Author Topic: Semi-Official 7.x Suggestion Thread  (Read 36890 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline adrianbard

  • Able Ordinary Rate
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
Re: Semi-Official 7.x Suggestion Thread
« Reply #720 on: September 11, 2017, 12:23:50 PM »
drones, they are "fighter only" components that if on a fighter it doesn't need crew (but still uses extra HS per crew required as "computing power" or something similar) and it's actions delay is that of the ship that has a remote control component plus the time it takes light to cross the distance between the vessel and the controlling mothership
 

Offline obsidian_green

  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • ******
  • Posts: 100
  • Thanked: 11 times
    • View Profile
Re: Semi-Official 7.x Suggestion Thread
« Reply #721 on: September 12, 2017, 10:04:55 PM »
I never posted this suggestion to this thread, so just to be sure. Original thread here: http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=9599.0

Quote from: obsidian_green
I don't know about other players, but twenty-something planetary administrators, brigadier generals, and naval captains somewhat break my sense of immersion. On the naval side, I can ... sort of ... remedy this by changing the initial rank (in the scheme I'm using) from lieutenant commander to lieutenant, but that's no help for that twenty-three year old ruler of Earth nor for the young scientists in charge of 60 labs (nor for the first initial crop of naval officers).

An easy "solution" (I grant that the current setup might actually appeal to some players) would be to make initial commander ages early 30s instead of early 20s. I can better stomach 30 year old lieutenant commanders (or even lieutenants if they're senior enough to command ships at the game's level of granularity) or head scientists ... colonels would still be a stretch, but beggars can't be choosers.

Less easy, but probably not difficult to code would be a dynamic means of establishing initial age at world/game generation, so that those (especially, perhaps exclusively military) commanders that get/would get auto-promoted in the initial commander crop are aged appropriately for their (maybe soon-to-be) rank. If colonel is to be the R1 rank for ground troops, perhaps their initial ages could be set separately---they should be (or I'd like them to be, at any rate) significantly older than the navy's lieutenant commanders.

A slightly related "problem" are the brigadier generals commanding Marine companies, which might fit a Star Wars-esque imagining (Han Solo didn't look like he could fit an entire battalion, much less any larger formation into that stolen shuttle), but doesn't quite fit with what I'm imagining for a force structure in my game.

It's all really minor stuff, but should be fairly headache-free to address if my suggestions appeal.  :)
 

Offline QuakeIV

  • Registered
  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • Posts: 165
  • Thanked: 8 times
    • View Profile
Re: Semi-Official 7.x Suggestion Thread
« Reply #722 on: September 13, 2017, 03:24:51 AM »
Oh hey, that sounds really nice.  Start the game with a mature officer corps.  It would certainly make sense.
 

Offline Barkhorn

  • Commander
  • *********
  • Posts: 364
  • Thanked: 47 times
    • View Profile
Re: Semi-Official 7.x Suggestion Thread
« Reply #723 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.
 

Offline QuakeIV

  • Registered
  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • Posts: 165
  • Thanked: 8 times
    • View Profile
Re: Semi-Official 7.x Suggestion Thread
« Reply #724 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.
 

Offline TheRowan

  • Petty Officer
  • **
  • Posts: 28
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Re: Semi-Official 7.x Suggestion Thread
« Reply #725 on: September 19, 2017, 04:07:11 AM »
Suggestion: Nameable academies.

Have an option to change the name shown by officers/scientists/administrators for their training facility. Even better, have each body's academy customisable by character type (so Naval Officers from Earth train at Annapolis, Army Officers at West Point, scientists at MIT and administrators at Harvard). With the new commandant system, they'd be listed as the commandant/chancellor of the custom named facility relevant to their branch. If not customised, this could default to the current Earth Military Academy/University of Earth.

Only a little change, but I think it would be cool for RP purposes.
 
The following users thanked this post: DIT_grue

Offline Barkhorn

  • Commander
  • *********
  • Posts: 364
  • Thanked: 47 times
    • View Profile
Re: Semi-Official 7.x Suggestion Thread
« Reply #726 on: September 19, 2017, 10:56:48 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.
I'm saying you never have military assets parked in orbit, which makes providing beam defenses to a planet with an atmosphere impossible.

Further, the addition of more stationary assets makes boarding capability more useful.  Right now it's fairly pointless, and absolutely not worth the dozens of interrupts you get during combat.  But if there were actual valuable assets that did not move (and thus were easy to board), it might be worth it.
 

Offline QuakeIV

  • Registered
  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • Posts: 165
  • Thanked: 8 times
    • View Profile
Re: Semi-Official 7.x Suggestion Thread
« Reply #727 on: September 19, 2017, 11:53:00 PM »
I mean, I make beam defense stations all the time, what are you talking about?

I'd agree its kindof pointless to try to capture them vs just destroying them, but thats true of halo as well.
 

Offline 83athom

  • Big Ship Commander
  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1250
  • Thanked: 83 times
    • View Profile
Re: Semi-Official 7.x Suggestion Thread
« Reply #728 on: September 25, 2017, 08:19:39 AM »
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.
Technically, SMAC stations do have their own stationkeeping thrusters that they use when they fire (every 5 seconds). And you can build a ship with no engines then mass produce them from an " Orbital Construction Facility" (Shipyard). There is also a hand "Extend Orbit" order which does make a "Station" orbit the body further out (but then maintenance is a B unless you have that turned off).
Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set fire to him and he's warm for the rest of his life.
 

