Recent Posts

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10
11
C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
« Last post by Jorgen_CAB on Today at 09:10:07 AM »
Do two empires at war automatically fight if their ground units are on the same planetary body? Back in VB6 Aurora you actually have to set your units to "Attack" otherwise they just stand there looking at the enemy (or defend themselves if the enemy sets their units to attack).

I hope we will get something similar in C#... you don't always want to engage ground troops in all locations during every type of wars. There should hopefully be that option.
12
Rules / Troop Tech
« Last post by Erik Luken on Today at 03:26:07 AM »
Does anyone recall why the bonuses to attack and defense under troop tech is limited explicitly to +1/+2 for the tech levels?

I know there was a reason, I just cannot recall. It's not in the changelogs, and a quick search here didn't enlighten me.
13
The Corporate Federation / Re: Corporate Federation - Comments
« Last post by TMaekler on Today at 03:23:36 AM »
And he is programming an even better AI for Skyn... C# Aurora  ;D
14
C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
« Last post by Rabid_Cog on Today at 02:07:04 AM »
Do two empires at war automatically fight if their ground units are on the same planetary body? Back in VB6 Aurora you actually have to set your units to "Attack" otherwise they just stand there looking at the enemy (or defend themselves if the enemy sets their units to attack).
15
Other Games / Re: StarLords3k
« Last post by dag0net on Yesterday at 09:44:58 PM »
srsly sexy, i <3 hitting buttons hoping i'm not bankrupting myself =)
16
The Great Crusade / Re: The Great Crusade - Discussion
« Last post by Vivalas on Yesterday at 07:34:39 PM »
Oh, neat.  I missed that.  It would be cool to eventually have the option to build "out" of the habitable zone at a colony cost corresponding to the temperature.
17
C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
« Last post by Jorgen_CAB on Yesterday at 05:44:56 PM »
I agree with Hazard here. We also have to remember that we're talking about combat on a planetary scale. Now it might just be a ten guys versus twenty tentacles on a planet the size of Jupiter, or it could be twenty million souls versus five billion death-machines on an asteroid, and so a mechanic should work and be reasonably "logical" in both cases.

The loophole that Jorgen_CAB brought up is, IMHO, not a loophole at all but a very valid tactic for an attacker to take when facing heavily fortified defenders, and that dilemma of sallying forth or remaining in the forts is a very real thing that has plagued human commanders through the history. But it doesn't make the attackers support/rear echelon units any more vulnerable.

I also agree with Jorgen on the tempo of planetary combat. There should be lulls and pauses where combat intensity goes down - not completely passive, as wars are never that, but no force can maintain maximum intensity forever.

You could represent this by setting your defensive line to passive by reducing the chances an element with actually do an attack during every 3 hour setting on both sides. You don't need to halt the conflict entirely. Whatever make sense and is easiest from a game mechanic perspective.

I do think that the potential way you can do it in the current iteration of the combat rules will require unnecessary micro and should be "fixed" since it is not intentional. Replace it with a way to reduce the tempo of the fighting. Sometimes you might just save on supplies for a  shipment of supplies to reach the planet or industry to produce it or something.

Especially when you role-play there can be many reasons for two sides to want to be throwing rocks at each other and never really engage their troops fully, just stall for time for some reason or just spare lives while diplomacy or some other conflict to resolve the issue.

Let's say I play a multi faction Earth and two factions go to war, perhaps they do not want to play out a full scale war on Earth and make it about a specific colony using mostly space marines and ships in the target system to deal with the conflict... I really think this is an important consideration.

There should be an easy mechanic to simulate this without having to micro units and shuffle them from front to support line.
18
C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
« Last post by Jorgen_CAB on Yesterday at 05:33:53 PM »
Even during the lulls in the trench warfare of WW1 with both sides licking their wounds there was a lot of active probing of enemy positions, infiltration, intelligence gathering, maintenance of the wire and mine fields and so on. And in earlier warfare there would still be skirmishing between the archers on the walls and besiegers' archers, trying to snipe at valuable targets or just putting pressure on the other side by the risk of casualties.

Rigid and immobile a defense may be, but it's rarely passive.

Passive forces eventually get attacked to see if they're weaker than expected.

Within the game mechanic that would be units set at Attacking Frontal Position... they would act like skirmishers in smaller numbers. So that would be well simulated in an abstract way.

You could very well have a few tank companies or similar keep harassing the enemy forces or some such.
19
The Great Crusade / Re: The Great Crusade - Discussion
« Last post by Sirce on Yesterday at 05:29:12 PM »
Some information about population capacity on tide-locked planets:

http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=8495.msg100078#msg100078

This is the C# Change list that Steve wrote.
20
The Great Crusade / Re: The Great Crusade - Discussion
« Last post by Vivalas on Yesterday at 04:58:58 PM »
The tide locked changes sound interesting.  How exactly is that handled by the game, and how does land mass affect population capacity and such?

Is there a certain area of land usable at low colony cost within the tide locked zone and when you go above a certain population would you then need infrastructure?
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10