C# Aurora v0.x Questions

[Kristover]

Question:  If you have a large Battalion size ground formation with many disparate elements and you research out some new technology, or think of a new variation of organization scheme, can you modify an already existing formation?  Like lets say I want replace all the MG sections because I can produce a new version or I decided that I want to add a half dozen AA tanks to each Armor Battalion, can I do that  or am I limited to the template for the organization?

[Father Tim]

You can change the template and all new builds will follow it, but based on what Steve was saying about replacements and after-combat damage, it doesn't sound like there's nay sort of 'Rebuild to Template' functionality yet.

So you can add six more MG teams to each existing battalion by hand, but not automatically.

- - - - -

(Once a ground unit exists, you can add anything you like to it within HQ limits.)

[Hazard]

Or, IIRC, outside HQ limits.

It just results in the various bonuses you get from commanding officers getting penalized.

[amram]

Not sure if I missed this information or if this has been considered but will there be a finer granulation of fighter engines now that the fuel economy are somewhat different from before. There will be a huge difference between a size 1 and size 2 engine now.

If it wouldn't be too much a trouble to make it like 1 and 0.1 increments to 2, 0.2 increments to 3 and 0.25 increments to 4 and 0.5 increments to 5 or some such.

Fighter engines start at 0.1 HS now.

http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=8495.msg109885#msg109885

Will that follow the same increments as sensor HS currently does in 7.1?  0.1 from 0.1 to 1, 0.2 from 1 to 2, 0.25 from 2 to 5, and 1hs from there to maximum?  Went looking, didn't find that detail anywhere.

Busily converting my excel workbook in prep for c#, already have it running c# numbers for sensors, missiles, and engine/fuel prescriptions, except for matching granularity in engine size options, its still integer HS engines only.  Going to build in the sensor pattern until I know different, relatively easily changed once known.

Not important, but if you have a free moment?  Thanks.

[Steve Walmsley]

Not sure if I missed this information or if this has been considered but will there be a finer granulation of fighter engines now that the fuel economy are somewhat different from before. There will be a huge difference between a size 1 and size 2 engine now.

If it wouldn't be too much a trouble to make it like 1 and 0.1 increments to 2, 0.2 increments to 3 and 0.25 increments to 4 and 0.5 increments to 5 or some such.

Fighter engines start at 0.1 HS now.

http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=8495.msg109885#msg109885

Will that follow the same increments as sensor HS currently does in 7.1?  0.1 from 0.1 to 1, 0.2 from 1 to 2, 0.25 from 2 to 5, and 1hs from there to maximum?  Went looking, didn't find that detail anywhere.

Busily converting my excel workbook in prep for c#, already have it running c# numbers for sensors, missiles, and engine/fuel prescriptions, except for matching granularity in engine size options, its still integer HS engines only.  Going to build in the sensor pattern until I know different, relatively easily changed once known.

Not important, but if you have a free moment?  Thanks.

Engines are in 0.1 HS increments up to 10 HS, 0.25 HS increments to 20 HS and then 1 HS increments thereafter. A lot of components have more granular sizes in C#. Beam fire controls also have more steps for tracking speed multipliers

[amram]

Exactly what I was looking for, thanks.

[WA Lancer]

Will there be a fleet exercise or weapon testing option in this game so I can see the effectiveness of the weapon systems I design?

I'm sure this has been asked and answered somewhere but idk where to look and it appears that more searching may take hours, sorry.

[Garfunkel]

No.

You can do it via SM mode - you can use SM to conjure "target drones" out of thin air as part of a human-controlled "alien race" and then attack them with your own ships.

AFAIK, that's the only way to do testing in C# as well.

[Shuul]

Hi, in my games I used mostly CIWS for PD due to the general chore of managing PD fire control systems etc.
With the update on how final defense works in C# will CIWS get some rework? They seem like redundant system now to me (only way to use now is to equip civ ships with it)

[Garfunkel]

Since you can set PD and BFC automatically now and final fire will catch all missiles, there is no need to keep using CIWS.

It'll still protect you during jump shock and of course it's the only option for commercial ships. With the introduction of Structural Shell for space stations, and commercial hangars as well as magazines, I foresee CIWS remaining useful and necessary.

[Shuul]

there is no need to keep using CIWS.

This is really a shame, I want to keep them for military ships too, I always RP them as powerful miniguns you see on nowdays naval ships, its a bit harder to imagine with regular gauss turret for me, as it seems more like a small-caliber naval cannon instead.

[Steve Walmsley]

there is no need to keep using CIWS.

This is really a shame, I want to keep them for military ships too, I always RP them as powerful miniguns you see on nowdays naval ships, its a bit harder to imagine with regular gauss turret for me, as it seems more like a small-caliber naval cannon instead.

CIWS is still useful for some situations, as it is more compact than having the weapon, reactor, fire control and ECCM as separate installations.

[Garfunkel]

its a bit harder to imagine with regular gauss turret for me, as it seems more like a small-caliber naval cannon instead.

I hear ye, but just name them something clever and that should fix it. I named my "Quad Gauss Turret" FlaK-Battery instead in one game and in another it was "Point Defence Turret" and you got used that term quickly which helps you imagine it the way you want it. You could name it Gatling Gun or Defensive Turret or anything that sparks your imagination.

And of course nothing stops you from using CIWS, I was just saying that organizing PD is now faster and easier than before so from convenience/micromanagement POV there is no use for CIWS.

[Steve Walmsley]

its a bit harder to imagine with regular gauss turret for me, as it seems more like a small-caliber naval cannon instead.

I hear ye, but just name them something clever and that should fix it. I named my "Quad Gauss Turret" FlaK-Battery instead in one game and in another it was "Point Defence Turret" and you got used that term quickly which helps you imagine it the way you want it. You could name it Gatling Gun or Defensive Turret or anything that sparks your imagination.

And of course nothing stops you from using CIWS, I was just saying that organizing PD is now faster and easier than before so from convenience/micromanagement POV there is no use for CIWS.

For my WH40k campaign, railguns were weapon batteries, gauss cannon were defence turrets, missiles were torpedoes and particle beams were lance batteries. You soon get used to it.

[Shuul]

For my WH40k campaign, railguns were weapon batteries, gauss cannon were defence turrets, missiles were torpedoes and particle beams were lance batteries. You soon get used to it.

Seems I can live with that, thanks.
Would still be cool to see some additional utility in CIWS in future though.