Author Topic: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions  (Read 345091 times)

0 Members and 5 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Garfunkel

  • Registered
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • Posts: 2781
  • Thanked: 1048 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #300 on: June 16, 2018, 08:25:00 AM »
I haven't seen anything that would imply that construction factories could build anything aside from civilian space stations using the new skin-hull instead of armour, so the answer is probably that you would need to use shipyards. I already use OWPs for planetary PD whereas PDCs handle missiles, so I'm used to having one shipyard at 2000 tons with like ten slipways, that builds FAC/LACs and OWPs. You can make a simplistic 1 GC turret OWP for 950 tons and a pretty decent 4 GC turret one for under 2000 tons. Retooling isn't that much of an issue because you generally don't need to build both at the same time.

Ie, I build ten OWPs, then use tugs to haul them to their new home, retool for FAC, build a batch of 20 or 30, then design new the next generation OWP, retool for it, build new OWPs and rinse and repeat.
 
The following users thanked this post: Jovus

Offline Whitecold

  • Commander
  • *********
  • W
  • Posts: 330
  • Thanked: 88 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #301 on: June 16, 2018, 01:07:20 PM »
I know you can use OWP for missile bases, but you don't get the fortification for them, and there is the logic of why one should not be able to build it if so wanted.
There is a few concerns I don't know how they are handled, for one can ground CIWS defend orbital bases? Because if they are not (and ship based CIWS only defends itself), you need to set up two sets of CIWS to defend both the planet, and to defend the OWP, while ground based missiles would be covered by ground CIWS units.
Also, can turrets be used as STO weapons, and can those be set to point defense?
 

Offline Bremen

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • B
  • Posts: 743
  • Thanked: 150 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #302 on: June 16, 2018, 08:55:04 PM »
I'm actually kind of curious about how practical orbital stations would be with shield generators instead of armor, since that would mean (I think) you could build them with industry. But building them with shipyards would be workable too; they still get hefty bonuses compared to ships.

I know in the current version of Aurora PDC beam fire controls get a 50% range bonus, I don't remember if it was mentioned if that gets applied to the new ground based STO beam weapons? But it might help with the worries over being bombarded from out of range.
 

Offline Whitecold

  • Commander
  • *********
  • W
  • Posts: 330
  • Thanked: 88 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #303 on: June 17, 2018, 02:52:01 AM »
I'm actually kind of curious about how practical orbital stations would be with shield generators instead of armor, since that would mean (I think) you could build them with industry. But building them with shipyards would be workable too; they still get hefty bonuses compared to ships.

I know in the current version of Aurora PDC beam fire controls get a 50% range bonus, I don't remember if it was mentioned if that gets applied to the new ground based STO beam weapons? But it might help with the worries over being bombarded from out of range.
I think shield generators qualify as military, which disqualifies them from use on stations.
 

Offline Bremen

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • B
  • Posts: 743
  • Thanked: 150 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #304 on: June 17, 2018, 05:58:20 PM »
I'm actually kind of curious about how practical orbital stations would be with shield generators instead of armor, since that would mean (I think) you could build them with industry. But building them with shipyards would be workable too; they still get hefty bonuses compared to ships.

I know in the current version of Aurora PDC beam fire controls get a 50% range bonus, I don't remember if it was mentioned if that gets applied to the new ground based STO beam weapons? But it might help with the worries over being bombarded from out of range.
I think shield generators qualify as military, which disqualifies them from use on stations.

Space stations can use military components, though. The discussion was whether you could use industry instead of shipyards to build defense stations, which means they'd also have a bunch of guns and missile launchers that would also be military components.

As far as I can tell the only limitation on stations to be built by industry is "no armor"; I don't know if shields instead of armor would be practical, but it seems perfectly rules legal.
 

Offline QuakeIV

  • Registered
  • Commodore
  • **********
  • Posts: 759
  • Thanked: 168 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #305 on: June 17, 2018, 11:57:09 PM »
Shielded unarmored defense stations made by factories is an interesting concept, worthy of experimentation in the very least.  (hype for new version intensifies)
 

Offline Whitecold

  • Commander
  • *********
  • W
  • Posts: 330
  • Thanked: 88 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #306 on: June 17, 2018, 11:58:40 PM »
Space stations can use military components, though. The discussion was whether you could use industry instead of shipyards to build defense stations, which means they'd also have a bunch of guns and missile launchers that would also be military components.

As far as I can tell the only limitation on stations to be built by industry is "no armor"; I don't know if shields instead of armor would be practical, but it seems perfectly rules legal.
http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=8495.msg106758#msg106758
There are two more limitations: No engines, and no military systems to qualify for being a station.
 

