Post reply

Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.

Note: this post will not display until it's been approved by a moderator.

Name:
Email:
Subject:
Message icon:

shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview

Please read the rules before you post!


Topic Summary

Posted by: ShadoCat
« on: March 25, 2009, 05:39:48 PM »

Quote from: "SteveAlt"
I certainly need to remove the internal armour as it was part of the old armour rules. I am just not sure yet how to replace it. One option is the same as the new magazines, where you can increase their HTK by adding armour. This means I don't have to track actual damage to internal armour but it makes internal systems harder to destroy at the expense of space. I could do that with engines, power plants and turrets. Another option, as you mention above, is to have separate "sections" of armour covering different parts of the ship but that would increase the complexity of both design and damage resolution quite a lot. It would also mean more armour was required for the same level of protection.As an example, five 10m3 spheres have more surface area than one 50m3 sphere so more armour would be required to cover them all to the same depth. I think the HTK system is probably the better option but I am open to ideas.

Internal armor won't ever be thick enough to worry about tracking damage to it.  I think that it can be simulate quite easily by just increasing the HTK of a system.

If someone wants to have an armored section of their ship then just armor several systems and declare that they are in the same section in the fluff text.  

One thing that would add realism but will add programming complexity is the ability to armor some portion of a set of system components.  Thus, have a few engines or a few life support modules in the armored section and the rest outside the armored section.

BTW, I glanced up and saw that my browser was flagging "armour" as a misspelling.  My first thought was that my typos were making me look like a Brit.  Then I realized that the "typos" were in Steve's quoted text.  I may be slow but I get there eventually.  

Still, I had to resist the urge to spellcheck them into "proper English."  <grin>
Posted by: jfelten
« on: March 23, 2009, 12:15:59 PM »

Quote from: "SteveAlt"
I certainly need to remove the internal armour as it was part of the old armour rules. I am just not sure yet how to replace it. One option is the same as the new magazines, where you can increase their HTK by adding armour. This means I don't have to track actual damage to internal armour but it makes internal systems harder to destroy at the expense of space. I could do that with engines, power plants and turrets. Another option, as you mention above, is to have separate "sections" of armour covering different parts of the ship but that would increase the complexity of both design and damage resolution quite a lot. It would also mean more armour was required for the same level of protection.As an example, five 10m3 spheres have more surface area than one 50m3 sphere so more armour would be required to cover them all to the same depth. I think the HTK system is probably the better option but I am open to ideas.

Steve

The only thing I can think of is to have internal armor give a probability > 0 && < 1 that a given hit will do no damage.  Then you don't have to actually track armor damage to it over time, you just "roll the dice" every time that system is hit to see whether the armor nullified it or not.
Posted by: MWadwell
« on: March 15, 2009, 11:16:37 PM »

Quote from: "IanD"
Quote
Kurt wrote
basically, Aurora currently considers turrets as having the same armor as the rest of the ship, right? Because first the ship's armor must be breached, and then damage can be scored on internal systems, including the turret.
I am not too concerned about turret penetration before the rest of the vessel is breached. My reasoning is thus; the turret faces were some of the heaviest armoured parts of a battleship, and while the turret roof may be considered vulnerable it must be remembered that at Jutland HMS Malaya received a hit on the roof of X turret that
Quote
exploded on impact, although the 4.75 ” turret roof was set down a few inches and a very small hole made, a lot of the armour bolts were sheared but the only internal damage was to the local range-finder and the turret remained in action
(source http://www.shipsnostalgia.com/guides/Qu ... HMS_Malaya).

The turrets were usually put out of action by other factors (see my earlier post in this thread on Scharnhorst). However it may be that the probability for externally mounted items (e.g. the turret) being put out of action (not necessarily destroyed) should be higher than for more deeply buried systems such as the CIC or magazine. This is what I was referring to in earlier posts with my reference to machinery spaces, if you can’t get the shells to the turret or you can’t train it, the turret becomes so much dead weight.

Just an after thought but if your magazine is the best protected system right at the heart of your ship and if the absence of oxygen will not inhibit its detonation, just how do you jettison the unused ordinance without creating a weak spot which could cause the event you are trying to minimise?  :?

