C# Aurora Changes Discussion

[Whitecold]

That Conversation was in Suggestions, this is the Discussion thread.

where it belongs... as the suggestion was made some time ago and all the other posts (including mine) are more or less discussion or counter-suggestions... maybe a mod could move them here to clean the suggestion thread ... a new thread for the topic wouldn't be bad idea either...

There should not be too much discussion in the suggestions thread anyway, since Steve uses it to my knowledge as a log of suggestions, and too much discussions is just more work to look through and find the actual suggestions.

[Jorgen_CAB]

That Conversation was in Suggestions, this is the Discussion thread.

My bad... was reading that at the same time... problem when you have many windows open in your browser at the same time. 

[Steve Walmsley]

Hey, Steve, in the new screenshots of your test campaign there is are two checkboxes: Design ground forces and Design ships. Is that like the VB6 one, where it's just starting designs, or does that keep making designs throughout the game as you get tech?

Just at the start

[sloanjh (OP)]

That Conversation was in Suggestions, this is the Discussion thread.

My bad... was reading that at the same time... problem when you have many windows open in your browser at the same time. 

Ah - but it was a good bad   Per the comments above, it's better not to discuss in the suggestions (or bugs) thread(s) but instead to break the discussion out to a separate thread and put a link in the suggestions thread. 

John

[Bremen]

Re: Cheaper engine performance techs.

Thinking about it, while it's a buff to missiles (since the player can now choose freely between the range/performance they would have had at that tech or new, shorter range/higher performance missiles), I think it buffs them in an interesting way. Previously it was almost always correct to go with maximum performance unless making a specifically long range missile, with the reduced missile fuel efficiency in the new version + this change I think there will be more room for tradeoffs between longer range, cruise-style missiles and high performance, short range "rocket" type missiles.

One of my complaints about missile vs beam balance was that the ranges were so different that they were essentially incomparable as weapons - if the enemy was shooting missiles at 100 million kilometers (not uncommon at even medium tech levels) then it didn't matter if you were twice as fast as they were - it would take hours to close to beam range, and all that mattered is if you could survive until their magazines were empty.

Now, if the choice is between missiles with a range of 50 mkm and 30,000 km/s speed, or missiles with a range of 5 mkm, 40,000 km/s speed, and 25% bigger warheads, there's more room for tactics. Possibly a sort of rock paper scissors where cruise missiles beat rockets (range) which beat beams (can overwhelm beam PD) which beat cruise missiles (beams PD shooting down the slower missiles), but also possibly more complex tactics, like trying to run down missile ships before they can unload their magazines. I look forward to seeing the results.

[Steve Walmsley]

Re: Cheaper engine performance techs.

Thinking about it, while it's a buff to missiles (since the player can now choose freely between the range/performance they would have had at that tech or new, shorter range/higher performance missiles), I think it buffs them in an interesting way. Previously it was almost always correct to go with maximum performance unless making a specifically long range missile, with the reduced missile fuel efficiency in the new version + this change I think there will be more room for tradeoffs between longer range, cruise-style missiles and high performance, short range "rocket" type missiles.

One of my complaints about missile vs beam balance was that the ranges were so different that they were essentially incomparable as weapons - if the enemy was shooting missiles at 100 million kilometers (not uncommon at even medium tech levels) then it didn't matter if you were twice as fast as they were - it would take hours to close to beam range, and all that mattered is if you could survive until their magazines were empty.

Now, if the choice is between missiles with a range of 50 mkm and 30,000 km/s speed, or missiles with a range of 5 mkm, 40,000 km/s speed, and 25% bigger warheads, there's more room for tactics. Possibly a sort of rock paper scissors where cruise missiles beat rockets (range) which beat beams (can overwhelm beam PD) which beat cruise missiles (beams PD shooting down the slower missiles), but also possibly more complex tactics, like trying to run down missile ships before they can unload their magazines. I look forward to seeing the results.

I'm just starting to play with missile designs for the player race in the new test campaigns. The new fuel consumption definitely makes a difference. I have juggled warhead, engine and fuel and a few times. It is a ion-tech missile with max boost of 4x normal but even with 20% fuel the range is only 31m km. I have 50% engine, 30% warhead and 20% fuel. Fuel is now a serious consideration so the cruise vs fast decision is a real one.