Offline Garfunkel

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • Posts: 727
  • Thanked: 31 times
    • View Profile
Re: Semi-Official 7.x Suggestion Thread
« Reply #729 on: September 25, 2017, 04:06:33 PM »
There are also class names existing for such "stations". There's Orbital Weapon Platform and Defence Base and quite a few others. Just design as a ship but without engines or fuel - or just one slow engine for "station keeping" and vĂ³ila.
 

Offline Barkhorn

  • Commander
  • *********
  • Posts: 364
  • Thanked: 47 times
    • View Profile
Re: Semi-Official 7.x Suggestion Thread
« Reply #730 on: September 25, 2017, 04:53:42 PM »
I just don't think the build model really fits with space stations.

The ISS wasn't built in a shipyard then towed into place, it was put together piece by piece in place.  I imagine the SMAC stations in Halo were as well.

Further, this could combine with how orbital habitats are built.  Instead of having factories churn out fully-built habitats, have them make habitat sections, which can then be assembled with construction ships.  I'd also combine this with jump gate construction.  Unifying systems is good, especially for a game that's already as complicated as Aurora.

Tactically, boarding beam defense platforms could make sense.  You time the arrival of your boarding craft with the arrival of a missile volley.  The stations then have to decide whether to target the missiles or the boarding craft.  If any stations are successfully captured, you can then turn their guns on the rest of the defense platforms.
 

Offline 83athom

  • Big Ship Commander
  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1250
  • Thanked: 83 times
    • View Profile
Re: Semi-Official 7.x Suggestion Thread
« Reply #731 on: September 27, 2017, 07:42:10 AM »
I just don't think the build model really fits with space stations.
The ISS wasn't built in a shipyard then towed into place, it was put together piece by piece in place.  I imagine the SMAC stations in Halo were as well.
Shipyards here are orbital installations while the UNSC's were primarily ground based (except for the installation in a nebula that constructed the Infinity, and space based construction of cruiser class and up). Not really much is known about the construction of SMAC platforms, but it is pretty safe to assume they are constructed at either a Construction Platform or a Refit Station which are space based facilities but still shipyards. Its also safe to assume that the platform was built/moved into place by a refit station, as they were essentially mobile shipyards with their own engines and slipspace drive.

Further, this could combine with how orbital habitats are built.  Instead of having factories churn out fully-built habitats, have them make habitat sections, which can then be assembled with construction ships.  I'd also combine this with jump gate construction.  Unifying systems is good, especially for a game that's already as complicated as Aurora.
I agree that there is a bit of contradictory rules when constructing certain things. That does need a bit of cleaning up.
Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set fire to him and he's warm for the rest of his life.
 

Offline Barkhorn

  • Commander
  • *********
  • Posts: 364
  • Thanked: 47 times
    • View Profile
Re: Semi-Official 7.x Suggestion Thread
« Reply #732 on: September 30, 2017, 01:57:28 PM »
Suggestion:
Make rail guns do the same damage across their entire range.  They fire solid projectiles, they don't need to worry about diffraction like lasers do.
 

Offline obsidian_green

  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • ******
  • Posts: 100
  • Thanked: 11 times
    • View Profile
Re: Semi-Official 7.x Suggestion Thread
« Reply #733 on: September 30, 2017, 05:57:04 PM »
Suggestion:
Make rail guns do the same damage across their entire range.  They fire solid projectiles, they don't need to worry about diffraction like lasers do.

Have to do the same with Gauss cannons, if we're applying that logic. We also have to explain how the projectiles eventually disappear. Hmmm ... maybe the TN materials evaporate? That might help explain why I have to maintain a parked ship in orbit with tons of materials when it's simply floating in a vacuum.  ;)

Now if those were plasma cannons (not talking whatever the "carronade" is supposed to be), the plasma "bullets" might dissipate after the magnetic pocket that contains it wears out and that could explain decreased damage at range. Also explains why they have apparently unlimited ammo---figure gas-compression tech and good batteries could give that appearance despite that being as finite as solid projectiles.
 

Offline Hazard

  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • ******
  • Posts: 110
  • Thanked: 16 times
    • View Profile
Re: Semi-Official 7.x Suggestion Thread
« Reply #734 on: September 30, 2017, 06:37:47 PM »
Now if those were plasma cannons (not talking whatever the "carronade" is supposed to be), the plasma "bullets" might dissipate after the magnetic pocket that contains it wears out and that could explain decreased damage at range. Also explains why they have apparently unlimited ammo---figure gas-compression tech and good batteries could give that appearance despite that being as finite as solid projectiles.

A 'carronade' is a term from the age of sail. Due to a variety of factors warships were generally standardised on the concept of 8, 16, 24 and 32 pounder gun batteries. Frigates were the lightest of these ships, small, agile and generally equipped with a single deck of guns no heavier than 16 pounds. If they had another deck, it was probably 8 pounders.

This made these frigates fast ships and excellent for scouting, but not really suited to a battle line.

Ships of the line however carried batteries of big guns, often on 3 decks that were loaded from top to bottom with 16, 24 and 32 pounder guns. This made them very powerful in naval artillery, but slow and lumbering at best.

So what happens when you take a ship of the line and tear off the top gun deck?

Well, you get a heavy, slower frigate than normal that's absurdly overgunned for its size with its batteries of 24 and 32 pounders, but with crap for range. These ships were called carronade frigates.


And that's kind of the role the Plasma Carronade has in game; a big weapon system that's rather close in and horrifyingly good at breaking other ships.
 

 

Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51