Recent Posts

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10
11
The Academy / Re: Mining Vessels
« Last post by TMaekler on September 22, 2017, 07:53:04 AM »
Thanx guys. Did not know that Aurora handles planets and asteroids different with that module - simply by their class definition. Alright, moving the AMs and MDs into position...
12
C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Last post by sloanjh on September 22, 2017, 07:39:45 AM »
You do realize that being sarcastic asshole doesn't really get anyone to listen to you.
If you don't like a suggestion, try to atleast explain why instead of trying to undermine it in a childish way like this.

Wow - this isn't the way I interpreted the OP at all!  I remember thinking it was actually a kind of interesting idea for generating something other than a regular hex map, albeit a LOT more work than he made it sound (which I suspect is where was "and now, for my next trick..." sentence was about).

In any event, even if a post is a bit jerk-ish, please remember the "no hitting" rule.  We want negative feedback loops in potential flame wars, not positive.

Thanks, and have fun!
John
13
Aurora Chat / Re: Bigger = Better?
« Last post by I_Sicarius_I on September 22, 2017, 04:43:50 AM »
I don't usually use carriers alot. Typically i only use escort carriers at most. Maybe one per fleet at around 30kts. What i tend to do is have PDC airbases or starbases strategically placed on planets and/or near jump points so that my fighters can deploy while my navy is en route.
In my current game my fleets are

1 dreadnought (flagship) - s15 torpedoes and 3 800mm triple laser turrets the dreads are the bristling fortress of guns and torpedoes Designed to take out enemy capitals after their escorts are gone.

No battleships atm

2 Heavy cruisers - s15 torpedoes 3 600mm triple laser turrets the big girls i use for damage dealers and damage soaks fielding 15 shields I think and 30 layers of armor

4 cruisers - s15 torpedoes 3 600mm twin laser turrets and a good deal of PD these serve as a support role for the smaller ships and assist with PD

2 escort cruisers - s10 LRAMs with thermal sensors and a good portion of PD and anti fighter turrets and missiles serve as backup PD and anti fighter support

4 destroyers - s8 SRHS missiles great sensors and some PD basically my main missile ships

4 frigates - these have a large amount of AMM launchers and serve as the main missile defense ships

4 corvettes - my corvettes serve as picket ships with the best thermal and em sensors able to spot the enemy before they spot us primarily used to chase down fleeing FACs and other crippled ships my large ships cant catch i also use them for patrols but they are short ranged.

Also 4 Hunters - they are stealth ships at cruiser weight. I use them to sneak around battles patrols also use them for world burners fielding the size 25 Catacylsm class missiles my dreads use.

Edit - this isnt my philosophy for every class of a hull. Just whats used in my current fleet as there is only one class of each hull in my fleets at the moment.
14
The Academy / Re: Advice on on-board missile sensors
« Last post by Steve Walmsley on September 22, 2017, 03:48:28 AM »
Passive sensors on missiles will be much more effective in C# Aurora due to the changes in the passive sensor model
15
C# Aurora / Re: Replacing PDCs
« Last post by obsidian_green on September 22, 2017, 02:18:33 AM »
I'd prefer ground combat not stray too far from the fundamental. Researching techs related to personal weapons or personal armor, perhaps even planetary equipment, strikes me as below the level of detail established by ship-related tech and shipbuilding. If the base ground unit is the battalion, we should probably assume they would equip themselves comparably to tech levels demonstrated by the faction's ships, yet scaled to unit combat against combatants and their heavy equipment. In playing, I've role-played the ground unit techs primarily as organizational reforms adapting forces to the new technologies. Customizing ground units only makes sense if we're making tactical ground-combat decisions, which seems outside the scope of Aurora and something at which NPR AIs might not excel.

Much is already implicitly reflected in the different types of ground units. Changes in how those units function might be improvements, but I don't think that framework needs changing. Others have mentioned hard/soft values for attack and defense, which could benefit better combat mechanics, but which I don't think should effect gameplay other than to make a decision about which sort of battalion to build. I have always assumed aircraft as integral to battalions, below the level of gameplay---no way these battalions, even light ones like garrison, ship out without integrated air support (unless it's a waterworld, sea-going assets would be obsolete).

