no jumpships

[alexwildstar (OP)]

Can the game work out using jump ships

[Erik L]

Only by creating a jump gate network.

[Charlie Beeler]

Or plan on a single system game.

[alexwildstar (OP)]

That what I thought I like everything about the game mechanics but I have always hated the battle rider idea.

[Erik L]

From a mechanics point of view, the jump ship is one of the easiest ways to limit system access. From a coding standpoint, hyperspace or warp drive would be a pain to code.

That said, I would not mind seeing a warpdrive system for Aurora.

[SteveAlt]

That what I thought I like everything about the game mechanics but I have always hated the battle rider idea.

It's an interesting point. When I was creating the basic game a lot of my thinking was influenced by the games of Starfire (and other sci-fi systems) I have played. While Aurora mechanics are very different, I was trying to avoid the Starfire situation that exists after about TL6 where warp point assaults become very static. The idea of the jump ships was to create a similar situation to Alkelda Dawn where groups of ships appear at distances from the jump point to add much more variety and  uncertainty to jump point defence. However with Aurora's much lower density of populations and ships, the fundamental situation is very different to Starfire and I think I have only fought a couple of jump point defences compared to a lot of deep space combats and planetary attacks. So that raises a very interesting question.

Would Aurora be a better or worse game without the need for jump ships and jump gates? They were meant to add variety to jump point assaults but those seem rare anyway so am I adding unnecessary complication to the game with the jump ship requirement? Would the game be better if all ships could enter jump points at will? I would be very interested to hear players opinions on this.

Without the requirement for jump ships and jump gates, how would jump point assaults be affected and what other changes might be necessary? One option would be that all ships that enter a jump point on a combat transit end up scattered and each jump point is given a scatter radius. That would add a lot of micromanagement though as you would be dealing with individual ships instead of fleets. A second option would be to abandon the scatter idea entirely and let ships all come through at the same location, right on top of the jump point. This could result in a huge fleet coming through together, presenting the defender with a very different challenge than at the moment. Mines were introduced in v3.2 so they would be one defensive option but I am concerned about going back to the Starfire TL6 situation. That probably wouldn't happen though for a couple of reasons. Mines in Aurora have a finite lifetime and, unlike Starfire, manufacturing and deploying them is a lot of effort. It would be very unlikely that jump points would be mined as a matter of course, especially if I was to add IFF and a chance of failure.

One more thought that just occurred to me is that with no jump point or jump gate requirement, several things in the game would become a lot easier, especially in terms of the AI. It would make trading easier and it would also remove the problem that newly discovered Empires without jump point theory can be trapped in their home system for several years.

So back to the original question. Although it seems like a drastic change, would making every ship jump-capable make the game better or would it remove some of the unique flavour?

Steve

[Charlie Beeler]

This is a subject that I've pondered off and on for a long time.  In a more general term, travel between systems.

I can fully apprecieate the need from the pov of the developer to require sts(system to system) travel be through specific fixed locations.  It makes the game mechanics easier to address.  By limiting to only one sts method and only one means to use it this is easily accomplished.

From the pov of players this usually works out as well.  Though sometimes a player, or group of players, desire more randomness.  A way to introduce more randomness, but retain a finite set of controls, would be to introduce different sts techs that don't neccessarily use the same fixed locations and pathways.  Yes this would create overlapping networks, but would still be controlable from the developer pov.  

My opinion is to retain the jump engines and jumpgates as implemented.  They work.  But maybe start by introducing a new engine tech that is massing somewhere between drive engines and jump engines that function for both purposes.  Other techs can be developed that use different networks, etc etc etc.

Just my .02 credits

[SteveAlt]

This is a subject that I've pondered off and on for a long time.  In a more general term, travel between systems.

I can fully apprecieate the need from the pov of the developer to require sts(system to system) travel be through specific fixed locations.  It makes the game mechanics easier to address.  By limiting to only one sts method and only one means to use it this is easily accomplished.

From the pov of players this usually works out as well.  Though sometimes a player, or group of players, desire more randomness.  A way to introduce more randomness, but retain a finite set of controls, would be to introduce different sts techs that don't neccessarily use the same fixed locations and pathways.  Yes this would create overlapping networks, but would still be controlable from the developer pov.  

My opinion is to retain the jump engines and jumpgates as implemented.  They work.  But maybe start by introducing a new engine tech that is massing somewhere between drive engines and jump engines that function for both purposes.  Other techs can be developed that use different networks, etc etc etc.

I don't think the original poster was suggesting replacing jump points with something else, just removing the need for jump engines. Now that I have started thinking about it I was just wondering whether requiring ships to be escorted through jump points by jump-capable ships or to use jump gates was a good idea in terms of gameplay vs playability or whether I should change to the Starfire method of allowing all ships to transit jump points. It seemed a good idea at the time because I wanted to avoid certain situations that arose in Starfire and jump drives were the method I chose. Over time I just got used to it. However, now I have played a lot of Aurora I think other aspects of the game prevent those same Starfire-type situations occuring so I find myself wondering if the restrictions on use of jump points are still necessary. l certainly won't be replacing jump points with some type of warp drive between systems as that would require a complete overhaul of the game and huge coding challenges. However removing the requirement for jump drives and jump gates in order to transit jump points would be relatively straightforward. I just need to decide if that is a good idea or whether it would take something away from the game.

