C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions

[SevenOfCarina]

Another thing that  I have wanted on Aurora for a long time is a missile type that you can use similar to a MIRV but have no engines and whose missiles can be individually launched from a larger missile launcher but not part of the same salvo.

Let's say that you have 8 size 12 launchers on a ship and you then stuff them each with size 4 missiles using this feature you would be able to launch 3 salvos of 8 missiles each with a 5s gap.

Of course you could just make a MIRV that launches all missiles in one salvo if saturating an enemy is the meaning. But sometimes you actually might want to launch only a few missiles on each target such as against fighters, FAC or smaller scout ships. As these crafts most likely will become more prominent you can make your regular missile cruisers more versatile by being able to engage swarms of fighters at long range. There also can be an idea of having smaller AMM missiles stored in regular launchers as you might need larger more capable AMM, especially long range AMM or those fit with sensors such as ECCM and the like.

This could make certain missile ships more dynamic as they can carry more types of missiles. I think this could be quite and interesting game mechanic, at least something I have wanted in the game for a long time.

That seems superfluous. If you have twelve launchers with three sub-missiles, you'll get the exact same result if you just launch all sub-missiles loaded in four launchers.

[Jorgen_CAB]

Another thing that  I have wanted on Aurora for a long time is a missile type that you can use similar to a MIRV but have no engines and whose missiles can be individually launched from a larger missile launcher but not part of the same salvo.

Let's say that you have 8 size 12 launchers on a ship and you then stuff them each with size 4 missiles using this feature you would be able to launch 3 salvos of 8 missiles each with a 5s gap.

Of course you could just make a MIRV that launches all missiles in one salvo if saturating an enemy is the meaning. But sometimes you actually might want to launch only a few missiles on each target such as against fighters, FAC or smaller scout ships. As these crafts most likely will become more prominent you can make your regular missile cruisers more versatile by being able to engage swarms of fighters at long range. There also can be an idea of having smaller AMM missiles stored in regular launchers as you might need larger more capable AMM, especially long range AMM or those fit with sensors such as ECCM and the like.

This could make certain missile ships more dynamic as they can carry more types of missiles. I think this could be quite and interesting game mechanic, at least something I have wanted in the game for a long time.

That seems superfluous. If you have twelve launchers with three sub-missiles, you'll get the exact same result if you just launch all sub-missiles loaded in four launchers.

Not if you want to fire them at different targets, that was the point... let's say you have size 12 launchers and you want to stock them with 8 size 1.5 AMM missiles for example. You want to fire them individually because that is how the AMM missile logic works... you don't want to fire one size two MIRV at each incoming enemy missile, you want one missile to fire. The same is you fire against enemy fighters... you might want to fire them one or two at a time against such targets not is large bulk.

Imagine a large missile cruisers that can have a portion of their missile storage with these AMM packed missiles. You can use your missile cruisers as makeshift escort ships when you need without necessarily use smaller launchers. This also happen to be how modern ships tend to use their vertical launch systems for example.

[Alsadius]

That seems like a lot of coding work for a fairly small impact. Maybe in a future version, but it's certainly not a priority right now.

[Jorgen_CAB]

That seems like a lot of coding work for a fairly small impact. Maybe in a future version, but it's certainly not a priority right now.

It is just a suggestion... the rest is up to Steve to decide what is worth what..   

[Garfunkel]

Easy FLAG / RACE change for spoilers.

Change the flag and race code for all spoilers in C# to look for a specific pictures in the flag and race folders instead of random ones. Currently, you can get a picture of Bears with the flag of Vietnam for Precursors for example, and since it is not possible to change them, you'll have to stare at those pictures every time you check the Foreign Intelligence window. Only workaround is to manually switch the flag & race pictures that the game picked.

