C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions

[Desdinova]

How about an active sensor jammer option that reduces beam fire control range? Or sensor decoys that work like missiles but mimic a ship's sensor signature? The smoke idea could be a cloud of duranium chaff that causes sensor disruption.

[QuakeIV]

Another way of putting it, as soon as that NPR was caught out against even one destroyer the game was over.  There was no designing for them, there was no anything.  Their fleet didn't even make it back to their main planet to get more missiles before it was completely destroyed.  The flight would have taken several hours, they did not have several hours.

That problem has already been fixed for C# we don't need another fix. Steve has confirmed that with the new AI functionality, the NPR battle fleets will be better balanced and the NPR will understand when the run quicker. Plus, as you yourself said, the new weapon breakage rule. There shouldn't be a situation where the NPR attacks you with 100 missile ships. The problem was never beams themselves, it was an AI problem.

And I would disagree that the system even in VB6 is inelastic. Your given example, sure. But because there are so many possibilities for weapon range and ship speed combinations, this problem isn't one that would happen routinely unless the player intentionally builds their fleets to trap themselves.

They had plenty of beams, however said beams were shorter ranged and therefore did nothing.  Also them choosing to retreat sooner would not have saved them, they didn't even get close to making it back to their planet.  Basically if you wanted a pure beam fleet, then the only logical thing you can do is make the biggest longest range beam you possibly can, and make the ship as fast as is economically practical, and then you will not be defeated by other beams.

As far as I can see it though, Steve is basically like 'you shouldn't do a beam only fleet' so I suppose the point is relatively moot.  Also as Steve pointed out, both the player and AI making heavier use of shields at lower techs (alpha shields) would blur the range issue to a meaningful extent which would also undoubtedly help.

[Jorgen_CAB]

I think it is just fine that missiles are suppose to be the primary weapon system in general.

But it can still be fun with experimenting with beam combat, especially in multi-faction campaign settings... When I had beam combat in my campaigns I simply allowed the longer ranged fleets to enter the shorter ranged fleet range so combat was more exiting from a role-play perspective. The reasoning was that long range combat was inefficient and ammunition was not infinite so attacking at extreme ranges was stupid. If you had infinite ammunition in the real world fleets then you would have tried to stay out of enemy gun ranges too and just keep firing, you would hit eventually.

Factions with longer range and faster speed still had a huge benefit when it came to beam combat no matter what, but at least they were not one way engagements.

So personally I don't need a change from a role-play perspective, but it would be nice if that behaviour were mirrored in actual game mechanics.

[Steve Walmsley]

As far as I can see it though, Steve is basically like 'you shouldn't do a beam only fleet' so I suppose the point is relatively moot.  Also as Steve pointed out, both the player and AI making heavier use of shields at lower techs (alpha shields) would blur the range issue to a meaningful extent which would also undoubtedly help.

I'm not saying don't do beam only fleets - I have done beam-only races myself. I am saying, if you choose a beam-only fleet then make every effort to avoid being in a situation where you are in deep space against a faster, long-ranged opponent. Create faster ships and accept being very fuel-inefficient, or defend jump points, or do what I have done in this campaign against the Tyranids and run away at the strategic level until you can make a stand somewhere or you can develop longer-range weapons. Sometimes you are just outclassed and have to play the hand you are dealt as best you can.

[Jorgen_CAB]

As far as I can see it though, Steve is basically like 'you shouldn't do a beam only fleet' so I suppose the point is relatively moot.  Also as Steve pointed out, both the player and AI making heavier use of shields at lower techs (alpha shields) would blur the range issue to a meaningful extent which would also undoubtedly help.

I'm not saying don't do beam only fleets - I have done beam-only races myself. I am saying, if you choose a beam-only fleet then make every effort to avoid being in a situation where you are in deep space against a faster, long-ranged opponent. Create faster ships and accept being very fuel-inefficient, or defend jump points, or do what I have done in this campaign against the Tyranids and run away at the strategic level until you can make a stand somewhere or you can develop longer-range weapons. Sometimes you are just outclassed and have to play the hand you are dealt as best you can.

