Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10
21
The Academy / Re: Mining Vessels
« Last post by Garfunkel on September 21, 2017, 04:16:21 PM »
Always send the additional asteroid miner, fuel harvester, or terraformer to the target location first. Then the second line is "join TG XYZ". That way the unit is counted as being at the location. This bu has been fixed for C# Aurora.
22
C# Aurora / Re: Replacing PDCs
« Last post by Zincat on September 21, 2017, 01:47:52 PM »
Being an old sci fi fan I would miss the PDCs.   The free maintenance can be adjusted to the population of the planet.   a 100,000 ton
PDC is no larger than a little more than 2 Iowa class battleships.   A population of sufficient quantity should have no problem maintaining
one.   There are hundreds of 100,000 plus ton ships out in the real world now.   Replacing the PDCs with a new mix of just ground units
is not the same as having El Scorpio PDC (for those who remember 'Sleeping Planet).

That is not the kind of maintenance that is being discussed here. It has NOTHING to do with manpower or money or population.

TN ships require TN minerals (for the MSP) to be maintained. 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.

This is the problem here. Plus, as stated by Steve, that they break a lot of rules.

Also, as said before you will be able to do the same things you do now with orbital defense stations. So, it's not like you can't do stationary defense systems anymore. Also orbital defense stations can be towed, so that's a plus.
23
C# Aurora / Re: Replacing PDCs
« Last post by IanD on September 21, 2017, 01:00:14 PM »
PDCs
For a conventional start I think you still need a type of PDC to simulate current missile silos. But what if you restricted missile silo "farms" to box launchers that require a command & control facility for every 10 silos (upgradable?) with a significant reload penalty? Thus while you may have a significant alpha strike it would take you hours or days to reload your dispersed missile silos which would remain even with TN missiles.

Titans
If you used Bolos as your model rather than Titans you could have the Mk I to III as your heavy armour all the way up to the Mk XXXIII Continental Siege Unit capable of standing off two or three starships.  Reference https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolo_(tank)
24
C# Aurora / Re: Replacing PDCs
« Last post by plasticpanzers on September 21, 2017, 12:45:34 PM »
The 100,000 plus ship are the supertankers and supercargo vessels on the seas now.   There are also
plenty of 100,000 plus cruise ships too.    My comment using the example of the Iowas is that in a
planetary nation/colony with sufficient and economy there should be no problem hosting a 60-90,000
ton PDC.   Its not 'the hill' from Triplanetary and NORADs HQ under Cheyenne is just a command facility.
real PDCs would be placed over a large area with overlapping fire.  1 battalion garrisons would be
woefully bad as garrisons.  It would take divisions to protect one.   I think the concept of the PDC is
accurate for defense from space and some on the ground but they would be more susceptible to
ground attacks as they are dispersed bunkers, gun batteries, launchers.   If they can keep an enemy
in space and make it too hard to invade then they do what they are supposed to do.   I can easily see
that PDCs can only control a % of the planet (tho can defend it all).  You would need mulitple PDCs to
have coverage against any ground landing and would have to hit 1 or more PDCs to open a hole for
your ground troops.   Please don't take our PDCs away!  Only the 'bugs' will appreciate it! 
25
The Academy / Advice on on-board missile sensors
« Last post by smoelf on September 21, 2017, 09:56:46 AM »
In my current game I am experimenting with two-stage missiles, and tried putting thermal sensors of the first stage in case the target blew up too soon. However, it never really worked out too well as the sensor was too weak to be useful. Right now I am upgrading my entire missile system and due to increased fuel efficiency and engine tech I now have room to put some bigger sensors in them that might actually be useful. The question is which type of sensor to use. Fortunately I know something of the ships of the NPR I am primarily fighting. Their stock ship has a tonnage of 9150 tons and a thermal signature of 384. Designing a missile with that in mind and using either thermal or active sensors I get the following options:

