Aurora Inspired Game

[niflheimr]

I'll check it out tomorrow after my exam , from what I'm reading it sounds interesting - and beta testing always helps

[iemfi (OP)]

Hmm, could be because of the texture size I used.   Could you try this version instead? hxxp: www. mediafire. com/?khbu9g646h5ebjd

[Nathan_]

Ok that works. Clicking on the name of a fleet in the fleet menu causes a crash, actually clicking anywhere in there seems to do it. Other than that(and the hordes of dead people in the event log that keep setting the speed back to 1x) it looks really neat.

[iemfi (OP)]

Thanks for testing it! Oh smeg, just noticed the hoarde of dead people dying a million deaths, guess they have a lifespan of a fruit fly now  . 

Any ideas/comments on the whole ship/module design aspect of it?

[Nathan_]

Haven't looked at that yet, though I believe that the simpler it is the better.

[alex_brunius]

Hmm, problem is that all ships are flat like pancakes since the ship design is purely 2D.  I guess we could just have all the ships 1m tall and calculate hit chance based on area of circle but I think that would make the numbers come up all strange?

I think it would be better to assume an arbitrary relationship instead. Lets say we assume all ships are five times as long as they are tall.

So the side area is always equal to [Length * ( Length / 5 )]

This does promote building very short ships that are wide however, so to limit that exploit you probably should change it to be Length or Width, whichever is greater.

This leads to the optimal ship shape being a flatter version of a borg cube



When calculating the stats/output of different size modules you could also use volume scale instead of area scale, basically assuming a bigger module is bigger in all 3 dimensions instead of just the 2 we can see.

This means a 3x3 power module actually can output 27 times as much power as a 1x1 (since we calculate it 3x3x3 versus 1x1x1). This change would have to affect all stats (weight, cost, crew and so on).

This simplifies game design alot since we can build the ship in 2D but have it perform like a ship in 3D would.
But it also promotes using fewer big modules instead of many small ones (since the smaller ones are not stack-able in Z dimension).


Combined with the above it assumes your average ship is 5 modules long (or wide).

[alex_brunius]

Ship / Module design: Mostly working.   Need ideas on game play here though.  
I'll use a railgun module as an example:
Projectile damage: Number of railgun core modules.  
Projectile Speed: Number of accelerator modules.  
I'm thinking terminals would provide a 100% increase on each of the surrounding tiles.   Terminals need to be manned by crew, and crew need armour between them and the outside of the ship.   This isn't implemented yet.   I'm worried it won't lead to very fun game play.   Any ideas on a fun system which requires thought in design while still allowing room for creativity would be much appreciated.   So far this whole aspect has been very disappointing.   Also I'm drowning in a huge mess of numbers, I think I really need to plan it out in excel first or something.  

Neat, did you play FTL? (Thinking of terminal manned by crew inspiration). Perhaps every large module also has one or a few terminals on one or two of it's sides so you need to turn them towards the inside /corridors of the ship?

(I am assuming most later modules you design like engines/powerplant/fuel tanks would be bigger then 1x1).

Do you intend to also model crew running around fighting fires, repairing modules and plugging holes or actual boarding party combat like in FTL?

Then you would need to design ships with air-tight / divided compartments to not lose everything in case of a major hull breach.

It would be very hard or at least very resource intensive to get it to work well in a strategic/grand setting similar to aurora though (many ships with hundreds or thousands of crew each). But I think it could be great fun for the earlier phases of fairly realistic Newtonian exploration (few smaller ships with crew 2-15 men).

[iemfi (OP)]

This leads to the optimal ship shape being a flatter version of a borg cube

That is exactly the problem I'm having with the whole ship design thing.  The problem with the volume scale, shortest length thing, and damage having to work it's way in from outer tiles is that it's just going to turn into cube building simulator 2013.    Which is probably realistic but not very fun. . .

One idea to combat this I have is heat dissipation.  In real life the amount of usable energy you can get from power generation would depend on heat dissipation, the maximum ship power generation would be tied to it's surface area.  The problem is that it could just change it from cube building simulator to "cube with fins" building simulator. . .

Another thing which could help combat it is the damage model.  A laser cutting a cube ship in 2 would be a lot more devastating than said laser loping off an unimportant section of the ship.  But weapons which do damage in an area would have the opposite effect. 

I'm thinking instead of encouraging 3x3 modules to have patterns provide bonuses.  For example having the modules in a cross shape would be the most effective.  The problem is coming up with an intuitive system which isn't too complicated yet leaves room for creativity. 

Neat, did you play FTL? (Thinking of terminal manned by crew inspiration).  Perhaps every large module also has one or a few terminals on one or two of it's sides so you need to turn them towards the inside /corridors of the ship?