Missile Size: 5.00 MSP  (12.500 Tons)     Warhead: 6    Radiation Damage: 6    Manoeuvre Rating: 10
Speed: 24,000 km/s     Flight Time: 21 minutes    Range: 31.44m km
Cost Per Missile: 4.50     Development Cost: 450
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 240%   3k km/s 80%   5k km/s 48.0%   10k km/s 24.0%

[Hazard]

This will also make multi stage missiles more relevant, with multi stage missiles offering massive range advantages at slow speeds before deploying missiles with high speed and smallish warheads, vs medium range, speed and decent warheads and vs short range high speed and large warheads.

Or at least that would be my assumption as to how missile design philosophy will end up.


The long range cruiser, the medium range all rounder and the short range bruiser.

[Bremen]

This will also make multi stage missiles more relevant, with multi stage missiles offering massive range advantages at slow speeds before deploying missiles with high speed and smallish warheads, vs medium range, speed and decent warheads and vs short range high speed and large warheads.

Or at least that would be my assumption as to how missile design philosophy will end up.


The long range cruiser, the medium range all rounder and the short range bruiser.

Yep, though multi-stage missiles come with their own costs (loss of efficiency for the first stage, and vulnerability to being shot down before the second one). If your opponent is making heavy use of long range cruise MIRVs, you could counter with some sort of AMM fighter or gunboat that sits between you and their fleets. Which is good, IMHO - more potential tactics to use!

[alex_brunius]

Yep, though multi-stage missiles come with their own costs (loss of efficiency for the first stage, and vulnerability to being shot down before the second one). If your opponent is making heavy use of long range cruise MIRVs, you could counter with some sort of AMM fighter or gunboat that sits between you and their fleets. Which is good, IMHO - more potential tactics to use!

Which in turn can be defeated by launching the MIRVs from different directions, spotting and firing at the fighters/gunboats first ( with MIRVs or other weapons ) or simply giving the final stage long enough range than your enemy dares to send forward their picket.

Lots of interesting tactics and counter tactics.

[Zincat]

RE: the alien ruins on mars.
That's a very nice thing to know Steve, that there's some chance to find ruins in Sol system.

Honestly I always do that. I like to play conventional start but... I'll SM an alien ruin on Mars. Usually, I reroll multiple times until it's a level 3-6 ruin. Not too big (as that could simply be too good), but not too small either.

In my roleplaying, it's fundamental. Since it's a conventional start game, in my mind the discovery of alien ruins sends the world into a frenzy. And depending on the "RP Flavour" of the current game, it can be an "excited frenzy" or a "paranoid frenzy"...

[Iceranger]

Hi Steve, one small UI suggestion based on your current C# game screenshots. For the missile design window, is it possible to add the max engine boost tech to the tech list displayed top right corner? Since now the engine fuel consumption rate is a function of that too.

[Steve Walmsley]

Hi Steve, one small UI suggestion based on your current C# game screenshots. For the missile design window, is it possible to add the max engine boost tech to the tech list displayed top right corner? Since now the engine fuel consumption rate is a function of that too.

Yes, that is necessary. I've added it.

[chrislocke2000]

Steve one small point to note. On the game set up screen the warp point check point still refers to "jump gates on all warp points". I guess that should now just be "stable warp points". I suspect that eradicating the scourge of jump gates from the game will be a long and arduous process!

Just one side thought on this, with the progress made on the AI and the ability for updated orders to be provided to ships do you think you may get the position where warp point destabilisation tech may become a possibility? 

[Steve Walmsley]

Steve one small point to note. On the game set up screen the warp point check point still refers to "jump gates on all warp points". I guess that should now just be "stable warp points". I suspect that eradicating the scourge of jump gates from the game will be a long and arduous process!

Just one side thought on this, with the progress made on the AI and the ability for updated orders to be provided to ships do you think you may get the position where warp point destabilisation tech may become a possibility?

Fixed the text. Theoretically, destabilisation could be added as an option but I want to have a lot more experience with the AI before I open that particular door

[Whitecold]

Fixed the text. Theoretically, destabilisation could be added as an option but I want to have a lot more experience with the AI before I open that particular door

Can the AI/civilian handle jump tenders now? I would really like to try some games without any jump gates or stabilized points at all.