Author Topic: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread  (Read 107606 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Jorgen_CAB

  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • J
  • Posts: 2822
  • Thanked: 673 times
Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
« Reply #285 on: February 06, 2014, 07:07:05 AM »
On the subject of beam weapons, missiles and fire-controls.

I would perhaps agree that beam fire-controls could perhaps be reduced in size somewhat, that would perhaps be beneficial to to the balance. Although not cheaper, but smaller.

One thing that somehow bothers me is how we calculate the probability of hitting something with beam-weapons. One thing that is an apparent issue for beam weapons is range. In my opinion the size of the object MUST be as important as the range. An object that is half the size of another object is pretty much the same thing as hitting the larger object at twice the distance. This is a two dimensional thing and has more or less nothing to do with speed. This would obviously also make fighters/FAC more of a valid platform for beam combat, which could be a welcome change for those that like to use fighters for that. Realy large ships should be pretty much sitting ducks for close range beam weapons.

My suggestion would be that you hit ships at 5000t (100TC) at 100% accuracy and you then just add % based chance increase to hit based on that.


Missiles should of course be handled with special types of fire-controls built for that purpose only. These should be expensive but smaller than regular fire-controls with much less range. I don't think we should be able to shoot down missiles at the same distances we can shoot down enemy ships. Area-defence weapons should work differently ans distances should be reduced and we should not have to choose between Final-fire or Area-fire for our PD weapons. They should automatically fire at final-fire and/or area-fire. Only allow weapons that can fire every 5-sec and be turreted to be assigned to PD fire-controls, thus limiting those weapons to PD duty. It would also lift the restriction of differentiate between final-fire and are-fire PD.

Let the velocity of Gauss-weapons effect their accuracy instead of their range. They should have effective ranges below 10000km anyway, lasers should be the weapon of choice to provide are-fire protection. Make area-fire lasers actually more accurate and effective then final-fire gauss cannons so you will need both. If are-fire laser weapons were more accurate you would need to separate your laser escort to provide that protection, but keeping a few CIWS or gauss turrets would still be useful.

Add some small collateral damage on missile impact on ships in the same space. Such as a small chance for each impact to damage another ship in the are if only a small portion of the damage. Just make this a random chance and a random amount of damage. This would also serve to make a choice of close escorts and/or several battle groups. Some mechanic for ships that are within close distance from each other (say 50000km) to synchronise their attacks as a compensation.

If you would consider any of these changes it would perhaps be good with a formation/task-group editor and be able to divide a task-group into squadrons.

Ok, enough stupid ideas from me for today... ;)
 

Offline sloanjh

  • Global Moderator
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • *****
  • Posts: 2805
  • Thanked: 112 times
  • 2020 Supporter 2020 Supporter : Donate for 2020
    2021 Supporter 2021 Supporter : Donate for 2021
Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
« Reply #286 on: February 06, 2014, 08:09:39 AM »
An object that is half the size of another object is pretty much the same thing as hitting the larger object at twice the distance. This is a two dimensional thing and has more or less nothing to do with speed. This would obviously also make fighters/FAC more of a valid platform for beam combat, which could be a welcome change for those that like to use fighters for that. Realy large ships should be pretty much sitting ducks for close range beam weapons.

My first reaction was "I really like this idea (bigger = easier to hit)". 

My second thought was "but then P(hit) should go down like the square of the range too (because a target twice as far away occludes twice as much angle).  So this leads to multiplying the raw P(hit) by (size/range)^N, where N is 2 in real life but probably 1 in Aurora (Aurora usually substitutes linear drop-off for high-powers).  This in turn would lead to, for a particular size target, a magic range at which P(hit) becomes >100%, i.e. a sure thing.  In other words, from a game mechanics point of view, I think that range and size would become the dominant factors in beam fire control.  The problem with this is anti-missile fire - thinking this way a beam on final defensive fire should always hit (due to range being zero).

I think/vaguely recall that Steve might have already gone through this thought process and decided to apply technobabble to avoid the issue because of the major impact on gameplay.

John
 

Offline Jorgen_CAB

  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • J
  • Posts: 2822
  • Thanked: 673 times
Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
« Reply #287 on: February 06, 2014, 09:38:54 AM »
My first reaction was "I really like this idea (bigger = easier to hit)". 

