C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions

[Steve Walmsley]

The issue is less on the side of things being too hard, but things being too easy. Players will, very consistently, be faster then the enemy because they understand that speed is, in the context of a beam fight, the most important mechanic. Players also tend to be farther ahead down the tech line. This makes wars trivial because you literally need one offensive ship and point defense and you're good. Literally one gun is a it takes. Having a speed and range advantage should be a big deal but it shouldn't be the only relevant variables, it makes both ship design and fighting boring.

That is true in VB6. It isn't really true for C#. The AI is a lot better at research and will design improved ships and ground forces as the game progresses (the NPRs have already done that in my current campaign). The AI is also better at creating mixed forces than VB6, so you will encounter fleets with better balanced weapons.

[Jorgen_CAB]

I would generally agree with Father Tim on this one. The boosted engine would not solve the beam core issue but would make it possible to in some instances flee from a bad fight.

I don't mind if a high technology fleet could easily defeat an inferior fleet in beam combat... but the thing is that even only slightly better fleet can become nearly invincible in beam combat. I still think that game mechanics should allow numbers of low quality to count for something as they do in missile combat.

Let's say that ships that stand still have full range of fire controls while ships that move get a 0.5 modifier if moving at full speed. That would still make range important but would still make older ship dangerous if enough in numbers.

[Titanian]

Let's say that ships that stand still have full range of fire controls while ships that move get a 0.5 modifier if moving at full speed. That would still make range important but would still make older ship dangerous if enough in numbers.

That won't work, the faster, longer ranged ship would boost out of the others range, come to a stop and fire, boost on, repeat. Only if there was some cooldown to this effect, the range advantage you need to have would increase. But then the side with lower range would see the other stop, and could just turn away and avoid the attack, turning the battle into a micromanagement dance.

[Jorgen_CAB]

Let's say that ships that stand still have full range of fire controls while ships that move get a 0.5 modifier if moving at full speed. That would still make range important but would still make older ship dangerous if enough in numbers.

That won't work, the faster, longer ranged ship would boost out of the others range, come to a stop and fire, boost on, repeat. Only if there was some cool down to this effect, the range advantage you need to have would increase. But then the side with lower range would see the other stop, and could just turn away and avoid the attack, turning the battle into a micromanagement dance.

How many times do one have to repeat that it HAS to be together with a block timer of fire-control once you end the boost of at least a few minutes like a combat jump... perhaps even more. Then it would work just fine. I hope that this is clear by now...  ...there need to be a timer on the change from moving to standing still as well... perhaps the same penalty.

Using boost in this way would not work at all... dancing in and out would not work that well either as the one who stand still would get too many opportunities to fire without return fire most of the time. If you have the advantage you would just run into a good firing position and try to hold that distance. But then at least both side would be able to fire and the weaker side could still defend themselves and do damage and if numerous enough could potentially overwhelm a technological superior opponent that then would have to retreat.

There would still be a benefit to the technologically superior or faster fleet as they have more tactical options available.

The result is simply that moving cost you accuracy... a slower fleet can run away but the faster fleet will have to run the gauntlet into a good firing position and the slower fleet could defend itself. A fleet with lower range could still fight the enemy or try to run away, if the enemy follows they are both out of range... so the fleet with lower range can still win the fight if it has stronger beam offensive power but lower range and slower engines, but the other side could always retreat when needed.

It would be a more fair system for everyone involved. A fleet would only be invincible ones their range are close to double that of the other fleet which is a gap I certainly could live with.

[QuakeIV]

I don't understand, do you mean if boosting then you can still shoot but at a halved range?

[Jorgen_CAB]

I don't understand, do you mean if boosting then you can still shoot but at a halved range?

No... that was a completely different suggestion to fix a completely different issue of unbalance in beam combat.

