Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Last post by TCD on Today at 08:06:30 AM »
I think the new system looks very good on paper. Just needs testing to make sure of the details.

Having the choice between glassing a planet, cutting it off to wither away, or committing to a massive invasion are logical and sensible choices when it comes to heavily defended worlds. Remember that such worlds well be rare - nobody will have the resources and time to fortify and garrison each colony to the maximum.
Although one benefit of the switch from PDCs to STOs is that planetary defenses will be much more mobile in C#, so it will be easier to consolidate defense on a particular strategic system. I guess there will be a lot more decisions about whether you can ignore a fortress world at a choke point to raid deeper into enemy space, or if exposing supply and reinforcement lines like that will come back to bite you. It could be a big boost for fighters as they can take cover on such a planet. Much more difficult to side step a fortress world if you know its hiding squadrons of deep space bombers.
2
C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Last post by Garfunkel on Today at 07:40:27 AM »
I think the new system looks very good on paper. Just needs testing to make sure of the details.

Having the choice between glassing a planet, cutting it off to wither away, or committing to a massive invasion are logical and sensible choices when it comes to heavily defended worlds. Remember that such worlds well be rare - nobody will have the resources and time to fortify and garrison each colony to the maximum.
3
C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Last post by Whitecold on Today at 05:38:14 AM »
Nope, just like the speed advantage, IIRC ECM only drops the chances to hit by a percentage. You could still get hit, it's just notably less likely. Having both a speed advantage and an ECM advantage would greatly lower the chances of getting hit and destroyed though.
ECM is subtracted, unlike pretty much every other modifier, making it quite strong, especially in regard to the new missile ECM system
4
C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Last post by Jorgen_CAB on Today at 04:17:42 AM »
Now I'm wondering how practical a 500ton fighter with both drop pods and weapon pods would be. Drop the troops off and then stick around providing fire support. Sort of like a Mechwarrior dropship.

I wonder if there's any chance fighters will auto-deploy ground units when transitioning from space to ground support.

Such a fighter wouldn't be very practical. You'd be better off with the cheaper troop transport bays, since 500 ton fighters can land and should be able to deploy their troops fast enough. After that you've got basically a gunship/transport hybrid like the Hind. It'd probably be more effective if you used specialized fighters for the roles in question. A big, wallowing 500 ton fighter that has devoted something like a major chunk of its mass towards doing something other than it's doing now is much easier a target than 5 100 tonish fighters with more guns and armour, or a 500 ton transport that has dedicated the mass that would be a gunship's weapons to armour instead.

Speed alone doesn't allow total invincibility, but it may when coupled with ECM.

Nope, just like the speed advantage, IIRC ECM only drops the chances to hit by a percentage. You could still get hit, it's just notably less likely. Having both a speed advantage and an ECM advantage would greatly lower the chances of getting hit and destroyed though.

If and when (I believe he will at some point) Steve add a transport capability to infantry such fighter types can stay in support as a mechanised tool for manoeuvring infantry and pretty much everything on the planet. I mean the strategic and even tactical possibilities on the planet should be quite obvious to everyone. These ships should not just be about moving troops to the ground, they should be used in combat as well on the planet as support elements.

The same with planet bound vehicles for moving slower units such as infantry and static forces around.
5
C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Last post by Jorgen_CAB on Today at 04:11:15 AM »
In my opinion it will be about a good mix of speed, ECM and armour for bringing troops to the ground.

If you build your Assault carriers properly they would enter into the combat zone and drop off the invading drop ship roughly half way and retreat back out to safety. Your drops ships would use high enough speed to avoid most slow firing heavy weapons and good enough armour to withstand the shooting of the smaller faster weapons. You will likely suffer some losses but that should be expected against a well fortified world.

I hope we will see things like missile silos/bases that can be used from the ground against ships in space as well as ground to space cannons. But there should be some advantages to bases in space as to having them on the ground or you will never build military space stations around populated planets.
6
C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Last post by Hazard on Today at 04:07:08 AM »
Now I'm wondering how practical a 500ton fighter with both drop pods and weapon pods would be. Drop the troops off and then stick around providing fire support. Sort of like a Mechwarrior dropship.

I wonder if there's any chance fighters will auto-deploy ground units when transitioning from space to ground support.

Such a fighter wouldn't be very practical. You'd be better off with the cheaper troop transport bays, since 500 ton fighters can land and should be able to deploy their troops fast enough. After that you've got basically a gunship/transport hybrid like the Hind. It'd probably be more effective if you used specialized fighters for the roles in question. A big, wallowing 500 ton fighter that has devoted something like a major chunk of its mass towards doing something other than it's doing now is much easier a target than 5 100 tonish fighters with more guns and armour, or a 500 ton transport that has dedicated the mass that would be a gunship's weapons to armour instead.

Speed alone doesn't allow total invincibility, but it may when coupled with ECM.

Nope, just like the speed advantage, IIRC ECM only drops the chances to hit by a percentage. You could still get hit, it's just notably less likely. Having both a speed advantage and an ECM advantage would greatly lower the chances of getting hit and destroyed though.
7
C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Last post by Whitecold on Today at 03:11:33 AM »
That's impossible. Tracking speed is a modifier on the accuracy rolls. Even if you go 10 times as fast as the tracking speed you'll still have 1/10th the chance of getting hit compared to something right at the limit of the weapon in question IIRC.

Speed alone doesn't allow total invincibility, but it may when coupled with ECM.
This makes a pretty compelling case that you should be allowed to make independent fire control units with fire controls of your own design. A x2 or even x4 speed modifier will likely put an end to any dreams of invincibility, and turreted weapons may also be useful for point defense applications.
8
C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Last post by Iranon on Today at 01:50:37 AM »
That's impossible. Tracking speed is a modifier on the accuracy rolls. Even if you go 10 times as fast as the tracking speed you'll still have 1/10th the chance of getting hit compared to something right at the limit of the weapon in question IIRC.

Speed alone doesn't allow total invincibility, but it may when coupled with ECM.
9
C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Last post by Bremen on Today at 01:36:16 AM »
That's impossible. Tracking speed is a modifier on the accuracy rolls. Even if you go 10 times as fast as the tracking speed you'll still have 1/10th the chance of getting hit compared to something right at the limit of the weapon in question IIRC.

That said, I'd expect that FACs and fighters of 500 tons and less will be common designs for getting troops on the ground, or other, fast moving craft with drop pods, but those have the disadvantage of needing to get back out, while landed ships can stay grounded and hope they aren't overrun.


It'd be nice if we could have some way of performing the sort of special operations mission against planetary defense cannons like there were against coastal defense cannons in previous wars. It doesn't fit the current system design for ground combat though.

Now I'm wondering how practical a 500ton fighter with both drop pods and weapon pods would be. Drop the troops off and then stick around providing fire support. Sort of like a Mechwarrior dropship.

I wonder if there's any chance fighters will auto-deploy ground units when transitioning from space to ground support.
10
C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Last post by Kytuzian on Yesterday at 07:44:27 PM »
Well, espionage teams are already in the game.  I haven't heard much about how they'll be affected in C# though.   If they're kept mostly as-is, it could just be a matter of giving them the ability to temporarily disable defensive emplacements, or knock out fire control/sensor stations to make an assault easier.

Espionage teams have been removed from the game. Not sure how to link to the exact post but you can just search the last page of the change list thread, it's in the post about the new ELINT system.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10