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: MarcAFK
« on: February 08, 2019, 07:07:51 PM »

Gas giants can't be colonised at all, so the habitat and recreational facilities are useless as well as the terraforming.
Posted by: sublight
« on: February 08, 2019, 02:53:38 PM »

Fuel harvesters only work at gas giants, which can't be terraformed. It would be more efficient to have a dedicated design each for Jupiter and Venus than to use the same class in both places. Also storage for a thousand years of fuel harvesting capacity is probably excessive.
Posted by: xenoscepter
« on: February 08, 2019, 12:19:12 AM »

Well, I'mma go ahead and post a design that currently I'm using. Here it is:

Code: [Select]
Kongo class Orbital Habitat    1,194,850 tons     2417 Crew     36425.2 BP      TCS 23897  TH 0  EM 0
1 km/s     Armour 1-1003     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 10     PPV 0
MSP 191    Max Repair 500 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 36 months    Spare Berths 5   
Cargo 5000    Habitation Capacity 100,000   
Recreational Facilities
Fuel Harvester: 10 modules producing 400000 litres per annum
Terraformer: 2 module(s) producing 0.002 atm per annum

Fuel Capacity 400,000,000 Litres    Range N/A

This design is classed as a Commercial Vessel for maintenance purposes
This design is classed as an Orbital Habitat for construction purposes

It needs a tug boat, though, so here's that:


Code: [Select]
Akagi class Tug    13,350 tons     120 Crew     790.4 BP      TCS 267  TH 1200  EM 0
4494 km/s     Armour 1-50     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 1     PPV 0
MSP 37    Max Repair 100 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 24 months    Spare Berths 18   
Tractor Beam     

StarTech Systems Model A (4)    Power 300    Fuel Use 8.84%    Signature 300    Exp 5%
Fuel Capacity 2,000,000 Litres    Range 305.0 billion km   (785 days at full power)

This design is classed as a Commercial Vessel for maintenance purposes

 - The Kongo-Class is actually my Awayhome-Class Habitat that I was too lazy to rename. My current plan is to tug a pair of 'em; one to Venus and one to Jupiter, then colonize Luna and Mars with actual settlements. This is Ion Engine Tech w/ Composite Armor. Five spare berths for an away team on the Awayhome-Class. It's frankly just an over-glorified fuel harvester with two Recreational Facilities and two Orbital Habitats. The RP for this is it was designed as a "city in space" with the recreational areas serving as a "commercial district" and the Orbital Habitat serving as both housing district and industrial district; the industrial district being supplemented by the ten Sorium Harvesters to create "jobs" The Akagi-Class is just a tug, I only plan to have one... I don't really like using tugs, as I'd much rather eat the maintenance and have some sensors and other niceties, but for a freakin million ton (plus!) ship? I'll tug it thanks...
Posted by: MarcAFK
« on: February 07, 2019, 08:39:14 PM »

I triedt hat, its not possible, you can even try making it 90% engineering spaces and maintenance modules but you just end up with something which breaks the game.
Posted by: Gabethebaldandbold
« on: February 07, 2019, 02:52:45 PM »

One solution to the maintenance load of orbital habitat monstrosities is to have cheap systems and systems that don't fail.

An orbital habitat that is mostly hangar, engineering, maintenance supplies, magazines and perhaps bulk basic railguns is going to have a lot of systems that can't fail, and a lot that are simply cheap to fix.

But that means is isn't the juggernaut of death either.  I would be concerned about aggressively using an orbital habitat in combat where it takes any damage because the Orbital Hab part is likely to fail, and because the way the check for ship destruction works, if the damage keeps attempting to apply to a destroyed system that can destroy the ship.  A ship with a giant hole in a middle is more fragile than one without it.

An orbital habitat that generally only entered missile range might be better, because it could have a huge concentration of point defense, and shields to shrug off leakers (or missiles with ECM or laser heads).  And because it won't encounter mesons, the classic Giant Killer weapon.
or you can put 20% engineering spaces, make it carry 50000 maintenece supplies, and give it 2000-3000 shield points. at which point its basically the Deathstar and since this game has no magic space wizards, its actually indestructible. (assuming you put a decent quantity of guns in it of course).
Posted by: Michael Sandy
« on: February 03, 2019, 01:31:40 PM »

One solution to the maintenance load of orbital habitat monstrosities is to have cheap systems and systems that don't fail.

