Author Topic: 3.2? Suggestions  (Read 4451 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Aurora Designer
  • Star Marshal
  • S
  • Posts: 11649
  • Thanked: 20350 times
Re: 3.2? Suggestions
« Reply #15 on: October 20, 2008, 02:09:10 PM »
Quote from: "Charlie Beeler"
An option to retain system and body names with creating a new race/empire from SMRace.  

example:  I have an SMRace and used spacemaster function Add Sol System.  Then using Create Empire on the F9 screen on Earth,  I'd like the option to retain the Sol System name and all the system body names.  This way all empires that I setup with Earth as the homeworld have the same names for that system.  All new systems can be independently named.
This isn't quite the same thing as you asked for but I think it will achieve the result you want. At the moment, if you create 2 or more Empires in the Sol system, only the first Empire has all the correct names for the planets. In v3.2, any Empire created in an existing Sol system will have all the correct names for the planets and moons.

Steve
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Aurora Designer
  • Star Marshal
  • S
  • Posts: 11649
  • Thanked: 20350 times
Re:
« Reply #16 on: October 20, 2008, 02:26:10 PM »
Quote from: "Charlie Beeler"
The ability to target missiles using passive sensor data.  

Example.  A scout (fighter/gunboat/ship/etc) has a thermal contact.  Missile platform is in range with a missile that has a thermal sensor.  Contact shows as a valid to assign target.  The launch platform can use it's missile control to generally guide the missile into it's own acquisition range but the missile must be able to takeover for terminal guidance.  
You can do this by targeting the missiles on a waypoint and then releasing control so they will find their own targets (if they have onboard guidance).

Steve
 

Offline Charlie Beeler (OP)

  • Registered
  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1381
  • Thanked: 3 times
Re: 3.2? Suggestions
« Reply #17 on: October 21, 2008, 07:21:37 AM »
Quote from: "Steve Walmsley"
Quote from: "Charlie Beeler"
An option to retain system and body names with creating a new race/empire from SMRace.  

example:  I have an SMRace and used spacemaster function Add Sol System.  Then using Create Empire on the F9 screen on Earth,  I'd like the option to retain the Sol System name and all the system body names.  This way all empires that I setup with Earth as the homeworld have the same names for that system.  All new systems can be independently named.
This isn't quite the same thing as you asked for but I think it will achieve the result you want. At the moment, if you create 2 or more Empires in the Sol system, only the first Empire has all the correct names for the planets. In v3.2, any Empire created in an existing Sol system will have all the correct names for the planets and moons.

Steve

It's close enough.  Thank You.
Amateurs study tactics, Professionals study logistics - paraphrase attributed to Gen Omar Bradley
 

Offline Charlie Beeler (OP)

  • Registered
  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1381
  • Thanked: 3 times
Re: Re:
« Reply #18 on: October 21, 2008, 07:36:33 AM »
Quote from: "Steve Walmsley"
Quote from: "Charlie Beeler"
The ability to target missiles using passive sensor data.  

Example.  A scout (fighter/gunboat/ship/etc) has a thermal contact.  Missile platform is in range with a missile that has a thermal sensor.  Contact shows as a valid to assign target.  The launch platform can use it's missile control to generally guide the missile into it's own acquisition range but the missile must be able to takeover for terminal guidance.  
You can do this by targeting the missiles on a waypoint and then releasing control so they will find their own targets (if they have onboard guidance).

Steve

I guess it's the onboard guidance that I'm missing.  It used to be a researchable tech item to add to missiles and I no longer see it.  Is that just active sensors?  
If so, can we have a variant for passives?  

If not, what I'm I missing?  I've searched back through the posts concerning the last couple of generation changes to missiles and appearently have not found it.

I thought I'd tried targeting a waypoint for launch and then dropping active fire control.  Next time I have to opportunity I'll try it again paying special attention to what procedures I'm using.

Thanks Steve for addressing my question.

<10/22 edit>

I think I found what I was missing.  Too launch a missile active sensors must be on.  What I'm asking for as a means of passive target assignment.  That's what I was trying to illustrate with my earlier example.  What I haven't tried yet is assigning a waypoint for initial targeting without active sensors/fire control being online.
« Last Edit: October 22, 2008, 10:13:13 AM by Charlie Beeler »
Amateurs study tactics, Professionals study logistics - paraphrase attributed to Gen Omar Bradley
 

Offline Charlie Beeler (OP)

  • Registered
  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1381
  • Thanked: 3 times
New request
« Reply #19 on: October 21, 2008, 07:38:09 AM »
Can we get a way to refit fighters?
Amateurs study tactics, Professionals study logistics - paraphrase attributed to Gen Omar Bradley
 

Offline Brian Neumann

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1214
  • Thanked: 3 times
Re: 3.2? Suggestions
« Reply #20 on: October 24, 2008, 06:50:18 PM »
You need to put in a prerequisite tech for the cloaking reduction 97%.  The line is blank and when I reasearched everything the best reduction I could get was 95%.  Nothing would show beyond this.  I even did the all reasearch to 100,000,000 points which is way more than needed just to find out if this would work.