Steve

[Brian Neumann]

I like the mechanics of jump ships.  It creates a tradeoff between the number of ships, the dispersal from the warpoint and the size of the jump engine.  As a compromise, have a line of tech to modify normal engines the same way that the hyper drive does.  This engine would allow a ship to take itself through the warp point, but no other ships.  I would put a cap on the size modifier so that the engine never gets to be less than 10% larger than the base engine.  This would make a jump gate network much more attractive to large ships, particularily the commercial ones.  Thier engines would cost significantly less and take up less space.  The military would have a choice of larger engines that make the ship jump capable on it's own, or the battle rider concept for bringing in a fleet in a concentrated manner.

It would also be a way to get survey ships that do not need a big jump engine that they hardly ever use to full capacity.

Brian

[mavikfelna]

Essentially, I agree with Brian. My only real complaint about the current system is that I can't create a small jump engine with no escort capability and no jump radius to mount on survey units and such.

I like the combat jumpships with squadron jump capability and the ability to appear beyond the immediate local of the warp point as it makes for interesting possibilities in combat but it is a rare occurrence when that's necessary.

And ships that can jump do require some tonnage penalty. Non-combatants shouldn't be giving up huge amounts of space so as to make it a real burden, but it should be a noticeable amount so it's a real choice.

Doing it as an engine modification like hyperdrive might work, with the same size progression as hyperdrive. and make jump+hyperdrive modifications to size be off the base engine size rather than one modifying the size first and then the other. What I mean is, a Jump+Hyper engine with beginning tech is 3x size, not 4x. That might still be too much to make it worth using.

Other idea, make it a hull modification. So it starts out as 10% of the hull tonnage and as the Jump Efficiency line improves it drops by 0.5% a step until is a minimum of 2% or something like that. That might be too complicated though. You wouldn't have to have a hull size limit on the basic jump capability at least.

If you stay with regular jump engines, at least give an option to have Squadron Size of 0 and Jump Distance 0 to allow for much cheaper and smaller drive.

Just some thoughts,
--Mav

[Charlie Beeler]

I don't think the original poster was suggesting replacing jump points .......Steve

I agree that was not the OP's intent.  

It's bugged me for a while that most games and fiction have races/empires/etc using the same means of interstellar travel.  The idea of only one way to do it doesn't fit well into my view.  I'll grant that my view isn't based in anything tangible or fundimental.

I fully understand that a single methodology makes writing easier whether it is a story or code for a game.

[alexwildstar (OP)]

Yes my point was to just remove the need for ships to be either jumpships or normal ships.  I was just wondering if there an option to eliminate the need.    


    It the one thing that has kept me from actually using Auroa is I absolutly hate the battle rider concept.  I am assuming most people are familar with traveler when i say battle rider.

    How far has any one made it in a campaign.  Reading the fiction I have not seen alot of battle with more than 20 ships per side.  (which does make for good balance and interesting battles but just wondering how the mechanics work when ya get to say a good size fleet of say 10 DN and escorts.

[sloanjh]

A few random comments:

Steve:  How hard would it be to have an "ignore jump engines" flag similar to the "ignore maintenance" one?  If it's as easy as I suspect, why not just try throwing it in for 3.3 to see if people like it?  I for one would like to try this - I think it would make exploration and colonization much less of a struggle (from the attention to detail and economic planning point of view).

On the subject of "small" jump ships: one of the things I would like to see is to lower the minimum jump engine size from 15 down to something like 5.  I like to build small courier classes, and they end up hauling around a lot of useless jump engine mass (which increases their size), especially as efficiency goes up.  If your jump engine efficiency is 5, then it doesn't make a lot of sense to build a ship with jump engines that's any smaller than 75 HS.

On the subject of battle riders:  IIRC, Steve's original vision for jump ships came from Babylon 5.  So, from a techno-babble point of view, you should probably think of a jump-capable ship not as a mother ship (with non-jump-capable parasites), but instead as having a portable wormhole generator.  This is in fact the way I tend to use them - I park a jump ship at a jump point and it acts as a "bridge" for ships moving between systems.  As Steve says, most combat tends to be in deep space, so the mechanics of jump transit is somewhat moot for the battles.  From the exploration and colonization point of view, however, the jump/non-jump dichotomy does add a lot of complexity - jump ships are

expensive, and therefore limit the number of planets you can be ferrying colonists and factories to simultaneously.  (PS - you wouldn't believe the amount of time I spent with the Million Credit Squadron Traveler expansion.)

On fleet sizes:  Another one of Steve's original goals, IIRC, was to cut the size of fleets by an order of magnitude or two relative to what's seen in SF.  So typical "large" fleet sizes (so far) tend to number in the 10s rather than the 100s.
[/list]

John

[Hawkeye]

Ok, I have to throw in my 2 (Euro)cent here.

I realy like the jumpship concept. It puts restrictions on communication and travel and makes you work for your logistics.
Giving every ship the ability to travel though a wormhole unasisted just doesn´t "feel right"
It would also, of course, make the whole jumpgate thing obsolete, another concept I realy like
´Hm, do I build a jumpgate there and ease my logistics but at the same time, open a path to my primary resource bases to a potential enemy or do I play it save, but have to provide jumptransport for all my frighters´

Steve, I could live with an option in the game setup screen like "Jumpships needed J/N" but please don´t simply abandon the jumpship concept as a whole.

[Randy]

I like the concept of jump ships.

If you do take them away, then you will really need to add back in the interpenetration failures if more than 1 ship transits at a time...

  Randy