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 - Iranon

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 32
1
The Academy / Re: Is there a basic or common build / research order?
« on: November 19, 2017, 08:33:55 AM »
Engine concept (Nuclear Pulse, Ion, Magneto-Plasma...) is a huge priority for me, and engine power multiplier down to 0.3.
Many other techs, especially higher power techs and fuel production, can fall behind. If your new engine concept has a 25% increase in performance and you don't need a speed increase, you can halve your fuel consumption (while also making the engine cheaper to build at power multipliers <1.0). That's quite a lot, fuel economy from 0.8 to 0.4 would be quite the research effort.
The drive to lower fuel consumption is going to become even more pronounced in C# Aurora, with yet another fuel-related logistics issue.

The priority military tech for me is Beam Fire Control Speed Rating. Most of my early warships will be slow flak barges (they'll be obsolete quickly enough. Cheap, fuel-efficient ships remain useful when obsolete).

Many techs do very little but saving weight, most that aren't armour are junk techs that should only be picked up when very cheap compared to the techs you actually want. Reactor-related techs are the obvious example, but this also applies to Active Grav Pulse Strength: it'll make your sensors more compact, but won't make them cheaper or stealthier for the same performance. EM Sensitivity otoh does both.

Many techs are optional, here my approach is "don't bother unless you're willing to commit". ECCM for example needs to be quite advanced before I consider it, otherwise I'll just overengineer my fire control. Shields need to be fairly good before I consider using them heavily (note: more armour isn't the only alternative to shields. If I wanted heavy shields but my tech sucks, I'll distribute the tonnage between armour and beam PD). Gauss cannons are also something that I find useful for a relatively narrow set of requirements (dedicated point defence ships of moderate speed) that requires heavy investment before I get any real edge over 10cm railguns.

Lasers are generally the most rewarding beam tech line to invest heavily in, because they're flexible and long-ranged (10cm railguns being perfectly fine at short ranges and final fire point defence). Almost everything has a niche, but with other lines it's easy to waste a lot of RP on inferior weapons.

For missiles, engine power multiplier is actually worth something and you want some warhead tech too, Missile Agility tech is much less important. Because of the way accuracy scales, you want some agility... but using very little and making your missile faster instead is reasaonable - you lose some accuracy but make it harder to shoot down and increase the range for point-blank attacks (sadly, on its way out in C#).

If there are no pressing military needs, I usually focus on economy techs. Especially those that conserve manpower: As I outlined early I prefer limiting fuel consumption anyway, and what I need can be had with Harvesters that don't tie up valuable population. Similarly, I can build automines, asteroid miners and terraformers. I can't satisfy my construction needs with construction brigades though, and if I need to build Financial centers civilian economy tech also free up considerable manpower in addition to production costs.

2
Aurora Chat / Re: Shared ships classes per SY
« on: November 11, 2017, 07:31:44 AM »
Unfortuntely, things can become quite gamey if you play with the restrictions in mind.

I may actually want a sensor pod consisting of nothing but a huge sensor and 1 layer of armour, and this would allow me to build practically any ship of the same size or smaller (except, ironically, a sensor pod with a different sensor).

But tooling all shipyards for something consisting of the most expensive things you can make (usually hardened beam fire controls, sensors for civilian designs) and never retooling them ever again is just cheap.

3
Bureau of Ship Design / Re: My first original warship please review
« on: November 11, 2017, 07:23:59 AM »
Some more engineering spaces may still be worthwhile in case of battle damage.

Main problem with your beam setup is that you have a sophisticated and expensive fire control for a single laser, I'd add some 15cm/c6 or 20cm/c10 lasers in case you expect proper beam battles; one laser may not overcome shield regeneration even if you can stay outside the range of your enemies.
Spinal or not is your choice... 30cm and 40cm lasers are good weapons and usually have good matches for capacitor tech (C8 would be sufficient for 30cm).

Boarding used to work against the Star Swarm, which I found quite amusing - Marines with Meat Cleaves were able to butcher them into submission, probably by rearranging their nervous system. Not any more though. I think it also doesn't work for Precursors.

4
C# Aurora / Re: Replacing PDCs
« on: October 19, 2017, 01:44:09 AM »
A more reasonable take would be that non-TN material costs are considered neglegible.
Keep in mind that cost (and therefore TN mineral expenditure) scales with tech: do you really believe a base-tech 10cm laser weighs in at a single ton, and that an ultraviolet 10cm/c3 laser would be 20 times as massive?

5
C# Aurora / Re: Replacing PDCs
« on: October 18, 2017, 02:53:44 PM »
Some limit to energy weapons would be good. In naval scenarios, ships that enjoyed a gun range advantage and were fast enough to keep the range open still had to worry about expending ammunition for questionable effect at extreme range.

At present, "render missile attacks impractical, kite enemy beam ships" is too dominant against AI designs, and doing away with the planned limit on point blank missile interception removes a natural counter.

6
Not realistically, because you're limited by fire controls.

7
C# Aurora / Re: Replacing PDCs
« on: October 17, 2017, 03:13:07 AM »
One of Aurora's biggest strengths is open-ended gameplay with systems that give the player a lot of freedom. Heavy ground units practically scream to use the same components we could mount on ships (possibly with the option to scale things down a bit) rather than an entirely new and much more limited system, and PDCs could be expanded rather than eliminated for interesting interaction with those heavy ground units.

The proposed changes seem more like "tacking fiddly things on" when the better option would be to expand a very good system to apply where it formerly didn't.

