Author Topic: Bridge Officers  (Read 3420 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline TheDeadlyShoe

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1184
  • Thanked: 47 times
  • Dance Commander
    • View Profile
Re: Bridge Officers
« Reply #30 on: March 13, 2017, 12:37:44 PM »
I was pondering how this might affect the need for low end and high end officers, relatively.  I came to the conclusion that its probably best experimentally determined, and in any case the demand for officers is entirely driven by fleet structure.

I suppose one might want to set the promotion ratios on a per-game basis, but 3:1 works decently, especially given that we will have much finer tuned control over slots in C#.


Quote
In addition Aurora only covers one third of the crew of a ship, the officers, and then perhaps only half of them. Is there any reason that Aurora has only seven steps in rank?
The ranking system in Aurora is entirely arbitrary in its labels and dimensions, much like ship designations.

I usually do five ranks of Lieutenant/Commander/Captain/Admiral/Fleet Admiral,  or esoteric equivalents amounting to the same thing.





 

Offline Zincat

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • Posts: 234
  • Thanked: 18 times
    • View Profile
Re: Bridge Officers
« Reply #31 on: March 13, 2017, 12:46:29 PM »
I don't much like the idea to scale dynamically the modules, because it would make really hard to design ships so that everything "fits". Say I want to make a 12000 ton ship (so it  has a fixed speed, equal to that of the other fleet elements) it would be hard to design it precisely.

I want to further expand on my idea of multiple, different sized modules which can be chosen for the various positions.

Don't think this is a good idea, why should a larger ship get a larger bonus out of the same officer? I would rather say it should require a bigger module to get the full bonus.

Consider this example, to explain my point of view. Also consider there IS a lot of automation in such a futuristic setting obviously.
Let us say we are talking about maintenance and repairs, so the module would be Main Engineering. There could be, say, 4 possibilities. All numbers are just placeholders.

- No module whatsoever. The ship doesn't have any special space and officer allocated. In case of problems, the commander does what he can at half efficiency like Steve said before, coordinating the various automated repair systems. This would be the default for most civilian ships, and maybe for grav surveys at the like. Fighters too.
- A basic Main Engineering small module, 100 tons and just the officer assigned to it. A small space where a dedicated officer can coordinate multiple systems, control the various parameters, organize the automated repairs and perhaps direct some repair robots. The default solution for most small military ships or valuable civilian ships.
- A medium Main Engineering module, 200 tons and 5 extra crew. A largish space where the officer and his aides continuously check up the state of the ship and coordinate repairs in case of problems, with better equipment at their disposal. The officer gets a +5% bonus to his skill because of that. Default solution for medium warships or important warships/civilian ships.
- A large, fully equipped Main Engineering module, 500 tons and 15 extra crew. The best possible accomodation, for large warships or very important and/or unusual ships. The officer gets a +10% bonus to his skill because of that.

I think a system like this would be enjoyable, and could lead to many varied and interesting designs. Plus, it would force you to make compromises on everything but the largest ships.
 

Offline Haji

  • Commander
  • *********
  • Posts: 353
  • Thanked: 20 times
    • View Profile
Re: Bridge Officers
« Reply #32 on: March 13, 2017, 01:13:44 PM »
I seem to be in minority but I really don't see why the modules should scale with ships. I think of those as merely control spaces, so main engineering for a 100kT battlecruiser is not the total sum of it's engineering capability, but rather control station for all the other engineering and propulsion systems the ship has. Same with science station. The station does not do science by itself, it merely processes data from all the sensors the ships has. As for this favouring larger ships, that is already true. Survey sensors are, for example, of the fixed size, as are electronic warfare systems, and that seems to work fine. In terms of space efficiency Aurora already favours larger ships to a certain extent.
If people really want scaling I see two options. The first one is to simply increase crew requirement of the ship as alex_brunius proposed. It's simple and logical solution as larger ships would logically require larger crews. The second option, proposed by Zincat, is to have similar modules of fixed size (like the fuel tanks) with larger ones providing bonus to the particular skill.
With all of that being done, there is one potential issue. I really think that a fixed 3:1 ratio of officer ranks simply won't cut it. Since I don't want to micromanage assignments, I'd really like the automated system to do it's best to fill the slots even if this means promoting officers. In short I'd like there to be no fixed ratio at all, to be replaced by a dynamic system.
I am assuming here of course that the automated assignment system will work with the bridge officer positions.
Speaking of officers and automated assignments, how will it work with the regional HQ thing you mentioned in other post? In the current Aurora the "commander - fleet hedquarters" position has to be filled manually, will that be the case with regional HQs as well?
 

