Modified Counter proposal - add a module splitter unit.
- Comes in 3 variants (effectively trading capacity for versatility)
- C8 splitter allows two C6 modules to be fitted
- C6 splitter allows two C4 modules to be fitted
- C4 splitter allows two C2 modules to be fitted
- The splitter would have power requirements over and above the connected modules and may increase the power demand of the attached modules (e.g. 10% increase in Power Supply/Power Distributer demand)
- If the splitter integrity drops below a certain level than connected sub-modules would start to malfunction
- If the splitter deactivate then sub-modules are deactivated automatically
- Splitter would not work in restricted slots
- Splitter modules could be restricted to non-military modules
- No Hull Reinforcement class modules
- No Module Reinforcement class modules
- Nesting of splitters might be feasible but any detrimental effects (e.g. power drain) would be applied as an additive factor
- C6 nested in a C8 would assign 10% more power draw against the C6 and 20% more power draw against the modules fitted to the C6.
- C4 nested in a C6 nested in a C8 would add 30% more power draw against the modules fitted to the C4.
Some good ideas there, many of which I agree with.
However, I do feel that a 50% reduction in capacity is a bit much, not only that it is far more limiting in terms of what sizes can be converted to and from. Even if you were to add 7 -> 2x 5 then it would still have the limitation of never being able to convert between odd classes and even classes. My asymmetric suggestion gives far more flexibility both in terms of general design (as otherwise it's not just the number and size of slots, but you would need to factor in how many are odd vs how many are even) as well as to the player (they won't be bound to odd or even slots based on their ship). Hence my 25% reduction in volume suggestion, which resolves all of these issues.
Power requirements are good, adding in another variable to consider as well as giving engineering and/or experimental modules another variable to play with. The only worry would be in the cases where people place energyless modules in them, so maybe some kind of flat increase to energy requirements would be better.
I'd also suggest that they also take additional mass, which again could be either percentage or flat, with flat being preferred due to the abundance of massless modules.
Dealing with integrity is a tricky one, as there's plenty of modules that are untargetable/indestructible, such as cargo racks and fuel tanks (which are also massless and powerless).
Overall, it's pretty tricky to have a list of payload-dependent drawbacks that actually affects all modules roughly equally, so it would make more sense to have flat mass and energy costs for it as they affect everything ranging from cargo racks all the way through to SCBs equally while still giving enough balance levers.
Alternatively, if some kind of bonuses could be introduced at the cost of further volume inefficiency, then it could open up entirely new avenues of module flexibility and customisation. For example, a "protected module mount" could be added that coverts a slot to a size below but the splitter has to be reduced to 0 integrity before the module itself can be damaged. Or a "power conduit mount" could reduce its contained module (s) power consumption at the cost of module size without splitting anything.
Module splitters in restricted slots could simply inherit the limitations of their parent slot. Problem solved.
I disagree with removing military modules from them, as I said they should simply balance the scaling on military modules. If a class 5 was nearly twice the effectiveness of a class 4, then it wouldn't be an issue if people could put them in splitters as it would be more efficient to simply put the larger HRP/MRP into the slot in the first place. The issue I see is not one of power creep from larger amounts of tiny modules in a ship, the real issue I see that that many larger modules are terrible while many smaller modules are far too effective for their size. If a class 5D HRP offered 175% the resistance and integrity of a class 4D and about 3x a class 3D then nobody in their right mind would ever split a class 5 into a class 3 and a class 4 to try to get more survivability. This would also fix the issues with regards to extra class 1s breaking balance, at the moment an engineered 1D HRP adds a fair amount of EHP to a ship, but if they followed a properly exponential scaling of stats then a class 1 HRP would make very little difference to any combat-fit ship.
Nesting of splitters would be strongly discouraged by the inherent inefficiency of them, losing a significant amount of capacity every splitter. Moreso by whatever accumulating extra mass and power they might require.
Another tangentially related suggestion is to add a variety of engineering special effects for modules that allows them to function as module hybrids to pull double-duty (albeit quite poorly compared to using dedicated modules for the task). Such as a "high volume coolant reservoirs" special that allows a power-consuming module to function as a small fuel tank in addition to its normal task as , or a "two-way interference package" that allows an FSD to double up as an interdictor of 2 classes below.
