C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions

[TMaekler]

A nice additional option for civilians would be to do asteroid mining. They should either deliver those minerals to the closest planetary body with a production site, or you tax them.
As parameters for them choosing to mine there should be something like: max 2.000t of total mineral content on asteroid.

[Father Tim]

I would love it if CIWS came in multiple sizes (of GC, not of numbers of GC).  So in addition to the standard "two Gauss Cannon of 50% accuracy" one could also have "two Gauss Cannon of 33% accuracy" and "two Gauss Cannon of 17% accuaracy", etc.

[shepard1707]

Not sure if its been suggested yet, but a way to include class/ship numbering or ship serials alongside names would be massively helpful for organization.  If we could designate the serial for a class (numbers starting at DD 1000, or FF tt, for example) it could nicely mirror modern US Navy.  But if not, it could just be tied to the Hull Type and still be handy.  With us just making new hull types if we want a true serial number reset.

[alex_brunius]

If not already added, could we get an event warning message to the Event Updates log for when you have unassigned industry ( just like with unassigned research labs ).

[Stryker]

I was rereading the Lagrange point stabilization rules.   I did not see a mention of a default order for stabilizing Lagrange points.   Have you, or will you include such default orders?

[JustAnotherDude]

I don't see why you would ever want to stabilize every planet in the system, that would take an incredible amount of time and, more important, make defending anything near impossible. A default order for that would be a little pointless.

[Bremen]

This is probably more a future game version suggestion than a C# release idea, but I'd love to see a special warhead type (sort of like x-ray laser warheads) that works something like microwave lasers - it does greatly reduced damage and pierces shields and armor, but only damages engines. Call them Gravitic warheads, or Disruption Warheads, something like that. For game balance reasons, it would probably be best if they couldn't cause engine explosions - maybe even if they didn't destroy engines but temporarily knock them out, though that would mean more code work to add a new mechanic.

The basic idea is that this would make beam combat both more important and less all or nothing - you could carry a bunch of size 1 short range missiles, and if the enemy tries to kite you you can launch a few dozen and hopefully take out a few engines, even through powerful point defense. And all you have to do is slow one ship and the enemy would need to decide between sacrificing the ship or keeping together and letting you enter range. At the very least, one faster and longer ranged ship would no longer be able to effortlessly slaughter a dozen inferior ones.

It would also make piracy/boarding combat more feasible, maybe even to the point that larger warships start routinely carrying small units of marines as boarding defense. Which I consider a plus. Though even if you can easily force enemy ships to a standstill, getting boarding shuttles through heavy beam weapon defenses would probably be difficult and expensive.

[Ciphascain]

This is probably more a future game version suggestion than a C# release idea, but I'd love to see a special warhead type (sort of like x-ray laser warheads) that works something like microwave lasers - it does greatly reduced damage and pierces shields and armor, but only damages engines.  Call them Gravitic warheads, or Disruption Warheads, something like that.  For game balance reasons, it would probably be best if they couldn't cause engine explosions - maybe even if they didn't destroy engines but temporarily knock them out, though that would mean more code work to add a new mechanic.

The basic idea is that this would make beam combat both more important and less all or nothing - you could carry a bunch of size 1 short range missiles, and if the enemy tries to kite you you can launch a few dozen and hopefully take out a few engines, even through powerful point defense.  And all you have to do is slow one ship and the enemy would need to decide between sacrificing the ship or keeping together and letting you enter range.  At the very least, one faster and longer ranged ship would no longer be able to effortlessly slaughter a dozen inferior ones.

It would also make piracy/boarding combat more feasible, maybe even to the point that larger warships start routinely carrying small units of marines as boarding defense.  Which I consider a plus.  Though even if you can easily force enemy ships to a standstill, getting boarding shuttles through heavy beam weapon defenses would probably be difficult and expensive.

You could even make them hurt electronics such as the fire control system.  They could be something like the current harm missiles or AAGRM missiles. 

[Steve Walmsley]

I was rereading the Lagrange point stabilization rules.   I did not see a mention of a default order for stabilizing Lagrange points.   Have you, or will you include such default orders?

Stabilising a Lagrange point is a very specific decision with a lot of variables. You are probably only going to stabilise a very small percentage of planets, so default orders wouldn't work.

[Bremen]

This is probably more a future game version suggestion than a C# release idea, but I'd love to see a special warhead type (sort of like x-ray laser warheads) that works something like microwave lasers - it does greatly reduced damage and pierces shields and armor, but only damages engines.  Call them Gravitic warheads, or Disruption Warheads, something like that.  For game balance reasons, it would probably be best if they couldn't cause engine explosions - maybe even if they didn't destroy engines but temporarily knock them out, though that would mean more code work to add a new mechanic.

The basic idea is that this would make beam combat both more important and less all or nothing - you could carry a bunch of size 1 short range missiles, and if the enemy tries to kite you you can launch a few dozen and hopefully take out a few engines, even through powerful point defense.  And all you have to do is slow one ship and the enemy would need to decide between sacrificing the ship or keeping together and letting you enter range.  At the very least, one faster and longer ranged ship would no longer be able to effortlessly slaughter a dozen inferior ones.

