[Omniscaper]

I've been trying to make subsytems that actually affects the ship. I made a weapons subsystem but it's destruction does nothing more than destroy that subsytem. I was hoping to have the turrets stop firing after its destruction. Same with engines, do theie subsystems's destruction immobilize the ship?

This leads to another question. DO SUBSYSTEMS AFFECT ANYTHING OTHER THAN ITSELF? I'm starting to believe that subsystems are just there to have you blow up ship parts.

It may be my POF setup but I was testing stock vessels and their subsytems seem useless points of targeting as well.

[Carl]

destroying the engines makes the ship stop moving, and destroying the weapons makes the ship stop generating weapons energy.

[Black Wolf]

Or you can use a Turret lock all sexp linked to the destruction of the weapons subsystem.

[Trivial Psychic]

I've also heard that knocking out sensors can hinder a ship's targeting capabilities, but the engines are the only realy useful subsystem to disable, unless scripted into a mission.  A rogue coder had proposed a means to make subsystem status more consequential to a cap-ship's capabilities, outside of mission scripting.  One had each cap-ship requiring a reactor subsystem, which would provide a table-defied energy quantity to a ship.  Each subsequent subsystem would be assigned an energy drain figure, to possibly even allow higher AI to shut down unneeded or disabled subsustems to further the capabilities of the others.  In addition, a ship's total available power, would dictate which types of beam weapons can be fired, and at what rate.  For example, if the Colossus engages the Sathanas, it diverts all power to the main guns.  On the other hand, if a cluster of cruisers engage it, power can be deverted to the lower power cannons, which can fire more rapidly than the same weapon mounted on a Hecate or Orion.  Incidently, I would reccommend this method be made implimentable for the proposed Fe2 SCP project.

Later!

[Carl]

but all that would change gameplay far too much, and would therefore make some missions and campaigns unplayable.

[TrashMan]

I don't really belive it. Shivans would have the same restrictions.
And Vasudans will finally have their powerfull reactors.

[KARMA]

you should still be able to achieve same result with sexps

[karajorma]

Exactly. A good FREDder could do anything suggested so far on this thread. It might be a pain to have to do it for all the capships in a mission but once you've done the first one it's just a matter of copying and pasting and then changing the name of the ship.

If you want it in your campaigns FRED it that way. Don't force it on everyone else whether they want it or not.

[KARMA]

not being a FREDder, it seems to me a possible nice SCP new feature to have the possibility of assigning to a specific ship a block of SEXPs, maybe on some tables. That way every time a ship is placed in a mission, all its specific sexps are added to the mission.
Rotating subobjects like for xwing, critical subobjects, I have a "strange" idea for example for hyperspace on SW mods, achievable with SEXPS (and it would be painful to use it for all the ships in all the missions), etc etc all the SEXPS that HAVE to go with a ships whenever she will be used and more important WHOEVER will add she on a mission.

[karajorma]

That's not too bad an idea actually. It would actually cause a lot less effort for the SCP when they are asked to code something that is only being asked for because it's too much hassle to do for every single ship.

[SuperCoolAl]

if i remember correctly destroying the weapons sub on capships lowers the accuracy of the turrets, in fighters it stops them firing

[Flipside]

It also means they cannot target incoming bombs anymore IIRC