(I am assuming most later modules you design like engines/powerplant/fuel tanks would be bigger then 1x1).

Do you intend to also model crew running around fighting fires, repairing modules and plugging holes or actual boarding party combat like in FTL?

Then you would need to design ships with air-tight / divided compartments to not lose everything in case of a major hull breach.

It would be very hard or at least very resource intensive to get it to work well in a strategic/grand setting similar to aurora though (many ships with hundreds or thousands of crew each).  But I think it could be great fun for the earlier phases of fairly realistic Newtonian exploration (few smaller ships with crew 2-15 men).

Yes I actually have the code for checking air-tightness done already, FTL style crew running around and all that would be nice but for now I'm just going for a simple version of it.  Crew basically just assumed to be where they're supposed to be, crew member dies if terminal he is manning is exposed to vacuum, no boarding, or other cool stuff.  All this actually makes the "cube is best design" problem even worse though. 

[alex_brunius]

That is exactly the problem I'm having with the whole ship design thing.  The problem with the volume scale, shortest length thing, and damage having to work it's way in from outer tiles is that it's just going to turn into cube building simulator 2013.   Which is probably realistic but not very fun. . .

Depends how you envision it working. The way I see it the reason we envisions ships and rockets as pointy is thanks to sea or air drag slowing cube things down.

That is not really acceptable though in space, at least not when you build ships in orbital space shipyards. Perhaps in a game where you build them on the ground and they get prohibitively expensive to launch unless they are pointy it could work.

But what can be done to promote the same behavior is to promote small frontal areas/ cross sections for other reasons.

Some possible other reasons:

* Minimize chance to hit debris/junk/asteroids
* Minimize area to be hit when going straight towards or away from an enemy (requires directional damage model).
* Building time scaling with minimal width, since a cube would take much longer time to build (layer by layer) then a long craft you can build in sections.

Or a combination of:
* Lowtech Reactor / Radiation concerns (reactor in the back, heavy lead in the middle and crew in the front). Small cross-section needed to minimize heavy lead needed.
* High tech FTL/Other propulsion Technobabble reasons.

I'm thinking instead of encouraging 3x3 modules to have patterns provide bonuses.  For example having the modules in a cross shape would be the most effective.  The problem is coming up with an intuitive system which isn't too complicated yet leaves room for creativity.  

Perhaps something like supreme commander? I really loved how they made synergies between  storage - production - usage of resources.

Basically you wanted a powerplant to be surrounded by energy storage to maximize efficiency bonus. And for example a shield array got a bonus if all sides are adjacent to power generation. So you could end up with shield in the middle - powerplants around it and energy storage in layer 3.

Not sure what resources and bonuses can be applied to a space game besides energy, but perhaps CPU, crew terminals (as you said) and coolant.

Crew basically just assumed to be where they're supposed to be, crew member dies if terminal he is manning is exposed to vacuum, no boarding, or other cool stuff.  All this actually makes the "cube is best design" problem even worse though.  

Remember that spaceships (designed for combat) would probably work like submarines though, so for every station you have 3 crew rotating 8 hour shifts. This is also because of redundancy even if someone dies or get sick there are at least two others that can take over the job.




Speaking of expensive launches, Something I really miss in Aurora is a good early model for the $ per ton cost to bring things into orbit. Most agrees that this is the number one thing holding our current space exploration back, and many different projects, ideas and theories exist to reduce this cost before real large scale space exploration and exploitation can start.

There could be various level of detail to model both infrastructure capacity (how many tons / month our current rocket/shuttle infrastructure and production can launch), and the cost of launches in fuel and cash.

[iemfi (OP)]

* Building time scaling with minimal width, since a cube would take much longer time to build (layer by layer) then a long craft you can build in sections.

Oooh, that's a great idea. I think I'll do that. Will probably try for a directional damage model too.

Perhaps something like supreme commander? I really loved how they made synergies between  storage - production - usage of resources.

Basically you wanted a powerplant to be surrounded by energy storage to maximize efficiency bonus. And for example a shield array got a bonus if all sides are adjacent to power generation. So you could end up with shield in the middle - powerplants around it and energy storage in layer 3.

Not sure what resources and bonuses can be applied to a space game besides energy, but perhaps CPU, crew terminals (as you said) and coolant.

If you look at the modules already inside there are so many already I don't even know where to start ><

Remember that spaceships (designed for combat) would probably work like submarines though, so for every station you have 3 crew rotating 8 hour shifts. This is also because of redundancy even if someone dies or get sick there are at least two others that can take over the job.