Offline TheDeadlyShoe

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1184
  • Thanked: 47 times
  • Dance Commander
    • View Profile
Re: Bridge Officers
« Reply #33 on: March 13, 2017, 01:29:56 PM »
The main reason for scaling of 'station components' is game mechanic purposes, not any sort of realism.

If I'm making an 8,000 ton warship, taking 200 tons out for a station is a notable reduction in payload, fuel, etc.; it's a  heavy tradeoff.  It may not even be worth it, even assuming a highly skilled officer.   For a 30,000 ton vessel, not so much; so for large vessels you arn't actually making any decisions in terms of including stations, since the benefits from their inclusion will presumably massively outmatch their tonnage cost.  This isn't necessarily actually a problem: it removes a layer of decision-making, but if you want larger warships to naturally and easily have such positions, that's fine.

Another option is to remove that design decision and simply make the slots available according to existing components with a performance purpose:  survey sensors (science), damage control (engineering), etc.

Hybrids are possible; the effectiveness of an officers benefits could scale with the # station components, similar to how engineering spaces effectively scale with a ships size/cost/etc.
 

Offline Tree

  • Warrant Officer, Class 2
  • ****
  • Posts: 57
  • Thanked: 11 times
    • View Profile
Re: Bridge Officers
« Reply #34 on: March 13, 2017, 02:42:39 PM »
Another option is to remove that design decision and simply make the slots available according to existing components with a performance purpose:  survey sensors (science), damage control (engineering), etc.
And tactical if you have a fire control, CAG if you have a hangar, and XO if you have a bridge.
 

Offline Haji

  • Commander
  • *********
  • Posts: 353
  • Thanked: 20 times
    • View Profile
Re: Bridge Officers
« Reply #35 on: March 13, 2017, 02:44:31 PM »
The more I think about it the less I like the idea of specialized components. It's already hard to design small ships but with those it will be even harder. And if they scale with the ship size it will be harder still.

The main reason for scaling of 'station components' is game mechanic purposes, not any sort of realism.

At the moment only six components scale with ship size: armour, total engine size, total fuel storage size, total engineering area size, jump engines and cloak. Everything else has the same size and you merely put more or less of it, so the game is already favouring larger designs, especially when it comes to sensors and fire controls, which require some serious trade-offs when developing those on lower tech level for smaller ships. If those specialized compartments are added and the space they take is badly balanced we may arrive at a situation where fighters and gunboats become be all end all of space combat.
 

Offline IanD

  • Registered
  • Commodore
  • **********
  • Posts: 608
  • Thanked: 3 times
    • View Profile
Re: Bridge Officers
« Reply #36 on: March 13, 2017, 03:25:06 PM »
The more I think about it the less I like the idea of specialized components. It's already hard to design small ships but with those it will be even harder. And if they scale with the ship size it will be harder still.

I concur with this opinion. However, Steve has already said that he is "going to add I am going to add Auxiliary Control, Main Engineering, CIC, Primary Flight Operations and Science Department as new modules." Could these at least be check boxes?
IanD
 

Offline alex_brunius

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 854
  • Thanked: 22 times
    • View Profile
Re: Bridge Officers
« Reply #37 on: March 13, 2017, 03:49:42 PM »
I don't much like the idea to scale dynamically the modules, because it would make really hard to design ships so that everything "fits". Say I want to make a 12000 ton ship (so it  has a fixed speed, equal to that of the other fleet elements) it would be hard to design it precisely.

Why would it be any harder then it already currently is when armor and crew quarters increase the size of your ship "dynamically" as you add other components that increase the ships tonnage or crew needs? Isn't that exactly the same thing?
 

Offline Bremen

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • Posts: 282
  • Thanked: 12 times
    • View Profile
Re: Bridge Officers
« Reply #38 on: March 13, 2017, 03:55:59 PM »
Initiative in C# Aurora is replaced by Reaction Bonus. A similar effect but percentile-based. As things stand, that bonus is based solely on the commander and is at full effect.

The main reason for scaling of 'station components' is game mechanic purposes, not any sort of realism.

If I'm making an 8,000 ton warship, taking 200 tons out for a station is a notable reduction in payload, fuel, etc.; it's a  heavy tradeoff.  It may not even be worth it, even assuming a highly skilled officer.   For a 30,000 ton vessel, not so much; so for large vessels you arn't actually making any decisions in terms of including stations, since the benefits from their inclusion will presumably massively outmatch their tonnage cost.  This isn't necessarily actually a problem: it removes a layer of decision-making, but if you want larger warships to naturally and easily have such positions, that's fine.

