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 ... 28
C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« on: Yesterday at 11:16:19 AM »
Now is the time to change something.  He's gotta rewrite the whole game anyway, why not rewrite it better?

C# Aurora / Re: C# Ground Combat
« on: January 16, 2018, 11:30:33 AM »
So this means you will be able to assign an autocannon pod to a box launcher? That's going to feel pretty weird.

I also second what others have wrote, that it does feel off if you won't need any resupply of munitions for air bombardment. I mean I do understand that we don't want to have to keep track different calibers of autocannon shells / ground bombs, but at least having them using same generic Supply to rearm like the ground forces will would solve that.
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.

C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« on: January 15, 2018, 11:18:43 PM »
Really the only part of Aurora that's mandatory is ship design.  You don't absolutely have to terraform.  You don't absolutely have to do gene modifications.  You don't absolutely have to do ground combat.  You don't even need populated colonies.  So if the game is too mentally taxing for you, just ignore parts of it.  Your empire will be a little worse if you do, but it doesn't really matter.  NPR AI is pretty braindead and not really much of a challenge.

Aurora Chat / Re: What is a financial centre anyway?
« on: January 12, 2018, 08:17:49 PM »
Honestly I kinda doubt that there are any blue-collar jobs at all in any Aurora civilization.  The tech is just so advanced it seems like anything simple enough to require what we would call blue-collar workers would be automated.  Just because it's in the manufacturing sector doesn't have to mean they're a factory worker bolting widgets together.

I like thinking of financial centers as bitcoin mines, stock and cryptocurrency exchanges, and banking institutions.  Bitcoin mining on a large scale requires a lot of technicians to make sure the servers stay online.  You should see the ones in China.  They're huge warehouses full of server racks, with gigantic industrial fans at the end keeping the whole place cool.  They work 3 shifts of technicians so they're fully staffed 24/7.

Aurora Chat / Re: Secondary Guns
« on: January 12, 2018, 06:01:32 PM »
Considering you can only have one spinal mounted weapon, secondaries will likely make up most of your firepower.

What I do when designing beam ships is decide on a total tonnage and speed.  This tells me how much tonnage I can spend on weaponry.  Once I know my weaponry budget, I put in the biggest spinal weapon I can, as many gauss turrets as I think I may need, and then I fill the rest of the space with the biggest normal mount lasers I can build.  You don't need to turret them, with their low rate of fire they'll be bad against missiles no matter what, and if you're in a beam fight against someone who vastly outpaces you you're already dead and no amount of tracking speed will save you.

So in a 6000 ton beam destroyer, I will have one spinal laser, 4-6 normal lasers, and 2-3 gauss turrets.

C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« on: January 11, 2018, 11:21:31 AM »
The failings of one multi-role do not disprove the utility of all multi-roles.

The F18 is a very successful multi-role.

And my idea does not preclude single role fighters either.  There's nothing stopping you from building a "fighter" like the Ju87 Stuka.

C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« on: January 09, 2018, 07:20:14 PM »
If C# Aurora really does run 1000x faster than VB6 Aurora, then we'll see players building some absolutely gargantuan empires.  If you're using carriers, you'll be building tens of thousands of fighters.  At those numbers, it starts looking more attractive from a logistics standpoint to go with multi-roles, even if those fighters are sub-optimal at both anti-space and anti-ground operations.

How I would do it is I would have ~3 sizes of ground combat module, representing different size ordnance hardpoints/bomb-bays.  The smallest would be for light weapons, the largest would be for heavy weapons.  This way you could have a primarily anti-space fighter that also carries the smallest ground combat module so it can be pressed into close-air-support service.  Or you could have a primarily anti-ground fighter with a couple of the heavy ground combat modules and a gauss cannon.  This would be meant primarily for close-air-support, but could at least shoot back if it got intercepted.

C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« on: January 09, 2018, 11:50:18 AM »
Barkhorn, There is a difference between putting two 250kg iron bombs that are released by pulling a switch with no targeting, and a guided missile that the onboard computer aims for the pilot and that has a CEP of 3 meters. I think my favourite option would be that the ground attack module starts as fairly big one and then gets smaller with tech - improved miniaturization and more destructive warheads and so on. This would encourage specialized fighters in early game while allowing efficient multi-role fighters later on. That already kinda happens with ships - at TL0-3 it is very difficult to design effective multipurpose ships but from TL4 onwards it becomes quite possible.
There really isn't much difference from the pilot's perspective.   The targeting software is on the weapon itself, not the aircraft.  A laser-guided bomb requires no extra equipment on the aircraft; the laser can be pointed by an observer on the ground or another plane.  Further, even in cases where the software IS on the plane, what difference does it make?  All modern aircraft have fully-programmable multi-function displays.  If I new weapon gets invented that needs to use the plane's computer, you just need to install the software.  You don't have to buy a whole new plane.

We already have multi-roles in real life.  It's completely unbelievable to me that we would lose that capability.  Watch some gameplay footage of DCS, you'll see that even aircraft from the 70's and 80's could carry all manner of guided and unguided weaponry.