8
The problem is that huge guns don't give a range advantage in Aurora.

At extreme range, no single hit will be telling and battles will take time. This means continuous output is king, favouring weapons that fire every 5s.
15cm can be made to fire every tick without unreasonable tech investment (if you care mostly about extreme range, you'd research C6 before spinal tech or larger focal size), and they're a good match for the longest-range fire controls if wavelength and fire control range tech keep pace with one another.

For a classic battlecruiser concept (hoping to prey on ships both slower and shorter-ranged, avoiding equal or superior enemies), I'd recommend midsize lasers. With high speed requirements, tonnage is expensive; they want the most weight-efficient long-range weapon.
While not necessarily fragile, this type of ship tends to be expensive for its capability in a short-ranged brawl.

Large lasers have better armour penetration and shock damage, giving them the ability to achieve telling hits in the first salvo and quickly end battles at short and medium ranges.
They also allow reaching the maximum FC range with less wavelength tech; with smaller lasers we have to choose between cheap and long-ranged.
If tonnage is less of an object than cost-efficient raw power and we care about shorter ranges too, larger calibres have some merit... but to me that implies we're building battleships.


9
The Academy / Re: Gauss cannons
« on: October 09, 2017, 05:33:58 PM »
Also: turrets with more barrels need proportionally less overhead in turret gear for a given tracking speed... but a full-size quad may be more firepower than we want per fire control.

10
The Academy / Re: Gauss cannons
« on: October 06, 2017, 02:54:38 AM »
Ton for ton, you probably need Gauss RoF 6 to be competitive. Railguns get more than 1 shot per HS out of the box, crew grade bonuses help miniaturised weapons but won't overcome a large base difference.

Before that tech level, I consider Gauss for fighters mostly when I don't care about efficiency, but for the ability to do something at point blank range for the smallest possible space investment.
E.g. I want the ability to finish off unarmed targets/crippled ships/spent missile ships, but don't want to increase my overall visibility by pairing a 400t+ railgun fighter with my 150t missile fighters.
That's very niche-y though and rarely makes a practical difference.

11
C# Aurora / Re: Replacing PDCs
« on: October 05, 2017, 02:47:59 AM »
One thing I care greatly about is a good ratio of depth : complexity.

Current ground combat doesn't have  much of either compared to other aspects of the game... maybe worth expanding if Steve is interested, but it'd make just as much sense to say "does all it needs to do, not the main focus of the game".
I'd consider it much more important to make the AI use whatever limited system there is competently, rather than adding new features and complexities that aren't open-ended enough to create much additional depth.

Likewise, PDCs are something fairly open-ended that elegantly joins different aspects of the game (ground combat, ship-related technology and combat), with interesting options that are only partially explored (control/destruction of fortifications vs. control of population).
I also think it's good to have some defensive options free from the logistics concerns of ships, this rather nicely matches wet navy history and coastal fortifications.
Things that could be trimmed are fiddly player-facing things that don't add much... e.g., I see no need for more capable PDC-specific fire controls. If we want to give PDCs an advantage in addition to not requiring naval infrastructure, we could give them straight bonuses.

12
Bureau of Ship Design / Re: Mission pods and their feasability.
« on: October 03, 2017, 01:29:35 PM »
There's another bonus: these missile pods can be given many years of mission life for rather little overhead. You may plan to deploy them for a single tick to shoot... but if the need arises, you can dump them as a reusable minefield. Works best if you also use sensor pods.

13
Other Games / Re: Mac or PC Game?
« on: September 26, 2017, 03:04:17 PM »
My favourite games are available on either system.
Dwarf Fortress tops the list.

14
C# Aurora / Re: Replacing PDCs
« on: September 19, 2017, 06:42:11 AM »
With the planned shift to the maintenance system, maintenance-exempt PDCs that can house hangars are problematic.

However, I feel like many of the planned changes for C# add complexity while possibly reducing depth, with reasonably complex but not open-ended system (like Titans, which could have been modeled like ships are, preferably with some overlap in systems) and logistics challenges that beg to be played around instead of meeting them straight-on.

It's plausible for a superior opponent to quickly eliminate one's powerful and highly visible assets (titans, PDCs) while lacking the capability to take out one's dispersed ground units without massive bombardment, so I don't have a problem with different time scales.

If we want to introduce beams from orbit I'd tie it to the intelligence system (fire control would be a trivial problem against ground targets, knowing what to hit would be the challenge). But I'd be for keeping things separate... large assets like PDC and titans can grind through large forces of regular ground units, but are vulnerable to direct strikes from similar or orbital assets, and largely useless for police duties.

15
Bureau of Ship Design / Re: First game; third generation warships.
« on: September 13, 2017, 08:41:51 AM »
The designs are a little thirsty for my liking, especially with such generous mission lives. I'd use more engines with lower power multipliers, and less fuel.

Maintenance life is also much higher than deployment time. Whether that is ok depends on your use... if they are expected to do some R&R around outer colonies much more often than they will see servicing, it's perfectly fine. If they're expected to remain at base and do long sorties into uncolonies space, this is not ideal.

I wonder whether the carrier needs its speed and defenses. I don't typically expect to expose my carriers to anything unpleasant. My long-ranged missile ships usually don't tangle with beam opponents, so 3 different standards of defenses/speed are plausible to avoid excessive and expensive performance on ships that don't need it. 3 difference performance groups may be overdoing it though.

Your missile armament won't necessarily outrange AMMs (the AI likes to use relatively long-ranged models, and uses it for offense quite liberally).

I prefer small fighters carrying a single missile, to confound defenses with more salvos or get a little more efficiency and shock damage from larger missiles. At the ranges you design for, overhead for one fire control per missile is far from excessive.

Rather like the frigates.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 32