Regards
Ian

Just a word of caution though - it depends on the armouring of the ship.

An example is that battle between HMAS Sydney and the Kormoran in 1941 (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_bet ... r_Kormoran)

Of the Sydney's 4 turrents, 3 were put out of action by direct hits on the armoured faces by the Kormorans 150 mm guns (although at ridiculously _low_ ranges).
Posted by: rmcrowe
« on: March 13, 2009, 03:55:03 PM »

As in the late "Death Star"?!
Posted by: IanD
« on: March 13, 2009, 08:55:37 AM »

Quote
Kurt wrote
basically, Aurora currently considers turrets as having the same armor as the rest of the ship, right? Because first the ship's armor must be breached, and then damage can be scored on internal systems, including the turret.
I am not too concerned about turret penetration before the rest of the vessel is breached. My reasoning is thus; the turret faces were some of the heaviest armoured parts of a battleship, and while the turret roof may be considered vulnerable it must be remembered that at Jutland HMS Malaya received a hit on the roof of X turret that
Quote
exploded on impact, although the 4.75 ” turret roof was set down a few inches and a very small hole made, a lot of the armour bolts were sheared but the only internal damage was to the local range-finder and the turret remained in action
(source http://www.shipsnostalgia.com/guides/Qu ... HMS_Malaya).

The turrets were usually put out of action by other factors (see my earlier post in this thread on Scharnhorst). However it may be that the probability for externally mounted items (e.g. the turret) being put out of action (not necessarily destroyed) should be higher than for more deeply buried systems such as the CIC or magazine. This is what I was referring to in earlier posts with my reference to machinery spaces, if you can’t get the shells to the turret or you can’t train it, the turret becomes so much dead weight.

Just an after thought but if your magazine is the best protected system right at the heart of your ship and if the absence of oxygen will not inhibit its detonation, just how do you jettison the unused ordinance without creating a weak spot which could cause the event you are trying to minimise?  :?

Regards
Ian
Posted by: Father Tim
« on: March 12, 2009, 04:34:34 PM »

I too suport the HTK system, especially as I seem to recall the chance of disabling a system is poportional to the amount of damage it suffers with respect to its HTK.
Posted by: welchbloke
« on: March 12, 2009, 09:13:01 AM »

Quote from: "SteveAlt"
Quote from: "Kurt"
This got me thinking about damage resolution in Aurora, and it might be time for you to revisit this, Steve, although probably not for 4.0.  The new armor system is very interesting, but has made internal armor and turret armor problematic.  Currently, Aurora treats turrets and other weapon mountings as internal systems, when turrets can only be considered external systems, and most other weapons mountings are probably the same.  Hmmm...basically, Aurora currently considers turrets as having the same armor as the rest of the ship, right?  Because first the ship's armor must be breached, and then damage can be scored on internal systems, including the turret.  

Perhaps it would be interesting if, during the design process, the designer could add extra armor to the turret.  Unlike the current system, the new system would use the armor system currently used for the hull, so that by adding additional armor to the turret the designer is adding additional lines of armor to that one area of the ship.  The amount of armor needed for each line would be based on the size of the turret, using the same formula as is used for the ship's hull.  The same scheme could be used for the ship's engines and power plants, which, IIRC, are the only things that can be armored now.  Hmmm...this might be too complex, though.  That would be adding multiple seperate armor boxes for various systems, all of which would have to be tracked.  

I don't know, I just feel that with the armor and penetration changes, it is probably time to standardize this issue.  
I certainly need to remove the internal armour as it was part of the old armour rules. I am just not sure yet how to replace it. One option is the same as the new magazines, where you can increase their HTK by adding armour. This means I don't have to track actual damage to internal armour but it makes internal systems harder to destroy at the expense of space. I could do that with engines, power plants and turrets. Another option, as you mention above, is to have separate "sections" of armour covering different parts of the ship but that would increase the complexity of both design and damage resolution quite a lot. It would also mean more armour was required for the same level of protection.As an example, five 10m3 spheres have more surface area than one 50m3 sphere so more armour would be required to cover them all to the same depth. I think the HTK system is probably the better option but I am open to ideas.