Offline Bremen

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • B
  • Posts: 743
  • Thanked: 150 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #307 on: June 18, 2018, 03:27:15 AM »
Space stations can use military components, though. The discussion was whether you could use industry instead of shipyards to build defense stations, which means they'd also have a bunch of guns and missile launchers that would also be military components.

As far as I can tell the only limitation on stations to be built by industry is "no armor"; I don't know if shields instead of armor would be practical, but it seems perfectly rules legal.
http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=8495.msg106758#msg106758
There are two more limitations: No engines, and no military systems to qualify for being a station.

Ah, well, then I guess the discussion is irrelevant. It's not the lack of armor that prevents you using construction factories to build defense bases, it's the fact that they can't have military components at all.
 

Offline Whitecold

  • Commander
  • *********
  • W
  • Posts: 330
  • Thanked: 88 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #308 on: June 18, 2018, 10:33:52 AM »
A small suggestion: Engines, shields, missile launcher, sensor, jump drive system development costs currently all scale linearly in size.
That leads to very expensive projects if you try to build one of the new size 400 drives, while missile engines are ridiculously cheap.

A SQRT(Size/10) scaling would make large components just a tad more attractive, and make missile development a bit more relevant. Also, in real life larger does not necessarily mean more difficult to develop, as certain things get easier if you have the necessary space available compared to cramming everything into the smallest possible compartment.
 
The following users thanked this post: sloanjh, Happerry, Prapor, serger, Rye123, Peroox, Jovus, DEEPenergy

Offline Titanian

  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • ******
  • T
  • Posts: 105
  • Thanked: 20 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #309 on: June 19, 2018, 07:17:49 AM »
Also, in real life larger does not necessarily mean more difficult to develop, as certain things get easier if you have the necessary space available compared to cramming everything into the smallest possible compartment.
But that is already in the game: A larger engine with the same total power is cheaper to develop. And cramming the same engine into a smaller housing (by increasing the power multiplier) increases cost by a lot.

I'd say the larger components are attractive enough the way they currently are, especially low power commercial engines.
 

Offline Whitecold

  • Commander
  • *********
  • W
  • Posts: 330
  • Thanked: 88 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #310 on: June 19, 2018, 10:45:32 AM »
But that is already in the game: A larger engine with the same total power is cheaper to develop. And cramming the same engine into a smaller housing (by increasing the power multiplier) increases cost by a lot.

I'd say the larger components are attractive enough the way they currently are, especially low power commercial engines.
What I mean is that larger engines with the same power density are more expensive to develop, for example using either 8 size 10 engines or 2 size 40 engines with the same total power (same power multiplier) in the same space. Here you are trading off HTK for fuel efficiency.
Power density is what you usually want to keep constant when outfitting your fleet to get the same fleet speed for all ships.
 

Offline Viridia

  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • ******
  • Posts: 122
  • Thanked: 4 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #311 on: June 19, 2018, 05:04:23 PM »
I've done a quick search and can't find this having popped up before, so I'd like to throw in for the option to put railguns and particle beams in turrets. Also, the opportunity to research more extensions for range for beam fire controls, because right now when taken the extreme line of research, both sides are fairly disproportionate, with beam weapons often possessing a lot more range capability than offered by the fire controls.
 

Offline JacenHan

  • Captain
  • **********
  • Posts: 454
  • Thanked: 115 times
  • Discord Username: Jacenhan
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #312 on: June 19, 2018, 05:53:29 PM »
Turreted railguns would be very overpowered for PD. With the current system, having 4 shots makes them roughly equivalent in PD capability to a laser turret, which has 4 times the chance to hit. Having no turret and a smaller fire control makes them better for their cost and size than anything but mid to late game gauss cannons. Particle beams in turrets would be odd for point defense, given their low ROF and focus on long range, but I could see it making them more viable against FACs or fighters.
 

Offline Jovus

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • J
  • Posts: 220
  • Thanked: 81 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #313 on: June 20, 2018, 03:06:23 PM »
Simple one. A new order for task groups with populations selected: 'refuel and resupply', since we're often doing both when a ship hits port.
 

Offline Hazard

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • H
  • Posts: 643
  • Thanked: 73 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #314 on: June 21, 2018, 05:53:42 AM »
Also useful; a 'stay for shoreleave' command. Especially for large ships you can't build enough maintenance infrastructure to run back the maintenance clock while the crew is enjoying shoreleave, but there's no 'stay here for (x) time' command that would not require you to babysit and keep checking up on which ships are ready for the next leg of their patrol. Doing this would make it a lot easier to build ships that have a smaller deployment time than maintenance time, rather than having it coincide because it's easier on running the logistics of having your ships move around.