Author Topic: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions  (Read 345389 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline QuakeIV

  • Registered
  • Commodore
  • **********
  • Posts: 759
  • Thanked: 168 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1335 on: August 14, 2019, 01:51:43 PM »
I wouldn't personally be against being able to fabricate non-TN infrastructure.  It wouldn't be crazy to say that you can make stuff that is considerably heavier but does the same job without said TN resources.  That could then also the same stuff that civilian populations currently slowly produce under their own power.

So you would still be fairly encouraged to use TN stuff if you are delivering the infrastructure over interstellar distances (unless you have a lot of shipping capacity available), but its technically an option if you need it, and for in-situ production it might make a fair bit of sense.  Drop some factories on a planet that then proceed to mass produce conventional infrastructure over time.
 

Offline Hazard

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • H
  • Posts: 643
  • Thanked: 73 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1336 on: August 14, 2019, 02:21:28 PM »
IMO the non-TN infrastructure is already accounted for in the racial tolerances as well as partially by Colony Cost calculations involving how much of the population is dedicated to agriculture and life support.
 

Offline totos_totidis

  • Chief Petty Officer
  • ***
  • Posts: 32
  • Thanked: 3 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1337 on: August 16, 2019, 04:23:35 AM »
In c# aurora ground surveys will be conducted not by teams as in vb but by ground forces. I would like to suggest that ground survey be something that can be automated.
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Star Marshal
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 11649
  • Thanked: 20350 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1338 on: August 16, 2019, 05:24:31 AM »
In c# aurora ground surveys will be conducted not by teams as in vb but by ground forces. I would like to suggest that ground survey be something that can be automated.

There are far fewer surveys now. Many systems don't even have one ground survey site and the most I have seen so far is three.
 
The following users thanked this post: davidr, totos_totidis

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Star Marshal
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 11649
  • Thanked: 20350 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1339 on: August 17, 2019, 05:54:24 AM »
Please take a look at how PD engages missile salvos. As it is right now you need too many fire-controls for small missiles salvos because if one PD turret linked to a fire-control leave even one missile the next turret will be used on that one instead of shooting on a new salvo where they would score allot more missile kills.

This should be looked at from a game balance perspective in my opinion, beam PD fire-controls already are way more expensive than missile fire-controls in general.

I would suggest that PD is put on a list where the biggest is on the top (or rather the one that have the most likely higher kills). Each control then target the largest salvo in that increment that hit also sorted into some list where the largest salvo always get put on top.

Currently you need almost somewhat like 25-50% more fire-controls even against relatively small salvos such as fighters unless there is a very high chance one turret can destroy all incoming missiles in one go. You could of course put more turrets on each fire control but turrets are pretty big. There also are problems with mixing ships with smaller turrets and larger ones, if you are unlucky the smaller turret fire first and simply waste its ammunition since the larger could have killed the salvo.

A good example of the problem is... lets say you have 10 salvos of incoming missiles of 6 missiles in each salvo. You have a quad Gauss turret to engage them and you are quite likely to kill all missiles on one turret and you have ten turrets and PD fire-controls. Lets say out of the ten salvos you would theoretically miss one or two missiles. In practice this means that you get six to twelve missiles to leak and not one or two. In this instance I rather have triple turrets and a few more fire-controls but that also is way more expensive... and very taxing on certain resources. Also given the change to maintenance then size of the ships matter allot more than before so just adding more turrets to each fire control to reduce the chance of missing a missile is weaker than before.

I think a change to this would make the weird salvo mechanic less abusable and small salvo attacks such as fighters less problematic unless you intend to destroy entire salvos with AMM.

I've been giving this some thought. I think I do need to improve the situation vs small salvos. However, the way the sequence of play works is a problem for the above solution. Each salvo moves one at once, rather than all together. As a salvo attacks its target, the local point defence will shoot at it, without consideration for what other salvos may arrive later in the turn. This late in development, I don't want to mess around with the sequence of play as that would be a huge task.

What might work though is to simply lift the restriction on each fire control only engaging a single target during point blank fire. Each weapon would still be only able to engage a single salvo. So you could have the same number of fire controls and have two twin turrets per fire control in the above situation, with each turret allowed to shoot a different salvo. You would still tend to have multiple fire controls anyway for redundancy, but fewer than are required now.