Brian
 

Offline James Patten

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • J
  • Posts: 257
  • Thanked: 2 times
Re: 3.2? Suggestions
« Reply #21 on: October 24, 2008, 06:53:03 PM »
I think another missing tech is Compressed Fuel Storage.  I remember using it in 2.x, but when 3.0 came along it was there but I couldn't get to it.
 

Offline Randy

  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • ******
  • Posts: 146
  • Thanked: 1 times
Re: 3.2? Suggestions
« Reply #22 on: October 24, 2008, 11:26:15 PM »
How about the ability to "subvert" captured commanders?

  Join the Dark Side Luke...  :twisted:
 

Offline SteveAlt

  • Global Moderator
  • Rear Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 820
  • Thanked: 8 times
Re: 3.2? Suggestions
« Reply #23 on: October 25, 2008, 09:24:38 AM »
Quote from: "James Patten"
I think another missing tech is Compressed Fuel Storage.  I remember using it in 2.x, but when 3.0 came along it was there but I couldn't get to it.
It's one of the techs you can only get from ruins.

Steve
 

Offline SteveAlt

  • Global Moderator
  • Rear Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 820
  • Thanked: 8 times
Re: 3.2? Suggestions
« Reply #24 on: October 25, 2008, 09:26:11 AM »
Quote from: "Randy"
How about the ability to "subvert" captured commanders?

  Join the Dark Side Luke...  :). Perhaps a 1% chance of a defection which comes with a substantial intelligence bonus and the officer gets added to the officer corps of the capturing nation.

Steve
 

Offline SteveAlt

  • Global Moderator
  • Rear Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 820
  • Thanked: 8 times
Re: 3.2? Suggestions
« Reply #25 on: October 25, 2008, 09:28:19 AM »
Quote from: "Brian"
You need to put in a prerequisite tech for the cloaking reduction 97%.  The line is blank and when I reasearched everything the best reduction I could get was 95%.  Nothing would show beyond this.  I even did the all reasearch to 100,000,000 points which is way more than needed just to find out if this would work.
It was a typo in the database. 29913 instead of 26913 for the pre-requisite. Fixed for v3.2

Steve
 

Offline Brian Neumann

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1214
  • Thanked: 3 times
Re: 3.2? Suggestions
« Reply #26 on: October 25, 2008, 10:35:43 AM »
Are you still thinking of extending the range of beam weapons?  I have been thinking about it for the last week or so and I like the idea.  The main reason relates to the changes in missile capabilities.  When you first started designing Aurora it was quite reasonable to expect a decent point defense laser to get 2-3 shots at the incomming missiles.  Now you are lucky to get the chance at a second shot because of how much faster missiles have the potential of being.  This led to a good trade-off on numbers of short range (10cm) pd weapons versus fewer, longer range ones that had multiple chances to fire.  Currently this does not work as even the longer range laser's just don't have the range to engage the missiles more than once with area fire.  (you would need to have them constantly switching between area and final defence firing almost every 5 second turn which is way to much micro-management for me)  One of the side effects has been to make the gauss weapons much more effective than lasers, or mesons at point defence because of the large number of short range shots.  Railguns are still somewhat effective as they also got a lot of shots but at a lower effective chance to hit.  If fire control ranges for beam weapons are extended then this gives a chance for the laser and meson fields to be usefull as point defense weapons again.

This may sound strange after the previous paragraph, but I would not extend the range's of the actual weapons for laser, meson, or railguns.  I would change the ranges for the torpedo's as they are a somewhat different catagory.  If you look at the actual achievable ranges for laser and meson weapons you will see that they can easily outrange the fire control.  A maxed out 30cm laser has a max range of 2.88 million km or double the max fire control range.  This would actually be a viable pd weapon as it would have a 5 second cycle time.  A 80cm laser has a max range of 20.16 million km.  At the max current range it is still doing 14 points of damage.  While mesons are not as long ranged they still easily exceed the fire control range.  Railguns actually do no do as well at long range as thier damage is a lot lower per shot and therefore they have less of a multiplying effect.  For the railguns you might give them somer more range multipliers.  They will still tend to be much shorter ranged than either the laser or meson weapons.

Brian
 

Offline SteveAlt

  • Global Moderator
  • Rear Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 820
  • Thanked: 8 times
Re: 3.2? Suggestions
« Reply #27 on: October 25, 2008, 12:22:07 PM »
Quote from: "Brian"
Are you still thinking of extending the range of beam weapons?  I have been thinking about it for the last week or so and I like the idea.  The main reason relates to the changes in missile capabilities.  When you first started designing Aurora it was quite reasonable to expect a decent point defense laser to get 2-3 shots at the incomming missiles.  Now you are lucky to get the chance at a second shot because of how much faster missiles have the potential of being.  This led to a good trade-off on numbers of short range (10cm) pd weapons versus fewer, longer range ones that had multiple chances to fire.  Currently this does not work as even the longer range laser's just don't have the range to engage the missiles more than once with area fire.  (you would need to have them constantly switching between area and final defence firing almost every 5 second turn which is way to much micro-management for me)  One of the side effects has been to make the gauss weapons much more effective than lasers, or mesons at point defence because of the large number of short range shots.  Railguns are still somewhat effective as they also got a lot of shots but at a lower effective chance to hit.  If fire control ranges for beam weapons are extended then this gives a chance for the laser and meson fields to be usefull as point defense weapons again.

This may sound strange after the previous paragraph, but I would not extend the range's of the actual weapons for laser, meson, or railguns.  I would change the ranges for the torpedo's as they are a somewhat different catagory.  If you look at the actual achievable ranges for laser and meson weapons you will see that they can easily outrange the fire control.  A maxed out 30cm laser has a max range of 2.88 million km or double the max fire control range.  This would actually be a viable pd weapon as it would have a 5 second cycle time.  A 80cm laser has a max range of 20.16 million km.  At the max current range it is still doing 14 points of damage.  While mesons are not as long ranged they still easily exceed the fire control range.  Railguns actually do no do as well at long range as thier damage is a lot lower per shot and therefore they have less of a multiplying effect.  For the railguns you might give them somer more range multipliers.  They will still tend to be much shorter ranged than either the laser or meson weapons.
I am still thinking about it. Not sure if I am going to do it for v3.2 as I am getting close to a release and the above is a significant change to the mechanics, rather than an add-on like Espionage. I agree that the best way to handle it is probably just to extend beam fire control ranges as they are currently the real restriction on beam ranges. As to multiple shots, the real longe range missile-killer is another missile but I agree that some form of long-ranged laser would make a good mid-range anti-missile weapon with anti-missiles at longer ranges and probably gauss cannon and railguns for point balnk fire. I also agree that torpedo ranges could do with being extended. Unlike a lot of other beam weapons they have no serious anti-missile function so perhaps greater range would make them more attractive.

Steve
 

Offline Brian Neumann

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1214
  • Thanked: 3 times
Re: 3.2? Suggestions
« Reply #28 on: October 25, 2008, 02:12:53 PM »
Quote from: "SteveAlt"
I am still thinking about it. Not sure if I am going to do it for v3.2 as I am getting close to a release and the above is a significant change to the mechanics, rather than an add-on like Espionage. I agree that the best way to handle it is probably just to extend beam fire control ranges as they are currently the real restriction on beam ranges. As to multiple shots, the real longe range missile-killer is another missile but I agree that some form of long-ranged laser would make a good mid-range anti-missile weapon with anti-missiles at longer ranges and probably gauss cannon and railguns for point balnk fire. I also agree that torpedo ranges could do with being extended. Unlike a lot of other beam weapons they have no serious anti-missile function so perhaps greater range would make them more attractive.

Steve

I would actually suggest that the torpedo's outrange a comparable tech laser.  This would help make them more usefull, and it would fit the design of the weapon.  Railguns are the short range heavy hitters, Torpedo's have the longest range, and Lasers are more versitile.  Meson's are the only beam weapon that does not fit with the others, but it is a special use weapon anyway.  It works best against heavily protected targets, or as a planetary close range pd battery.

Brian
 

Offline James Patten

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • J
  • Posts: 257
  • Thanked: 2 times
Re: 3.2? Suggestions
« Reply #29 on: October 26, 2008, 02:42:58 PM »
Something that would be handy to have is a way to have war games or mock battles, between two ships of your own design (or of a design that you know about from another party).  This way you can weed out the truly bad designs from among your designed ranks.  For instance, I haven't had any battles yet during my play of Aurora so I have no feel for the strengths or weaknesses of particular weapons or ship designs.