The problem with beam combat that missile combat does not have is that you can overwhelm of defend against a superior missile fleet with numbers against quality... in beam combat this is almost impossible and the superiority you need in speed and/or range are very minor for a very huge benefit. This is what makes beam only fleets a very risky move, as soon as you come across someone with just a slight advantage you are basically done, that don't happen with missile combat in the same way.

Being able to sun away would not fix why it is mostly inferior with using beam only combat fleets. Beam fleets demands parity on speed and fire-control range, missile fleets can bridge the gap with enough numbers. This is what in my opinion make beam fleets very risky. If you would like to play a multi-faction campaign with only beam combat you would soon find yourself in problematic combat scenarios for these very reasons.

I just tried to give a few example how you could make beam combat only campaigns or fleets in general more feasible.

[Bremen]

How many times do one have to repeat that it HAS to be together with a block timer of fire-control once you end the boost of at least a few minutes like a combat jump... perhaps even more. Then it would work just fine. I hope that this is clear by now...  ...there need to be a timer on the change from moving to standing still as well... perhaps the same penalty.

Using boost in this way would not work at all... dancing in and out would not work that well either as the one who stand still would get too many opportunities to fire without return fire most of the time. If you have the advantage you would just run into a good firing position and try to hold that distance. But then at least both side would be able to fire and the weaker side could still defend themselves and do damage and if numerous enough could potentially overwhelm a technological superior opponent that then would have to retreat.

There would still be a benefit to the technologically superior or faster fleet as they have more tactical options available.

The result is simply that moving cost you accuracy... a slower fleet can run away but the faster fleet will have to run the gauntlet into a good firing position and the slower fleet could defend itself. A fleet with lower range could still fight the enemy or try to run away, if the enemy follows they are both out of range... so the fleet with lower range can still win the fight if it has stronger beam offensive power but lower range and slower engines, but the other side could always retreat when needed.

It would be a more fair system for everyone involved. A fleet would only be invincible ones their range are close to double that of the other fleet which is a gap I certainly could live with.

If boosting ships had half the range, the faster/longer range ships could still slaughter the slower/shorter ranged ships unopposed. Let's look at the scenario in detail:

Side A has a tech advantage - their ships are slightly faster and their fire controls have a slightly better range. Side B is one tech tier lower, but we'll say they have twice as many ships - any exchange of fire will still favor them.

Side A approaches, but sits outside Side B's range and starts firing. Side B has two choices - tune their engines or don't tune. If they don't tune, they'll eventually be destroyed, so they really have one choice. They turn on their engine tuners and either approach or flee - it doesn't matter.

Side A turns on their tuners as well and now starts maintaining half the range they previously were - they can still fire and Side B still can't. Side B turns off their engine tuners and starts waiting for whatever period for their fire controls to recover - Side A flies back out of Side B's range and then turns off their engine tuners. When they recover they can resume firing but Side B can't.

No matter what Side B does in this scenario, the same problem continues - they can't fire back, and they can't escape.

In the scenario where engine tuning disables weapons entirely, then instead we get a situation where Side B still can't ever fire on Side A, but may be able to escape. Which sounds good except I think the net result of it being far more difficult to ever force a beam engagement is to never almost build beam ships, since the current role of beam ships is basically "force your enemy into combat once they're out of missiles".

[Jorgen_CAB]

If boosting ships had half the range, the faster/longer range ships could still slaughter the slower/shorter ranged ships unopposed. Let's look at the scenario in detail:

Side A has a tech advantage - their ships are slightly faster and their fire controls have a slightly better range. Side B is one tech tier lower, but we'll say they have twice as many ships - any exchange of fire will still favor them.

Side A approaches, but sits outside Side B's range and starts firing. Side B has two choices - tune their engines or don't tune. If they don't tune, they'll eventually be destroyed, so they really have one choice. They turn on their engine tuners and either approach or flee - it doesn't matter.

