| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
475
   |
Posted - 2014.05.13 09:02:00 -
[1] - Quote
I like these ideas also, perhaps a role bonus on the heavy engineer ship to reduce anchoring time for POS components? |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
482
|
Posted - 2014.05.15 13:23:00 -
[2] - Quote
Ren Coursa wrote:[quote=Bob Maths]... it looks like a construction site.
You mean it should be a minmatar ship?
|
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
482
|
Posted - 2014.05.16 07:46:00 -
[3] - Quote
I was thing of the combat engineer ships being more like the Hobarts Funnies from WWII, very capable in specific situation but pretty useless otherwise. So pos/module laying fits well at reduced times to deploy, armoured demo charge laying ship could work too (with appropriate trade-offs). It could be designed as the first ORE Tech III ship, with susbystems bonusing the more engineering based tasks (demo charge would be a heavily bonused damage but heavily nerfed range smart-bomb role for instance) |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
576
|
Posted - 2014.06.21 11:04:00 -
[4] - Quote
Perhaps rather than demo charges they can have a 'mortar' weapon system much like the spigot mortars that actual combat engineer vehicles use for structure demolition. Short range heavy charge doing heavy damage but with slow explosion velocity so not much use against moving ships. More of a massive plasma charge than and explosive charge. The CEV would need a pretty good brick tank though for POS bashing... |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
580
|
Posted - 2014.06.24 13:38:00 -
[5] - Quote
Auduin Samson wrote:
The only problem is that in space, mortars don't arc because of the lack of gravity. For the sake of coding, it would be easier just to model it on missiles and give it very specific stats.
What it can target is the most iffy thing I can think of. While I like the idea of it just being a missile with such an incredibly slow explosion velocity that hitting moving targets would do virtually nothing (BUT STILL SOMETHING!), there is no way in this system to make it extra effective against anchored structures without making it insanely overpowered against seiged dreads and bastioned marauders. Only allowing it to be fired at structures would alleviate this, but also remove some versatility.
Perhaps add a spec to structures that makes them take extra damage from demo charges? That way it could be applied against dreads and marauders with about the effectiveness of a torpedo from a stealth bomber while still being able to quickly pop structures. I dunno, I'm just brainstorming.
Agreed that's what I meant, a very slow fusion torpedo, small slow blast radius but hideously destructive. Like a Thermite torpedo or something, splats against the hull and just burns... |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Farsaidh's Freeborn
722
|
Posted - 2014.10.26 10:07:08 -
[6] - Quote
Hmmm, these could be an excellent variant of tech 3 destroyers except the inflight reconfigs would have it switch between engineering functions that are highly speciaized much like the Hobart's Funnies in the D-Day landings.
1 mode for structure management, another mode for POS bashing (even modelled as huge dmg bonus on lasers with massive range/tracking penalty), another mode for any other engineering support services people think of. |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Farsaidh's Freeborn
730
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 09:42:33 -
[7] - Quote
Vimsy Vortis wrote:I'm not sure what hull size is appropriate for this, but generally speaking this seems like a pretty good idea.
This was why I suggested it be one of the new range of T3 destroyers. A low combat capable ship but able to switch role from POS bashing (lazer bonus but with huge tracking and range drop), to structure deployment, to any other engineering application people can think of. Maybe an ORE ship since they are an industrial corp, a support destroyer to complement the noctis. It could even have a comet mining configuration to rival the venture/prospector. The POS bashing lasers could be the mining lasers reconfigured into low range plasma cutters. |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Farsaidh's Freeborn
780
|
Posted - 2014.11.20 16:34:31 -
[8] - Quote
Ceawlin Cobon-Han wrote:The time required to online things is the inbuilt counter to their functionality; the defenders can spot then and call in the demolition squad before they can get working. Reducing the ability of the defence to do this is a powerful force multiplier for the attacker; too powerful.
-1
Except the OP suggests demolition capabilities for the combat enginerring hulls too so bring your own to tear down deployables more rapidly. Simplest solution may be a damage bonus to lasers but with a ridiculous range nerf (yes you could park next to a titan and cause huge damage...good luck staying there long enough though!) |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Farsaidh's Freeborn
780
|
Posted - 2014.11.22 19:28:28 -
[9] - Quote
It says in the title *combat* engineering ships hence my thinking of hobarts funnies (folks should google it if they've never heard of them). The same hull was used for DD floating tanks, flamethrower tank, fortification demolitian tanks, bridgelayers, minesweepers etc...definitely combat capable but in very niche roles which is why i suggested t3 dessie for the role. In flight reconfigs brtween roles to excel in each niche but be pretty sub standard in any other role at that point.. |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Farsaidh's Freeborn
782
|
Posted - 2014.11.23 08:11:28 -
[10] - Quote
Tactical engineer would be better for a tech II ship as strategic implies tech III (which I still think would be best for a ship filling multiple niche roles) |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Farsaidh's Freeborn
784
|
Posted - 2014.11.23 15:38:47 -
[11] - Quote
Irrespective of actual definitions (I'd use OED btw as I'm British ans speak English rather than American :D) Eve already defines tech III cruisers as strategic therefore implying anything labeled strategic is tech III (for now at least). I was simply suggesting a nomenclature less likely to cause confusion. |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Farsaidh's Freeborn
784
|
Posted - 2014.11.23 19:53:40 -
[12] - Quote
Reading through the list a bunch of them aren't TLA's and should hang their hulls in shame... |
| |
|