An orbital habitat that is mostly hangar, engineering, maintenance supplies, magazines and perhaps bulk basic railguns is going to have a lot of systems that can't fail, and a lot that are simply cheap to fix.

But that means is isn't the juggernaut of death either.  I would be concerned about aggressively using an orbital habitat in combat where it takes any damage because the Orbital Hab part is likely to fail, and because the way the check for ship destruction works, if the damage keeps attempting to apply to a destroyed system that can destroy the ship.  A ship with a giant hole in a middle is more fragile than one without it.

An orbital habitat that generally only entered missile range might be better, because it could have a huge concentration of point defense, and shields to shrug off leakers (or missiles with ECM or laser heads).  And because it won't encounter mesons, the classic Giant Killer weapon.
Posted by: MarcAFK
« on: February 01, 2019, 11:38:47 PM »

But any military ship with a habitat ends up with an unmanagable mauintenence load. Every time I've tried it just isn't useful at all.
Posted by: The Forbidden
« on: February 01, 2019, 12:19:07 PM »

If you are building a platform with construction factories, it cannot have military components. Otherwise, it can have anything a ship can have.
Oh wait that exploit has been fixed in VB6 ?

It is a change in rules rather than fixing the VB6 rules:

http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=8495.msg106780#msg106780

Yes. But the change itself is in C#. It's still possible to build outrageously huge warships with habitats for fun and candy in VB6.

Yes, sorry - assumed this was a C# question :)

No need to apologise, it's normal to assume that since a lot of people (including me) are constantly bombarding you with questions over C# Aurora.
Posted by: Steve Walmsley
« on: February 01, 2019, 07:47:12 AM »

If you are building a platform with construction factories, it cannot have military components. Otherwise, it can have anything a ship can have.
Oh wait that exploit has been fixed in VB6 ?

It is a change in rules rather than fixing the VB6 rules:

http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=8495.msg106780#msg106780

Yes. But the change itself is in C#. It's still possible to build outrageously huge warships with habitats for fun and candy in VB6.

Yes, sorry - assumed this was a C# question :)
Posted by: The Forbidden
« on: February 01, 2019, 07:31:15 AM »

If you are building a platform with construction factories, it cannot have military components. Otherwise, it can have anything a ship can have.
Oh wait that exploit has been fixed in VB6 ?

It is a change in rules rather than fixing the VB6 rules:

http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=8495.msg106780#msg106780

Yes. But the change itself is in C#. It's still possible to build outrageously huge warships with habitats for fun and candy in VB6.
Posted by: Steve Walmsley
« on: February 01, 2019, 07:04:43 AM »

If you are building a platform with construction factories, it cannot have military components. Otherwise, it can have anything a ship can have.
Oh wait that exploit has been fixed in VB6 ?

It is a change in rules rather than fixing the VB6 rules:

http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=8495.msg106780#msg106780
Posted by: The Forbidden
« on: February 01, 2019, 06:57:28 AM »

is there any idea for a military orbital platform? any layout

If you are building a platform with construction factories, it cannot have military components. Otherwise, it can have anything a ship can have.

Oh wait that exploit has been fixed in VB6 ?
Posted by: Steve Walmsley
« on: January 31, 2019, 09:35:50 AM »

is there any idea for a military orbital platform? any layout

If you are building a platform with construction factories, it cannot have military components. Otherwise, it can have anything a ship can have.
Posted by: The Forbidden
« on: January 31, 2019, 09:30:23 AM »

is there any idea for a military orbital platform? any layout

There's a thread on a Super-Dreadnought made with an in-built habitat (it basically creates a colony wherever it wants shore leave, and it can be built by industry). Otherwise military orbital platforms are essentially engine-less ships, with less concern for maintenance if you're above a planet that can sustain it. That means more weapons per tonnage (as the engines take quite a bit of space) but of course it can't move on it's own (You can make it self-propelled but it'll have to be slow otherwise it'll negate it's weaponry advantage), meaning turrets and you can't dodge.
Posted by: Rayuke
« on: July 17, 2018, 10:06:30 PM »

is there any idea for a military orbital platform? any layout