Having a system like "smoke" actually would make beam fleets more attractive as you could then fight an enemy with slightly superior range and speed in deep space given you have enough numbers on your side. Thus you might not need to break the bank with over engineering the engines quite as much, more beams perhaps etc..

[JustAnotherDude]

I agree, it would make beam combat a little more interesting, especially design wise. I'm in support of at least trying it.

EDIT: Also, I'm in favor of having ships in Aurora being unable to brake and start on a dime, moving and stopping after 10-20 seconds or something like that. Fighters could ignore that, which would make them more interesting.

[Garfunkel]

It's interesting how we started with "engine tuners" and went to "beam fire control ranges" and ended up with "Trans-Newtonian equivalent of destroyer laying a smoke screen" 

I'm definitely not against a ship module that consumes fuel or MSP and in return acts like a ECM on steroids for a little while, even if that effect works only against BFC - though in fairness sake it should probably affect MFC too but I can also see an exploit where the "smoke" is laid down just 5 seconds before non-self-guided missiles would hit and possibly cause them to self-destruct because the MFC was firing from maximum range and that just got reduced by the "smoke".

OTOH, that's not any different from the exploit of jumping back and forth through a JP or cruising back and forth across the firing range, causing the AI to waste all their missiles. So maybe it isn't a problem.

[Jorgen_CAB]

It's interesting how we started with "engine tuners" and went to "beam fire control ranges" and ended up with "Trans-Newtonian equivalent of destroyer laying a smoke screen" 

I'm definitely not against a ship module that consumes fuel or MSP and in return acts like a ECM on steroids for a little while, even if that effect works only against BFC - though in fairness sake it should probably affect MFC too but I can also see an exploit where the "smoke" is laid down just 5 seconds before non-self-guided missiles would hit and possibly cause them to self-destruct because the MFC was firing from maximum range and that just got reduced by the "smoke".

OTOH, that's not any different from the exploit of jumping back and forth through a JP or cruising back and forth across the firing range, causing the AI to waste all their missiles. So maybe it isn't a problem.

I think you could technobabble a reason why MFC are not effected. They probably don't need terribly accurate information of a ships exact position at the exact time. Missiles probably also are intelligent enough for some self guidance and the missiles themselves rarely crash into the ship as explode very close to the ship.

This is the reason why missile fire controls can be used as such great ranges... smoke might actually make missile fire-controls lock on to a ship easier and not harder... 

[lupin-de-mid]

the "smoke" is laid down just 5 seconds before non-self-guided missiles would hit and possibly cause them to self-destruct because the MFC was firing from maximum range and that just got reduced by the "smoke".

If smoke affect only hit chance not range, than it is not a problem. But better add cooldown for smoke generators

[Bughunter]

What if the dropoff in accuracy at/near maximum range was less sharp? At least for the earlier techs where you will have less design options available. That is you can fire at longer range but the hit chances are so low it will not normally be useful. But if you fleet is about to be annihilated by a single higher tech destroyer your sheer number of shots would at least give them a chance.

This is trying to solve one very specific problem, but I get the feeling any good solution would touch a lot of subsystems in the game and become a major coding/balancing job in comparison to the results.

[Jorgen_CAB]

What if the dropoff in accuracy at/near maximum range was less sharp? At least for the earlier techs where you will have less design options available. That is you can fire at longer range but the hit chances are so low it will not normally be useful. But if you fleet is about to be annihilated by a single higher tech destroyer your sheer number of shots would at least give them a chance.

This is trying to solve one very specific problem, but I get the feeling any good solution would touch a lot of subsystems in the game and become a major coding/balancing job in comparison to the results.

Allowing all fire-controls to hit at max 5 light second distance would be one option where the difference is the curve gradient at which they gain accuracy down to 10k km distance would be one viable option. Now, one or two tech levels would only shift the accuracy at most ranges by 20-30% or so in difference. Now you could overwhelm the opponent with massive volumes of fire in worst case scenario.

It would be one other option.

