C# Aurora v0.x Questions

[Frick]

How's the performance of c# comparing to old version?

Massively better.  C# runs faster than VB6 does and the game no longer writes into the database all the time.  Civilian shipping will no longer be a drag.  NPRs will still cause issues because there is no way to stop them from fighting other NPRs and/or spoilers but their mere e. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Thanks, cant wait for it!

Yeah, this is the first game release in a really, really long time I'm genuinely excited about.

[MasonMac]

Do the same passwords from 7.0 work?

[L0ckAndL0ad]

Two questions.

1.

Point Defence Fire Control

VB6 has a restriction that each fire control can only engage a single target during point blank fire. I've removed that restriction for C#. Each weapon can still only engage a single salvo.

What does that mean, exactly? I thought "salvo" is a single target. Do you mean that 1 FCS + 3 weapons can engage 3 different salvos?

2. Was there anything said about how ground force formations are restored/healed/repaired? And how do you upgrade/replace newer equipment within your formations over time? Can't find any information about it.

Thank you!

[xenoscepter]

@lockandload

 - A "salvo" in VB6 is any cluster of missiles fired by one Missile FCS System. So for example a ship with 18 Size 1 Launchers and 1 M-FCS would fire one "salvo" of 18 Size 1 Missiles. However, if that same ship instead has 18 M-FCS Systems, it would fire 18 "salvos" of one Size 1 Missile.

 - As such, every Beam FCS in VB6 could only engage one salvo. So you would need only one B-FCS Systems to engage a "salvo" of 18 Missiles, but you would need 18 B-FCS Systems to engage 18 "salvos" consisting of one Missile each.

 - So why this all matters so much is that if you had say 4 Beam FCS Systems with 4 Quad Turreted Meson guns against 12 Salvos, you could at most destroy four of them under the VB6 rules. Under the C# rules, your Mesons will re-target if they destroy a salvo, potentially allowing you to destroy every one of those 12 salvos under the right circumstances.

Hope that helps.

[Jorgen_CAB]

@lockandload

 - A "salvo" in VB6 is any cluster of missiles fired by one Missile FCS System. So for example a ship with 18 Size 1 Launchers and 1 M-FCS would fire one "salvo" of 18 Size 1 Missiles. However, if that same ship instead has 18 M-FCS Systems, it would fire 18 "salvos" of one Size 1 Missile.

 - As such, every Beam FCS in VB6 could only engage one salvo. So you would need only one B-FCS Systems to engage a "salvo" of 18 Missiles, but you would need 18 B-FCS Systems to engage 18 "salvos" consisting of one Missile each.

 - So why this all matters so much is that if you had say 4 Beam FCS Systems with 4 Quad Turreted Meson guns against 12 Salvos, you could at most destroy four of them under the VB6 rules. Under the C# rules, your Mesons will re-target if they destroy a salvo, potentially allowing you to destroy every one of those 12 salvos under the right circumstances.

Hope that helps.

I have to point out though that a single turret still can only target ONE salvo. But if you have five turrets with one BFC you now can target up to five salvos with that single BFC. As BFC generally are allot more expensive them MFC this is an important change. You no longer can use cheap fighters to fire many small salvos and overcome the PD that way. Being able to fire large salvos with box launchers from fighters already is a massive problem for beam PD as is.

[The_Seeker]

@lockandload

 - A "salvo" in VB6 is any cluster of missiles fired by one Missile FCS System.    So for example a ship with 18 Size 1 Launchers and 1 M-FCS would fire one "salvo" of 18 Size 1 Missiles.    However, if that same ship instead has 18 M-FCS Systems, it would fire 18 "salvos" of one Size 1 Missile.   

 - As such, every Beam FCS in VB6 could only engage one salvo.    So you would need only one B-FCS Systems to engage a "salvo" of 18 Missiles, but you would need 18 B-FCS Systems to engage 18 "salvos" consisting of one Missile each.   

 - So why this all matters so much is that if you had say 4 Beam FCS Systems with 4 Quad Turreted Meson guns against 12 Salvos, you could at most destroy four of them under the VB6 rules.    Under the C# rules, your Mesons will re-target if they destroy a salvo, potentially allowing you to destroy every one of those 12 salvos under the right circumstances.   

Hope that helps.   

I have to point out though that a single turret still can only target ONE salvo.    But if you have five turrets with one BFC you now can target up to five salvos with that single BFC.    As BFC generally are allot more expensive them MFC this is an important change.    You no longer can use cheap fighters to fire many small salvos and overcome the PD that way.    Being able to fire large salvos with box launchers from fighters already is a massive problem for beam PD as is.   

