Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
C# Aurora / Re: Replacing PDCs
« Last post by Iranon on Today at 02:53:44 PM »
Some limit to energy weapons would be good. In naval scenarios, ships that enjoyed a gun range advantage and were fast enough to keep the range open still had to worry about expending ammunition for questionable effect at extreme range.

At present, "render missile attacks impractical, kite enemy beam ships" is too dominant against AI designs, and doing away with the planned limit on point blank missile interception removes a natural counter.
2
C# Aurora / Re: Replacing PDCs
« Last post by byron on Today at 01:29:44 PM »
Given that we're talking naval equipment it should probably be pretty high. Naval guns at their smallest are so large they can't reasonably be lugged around by anything that has to operate in a ground combat context. I mean, the smallest laser without reduction technology is 150 tons or so. That should be super heavy unit range. A balancing factor could be that while high in Shots, making a 5 second recharge capable naval laser is relatively trivial, naval artillery has poor Damage and AP because those weapons are tuned for vacuum, not atmospheres.
I definitely think it's fair to assume that the typical naval weapon won't penetrate atmosphere well.  In some cases, not at all.  X-ray lasers will just be absorbed.

Quote
That's kind of high. Naval guns were generally expected to be able to empty the entire magazine in a single go before needing maintenance, and often even longer.
Two different levels of maintenance.  Failures of guns to fire were relatively common.  Off the top of my head, USS Iowa's first action (off Truk) saw 2/9 guns go out due to problems.  One gun had a lock problem, the other a burr on the breech plug that had to be ground off.  Prince of Wales and Nelson both had well-known failures in their actions with Bismarck.  That said, PoW was new, and the 16" Mk I turret on Nelson was a dog.  Experienced crews generally did better.
What you're thinking of is rebarreling.  This was done every time the remaining life dropped below the ship's ammo capacity.  Depending on how hard the designers pushed the gun, barrel life ran from 1.5x ammo capacity to 4-5x ammo capacity.  (All of this assumes WW2 and earlier tech.  Later developments increased this a lot, but the Iowas were the only ones to take advantage of it.)

Quote
To be honest, very long shore bombardments, and I mean days long, were a definite thing during WW1 and WW2 military campaigns, especially against peer opponents that had dug in well and deep.
Those were executed with HC shells, which were significantly less erosive than AP rounds.  Offhand, I think the Iowa's HC was something like .25x full-service AP equivalent.
3
C# Aurora / Re: Replacing PDCs
« Last post by Bremen on Today at 01:05:11 PM »
I definitely support the idea of a small breakdown chance for energy weapons (exact chance TBD); it helps with the bombardment issue and also kiting in beam fights, which is one of my pet issues.

Maybe scale it by fire rate, since it makes sense that a rapid fire low power laser would probably suffer less stress per shot than a huge spinal laser that fires every two minutes.
4
C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Last post by Bremen on Today at 01:02:17 PM »
That's kind of the only way I see multiplayer working without completely redesigning the game; some way for multiple people to connect and have the windows for their own race open, and just agree on when and how long to do the increments for like mature responsible adults (so not random matchfinding on the internet, basically :p)

Would be a nice feature if Steve is ever interested in adding it some day, but I'll note flat out I have no idea how much work it would be to code. Maybe we could tempt him with the potential of not having to play all 12+ empires in his games by himself :p
5
C# Aurora / Re: Replacing PDCs
« Last post by Hazard on Today at 12:59:07 PM »
Naval fire vs ground units with ground to orbit weapons will be at 100% to hit divided by fortification level (as they are firing at a specific target). Naval Fire vs 'normal' ground units will have some form of bombardment rating (the ship would act as an additional bombarding ground unit). Conversion of weapon strength to bombardment rating TBD.

Given that we're talking naval equipment it should probably be pretty high. Naval guns at their smallest are so large they can't reasonably be lugged around by anything that has to operate in a ground combat context. I mean, the smallest laser without reduction technology is 150 tons or so. That should be super heavy unit range. A balancing factor could be that while high in Shots, making a 5 second recharge capable naval laser is relatively trivial, naval artillery has poor Damage and AP because those weapons are tuned for vacuum, not atmospheres.

They also waste a lot of power hitting everything else, so naval artillery bombardment should probably come with major risks of dust plumes.

One other thing I am considering is to have a small breakdown chance for any ship-based weapon each time it fires (missile or energy) - maybe about 1%. This would be immediately repaired if MSP are available, but would prevent effectively endless orbital fire support.

That's kind of high. Naval guns were generally expected to be able to empty the entire magazine in a single go before needing maintenance, and often even longer. It will also greatly increase logistical demand for MSP for point defense ships and other ships depending on lots of small rapid fire gun layouts. Maybe instead a chance for an 'out of order' event that takes a gun out of action for 2-10 times its firing cycle, with MSP needed for repairs for longer?