Code: [Select]
Missile Size: 18 MSP  (0.9 HS)     Warhead: 0    Armour: 0     Manoeuvre Rating: 10
Speed: 18900 km/s    Engine Endurance: 6.9 hours   Range: 469.4m km
Active Sensor Strength: 2.471   Sensitivity Modifier: 110%
Resolution: 183    Maximum Range vs 9150 ton object (or larger): 3 670 000 km
Cost Per Missile: 17.9046
Second Stage: Size 2 Anti-ship Missile x4
Second Stage Separation Range: 8 000 000 km
Overall Endurance: 7 hours   Overall Range: 484.1m km
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 189%   3k km/s 60%   5k km/s 37.8%   10k km/s 18.9%
Materials Required:    4x Tritanium   1.482x Boronide   2.471x Uridium   12.1532x Gallicite   Fuel x5700

Development Cost for Project: 1790RP

Code: [Select]
Missile Size: 18 MSP  (0.9 HS)     Warhead: 0    Armour: 0     Manoeuvre Rating: 10
Speed: 18900 km/s    Engine Endurance: 6.9 hours   Range: 469.4m km
Thermal Sensor Strength: 1.2942    Detect Sig Strength 1000:  1 294 200 km
Cost Per Missile: 16.0222
Second Stage: Size 2 Anti-ship Missile x4
Second Stage Separation Range: 8 000 000 km
Overall Endurance: 7 hours   Overall Range: 484.1m km
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 189%   3k km/s 60%   5k km/s 37.8%   10k km/s 18.9%
Materials Required:    4x Tritanium   0.7764x Boronide   1.2942x Uridium   12.1532x Gallicite   Fuel x5700

Development Cost for Project: 1602RP

It seems to me that the active sensor is the better option here, giving me a detection range of 3.67m km while the thermal has a detection range of about a third of the listed 1,29m km. However, most of what I have read suggest that thermal sensors are preferred on missiles.
  • Is there a reason for this that I am not seeing?
  • Or could it be that the NPR in my case simply has so weak engines, that active sensors becomes the better option?
  • Relative to your own experience with on-board sensors on your own missiles, are these detection ranges realistic and even worth it, or should I rather cram an extra second-stage missile on to them instead of a sensor?
26
Advanced Tactical Command Academy / Re: Tactical Boarding Operations and Doctrines
« Last post by Silvarelion on September 21, 2017, 09:43:23 AM »
Note that that requires your ship to be faster than the enemy or otherwise it cannot disengage.

Mhmm, for sure.

Testing out swarm tactics at the moment. Initial testing is suggesting against heavily armored and lightly shielded opponents, a half decent swarm can knock out all fire controls in an increment or two. Makes it safe for anything else to come in.

Need to test my railgun PD against an NPC AMM swarm to see if the HPM fighters can get close.
27
Aurora Chat / Re: Bigger = Better?
« Last post by Silvarelion on September 21, 2017, 09:15:05 AM »
I'm currently playing around with large, engine-less carriers (current is 60kt, working up to 120kt) being pulled around by commercial tugs. Depending on the speed and endurance needed, I use a 20kt, 60kt, or 120kt (possibly 240kt, if needed) tug. That gives me decent speed, a year of endurance, and keeps maintainence half decent. It also gives me more than enough room for pocket battleships, or large swarms of FACs or fighters.
28
C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Last post by alex_brunius on September 21, 2017, 08:49:14 AM »
Give them a deployment time. Sure you can just increase crew quarters to raise deployment but that would also increase maintenance costs.

How would that work? Normal ships deployment time only ticks up when they are not at a population, but you can't move a PDC so it will always be either at a population ( meaning the feature is useless ), or not at a population ( meaning the PDC is useless since it can't be moved ).
29
C# Aurora / Re: Replacing PDCs
« Last post by alex_brunius on September 21, 2017, 08:41:38 AM »

There are no 100,000 ton warships.  The biggest (US carriers) top out around 90,000 tons.

Not anymore...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_R._Ford-class_aircraft_carrier

( Nimitz class actually also is closer to 100kt nowadays ).
30
Spoilers / Re: My they are healthy eaters...
« Last post by MarcAFK on September 21, 2017, 08:15:35 AM »
They're hard to deal with if you're not ready, but a fleet specifically designed to exploit their weaknesses isn't too hard to create . 
Also this is reaching spoiler territory, the topic should be in that part of the forum :p
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10