Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]
91
C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Last post by sloanjh on February 21, 2018, 07:30:24 AM »
Hi Steve,

  I've noticed a lot of new threads popping up in this board with minor suggestions.  I've also noticed a lot of suggestions in this thread, which technically is to discuss the changes you've made.

  In VB6 Aurora, you requested that people only post to a single "official" suggestions thread, since you like to have a single place to scan for old suggestions.  Without such a thread, you have said you tend to forget old suggestions and/or have a lot of trouble locating them.  This system seems to be breaking down for C# Aurora.

  So would you like to:

1)  Have people use the official thread (either the current one or a new one) in the Suggestions board for C# Aurora suggestions?
2)  Start a new suggestions thread in this (C# Aurora) board?
3)  Put suggestions in this thread?
4)  Continue with what's been going on recently (a little of everything)?
5)  Do something else?

Thanks,
John

PS - The exposition above wasn't actually for Steve; it was mostly for newcomers to the community :)
92
C# Aurora / Re: New sensor model and small fighters. Problem?
« Last post by Tuna-Fish on February 21, 2018, 07:16:07 AM »
One part of the puzzle I've not seen much thinking about is that by making small sensors better, the new system makes active missile sensors *much* better.

One aspect of this is that the best answer to fighters might not even be catching them on your actives, but using heat-seeking missiles, fired (roughly) in the direction of their sensor contact.

Another is that very small sensor buoys are much better than they used to be.  Maybe combat in c# will involve firing off a lot of missile-contained sensor buoys to blanket the area they might be coming from?.
93
C# Aurora / Re: New sensor model and small fighters. Problem?
« Last post by Iranon on February 21, 2018, 05:50:51 AM »
@ alex_brunius:
ECM can be somewhat negated by overengineered fire controls (sensors are a harder limit than FCs because they are larger fo the same range)... but they can force a guessing game and will generally force measures costlier than themselves so still a win.
Cloaking device would work reliably, especially coupled with a cloaked sensor craft specifically made to detect small fighters instead of small scouts.
So fair points on both.

Cloaks especially face the same problem as building the destroyer like an oversized fighter though: heavy specialisation and considerable expense (both tech and build cost). I stated possible solutions to a hard reliance on small fighters myself; cheaper ones too albeit with less room for error.
The main point is having to jump through hoops and getting things exactly right to counter something basic.

In the current version, I've had tiny fighters trying to use their small footprint engaged successfully because the AI invested into surprisingly large and powerful AMM sensors. Craft designed to outrun and outrange beam threats came under fire because the target matched one of these, had superior E(C)CM, the enemy had missiles in reserve when I thought that phase of the battle was over, or simple because they didn't execute their orders flawlessly. The "nearly tactically invincible" things aren't economically appealing (e.g. "throw enough size-1 missiles at any problem until the problem blows up" or "oversized sensors + stealth + long-ranged missiles including decoy systems").
Most things have various incidental soft counters that can realistically crop up even when the opponent isn't playing optimally or using extremely tight designs. I think this is different.

@ Jorgen_CAB:
A size-1 sensor would seem quite small. If we have a 1.8HS sensor on the sensor variants, we can fit a matching fire control and a size 8 box launcher on the offensive variants, 180t on my example design (will need slightly more fuel in C# to maintain reasonable performance and enough endurance to not need a carrier, but definitely below 200t). This is actually slightly on the large side for what I had in mind; if it was possible to build non-missile engines <1HS I'd go considerably smaller.

*

Admittedly, all this assumes sensor range will remain relevant.
With the changes to missile fuel consumption, this will probably require multistage missiles for any acceptable performance... another aspect where the new system will likely require much more thorough knowledge of the mechanics to come up with something in any way functional.
But that's probably something for a different doomsaying thread :)
94
C# Aurora / Re: No Limit on Commander Themes in C# Please
« Last post by Person012345 on February 21, 2018, 04:41:54 AM »
I believe there is a way for you to make one and submit it for use.
95
C# Aurora / Re: Replacing Teams?
« Last post by Hazard on February 21, 2018, 04:22:30 AM »
Especially since we'll now have a transport bay that's about 1/5th smaller than the smallest we had before.

That seems about right for an independent survey unit, at a no-mechanics glance, though of course it will depend on how much survey capability you can actually fit into that much troop tonnage.

Not a lot of it. Enough, mind you, that you'll be able to get a decent estimate in a couple of decades as they roam the surface of an Earth sized planet looking for signs of TN materials, but that's about it. I personally expect that a given 'team' for archeology or surveying will mass at several thousand to several tens of thousands of tons between the equipment needed and personnel numbers.