Range of the weapons themselves might be another issue... but most lasers have such huge range that the to hit ratio for most fire-controls at max distances are so low that there would be no point of using them, especially now where there is a 2% failure rate on each shot.

[QuakeIV]

As far as I can see it though, Steve is basically like 'you shouldn't do a beam only fleet' so I suppose the point is relatively moot.  Also as Steve pointed out, both the player and AI making heavier use of shields at lower techs (alpha shields) would blur the range issue to a meaningful extent which would also undoubtedly help.

I'm not saying don't do beam only fleets - I have done beam-only races myself. I am saying, if you choose a beam-only fleet then make every effort to avoid being in a situation where you are in deep space against a faster, long-ranged opponent. Create faster ships and accept being very fuel-inefficient, or defend jump points, or do what I have done in this campaign against the Tyranids and run away at the strategic level until you can make a stand somewhere or you can develop longer-range weapons. Sometimes you are just outclassed and have to play the hand you are dealt as best you can.

I mean in fairness we have dudes who want to have a powerful beams-only fleet that is realistically able to beat up the big mean standoff missile boats and project a comparable if not superior presence in space.  What you are saying more or less totally precludes that.

[Steve Walmsley]

I mean in fairness we have dudes who want to have a powerful beams-only fleet that is realistically able to beat up the big mean standoff missile boats and project a comparable if not superior presence in space.  What you are saying more or less totally precludes that.

I think mixed armament is the most flexible option but if I had to choose between missile-only or beam-only for a campaign, I would have no hesitation in choosing beam-only.

[Father Tim]

"Making smoke" is a reasonable interpretation of my requested 'run away' feature.  When my fleet (or even just my scout cruiser) realizes it is in over its head and just wants to get back through the jump point, all I care about is not being plinked to destruction one tiny little shot at at time.

Which means 'making smoke' needs to be a thing any ship (though not fighter) can do, not a component that has to be built and included.  I'm after an 'escape' button, not yet another tactical system to be managed.

[UberWaffe]

I really like the idea of more functionality on ECM, though personally I would like such option to be component designs rather than user-toggled buttons.  I like the idea of not having to micro-manage, but rather gather intelligence and plan long-term.

For some future release beyond the current release aims, I think being able to design ECM components with additional options would be good.
(The numbers here do not matter, mostly just there to convey the concepts. )

• An option for 'knife-fight' ships in boosts the ECM level by +5, but only works against enemies that are farther than 200km range.  Perhaps research for decreasing the minimum range slightly? This would allow ships to some degree 'force' knife-fight ranges, or at least survive long range snipes better until they can get in range.  Might also be useful for fortresses.
• A 'missile jammer' option, that effectively turns it into a long range point defense.  As long as the ECM level at least equals the ECCM level of the missile salvo it is targeting it has a chance to destroy one missile from the salvo every 60 seconds.  Something like [(1 + "Level of ECM" - "Level of ECCM") * 10% * "HS of ECM"] / ("Number of missile in salvo").  A single salvo cannot be simultaneously affected by more than 1 ECM.  A 'missile jammer' ECM can only target one salvo at a time.  HS would also govern range you can blind at.  Perhaps research to increase the chance? This would give a reason to have multiple ECM on a ship, as well as having larger salvos of missiles (as smaller salvos are more susceptible. ) But it wouldn't replace point defense, since it would only really be effective over long distances.
• An option for 'targeted blinding' which lets the ECM target an enemy ship and 'blind' its sensors.  The signature strength of the ship doing the blinding increases by a factor of 100, but the sensor sensitivity of the blinded ship goes down by a factor of 100.  Effectively you 'blind' the sensors to anything other than yourself.  HS would govern range you can blind at.  Perhaps research for increasing the range at which it can blind? This would allow you to blind enemy sensor ships if the enemy relies on a single (or small number of) sensor ships.  This is also distinct from cloaking in that it cannot hide your ship, and can only 'deceive' a single enemy at once.  Also I find the idea of a heavily shielded, hunk of near solid armor, electromagnetically screaming into space to be shot first rather funny.  Yes, this is basically the technobabble equivalent of a taunt.