Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]
91
C# Mechanics / Re: v2.6.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Last post by Ush213 on June 27, 2025, 09:36:12 AM »
Like the ECM changes.

Why not just convert captured CMCs into automines?

ECMs are 10X more productive then automines. So they would be more sought after.
92
C# Mechanics / Re: v2.6.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Last post by Zap0 on June 27, 2025, 09:34:13 AM »
Like the ECM changes.

Why not just convert captured CMCs into automines?
93
C# Mechanics / Re: v2.6.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Last post by Ush213 on June 27, 2025, 09:33:50 AM »
New Casus belli unlocked. Harvasting those sweat XCM mines.

Whats the best way to capture these without accidently blowing them up.

It has to be flying in with a super fast and decently shielded/armored troop drop craft and using ground forces, right? Anything else risks blowing them up.

Well they would be on Asteroid right like our own CMCs. so the risk of STOs is minimal?  then you just land troops?
94
C# Suggestions / Re: Suggestions Thread for v2.4.0
« Last post by boolybooly on June 27, 2025, 08:32:16 AM »
I read some earlier posts about MSP and then had a little mishap of my own which got me thinking. What if bigger engineering departments could reduce MSP maintenance cost? Which would give us something to consider when designing to manage fleet MSP consumption.

The source of this idea is a little story in its own right which I will explain. I am still playing v2.1.1 so forgive me if I am missing out later versions' maintenance mechanics. It happened recently in my current game at a well populated outpost in Proxima Centauri that through 'administrative negligence' the colony's MSP ran out and PPV orbitals with varying MSP storage and build costs accrued deployment at different values per class, which puzzled me until I realised colony MSP ran out followed by the orbitals' onboard MSP, resulting eventually in deployment clock starting then component failures. It became apparent that box launcher based orbitals lasted longer than turret based orbitals due to lower build costs and thus lower maintenance costs and as luck would have it slightly higher onboard MSP stores.

I found this interesting and in digesting this mishap wanted to direct the empire towards an MSP consumption economy drive, wondering if I had missed a way to influence vessel maintenance cost in some way, besides making cheaper PPV vessels and avoiding deployment and concluded I had not. As I understand it engineering volume improves maintenance life and reduces the 5yr MSP requirement significantly but does not change maintenance costs.

The C# wiki rules say maintenance cost is 0.25x build cost per annum regardless, so orbitals can have very small engineering components and it will make no difference to maintenance cost as long as EMR (effective maintenance rate) from maintenance facilities is 100% and they have MSP supplies. If I understand correctly, its only when EMR is less than 100% that maintenance life and 5yr figures come into play in relation to the maintenance failure hazard, as happened at Proxima Centauri causing an alert for component failure and inability to repair due to lack of MSPs, which caught me by surprise! 

e.g. a 1000t ship with build cost 280, can have different sizes of engineering bays giving practical maintenance life of between 7.5 to 1.5 yrs and figures for 5yr use between 150 and 1500 MSP respectively but maintenance cost will always be 70 MSP/pa. What if maintenance cost was a bit lower or higher depending on engineering space, to reflect the better maintenance life and repair facilities that larger engineering departments provide? Just thought it might be worth a mention.
95
C# Mechanics / Re: v2.6.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Last post by Bremen on June 27, 2025, 08:16:08 AM »
The ECM change is one I've wanted for a long time - in Aurora you're far more likely to be dealing with low odds shots due to range penalties or a technology gap, so the threat of ECM making shots completely impossible just contributed further to the dominance of missiles. Also I kind of like for Aurora lets you compensate for quality with quantity with missiles and am glad to see the same done with beams.

Spinal particle beams is a change I wasn't expecting since I always kind of thought the lance was the spinal particle variant, but I'm always excited for more weapon options. The range bonus in particular is interesting, particle beams' big weakness (besides overall lowish dps) has always been that they can't quite reach out to the max range of an equal tech fire control, so having a spinal version with increased range greatly reduces the threat of getting kited.
96
Development Discussions / Re: Naming Theme Suggestions
« Last post by Ush213 on June 27, 2025, 08:06:07 AM »
Used ChatGPT to put together some ship names based on my favourite book Series Red Rising.

