Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10
21
Bureau of Ship Design / Re: SEW ship (Space Early Warning)
« Last post by Shiwanabe on June 15, 2018, 07:42:58 PM »
While I agree with what everyone else is saying, there's something else I noticed that might be more generally useful for you.

Rimfire S-1 Anti-missile Missile (340)  Speed: 69,100 km/s   End: 11.6m    Range: 48m km   WH: 1    Size: 1    TH: 322/193/96

This AMM is only accurate up to 9.4km/s targets.

While I can see the value in longer range AMMs, in this case you really need to reduce the fuel and give it a better engine and more agility. Personally I find ~2m km to be an adequate minimum range for AMMs, with 6-10m km being a more usual range. (Although, I just realised I tend to only make my missile sensors for 300-400k km. ><; )


Anyway, it's a good idea for a design and I hope you manage to get something that works in the role you envision. :)
22
C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Last post by the obelisk on June 15, 2018, 06:57:42 PM »
It is possible, but as stated:
1) If you want to prevent sieges, build more orbital defense stations. Especially if you are out-teched. Do not let the enemy close if at all possible. I don't get this complaint about being outranged. Before, you had PDCs. Now, you're going to have orbital bases. It is the very SAME thing. You can put on your orbital defense bases the same things you had in your PDCs. They are functionally identical. So... what exactly is the problem with orbital defense bases?
The fact that they aren't STO's.  This matters both because of how significant roleplay is to Aurora and because STO's are mechanically different from orbital bases, such as benefiting from fortification and using ground unit officers.
This can just as easily be turned against STO beams.  If Orbital Defense Stations being just like PDCs means we don't need STO missiles, then why do we need STO beams?  After all, you could just build Orbital Defense Stations with beams on them.

... And also, I will be blunt.  If you are out-teched and out-produced by an enemy who has a lot more ships than you, things ARE supposed to be hard. The state of the rules, as they should be, seem balanced enough for me.
It's not about things being hard, it's about having no response.  If the enemy out-ranges me with beam weapons, and I have no missiles, there is nothing I can do.  This is not the same as being out-ranged with missiles, where I at least have the ability to shoot at incoming missiles.  I understand that, too an extent, weapon failure is intended to deal with this, I feel that a mechanic which involves no player interaction is not a satisfying form of defense.
23
C# Aurora / Re: Jump Gate Construction/Destruction (split suggestions)
« Last post by QuakeIV on June 15, 2018, 05:44:13 PM »
I'd think bridges would be more along the lines of whole new jump points, this is more like paving a road.
24
C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Last post by QuakeIV on June 15, 2018, 05:37:20 PM »
I think the point is less 'its too hard' and more you cant do everything you aught to be able to, which is arficially inflating difficulty there.  IE shooting missiles to at least try to drive away beam warships.  Beam warships even with failures will be highly potent bombardment assets.

I am fully in favor of Steve not working on something if he thinks its going to be too much trouble, but surely it would be nice to have missiles for ground units if it were feasible to do so (and Id suppose that could become a thing one day).
25
C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Last post by Zincat on June 15, 2018, 03:38:07 PM »
I feel like it's worth pointing out that since in C# you'll be able to target planets with beam weapons, being outranged in beam tech is actually something to worry about.  Unless I'm misremembering how things will work, an enemy with longer range beams could park a beam ship just out of your range, and destroy your STO with its weaponry, with minimal damage to population and infrastructure.

It is possible, but as stated:
1) If you want to prevent sieges, build more orbital defense stations. Especially if you are out-teched. Do not let the enemy close if at all possible. I don't get this complaint about being outranged. Before, you had PDCs. Now, you're going to have orbital bases. It is the very SAME thing. You can put on your orbital defense bases the same things you had in your PDCs. They are functionally identical. So... what exactly is the problem with orbital defense bases?
2) As said by TCD, Steve's changes should mean that it's going to be very hard hitting troops who are heavily fortified and/or in rough terrain
3) As DEEPenergy said, failure rates. Supposedly, this constant bombardment will cost a TON of maintenance points, and cause a lot of failures. If this is combined to 2), that is if you're sieging a planet with rough terrain and a lot of fortified troops, it might take a long time and be very costly to bombard.
So it should all even out. And, once the orbital defenses have been destroyed, there should be a lot of situations where a ground invasion is just plain better.


