Big Badass Battleships

[alex_brunius (OP)]

Which is why you add additional armour to the turrets,

Which I can't do to railguns (since you can't put them in turrets)

Also the main reason it's difficult to simulate is that in space, your entire ship is armoured/protected and there isn't really a surface deck, and there isn't a need to designate which areas of the ship require more/less armour because you can't target subsystems only individual ships, if you could say target the weapons, or the dorsal turret of the ship then armouring weapons would be beneficial as you can keep your guns firing for longer if the enemy can't neutralize them ASAP.   

So to cut a long convoluted paragraph short, due to limitations of the combat system there isn't any need to integrate a complex armour system; despite this there are ways to simulate it. 

I don't agree.   Ofcourse there is a need to have a better armor system. 

Targeting in WW2 naval action was also 100% random just like it is in Aurora, do you think you could aim for individual subsystem at 30'000 meters away using optical aiming?

Sometimes you score a critical hit in the magazine (Hood), sometimes you can't even sink the ship after turning it into a wreak (Bismarck).  Whats true for both Aurora and WW2 is that most shots at long range will miss.



To summarize:
Armored magaizine = Possible, Great!
Armored railgun turrent = Not possible (please make it so)
Armored Engines = Not possible (please make it so)

[ThatBlondeGuy]

You are correct and I did forget about that, yet still in Aurora you'd think that targeting was more precise. Aim that missile for the engines, for example. Especially with Railgun turrets and so forth, which would have much more precise targeting systems. In any case, I fully agree with you... Although for a different reason, I tend to hate using missiles and base all my civs around Railguns/speed/fighters. The only ships with missile tubes tend to be the carriers and only then they get 1-2 missile tubes.

[alex_brunius (OP)]

Actually targeting wouldn't be more precise. 

If a missile or gun has 50% chance to hit (which they do) there is simply no chance to target them at specific systems at all seeing how only half of them are able to hit the target at all. 


If targeting gets more precise it just means you can start firing further away.    (and distances in Aurora + the speed of things you try to hit are pretty extreme).

[ThatBlondeGuy]

Yes but a computer can do the targeting calculations far faster than a person could. The way I think about is that the 50% chance is 50% that you're target does evasive maneuvers and your targeting system didn't expect/account for, or in the case of a missile you missed due to that and or countermeasures, rather than you firing in the wrong direction/missing.

[alex_brunius (OP)]

Yes but a computer can do the targeting calculations far faster than a person could.  The way I think about is that the 50% chance is 50% that you're target does evasive maneuvers and your targeting system didn't expect/account for, or in the case of a missile you missed due to that and or countermeasures, rather than you firing in the wrong direction/missing.

Which still doesn't matter. 

Since if it's 50% chance they did evasive manouver big enough for the shot to miss, 45% of the remaining 50% hits probably include smaller manouvers which meant hitting other parts of the ship then intended or aimed at.

It doesn't matter if it's human or computer controlled aiming, No weapon exists that miss a target 50% of the time and hit the minimal bullseye the other 50%.

[Charlie Beeler]

To take the two suggestions you have left in order.

Railguns have been deliberately excluded from turrets.  Highly doubt that will change.

Engine armor used to exist.  If I Recall Correctly, it was removed by acclaim somewhere around v4.9.  It was a hold over from the original game implementation and really didn't work well.  Steve may reintroduce some version at a later date.

The way armor used to work is that it was a specific value that the per hit damage had to overcome before damage was applied to internal systems.  This was changed to the current system about 4 years ago.  Something to remember is that in Aurora ships have no facing, movement being the exception.  Armour columns are calculated based on the surface area of a sphere.

Magazine "armour" is roughly just additional htk points at the expense of hull space allocation to storage.

Keep in mind that Aurora evolved from games that stressed strategic simulation not detailed tactical,  ship design is basically an abstract representation not a detailed simulation.

[bean]

Actually, I think that engine armor was removed in 5.4.  I recall using it on some ships when I first started playing in 5.3.

[alex_brunius (OP)]

Keep in mind that Aurora evolved from games that stressed strategic simulation not detailed tactical,  ship design is basically an abstract representation not a detailed simulation.

Is it a strategic or a tactical simulation choice between 0. 5 or 0. 8 size engines for missiles?

To be honest I think Battleship armor allocation is on a whole lot bigger level of abstraction then many things you do in Aurora like detailed control of fighters/missile design and micromanagement.


And that you can't armor main guns and put them in turrets is just silly.
Ship main guns have been encased in turrets since the era of monitors and they still are.

[Nathan_]

Did you even read my post? If you put 10 levels of armor ALL OVER YOUR SHIP then they are NOT unarmored!!! That armor will protect everything equally much.  

I did read your post, you want to move HTK(and stay with me here, armor is not htk) from crew quarters to guns.