Creates names from charactor names to place names along with some common phases from the whole series.

Examples:

Reaper’s Revenge
Cassius's Honor
The Gorydamned
Thorn of Ilium
Society’s Fall
Breaker of Chains
Blood of the Rim
97
C# Mechanics / Re: v2.6.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Last post by Pallington on June 27, 2025, 06:08:00 AM »
New Casus belli unlocked. Harvasting those sweat XCM mines.

Whats the best way to capture these without accidently blowing them up.

It has to be flying in with a super fast and decently shielded/armored troop drop craft and using ground forces, right? Anything else risks blowing them up.

In other news, New Meta: Corvette built around having a single AdvSp Particle Lance for the full 900 (? I think?) tons and then like 800 tons of engine ramped up to 250% burn ratio from a gauss/AMM spam carrier. Total size approx 2kt, replacing and in fact totally invalidating plasma for small craft. Also nullifies armor lategame entirely, because the thing does 100 piercing, that crap WILL find and blow up your power plants/engines.

Edit: I should specify it only invalidates plasma for small but not tiny craft. You can't fit this thing on an actual FAC let alone a fighter, and support modules (jamming, defenses, etc) means it's main use is as a better one-shot beam alternative for stuff between 2-4kt. At least, that's what I'm seeing.

Also, Lasers are no longer sufficient anti-craft PD. If they're equal tech BFC, they just sit on the edge at 80%* range, small lasers barely deal any damage even if they hit, and they deal full damage. Everything about this is scary. At the same time, how exciting! Pair it with a more well defended AMM dump corvette (mass box launchers + armor/shields) to defend against enemy AMM and a bomber corvette (more mass box launchers but carrying 1-2mil km max damage "bombs") and you have a three corvette nuke on a stick, <10kt.

98
C# Mechanics / Re: v2.6.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Last post by Ush213 on June 27, 2025, 06:01:03 AM »
New Casus belli unlocked. Harvasting those sweat XCM mines.

Whats the best way to capture these without accidently blowing them up.
99
C# Mechanics / Re: v2.6.0 Changes List
« Last post by Steve Walmsley on June 27, 2025, 03:24:35 AM »
Ex-Civilian Mining Complex

v2.6 adds a new type of mining installation  - the Ex-Civilian Mining Complex (XCM). This has the following characteristics:
  • The XCM can only be created by capturing enemy Civilian Mining Complexes, in which case each CMC becomes an XCM.
  • The XCM has the same mining output as the CMC, equal to ten automated mines.
  • Unlike the CMC, the XCM can be transported by freighter. It requires the same transport capacity as a research facility, which is double the capacity required for ten automated mines.
  • The XCM is not a civilian installation and cannot be converted back into CMC
100
C# Mechanics / Re: PD ECCM vs Missile ECM
« Last post by Pallington on June 27, 2025, 12:28:25 AM »
Big support on the ECM/ECCM change that just hit 2.6.

Incredibly big support. Huge support. I want to thank that post multiple times, but I'm pretty sure alts are against forum rules (they usually are).

Off topic, Spinal Particle Lance sounds so scary. MacroFAC/"corvettes" running one single spinal particle lance is going to be such a threat now XP

If/when I stop my current forever game (or put it on pause), next run is speccing particle/gauss and ignoring lasers.

In light of this ECCM change... how to do this? Probably have similar W*(0.75)^(Enemy - Own), where W is constant base weight like 5 (current even tech behavior) or 3-4 (slightly worse at even tech, full power above even tech, much better at lower tech). So decoys are always helpful but only a tiny bit if your ECM is drastically overpowered, and ECCM is helpful if better tech.

I personally think if there's an upper clamp then Even Tech should put it slightly below the upper clamp but that's just my opinion, and I've only played for a month or so.
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]
SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk