Rescaling the Kusari Destroyer

[Zeltak]

I dont petition for a resize because it is overpowered - but because it looks bloody stupid!

Your expertise is also needed here: http://discoverygc.com/forums/index.php?sh...c=68155&hl=

[Friday]

Your expertise is also needed here: http://discoverygc.com/forums/index.php?sh...c=68155&hl=

Troll thread is TrOlL

---

[Montezuma/Kukulcan]

Meh.
Don't change it's size, descrease max energy to 2x Kusari GB level and descrease turrets by 1-2.

I agree with this (perhaps not the turrets, but the powercore decrease is probably a better idea than a size increase).

Furthermore, last i heard, Kusari was getting a Battlecruiser in .86, so they would have the 'heavy cruiser firepower' issue sorted, while still having a small and agile light destroyer.

---

[MrHeadphones]

My personal view is to upsize it maybe 1.5x-1.75x, then improve the firing arcs, then you have a cruiser which is still smaller than the others, still agile and quite difficult to hit, and doesn't need the rather OoRP nerfs placed on it.

Let me ask you one question. What sort of idiotic military designer would make a cruiser which is practically useless if engaged from the side or rear? The current state of the Kusari dessie may be "balanced" but it really doesn't seem in RP. The larger cruiser would allow for the Kusari dessie to have more side and rear firepower, stay balanced, and defuse the flames going on about how any cruiser buff would "Make the Kusari Dessie an uberpwnship", so what, if any, disadvantages are there?

[Friday]

There is a balance available between forward firepower and maneuverability. Increased maneuverability increases the application of forward firepower.

But that isnt the issue raised here, it is size, and size alone.

---

[Zelot]

Is the KU Dessie unbalanced? Pretty much everyone here says it's not.

Is the KU Dessie Overpowered? Pretty much everyone here says it's not.

Is the KU Dessie holding back the development of other Cruisers? The head of balance says it's not.



Why are we having this discussion?

---

 

[Slartibartfast]

I don't really care how it's called... Destroyer, gunboat... These are just the classifications that help determine its role. So, let's call it Sally. Ku Dessie Sally.

This Sally is the size of a (Bret) gunboat (or even smaller?), yet has much more cargo space and a lot bigger energy core. It has some odd turret placement - something only Kusarian engineers can be blamed on (inRP).

So it really confuses me when Kusarian engineers can fit a quite large cargo space and a destroyer energy core into such a small vessel, yet are so hopeless when it comes to turret placement. I mean, someone would think power core is connected with the size of a ship? Or just have it over with and give the Chimmy a bomber core. That makes as much sense as Sally's power core... And everything else about Sally.

You want a unique ship? That's great really, no complaints there, but at least keep it in the realms of believable.

EIDT: Actually, didn't read the latest comments before posting that; basically, I pretty much concur with Sircian's above post.

[kalimero2]

but at least keep it in the realms of believable.

your argument is not valid... not until there is SNAC

---

[Slartibartfast]

your argument is not valid... not until there is SNAC

How's so? SNAC, at least to me, is not unbelievable technology at all. Much more believable at least than trade lanes, turning your engines on from e-kill with CD.......

And... Most <3.03 (probably all) guns are more energy efficient....

But can we stick to the subject? What's your point?

[Zelot]

But can we stick to the subject? What's your point?

I think the point is, what is believable in a "fictional, spaceship, shooting game" is very subjective.

---