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 - Garfunkel

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 51
1
Aurora Chat / Re: What's going on in your empire/planet/battlefield?
« on: January 15, 2018, 10:11:49 AM »
It's very much possible to have the RNG screw you over with homeworld minerals especially if you're doing a conventional start.

2
Aurora Chat / Re: What is a financial centre anyway?
« on: January 15, 2018, 10:09:19 AM »
Those factories, research centres and labs aren't staffed by those '50 000 people,' I would estimate that's the chunk of the population that's needed to support those facilities directly and indirectly. Actual staffing totals are likely much smaller, but they do draw on the mundane industry on planet for supplies and things.
They actually are. Each body already has population devoted to environment (including food) and service sectors. So the 50k people are directly involved in a financial centre.

To OP, they are a placeholder to combat budget deficit. Personally I hardly ever use them because they are so silly but the whole wealth side of Aurora is pretty underdeveloped.

3
C# Aurora / Re: C# Ground Combat
« on: January 15, 2018, 09:25:52 AM »
You can still nuke the planet to get rid of the defenders. Orbital bombardment is actually more effective now that you can use beam weapons and forward fire controllers to target it.

4
C# Aurora / Re: Custom game setups - tech
« on: January 11, 2018, 06:50:16 PM »
AGreed.

5
C# Aurora / Re: Research changes planned?
« on: January 11, 2018, 06:49:48 PM »
I find this in particular to be pretty key, since comms are basically meant to be faster than light.
They aren't. There just is no feasible way to implement light-speed lag into the game as it currently stands. In most of Steve's games, and many other games, you'll see players emulate light-speed lag to some extent.

I'm actually against the idea of multiple planets participating in the same research project. Coordination and collaboration is a major issue as a project grows larger. In fact, there should be diminishing returns after the number of research labs grows big enough to simulate the friction and waste that happens in big organizations.

6
C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« on: January 11, 2018, 05:53:26 PM »
I'm going to argue that Automobiles have seen a similar development in terms of technical complexity that military airplanes have the last 80 years.
Unfortunately that is not the case and thus your analogue fails. A modern jet plane is vastly more complex when compared to a WW2 plane than a modern car is compared to a 1930s car and it's not just one thing, it's literally everything, starting from materials used to build the frame and ending with the electronics. Furthermore, at the peak of WW2, USA spent 41% of its GDP for military production and that had everything included. So the premise of dedicating 10% of current GDP to only building airplanes is a pretty wild exaggeration despite sounding reasonable - even during the Vietnam era, US defence spending did not go over 10% of GDP.

7
Bureau of Ship Design / Re: Soviet Socialist States Navy Designs
« on: January 08, 2018, 06:56:37 PM »
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_ship_naming_conventions

That's pretty much your only source. Other alternative is to just go through Wikipedia for each Russian/Soviet ship class and write down their names.

8
C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« on: January 08, 2018, 06:53:59 PM »
Barkhorn, There is a difference between putting two 250kg iron bombs that are released by pulling a switch with no targeting, and a guided missile that the onboard computer aims for the pilot and that has a CEP of 3 meters. I think my favourite option would be that the ground attack module starts as fairly big one and then gets smaller with tech - improved miniaturization and more destructive warheads and so on. This would encourage specialized fighters in early game while allowing efficient multi-role fighters later on. That already kinda happens with ships - at TL0-3 it is very difficult to design effective multipurpose ships but from TL4 onwards it becomes quite possible.

The reasons for high quality and expensive aircraft are that in peace production runs are limited and because, quite frankly, you need high quality aircraft to compete or an utterly uneconomic investment in low quality aircraft.

No seriously, in a war those extremely expensive aircraft will drop in price because the R&D costs and the prices of the factories and machines to build those planes and their parts can be spread over many times their peace time sales number.
While you are correct, there is more the issue. WW2 era planes hit that sweet spot where planes were just efficient enough to be valuable in great numbers while still being simple enough to be mass-produced in gigantic numbers. No matter what, USA will never build 295,959 modern jet planes in 5 years, like they did from 1940 to 1945. John Buckley discusses this topic in great detail in his fine "Air Power in the Age of Total War" book.

9
Aurora Chat / Re: Corporation and Dockyard Names
« on: January 08, 2018, 09:53:13 AM »
Nice SR names, I hadn't ever thought about that.

I use real life companies for stuff that is connected to their existing field and/or products. Naval shipyards are NAVAL-1 NAVAL-2 and so on, commercial shipyards use real life shipyard/transport conglomerate or other business names. So very similar to yours.

10
C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« on: January 08, 2018, 09:50:49 AM »
I think we need a way to have the ground combat module work for all ground targets (including atmospheric fighters).  In real life, practically every fighter can carry every type of ordnance.
But this is actually cost-effectiveness question. Because high-tech planes are so insanely expensive, they need to be able to perform multiple roles. Even so, there still are fighter/bombers and bombers.

It's not that many decades ago when planes had very strict role separation - you had fighters, (ground)attack planes, light/medium/heavy bombers, dive bombers, torpedo bombers and long-range recon planes, and more. Partially it was because of technical limitations but specialized planes were usually better in their dedicated role.

Having said that, I'd prefer if both approaches are possible - even better if one approach is better early in the game and the other gets better later as tech improves, or something like that.

11
Dump some infrastructure on Luna or Mars. That'll do the trick.

12
The Academy / Re: Working screen resolutions on Windows 10?
« on: January 08, 2018, 09:37:38 AM »
They are your only option.

13
C# Aurora / Re: Replacing PDCs
« on: January 02, 2018, 07:52:48 PM »
Nice nice nice, starting to really shape up well!

14
The Academy / Re: Launching fighters from multi-CV TG
« on: January 02, 2018, 07:47:42 PM »
Ah yes, it's in Academy and not Fleet Ops. Cheers.

15
The Academy / Re: Launching fighters from multi-CV TG
« on: January 02, 2018, 01:07:09 AM »
If Naval Organization is an unknown Black Hole to you (as it usually is to newer players), check out my barebones explanation here:
http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=7615.0
Naval Organization Examples for Ease-Of-Life

Someone else made an even better guide just for fighter and CV operations but of course I can't find it now.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 51