... And also, I will be blunt.  If you are out-teched and out-produced by an enemy who has a lot more ships than you, things ARE supposed to be hard. The state of the rules, as they should be, seem balanced enough for me.

If instead the place being attacked is an out-of-the-way planet and your forces are somewhere else, it's a case of being caught with your pants down.

And even more important, Steve did these changes to hit chances from orbit and to failure rates specifically to address these possible issues. Which means that if the numbers are not balanced, I imagine he will tinker with them until they are. I understand that a lot of mechanics are going to be very different and that can cause disconcert... but there's no need to be preemptively pessimistic in my opinion.
26
C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Last post by DEEPenergy on June 15, 2018, 02:24:13 PM »
Weapons have failure rates now as well, to prevent that
27
C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Last post by TCD on June 15, 2018, 01:05:08 PM »
By the way, you're mistaking the purpose of STO ground units here. As Persona012345 said, their purpose is: The enemy can either glass the planet at long range (if they can get past your PD), at the cost of most of its infrastructure and population.
Or try to conquer it with its infrastructure still present, a fact that is hard to accomplish because planetary assault is harsh.
And if you're behind in tech, tough luck. Build more orbital missile bases.
I feel like it's worth pointing out that since in C# you'll be able to target planets with beam weapons, being outranged in beam tech is actually something to worry about.  Unless I'm misremembering how things will work, an enemy with longer range beams could park a beam ship just out of your range, and destroy your STO with its weaponry, with minimal damage to population and infrastructure.
Yes, but I think its a bit more complicated than that because of the new terrain modifier rules. On a flat grassland planet then being outranged is a major worry, but on a mountain or jungle world it will be very difficult for a ship to successfully hit your SFO.
28
C# Aurora / Re: Jump Gate Construction/Destruction (split suggestions)
« Last post by Darkminion on June 15, 2018, 01:00:02 PM »
@Darkminion Your analogy pretty much breaks down that a bridge is way, way more expensive than a ferry. I don't saw anyone arguing that JGs were underpowered.

I apologize if my post was construed in that manner, it was not my intention. Gates were compared to bridges as they are static infrastructure that allow movement across JPs without anything additional being required. They are good for established routes and take time to build. I do not believe adding a component cost to these would improve anything for the player. I personally feel they should take a longer investment of time to complete as they stand right now. I also feel that they should be destructible/removable as they are an invulnerable strategic object in their current VB6 form and adding this would provide a simple addition to gameplay which can have far reaching effects. Again the bridge analogy comes into play here as they are similar in a few regards and how I view/use them personally. They are strategic objects which facilitate movement, their construction or de(con)struction effects the freedom of that movement.

29
C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Last post by the obelisk on June 15, 2018, 12:24:01 PM »
By the way, you're mistaking the purpose of STO ground units here. As Persona012345 said, their purpose is: The enemy can either glass the planet at long range (if they can get past your PD), at the cost of most of its infrastructure and population.
Or try to conquer it with its infrastructure still present, a fact that is hard to accomplish because planetary assault is harsh.
And if you're behind in tech, tough luck. Build more orbital missile bases.
I feel like it's worth pointing out that since in C# you'll be able to target planets with beam weapons, being outranged in beam tech is actually something to worry about.  Unless I'm misremembering how things will work, an enemy with longer range beams could park a beam ship just out of your range, and destroy your STO with its weaponry, with minimal damage to population and infrastructure.
30
C# Aurora / Re: Jump Gate Construction/Destruction (split suggestions)
« Last post by QuakeIV on June 15, 2018, 12:21:08 PM »
Well, you can't leave it there forever.  You need to keep it supplied with MSP and eventually it will need an overhaul.  There is no way to automate any of that.  Yes you can make super long maint life ships, but you will also need to periodically upgrade the things as you get bigger ships and shipyards, so I would argue that point is moot.  If you have like sixty jump points then the overhead of continually doing that can get kindof tedious.

e:  I suppose you might generally play with all the maintenance stuff turned off, generally I don't because that removes a gigantic aspect of warfare that is trying to supply your ships.  That is by far the main limiting factor preventing someone from just churning out a potentially infinitely large fleet, and supply lines are also a huge potential warfare mechanic.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10