It would also make piracy/boarding combat more feasible, maybe even to the point that larger warships start routinely carrying small units of marines as boarding defense.  Which I consider a plus.  Though even if you can easily force enemy ships to a standstill, getting boarding shuttles through heavy beam weapon defenses would probably be difficult and expensive.

You could even make them hurt electronics such as the fire control system.  They could be something like the current harm missiles or AAGRM missiles.

That would be the complete opposite of the purpose. The idea is a missile to slow your opponents down so that being faster would not always be an automatic "I win" in beam fights, but there would still be an actual fight.

[Jorgen_CAB]

While I would like to see a bit more variety on how you can target ships in general, both with missiles and beams I don't think that fighting from extreme range will be very effective anymore. As damage at such ranges is very low together with accuracy, you will probably run out of supply before you do any significant damage to an opponent, specially if they have even half decent shields.

If you have dedicated beam ships this is going t be an even worse prospect rather than fitting some beam weapons on most ships as you have much less supply for each weapon. I certainly can see some interesting strategic design choices being made here as accepting some more cost in Uridium in fire-control sensors for allot more durability in combat, both in terms of hit-points and Supply for weapon failures.

I would definitely like at some point a more engaging beam combat mechanic where you can target things like engines and weapons specifically and where armour are not just an automatic protection of the entire ship in a unison layer. Many component will need to be more or less exposed and some will be more or less important to armour for the same reasons. Old battleship had allot more armour around their magazines and weapon turrets for a reason.

I would also like to see armour acting more like real armour as in either they hole or they break. Being able to just peal of layer by layer with a really weak weapon would at some level be impossible. But this is not just a matter of depth of the armour but also its quality and type. Also different weapons might require different types of armour to be really effective. As in reactive armour against kinetic projectiles or reflective armour against lasers etc... this might also force more wide weapon research in and of itself.

There would be allot of possibilities at least. I know Steve had some great ideas for his Aurora 2 project a while back that seemed very promising to me... so I know he have thought about this stuff before.

[shepard1707]

So.  A thought I had that would make for some interesting interactions in equipment is the idea that Missile Fire Controls, and possibly even fire controls in general, can only control so many missiles at a time.  Such that, even if I had a ship with, say, 78 box launchers, if my missile fire control tech wasn't good enough, I couldn't actually fire them ALL at once .  .  .  unless they had their own guidance.

This would add a lot of additional incentive to having self-guiding missiles, as well as functionally enforce the idea that just throwing all the missiles all at once is the absolute best solution all the time.  Put some control onto those great big box launcher designs.

It also has some degree of basis in reality, as from what I understand, modern missile control systems do not have an unlimited ability to launch and control missiles.





Also had a thought about possible fun to be had in Class, Hull, or Vessel 'quirks'.  Basically, little buffs or debuffs that a ship could have as a quality to it.  Perhaps it's sensors have a slightly higher failure rate, or it's engines are a bit more efficient, or it's turrets are just a bit faster turning than the tech would indicate.  No two ships in real life are the same, after all.  Ships would have a roll of the dice to see if it can develop a quirk, what that quirk is, and what the trigger might be .  .  .  all done when the vessel is built.  The quirk is initially hidden, unless 'triggered'.  It can be made to trigger with a tour of task force training, or, if the vessel is pressed into service right away, it might be revealed in the field.

Just a thought.  It'd be a lot of variables and probably ultimately not that fun, unless some method of forcing a reroll was implemented, or the debuff quirks were light enough to not be so bothersome.

[papent]

in regards to the MFC/BFC idea, couldn't that just be roleplayed without limiting another players game/story?

[Jorgen_CAB]

in regards to the MFC/BFC idea, couldn't that just be roleplayed without limiting another players game/story?

While that is true you could say that with almost any mechanic in the game. I think this is a part that would add interesting choices in design, tactics and doctrine.

[Father Tim]

While that is true you could say that with almost any mechanic in the game. I think this is a part that would add interesting choices in design, tactics and doctrine.

Would it?  If the research cost for "guide 25 missiles" was equivalent to Ion-tech engines, and the cost for "guide 36 missiles" was equivalent to Magneto-Plasma, would anyone actually build Ion-engined missile cruisers with seven tubes?  Would they build Magneto-Plasma BCs with nine tubes, or four?

Before Aurora expands in that direction, I want to see it fix the problem of 'point defense only fires on one salvo at a time, and stupidly will prioritise a one-missile salvo over a sixteen-missile salvo.'

- - - - -

Not to mention my "ships of the line" are only ever going to have two beam fire controls (port and starboard).  Dont prevent me from assigning 37 cannons to each of them on my "74s" -- or worse, make it cost a million RP to do so.  NPR tech is proportional to MY tech, and I don't want to give them all dozens of free levels over me.