In C#, it would be great if the game was looking for swarm.jpg and precursor.jpg and invader.jpg and rakshasa.jpg in RACE folder and swarm_flag.jpg and so on in the FLAG folder. This would make it very easy for players to pick whatever images they wanted for each game. The only downside is that you'd know immediately that you've encountered one of the spoilers but hey, experienced players recognize them pretty fast in any case.

Alternatively, include a button in Foreign Intelligence window to change the race and flag pictures for all known contacts.

[SevenOfCarina]

I'm sure there are quite a few people on the forum who find the concept of massive fleets built around a limited number of large, powerful warships appealing. I'm also sure there are people who like the idea of Star Trek style independent long-range cruisers for exploration and expeditionary warfare. Unfortunately, though, the size of jump drives in the game makes it all but impossible to build ships with any kind of reasonable mission tonnage at low tech levels, when the game is most fun to play. Additionally, the cost of jump drives means that you always want to take maximum advantage of their capabilities, so any expeditionary group will end up comprising at least three or four vessels of a given tonnage, with one jump warship.

This is not ideal, but a simple change can rectify this. We already have self-only jump drives in the game, so why not extend that? A new technology, for about 5,000 RP, will allow jump drives to be marked as 'self-only'. This will cut their build cost and research cost by half, and their size by a third, but only allow them to jump the ship they are mounted on. An advanced version of this tech, for 20,000 RP, will cut it to a third and a fourth, respectively. Using regular jump drives will still be cheaper and more efficient when jumping squadrons of ships, so self-only drives will be strictly inferior for smaller vessels that are built in large numbers, for whom economies of scale make dedicated jump ships viable.

[QuakeIV]

I don't totally agree with the jump drive thing being a serious limit insofar as I haven't ever really let that stop me from putting drives onto every military ship so they have the independent capability.  Yeah there is a cost, but for me its usually not that big of a deal.

e:  Though I'd vaguely prefer an option to build a cheaper single-ship drive that doesn't have the gang jump capability since I almost never use it.

[Rabid_Cog]

I'm sure there are quite a few people on the forum who find the concept of massive fleets built around a limited number of large, powerful warships appealing. I'm also sure there are people who like the idea of Star Trek style independent long-range cruisers for exploration and expeditionary warfare. Unfortunately, though, the size of jump drives in the game makes it all but impossible to build ships with any kind of reasonable mission tonnage at low tech levels, when the game is most fun to play. Additionally, the cost of jump drives means that you always want to take maximum advantage of their capabilities, so any expeditionary group will end up comprising at least three or four vessels of a given tonnage, with one jump warship.

This is not ideal, but a simple change can rectify this. We already have self-only jump drives in the game, so why not extend that? A new technology, for about 5,000 RP, will allow jump drives to be marked as 'self-only'. This will cut their build cost and research cost by half, and their size by a third, but only allow them to jump the ship they are mounted on. An advanced version of this tech, for 20,000 RP, will cut it to a third and a fourth, respectively. Using regular jump drives will still be cheaper and more efficient when jumping squadrons of ships, so self-only drives will be strictly inferior for smaller vessels that are built in large numbers, for whom economies of scale make dedicated jump ships viable.

Just a note, if regular jump drives can jump 5 ships and self-only jump drives are 1/5 the tonnage of a regular jump drive, then they are pretty much exactly equal. Arguably slightly superior since you are splitting the tonnage among 5 ships. This isn't criticism of your idea, its just something that needs to be kept in mind when figuring out balance of the research cost of the size modifier.

The issue is, in about 50% of jumps without a gate the ship jumps alone anyway (think surveying). In 99% of jumps there is no combat on the other side of the jump and the number of ships that can jump at once is irrelevant. Frankly, I think I can count the number of jump point combat scenarios I've read about on this board on one hand. Combat jumps just aren't a significant part of the game. If self-jumps were 1/3 the size of regular jump drives, slapping one of them on each of your military ships might turn out to be the optimal route.