To be honest, very long shore bombardments, and I mean days long, were a definite thing during WW1 and WW2 military campaigns, especially against peer opponents that had dug in well and deep. And certainly, you can do that in Aurora too right now. It's just that if you do that you can basically write off the planet as a living space for the next few decades, and that sounds like a reasonable trade off already.

Do I want the planet intact along with its population and factories, or do I want to minimize ground combat commitments?
6
The Academy / Re: Best commanders, administrators
« Last post by Father Tim on Today at 12:32:46 PM »
Research points from salvaging wrecks, chance to learn component, ship, or PDC design or star system data from interrogation, theoretically Tac intel window stuff (but I don't really know what or if it ever workd properly).

As for how often it's checked, the answer is 'once per build increment (in which the officer is doing any of that stuff)' -- so, practically never, because interrogating P.o.W.s takes a few hours each, so it's over pretty quickly.
7
C# Aurora / Re: Replacing PDCs
« Last post by Steve Walmsley on Today at 12:28:36 PM »
I'd like to "+1" something that was mentioned four pages ago:

Please, please, PLEASE leave us some means of Orbit-to-Ground / Ground-to-Orbit weaponry for the "absolutely no missiles ever!" empires some of us like to play.

And for myself, contrary to what others are arguing, I want there to be some place for the "all basic infantry, all the time" ground forces that my games' Bugs equivalents are going to field.  I can accept 'Improved Personal Weapon' Infantry as representing bigger Bugs, but I'm not interested in having to pretend Super-Heavy Vehicles are giant plasma-throwing 'tanker' bugs just to prevent a few battalions of Medium Tanks wiping out 60 million Bug infantry as fast as the tanks can reload.

Ground to orbit will only be energy-based. I want to avoid any complexities around ground units with missiles. Orbit to ground energy combat will be possible using some form of 'forward air controller' against normal ground units, or normal 'naval' combat against ground units with surface-to orbit weapons that are firing at space-based targets (they are revealing their position).

Naval fire vs ground units with ground to orbit weapons will be at 100% to hit divided by fortification level (as they are firing at a specific target). Naval Fire vs 'normal' ground units will have some form of bombardment rating (the ship would act as an additional bombarding ground unit). Conversion of weapon strength to bombardment rating TBD but perhaps on a 3 damage = 1 bombardment strength, with option for much less effective fire (and potential friendly fire) if no FAC available. So 10cm laser would be equivalent to a light bombardment weapon, a 20cm laser would be slightly better than a medium bombardment weapon, 30cm would be better than heavy bombardment. Plasma Carronades would be very effective in this role. Not sure how I would handle naval ROF in this situation though. I could just ignore and have 1 naval fire support per weapon per ground combat round and assume faster firing weapons have their ROF built into the normal rating, or perhaps allow multiple shots and use the MSP option below. I just need to avoid a situation where a few energy-armed ships in orbit can wreak havoc enemy ground forces. Of course, this is only possible if the orbiting ships are not facing massed ground-based defences. Lots of balancing needed after playtest.

One other thing I am considering is to have a small breakdown chance for any ship-based weapon each time it fires (missile or energy) - maybe about 1%. This would be immediately repaired if MSP are available, but would prevent effectively endless orbital fire support.
8
C# Aurora / Re: Replacing PDCs
« Last post by Hazard on Today at 12:27:45 PM »
And for myself, contrary to what others are arguing, I want there to be some place for the "all basic infantry, all the time" ground forces that my games' Bugs equivalents are going to field.  I can accept 'Improved Personal Weapon' Infantry as representing bigger Bugs, but I'm not interested in having to pretend Super-Heavy Vehicles are giant plasma-throwing 'tanker' bugs just to prevent a few battalions of Medium Tanks wiping out 60 million Bug infantry as fast as the tanks can reload.

Use Light Infantry. Exact same size as unarmoured infantry, but with an Armour rating of 1.
9
C# Aurora / Re: Replacing PDCs
« Last post by Father Tim on Today at 12:19:15 PM »
I'd like to "+1" something that was mentioned four pages ago:

Please, please, PLEASE leave us some means of Orbit-to-Ground / Ground-to-Orbit weaponry for the "absolutely no missiles ever!" empires some of us like to play.

And for myself, contrary to what others are arguing, I want there to be some place for the "all basic infantry, all the time" ground forces that my games' Bugs equivalents are going to field.  I can accept 'Improved Personal Weapon' Infantry as representing bigger Bugs, but I'm not interested in having to pretend Super-Heavy Vehicles are giant plasma-throwing 'tanker' bugs just to prevent a few battalions of Medium Tanks wiping out 60 million Bug infantry as fast as the tanks can reload.
10
C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Last post by Barkhorn on Today at 10:47:50 AM »
As long as you play with people you personally know, the time issue is not actually a problem.  You don't need to worry about trolls purposefully going with tiny increments or anything like that.

There's no reason to ever not have direct control by the players.  Every Total War game since Shogun 2 has had multiplayer campaigns.  Battles in those simply make everyone not involved wait.  Really not that big of a deal; you can just go do something else for awhile.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10