I would, however, argue against integrated ground-to-space capability in the current battalion types---I don't see that as their role. I am open to the idea of new battalion types dedicated to space defense; they'd secure and operate weapons to counter space-based threats and be relatively useless in combat versus other ground units. Specialization of equipment and unique unit combat doctrine could merit a new line of tech for such units.

I glanced at the Titan thread last week, but don't quite get what it represents---in military equipment you want the most possible lethality in the smallest possible package. I'm already anticipating how I'm going to imagine them as units of specialized siege equipment, but if the PDCs are going away ...

Steve, could this idea be used with ships as well. It has been mentioned before that training up a ships crew and then losing that experience level when the ship is scrapped makes the turnover of ships and fighters to be painful. When scrapping ships, could a second crew pool be maintained (representing the cadre from the scrapped ships) that new ships and fighters can pull crew from first, before using untrained naval crew coming from the general pool.

I like this idea. An alternative might be a crew rating for the general pool that increases with the addition of crew from scrapped ships or lifepod survivors, which would simulate/be analgous to training and supervisory roles within the force structure and would translate into higher initial grade bonuses for new ship crews.
16
C# Aurora / Re: Replacing PDCs
« Last post by alex_brunius on September 22, 2017, 01:46:26 AM »
They also require time "offline" as they are being maintained.
Until and unless PDC also require TN minerals AND offline time to be maintained, PDCs are NOT balanced and in fact they can be exploited to create a defense / hangar system for free.

No, a ship that spends it's entire lifecyckle on a planet does not require offline time to be maintained. So a PDC is not really breaking this particular rule at all.

I agree about the other rules though, but I don't mind them that much since you get to choose yourself to what extent you want to exploit the game and I simply choose to not use them in that manner. I never used PDC Hangars for anything other then basing some obsolete fighters ( Which don't think anyone considers an issue to be honest ).

If creating these special rules for them is alot of coding effort, and Steve prefers to put that effort into a better ground combat model instead then I am all for it.
17
C# Aurora / Re: Replacing PDCs
« Last post by Barkhorn on September 21, 2017, 07:47:05 PM »
Can't we just disallow hangars in PDC's?  The fact that PDC's can't move is a big enough downside to outweigh the fact that their maintenance is free.  Who cares how amazing your PDC defenses are, they're stuck on your planets.  You can't attack with them.
18
The Academy / Re: Advice on on-board missile sensors
« Last post by El Pip on September 21, 2017, 05:16:42 PM »
I'm a bit rusty on two-stage missiles, but surely those are never going to work as intended?

If the separation distance is 8million km, but the sensor has only (at best) 3.9m km, then the second stages will have separated long before the sensor could ever see anything.

On the wider point, thermal is preferred over passive EM as passive EM doesn't work. An active missile will be active from the moment you launch, so if the enemy has a large EM sensor they will may get a lot more warning of incoming missiles.

The other point is that your missiles are now super optimised against enemy cruisers and at that resolution functionally blind against FACs. A thermal seeker who still struggle, but would probably have a much better chance.
19
Aurora Chat / MOVED: My they are healthy eaters...
« Last post by Erik Luken on September 21, 2017, 05:03:18 PM »
20
The Academy / Re: Advice on on-board missile sensors
« Last post by Garfunkel on September 21, 2017, 04:20:08 PM »
Detection range needs to be slightly higher than what enemy ships can move in 5 seconds. Because the best use for them is to avoid overkill. Missiles with sensors on them will automatically retarget if their current target is destroyed and there is a new hostile target inside their sensor range.

Thermal sensors are good because engines put out a lot of heat and are always on (EM sensors go for active sensors and shields only) but if you can get a decent range with active sensor without compromising the missile otherwise, then go for it.

Note that the resolution in your first missile is pretty damn high. Note how the range given is for 9150 ton object. Many NPR/spoiler ships will be smaller.
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10