Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]
91
Aurora Suggestions / Re: Semi-Official 7.x Suggestion Thread
« Last post by QuakeIV on September 19, 2017, 02:34:41 AM »
I'd argue that that would require new technologies to contrive to make close range 'orbital combat' an actual thing.  Otherwise everything in halo can be modeled with railguns (mac guns are railguns according to the lore), and you can see the guns are engaging at a considerable range, as do the games railguns.  Then the boarding pods can be simulated by boarding pods, which the game already has.
92
The Academy / Re: Tons of new player questions
« Last post by smoelf on September 19, 2017, 02:11:11 AM »
I've been lazy about updating mine, even as I have been playing further, but the one thing they should show you is that this is a game that takes a long time to play both in terms of real time and game time.  Very few things happen quickly...or well yes you can loose a ship in seconds but replacing that ship, assuming you have sufficient resources...and a free ship yard slot can take over a year.   Reactions depending on if you assume FTL comms (I don't) can take time...and as the latest deployment of the NCN highlighted...the logisitics of the situation can often be more complex then the combat.   Getting TG3 back to Earth was harder than getting it to the combat zone.
With the risk of bringing the thread off track, I was really curious about this. How do you, in practice, role play the delay of information?
93
C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Last post by Black on September 19, 2017, 01:49:35 AM »
I have to say that I am a bit disappointed with removal of PDCs. I did not use them much on colony worlds, but I like my asteroid forts and bases. I hope some form of asteroid fortifications like Theban defenses in Crusade will be eventually implemented as partial replacement of PDCs.
94
C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Last post by QuakeIV on September 19, 2017, 01:24:48 AM »
I feel like it would be reasonable to simply replace that with some kind of ambiguously defined 'ground unit'.
95
C# Aurora / Re: Replacing PDCs
« Last post by QuakeIV on September 19, 2017, 01:23:44 AM »
I would agree with the idea of equipping ground units with ship type weapons and removing the atmosphere limitations.  That sounds pretty cool.

Perhaps you design 'heavy equipment' for them, and the unit upkeep is based around the exepcted msp usage of those parts?  So like, gun, reactor, fire control combo of some kind.
96
The Academy / Re: Infinity overhaul
« Last post by plasticpanzers on September 19, 2017, 12:28:15 AM »
thanks! first time i played again for over a year.   so much to remember its easy to forget!   ;D
97
C# Aurora / Re: Replacing PDCs
« Last post by Langer on September 19, 2017, 12:16:56 AM »
I already tend to design PDCs as either SAM anti-missile batteries, or anti-ship batteries or a simple one with best available sensors.  I think an in depth tech tree of ground units that encompasses the ability to do that instead would be a great addition.

I'd wonder how an equivalent unit for sensors would work - seems less fitting to a ground unit, but maybe a different type of installation.  Have Deep Space Tracking Stations for Ships, but some other type of Tracking Station for incoming ordnance.
98
Aurora Suggestions / Re: Semi-Official 7.x Suggestion Thread
« Last post by Barkhorn on September 18, 2017, 11:33:58 PM »
Suggestion:

Add another type of vessel, besides "PDC" and "Ship" to represent military orbital facilities.  Right now there's no good way to RP any universe that makes heavy use of orbital defenses, like the Orbital MAC Stations in the Halo universe, for example.  Right now all combat happens either in interplanetary space, or on the surface, orbital combat is sorely lacking.
99
C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Last post by Indefatigable on September 18, 2017, 10:32:19 PM »
Removing PDCs will also remove a chunk of the roleplay/flavour aspect from the "ground game". 

I absolutely want to build those flaktowers and command bunkers as space nazis, or legionary forts as romans or whatever the theme might be.

Instead of totally removing them, why not make them more expensive and/or less combat efficient.
100
C# Aurora / Re: Replacing PDCs
« Last post by Bremen on September 18, 2017, 09:44:02 PM »
I'd say there's really two aspects of this idea. The first is removing PDCs and giving some ground units planet to space weapons, and the second would be changing ground units to use custom designs. Either can really be done without the other, though obviously it would make for less work to do them both at once.

I posted my thoughts about the first change in the thread, but the short of it is I really like the idea but think it would be cool if instead of making all weapons penetrate atmospheres better, different kinds interacted with atmosphere differently. Mesons should continue to work as they do, obviously, but I think it would be interesting if large railguns had much better bombardment capability than lasers; gives them something to be excel at (well, besides 10cm railguns as anti-missile flak). High power microwaves, plasma carronades, and gauss should probably be useless through any thick atmosphere, and I have no clue about particle beams (cause radiation like missiles?).


Thinking about the second, customizing ground units, is an interesting idea. Someone in the Titan discussion already suggested the idea that there should be HoI style soft and hard attack (the former better against infantry and the latter better against armor), and I think if you go with custom ground units that's the way to go. Maybe switch over to a system that tracks how many soldiers/combat units in a division and assigns damage that way. For example, when designing a ground unit, you'd start by picking a template:

(made up examples)
Light Infantry Battalion: Contains 1000 soldiers
Heavy Infantry Battalion: Contains 800 soldiers and 20 Crew Served Weapons
Power Armor Battalion: Contains 400 combat suits
Light Vehicle Battalion: Contains 40 light vehicles
Heavy Vehicle Battalion: Contains 10 heavy vehicles (like tanks or anti-space cannons)
Fortification Battalion: Contains 10 heavy emplaced weapons (must be in place for a month before they can fire?)
Scout Titan: Contains 1 Scout Titan (assuming larger ones would take more transport capacity than a battalion)

Or even something customizeable, where you pick whatever combinations (with better armor techs?) and if you go over 1000 weight it just takes more than one troop transport bay to move. Give each unit some rating for hit points and/or armor. Maybe just armor (sort of like missiles), to avoid having to track hit points on 400 different suits of combat armor.

That on its own might handle minimizing the impact of ground bombardment and heavy weapons, assuming a 30cm laser or Titan Assault Gun could only kill so many foot infantry. It kinda makes sense that orbital bombardment would work better on a force of tanks or planes than a group of infantry that's trying to hide, after all. OTOH.. you still need ground to space weapons if you're keeping bombardment using the standard combat system, since even if an orbital strike kills 1 soldier you could easily fire a thousand times before one ground combat tick.

Then you'd get to pick weapons for the units. I like the idea of units being researchable, but I think either they should have a prerequisite of the equivalent space weapon, or be the same tech as the space weapon. If your ships use particle beams, it's thematically fitting that your power armored troops would too. It would include anti-space weapons as well, though those should probably be on the heavier side; you probably wouldn't want 1000 foot troops with anti-space laser rifles.

Gauss rifle/cannon/assault gun: High rate of fire (more than one shot per combat tick), making them very good when shooting "down" (tank shooting at infantry, titan shooting at power armor, etc)
Lasers: Good damage but lower rates of fire, all around good weapon.
Railguns: Slightly less damage, faster rate of fire than lasers, another baseline weapon.
Meson: Chance to damage regardless of armor (though maybe scaling down based on just how much armor; a meson rifle shouldn't regularly take out a titan)
Plasma: Bonus in close combat/boarding, maybe replacing the old marine unit?
Particle Beam: Low rate of fire, high damage, good for shooting "up" at larger units?
and so on.

Maybe artillery/bombardment weapons too, though to be honest they've never seemed to be that different from standard combat with how ground units are fought now.
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]