Author Topic: C# Aurora Changes Discussion  (Read 442045 times)

0 Members and 5 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Hazard

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • H
  • Posts: 643
  • Thanked: 73 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2235 on: June 16, 2019, 04:17:34 PM »
Infrastructure cost on low to zero colony cost planets is negligible by design. Part of it though is the simple fact that any event which increases colony cost also increases infrastructure investment requirements, which means that if colony cost swings widely enough you will see a population collapse. And colony cost can swing to 'effectively infinite.'
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Star Marshal
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 11649
  • Thanked: 20350 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2236 on: June 17, 2019, 06:19:14 AM »
I agree that that at some point, the fornication and to-hit modifiers would change, but it is still actually worse than my original example.

I must have missed a post in the change list, cause the game just took a new turn.

Maybe a new ship or troop module?

LOL. I guess the fornication modifiers are linked to pop growth :)
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Star Marshal
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 11649
  • Thanked: 20350 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2237 on: June 17, 2019, 06:22:13 AM »
*snip*

Ah, I see that I was unclear.

While what you say is all true, the idea with full on indiscriminate bombardment like that isn't to destroy the ground forces utterly through orbital bombardment. It's nice if that happens, mind, but if the only resource of value down there is the mineral wealth of the planet there's no collateral to worry about except the temperature plunge and that can be covered with enough infrastructure. Especially since as the dust settles temperatures rise back up. This is of course only true for beam based bombardment, missile bombardment will also see radiation complicating the matter.

Rather, the point of a bombardment like this is to forcefully terraform the planet so its defensive modifiers drop. The Fortification and To Hit modifiers stack, so that's a pretty big deal if you are dealing with a Jungle Rift Valley (a fully fortified infantry unit in a Jungle Rift Valley has a 1.4% chance of getting hit regardless of source), but even in the worst case scenario for the new terrain (fully fortified infantry in a Mountain terrain) that gets you a 4 (1/6)th % chance of getting a hit on the enemy target, about 3 times as likely. It also means that due to the new, extreme environmental conditions that you probably trained your forces for but they did not you're not going to be suffering under penalties they will.

All of this combines to make an assault much more likely to be successful with limited casualties as a result. And if the terrain reroll gets you Barren, Chapparal, Ice Fields or anything else with a lower than 1.5 fortification modifier and a 0.75 to hit modifier you stop bombarding and go for the landings, because at that point it's close enough to equal.

I can see that we aren't going to reach agreement on this :)

I think it would be best if we resumed the discussion after you have had chance to play with the game. And no, I don't know when that will be :)
 

Offline Person012345

  • Captain
  • **********
  • Posts: 539
  • Thanked: 29 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2238 on: June 17, 2019, 10:05:55 AM »
I agree that that at some point, the fornication and to-hit modifiers would change, but it is still actually worse than my original example.

I must have missed a post in the change list, cause the game just took a new turn.

Maybe a new ship or troop module?
It's just what happens when the slaaneshi worshippers arrive.
 
The following users thanked this post: Viridia

Offline Garfunkel

  • Registered
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • Posts: 2781
  • Thanked: 1048 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2239 on: June 17, 2019, 11:26:45 AM »
While what you say is all true, the idea with full on indiscriminate bombardment like that isn't to destroy the ground forces utterly through orbital bombardment. It's nice if that happens, mind, but if the only resource of value down there is the mineral wealth of the planet there's no collateral to worry about except the temperature plunge and that can be covered with enough infrastructure.

Maybe the price of infrastructure should be pushed up significantly, so that the cost of mines + infrastructure to hold necessary pop at colony cost <tweaking parameter> is comparable (tho' slightly less than, because of the hassle) to the cost of automines.
No need to worry about that too much, especially at this stage. Even if Hazard's tactic of instant hostile terraforming to game the terrain bonuses turns out to be 100% effective, it's still just one 'exploit' among many, nor will it ruin the game. I know I won't use it except for specific story purposes.