Side A turns on their tuners as well and now starts maintaining half the range they previously were - they can still fire and Side B still can't. Side B turns off their engine tuners and starts waiting for whatever period for their fire controls to recover - Side A flies back out of Side B's range and then turns off their engine tuners. When they recover they can resume firing but Side B can't.

No matter what Side B does in this scenario, the same problem continues - they can't fire back, and they can't escape.

In the scenario where engine tuning disables weapons entirely, then instead we get a situation where Side B still can't ever fire on Side A, but may be able to escape. Which sounds good except I think the net result of it being far more difficult to ever force a beam engagement is to never almost build beam ships, since the current role of beam ships is basically "force your enemy into combat once they're out of missiles".

First of all I never said that boosted ship would get half range... that was a completely different suggestion that MOVING ships would get half range in order to "fix" the issue with the fact that you only need a SLIGHT advantage in beam combat. It would actually make beam combat a viable option as two beam fleets could fight even if one have a slight range and speed advantage. This has nothing to do with missile versus beam combat balance what so ever.

At some point you will have to defend points in space so you can't run forever... right?!?

Stopping would in either case suspend fire-controls in the boosting instance and half the range in the "moving" scenario for a certain period of time to avoid the problem of moving back and forth so that there is combat until someone wants to run away.

Technology will still matter but in beam combat you would now need to have a certain advantage to engage as the defender will always have a slight advantage... I don't see that as a huge problem to be honest. I still see allot of instances where one side is strong enough to engage... if you also have a speed advantage then engaging to probe enemy strength are still relatively safe in beam combat.

It would make beam combat more interesting as they are less one dimensional.

[Jorgen_CAB]

To make matters more clear I have actually suggested TWO different things that are completely separated from each other but could both be implemented together as well.

1. Boosted Engines
There would be a technology where you could attach a device or be part of the engines themselves that could boost engines between say 25%-50%. At 25% boost you would burn x2 fuel and at 50% you would burn x4 fuel. The higher the boost the more likely you would receive an engine failure while using the booster effect, the ships maintenance cycle should probably also be effected. There would also be a tech that reduce engine failure.

While the ship is using Boosters it could not use active sensors or fire-controls. Once a ship exit the boost it have to stop and stand still for 120 seconds and neither sensors nor fire-controls would work. This time could be modified with fleet training, crew experience and officers down to maybe 30-45 seconds or so (throw in some RND).

Ships that uses boosted engines at any point for more than really short periods are quite likely to need immediate overhaul after such activities and need be supplied with more MSP, so using it will then put a severe limitation on strategical operations for those ship... offensive or defensive purposes.


2. Modified range for moving in Beam combat
Ships that move have their beam fire-control range halved. A ship (or station) that stands still get to fire with their fire-controls at full range. Although it will take 120 seconds before a ship can utilise the full range of fire-controls after they stop moving. The time needed is then modified with fleet training, crew training and officers down to around 30-45 seconds as minimum (throw in some RND.

You could rationalise it that anything that stand still can easily build a map of the physical and Eather space around them to make their weapons more precise, but this will take some time after the stop.

This would make it slightly more efficient to defend rather than attack so an attacker would need to have a slight advantage to win a beam combat, it also would mean that you need a considerable advantage in technology to become invincible in beam combat and that a technologically inferior fleet could win if they have enough ships in many situations. It would make combat between beam ships behave more like combat between missile ships of different technological standards.


These are two different suggestion that actually would work together pretty well and would serve different purposes. The first is not only for beam combat as it will impact missile combat as well. You would likely not want to use boosted engines when on the offensive as it puts rather hard restrictions on operational range and stamina of your ships. For defensive purposes it is good if you need to just run away into the safety of reinforcement or a military base where you have plenty of missile and beam defences to protect you.

I do understand that some people like when things are very decisive. Personally I like when things are a but more indecisive and you need to have a clear advantage to win and that you might not always know what that is. Being able to probe enemy defences without being directly overwhelmed is more interesting. You will still be able to produce those decisive moments even with these rules in place.