Steve
Personally, i think the HTK system would be better; otherwise there will be another increase in complexity without a huge leap in gameplay.
Posted by: SteveAlt
« on: March 12, 2009, 06:41:31 AM »

Quote from: "Kurt"
This got me thinking about damage resolution in Aurora, and it might be time for you to revisit this, Steve, although probably not for 4.0.  The new armor system is very interesting, but has made internal armor and turret armor problematic.  Currently, Aurora treats turrets and other weapon mountings as internal systems, when turrets can only be considered external systems, and most other weapons mountings are probably the same.  Hmmm...basically, Aurora currently considers turrets as having the same armor as the rest of the ship, right?  Because first the ship's armor must be breached, and then damage can be scored on internal systems, including the turret.  

Perhaps it would be interesting if, during the design process, the designer could add extra armor to the turret.  Unlike the current system, the new system would use the armor system currently used for the hull, so that by adding additional armor to the turret the designer is adding additional lines of armor to that one area of the ship.  The amount of armor needed for each line would be based on the size of the turret, using the same formula as is used for the ship's hull.  The same scheme could be used for the ship's engines and power plants, which, IIRC, are the only things that can be armored now.  Hmmm...this might be too complex, though.  That would be adding multiple seperate armor boxes for various systems, all of which would have to be tracked.  

I don't know, I just feel that with the armor and penetration changes, it is probably time to standardize this issue.  
I certainly need to remove the internal armour as it was part of the old armour rules. I am just not sure yet how to replace it. One option is the same as the new magazines, where you can increase their HTK by adding armour. This means I don't have to track actual damage to internal armour but it makes internal systems harder to destroy at the expense of space. I could do that with engines, power plants and turrets. Another option, as you mention above, is to have separate "sections" of armour covering different parts of the ship but that would increase the complexity of both design and damage resolution quite a lot. It would also mean more armour was required for the same level of protection.As an example, five 10m3 spheres have more surface area than one 50m3 sphere so more armour would be required to cover them all to the same depth. I think the HTK system is probably the better option but I am open to ideas.

Steve
Posted by: schroeam
« on: March 08, 2009, 09:18:39 PM »

Quote from: "Kurt"
Quote from: "SteveAlt"
I have read Ian Douglas's inheritance trilogy and the more recent Legacy trilogy. I very much enjoyed both, although his publisher needs to employ a better proof-reader :)

I haven't read the Destroyer Men books but I will take a look.

Steve

I heartily recommend the Destroyermen books.  I've only read the first one, which is the only one out in paperback so far, but it was very good.  The author knows his WW 1/II destroyers, the military, and did a good job setting up an alternate earth.  

Having said that, I am reading The Price of Admiralty by John Keegan right now, and I'm on the chapter about Jutland.  it fits in with this topic very well, as I have just read his description of the destruction of a third of the British BC force by German fire, largely due to inadequate flash barriers in their turret design.  

This got me thinking about damage resolution in Aurora, and it might be time for you to revisit this, Steve, although probably not for 4.0.  The new armor system is very interesting, but has made internal armor and turret armor problematic.  Currently, Aurora treats turrets and other weapon mountings as internal systems, when turrets can only be considered external systems, and most other weapons mountings are probably the same.  Hmmm...basically, Aurora currently considers turrets as having the same armor as the rest of the ship, right?  Because first the ship's armor must be breached, and then damage can be scored on internal systems, including the turret.  

Perhaps it would be interesting if, during the design process, the designer could add extra armor to the turret.  Unlike the current system, the new system would use the armor system currently used for the hull, so that by adding additional armor to the turret the designer is adding additional lines of armor to that one area of the ship.  The amount of armor needed for each line would be based on the size of the turret, using the same formula as is used for the ship's hull.  The same scheme could be used for the ship's engines and power plants, which, IIRC, are the only things that can be armored now.  Hmmm...this might be too complex, though.  That would be adding multiple seperate armor boxes for various systems, all of which would have to be tracked.  