And if they are big enough to prevent this, they might be too big to make large, solo vessels viable. Perhaps some form of serious downside to using them in fleets? Perhaps a 'resonance' effect where each ship that jumps using a self-jump drive adds to the total jump shock time that every ship experiences? So if you jump with 1 ship, you get 10 seconds jump shock. When you jump with 10, each gets 50 seconds jump shock. When you jump with 100, each gets 30 minutes jump shock.

In fact, if you go this route, I'd make self-only drives the starting tech and have group jump a later tech you unlock.

[SevenOfCarina]

Just a note, if regular jump drives can jump 5 ships and self-only jump drives are 1/5 the tonnage of a regular jump drive, then they are pretty much exactly equal. Arguably slightly superior since you are splitting the tonnage among 5 ships. This isn't criticism of your idea, its just something that needs to be kept in mind when figuring out balance of the research cost of the size modifier.

Jump squadron size 4 is 4,000 RP [Self-Jump for 5,000 RP cuts size and cost to 1/3], and squadron size 6 is 16,000 RP [Advanced Self-Jump for 20,000 RP cuts size and cost to 1/4], so at equal tech levels, self-only jump drives will always end up being more expensive and eat up more mission tonnage than adding a ship with regular jump drives to the fleet. The actual numbers are up to Steve.

The issue is, in about 50% of jumps without a gate the ship jumps alone anyway (think surveying). In 99% of jumps there is no combat on the other side of the jump and the number of ships that can jump at once is irrelevant. Frankly, I think I can count the number of jump point combat scenarios I've read about on this board on one hand. Combat jumps just aren't a significant part of the game. If self-jumps were 1/3 the size of regular jump drives, slapping one of them on each of your military ships might turn out to be the optimal route.

I do believe the C# AI will be a bit more intelligent about exploiting jump points for defence. I think Steve lost a battlefleet to the Swarm after making a combat jump in his current Crusade campaign? In terms of player versus player games, though, jump point combat will always be a very important consideration since they provide a ridiculous defensive advantage.

In any circumstance, only survey vessels are likely to transit alone. Slapping jump drives on all military vessels would be a net loss in terms of capability, since dedicated jump vessels would end up being cheaper.

And if they are big enough to prevent this, they might be too big to make large, solo vessels viable. Perhaps some form of serious downside to using them in fleets? Perhaps a 'resonance' effect where each ship that jumps using a self-jump drive adds to the total jump shock time that every ship experiences? So if you jump with 1 ship, you get 10 seconds jump shock. When you jump with 10, each gets 50 seconds jump shock. When you jump with 100, each gets 30 minutes jump shock.

In fact, if you go this route, I'd make self-only drives the starting tech and have group jump a later tech you unlock.

That's an interesting idea, but it also feels like it's a bit more involved than the original proposal. Steve's targeted release date is only two months away.

[Father Tim]

Personally, I think this is one of those areas where you should use SpacceMaster to customize your game.

If you want a universe where every ship larger than a TIE fighter can "make the jump to Hyper" without spending one-third of their displacement on a special engine, then use SM to give your empire max jump drive efficiency tech.  That's a 1-20 ratio instead of a 1-3, if memory serves?  I would think your fleet could afford 5% of its hull spaces.

[lupin-de-mid]

Personally, I think this is one of those areas where you should use SpacceMaster to customize your game.

But it's impossible to customzie NPR

[Steve Walmsley]

Personally, I think this is one of those areas where you should use SpacceMaster to customize your game.

But it's impossible to customzie NPR

That's OK, the NPRs don't currently have any code that would cause them to build self-only jump drives.

[SevenOfCarina]

Personally, I think this is one of those areas where you should use SpacceMaster to customize your game.

If you want a universe where every ship larger than a TIE fighter can "make the jump to Hyper" without spending one-third of their displacement on a special engine, then use SM to give your empire max jump drive efficiency tech.  That's a 1-20 ratio instead of a 1-3, if memory serves?  I would think your fleet could afford 5% of its hull spaces.

