Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Person012345

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 28
1
C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« on: Today at 07:27:40 AM »
Hey Steve, bit of a throwback question to an old change, with the new population caps, how is this handled for multiple empires on a planet? Would earths 12 billion pop cap be split between twelve starting empires equally, or would everyone grow up to twelve for 144 billion on earth?

Quote
A new concept, Population Capacity, has been added to C# Aurora. This represents the maximum population that can be maintained on a single body and is primarily determined by surface area. This is the total of all populations on the same body, not per population.

2
C# Aurora / Re: Alpha-testing
« on: January 16, 2018, 11:44:42 PM »
Literally I recall Steve saying that one of the impetus for starting the upgrade to C# was that he wanted something to do during his campaign turn times and decided to code C# aurora in the breaks whilst he was waiting for turns to process.

3
C# Aurora / Re: C# Ground Combat
« on: January 16, 2018, 11:50:54 AM »
I thought Steve said we WOULD need to resupply.  He said the pods are ordnance and have to be manufactured and transported just like missiles.

And if you look at the design screenshot, the bombardment pod says it has 3 pods.

He also said they aren't expended upon use. The 3 pods are just so you can configure the loadout.

4
C# Aurora / Re: Colony Automation
« on: January 14, 2018, 07:28:38 PM »
What I want is a revamped economic system and a more involved civilian population and a bit more realism in planetary economic growth.

You as a player would still make all the hard choices but would not need to personally set up mineral runs or industrial ques,

Instead colonies industry would be civilian as they are in reality and have always been in history. The player who essentially are the state would concentrate in the state business.

You could subsidize colonies so civilians tend to develop them in a certain way. That would be industry in different forms.

You would then use contracts to build state property such as research facilities, academies, naval yards etc.. You should not be able to just hijack an entire planetary industry for military means. If you give out too many contract then civilian goods and morale should go down. If you put your faction at war status the civilian should be more willing to do contracts etc..

I don't see why civilian corporations could not do their own explorations and build their own colonies as well in the same manner they build mining complexes, that does not mean the player or state do the same or that you could restrict the civilian economy from doing it. But they would most likely do it much cheaper but you would not control where they build colonies.

What I propose will not take away choices, it would make the economy more interesting, add choice which would be less binary, it would be more dynamic and depending on more factors.

But that is just my opinion that a more involved civilian economy would be more fun and remove some tedious mechanics from players hands as you would easily automate the boring parts.
This really only caters to, again, a specific roleplay. What if I'm playing a hive mind? Or an incredibly autocratic society?

To expand, right now you can RP anything. If you want to say that corporations, for instance, play a major role in the defense of the empire (something I did in the one AAR I wrote up) then you can. The fact that you control them is unrelated to the RP aspect. It might be nice if there were some mechanism to allow your suggestion, but I don't think blanket forcing it on all empires is the right choice, because some people don't want to RP their empire that way. And once it's out of their control it can no longer be RP'd as something it isn't. I think that if we're going to add an expanded civilian sector it would need to be tied to something, perhaps government type or whatever and it could become really complicated, perhaps not worth the effort.

Frankly though, I think the large amount of control you have is the best place for the RP side. If you control things, you can make them behave how you want and thus roleplay them as anything you want.

5
C# Aurora / Re: C# Ground Combat
« on: January 14, 2018, 09:05:29 AM »
I think that any ground based airfield should be more expensive and less wieldy than a space based hanger (which really just has to be a hanger, a hole in the mothership/station whereas airfields need more extensive facilities) and it'd mean they wouldn't just be an outright superior alternative to carriers even on defense, but a place to park atmospheric aircraft if you can't use carriers (eg. due to lack of space superiority) so that you can have fighter cover. The reason why I'd prefer it be a building or something is that it would make them difficult to use on the offense, meaning that functional carriers would still be an essential part of your force if you wanted fighter cover during an attack. I don't think they should just be droppable on a planet and immediately deployed ready to recieve fighters, I feel like that would take away from the utility of having a proper strike carrier force.

6
C# Aurora / Re: C# Ground Combat
« on: January 13, 2018, 11:22:30 PM »
I don't know how feasible this is but I would just suggest a new building that could be built by factories or construction equipment that would provide a certain hanger capacity to a population. If one is destroyed then a proportionate amount of the fighters stationed there would also be destroyed. This would also allow for a gradual build up of ground-based fighter capacity by invaders to relieve the pressure on the supporting carriers over time, if they have the resources.

7
C# Aurora / Re: C# Ground Combat
« on: January 13, 2018, 11:04:06 PM »
It did come up; as I recall the answer was that in C# Aurora maintenance facilities can maintain fighters. I do wonder if this means they can "hide" on the surface as ground units to avoid being targeted by missiles - though if so, that opens the question of if they keep using fuel while doing so.
But can they reload them? Change their loadouts? And if maintenance facilities are based in space (which I assume they are) then they're just going to get blown up if the enemy has space dominance, as will the fighters themselves.

