C# Aurora Changes Discussion

[JacenHan]

Doesn't the VB6 class intelligence window show the type of weapons an enemy ship has after they use them?

[tobijon]

only for energy weapons i think

[sloanjh (OP)]

The defenders only know the amount of damage rather than the type. That was a conscious decision and it is the same in VB6. The damage per hit is already listed on the defender summary.

It seemed like the attacker saw a different number of hits reported than the defender.  Is this true and was this conscious (fog of war)?

Thanks,
John

[Shiwanabe]

It seemed like the attacker saw a different number of hits reported than the defender.  Is this true and was this conscious (fog of war)?

Thanks,
John

Thankfully they both saw the total number of hits and even had it split by incoming damage amount (type?). The only bit missing was how many of those hits penetrated armor.

The defenders only know the amount of damage rather than the type. That was a conscious decision and it is the same in VB6. The damage per hit is already listed on the defender summary.

I wasn't hoping to know what shot me. I was only hoping that there would be a line per incoming type. From a realism perspective I can understand how difficult it would be to tell which hit did what, but it's still something that would be nice to know.

The other idea would be to inform the defender of how many holes in their armor belt there are. (ie; giving the damage summary a line about how many penetrating hits occurred.)
To use the first damage summary as an example:

Code: [Select]

PS Monoceros Damage Report:    Armor Damage 44    Penetrations 3    1x Lupercus-Ancus LA-6 Active Sensor    1x Tiverius-Velus 12cm Near Ultraviolet Laser    Current armor 39%    Maximum Speed 5,161 km/s

This is the rule post on missile engines:

http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=8495.msg102804#msg102804

Ah, thank you. I think I remember seeing that but didn't see it when I did a quick pass over the thread. My apologies.

It looks like a very elegant way of dealing with it and doesn't even feel like a 'missile only' type of solution.

The break point for keeping the old range seems to be at about 66% of the old speed/power multiplier, so ~33% lower accuracy. Very interesting.

[sloanjh (OP)]

Thankfully they both saw the total number of hits and even had it split by incoming damage amount (type?). The only bit missing was how many of those hits penetrated armor.

Ah - you're right - thanks!  I was confused because the attacker report is broken into "armor hits" and "penetrating hits" while the defender is just told the total number.  Which brings up the observation that it seems a bit odd that the attacker gets more information about which (or even if any) hits penetrated while the defender is only told the total, i.e. the attacker is getting finer-grain information.

John

[Steve Walmsley]

Ah - you're right - thanks!  I was confused because the attacker report is broken into "armor hits" and "penetrating hits" while the defender is just told the total number.  Which brings up the observation that it seems a bit odd that the attacker gets more information about which (or even if any) hits penetrated while the defender is only told the total, i.e. the attacker is getting finer-grain information.

The rationale was that the attacker needs to see if any hits penetrate. The defender sees the specific internal damage, which is more useful than the number of hits penetrating. I can add the penetrating hits number as well.

[Froggiest1982]

Looking at last screenshot posted by Steve looks like he is moving into the combat system and considering the save issue was sorted last week with orders phase that should be pretty much almost done, probably he is using an 80% playable version already.

Looking good and awesome and maybe 2018 spring release is becoming a realistic date again!

[Steve Walmsley]

Looking at last screenshot posted by Steve looks like he is moving into the combat system and considering the save issue was sorted last week with orders phase that should be pretty much almost done, probably he is using an 80% playable version already.

Looking good and awesome and maybe 2018 spring release is becoming a realistic date again!

Spring is on Wednesday

Still a decent way to go. Getting into combat now but there are a lot of smaller areas not done. About a dozen movement orders still to do, finish off the ground-space interactions (I just wrote the code for ground units shooting down incoming missiles), quite a lot of minor windows missing, etc. but the major missing part is the AI. I also have a long 'to do' list for finishing off parts of the code with about 50 items on it.

Once most of that is done, I will run one or more test campaigns, which will probably take a few months.

[Hazard]

Steve, given that ground units can have ship beam weapons would it not be reasonable to have ground populations check units equipped with that after checking units equipped with CIWS before moving to ships with defensive fire linked fire control systems?

[QuakeIV]

I'm really excited about ground unit CIWS, that replaces a lot of the functionality lost to PDCs going away, now I can have hordes of missile defense bases on earth again.

[Steve Walmsley]

Steve, given that ground units can have ship beam weapons would it not be reasonable to have ground populations check units equipped with that after checking units equipped with CIWS before moving to ships with defensive fire linked fire control systems?

They would be low values to hit because of the tracking speed. It is a possibility though. I'll sort this out when I create the UI for directing ground unit beam fire.

[Titanian]

When a missile reaches its target, a target ship will use its CIWS first. If that is insufficient, it will use any weapons linked to fire controls set to 'Final Defensive Fire' or 'Final Defensive Fire (Self Only)'. If that is still insufficient, ships or the same race or an allied race with fire controls set to 'Final Defensive Fire' will be checked in increasing order of distance from the target ship.

Will ships prioritize missiles targeted at themselves? E.g. lets assume we have two ships, A and B, in a task group, and both have more missiles incoming than their pd can handle. Can I expect A's pd to shoot the missiles that target A and B's pd to shoot the missiles that target B? Or will A's pd to shoot the missiles that target A, then B's pd shoots the leftover missiles that target A, which means B gets hit by all the missiles targeted at it?

I'd prefer the first case, and expect the second case from your description.

[Barkhorn]

We should be able to set a priority queue for PD.  I would imagine that in real life, in a US Carrier Group, the Arleigh Burkes would totally ignore their own defense if a sizeable number of missiles were headed for the carrier.

[Steve Walmsley]

We should be able to set a priority queue for PD.  I would imagine that in real life, in a US Carrier Group, the Arleigh Burkes would totally ignore their own defense if a sizeable number of missiles were headed for the carrier.

In VB6 missile salvos move in decreasing order of speed. Point defence operates as those salvos arrive at their targets. Ships with Final Fire will protect whoever is getting attacked, potentially sacrificing their own defence if a salvo attacking them is moving later in the phase. Ships can be set to Final Fire (self-only) to prevent that happening. Generally, this isn't a major issue because incoming salvos in the same wave are often concentrated on a single target. if multiple targets are attacked in the same wave, that leans fewer missiles per target, making it more likely ships can handle their own defence.

I can add some more options, but this can get complex really fast. For example, if this is automated, will an Arleigh Burke shoot at one missile heading for the carrier or twenty missiles heading for it. If it would protect itself, what does the balance of missiles have to be before that equation changes? Does it depend on the performance of the missiles, or the existing damage to the CV or DD? How about what other escorts ships are doing? Do you even know which enemy missiles are heading for which target. If not, what do you do in that situation?

I am happy to implement any additional, straightforward point defence rules. It's just tricky to make them 'straightforward'

[Bremen]

I'm pretty happy with it as it stands, yeah. If for no other reason then that it's not clear to a defender what the missiles' targets are.