I envision crew as being a mix of AIs and mind uploaded people. Seems like the way reality is going and also doesn't run into any physics problems. Physical bodies would just be tools.

Speaking of expensive launches, Something I really miss in Aurora is a good early model for the $ per ton cost to bring things into orbit. Most agrees that this is the number one thing holding our current space exploration back, and many different projects, ideas and theories exist to reduce this cost before real large scale space exploration and exploitation can start. I suspect the game is already too complicated

There could be various level of detail to model both infrastructure capacity (how many tons / month our current rocket/shuttle infrastructure and production can launch), and the cost of launches in fuel and cash.

I think it's actually not that bad if we actually tackled the problem properly. The star tram for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StarTram would be able to launch stuff for dirt cheap and be limited mostly by energy requirements. I think I'll keep track of energy requirements, simple mass * height * gravity. Energy will be the universal currency for everything more or less.

[3_14159]

Wouldn't the need for heat dissipation discourage cubes, at least for warships? Let's say, for example, that your powerplant produces 500 heat units each second, and during each time step, heat is dissipated from a module to the neighbours at a rate of one fortieth the difference in temperature. So, for example: You have a power plant in the middle of a 9x9 cube of non-heat producing modules. You gain an equilibrium at over 7500 heat units in the power plant. So, if you need to keep the temperature of components under a certain heat you may fail to do so with a cube.
Add in specially-conducting modules, and you have the choice of either using more of them or exposing your heat-generating modules.

Additionally, why not require several modules to be on the outside for them to be usable? For example, missile launchers should be on the hull's edge (and magazines beside them), just as energy weapons. The sensor's sensor part, too.

And, lastly, would it be possible for modules to have different sizes? For example, a big, spinal mount railgun with something like 200x5 spaces.

[alex_brunius]

Additionally, why not require several modules to be on the outside for them to be usable? For example, missile launchers should be on the hull's edge (and magazines beside them), just as energy weapons. The sensor's sensor part, too.

Yeah that I agree with.

The weakness of any big ship IMO should be it's exposed areas like sensors, propulsion (propeller with ship, jet exhaust with spaceships) and weaponry. Some weaponry can be mostly armored (turrets), but most sensors can't since their very nature is to catch and/or send signals and big ass metal plating tends to not go well with that!

So I would very much love a ship design that reflects this where you need to put some things totally outside the armor layers to work at all (antennas/sensors), and some things need to at least be in contact with space like jet/matter exhaust for conventional propulsion (these could still have a long armored exhaust pipes and have engines be located mid ship).

[3_14159]

Actually, why not make armour another system? You need to place armour (which is a pretty bad heat conductor) on the outside of your ship - or you can place it on the inside. For example, armour your reactor stronger, or don't armour the magazines...

[iemfi (OP)]

Thanks for all the input so far guys, been really helpful. Have you guys tried the prototype? Any further thoughts on it?

Add in specially-conducting modules, and you have the choice of either using more of them or exposing your heat-generating modules.

Hmm, I like the idea of specially-conducting modules. I guess I'll have to implement a heat system then .

Additionally, why not require several modules to be on the outside for them to be usable? For example, missile launchers should be on the hull's edge (and magazines beside them), just as energy weapons. The sensor's sensor part, too.

Hmm, I guess missile launchers, fixed beam weapons, and sensors could be forced to the edges. Turreted weapons can remain in the center.

And, lastly, would it be possible for modules to have different sizes? For example, a big, spinal mount railgun with something like 200x5 spaces.

Yes, the idea is that a module is a collection of tiles. The attributes of the module would come from the number/combination of tiles used.

Actually, why not make armour another system? You need to place armour (which is a pretty bad heat conductor) on the outside of your ship - or you can place it on the inside. For example, armour your reactor stronger, or don't armour the magazines...

Yes, armour is just another tile type and should form all the bulkheads as well.

[alex_brunius]

Yes, armour is just another tile type and should form all the bulkheads as well.

You could have different versions of it to enable heavily armored ships without 15+ tiles thick layer around your ship.

For example:

Thickness 1 - Bulkhead, can transfer 3X energy/data/coolant/lifesupport/...
Thickness 2 - Reinforced Bulkhead, can transfer 2X energy/data/coolant/lifesupport/...
Thickness 3 - Armored Bulkhead, can transfer X energy/data/coolant/lifesupport/...
Thickness 4 - Outer Hull, no transfer
Thickness 5 - Reinforced Hull, no transfer
Thickness 6 - Armored Hull, no transfer
Thickness 7 - Dense Armored Hull, no transfer

If each tile is supposed to represent a bigger area such as 2x2 meters or more, you probably want to combine lighter bulkhead variants and crew corridors/access paths in a single tile.