SpineMaker thoughts

[Hemdian]

there seems to be no objective reason for any abstract restrictions at all.

I always assumed that a hardpoint was more than an area of the hull; it was a load-bearing point that also had a power conduit (though depending on the PP, not all conduits are powered at the same time). So a turret fits on a hardpoint. Fine. But also a bay is much larger than a turret. Therefore it 'consumes' 5 or 10 hardpoints. And a spinal point 'consumes' many hardpoints ... eg. the PAWS-N 'consumes' 30 hardpoints.

(Also, since a spine weapon is essentially a linear accelerator, if (for example) a PAWS-N were to have 'x' of its hardpoints damaged the weapon as a whole would only be x/30 as effective. Of course the 'barrel' isn't the only part of a spine weapon, there's also the initiator, but that's interior and thus doesn't need hardpoints.)

 

[GrayPennell]

You're brought up a really good point that we need to think about. And I think this is an even more important distinction than spines.


This seems to tell me that an ACS ship has a good chance of penetrating the hull of a BCS, unless said BCS has overwhelming active defenses.

Therefore, it seems to me that the defining difference between ACS and BCS is not [just] the spine, but rather the sheer defensive capability of BCS.

If not, then BCS are in trouble!

Well I am a bigger fan of a Medium size fleet of no more than 50K which allows ACS to be a bit more equal to BCS. However your right about the problem getting worse at higher tonnages. You can write in the solution as military grade armor and weapons vs civilan. If you build Imperial military grade you have higher armor and damage values at a higher costs. Large civilian/subsector ships would use something very close to the ACS system. This gives the edge to the Large Navies, keeps the other fleets BCS on par with ACS and players.