Post reply

Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.

Note: this post will not display until it's been approved by a moderator.

Name:
Email:
Subject:
Message icon:

shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview

Please read the rules before you post!


Topic Summary

Posted by: Nathan_
« on: October 31, 2012, 01:19:58 PM »

Quote
The components would have to go from a generalized abstract to specific distribution within the hull.
Not necessarily, damage could be allocated(to outside components) the way that it is allocated to the armor belt in general. if the random number picks the slot the turret is on top of that takes the hit. Or psuedo armor columns to represent such components, it could be done.

Quote
Agreed. I think the armor system I'm asking for is a separate armor box for every component you choose to armor, with turrets outside the "main belt" and internalt component like magazines and engines having their armor box inside.

That part wouldn't necessarily work out like that, you can't pick the number of columns you want, that is decided by the volume->radius->area calculation, and putting stuff on the outside would corespondingly weaken the belt, which would probably make the ship as a whole less well protected. A 750 ton turret would have 3-4 columns to start out with for instance, and the HTK model might actually turn out to be more survivable for them.
Posted by: Charlie Beeler
« on: October 31, 2012, 12:55:14 PM »

Quote from: ThatBlondeGuy on October 31, 2012, 12:29:30 PM
To be honest, I'm not that bothered about the armour system my primary gripe has always been with missiles and there extremely long range.
Which part?
Posted by: ThatBlondeGuy
« on: October 31, 2012, 12:29:30 PM »

To be honest, I'm not that bothered about the armour system my primary gripe has always been with missiles and there extremely long range.
Posted by: Charlie Beeler
« on: October 31, 2012, 11:31:59 AM »

I'm not saying it wont happen, but the likelyhood is low... in my opinion.
Posted by: bean
« on: October 31, 2012, 11:13:15 AM »

Quote from: ThatBlondeGuy on October 31, 2012, 10:44:03 AM
I'm not entirely sure it would be a complete change, just additions to what is already there.
Charlie's right on this one.  The current damage system would have to be totally rebuilt to accommodate this.  I'm not opposed to that happening, but we need to make sure that we don't get our hopes up.  Steve is kind enough to share this with us, and we need to play the game we have.  That doesn't mean we can't ask for things, but there is a limit, and according to Charlie (who's been here a lot longer than I have) this isn't going to happen.
The best thing we could do that's fairly simple (I think) is the soak system, where systems still absorb damage after they've been killed.
Posted by: ThatBlondeGuy
« on: October 31, 2012, 10:44:03 AM »

Quote from: Charlie Beeler on October 31, 2012, 07:57:47 AM
A change like that would require a complete change of how damage is allocated.  The components would have to go from a generalized abstract to specific distribution within the hull.  This is something that Steve was very specific about at the inception of Aurora that he was not willing to code.  I've seen nothing that indicates that he's changed his mind where Aurora is concerned, Aurora2 may be a different matter.

This has nothing to do with whether I'm willing to embrace change or have anything "invested" in to current mechanics.

I'm not entirely sure it would be a complete change, just additions to what is already there.
Posted by: Charlie Beeler
« on: October 31, 2012, 07:57:47 AM »

A change like that would require a complete change of how damage is allocated.  The components would have to go from a generalized abstract to specific distribution within the hull.  This is something that Steve was very specific about at the inception of Aurora that he was not willing to code.  I've seen nothing that indicates that he's changed his mind where Aurora is concerned, Aurora2 may be a different matter.

This has nothing to do with whether I'm willing to embrace change or have anything "invested" in to current mechanics.
Posted by: Jorgen_CAB
« on: October 31, 2012, 05:36:51 AM »

I actually think this idea is rather good without complicating things too much. You would have one general value for a ships overall hull armour while you could choose to armour certain components individually to your liking.

Then, some components could be completely vulnerable with a % chance to be hit and destroyed even with hull armour intact, such as sensors, shield emitters and things like that.

In addition, there could be some small chance for a critical hit where shots/impacts more or less bypass the hull armour.

I could definitely see military ships being more careful protecting weapon systems, engines and generators than fuel tanks and crew quarters.
Posted by: alex_brunius
« on: October 31, 2012, 03:20:14 AM »

Quote from: Nathan_
If you want HTK to change(what magazines and turrets call armor is really just additional HTK, these are two different concepts and they are handled differently), then crew quarters are already minimally protected. any less and all of it would evaporate on the 1st hit. Likewise, the max a railgun can have is larger than the max a magazine can have, and is only surpassed by reactors and turrets, and in the case of turrets consider that a quad turret has the HTK of 4 lasers/mesons/gauss cannons before "armor" is added.
I guess what I'm really asking for is a better representation of armor and damage in general. HTK doesn't really work well if said components just evaporate when "killed".

Ideally every component (or component type) you armor should have it's own box.

I like other ideas posted here before aswell about damage "bleed" such as fires or hull breaches started that can spread throughout a ship. That should mean laser or a single big railgun round piercing the armor can eventually mean doom for ships that don't have armored magazines/reactors, even if it's not a direct hit to those components.

Exposed components would also be a cool thing. Sensors for example are in their nature very exposed, and even if usually small a single unlucky hit can render the biggest battleship blind (unless it's built for redundancy with several of them). Should it however be possible to armor sensors and shields? Imo it's a bit in their nature that they have to be exposed and unprotected to work.