Your opinion is appreciated, but that's not very helpful. Using SM mode to give all races max tech beam weapon range modifiers and fire control ranges is also a valid solution to the beam kiting problem, but it's not a very good one. The normal tech progression is a good thing to have.

[Bremen]

I could also see individual jump drives being a ruins only tech or similar, like compressed fuel tanks.

[ReviewDude01]

Reply to Kiting problem and engine boosts afterburners with highligting Steve: Aurora is operational level of game and I try to evade as much coding and micromanagement as possible:

My solutions - ideally all of this solutions should be implemented into the game mixing them:

1. Gravitational Survey Vessels are Gravitational Stabilization Vessels and most system contains Wormholes where ships can jump to different locations in system, mixing "hyperdrive" context into combat.

Wormholes are discovered via EM sensors and Grav Stabilization vessel only stabilize wormholes.
Jumping thru unstabilized wormhole for an empire has a high chance of inflicting bad things from ship damage to ship incapacitated to jumping to a random point in system, all sorts of solutions are possible.

2.  All squadrons would require Degree (2D 0-360 degrees) variable in code. And one constant degree variable for example 30 degrees for determining engine emission blocks clear targeting.
It is based on following : engines emit something. They leave something in space and it can obfuscate targeting, is a similar thing as smoke from exhausts in 2 WW or 1 WW era.  Ships facing away from enemy would have hit chance lowered. Same for PD - point defence. So ships attemping to kite would be penalized. Unless they would choose some other degree than directly away from enemy (+- 15 degrees if we set global variable to 30 degrees, numbers are examples.) These ships could also have greater heat and EM signature only for ships targeting them from this angle. This would be ultimate solution for penalizing kiting. Players could still attempt to kite but with some offset as they would try to avoid to place enemies at this angle meaning that kiting would be less useful.

Bonus: ships taking hits from weapons from these angles could also have a chance to armor ignored. As engines usually have no armor.

3B. This is not a solution but I would like to see this in game: Implementing my former Engine Boost or "afterburner " idea is certainly not an easy task to do it properly but it could be done as following:
Military ships can have 2 types of engines. There is a checkbox for secondary type of engines autouse and turn off at % percentage below. It could lead to military designs having speed of X (1337 km/s) while having (8000 km/s with duration of 2 hours, idea is that smaller military AI ships would use greater speeds with less endurance fighters 10 minutes , destroyers 2 hours larger can be also 1 day  , exact numbers are examples only. AI and player squadrons would simply turn on these secondary engines every combat. This would implement endurance aspect into kiting combat.

In this case: beam energy weapons should use fuel same way as shields do.

Edit: 2. engine exhaust obfuscating targeting would obviously need some time to run off to avoid micro
1. wormholes would be stabilized per empire

reply to engine tuning/ other tuning/ is the same thing as not engine tuning but with more micro: no it is not as long as it has reasonable costs in terms of minerals/fuel/ship damage/timed ship inaccuracy penalty or some other penalty/ tonnage (not tech), in this case it is a design choice and voluntary choice for players.  Regarding micro: it can be auto turned on at the start of combat or when first ship takes first hit etc. - based on player and/or AI choice   Boost will always benefit the side which is running away since it can reach a wormhole faster. in case that both sides have boost it should be balanced so that the weaker side get more so it  lowers the difference thereby tech difference thereby weapon range difference.

Edit 2 (my final word on these topics) - aka. super simple and ultimate solution to run away button = run away button.
All squadron uses emergency jump hopefully warping to home system. Delayed, highly damaging to fleet to the point where 50% of fleet can be destroyed. Destruction and delay based on squadron jump drives tonnage + efficiency compared to total fleet tonnage.
Can be based on distance from home system. More distance is more dangerous. AI would use when fleet is taking damage for long time but dealing 0 damage to enemy for prolonged time.