Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Last post by Whitecold on Today at 10:45:32 AM »
But that is already in the game: A larger engine with the same total power is cheaper to develop. And cramming the same engine into a smaller housing (by increasing the power multiplier) increases cost by a lot.

I'd say the larger components are attractive enough the way they currently are, especially low power commercial engines.
What I mean is that larger engines with the same power density are more expensive to develop, for example using either 8 size 10 engines or 2 size 40 engines with the same total power (same power multiplier) in the same space. Here you are trading off HTK for fuel efficiency.
Power density is what you usually want to keep constant when outfitting your fleet to get the same fleet speed for all ships.
2
C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Last post by Titanian on Today at 07:17:49 AM »
Also, in real life larger does not necessarily mean more difficult to develop, as certain things get easier if you have the necessary space available compared to cramming everything into the smallest possible compartment.
But that is already in the game: A larger engine with the same total power is cheaper to develop. And cramming the same engine into a smaller housing (by increasing the power multiplier) increases cost by a lot.

I'd say the larger components are attractive enough the way they currently are, especially low power commercial engines.
3
C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Last post by Whitecold on Yesterday at 10:33:52 AM »
A small suggestion: Engines, shields, missile launcher, sensor, jump drive system development costs currently all scale linearly in size.
That leads to very expensive projects if you try to build one of the new size 400 drives, while missile engines are ridiculously cheap.

A SQRT(Size/10) scaling would make large components just a tad more attractive, and make missile development a bit more relevant. Also, in real life larger does not necessarily mean more difficult to develop, as certain things get easier if you have the necessary space available compared to cramming everything into the smallest possible compartment.
4
Advanced Tactical Command Academy / Re: Question on beam weapons
« Last post by Jovus on Yesterday at 07:34:40 AM »
One caveat: bodies that have ever had any atmosphere still count as having a very tiny bit even after you suck it all off with terraforming, so expect to see reduced performance from planetside beam weapons on any such bodies.

Which makes gauss PDCs almost never useful.
5
C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Last post by Bremen on Yesterday at 03:27:15 AM »
Space stations can use military components, though. The discussion was whether you could use industry instead of shipyards to build defense stations, which means they'd also have a bunch of guns and missile launchers that would also be military components.

As far as I can tell the only limitation on stations to be built by industry is "no armor"; I don't know if shields instead of armor would be practical, but it seems perfectly rules legal.
http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=8495.msg106758#msg106758
There are two more limitations: No engines, and no military systems to qualify for being a station.

Ah, well, then I guess the discussion is irrelevant. It's not the lack of armor that prevents you using construction factories to build defense bases, it's the fact that they can't have military components at all.
6
C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Last post by Whitecold on June 17, 2018, 11:58:40 PM »
Space stations can use military components, though. The discussion was whether you could use industry instead of shipyards to build defense stations, which means they'd also have a bunch of guns and missile launchers that would also be military components.

As far as I can tell the only limitation on stations to be built by industry is "no armor"; I don't know if shields instead of armor would be practical, but it seems perfectly rules legal.
http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=8495.msg106758#msg106758
There are two more limitations: No engines, and no military systems to qualify for being a station.
7
C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Last post by QuakeIV on June 17, 2018, 11:57:09 PM »
Shielded unarmored defense stations made by factories is an interesting concept, worthy of experimentation in the very least.  (hype for new version intensifies)
8
The Academy / Setting up rank and class priorities - how and why
« Last post by Jovus on June 17, 2018, 11:38:42 PM »
If you're relatively new like me, it's entirely possible that, while you know what is on the DAC/Rank/Info screen, and you've even used some of it for design purposes, you've never really touched the class priority portion of the Minimum Rank and Class Priority section of the screen.

I'm here to tell you why you should care, and how to do so. At the bottom of the post I've included a screenshot with the area I'm takling about highlighted.

First, though, in case you've never used it: the Minimum Rank portion allows you to set the, well, minimum rank of officer you want to be able to pilot a given craft. If no officers of that rank or above are available when officer assignment happens, that craft will instead have no CO and therefore no bonuses from the CO that she doesn't have. So why would you set it to anything other than the minimum rank in your navy? Well, you might do so for roleplay reasons. I personally find Rear Admirals commanding FACs to be a little immersion-breaking, since in a real navy they'd never do such a thing. If you're not concerned with roleplay, it's also true that higher-ranked officers tend to have better and more bonuses than lower-ranked ones, so if you have some particularly important ships you might want to set them to require a higher rank of commander.

However, this allows you to set a minimum rank, not a maximum. So if you just set the Minimum Rank field, you could easily still get that Rear Admiral commanding a FAC. If you want the auto-assign mechanics to assign your officers sensibly (or at least a deal more sensibly than otherwise), you need to set the Class Priority.

Class Priority defaults to 0. Classes with higher numbers under Class Priority will get filled first, on down the list to the lowest priority. Negative numbers are accepted, and treated as you'd expect.

Pretty simple, all told. But now you need to figure out what a sensible priority setup looks like, and set yours accordingly.

In my game at the moment, I'm using a fair number of fighters and FACs, so I've set them to zero priority, so I don't have to change it in their case. However, I definitely want them filled pretty much last, as putting officers in your fighters is a good way to get them dead, so I definitely want my higher-ranking sorts put somewhere else instead. Here's what my current Class Priority Schematic looks like, from bottom to top:

Ship typePriority
PDCs-10
Shuttles & pinnaces-10
General Commercial-5
Fighters & FACs0
'Important' commercial (harvesters, miners)1
Frigates, explo carriers2
Destroyers3
Light cruisers, escort carriers4
Other cruisers5
Battlecruisers and Battleships6
Carriers7
Critical commands10

Hopefully a worked example helps you figure out how you want to set up your own class priority paradigm. Remember, the exact amounts more or less than don't matter, so exact numbers are up to you for ease of use and memory.

9
C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Last post by Bremen on June 17, 2018, 05:58:20 PM »
I'm actually kind of curious about how practical orbital stations would be with shield generators instead of armor, since that would mean (I think) you could build them with industry. But building them with shipyards would be workable too; they still get hefty bonuses compared to ships.

I know in the current version of Aurora PDC beam fire controls get a 50% range bonus, I don't remember if it was mentioned if that gets applied to the new ground based STO beam weapons? But it might help with the worries over being bombarded from out of range.
I think shield generators qualify as military, which disqualifies them from use on stations.

Space stations can use military components, though. The discussion was whether you could use industry instead of shipyards to build defense stations, which means they'd also have a bunch of guns and missile launchers that would also be military components.

As far as I can tell the only limitation on stations to be built by industry is "no armor"; I don't know if shields instead of armor would be practical, but it seems perfectly rules legal.
10
General News / Re: AI Aide Progress
« Last post by boggo2300 on June 17, 2018, 05:47:04 PM »
YAY!  progress!
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10