I assume the new spoiler race will have some surprises up their sleeve that Steve hasn't shared with us yet.
 

Offline Shuul

  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • ******
  • S
  • Posts: 108
  • Thanked: 28 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2240 on: June 17, 2019, 02:29:44 PM »
Can anyone clarify a bit to me if missiles will have more or less range/utility in C#? I never used missiles except short range torpedoes and bombs and they always seemed to me a bit OP compared to short ranged energy weapons. Will C# have a better balance between missiles and guns?
 

Offline Father Tim

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 2162
  • Thanked: 531 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2241 on: June 17, 2019, 02:50:44 PM »
Well, missiles will no longer be able to avoid point defense if they hit within a single move increment, so they won't be over powered at point blank ranges anymore.  The fuel & engine changes are *supposed* to make it much more of a choice between speed & range, but we'll have to wait until we get our pseudopods on C# Aurora to know for sure.
 

Offline Peroox

  • Petty Officer
  • **
  • P
  • Posts: 18
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2242 on: June 17, 2019, 03:12:05 PM »
Also no armored missile and some other changes in missile design (like ECM/ECCM).

I will miss my fire plan with few specialised missile type (like salvo of armored decoy and then next salvo with high dmg missile).
 

Offline Shuul

  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • ******
  • S
  • Posts: 108
  • Thanked: 28 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2243 on: June 17, 2019, 06:30:11 PM »
so creating big missiles will be ineffective as they will be easily shot down by PD? Or do they have a bit boosted HP to compensate lose of armor? Armored torpedoes was a really neat concept.
 

Offline Father Tim

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 2162
  • Thanked: 531 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2244 on: June 17, 2019, 06:38:25 PM »
Big, slow missiles will be easier to shoot down.  Armoured missiles were removed because they were too good. . . at least against the computer.  Hopefully Aurora's AIs will improve to the point where we can have them back.*

- - -

*Because I would like missiles to function properly in nebulae (which, for the record, are also gone from 1.0 C# Aurora) -- which means non-armoured missiles are detroyed immediately upon launch, and armoured missiles have their speeds properly reduced by the nebula like ships do.
 

Offline Jovus

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • J
  • Posts: 220
  • Thanked: 81 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2245 on: June 17, 2019, 07:11:41 PM »
I personally really like the concept of armoured missiles, but I definitely agree they really need some heavy work as far as the execution is concerned.
 

Offline Person012345

  • Captain
  • **********
  • Posts: 539
  • Thanked: 29 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2246 on: June 17, 2019, 11:35:11 PM »
You can of course do the MIRV thing and have big slow easy to kill missiles that break up into many small fast hard to kill missiles before they reach the PD.
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Star Marshal
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 11649
  • Thanked: 20350 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2247 on: June 18, 2019, 03:26:09 AM »
so creating big missiles will be ineffective as they will be easily shot down by PD? Or do they have a bit boosted HP to compensate lose of armor? Armored torpedoes was a really neat concept.

Larger missiles can include ECM (the new version), which makes them harder to hit.
 

Offline vorpal+5

  • Captain
  • **********
  • Posts: 599
  • Thanked: 121 times
  • Silver Supporter Silver Supporter : Support the forums with a Silver subscription
    2021 Supporter 2021 Supporter : Donate for 2021
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2248 on: June 18, 2019, 05:50:50 AM »
Oh, I missed this part. So missiles can't be armored anymore? I liked this part!
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Star Marshal
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 11649
  • Thanked: 20350 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2249 on: June 18, 2019, 06:08:07 AM »
Oh, I missed this part. So missiles can't be armored anymore? I liked this part!

This post is on the missile changes

http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=8495.msg103096#msg103096

Changes to missile engines, which increase fuel consumption, especially at higher multipliers

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

Missile Thermal detection changes - combined with the sensor changes this means missiles will often be detected on thermal before active.

http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=8495.msg103478#msg103478

 
The following users thanked this post: vorpal+5, Jovus