Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - alex_brunius

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 57
1
C# Aurora / Re: Replacing PDCs
« on: November 14, 2017, 01:59:57 AM »
So would you be happy if there was an Installation the size and cost* of a Construction Factory called 'Defence Centre' that functioned as CIWS for a planet?  It should probably give PPV as well, and its effectiveness be tied to planetary diameter or mass, so Earth would need (say) six times as many Defence Centres as Luna to get the same effective protection (perhaps expressed as a percent chance to shoot down incoming missiles, using the ol' armoured-missile-destruction-chance formula (1/(1+DCs)) all divided by some figure representing planetary mass or diameter).

To be honest I don't see what the point of a CIWS base at ground would be since your basically restricting the field of fire to at best half of the sky, and (at least in using Earth as an example) get issues with atmosphere and targeting.

Put it at 20000km orbit instead and you have almost free field of fire in all directions instead...


Now a missile silo might work better on the ground instead ( seeing how it needs logistics and storage for missiles, and how any hits to magazines could provide a risk meaning more need for protection ).

2
Aurora Suggestions / Re: Bringing Back Mothballing
« on: November 13, 2017, 06:20:40 AM »
What the heck is mothballing?
I've done a quick search but Google had no satisfactory answer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mothballing

( Aircraft boneyard and Reserve fleet are relevant entries to this use of the word ).

3
Aurora Suggestions / Re: Bringing Back Mothballing
« on: November 13, 2017, 03:19:46 AM »
Both options would be nice to have ( reserve for quick activation and mothball for long ).

But reactivating from mothball should also cost a bit of resources, wealth or supply I think so it's an important decision that can't be done "for free" but there is a tradeoff cost.

4
C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« on: November 10, 2017, 05:54:21 AM »
A hopefully reasonable suggestion.  Currently, when designing components, you have an option to type in a company name to incorporate into the auto generated name.  It would be cool if you had a little companies window, where you could create a list of named companies that show up in a drop down in the component design screen.  It would make it way easier to keep track of all of that for me.

Why not simply track all company names that have been used for previous projects and display them in the dropdown instead of having to keep track of it manually? Checkbox option to only display names from same research area, or from all research areas.

5
C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« on: November 07, 2017, 10:25:01 AM »
Probably a controversial opinion but... The biome changes just sound like feature creep that forces players to engage in the game's fundamentally un-fun ground combat. It sounds kinda superfluous to what I view as the core game (the ship design/combat)

You acknowledge that the problem is that ground combat isn't fun, but for some reason you don't want to see it fixed?

I think biomes could be something that ( along the other changes being made ) makes ground combat more fun and engaging which solves the root issue here. ( ground combat being un-fun ).


It's more like mesons are kinda op in general :P

I wouldn't complain if mesons were moved to a spoiler/ruins only weapon...

6
C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« on: November 07, 2017, 02:07:33 AM »
I actually sort of agree with Serger on this. While all sorts of biomes are fun and interesting, I agree that the actual fighting will tend to occur in urban and suburban locations, because that's where the valuable targets (infrastructure, resources, population) are located. And I also agree that meson cannons should really be able to just fry everything hiding out in those jungle mountains...

In WW2 combat mostly happened outside of cities ( with a few notable exceptions ), and as far as I know the same has been the case for every war before or since.

Why would it be different in the future? What changed?

or you can just leave them be to quietly starve to death while you fortify around the cities. They either surrender, or they have to attack your (heavily) fortified units that are guarding the actual valuable assets on planet.

In reality it's the other way around. The cities can't survive isolated but are dependent on supply/food from the countryside. The units controlling the countryside can seize supply/food and attack routes to deny it being delivered to cities.

7
C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« on: November 06, 2017, 12:08:47 PM »
A lot of animals burrow to get shelter.  Very few of them live exclusively underground.  Those that do tend to be smaller

What says intelligent life must be as large as humans?

