Vostok 1 in ksp

[tater]

Yeah, that's really the thing, not to have just different looks, but different capabilities. 

[Darnok]

22 minutes ago, tater said:

One thing that needs to be included, though, are trade-offs. Soviet reentry vehicles could not land safely on water, and US RVs could not land safely on land. If that was built in, it would make far more sense to offer both, as there would be design trade-offs. Perhaps a stock-alike vostok has no top node, and is made such that any radial chutes big enough to land softly will burn off---then give kerbals a parachute option (you have to bail out). Maybe all the "koviet" capsules sink, but Soyuz-alike has landertron functionality. Make US-alike chutes not safe for land (have water vs land a thing).

Decreasing crash tolerance and adding lift of US-like (Green Kerbals) capsules should do the job for dangerous land landings, also yes they should float over water.

While other nation Red Kerbals should have capsules that sink quite fast, but with high crash tolerance.

 

 

[tater]

A simple way to add in variant tech trees would look like this, you start all career modes giving the player 10,000 science. There are 2 (more, if we can come up with variant paths to take) starting nodes, and they cost 10,000 to unlock each. You pick the one with the round capsule, and that places you on one tech progression, and if you chose the conical pod, you get the other. There is overlap in the middle of the tree, and "side" specific tech clings to the outside of the tree (requires a direct link to the 1st node chosen). All rescues pull pods from the "opposing" tree.

[Darnok]

8 minutes ago, tater said:

A simple way to add in variant tech trees would look like this, you start all career modes giving the player 10,000 science. There are 2 (more, if we can come up with variant paths to take) starting nodes, and they cost 10,000 to unlock each. You pick the one with the round capsule, and that places you on one tech progression, and if you chose the conical pod, you get the other. There is overlap in the middle of the tree, and "side" specific tech clings to the outside of the tree (requires a direct link to the 1st node chosen). All rescues pull pods from the "opposing" tree.

IMO in single run we shouldn't be able to unlock all nodes from both (or all) factions (except sandbox of course). It would make game more interesting.

[tater]

25 minutes ago, Darnok said:

IMO in single run we shouldn't be able to unlock all nodes from both (or all) factions (except sandbox of course). It would make game more interesting.

Well, at a cost of 10,000, it would be an unlikely choice to unlock both

[John JACK]

1 hour ago, tater said:

The first 2 US capsules don;t actually look like the mk1, aside from color, as the mk1 lacks the nose.

Geminy is clearly distinct from Mk1 due to being two-seater lack of forward-facing windows. But Mk1 is very similar to Mercury, in cone angle, hatch, window and even color. Nose was a parachute pack, that is a separate part in game.

RIGHT NAO™ we have only two pods. Two-seaters like Geminy or Soyuz/Shenzhou need 1.875 m size, that is separate suggestion. But in that size Geminy-like pod with .625 m top node may be also substitute for a spaceplane cockpit. And biconical or cylinder-conical pod will represent Reds and have 1.25 m node.
Dragon or PPTS-like pod may have 4 seats in 2.5 m size, due to same diameter as Apollo/Mk1-2 with bigger height and volume. Bigger pods are necessary by themselves for stations resupply and tourist contracts, and may serve as control cabins for bigger spacecraft (made of hitchhiker cans).
Alternate low tier spherical pod (inspired by Stayputnik Mk. 1) may be cool too. But it should be a blend of Vostok and Voskhod — single-seater with attachment node on top.

1 hour ago, tater said:

One thing that needs to be included, though, are trade-offs. Soviet reentry vehicles could not land safely on water, and US RVs could not land safely on land.

We don't have choice to need trade-offs. Well, except Mk1-2 is too heavy, and lander cans with heatshields look ugly. Different capacity already will be enough.

Different landing types were made by geography. USA had big warm seas, and USSR had no seas, but much empty land. Soyuz capsule is more dense than Apollo with same mission types due to most habitable volume is dumped with orbital module. And lack of need to use two modules explains that "Red" pod may have just two seats in game. But it should float IRL, and may as well float in KSP.
In stock KSP there is no planning, so player can not choose place to land before starting a mission. Necessity to land either in water, or splash on land is too much for a stock game. AFAIK, even most hardcore realism mods do not force it.

[tater]

I could see a PPTS-like 2 seater, though (smaller diameter, maybe 1.875), with a full size top node, and then a 3.75 version with perhaps more than 4 crew.

Regarding land landing, it was not geography, really, but the fear the CCCP had of having vehicles land outside their actual territory---which is why so many of their craft were destroyed intentionally with explosive charges. The US has a global navy, so water meant we could land anywhere on earth with an ocean, a much easier target given the % of the earth covered with ocean.

Choosing to land on land vs water in KSP certainly isn't hard, but I see your point, it is likely too hard to add to the game.