At range of 40mil kms for missiles is there a light speed delay in retargeting? 30 mil km is 100 sec.

Aurora assumes FTL sensors and comms. It makes life so much easier for both gameplay and programming.

Steve

Quote from: "Erik Luken"

Quote from: "Hawkeye"

P.S. What´s up with the BBCode? No matter what I am trying in the board settings (where it shows "BBCode active    Yes"), I don´t seem to be able to get it to work (when posting, it reads: BBCode is OFF)

I just made a test post using your permissions, and it is not a permissions setting that is doing that. I'll poke around.

Fiddling around in the fiction sections, I have confirmed that BBCode is OFF for non-moderators, but ON for Moderators (Eric, Steve, various authors).

It should be fixed now. And it was only affecting the fiction forums.

Agree with a definition: "500.000ton Class-Battleship" are right and more RPG,comparison to another Empire to have an "20.000ton Class-Battleship" term:D.
Ok,i think this out of topic can end:)

Giorgio[/quote]

Personally I don' t really like that size class distinctions are arbitrary.  It means that people cannot talk about ships in generic terms with any common basis.  Saying "Three cruisers and 9 destroyers" doesn't really mean anything.  I would prefer if there was a table so people could customize the class ranges, but with standard defaults so most people would have a common basis for discussion.  I realize with open ship designs that there will be huge differences in capabilities between one cruiser and the next, but if the tonnages were in consistent ranges by default, at least it would give you some rough idea.[/quote]


This would be pretty stupid from a RPG point of view (no disrespect meant)

If my empire/nation is capable of building ships from 1.000 to 6.000t, for example, of course my (very few) 6.000t warships would be called battleships.
Who in his right mind would call the biggest ships his navy has, a corvette or frigate?
This would only make sense, if you are a 2nd or 3rd rate navy, where the 1st rate navies are a measure bar for your ships. Like, Britain has 6 battleships of 11.500t in service, and Portugal launches its first warship at 1.500t. Of course, this couldn´t be classed as a battleship, as you know, battleships are supposed to be at least 10.000t.
If the portugese navy would be the only one on all of earth, however, this 1.500t ship would be the biggest and meanest around and so rightfully deserve the classification of battleship.

A general classification for all empires, based on tonnage, would be highly "unrealistic", IMO.

If you want to talk with others about your fleet size, instead of talking about 3 CA and 9 DD, just talk about three 7.000t CAs and nine 3.500t DDs. Problem solved.


Ralph Hoenig, Germany


P.S. What´s up with the BBCode? No matter what I am trying in the board settings (where it shows "BBCode active    Yes"), I don´t seem to be able to get it to work (when posting, it reads: BBCode is OFF)???

STEVE>The hull designations are purely cosmetic, as they are in real life, so one race may class a 5000 ton ship as a cruiser but to a higher tech race, that might be a patrol ship because their cruisers are 50,000 tons. In 1852, HMS Agamemnon was classed as a battleship and she was 4600 tons. Less than 100 years later, HMS Vanguard was also classed as a battleship and she was 52,000 tons. The new Type 45 destroyers are 8100 tons, or twice as large as an older battleship-...

Giorgio

Personally I don' t really like that size class distinctions are arbitrary.  It means that people cannot talk about ships in generic terms with any common basis.  Saying "Three cruisers and 9 destroyers" doesn't really mean anything.  I would prefer if there was a table so people could customize the class ranges, but with standard defaults so most people would have a common basis for discussion.  I realize with open ship designs that there will be huge differences in capabilities between one cruiser and the next, but if the tonnages were in consistent ranges by default, at least it would give you some rough idea.

OTGH, he could also put in a tech line "fire control speed" that affects the range delay.

John

Or use an existing tech line - say, Active Sensor Strength or Beam Fire Control Speed or Range for the 'comm laser'.

Personally, I really like the idea of using a combination of (double) light-speed delay for passing info and Task Force comunications modifiers for delays in assigning new targets.

>How about just disallowing the waypoint missile swarm entirely? That would seem to resolve a bunch of issues. Otherwise I expect it'll become SOP >since there seems to be little down side to it and a lot to gain by forming a swarm.

If you pack the swarm to closely you loose the ability to retarget missiles in flight (i.e. they all arrive on target during the same 5 sec. That's good when you are trying to saturate a well defended target, bad when the targets evaporate quickly.

At range of 40mil kms for missiles is there a light speed delay in retargeting? 30 mil km is 100 sec.

Quote from: "vergeraiders"

Did the Angel main cruiser group stop before or after they fired their missiles? The defense was a near thing. If they closed up the waves as much as possible (and 3.5 k or so on 10k or so missiles is at least respectable), it might have made a difference.

Of course its all hingsight knowing the Commonwealth missiles are shorter range and the ships had a much better defense than the colony.

I think they were closing while they were firing. At the moment the NPRs won't fire a few salvos at a waypoint in the same way as a human and then release them all together as they aren't that smart yet. I will probably add that ability in a future version. Although I have been thinking about some expensive, one-use anti-missile decoy technologies (as per early HH books) that would work against all missiles within a certain range. That could make multiple waves more effective than one large wave under certain circumstances. When I eventually revamp ECM and ECCM from their current very basic form to something more like modern jamming that will also affect missile combat.

Steve

How about just disallowing the waypoint missile swarm entirely?  That would seem to resolve a bunch of issues.  Otherwise I expect it'll become SOP since there seems to be little down side to it and a lot to gain by forming a swarm.