8
C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« on: November 06, 2017, 11:59:59 AM »
From what I understand we are descendent of rodents which survived from the Dinosaurs by digging underground not that long ago...

So if you want a more scientific explanation: What if that asteroid that wipes the dinosaurs out never hits Earth but intelligent life develop underground by necessity of hiding from the big beasts instead?

Yes, let's ignore the massive efficiency gain that is not having to dig your way through soil and rock and eschew

What says the gravity must be the same or higher then Earths? In a low gravity world the soil would be significantly less packed and easier to dig through... Especially if it's ground up by big roots or alien mycelium.

If you can't survive on the surface it doesn't matter how much more energy efficient living there would be.

9
C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« on: November 06, 2017, 10:57:13 AM »
What's your energy source there?  Life is on the surface because the energy is there.  Yes, I know about extremophiles living in deep-sea vents or geysers in Yellowstone.  But the surface seems overwhelmingly likely, particularly for complex life.

What says that anything besides the leaves of the vegetation need to be above the surface?

With a bit of imagination and Sci-Fi storytelling leeway we could have all types of glowing rocks and vegetation with deep root networks that fuel the herbivors and tunnelers with energy. Add underground rivers carrying stuff around or deeper as well.

Or you could have a situation where the surface is so hot/cold that going subterranean is required for a more balanced temperature ( relying either on geothermal or the energy/warmth that trickles down. )

10
C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« on: November 06, 2017, 07:26:56 AM »
Something else that occurred to me was that I am basing the terrain on current Earth. There could be a lot of alien terrain (Giant fungus forest?) or even terrain from Earth's past.

What about planets where all life evolved subterranian? Hivemind insect homeworlds and so on?

11
C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« on: November 05, 2017, 08:27:15 PM »
Not really.

Dominant Terrain doesn't really describe the dominant terrain of the planet, it describes the dominant terrain that is being fought over. Since the invention of rail travel we've been seeing a lot of consolidation of populations into cities and away from rural areas for a variety of reasons, but the two biggest factors are to do with farming automation greatly driving down staffing requirements for food production, and rail ways making it possible to bring all that food large distances.

This line of thought logically must mean that the terrain of all planets regardless of population and actual countryside is urban then because as you yourself describe the portion of the population that lives in cities depends on technology.

We don't live in cities today because there is no space in the countryside, but because it's more convenient and efficient, and extrapolating the tech to TN there is no job requiring you to live on the countryside that can't be automated or remote controlled from a city.

12
C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« on: November 05, 2017, 06:36:06 PM »
I like the idea of Urban becoming the dominant terrain type once the population hits a certain percentage of maximum.

Wouldn't it be neat if you could expand the population capacity above max by building infrastructure, and if it went a certain amount above "max" natural it would represent en entire body of skyscrapers?

You would need alot more then 12 billion population on Earth for Urban to become the dominant "terrain" for example.

13
Aurora Suggestions / Re: Semi-Official 7.x Suggestion Thread
« on: November 05, 2017, 05:46:35 PM »
Institute a system like Hearts of Iron has for production efficiency.  In HoI, if you build a lot of sherman tanks, you get better at making them.  So the later ones are cheaper or are built quicker than the earlier ones.

This would be useful for ground units, missiles, fighters, and ship components.

Yeah, another way to think about it is as a penalty to output until a sufficient investments has been made.

Shipyards do kind of have it built in a bit through their retooling mechanics.


If you want a system more realistic then in HoIs production though what you want to do is basically variable retooling. The bigger series you order (in terms of total cost) the more investments in tooling, assembly lines and specialized factories make sense to do.

It will take much longer to set up the most efficient production line, but once done each unit will be much cheaper. A tradeoff between short setup a high unit cost (workshop/prototyping) vs long setup and low cost (sequenced assembly line with optimized flow).