[Bremen]

it also would mean that you need a considerable advantage in technology to become invincible in beam combat and that a technologically inferior fleet could win if they have enough ships in many situations. It would make combat between beam ships behave more like combat between missile ships of different technological standards.

It wouldn't do this for the reasons I already covered, whether it involved engine tuning or not. Just fly to a point that's inside your range but outside theirs and stop; if they fly towards you, they're now getting the reduced range penalty too. It wouldn't change anything about beam combat other than adding extra micromanagement.

[Profugo Barbatus]

Bremen beat me to it, these changes don't do anything but add micro. Same goes for boost, if the slower fleet kicks on boost but can't fight, its not helping at all, and if boost becomes key to beam combat, everyone will just bring boost. So if your boost is fast enough to outpace the otherwise superior enemy, they'll just kick on their superior boost and now its back to the same problem, except nobody can fire their guns without chilling dead in the water for a while. I guess its good for running away?

I'm still not entire sure why we're trying to create a complex system to resolve a problem that has already been solved. The beam knife fighting problem of minor advantages being an all or nothing win was already solved with the implementation of missiles, you are supposed to use combined arms. A modern guns only warship would be shredded it it tried to face down a faster opponent with longer range on its guns, and the solution was cruise missiles. Beams are supposed to be secondary batteries, and the risk to using them instead of your missile armament is being at that disadvantage to your enemy.

The only thing I can think of that doesn't involve ridiculous amounts of micromanagement, while also stopping the worst of beam kiting, is have it based on direction. if you opponent is within a given angle from your rear (based on your movement that turn) then you suffer a range malus for firing into your engine wake or something technical like that. Superior opponents will retain their speed advantage, but can't fire as far directly backwards. This means you can't just fly directly away from the enemy and use the full range advantage, you need to either go oblique, or turn into them, both of which give an inferior enemy a chance to close. If your speed or range advantage is so overwhelming that they still cannot deal with it, that's fine, such a massive tech difference should cause problems.

Edit: On retrospect, I'm not even sure that'll help, you'd just make larger laps of leaving then closing the range. I still think the solution to this problem is "Bring missiles"

[Jorgen_CAB]

it also would mean that you need a considerable advantage in technology to become invincible in beam combat and that a technologically inferior fleet could win if they have enough ships in many situations. It would make combat between beam ships behave more like combat between missile ships of different technological standards.

It wouldn't do this for the reasons I already covered, whether it involved engine tuning or not. Just fly to a point that's inside your range but outside theirs and stop; if they fly towards you, they're now getting the reduced range penalty too. It wouldn't change anything about beam combat other than adding extra micromanagement.

But that is pointless as that is the same as simply avoiding to fight as the other side could just move out of range and sit in return... so it would be pointless. The AI would never do it and the AI could simply move outside your range indefinitely until you tire of doing it and in a multi-faction human campaign you would not do it as it is simply pointless.

Either you commit to engage or you don't and try to run away using boost. If the enemy still can catch you then you are in bad luck and the tech gap simply is too big.

[Bremen]

But that is pointless as that is the same as simply avoiding to fight as the other side could just move out of range and sit in return... so it would be pointless. The AI would never do it and the AI could simply move outside your range indefinitely until you tire of doing it and in a multi-faction human campaign you would not do it as it is simply pointless.

Either you commit to engage or you don't and try to run away using boost. If the enemy still can catch you then you are in bad luck and the tech gap simply is too big.

That was discussing the situation without boosting. You said it meant an inferior tech but numerically superior force could actually win and I was pointing out that it didn't do that at all. The enemy force can't move outside of your range, because once they do their weapons have the same .5x range modifier, so you move to .5x your range which is outside .5x their range and you're able to fire unopposed. Then if they stop moving, before their range goes back to normal you can move back out to 1x. If they move after that, you repeat everything, if not you eventually get back to 1x range modifier too and they're dead.

