Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
C# Aurora / Re: New sensor model and small fighters. Problem?
« Last post by Jorgen_CAB on Today at 07:44:31 PM »
You should rely on picket scouts to find enemy fighters. A 250-1000t picket scout is cheap and can scan pretty far in C# Aurora... or you have specialised smaller picket ships for a broader variant of scanning frequencies, or why not a combination.

I never run my main ships with their sensors on active, for the same reason blue water ships on Earth don't do it either... too easy to spot them.

Scouting and finding enemy ships for target lock is a duty for fast scouts.

My main ships only have some rudimentary sensors and don't need super long range, just enough for self defence in a pinch or as back up sensors. If ships mount "Anti-Ship Missiles" their fire controls usually outrange their sensors buy twice or triple the distance. Basically every main ship from Frigate and up house enough hangars for a few scout fighters.

Once fighters are viable as the main anti-ship arm of fleets then I rarely build ships to carry long range ASM only for medium range against picket and smaller ships/fighters in self defence. Fighters are obviously the main offensive branch at that point and carriers will become the main combat ship and other ships only there for support and escort. Destroyers that are suppose to defend the carriers would have long range anti-fighter missiles and fire-controls as well as anti-missile defences. They don't need matching active sensors out to the max range of their fire-controls, picket scouts take care of that.

A perfect operation is when the main Task-Force is never discovered and fighters take out the enemy with the help of my recon forces.

I don't see any of this really changing in C# Aurora.
2
C# Aurora / New sensor model and small fighters. Problem?
« Last post by Iranon on Today at 06:00:20 PM »
Currently, I find small missile fighters quite useful, as they can often get quite close to their prey without being detected.
The sensor model in C# Aurora is going to be very kind to the very small variants, to an extent I consider problematic.
Using Steve's example table from the C# Changes List:

A size 1.2 Resolution 100 sensor (equivalent FC leaves space for a size 7-ish box launcher for the combatants; enough for an efficient 2-stage missile if missile range would otherwise be more limiting than sensor range. This should fit into 150t with long endurance.) has a range upwards of 40 million.
A sensor with the ideal resolution of 3 would still need to be about 17HS to illuminate the fighters at this range.
At Resolution 1, the sensor would have to approach 30HS, at Resolution 5 50HS wouldn't be enough.
And if the ships carrying them are above 5000t, the fighters could use a coarser sensor and increase their range.

Such fighters don't have to rely on bulky, visible carriers:
A dozen years of maintenance life or so is cheap, a fighter-sized engineering bay will do.
Long deployment time would be somehwat expensive in terms of weight, but we don't need to match maintenance life (colonies, commercial hangars in the future)
If the fighters aren't likely to be seen, they don't need performance, months of fuel endurance and multiple systems worth of range should be achievable.

Small  fighters require considerable overhead in fire controls... currently a bit of a drawback. In the upcoming version, a sensor to match their combat range needs to be 40-200 times as big/expensive as one of them, and the matching FC 10-50 times as much. Larger ships either don't shoot back, or they spend several times as much on electronics without matching the fighters' redundancy and salvo dispersion.
3
C# Aurora / Re: Replacing Teams?
« Last post by prophetical on Today at 03:05:12 PM »
Perhaps it would be reasonable to outsource surveying to civilian ships, much like creating contracts for ferrying items.
4
C# Aurora / Re: Replacing Teams?
« Last post by Bremen on Today at 12:48:43 PM »
I really don't see what the game gains by having multiple levels of survey. It isn't a fun or interesting mechanic, and it adds nothing except micromanagement.

So my suggestion remains to just have the one level of survey. If you want to have the equivalent of more in depth surveys on larger planets, just increase the survey point cost of large bodies and have it give accurate reports the first time - then you can model larger and more efficient geo scanners by just putting more scanners on the survey ship.
5
C# Aurora / Re: Replacing Teams?
« Last post by TheBawkHawk on Today at 12:34:40 PM »
For example, you could add teams to survey ships and have them explore and survey automatically.

Agreed, if survey teams are going to be changed, I'd like them to be like this. An optional module that you can add to a survey ship, which carries a survey team that will automatically survey the body as it's scanned. It should be a fairly large module though, to balance out the options of either bringing a survey team on your ship but having it be a larger and more expensive ship, or the current system where its just the scanner, and you can bring around the survey team afterwards.
6
Aurora Bugs / Re: Official v7.10 Bugs Reporting Thread
« Last post by wildfire142 on Today at 10:03:12 AM »
Getting an error 6 overflow message specifically CheckMissileInterceptions while a series of salvos closes wit a spoiler target. It is eight separate ships each firing 16 missiles per salvo and the error only crops up as they close in on the targets.
7
C# Aurora / Re: Replacing Teams?
« Last post by firefly2442 on Today at 09:34:55 AM »
I feel the current survey teams are a little clunky.   They require a lot of manual effort and management.   It would be nice to either attach that ability to another entity in the game and/or to provide automation to the player in conducting surveys.   For example, you could add teams to survey ships and have them explore and survey automatically.
8
C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Last post by serger on Today at 04:27:13 AM »
I've already fixed the issue when there is a simultaneous unassign and reassign. The unassign is no longer displayed.
What about two simultaneous assings (first one was made by mistake)? They can be displayed at wrong order also.
The best case, as for me - if first one will be deleted/filtered too.
9
C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Last post by Steve Walmsley on Today at 04:21:47 AM »
Looking at new Commanders window (http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=8455.msg101804#msg101804).

I think it will be cool to order personal records by rowid, not datetime. Or date + rowid, both decreasing (if you want to have a possibility to insert records post factum).
It will prevent this small bug with partially reversed record order (when records have the same datetime).

I've already fixed the issue when there is a simultaneous unassign and reassign. The unassign is no longer displayed.
10
C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Last post by serger on Today at 03:48:59 AM »
Looking at new Commanders window (http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=8455.msg101804#msg101804).

I think it will be cool to order personal records by rowid, not datetime. Or date + rowid, both decreasing (if you want to have a possibility to insert records post factum).
It will prevent this small bug with partially reversed record order (when records have the same datetime).
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10