14
C# Aurora / Re: Replacing PDCs
« on: November 05, 2017, 04:48:52 AM »
So yes, I know that's one cause of inaccuracy.  But only one.  If it was the major one, then I'd expect that it would affect all shells in a salvo equally, and that the primary cause of misses would be tight patterns landing off-target.  This is not really the case.  Pattern size was often greater than Mean Point of Impact error.  Yes, I'd expect a railgun to be better at consistency than a WWII-era 16" gun.  If nothing else, you have a lot lower variation in muzzle velocity.  But not enough to make unguided KE rounds work at >10 km. 

My point here is that outside influence and moving target is the ONLY cause of inaccuracy that can't ( and will in an Auorora 4x tech level gun ) be engineered away thanks to smaller tolerances and near molecular level perfect gun assembly.


You're moving the goalposts.  This particular discussion started with someone bringing up the Navy's railgun program.  Orbital fire support with that kind of velocity of weapons is a very different thing, and a somewhat better case for unguided projectiles.

I'm not moving goalposts. You need to take a step back and realize that your trying to have a discussion about the Navy's railgun program on a forum about a Sci-Fi game. The ultimate purpose of any discussion in this thread as far as I am concerned is to promote a better and more realistic game, not to debate the viability of the Navy's railgun program. If you want to argue about the Navy's railguns I'm sure there are plenty of other forums better suited to that purpose!


That aside, let's assume you're right.  Typical battleship pattern size for a 3-gun salvo was about 1% of range.  We'll take 10% of that.  At 36 km (outer limits of battleship range) you're still missing by an average of 18m (1% is diameter, not radius).  An M1 tank has a hull that's 8m long and 3.66 m wide.  It covers about 3% of the area we expect our projectile to land in.  I'll take my guided projectiles, thank you very much.

Now let's run those math again with Aurora 4x railgun speeds of say 50000000m/s instead of 500m/s as well as orbital range (x10). This mean it's not 10 times accurate, it's 10000 times more accurate. Your average miss turns from 18m to 18cm.

That's not a "somewhat better case"... That's a totally different case.

Something else to consider is that the destructiveness of KE shells scale with speed as well, and not linear but exponential (Ek = ½mv^2). A shell going 100000 times faster contains 100000^2 as much kinetic energy. A 1kg shell travelling at 50000km/s contains about 10 million times as much kinetic energy as a 1000 kg Battleship shell at 500m/s, and about 1 million times as much total energy including HE ( considering about 10% of the energy in a Battleship shell for firesupport would be Kinetic and 90% HE ).

I'm not 100% sure exactly what would happen when shells impact the ground at those kind of speeds, and it's possible the atmosphere would slow them down considerably too, but considering the numbers involved I wouldn't feel safe even 18m away regardless of if I was in a tank or not...

A third consideration ( which Aurora models pretty well already on the scale of space combat at least ) is the cost of the shells vs guided missiles. KE shells are basically free while missiles will cost about 20% as much as the tank it's destroying cost. Using current costs it's $1.87M for a tomahawk vs $8.92M for a M1 tank or 21%. And that's assuming no missiles get intercepted on the way.



Can you please stop assuming things about what I think?

I am not assuming what you (person) think, but what you ( general audience reading ) normally would think. You are all welcome to join us in discussions improving the game.

15
C# Aurora / Re: Replacing PDCs
« on: November 03, 2017, 11:41:01 AM »
On Earth though, there will be a giant deadzone where the ground is in the way, because a railgun round has a much flatter trajectory than a traditional round.  So for instance, you could direct fire on any target between you and the horizon, then there's a region between the horizon and some more distant point where your target is in the "shadow" of the horizon, then after that a region where indirect fire is possible out to the maximum range of the gun.

This is true, which is why you probably would use lower shell velocities as needed ( even if accuracy suffers a bit it should be better then Battleship bombardment accuracy ).

But for Aurora purposes of fire to and from orbit there will be no deadzones.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 57