My second thought was "but then P(hit) should go down like the square of the range too (because a target twice as far away occludes twice as much angle).  So this leads to multiplying the raw P(hit) by (size/range)^N, where N is 2 in real life but probably 1 in Aurora (Aurora usually substitutes linear drop-off for high-powers).  This in turn would lead to, for a particular size target, a magic range at which P(hit) becomes >100%, i.e. a sure thing.  In other words, from a game mechanics point of view, I think that range and size would become the dominant factors in beam fire control.  The problem with this is anti-missile fire - thinking this way a beam on final defensive fire should always hit (due to range being zero).

I think/vaguely recall that Steve might have already gone through this thought process and decided to apply technobabble to avoid the issue because of the major impact on gameplay.

John

I don't think that mixing too much real geometry would be the way to go, just using some more linear formula should suffice I think for game balance. I don't see a problem with hitting a target at a certain range/size would be 100%. Big ships should be pretty easy to hit at low ranges. And as I said both fighters and FAC would be much more lucrative in the beam role as well. Currently, both fighters and FAC usually have too weak armour to be effective in that role. At least in a game where you are up against something else than scripted ship designs. It would also give a whole new meaning to weapons such as Particle Beams and spinal mounted lasers. These weapons would be quite useless against smaller ships but very effective against larger ships at long range.

For missiles you would need a dedicated FC for that purpose, otherwise it would be too hard to engage and destroy them. Also, final fire against missiles is calculated at a distance of 10000km in the current model during final-fire. Using a standard fire-control and the hitting a size 6 (or below) missile would be pretty impossible if you did not use a different type of dedicated PDFC.
 

Offline crys

  • Warrant Officer, Class 2
  • ****
  • c
  • Posts: 50
Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
« Reply #288 on: February 08, 2014, 05:25:49 PM »
about deployment times listed at Taskgroups.

it only shows how many month have passed - but youre ships can have lots and lots of different deployment times.
so the value is kind of "useless"

1. i think it would be much better to make it like the fuel status: like 30/30 10/30 and maybe even negative -10/30 for deployment times.


2. military engines seem to get very expencive quickly - the maintainence supplays needed for repairs are a huge issue to carry with.
this is true for large 50% civ engines on military vessels too.
it would be nice to reduce the failture rate, reduce repair costs or introduce something like partial failtures which require less for repairs.


3. about research economics tab. it feels kind of silly to check for queued research projects over and over again.
especially if you have lots of projects running, and you would need to scroll in both research lists to find out.(current research projects/research queue)
couldnt it be indicated in the "current research project list", that another project is queued?
i would suggest adding a * to one of the columns, or change the font color/bold/cursive.

4. again research, it would be nice if you could order the list for finishing times. then you dont need to search for queueing or new stuff comming up.
 

Offline Duzzit

  • Petty Officer
  • **
  • D
  • Posts: 17
Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
« Reply #289 on: February 08, 2014, 08:09:43 PM »
In regards to the new cease-fire timer that allows for multiple nations to start in the same system in 6.4, will there be an ability to say that the nations start as allies, enemies who signed a temporary peace deal(so a lot of -diplomacy), or trading partners?
 

Offline Jorgen_CAB

  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • J
  • Posts: 2822
  • Thanked: 673 times
Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
« Reply #290 on: February 11, 2014, 05:22:09 PM »
One thing that I would like to have in the game would be to be able to use conventional warhead on missiles that are only useful for bombarding planets. That way I can avoid polluting the planet with precision bombardment from space.

Or some other specific weapon that I can bombard a planet with, perhaps some form of kinetic kill bombardment weapon, or a combination of both of these weapons.

I don't have all that much experience with bombarding planets and don't remember how effective a heavy laser would be in let's say Earths atmosphere.
 