EDIT: I've implemented the above. Only needed to move a couple of lines of code. Also, missiles moved in descending order of speed. I've updated that to descending order of speed then by descending order of salvo size, so the largest salvos of the same type of missile will move first.
« Last Edit: August 17, 2019, 06:13:49 AM by Steve Walmsley »
 
The following users thanked this post: Doren, Stryker

Offline Jorgen_CAB

  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • J
  • Posts: 2822
  • Thanked: 673 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1340 on: August 17, 2019, 06:57:27 AM »
Please take a look at how PD engages missile salvos. As it is right now you need too many fire-controls for small missiles salvos because if one PD turret linked to a fire-control leave even one missile the next turret will be used on that one instead of shooting on a new salvo where they would score allot more missile kills.

This should be looked at from a game balance perspective in my opinion, beam PD fire-controls already are way more expensive than missile fire-controls in general.

I would suggest that PD is put on a list where the biggest is on the top (or rather the one that have the most likely higher kills). Each control then target the largest salvo in that increment that hit also sorted into some list where the largest salvo always get put on top.

Currently you need almost somewhat like 25-50% more fire-controls even against relatively small salvos such as fighters unless there is a very high chance one turret can destroy all incoming missiles in one go. You could of course put more turrets on each fire control but turrets are pretty big. There also are problems with mixing ships with smaller turrets and larger ones, if you are unlucky the smaller turret fire first and simply waste its ammunition since the larger could have killed the salvo.

A good example of the problem is... lets say you have 10 salvos of incoming missiles of 6 missiles in each salvo. You have a quad Gauss turret to engage them and you are quite likely to kill all missiles on one turret and you have ten turrets and PD fire-controls. Lets say out of the ten salvos you would theoretically miss one or two missiles. In practice this means that you get six to twelve missiles to leak and not one or two. In this instance I rather have triple turrets and a few more fire-controls but that also is way more expensive... and very taxing on certain resources. Also given the change to maintenance then size of the ships matter allot more than before so just adding more turrets to each fire control to reduce the chance of missing a missile is weaker than before.

I think a change to this would make the weird salvo mechanic less abusable and small salvo attacks such as fighters less problematic unless you intend to destroy entire salvos with AMM.

I've been giving this some thought. I think I do need to improve the situation vs small salvos. However, the way the sequence of play works is a problem for the above solution. Each salvo moves one at once, rather than all together. As a salvo attacks its target, the local point defence will shoot at it, without consideration for what other salvos may arrive later in the turn. This late in development, I don't want to mess around with the sequence of play as that would be a huge task.

What might work though is to simply lift the restriction on each fire control only engaging a single target during point blank fire. Each weapon would still be only able to engage a single salvo. So you could have the same number of fire controls and have two twin turrets per fire control in the above situation, with each turret allowed to shoot a different salvo. You would still tend to have multiple fire controls anyway for redundancy, but fewer than are required now.

EDIT: I've implemented the above. Only needed to move a couple of lines of code. Also, missiles moved in descending order of speed. I've updated that to descending order of speed then by descending order of salvo size, so the largest salvos of the same type of missile will move first.

This is a really good improvement in general. Having the largest salvos move first and fire-controls to to engage multiple salvos means that you can engage both large and small salvos with a decent investment in fire-controls more in line with missile fire-control costs.

Later on if you have time and feel it is worth the investment you could look into the whole salvo mechanic and how it works. Perhaps tie fire-controls to controlling missiles and targets and having technology that improve on that which would make it a bit more "realistic".

But all in all I think this is a very good improvement.
 

Offline Shuul

  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • ******
  • S
  • Posts: 108
  • Thanked: 28 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1341 on: August 17, 2019, 03:09:01 PM »
Please take a look at how PD engages missile salvos. As it is right now you need too many fire-controls for small missiles salvos because if one PD turret linked to a fire-control leave even one missile the next turret will be used on that one instead of shooting on a new salvo where they would score allot more missile kills.