Another option is to remove that design decision and simply make the slots available according to existing components with a performance purpose:  survey sensors (science), damage control (engineering), etc.

Hybrids are possible; the effectiveness of an officers benefits could scale with the # station components, similar to how engineering spaces effectively scale with a ships size/cost/etc.

Kind of a tangent, but... I've been thinking about escort ships lately, and how they don't have a ton of use in Aurora. Simply because if you can make a 5,000 ton anti-missile ship, you can make a 10,000 ton anti-missile ship that's at least twice as good (likely better).

Since these changes will be a further advantage to larger ships, what about giving ships a penalty to reaction bonus based on their number of command stations? Since reaction bonus is averaged through a fleet, this would mean a fleet that was a mix of large and small ships would react considerably better in combat, which can be valuable. It also makes sense to me that a fleet with better escort elements would have advantages in outmaneuvering the enemy.

It seems like that would encourage fleets with a few heavy capital ships (with the various command stations) and a few escorts with just a CO.
 

Offline TCD

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • Posts: 157
  • Thanked: 6 times
    • View Profile
Re: Bridge Officers
« Reply #39 on: March 13, 2017, 04:36:22 PM »
Kind of a tangent, but... I've been thinking about escort ships lately, and how they don't have a ton of use in Aurora. Simply because if you can make a 5,000 ton anti-missile ship, you can make a 10,000 ton anti-missile ship that's at least twice as good (likely better).

Since these changes will be a further advantage to larger ships, what about giving ships a penalty to reaction bonus based on their number of command stations? Since reaction bonus is averaged through a fleet, this would mean a fleet that was a mix of large and small ships would react considerably better in combat, which can be valuable. It also makes sense to me that a fleet with better escort elements would have advantages in outmaneuvering the enemy.

It seems like that would encourage fleets with a few heavy capital ships (with the various command stations) and a few escorts with just a CO.
I'm not sure I follow this? Almost every fleet I see posted here includes dedicated anti-missile ships that are used to escort carrier groups, missile cruisers or energy weapon ships. Are you saying that you think those escorts are too big? I'm pretty sure in real life that if you decide you will need 10k tons of Aegis capacity you build a 10kt destroyer rather than 2x5k ones for exactly the same design efficiency reasons. I thinker multiple small escorts are more for tactical flexibility and/or screening/hunting submarines?
 

Offline Bremen

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • Posts: 282
  • Thanked: 12 times
    • View Profile
Re: Bridge Officers
« Reply #40 on: March 13, 2017, 04:50:27 PM »
I'm not sure I follow this? Almost every fleet I see posted here includes dedicated anti-missile ships that are used to escort carrier groups, missile cruisers or energy weapon ships. Are you saying that you think those escorts are too big? I'm pretty sure in real life that if you decide you will need 10k tons of Aegis capacity you build a 10kt destroyer rather than 2x5k ones for exactly the same design efficiency reasons. I thinker multiple small escorts are more for tactical flexibility and/or screening/hunting submarines?

I'm saying as designed it doesn't really make sense to use smaller ships; you're better off with, say, 5x 30,000 ton ships than 2 30,000 ton ships and 9 10,000 ton ships. This change would just make that even more so, since the command stations are an efficiency advantage for larger ships.

However, I think it's more fun to have a mixed fleet of both escorts and capital ships, hence my suggestion that escorts could contribute more to the reaction rating of a fleet, making it so the 11 ship fleet would be able to outmaneuver the 5 ship fleet of the same total tonnage as well as react quicker. This makes sense to me since screening and skirmishing are traditional uses of smaller vessels.
« Last Edit: March 13, 2017, 04:52:16 PM by Bremen »
 

Offline TheDeadlyShoe

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1184
  • Thanked: 47 times
  • Dance Commander
    • View Profile
Re: Bridge Officers
« Reply #41 on: March 13, 2017, 04:58:33 PM »
There are actual tactically plausible reasons for small escort ships in Aurora.  An area defense vessel can interpose itself between the battlegroup and enemy vessels to gain additional time to fire on incoming missile salvos. If it is small enough, it can do this without being detected in the process, letting it increase its effectiveness with little risk.  There are numerous problems, however.