Offline MarcAFK

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 2005
  • Thanked: 134 times
  • ...it's so simple an idiot could have devised it..
Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
« Reply #291 on: February 11, 2014, 10:58:06 PM »
What about a clean warhead tech, somewhat along the lines of the enhanced radiation tech.
" Why is this godforsaken hellhole worth dying for? "
". . .  We know nothing about them, their language, their history or what they look like.  But we can assume this.  They stand for everything we don't stand for.  Also they told me you guys look like dorks. "
"Stop exploding, you cowards.  "
 

Offline ZimRathbone

  • Captain
  • **********
  • Posts: 408
  • Thanked: 30 times
  • Gold Supporter Gold Supporter : Support the forums with a Gold subscription
    2021 Supporter 2021 Supporter : Donate for 2021
    2023 Supporter 2023 Supporter : Donate for 2023
Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
« Reply #292 on: February 12, 2014, 03:28:38 PM »
One thing that I would like to have in the game would be to be able to use conventional warhead on missiles that are only useful for bombarding planets. That way I can avoid polluting the planet with precision bombardment from space.

Or some other specific weapon that I can bombard a planet with, perhaps some form of kinetic kill bombardment weapon, or a combination of both of these weapons.

I don't have all that much experience with bombarding planets and don't remember how effective a heavy laser would be in let's say Earths atmosphere.

What about a clean warhead tech, somewhat along the lines of the enhanced radiation tech.

One of the early design decisions on Aurora was to make Planetary Bombardment expensive in terms of the environmental effects.  This was due (in part)  to the old Starfire strategy of GFFP (Genocide For Fun and Profit) where it became a standard to wipe out indigenous populations on usable worlds, and a month later drop small populations that were completely functional and productive.  The current situation is intended to ensure that this is not the optimum strategy in all cases, hence I doubt that any "clean" bombardment tech will be introduced. in other words, its a game balance issue not a reality issue.   :)
Slàinte,

Mike
 

Offline Jorgen_CAB

  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • J
  • Posts: 2822
  • Thanked: 673 times
Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
« Reply #293 on: February 13, 2014, 03:13:47 AM »
One of the early design decisions on Aurora was to make Planetary Bombardment expensive in terms of the environmental effects.  This was due (in part)  to the old Starfire strategy of GFFP (Genocide For Fun and Profit) where it became a standard to wipe out indigenous populations on usable worlds, and a month later drop small populations that were completely functional and productive.  The current situation is intended to ensure that this is not the optimum strategy in all cases, hence I doubt that any "clean" bombardment tech will be introduced. in other words, its a game balance issue not a reality issue.   :)

Yes, I remember something to that effect... but what I'm after are more a way to support ground military operations and/or perform strategical bombardment. I don't see how you could ever destroy an entire population with conventional warheads anyway. They should only be usable against enemy military units in support of your own military units or damage infrastructure. Or you could use them to temporarily lower enemy production efficiency and population morale. Some population decline could occur but it should be very small, just a small percentage so you can never even come close to destroying the population. Sort of like industrial and terror bombardment in WWII. Just make each use of the module cost some ship supplies or something as well so you can't bomb indefinitely.

In my opinion this could just be a conventional bombardment module, each module would increase the combat efficiency of one of your units attack/defence values or terrorise the population/production.

I just want to have the possibility of using orbital bombardment artillery ships, just because it would be cool and for RP reasons. It could also increase the collateral damage on infrastructure as a downside.
 

Offline Paul M

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • P
  • Posts: 1433
  • Thanked: 52 times
Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
« Reply #294 on: February 13, 2014, 04:15:55 AM »
It should be possible to allow rail guns and lasers to support ground operations.  The requirement would be a unit on the ground (spotting) and this use of orbital support would give some bonus to the units fighting on the ground.  Basically you need to force the enemy into an engagement otherwise it is a bit like random artillery bombardment or for that matter random ariel bombing in accomplishing pretty much nothing.

I'm not sure what you want to give for bonuses and so on but it would not invalidate the concept and frankly there is no real reason lasers can't be fired through atmosphere's you just need to tune them properly, since they are pulsed anyway after a few pulses they have opened a "hole" in the atmosphere.  But regareless rail guns would be highly useful as orbital fire support.

So a 10 cm rail gun gives +1% per rail gun to the ground units combat values with a maximum of +25% attack and +50% defence or what have you.  Scale it upwards with the rail gun size.

This avoids invalidating ground combat but allows for orbital support.  Conventional missiles yeah but really with missiles sizes...not sure how this would work.  The key point again would be requiring "boots on the ground" which would again keep the game balance reason valid.
 