I don't know, I just feel that with the armor and penetration changes, it is probably time to standardize this issue.  

Kurt

Perhaps treat the turret as a hardpoint and have the armor setting for the turret in the turret design, much as internal armor for engines is accounted for in their design.  The actual type of armor is decided when the ship is built, but the layers of armor is accomplished when the turret is designed.  A probablility (size of turret or hardpoint vs size of ship) could be derived to determine if a turret or other hard point is hit, or the hull of the ship.  Damage to either could then be figured with the possible destruction of the turret, or damage internally, whichever would fit.

Adam.
Posted by: Kurt
« on: March 08, 2009, 10:58:47 AM »

Quote from: "SteveAlt"
I have read Ian Douglas's inheritance trilogy and the more recent Legacy trilogy. I very much enjoyed both, although his publisher needs to employ a better proof-reader :)

I haven't read the Destroyer Men books but I will take a look.

Steve

I heartily recommend the Destroyermen books.  I've only read the first one, which is the only one out in paperback so far, but it was very good.  The author knows his WW 1/II destroyers, the military, and did a good job setting up an alternate earth.  

Having said that, I am reading The Price of Admiralty by John Keegan right now, and I'm on the chapter about Jutland.  it fits in with this topic very well, as I have just read his description of the destruction of a third of the British BC force by German fire, largely due to inadequate flash barriers in their turret design.  

This got me thinking about damage resolution in Aurora, and it might be time for you to revisit this, Steve, although probably not for 4.0.  The new armor system is very interesting, but has made internal armor and turret armor problematic.  Currently, Aurora treats turrets and other weapon mountings as internal systems, when turrets can only be considered external systems, and most other weapons mountings are probably the same.  Hmmm...basically, Aurora currently considers turrets as having the same armor as the rest of the ship, right?  Because first the ship's armor must be breached, and then damage can be scored on internal systems, including the turret.  

Perhaps it would be interesting if, during the design process, the designer could add extra armor to the turret.  Unlike the current system, the new system would use the armor system currently used for the hull, so that by adding additional armor to the turret the designer is adding additional lines of armor to that one area of the ship.  The amount of armor needed for each line would be based on the size of the turret, using the same formula as is used for the ship's hull.  The same scheme could be used for the ship's engines and power plants, which, IIRC, are the only things that can be armored now.  Hmmm...this might be too complex, though.  That would be adding multiple seperate armor boxes for various systems, all of which would have to be tracked.  

I don't know, I just feel that with the armor and penetration changes, it is probably time to standardize this issue.  

Kurt
Posted by: SteveAlt
« on: March 03, 2009, 07:24:33 PM »

Quote from: "Larac"
To begin with perhaps use the Armor on a system to also help degrade the fire, and then a new Tech line for Fire Fighting/Fire Deterrents.
There is a tech line for damage control system, which will cover fighting fires as a higher damage control rating increases the speed at which fires are extinguished.

Quote
In space an easy way to stop a fire is of course starve it.

Between Selective venting and CO2 floods one should be able to control fires to some degree.

Of course CO2 is fairly easy to come by as a by product sort of from Humans, but systems would take room and mass always a trade off.

Most small craft and perhaps up to Destroyers would skip it and use a After Event system, but the really big stuff would be looking for all sorts of ways to stop it from starting in the first place.
jfelten made a good point about the limited supply of oxygen to feed a fire, even if external venting is not possible, so I am reconsidering the overall effect fires at the moment.

Quote
Switching Topics
Been reading a lot of Ian Douglas as these are fleet battles things like Fires are ignored but implied. A good read though.

Is there a good author that focuses on a single warship, read  most of Weber, Drake, and others. But always looking for more.

Also read the Destroyer Men books about a US destroyer in another Earth, that was a good single ship focused even if wet Navy.
I have read Ian Douglas's inheritance trilogy and the more recent Legacy trilogy. I very much enjoyed both, although his publisher needs to employ a better proof-reader :)

I haven't read the Destroyer Men books but I will take a look.