I've already pointed out why I think your separate suggestion for engine tuning is also a bad idea, but for different reasons.

[Jorgen_CAB]

Bremen beat me to it, these changes don't do anything but add micro. Same goes for boost, if the slower fleet kicks on boost but can't fight, its not helping at all, and if boost becomes key to beam combat, everyone will just bring boost. So if your boost is fast enough to outpace the otherwise superior enemy, they'll just kick on their superior boost and now its back to the same problem, except nobody can fire their guns without chilling dead in the water for a while. I guess its good for running away?

I'm still not entire sure why we're trying to create a complex system to resolve a problem that has already been solved. The beam knife fighting problem of minor advantages being an all or nothing win was already solved with the implementation of missiles, you are supposed to use combined arms. A modern guns only warship would be shredded it it tried to face down a faster opponent with longer range on its guns, and the solution was cruise missiles. Beams are supposed to be secondary batteries, and the risk to using them instead of your missile armament is being at that disadvantage to your enemy.

The only thing I can think of that doesn't involve ridiculous amounts of micromanagement, while also stopping the worst of beam kiting, is have it based on direction. if you opponent is within a given angle from your rear (based on your movement that turn) then you suffer a range malus for firing into your engine wake or something technical like that. Superior opponents will retain their speed advantage, but can't fire as far directly backwards. This means you can't just fly directly away from the enemy and use the full range advantage, you need to either go oblique, or turn into them, both of which give an inferior enemy a chance to close. If your speed or range advantage is so overwhelming that they still cannot deal with it, that's fine, such a massive tech difference should cause problems.

Edit: On retrospect, I'm not even sure that'll help, you'd just make larger laps of leaving then closing the range. I still think the solution to this problem is "Bring missiles"

I agree that missiles is a solution to beam weapons in general. The suggestion was for those that like to play with only beam weapons mostly. Try playing a campaign with only using beam weapons with multiple faction, it will end badly I believe... I have never tried it though as you want a balanced fleet to be strong.

[Jorgen_CAB]

But that is pointless as that is the same as simply avoiding to fight as the other side could just move out of range and sit in return... so it would be pointless. The AI would never do it and the AI could simply move outside your range indefinitely until you tire of doing it and in a multi-faction human campaign you would not do it as it is simply pointless.

Either you commit to engage or you don't and try to run away using boost. If the enemy still can catch you then you are in bad luck and the tech gap simply is too big.

That was discussing the situation without boosting. You said it meant an inferior tech but numerically superior force could actually win and I was pointing out that it didn't do that at all. The enemy force can't move outside of your range, because once they do their weapons have the same .5x range modifier, so you move to .5x your range which is outside .5x their range and you're able to fire unopposed. Then if they stop moving, before their range goes back to normal you can move back out to 1x. If they move after that, you repeat everything, if not you eventually get back to 1x range modifier too and they're dead.

I've already pointed out why I think your separate suggestion for engine tuning is also a bad idea, but for different reasons.

Yes... you are partially right... but there would be no need to do that... you would move into a decent range and be at a disadvantage for a while and after that you would get advantage in accuracy (as your fire-control range is better). Now it is a mettle of whose fleet is stronger. Once either side feel they are loosing they can try to disengage and retreat. This would produce partial destruction of a fleet rather than one fleet always ending up destroyed every time.

Either you fight or you flee. Now you at least can try and fight for a while and then flee...

Boosting would be necessary for both sides having a chance to flee in combat situation where the difference in tech is not too great. It might not work all the time but it will at times do so. If there is no boost you would at least be able to get the slower fleet a chance to take some of the offender with them in defeat.

So.. yes... it would give a power boost to the one who are defending in beam combat. I don't see a direct problem with that.

It would produce more to do in beam combat and combat would take longer. But tactical retreat would make more leeway of manoeuvre, especially with multiple task-forces.