Author Topic: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions  (Read 348573 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Bremen

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • B
  • Posts: 744
  • Thanked: 151 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1185 on: May 21, 2019, 09:56:12 AM »
Is it possible to add something like this for ship design? This is from the game Rule the Waves. Something like this in Aurora would really be awesome to see what your design looks like...

Are you aware that Rule the Waves 2 came out Friday?  It's got aircraft now and the tech tree extends to 1950 IIRC. 

John


Shhh! Steve might hear you!

In all honesty I've been watching videos. I might pick it up to fill the Aurora niche until C# comes out. And while I remain a true Aurora loyalist, I have to admit the videos have been making me think how incredible Aurora would be with real time (sort of) animated combat.
 
The following users thanked this post: serger

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Star Marshal
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 11657
  • Thanked: 20375 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1186 on: May 21, 2019, 10:24:14 AM »
Is it possible to add something like this for ship design? This is from the game Rule the Waves. Something like this in Aurora would really be awesome to see what your design looks like...

Are you aware that Rule the Waves 2 came out Friday?  It's got aircraft now and the tech tree extends to 1950 IIRC. 

John
Shhh! Steve might hear you!

In all honesty I've been watching videos. I might pick it up to fill the Aurora niche until C# comes out. And while I remain a true Aurora loyalist, I have to admit the videos have been making me think how incredible Aurora would be with real time (sort of) animated combat.

Too late! I have been watching RTW2 developer updates for a long time and it does look really interesting. I want to play it and I am trying my best not to give in that impulse or Aurora development will probably go on hold for a while  :)
 

Offline Desdinova

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • D
  • Posts: 280
  • Thanked: 280 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1187 on: May 21, 2019, 04:43:20 PM »
An idea:

To make area defense more viable (especially with the removal of laser warheads, which was the only practical use of it before), make it avoid range drop-off penalties. The way I'd see this most naturally happen is if you can flag BFCs for PD during design; this would give them flat accuracy across an envelope defined by the range parameter, but restrict said range and only be useful to fire at missiles.

I don't really like exception rules. If I can accurately hit a missile at long range, why can't I hit a larger, slower ship?

What if lasers had adjustable beam width? Attacking an armored ship requires a tightly focused beam to burn through armor, but in point defense mode, that energy can be spread over a wider area to kill fragile missiles.

Or what if the laser beam "sweeps" an area of space, burning up any missiles it touches, but only scorching actual armor.
« Last Edit: May 21, 2019, 04:49:11 PM by Desdinova »
 

Offline xenoscepter

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1155
  • Thanked: 317 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1188 on: May 21, 2019, 05:51:41 PM »
New Cloaking Thread Here ====> http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=10413.0

Old Cloaking Thread Here ====> http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=10410.0

[Might Be Deleted]
 

Offline Erik L

  • Administrator
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • *****
  • Posts: 5656
  • Thanked: 366 times
  • Forum Admin
  • Discord Username: icehawke
  • 2020 Supporter 2020 Supporter : Donate for 2020
    2022 Supporter 2022 Supporter : Donate for 2022
    Gold Supporter Gold Supporter : Support the forums with a Gold subscription
    2021 Supporter 2021 Supporter : Donate for 2021
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1189 on: May 21, 2019, 06:37:45 PM »
New Cloaking Thread Here ====> http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=10413.0

Old Cloaking Thread Here ====> http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=10410.0

[Might Be Deleted]

Don't normally delete threads unless they are spam.
 
The following users thanked this post: xenoscepter

Offline Father Tim

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 2162
  • Thanked: 531 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1190 on: May 21, 2019, 06:39:44 PM »
Or what if the laser beam "sweeps" an area of space, burning up any missiles it touches, but only scorching actual armor.

Then I would immediately armour my missiles.
 

Offline Jovus

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • J
  • Posts: 220
  • Thanked: 81 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1191 on: May 21, 2019, 07:47:50 PM »
An idea:

To make area defense more viable (especially with the removal of laser warheads, which was the only practical use of it before), make it avoid range drop-off penalties. The way I'd see this most naturally happen is if you can flag BFCs for PD during design; this would give them flat accuracy across an envelope defined by the range parameter, but restrict said range and only be useful to fire at missiles.

