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 - Barkhorn

Pages: [1] 2 3
1
C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« on: December 22, 2017, 10:46:17 AM »
What about setting up a patreon like Dwarf Fortress uses?
The following users thanked this post: Mastik

2
The Academy / Re: Question on Beam Damage's
« on: December 10, 2017, 07:38:51 PM »
TS is tracking speed.  It's how fast their target can be before they start taking penalties.

The long series of numbers, like the ten 10's, is meant to show how the damage drops off.  The first number is the damage at point-blank range, each number after that is the damage at further and further ranges.

Mesons do not do anything specifically against sensors.  Mesons do only one damage at all ranges, but ignore shields and armor.  Microwaves only damage sensors.  They also drain shields at 3x their damage.
The following users thanked this post: Tor Cha

3
C# Aurora / Re: Replacing PDCs
« on: December 03, 2017, 11:45:54 AM »
A few things:

First, about fighters providing close-air-support.  I really love the idea of having a new module that allows loading of non-nuclear weaponry.  But the weapon type NEED's to not be decided on design.  In real life, modern strike fighters can carry munitions capable of attacking nearly any surface target.  The F18 for instance can carry anti-ship missiles, anti-tank missiles, rocket pods, dumb bombs of varying sizes, smart bombs of varying sizes, cluster bomb containers of varying sizes, and probably more I'm unaware of.  Any F18 can carry all of these, it's not like one version of F18 gets ATGM's, one gets rockets etc.  The F18 has hard-points where deck crews can attach the desired weapon.  So my suggestion is to have the ground attack module filled when the fighter takes off, not when it's designed.  Maybe have a few versions of varying sizes to allow loading of heavier or lighter weaponry, also maybe lock some of them behind techs.  This raises a question though.  Will there be ANY non-space-worthy air units, like helicopters or actual aircraft?  Another question: How will anti-air (NOT StO) weapons damage to fighters be calculated?  How will it even make any sense?  These fighters can have armor that can survive nuclear weapons, how can any non-StO weapon hurt them?

Second, the non-abstract dropships are very important for more than just troop transport module size reasons.  It's pretty nonsensical that I would have to run the gauntlet of StO fire with huge transport ships.  On D-Day, the LST's didn't go right up to the beach through defensive fire.  They unloaded their infantry into Higgins boats which then went to the beach.  This is even worse for boarding actions.  Assuming relative speed will play a part in the new boarding mechanics as it did in VB6, it's practically mandatory to use dedicated dropships.
The following users thanked this post: serger

4
C# Aurora / Re: Replacing PDCs
« on: October 06, 2017, 05:27:00 PM »
How about logistics units take MSP and use it to resupply/reinforce combat units?

It'd be more realistic really.  Rear echelon units don't suffer much attrition in real life.
The following users thanked this post: DIT_grue

5
Aurora Suggestions / Re: Semi-Official 7.x Suggestion Thread
« on: September 30, 2017, 10:12:36 PM »
Gauss cannons DO do full damage at max range.  It's only railguns that have that damage drop-off for no reason.
The following users thanked this post: obsidian_green

6
The Academy / Re: Flight crew berths?
« on: August 31, 2017, 07:49:57 PM »
"Flight crew berths" are crew quarters space for the crews of parasites, like fighters and dropships.

To decide how many flight crew berths you need, you first have to design your parasites, and decide how many your main craft will carry.

For example, if I'm building a carrier, I first decide how many fighters it'll carry.  Lets say 10 for this example.  Then I design the fighters.  Once they're designed, I know they take 3 crew per fighter.  Meaning I need at least 30 flight crew berths on the carrier.