I personally prefer the existing system of one BFC per volley.     It only makes sense that one fire control should be able to engage one target (salvo) in one tick.     Plus, with the missile changes, I'm worried that the effectiveness of beam PD per ton will become greater than the effectiveness of ASMs per ton, especially considering that MFCs and the active sensors required to support them already tend to be larger than PD BFCs and the tiny active sensors required for beam PD.    I suppose that should have gone in suggestions but I digress. 

[Agm-114]

Will c# be distributed with a license of some kind? If not I highly recommend it for obvious reasons.

[L0ckAndL0ad]

Thanks for clarification about my #1 question.

But what about #2?

The only thing I found so far is this

The second of three posts for today
...
A troop transport waiting in orbit unloaded four Ordo Xenos and four Ordos Machinum formations. The four regiments of the Catachan Jungle Fighters remained on the planet as a garrison, while the rest of the assault force was loaded on four Cetaceous class troop transports to begin the long journey back to Terra, where they would absorb replacements and new equipment. The Expeditionary Fleet remained in orbit for the moment to cover the forthcoming planetary survey and provide protection against any hitherto undetected Necron forces in the system.
...

After reading this I was, waiting for updates on how Ground Forces are managed/upgraded. But as you are planning to start the next test campaign waiting is not an option, so I was wondering
if you have implemented a system for managing reinforcement/upgrades of Ground Fores Formations jet.  Also see my suggestion

So far, I have been adding new units as reinforcements, usually the latest versions. So some armoured regiments have a mix of Leman Russ and Leman Russ II battle tanks for example while some Imperial Guard infantry regiments have some guardsmen with a later version of the 'lasgun'. Some successful regiments have been given extra units while in other cases, a regiment is broken up to reinforce others. Finally, I have been producing 'replacement' formations, which are used as reinforcements for the main formations. It feels very organic in that way because real-world formations in a war will rarely be 'standard'.

There is no 'upgrade this regiment to this TOE' command, at least not for the moment. I haven't missed that option though or it would be coded by now.

So, there's no actual way to replace losses in existing formation without changing its TO&E? You have to manually place new sub-formations of units? Or I'm reading it wrong?

[Father Tim]

So, there's no actual way to replace losses in existing formation without changing its TO&E? You have to manually place new sub-formations of units? Or I'm reading it wrong?

Correct.  If you have a unit of 1200 PW INF and they take casualties down to 1078, you can leave them at that strength, or manually transfer in 122 PW INF as replacements, or manually transfer in 610 tons of other ground units (such as LV CAP).

Currently there is no 'Rebuild to Template' order or 'Transfer Units from the General Replacement Pool' or designated replacement formations (and currently no way to designate a formation as 'replacements').  Steve has said it's on the list for C# Aurora 1.1, or maybe 1.2.

[Garfunkel]

Will c# be distributed with a license of some kind? If not I highly recommend it for obvious reasons.

Most likely as Steve has said on several occasions that he wants to put in some sort of code obfuscation.

Do the same passwords from 7.0 work?

The database will be completely replaced so no, your old campaigns (and their SM passwords) are not going to be carried over.

If you mean whether the Designer Mode password will remain the same, that's unknown.

[The_Seeker]

If I may ask about a smaller point, has Steve fixed the issue in V7. 1 where mass drivers on civilian mining colonies can handle infinite throughput?

[Father Tim]

If I may ask about a smaller point, has Steve fixed the issue in V7. 1 where mass drivers on civilian mining colonies can handle infinite throughput?

Is this actually a problem?

All mass drivers are supposed to be able to catch infinite amounts, and I can see it being easier to code the 'built in' mass driver of a CMC to 'send all' rather than adhere to per-MD limits and try to work out when to build additional mass drivers at the colony.

[The_Seeker]

If I may ask about a smaller point, has Steve fixed the issue in V7.  1 where mass drivers on civilian mining colonies can handle infinite throughput?

Is this actually a problem?

All mass drivers are supposed to be able to catch infinite amounts, and I can see it being easier to code the 'built in' mass driver of a CMC to 'send all' rather than adhere to per-MD limits and try to work out when to build additional mass drivers at the colony.

The logic to work out when to build additional mines at the colony is already there, and at the very least there is a display issue, because on the summary page CMCs are shown as not having any mass drivers, even though they do possess one, and on the mining page, mass driver usage is always shown at 0 even though that isn't the case.

[JustAnotherDude]

Hey Steve, some people on the Discord were wondering if anything major was changing for Invaders in C#. Could you give us a vague idea of any major changes?

[Steve Walmsley]

Hey Steve, some people on the Discord were wondering if anything major was changing for Invaders in C#. Could you give us a vague idea of any major changes?

At the moment, there are no invaders

All the hooks are in the code for when they are added, but I haven't got around to it yet. I may replace them with the 'Black Crusade' idea that was discussed in another thread, which includes a way to eventually defeat them.