1.) The practical meta-game tonnage limit is 2000-2500 tons or so. NPRs go as low as resolution 60 for their main battle sensors and fire controls; once you get past that, you might as well keep scaling up, as you gain little tactical disadvantage from doing so.  A detected escort in 'protection' position sacrifices much benefit from final fire PD, and is highly vulnerable in that regard.   

In practice, some NPRs (or other player factions) may use much higher resolutions on their sensors, and you can get away with somewhat larger escorts.

2.) For anti-missile missile ships, this requires the AMMs to be much faster than incoming missiles; high performance missiles are however often faster than equivalent AMMs, which sacrifice engine space to obtain agility.  It is worse than pointless if your AMMs are slower or barely faster than incoming missiles.

3.) Area defense beam ships can do this very plausibly. In many ways it is the only way for them to function effectively.  However, area PD is unpopular for many valid reasons, and the tonnage limit is very rough on a beam vessel (as area PD demands a very expensive max-size fire control).  Fighters can work, though.

The other reasons for small vessels are strategic.  Namely shipyard capacity and maintenance basing.
« Last Edit: March 13, 2017, 05:00:19 PM by TheDeadlyShoe »
 

Offline Garfunkel

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • Posts: 728
  • Thanked: 31 times
    • View Profile
Re: Bridge Officers
« Reply #42 on: March 13, 2017, 08:44:48 PM »
Good change!

I like the extra modules. I don't think they should scale with ship size because, as others stated, they are just the command element for the actual modules that do the work - whether those are survey sensors or engineering spaces or fire controls.
 

Offline MarcAFK

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1730
  • Thanked: 61 times
  • ...it's so simple an idiot could have devised it..
    • View Profile
Re: Bridge Officers
« Reply #43 on: March 14, 2017, 01:20:30 AM »
Personally I don't think they need to scale, but I do think there should be increased crew requirements depending on how heavily a ship might take advantage of that system, like I already pointed out.
one Idea I have for bonuses is for the commander to apply his full bonus unless theres an officer at a station, then he only applies the half bonus on top of the station officers full bonus. Then you could still have flexible ship commanders. Also I think maybe officers shouldn't automatically be reassigned if they get promoted to a higher grade than a ship can handle, or to a higher grade than the ships commander. You should have an opportunity to get them home to shove a replacement onto the ship. Maybe if a promotion would cause a reassignment then instead of them getting promoted and kicked off their promotion is delayed untill they get reassigned, or after 2 years have passed (maybe), or the ship is sent in for overhaul. A manual 'promote' button might be handy if an officer has been held back, that would still cause the auto reassignment.
" Why is this godforsaken hellhole worth dying for? "
". . .  We know nothing about them, their language, their history or what they look like.  But we can assume this.  They stand for everything we don't stand for.  Also they told me you guys look like dorks. "
"Stop exploding, you cowards.  "
 

Offline IanD

  • Registered
  • Commodore
  • **********
  • Posts: 608
  • Thanked: 3 times
    • View Profile
Re: Bridge Officers
« Reply #44 on: March 14, 2017, 03:31:44 AM »
Personally I don't think they need to scale, but I do think there should be increased crew requirements depending on how heavily a ship might take advantage of that system, like I already pointed out.
one Idea I have for bonuses is for the commander to apply his full bonus unless theres an officer at a station, then he only applies the half bonus on top of the station officers full bonus. Then you could still have flexible ship commanders. Also I think maybe officers shouldn't automatically be reassigned if they get promoted to a higher grade than a ship can handle, or to a higher grade than the ships commander. You should have an opportunity to get them home to shove a replacement onto the ship. Maybe if a promotion would cause a reassignment then instead of them getting promoted and kicked off their promotion is delayed untill they get reassigned, or after 2 years have passed (maybe), or the ship is sent in for overhaul. A manual 'promote' button might be handy if an officer has been held back, that would still cause the auto reassignment.

I don't think they need to scale with the size of the ship, and I don't think extra crew is required. The new modules were included as the hull cost of the ship in v7.1, no self respecting navy would be without a CIC or Aux Control position on any warship bigger than 1000 tons. The question is where is the Captain? I doubt he would be on the bridge navigating the ship much more likely to be in the CIC fighting his ship. In fact since you want your navigating bridge and your CIC in the safest place possible deep within the bowels of your ship and they use many of the same sensor feeds why not combine them and have the CIC component scale with respect to weapons and sensors, not simply the size of the vessel. Finally if you want anything armoured its probably the CIC component.
IanD
 

 

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