8
C# Aurora / Re: C# Ground Combat
« on: January 13, 2018, 09:44:54 PM »
So, question, maybe this was answered elsewere and I just forgot, how will basing fighters at planets work now? Obviously they can't be based in PDC hangers and it would seem odd if you couldn't base atmospheric fighters on a planet at all (not to mention this would give an attacker a major advantage if having space dominance totally precludes the use of atmospheric fighter support for the defender).

Also forgive me if this question is stupid, I've never actually used fighters so far and am under the impression that right now if you want to base fighters at a planet then you use PDC hangers, if that's not how it works then my question is ignorant.

9
C# Aurora / Re: Colony Automation
« on: January 13, 2018, 11:40:18 AM »
Just to say, his suggestion wouldn't facilitate roleplaying or a roleplaying style, it'd facilitate his particular roleplaying style. As someone who is heavily into the RP aspect rather than the gamey aspect, I don't like his suggestion either as it limits the options I have to roleplay. The fewer hard and fast rules empires have to live by the easier it is to imagine a wide variety of scenarios. So I am not for reducing the amount of deciding you are allowed to do either, as you are I am only in favour of reducing needless clicking where possible. I actually enjoy managing as much of my empire as possible and once ran a game with like, 10 or so player controlled factions without any real issues.

10
C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« on: January 13, 2018, 07:14:52 AM »
You should take a look at all the successful science fiction universes. Everything that can be ( without breaking the fiction ) is based on or inspired by real places / cultures / knowledge / behavior to make us immersed in the world and make the world feel plausible and "real".

The same thing is true for all successful games.
And both multirole and dedicated role aircraft have precedent in reality. So what was your point? I'm not saying lets just go pure fantasy, my point is that much as new technologies such as guided missiles and jet engines have completely changed the way we conduct air combat today vs world war II, it's entirely justifiable when you have all these new technologies and hypothetical imaginary substances, that the things you can do with them will be different than what we can do today and multirole may no longer be competitive. Or maybe it'll be the prime way of doing things. Either system is entirely justifiable, so making arguments based on current "reality" (especially a single project that is the way it is for political reasons, not practical ones) is nonsense. What matters here is what is best for gameplay. It's not that we should ignore reality entirely, it's that we're dealing with such a hypothetical scenario that many approaches are justifiable and conceivable.

11
C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« on: January 12, 2018, 05:35:56 PM »
Guys, Aurora isn't real life, we can't even hope to try and figure out what the "realistic" behaviour and design of components made out of fictional materials in a fictional universe with fictional properties would be. The prime consideration here should be gameplay, whether we want a multirole pod or specfic pods or both and how they should be balanced to each other should be based on what is best for gameplay and what gives us the most viable choices without creating needless BS. Not based on whether the F-35 is an overbloated project that should have been cancelled long ago but wasn't because the US government is under the thumb of Lockheed Martin and the arms industry.

12
C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« on: January 08, 2018, 11:42:44 AM »
The main reason IMHO why we have such a massive focus on quality today is that a single piece of equipment ( plane or submarine ) on it's own carries enough missiles/nuke warheads to totally flatten a whole country.

Imagine if a single 500 ton fighters in Aurora 4X could fire 50 nukes each of them being almost impossible to stop, individually targeted and with 75 times more firepower then it takes to wreck a capital city...


Then you hardly would mind paying 10 or even 50 times as much for superior quality since you only need a single bomber getting through and launching to inflict certain doom for your opponent.

Bombers aren't the main way of carrying nukes any more. ICBM's are and fighters can't shoot them down so it doesn't explain the focus on high quality strike fighters and ASFs.

13
C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« on: January 03, 2018, 02:00:08 PM »
Surely it being purely random would essentially make formations redundant though since it doesn't really matter how they're organised if they're just randomly firing at the closest thing?

One way to avoid players abusing a virtual front line with pairings to constantly get the best engagements is to make any shifting of a unit back from the front line to 1. take time and 2. give a status modifier like "retreating" that causes it to take significantly more casualties than it otherwise would (eg. eliminating defensive bonuses and giving it a penalty to attack) so that there is a price to pay for pulling your units back to the support line and then sending them back into combat.

14
C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« on: January 03, 2018, 06:48:46 AM »
I agree it shouldn't be totally random nor totally most efficient. It should be weighted a bit towards targeting the right thing with a decentish chance of targeting the wrong type.

15
C# Aurora / Re: Replacing PDCs
« on: January 02, 2018, 09:45:15 PM »
Looks great!

UI Feedback nitpicks on Part 1:

- Calling it Heavy, Medium and Light for all three of Base Unit Types, Component Types and Armor Types looks a bit confusing. Especially things like having a Heavy Vehicles with Light vehicle armor isn't perfectly clear what it does or how it would compare to a Light Vehicle with Heavy vehicle armor. Maybe Armour Types could be renamed to something like "Thin, Normal/Standard and Thick" instead?

The way I understand it, "light" vs "heavy" for the vehicle means weight, size and construction sturdiness. General things, kept vague so that one can RP it how you want. The armour is heavy armour or light armour or whatever. So a superheavy vehicle with no/light armour, think something like the space shuttle crawler. Whereas a superheavy vehicle with superheavy armour would be a super-tank or heavily armoured walker or whatever. But you can't put superheavy armour on something that isn't large and powerful enough to support it.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 28