offer to mantain an ISD, yet TRF lets us build nine ISDs per planet we own.

At TRF, mantaining a Death Star is not a matter of millions of planets, but ten. Take away the limit on their number, and a group with 30 planets can produce three of them.

Same goes for Executor SDs.

Seth Vinda

Posts: 3599

Well, from what I can see we agree.

Since we agree that only a faction that has the resources at their disposal should be able to build them.

..and also I would like to point out, that I'm not just talking about DS -size, but smaller stations, and floating cities, etc, I'm more thinking about the bigger picture.

D.S I suppose would be the ultimate size, but then again, why limit it?...

...as for this:

Empire only built four of these things with the billion star empire. What makes you think even TNO could build more than one?

TNO can only currently build one, because the rules say it can only do so, referring to how big the Empire was etc, is all very well, but its very vague, and quite frankly, kinda moot. Since most people aren't gonna have the inclination to take a million worlds and systems, and more to the point, at TRF, they don't have to, they only have to have ten.

At the end of the day, we have to put some kind of 'guideline' down I guess, but I'm just trying to be more open minded about it , limiting it all for the sake of it, seems to be a little well, limiting, (but for no real reason heh).

Heir Raktus

Posts: 2915

when I said removing that rule, I ment in regards to his Civilian station, I see no issuie with him owning a single Death Star sized station of commerce at the same time someone owned a death star.... As long as two death star sized weapons of mass destruction exist at the same time.

R&D and building times...