I prefer the dedicated modules for a couple of reasons. Partially because I am aiming for a more WW2 / WH40k feel to ground combat, but mainly for consistency. If the fighters can have multi-purpose modules, why can't the ground units? Think of this of more like F-15 vs A-10 vs SU-25, etc..
The F15 can carry bombs and ATGM's, and the A-10 can carry air-to-air missiles.  Sure, the A-10 is better at ground attack and the F15 is better at air-to-air, but it's not like there's no overlap at all.

Even WW2-era fighters could carry bombs.  As I said before, while the P51D was designed to escort bombers at high altitude, it was still able to carry 1000lbs of bombs.  The Mosquito might be an even better example.  It had nose-mounted 20mm cannons for air-to-air work, and could carry bombs, rockets, or even a torpedo.

Bureau of Ship Design / Re: Ships
« on: January 08, 2018, 05:15:49 PM »
The fighter-bomber seems pretty slow.

C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« on: January 08, 2018, 12:10:29 PM »
But this is actually cost-effectiveness question. Because high-tech planes are so insanely expensive, they need to be able to perform multiple roles. Even so, there still are fighter/bombers and bombers.

It's not that many decades ago when planes had very strict role separation - you had fighters, (ground)attack planes, light/medium/heavy bombers, dive bombers, torpedo bombers and long-range recon planes, and more. Partially it was because of technical limitations but specialized planes were usually better in their dedicated role.

Having said that, I'd prefer if both approaches are possible - even better if one approach is better early in the game and the other gets better later as tech improves, or something like that.
Of course you had, and still have specialized planes.  But you'd be hard-pressed to find a single fighter from the 30's on which was unable to carry any bombs at all.  The P51 for instance was designed to escort strategic bombers at high altitude.  And yet even the P51 could carry up to 1000lbs of bombs.

C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« on: January 07, 2018, 05:20:17 PM »
I think we need a way to have the ground combat module work for all ground targets (including atmospheric fighters).  In real life, practically every fighter can carry every type of ordnance.  The F18 Hornet can carry dumb bombs, GPS-guided bombs, laser guided bombs, unguided rockets, multiple kinds of air-to-air missiles, multiple kinds of anti-tank missiles, multiple kinds of anti-ship missiles, gun pods of varying calibers, extra fuel tanks, and ECM pods.  And these are all attached shortly before take-off.  You don't have to buy totally separate plane if you want to change from dropping bombs to shooting rockets. 

I think instead, we should have one ground combat module that, when the fighter is launched from the mothership, must be set as to what kind of weapon it will carry.  I would give fighters a higher chance to target their preferred target type as well.  As a trade-off I would require the fighters to return to their carrier and rearm, draining MSP (or a new kind of supply, called "Conventional Ordnance" or something) from the carrier.

C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« on: January 07, 2018, 02:37:19 PM »
Are the logistics units themselves used up, or the MSP they carry?

I think it should only be the MSP being used up, so I can resupply them with cargo holds or maintenance storage bays instead of the comparatively-heavy troop transport module.  It also doesn't make much sense RP-wise for the units themselves to be used up.

C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« on: January 04, 2018, 01:37:26 PM »
I think we could possibly use a mechanic that would simulate encirclements.  The biggest advantage an attacking force has is that they can concentrate their forces more effectively; they decide where the attack will be so they can allocate all their forces there.  Defenders must defend the whole line.  The biggest disadvantage attackers have is that any unit that breaks through is at risk of becoming encircled.

Perhaps we could have a system where during combat, a unit that fails a "prevent encirclement" check could take the same penalties they would if they ran out of supplies.  This check would be easier to pass, but still not guaranteed, for defenders.

I think this could be a good way to ensure that people don't always all-in Front-line Attack.  Sometimes the bonus to fire rate will not be worth the risk of being encircled.

C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« on: January 03, 2018, 07:31:23 PM »
How will this system handle POW's and captured equipment?

We should probably expect absolutely gigantic numbers of POW's compared to what we get in naval warfare.  Anything that will kill a ship will also kill most of the crew instantly, but a ground unit is much more likely to be defeated but not exterminated.  For instance in real life, +100,000 German soldiers surrendered at the end of the Battle of Stalingrad.

Further, in real life captured equipment was often used in battle.  The German Pz38t was a mostly-unmodified captured Czech tank, for instance.  Will there be some system for using captured equipment?  Maybe even POW's should be usable; a not-insignificant number of Soviets captured during Operation Barbarossa were sent back to the front to fight for the Germans.

Will there be some system for capturing ships stuck in a shipyard, either for maintenance or under construction?  I am fairly certain there are a few examples of ships in WW2 getting captured by ground troops who took the port before they could get underway.  I also know the British sank much of the French fleet in port, fearing the Germans would capture it.

The Academy / Re: Multiple Questions
« on: December 24, 2017, 06:04:16 PM »
2) Shields are a health-bar.  Regen fills it, damage drains it.
3) a buoy can be right on it.
4) A mine is 2-stage missile.  The first stage is all sensors.  The second stage is one or more normal missiles.  They need on-board active sensors to home in if I remember correctly.
4.1) If you mean laser warheads, yeah
5) I doubt it, because you have no control over the missile once it's launched.  No way to tell the buoys to spread out.  Not that I can see anyways.
5.2) yeah you can do that.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 28