Author Topic: C# Aurora Changes Discussion  (Read 157410 times)

0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline mtm84

  • Chief Petty Officer
  • ***
  • m
  • Posts: 45
  • Thanked: 3 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1665 on: April 13, 2018, 04:03:24 PM »
The reason you are unlikely to use standard high explosives in space is because the energy density of a fission bomb is three orders of magnitude greater than an explosive, a pure fusion bomb would even reach 4 orders of magnitude greater than an explosive. This means you can shove a whole lot more boom in a handier package, and in space, where propagating an explosion is difficult, the harsh radiation coming from a nuke works quite well.

Respectfully disagree.  First, using handwavium, I believe there could be "conventional" explosives made with TN materials that would approach fission levels of energy density.  Second, I do not believe that radiation effects in space would have as much of an effect due to a combination of the inverse square law and space ships already being hardened against naturally occurring space radiation hazards.  In my opinion even a nuke would need to have direct contact with a ship to do damage.  And technically this is how its modeled in the game right now, though I suspect that's more for ease of programming. 

I'm probably in the minority on this topic.  My main point was that I feel there should be a bigger gap in how many people a radiation enhanced warhead kills vs a "normal" warhead on impact, beyond the normal planetary dust and radiation damage mechanics.
« Last Edit: April 13, 2018, 04:26:55 PM by mtm84 »
 

Offline Barkhorn

  • Captain
  • **********
  • B
  • Posts: 492
  • Thanked: 60 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1666 on: April 13, 2018, 08:34:41 PM »
Radiation is the ONLY effect a nuke has in space.  There's no shrapnel worth mentioning, the bomb case will be atomized.  And there's no atmosphere to propagate a blast wave.  Radiation is all they have left.  Remember, this includes the thermal pulse, so it's plenty capable of causing real damage, not just irradiating things.

Enhanced radiation warheads are supposed to be things like neutron or cobalt bombs.
 

Offline Person012345

  • Captain
  • **********
  • Posts: 467
  • Thanked: 16 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1667 on: April 14, 2018, 05:52:31 AM »
Radiation is the ONLY effect a nuke has in space.  There's no shrapnel worth mentioning, the bomb case will be atomized.  And there's no atmosphere to propagate a blast wave.  Radiation is all they have left.  Remember, this includes the thermal pulse, so it's plenty capable of causing real damage, not just irradiating things.

Enhanced radiation warheads are supposed to be things like neutron or cobalt bombs.

This is assuming just a plain ol' nuclear bomb with no special design. Which to be fair is probably what is intended to be represented by the damage template, but it's certainly not the only way a nuclear device in space could work.
« Last Edit: April 14, 2018, 05:54:35 AM by Person012345 »
 

Offline zmionash

  • Able Ordinary Rate
  • z
  • Posts: 2
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1668 on: April 15, 2018, 03:42:02 AM »
Hello, where can I download this version of the game or is it in development? Has it solved the 1366x768 resolution problem?  Thanks  :)
 

Online tobijon

  • Chief Petty Officer
  • ***
  • t
  • Posts: 36
  • Thanked: 2 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1669 on: April 15, 2018, 03:55:01 AM »
C# aurora has not been released yet
 

Offline zmionash

  • Able Ordinary Rate
  • z
  • Posts: 2
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1670 on: April 15, 2018, 04:16:58 AM »
thanks for the reply.  Do we know approximate dates and degree of readiness ?
 

Online tobijon

  • Chief Petty Officer
  • ***
  • t
  • Posts: 36
  • Thanked: 2 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1671 on: April 15, 2018, 04:21:24 AM »
right now a lot of features have been implemented, and all of the changes to the last version have been recorded in the C# Aurora Changes List thread. This will also give you an idea of how far along it is. most of the basic features are there but the AI isnt and it will still take the rest of the year or so before release (though this is hard to tell).
 

Offline Hazard

  • Commander
  • *********
  • H
  • Posts: 348
  • Thanked: 28 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1672 on: April 15, 2018, 04:22:08 AM »
"When it's done."


Steve isn't working on a schedule, this is a hobby to him. The best, rough estimates we have 'late this year at the earliest, or somewhere in 2019.'
 

Offline waresky

  • Registered
  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1461
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • Alpine Mountaineer..ohh Yeah!
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1673 on: April 15, 2018, 07:41:16 AM »
"When it's done."


Steve isn't working on a schedule, this is a hobby to him. The best, rough estimates we have 'late this year at the earliest, or somewhere in 2019.'

1998..SA first.(?)
2004 Aurora 3.2?...
2020 #C Aurora 1.0

Ehehe Steve surprise us every time
 

Offline Llamageddon

  • Able Ordinary Rate
  • L
  • Posts: 4
  • Thanked: 1 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1674 on: April 16, 2018, 01:07:27 PM »
He should just change the name to Aurora 2020.  Sounds quite sci-fi too.  :D
 

Offline Iranon

  • Captain
  • **********
  • I
  • Posts: 532
  • Thanked: 39 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1675 on: April 17, 2018, 01:07:51 AM »
Weapon failure at a fixed 2% has some interesting implications.
It's inconsequential on things like box launchers and large-calibre/low-tech beams.
Compactness becomes expensive in combat: half the weapons with twice the RoF will suffer twice the wear and tear.

Generally, cost-effectiveness for a given role becomes more important than overall capability; I see the biggest implication for point defence.
Long-ranged area defence features sophisticated weapons and low chances to hit, this may become much less viable.
Lower-tech final fire PD than available doesn't only save a few BP, it greatly conserves MSP in operation.

Generally, overengineered solutions become much more of a liability. Some restraint is encouraged rather than building the most sophisticated weapons available, with the obvoius implications on research priorities.

Some things (failure rate, weapon cost scaling with tech) may need looking at and testing, but on the whole I like the concept. It should make beam fights less one-sided.
 

Offline Dr. Toboggan

  • Chief Petty Officer
  • ***
  • D
  • Posts: 30
  • Thanked: 4 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1676 on: April 25, 2018, 03:41:55 PM »
Steve, you mentioned that it will be possible to have multiple instances of the same window open.  Will this work with different empires? Or only with one?
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 7234
  • Thanked: 2385 times
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1677 on: April 26, 2018, 08:02:49 AM »
Steve, you mentioned that it will be possible to have multiple instances of the same window open.  Will this work with different empires? Or only with one?

You can have the same (or different) windows open for two different empires in SM Mode.
 
The following users thanked this post: Arwyn, Demonides, Dr. Toboggan

Offline Whitecold

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • W
  • Posts: 272
  • Thanked: 59 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1678 on: August 01, 2018, 01:01:37 AM »
The new training commands seem a bit off to me from a RP perspective.
Ripping up your fleet structure and reassigning a fleet to a new command seems wrong to issue an order, especially since this means you are effectively training under another CO.
 

Offline chrislocke2000

  • Captain
  • **********
  • c
  • Posts: 460
  • Thanked: 17 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1679 on: August 01, 2018, 03:18:22 AM »
With the new training structure it would be great to understand what sort of timelines that will mean for getting crew to 100% trained. How many crew points do you need to get 1% training completed?
 

 

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 52 53 54