Offline alex_brunius

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1240
  • Thanked: 153 times
Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
« Reply #295 on: February 13, 2014, 06:31:18 AM »
It should be possible to allow rail guns and lasers to support ground operations.  The requirement would be a unit on the ground (spotting) and this use of orbital support would give some bonus to the units fighting on the ground.  Basically you need to force the enemy into an engagement otherwise it is a bit like random artillery bombardment or for that matter random ariel bombing in accomplishing pretty much nothing.

I'm not sure what you want to give for bonuses and so on but it would not invalidate the concept and frankly there is no real reason lasers can't be fired through atmosphere's you just need to tune them properly, since they are pulsed anyway after a few pulses they have opened a "hole" in the atmosphere.  But regareless rail guns would be highly useful as orbital fire support.

So a 10 cm rail gun gives +1% per rail gun to the ground units combat values with a maximum of +25% attack and +50% defence or what have you.  Scale it upwards with the rail gun size.

This avoids invalidating ground combat but allows for orbital support.  Conventional missiles yeah but really with missiles sizes...not sure how this would work.  The key point again would be requiring "boots on the ground" which would again keep the game balance reason valid.

I Agree, allow support but have it work as a modifier to ground units instead off annihilating the enemy units. Another way to do it is the Civ approach (Airplanes can damage ground units to XX% but not below)

What I think would be cool is to be able to design fighters to work in the atmosphere in this ground support role.
Realistically speaking it would be much more effective to have close air support fighters compared to bigger ships in orbit.

Perhaps something along the lines of an extra "aerodynamic/engine" adaptation module that you attach on fighters to allow them to effectively support ground combat. That does however raise the question if not ground units should be able to fire back and knock out or damage a few of them.
 

wilddog5

  • Guest
Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
« Reply #296 on: February 16, 2014, 05:33:07 AM »
KEYBOARD SHORTCUTS!!!!


sorry  :-[ I'm in the middle of converting 100+ lo tec units into cardres and a shortcut would be so usefull not only in this case but almost all of the menus/windows could benefit from this, from a UI perspective.

Please think of the mice.

thank you
 

Offline Kaiser

  • Commander
  • *********
  • K
  • Posts: 309
  • Thanked: 39 times
Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
« Reply #297 on: February 23, 2014, 06:11:41 AM »
Hi Steve,

I had put this post in the wrong topic.

Is it possible to have a record of ships destroyed? Something like with name of the ship, class, info about the weapon which destroyed it, date of destruction and position.
This record should be both for human player and AI (for AI only for known ships destroyed).
Maybe it would be not so useful tool, but it would be nice read some statistic info, during boring part of the game  ;)
 

Offline markus

  • Leading Rate
  • *
  • m
  • Posts: 14
Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
« Reply #298 on: February 25, 2014, 03:37:09 AM »
Steve, I have a suggestion for when you are revamping diplomacy:

Replace the cumulative diplomatic points by static modifiers.

So e.g. a diplomatic team of 150 total skill would not add 150 points per year, with the value soon rising to hundreds and thousands. Instead it would set your relations to static "150". You can have modifiers on top of that, like "+50 for 5 years of peace" "-30 for xenophobia" "-10 for ships in their home system" "-50 for the player holding a system that the NPR wants".... for a total of 120.

This gives you a much less linear value, and you can then set triggers for war, peace, trade etc. specific points. It also allows you to take various effects (bonuses and penalties) into account, thus enabling much richer diplomacy, and the diplomatic value of a team suddenly makes a lot of difference! As things are now, the skill of the team is basically pointless - you will eventually always have enough points, you just need to wait longer with a less skilled team. And the points are guaranteed to rise and rise... which is a bit boring.

What I'm describing has been used to great effect in strategic games by Paradox, see e.g. this screenshot:
http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=71416&d=1358497869
 

Offline alex_brunius

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1240
  • Thanked: 153 times
Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
« Reply #299 on: February 25, 2014, 03:44:13 AM »

What I'm describing has been used to great effect in strategic games by Paradox, see e.g. this screenshot:
http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=71416&d=1358497869

That is a great suggestion, especially if it's possible to explain as clearly as that Paradox interface does.

Love those, amazing how complex/detailed diplomacy that can be achieved and explained by so simple means, and very easy for them to expand by adding/tweaking modifiers.