Faulcon DeLacy Family Recipe. All praise the Alliance shipyards!
Short jump range on larger ships
- Thread starter Darkprince048
- Start date
Faulcon DeLacy Family Recipe. All praise the Alliance shipyards!
Simplistic reason is expense, the raw hull cost of the anaconda >> T9. Trading ships tend to be cheap metal boxes with engines attached ;-) Real world example with cars would be steel versus carbon fibre, eg you'll never see van made from carbon fibre.
I am absolutely with you on that part.
But why is the FDL not made of that magic stuff. Or the Orca luxus liner. Or any other higher end combat ship? Meaning, why do they get way inferior jump range while not even tanking as good as the Anaconda? They could be the expensive high end combat ships, and price in military craft is well known to be way over the top, this of course includes costs to cover for bribes and hookers for all the managers...
Last edited:
In comes player min-maxing where they abuse the limits of the game to strip all of the extra weight it is possible to strip off of the Anaconda and slap the biggest frame shift drive available on it, making it nothing but a giant FSD with a fuel tank.
Average jump range on an Anaconda is proportionate to what I just described.
Edit: The Anaconda isn't made of anything special, it's called engineering. The T9 is a barge and it's built like a barge. Reality check: Barges are heavy. Engineers have been taking common materials and multiplying their strength several hundred or thousand-fold through processes of preparation, manufacturing and assembly since the stone age. Nothing magical to see here.
Last edited:
What ever stuff they come up with in 1100 years, like 3 generations of FTL travel, shields and such to fuel scoop from stars...
Price maybe the reason as you pay a lot per ton of ship (*modules removed only hull and other integral machinery)
| Ship Hull | Anaconda | Fer de Lance | Python | Orca | Type 9 | Courier | FGS | Clipper | Type 7 | FAS | FDS | Asp | Vulture | Type 6 | DBX | DBS | Hauler | Viper | Eagle Mk.III | Cobra | Adder | Sidewinder | Eagle Mk.II |
| Cr per ton* | 354,725 | 205,293 | 157,633 | 82,410 | 73,255 | 70,901 | 59,957 | 52,694 | 40,194 | 39,733 | 23,271 | 21,913 | 20,390 | 5,586 | 5,489 | 2,714 | 2,128 | 1,598 | 1,444 | 1,310 | 1,000 | 511 | 209 |
I agree with you on the FDL, it's range is pitiful and isn't luxury at all! Needs atleast an A5 jump drive and double the fuel tank size. Woudn't even affect balance either, it's a convenience thing.
Recall that weight is not an attribute of an object, but a measure of gravity's influence on that object within a given gravitational field. In other words, in space, "weight" doesn't exist unless you measure it against another body.
An Alcubierre Drive, which is what the FSD seems to be, functions by creating an environment of negative mass. This mass must offset the mass of the object within to allow travel, so the more massive the object, the more energy it takes. Similarly, the larger the "warp bubble" the more energy required to maintain it. Finally, to function properly, the field must already have an end-point created to evade the effects of relativity at superluminal speeds: one can say the Nav Beacon fulfills this function, but I think it more likely that the field is projected directly in front of the ship, creating an actual toroid bubble around it. This still doesnt' quite exactly fit the physics model, but it's close enough for me.
An Alcubierre Drive, which is what the FSD seems to be, functions by creating an environment of negative mass. This mass must offset the mass of the object within to allow travel, so the more massive the object, the more energy it takes. Similarly, the larger the "warp bubble" the more energy required to maintain it. Finally, to function properly, the field must already have an end-point created to evade the effects of relativity at superluminal speeds: one can say the Nav Beacon fulfills this function, but I think it more likely that the field is projected directly in front of the ship, creating an actual toroid bubble around it. This still doesnt' quite exactly fit the physics model, but it's close enough for me.
Yes, the barge thing is perfectly clear by now. Thanks for repeated enlightenment.
The question remains why only the Anaconda from all the high-end ships? You can't min-max any other ship as abusively as the Conda.
Why can't we pay top dollar / ton (not sure if that is a good parameter to measure things) for other ships that are supposed to be luxurious and top of the line?
As mentioned, specifically military craft should be the most expensive/ton, not a civilian multipurpose. So at least our current reality in 2015 would suggest.
Now for some common sense about what it takes to actually calculate costs....
How many are being built of each? Excluding NPC Genocide statistics, how many Anacondas are out there compared to.... Say... Vipers?
What tools does it take to manufacture them, and what's their availability? Volume makes it profitable for the people who make the tools to manufacture large ships (like dry docks) to make more of them, because they need to make a profit also. If there were... Say... Only half a dozen dry docks in the Galaxy large enough to manufacture Anacondas, then the cost of using those dry docks rises dramatically. If the companies that build said dry docks only do so once every few years, the price is likewise going to be extremely high.
Time: If your product requires both exotic manufacturing methods and rare tools to do so, the amount of time and cost of that time to do so multiplies rapidly. As with all Halo tier products, the manufacturers have no incentive to streamline the process because they'd simply be undercutting their own profit margins. They'd rather sell one Anaconda at 140 million credits and make a profit of 40 million credits than sell 40 Anacondas at 40 million credits and earn a profit of 40 million credits, because volume supplies can't be easily manipulated to price gouge for extra profit.
I'm just getting started here. There's a reason that entire libraries have been written on the economics of manufacturing and that anyone getting into the field in a serious way starts with earning a Master's while doing on the job training. Price per ton is a laughable concept for a complex product. You're building an inhabited fortress, not a cake.
Because Federal and Imperial engineering are a 100 years behind Alliance engineering in terms of science and strength of materials applications.
And both of them are poor and can't afford expensive materials. Imperials prefer spending their money on bleached clothes and federals on shaving their teen population when enlisting them to the navy.
Last edited:
I don't really mind the FDL's range and tank size because of what I do with it. I tend to jump around a system cluster taking pirate hunt and assassination missions, I don't need a large fuel tank and the range is adequate. It is inconvenient on a long run though.
For exploration however I have a low weight DBE with 30 ly jump and extra fuel tanks. Horses for courses.
Handful of huge docks available: by size class the same would apply to the T9, which would sort of not make it a cheap barge. Oh ok, this one does not require the exotic manufacturing methods and tools, which brings us to the next issue:
Why do these awesome manufacturing methods and tools only get applied to the Anaconda, not any of the smaller ships and make them comparably super capable while keeping a long jump range? There is no rule that I know of which prohibits a mid-size ship to be very expensive if that buys you extreme capabilities as with the Conda.
Your argument "barge" leaks either one way or the other when applied to the game ship balances as available and you seem quite troubled with it, by the length and depth of your arguments.
Python 29ly jump range? You mean if you have absolutely nothing equipped right? There is no way you will get anywhere near 20, let alone 29 with anything equipped on the ship. I hardly consider flying around in a 58 million credit ship with no shields or weapons a viable option. Thanks tho.