Remember, that '5 tons for a basic weapon' isn't just the weapon; it's also everything that's needed to operate it, including the soldier and his life support systems.
96
C# Aurora / Re: New sensor model and small fighters. Problem?
« Last post by Jorgen_CAB on February 21, 2018, 04:15:00 AM »
@Iranon

Roughly size 8 res 5 are equal to a size 1 res 100 sensor. Given that a destroyer can easily be 20-40 times the size of fighter that is not really being innefiecient from a resource perspective. Especially when a larger ship can have deep magazines to sustain their defensive effort.

I know that fighters can be smaller than 250t, but they are not great at long range bombing. Comparison above are done because those are the sensor example Steve have given. Really small fighters work best as interceptors.

The thing will rather be at what range will you spot the ships and be able to fire on them at the same time?

The thing is that you must defeat the fighter/scout screen first and such destroyers could be designed to support the screen with long distance missiles, in addition to interceptor crafts.

You will usually end up in a situation where you need to find the ship before you can fire on them in the first place.

If you design a destroyer escort to defend against fighter and enemy missiles you need to do it properly.

You will be able to design bombers with a longer range but that is not the issue. These ships are suppose to engage in the scouting and phase. Against long range bombers they will need to defend with AMM.

You have to remember that you are not just up aggaint one type of ship but a multitude of ship's and fighters in a combined arms type fleet. Comparing optimal sensors ranges against each other will become a moot point at that stage.
97
C# Aurora / Re: New sensor model and small fighters. Problem?
« Last post by alex_brunius on February 21, 2018, 02:59:27 AM »
Will your missile destroyers sport size 10+ fire controls of the right resolution to have adequate range to enemy fighters?
Will your scouts/interceptors have sensors/FCs very close to the ideal resolution (1 and 5 won't do if 3 is needed)?
Will your scouts have a high percentage of sensors (which pretty much rules out performance; endurance is cheap)?
All of these need to be answered with "yes" for this to work.

Or you can just put a Cloaking Device on you Anti Fighter DDs instead ( which the fighters themself can't use since they are too small ), and use ECCM/ECM and it auto-wins the active sensor "race" of who can target it's opponent at longest range...


Your questions also work both ways btw: Will the Fighters have all of the above (Specially FCs of sufficient size and optimal resolution) to be able to target Anti-Fighter DDs of unknown tonnage at good range even if they are not using cloak?
98
C# Aurora / Re: New sensor model and small fighters. Problem?
« Last post by Iranon on February 21, 2018, 01:16:02 AM »
I'd encourage a close look at the new sensor range table and consider what ranges ships of various size can pick up others. Obviously not restricting this just to perfect sensor matches.

Will your missile destroyers sport size 10+ fire controls of the right resolution to have adequate range to enemy fighters?
Will your scouts/interceptors have sensors/FCs very close to the ideal resolution (1 and 5 won't do if 3 is needed)?
Will your scouts have a high percentage of sensors (which pretty much rules out performance; endurance is cheap)?
All of these need to be answered with "yes" for this to work.

You are aware of the advantages of small sensor footprint in the current version. What you seem to be missing is how in the future, any larger ships expected to fight them need to be just as ruthlessly optimised for range:footprint ratio as the fighters themselves. If the destroyers have one huge FC and a modest missile armament and absolutely no frills, they might work (being hugely expensive for the capability and still being vulnerablet to having their spotters are shot down before their own missiles arrive). With several fire controls, a decent missile loadout respective to FC tonnage, a hangar and other niceties, the size of fire controls needed to match fighter sensor range to them balloons, driving up the mass of the rest you want etc. The tyranny of the sensor equation... you can have an advantage at large size, but it's hugely expensive.

Unless facing an almost-ideal counter build, a concentration of small fighters with various resolution sensors (cost is no issue. Fighters don't require retooling, and half a dozen different 1.2HS sensors for 3HS fighters or so are no more expensive than the sensor for a single FAC) are very likely to see any enemy before they are seen, both considering actives vs. actives and a mutual emissions control scenario.

For scouting purposes when area coverage is desired rather than a concentrated fleet, a ring of sensor fighters (in a formation around a central task group; maybe the main strike group, maybe a single dummy craft) would do that very well with rather limited investment for the capability.
99
C# Aurora / Re: Replacing Teams?
« Last post by Conscript Gary on February 21, 2018, 12:01:05 AM »
Especially since we'll now have a transport bay that's about 1/5th smaller than the smallest we had before.

The 100 ton bay will transport 100 tons of troops (about 20 soldiers or a heavy tank).

That seems about right for an independent survey unit, at a no-mechanics glance, though of course it will depend on how much survey capability you can actually fit into that much troop tonnage.
100
Announcements / Re: Site Down
« Last post by 83athom on February 20, 2018, 08:43:32 PM »
Seems like some things got deleted in several threads, mainly in the C# Change List, with a "Last edit" date shortly after the original post time when I definitely remember seeing said post long after that.
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]