It can be a good idea to add extras to allow the carrier to be used with other fighters that have not been designed yet and may require more crew, or to allow the carrier to pick up survivors from life pods without overcrowding.
The following users thanked this post: Odin

7
Spoilers / Re: Star swarm questions
« on: August 27, 2017, 09:00:47 PM »
The 60,000 ton ship is the mothership.  Not 100% positive, but I believe the 5000 ton ships are workers, who harvest wrecks to make more ships.
The following users thanked this post: Odin

8
C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« on: August 24, 2017, 10:55:44 AM »
As far as I know there is no way presently to way drop into place ground to space defenses since a PDC needs to be assembled.
PDC's can be quite small, and can be assembled by construction brigades.  If you bring some CB's along with your invasion, you could throw down a few ~5000 ton PDC's in a few weeks.
The following users thanked this post: MagusXIX

9
Aurora Suggestions / Re: Semi-Official 7.x Suggestion Thread
« on: July 23, 2017, 11:09:52 AM »
Suggestion:

On the task group window, allow us to filter task groups by task force.  Currently the task group dropdown can get pretty cluttered and there is no good way to clean it up.

Allowing us to filter by task force would both help this problem and would make task forces more useful.
The following users thanked this post: MagusXIX

10
C# Aurora / Re: Box Launcher Reloads
« on: July 21, 2017, 11:18:32 AM »
I just want the new system to not increase the amount of micromanagement it takes to reload box launchers.  I do not like the idea of having to assign motherships and land every ship I build in a hangar just to reload my launchers.  It's not the logistics of it that bothers me; I don't mind building the hangars.  I just really don't want any more things to manage that don't really add anything.  There's already a huge amount of clicking to do simple things, please don't make it worse.
The following users thanked this post: ardem, QuakeIV, MagusXIX, El Pip, Jovus

11
Aurora Suggestions / Re: Semi-Official 7.x Suggestion Thread
« on: July 19, 2017, 05:04:08 PM »
Suggestion:

On the task groups window, make the check boxes for filtering destinations remember which ones you have selected. 
Currently if you have "Show all pops" selected, and give an order that would require leaving the system, it clears all the check boxes when it loads the new system.
The following users thanked this post: superstrijder15

12
C# Aurora / Re: Box Launcher Reloads
« on: July 18, 2017, 09:59:33 PM »
How about making missile transfers and box launcher reloads use cargo loading mechanics?  That seems a little more realistic; ships in real life with Vertical Launch Systems (the real life equivalent for box launchers) don't have to visit a drydock to be reloaded.  The reloading equipment is basically just a crane.

This would be more realistic for carriers too; improved cargo handling equipment modules would basically simulate the dollies and trams they use on real aircraft carriers to haul bombs and missiles from the magazines to the aircraft.
The following users thanked this post: MagusXIX, Shiwanabe, PartyAlias, superstrijder15

13
Aurora Suggestions / Re: Semi-Official 7.x Suggestion Thread
« on: July 18, 2017, 04:14:26 PM »
Suggestion:

Add a maximum rank option on the DAC page of the ship design window.  I should be able to prevent rear admirals from being assigned to fighters.
The following users thanked this post: MagusXIX, serger, superstrijder15

14
Aurora Suggestions / Re: Semi-Official 7.x Suggestion Thread
« on: July 17, 2017, 03:42:49 PM »
Suggestion:

Simplify shipyard expansion.  Merge all the orders like "Add 1000 tons to capacity" orders into one "Add X tons to capacity" with a field to input exactly how many tons we want to add.

Edited to add this addition:
Do the same thing for adding slipways; let us add more than one at once.
The following users thanked this post: Garfunkel, MagusXIX, serger, obsidian_green, superstrijder15

15
Bureau of Ship Design / Re: Ships
« on: July 15, 2017, 10:59:11 PM »
These have super thin armor.  A single strength 16 missile hit, or strength 4 laser hit could kill them.  All it takes is one bad dice roll and bam, you've got a magazine explosion and ~10,000bp down the drain.

Missile choices are odd too; why two different size 10 launcher types?

I LOVE the spinal laser though.
The following users thanked this post: Lamandier

Pages: [1] 2 3