Steve
Posted by: SteveAlt
« on: March 03, 2009, 07:19:43 PM »

Quote from: "IanD"
Quote
in Aurora, each engine on a ship is treated individually, as are individual reactors, and can be damaged independently.
I have lost the occasional engine to failed maintenance but the idea of a critical hit was to make the penalty somewhat more extreme, I supposed that if your engine compartment received the close attention of a nuclear warhead you might end up with a pile of slag rather than the remains of an engine you could repair. It also separated maintenance failures from battle damage.
That's a good point. The reason that systems wrecked by hostile fire and systems that have failed through maintenance are treated the same is for ease of gameplay rather than realism. Otherwise I would have to track two type of damages and two types of repair and display both to the player. I didn't think the minor improvement in gameplay would be worth the increase in complexity. Critical hits are possible in Aurora but they take the form of additional damage due to secondary explosions, which falls within the existing damage resolution.

Quote from: "IanD"
Quote
There are not machinery spaces in Aurora
My assumption, since wet navy ships need a power plant and current ion engine designs all require an electricity supply. I thought they were "hidden" in the design, I didn't take into account Trans Newtonian physics!
They are sort of hidden in the design. Again it comes down to gameplay vs complexity. I am trying to find a balance where the things you have to consider when designing a ship are fun and challenging rather than tedious. I am even considering removing separate power plants and adding the reactor cost and space directly to beam weapons (using the reactor tech line on the beam weapon design screen). This would simplfy design a little and prevent one of the areas that I am not completely happy with, where loss of a reactor slows down weapon firing when in reality you would probably stop using one or more of weapons to maintain the rate of fire. That would involve power allocation though which I really want to avoid.

I do agree that some type of general power failure would make an interesting situation so I will give that some thought.

Steve
Posted by: Larac
« on: February 25, 2009, 03:01:25 PM »

To begin with perhaps use the Armor on a system to also help degrade the fire, and then a new Tech line for Fire Fighting/Fire Deterrents.

In space an easy way to stop a fire is of course starve it.

Between Selective venting and CO2 floods one should be able to control fires to some degree.

Of course CO2 is fairly easy to come by as a by product sort of from Humans, but systems would take room and mass always a trade off.

Most small craft and perhaps up to Destroyers would skip it and use a After Event system, but the really big stuff would be looking for all sorts of ways to stop it from starting in the first place.


Switching Topics
Been reading a lot of Ian Douglas as these are fleet battles things like Fires are ignored but implied. A good read though.

Is there a good author that focuses on a single warship, read  most of Weber, Drake, and others. But always looking for more.

Also read the Destroyer Men books about a US destroyer in another Earth, that was a good single ship focused even if wet Navy.

Thanks All
Lee
Posted by: IanD
« on: February 24, 2009, 01:39:20 PM »

The reason for the post was that is supported your position, 17% of your battle line exploding can seriously ruin your day! :o

Steve wrote
Quote
Before I work my way through the list, am I correct in assuming you haven't played the game yet, or at least haven't fought a battle, as many of these points are already covered within the game?
I have played the game, up to 3.1 but waiting for the features in 4.0 to start again. However you are right I have yet to find another race out there, even the ones I planted!

Quote
in Aurora, each engine on a ship is treated individually, as are individual reactors, and can be damaged independently.
I have lost the occasional engine to failed maintenance but the idea of a critical hit was to make the penalty somewhat more extreme, I supposed that if your engine compartment received the close attention of a nuclear warhead you might end up with a pile of slag rather than the remains of an engine you could repair. It also separated maintenance failures from battle damage.

Quote
There are not machinery spaces in Aurora
My assumption, since wet navy ships need a power plant and current ion engine designs all require an electricity supply. I thought they were "hidden" in the design, I didn't take into account Trans Newtonian physics!

Regards
Ian
Posted by: waresky
« on: February 24, 2009, 11:18:26 AM »

This posts r better than a Rules Book:)
Ive fought 2 only Capitals  (Cruiser Vs Cruisers,Pinnace,CLE,Destroyers,PDC Missiles platform)Battles (more same as skirmish than a real Naval heavy battle)