Quote from: Nathan_
I do personally think that turrets should be outside the belt, and that their armor cost should be cut by 1/4th, to make that more useful to people to armor turrets.

Agreed. I think the armor system I'm asking for is a separate armor box for every component you choose to armor, with turrets outside the "main belt" and internalt component like magazines and engines having their armor box inside.

Something like this:

http://i.imgur.com/rhtsQ.jpg
Posted by: bean
« on: October 30, 2012, 06:15:15 PM »

Quote from: Nathan_ on October 30, 2012, 01:34:31 PM
Well if your ship loses its crew quarters the best you managed is called a draw, and if your opponent spent less to kill your crew quarters than you spent to wreck his guns, it is actually a win for him. your proposed idea of putting crew quarters outside the armor belt is something that no one has ever done with a battleship before.
Not true at all, assuming that you're talking about real battleships.  The belt was there to protect the magazines and machinery.  If the quarters were armored, it was to protect the buoyancy of the ship, not the quarters themselves.  In Aurora, we don't have a choice to build a battleship that way.
Posted by: Jorgen_CAB
« on: October 30, 2012, 04:40:27 PM »

I think that Alex has some valid questions about some things that could be changed in future versions of Aurora. Some components such as weapons, turrets, missile launches, engines, shield generators (etc..) should require their own armour since they are components that are rather exposed (to some degree) on ships.

Exposure of such equipment could be an interesting change in the game mechanics and would also set shields apart from ships deck armour as well.

Any hit in a ship should have a chance to actually strike exposed equipment and damage them accordingly. If you spend additional armour to protect them you should benefit from it. It would also make it more appealing to spread your fire among several targets and not do as much focus fire.

I agree that ship design is complex as it is, but I believe that an additional value for component exposure and armour would not have to be all that much additional complexity. Most ships should also have weak spots in their armour and some critical hit chances where part of the damage could penetrate armour, even though its not yet breached. This could also be an interesting feature for the future.
Posted by: ThatBlondeGuy
« on: October 30, 2012, 04:15:42 PM »

Quote from: Beersatron on October 30, 2012, 12:00:34 PM
I think others have done a study on this, but it is very possible to create a fleet that has no missiles and to use that very effectively against a missile centric enemy.

Small, fast ships with massed PD fire can be used to kite an enemy missile fleet and once their ordnance is expended you can zip in and slash them apart. Even if the missile fleet escapes to it's home port and resupplies, it will run out of missiles eventually and/or tank it's economy and minerals reserves trying to replenish.

Despite that it is still clear that a number of designs aren't viable all of which would be far more variant to the standard missile cruiser/destroyer fleets, a lot more variation could easily be gained just by decreasing the ranges of missiles considerably, yet making them more powerful. This would make them more of a super weapon that can be used if needed but shouldn't necessarily be the primary weapon used. Then again I seem to desperately want a BSG style ship to be viable so i'm biased that way. Even so I still think the combat would be improved by tweaks to missiles that would make alternative weapon systems more viable.
Posted by: Nathan_
« on: October 30, 2012, 01:34:31 PM »

Quote
Combat performance in tough situations is about keeping weapons and engines online for the next seconds or minutes, I have a hard time seeing how crew quarters can be vital in that situation.
Well if your ship loses its crew quarters the best you managed is called a draw, and if your opponent spent less to kill your crew quarters than you spent to wreck his guns, it is actually a win for him. your proposed idea of putting crew quarters outside the armor belt is something that no one has ever done with a battleship before.

If you want HTK to change(what magazines and turrets call armor is really just additional HTK, these are two different concepts and they are handled differently), then crew quarters are already minimally protected. any less and all of it would evaporate on the 1st hit. Likewise, the max a railgun can have is larger than the max a magazine can have, and is only surpassed by reactors and turrets, and in the case of turrets consider that a quad turret has the HTK of 4 lasers/mesons/gauss cannons before "armor" is added.

That said, post your battleship design, how much tonnage you don't want protected by the belt, and I'll do the math for what the armor would cost without various components being added to it, so you can see how better protected your guns would be under your model.

I do personally think that turrets should be outside the belt, and that their armor cost should be cut by 1/4th, to make that more useful to people to armor turrets.
Posted by: Beersatron
« on: October 30, 2012, 12:00:34 PM »

Quote from: ThatBlondeGuy on October 30, 2012, 11:39:40 AM
Well, i'm just going to throw my two cents in one again. It seems to me that the entire combat system of Aurora seems that you are pigeon holed into missiles from the very start, and every other weapon type is only good for PD. (there are obvious exceptions to this but most of them are late game.)

I think others have done a study on this, but it is very possible to create a fleet that has no missiles and to use that very effectively against a missile centric enemy.

Small, fast ships with massed PD fire can be used to kite an enemy missile fleet and once their ordnance is expended you can zip in and slash them apart. Even if the missile fleet escapes to it's home port and resupplies, it will run out of missiles eventually and/or tank it's economy and minerals reserves trying to replenish.
Posted by: TheDeadlyShoe
« on: October 30, 2012, 11:58:49 AM »

Missiles are supposed to be 'better'.  But the economic cost is immense.  You can win battles going just missiles, but it only really works because of thin-skinned NPR designs and faults in NPR missile defense.  Two reasonably armored and defended fleets can exhaust eachothers missile stocks.  Of course, most of the time one side or the other is superior... *shrug*