When I look at the damage allocation chart my ships fuel storage, crew quarters, engineering spaces, hangars and other not combat vital systems tend to typically make up around half of it.  That means if they didn't have any armor I could have had twice as much protecting the stuff I really need to work in combat.  

DAC is the likelyhood of any component getting hit once the belt is penetrated. DAC is likewise, neither HTK nor armor. Indeed, that just means that the non-critical stuff has a 1/2 chance of taking the hit for your vital components(you'll find out just how vital crew quarters are in lethal environment combat in short order however).

[Charlie Beeler]

The answer to your query is both.  Strategic in that it impacts logistics, tactical in that it impact speed and range (among other things).

Frankly the bulk of your argument is specious at best.  You will get much better reception if the suggestions were delivered in a way that showed that there is actually a benefit to the game structure and flow.  At the end of the day if Steve doesn't see a benefit that he is willing to pursue it will never happen in Aurora.

Now that the cranky NCO in me has said his piece here is some friendly advice.  Play Aurora as it is.  Figure out how it works and how to get the most out of it.  It's detailed.  It's abstract.  It can be a royal pain.  It can be one hell of a lot of fun.  I'm been involve at one level or another ever since Steve told us that he was starting down a new path and started soliciting ideas. 

If you really want to see what Aurora can really do play multiple races at odds with each other, with you in control of each race.  That is where you will find the fine details really come into their own. 

@Byron, your probably correct about when engine armor was dropped.  I haven't used it since at least when ship armor was changed to it's current form and really haven't kept track.

[bean]

I'm going to second what Charlie says.  The game is as it is, much like the real world.  However much you want to do World War II In SPACE!!!!!!! this isn't the game to do that with.  Find out what works and what doesn't.  Some things that seem like cool ideas just don't work, and the real world also works that way.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

I think the game could use a more initial fragility.  I love leaky damage, no matter the game.  Non-leaky makes it a game of focus fire to actually knock ships out of the fight; with leaky damage, spreading your fire out can be a valid tactical option for degrading enemy systems. 

That could take the form of 'concussion' damage from normal hits, or perhaps an inner/outer hull mechanic that leaves some systems partially exposed to weapons fire (engines, weapons, sensors) while others require armor penetration (life support, reactors, magazines).

[bean]

I think the game could use a more initial fragility.  I love leaky damage, no matter the game.  Non-leaky makes it a game of focus fire to actually knock ships out of the fight; with leaky damage, spreading your fire out can be a valid tactical option for degrading enemy systems. 

That could take the form of 'concussion' damage from normal hits, or perhaps an inner/outer hull mechanic that leaves some systems partially exposed to weapons fire (engines, weapons, sensors) while others require armor penetration (life support, reactors, magazines).

I certainly wouldn't object to something like that.  Damage systems have always been difficult to implement.  One thing I would like to see is soak.  Systems should still absorb some damage after they break, as they don't magically go poof when destroyed.  Inner/outer hull would be very nice, and is somewhat akin to what the OP suggested.
The list of things I'd like to see from a realism standpoint is fairly long.  Besides the crew and ground combat stuff I posted elsewhere, a more realistic approach to shipbuilding would help.  For example, it should be fairly easy to do electronics refits, particularly if you're replacing a size 1 Thermal-6 with a size 1 Thermal-8.  Designating outside and inside would lead to both some interesting tactics, and more verisimilitude in refits.  Outside refits would have far less overhead than inside ones, and turret armor would become useful.  You could either build ships with lots of small guns, and try to smash the "upperworks" or with a few large guns, and try to get through the armor.

[alex_brunius (OP)]

I did read your post, you want to move HTK(and stay with me here, armor is not htk) from crew quarters to guns.

So you did read it but didn't understand it (or choose to misunderstand it).

DAC is the likelyhood of any component getting hit once the belt is penetrated.  DAC is likewise, neither HTK nor armor.  Indeed, that just means that the non-critical stuff has a 1/2 chance of taking the hit for your vital components(you'll find out just how vital crew quarters are in lethal environment combat in short order however).

Combat performance in tough situations is about keeping weapons and engines online for the next seconds or minutes, I have a hard time seeing how crew quarters can be vital in that situation.

@Charlie Beeler
My gameplay argument is that it would give us more flexibility in ship design.  Ships that rely on speed could have no armor and a bit of extra armor for their engines to ensure they are not knocked out by lucky hits.  Slow dreadnaught ships relying on providing long range firepower could have their railguns armored so that even if all other systems are knocked out they remain as a stationary artillery platform for the rest of the battle.

Forcing us to armor all componens equally goes against everything in this game seeing how the rest of the game is all about open design choices and almost anything is possible.

[Charlie Beeler]

Alex I could make an incredibly blunt and condicending reply.  I'll leave it at this.  Your statements demostrate that you don't have a good understanding of Aurora.