I don't really like exception rules. If I can accurately hit a missile at long range, why can't I hit a larger, slower ship?

I agree, so thanks for forcing me to do a little more work fleshing out the idea.

First, it comes from a place of PD being really weak, compared to AMMs, once you get to inertial confinement fusion, or so. The fix to tracking bonus might already change this balance significantly, as might your idea of removing agility from missiles entirely, if you've done that, so it might not be needed.

However, assuming the balance is still substantially the same, I like the idea of rectifying the balance by making PD more flexible than it currently is rather than just boosting stats. Flexibility opens up tactical possibilities, and I believe that flexibility could easily be represented by expanding the effectiveness of area PD, having knock-on effects with various formations and so forth. Area PD in its current incarnation is really weak anyway, since you're always taking an aim penalty compared to final fire, which in turn means you're incentivized to just keep all your ships in one big TG until the enemy is out of missiles. Breaking that incentive leads the way to interesting formation tactics.

But that's not what you asked. How to make this make sense without feeling like a carve-out? A couple of proposals.

1) Make area-PD specialized BFCs capable of targeting ships as well with the same lack of penalty over their entire range. However, APD-BFCs would have extremely restrictive range compared to regular BFCs - still more than final fire, but low enough to make you want regular BFCs for offensive use lest you be hopelessly outranged. This can be justified by saying range is sacrificed for target awareness, or whatever the appropriate term would be. both new APD BFCs and normal BFCs would be capable of final fire PD without penalty.

2) If I remember correctly, missiles are already different from ships in that they used some sort of 'solidified sorium substrate' for fuel instead of the usual liquid sorium (or sorium-enriched LH2). You could say that this much more intense transNewtonian reaction pushes the missiles deeper into the aetheric fluid than ships can go, which in turn leaves a characteristc signature which is easily tracked by a system tuned for it. Much like how we use LLLTV cameras to pick up faint light, but a regular camera is much better at normal light levels because they swamp an LLLTV sensor.

3) (tongue-in-cheek) All transNewtonian civilzations discover and then sign, via their original transNewtoninan Elements research, a war rules contract with the Q which requires them to put IFF transponders on all of their missiles, along with other wartime protocols. Failure to follow these protocols results in John de Lancie personally revoking their TNE privileges. APD BFCs are tuned to read these IFF signatures whereas regular ones are not.
 

Offline Jovus

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • J
  • Posts: 220
  • Thanked: 81 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1192 on: May 21, 2019, 07:48:17 PM »
Then I would immediately armour my missiles.

Not in C# you wouldn't.
 

Offline misanthropope

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • m
  • Posts: 274
  • Thanked: 73 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1193 on: May 22, 2019, 12:53:31 PM »
I think "C# Aurora" should be shortened to "A#"

that is all.
 

Offline Father Tim

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 2162
  • Thanked: 531 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1194 on: May 22, 2019, 03:51:13 PM »
C#A

It's pronounced 'catcha'.  (Or is it kasha?)
 

Offline Erik L

  • Administrator
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • *****
  • Posts: 5656
  • Thanked: 366 times
  • Forum Admin
  • Discord Username: icehawke
  • 2020 Supporter 2020 Supporter : Donate for 2020
    2022 Supporter 2022 Supporter : Donate for 2022
    Gold Supporter Gold Supporter : Support the forums with a Gold subscription
    2021 Supporter 2021 Supporter : Donate for 2021
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1195 on: May 22, 2019, 04:49:14 PM »
C#A

It's pronounced 'catcha'.  (Or is it kasha?)

See Pound Ah

Offline xenoscepter

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1155
  • Thanked: 317 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1196 on: May 22, 2019, 09:42:04 PM »
See Sharp Ah
 

Offline Father Tim

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 2162
  • Thanked: 531 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1197 on: May 23, 2019, 12:12:22 AM »
Si, Shar-Pei.
 

Offline xenoscepter

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1155
  • Thanked: 317 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1198 on: May 23, 2019, 12:55:21 AM »
I see no Sharpies.  :P
 

Offline littleWolf

  • Warrant Officer, Class 1
  • *****
  • l
  • Posts: 76
  • Thanked: 13 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1199 on: May 23, 2019, 03:16:13 AM »
I think "C# Aurora" should be shortened to "A#"

that is all.

Sharprora 4x?