Yrurtj

I enjoy designing games, and in one that I'm working on the ships have shields, similar to the shields in Star Trek. They are created via some kind of force field projection mechanism and are spheroidical (that is, they take the shape of a spheroid). I would expect that those shields have strength relative to:

• The power used (more is better)


• The distance from the emitter (less is better)


• The curvature of the shield (more is better - which implies smaller)

Now, on a small fighter or shuttlecraft, the second and third criteria imply that the shield would be stronger. I would naïvely expect both power and distance to scale the strength of the shield with the third power - but power generation capabilities also scale with the cube of size, so those two things are about a wash. But the fighter, being smaller, would have a more curved shield, so it would be stronger.

Moreover, with less space dedicated to other things (like hydroponics or living space) and more justification for having as much power as possible, a fighter would likely have more power per cubic metre, and thus an even stronger shield.

Why wouldn't this be the case? The justification doesn't need to be short and pithy; I need the explanation so I can feel good about the system more than I need to have players understand why it works the way it does.

The key thing about a fighter is speed and agility, and fighters consequently need to be small and as light as possible. While you could build a small ship with large power generation capabilities, it would move and turn slowly compared with a more stripped-down fighter and would thus be vulnerable.

If, OTOH, the shield is a perfect defense, then you wouldn't build fighters, because their whole point is to deliver a punch with speed and agility. So if you want a class of ships that are analogous to fighters, the shield must have vulnerabilities that a fast-moving, agile craft can exploit.

A small generator in your backyard is enough to power your house, but that power plant is enough to power an entire city. The same can be applied to your ships. Your fighters aren't big enough to house proper full sized generators to supply your shield generators with the required power, while your capital ships can.

Another consideration is that there is a maximum limit a shield generator can obtain. Your fighter simple uses a small or medium sized shield generator, powered by a small or medium generator. Your Capital ships use large or Extra Large Shield Generators linked to multiple large generators. Simple put, your Capital ships can push its Shield generator to the limit, while your fighter is maintaining a minimum requirement.

So from a game perspective, your fighter can only install a small shield generator. Your capital ship can install 2 large shield generators. Your small fighter only has 2 guns. Your capital ship has 20. Your small fighter only has 100 hp. Your capital ship has 1000 hp. But your small fighter is cheaper and more maneuverable while a capital ship is a more costly investment.

What has better armour, an aircraft carrier or a frigate?

The aircraft carrier always has the better armour because it's thicker.

The capital ship has better armour because it has the energy to produce much thicker shields than a fighter.

Sure the curvature might make a difference if the shields were the same but it doesn't compensate for shields 100 times thicker.