This should be looked at from a game balance perspective in my opinion, beam PD fire-controls already are way more expensive than missile fire-controls in general.

I would suggest that PD is put on a list where the biggest is on the top (or rather the one that have the most likely higher kills). Each control then target the largest salvo in that increment that hit also sorted into some list where the largest salvo always get put on top.

Currently you need almost somewhat like 25-50% more fire-controls even against relatively small salvos such as fighters unless there is a very high chance one turret can destroy all incoming missiles in one go. You could of course put more turrets on each fire control but turrets are pretty big. There also are problems with mixing ships with smaller turrets and larger ones, if you are unlucky the smaller turret fire first and simply waste its ammunition since the larger could have killed the salvo.

A good example of the problem is... lets say you have 10 salvos of incoming missiles of 6 missiles in each salvo. You have a quad Gauss turret to engage them and you are quite likely to kill all missiles on one turret and you have ten turrets and PD fire-controls. Lets say out of the ten salvos you would theoretically miss one or two missiles. In practice this means that you get six to twelve missiles to leak and not one or two. In this instance I rather have triple turrets and a few more fire-controls but that also is way more expensive... and very taxing on certain resources. Also given the change to maintenance then size of the ships matter allot more than before so just adding more turrets to each fire control to reduce the chance of missing a missile is weaker than before.

I think a change to this would make the weird salvo mechanic less abusable and small salvo attacks such as fighters less problematic unless you intend to destroy entire salvos with AMM.

I've been giving this some thought. I think I do need to improve the situation vs small salvos. However, the way the sequence of play works is a problem for the above solution. Each salvo moves one at once, rather than all together. As a salvo attacks its target, the local point defence will shoot at it, without consideration for what other salvos may arrive later in the turn. This late in development, I don't want to mess around with the sequence of play as that would be a huge task.

What might work though is to simply lift the restriction on each fire control only engaging a single target during point blank fire. Each weapon would still be only able to engage a single salvo. So you could have the same number of fire controls and have two twin turrets per fire control in the above situation, with each turret allowed to shoot a different salvo. You would still tend to have multiple fire controls anyway for redundancy, but fewer than are required now.

EDIT: I've implemented the above. Only needed to move a couple of lines of code. Also, missiles moved in descending order of speed. I've updated that to descending order of speed then by descending order of salvo size, so the largest salvos of the same type of missile will move first.

Will this somehow change efficiency of CIWS? I mostly rely on them for missile defense.
 

Offline alex_brunius

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1240
  • Thanked: 153 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1342 on: August 17, 2019, 08:50:21 PM »
Will this somehow change efficiency of CIWS? I mostly rely on them for missile defense.

It was some time since I played, but doesn't CIWS already come with it's own built in Fire control in each turret?
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Star Marshal
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 11649
  • Thanked: 20350 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1343 on: August 18, 2019, 04:50:09 AM »
Will this somehow change efficiency of CIWS? I mostly rely on them for missile defense.

CIWS is a single weapon with an integral fire control so it will still only be able to handle a single salvo. If you have two CIWS, they can both fire at the same salvo or at two different salvos.
 

Offline totos_totidis

  • Chief Petty Officer
  • ***
  • Posts: 32
  • Thanked: 3 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1344 on: August 19, 2019, 01:35:53 PM »
I would like to suggest more advanced ruin only weapons. I recommend adding advanced gauss cannons with double the fire rate and advanced particle lances with higher damage.
 

Offline SevenOfCarina

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • Posts: 170
  • Thanked: 95 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1345 on: August 23, 2019, 01:39:28 AM »
IMO, component design should be more like turret design, where you enter desired performance (desired sensor range, engine power, etc.) and let Aurora crunch the numbers using techs that you have access to and return appropriate values for the other parameters (sensor size, engine boost, etc.).

Failing that, could we please at least get more increments for BFC tracking speed and range? Even just 0.75x, 1.25x, 2.50x and 3.50x would be appreciated. I'd also like to suggest that the multiplier be gated behind tech, like max and minimum engine boost.

Could we also get a small, 2HS 100 colonist transport module for conventional starts with multiple pre-TN colonies? It'll be useful to RP pre-TN colonisation with conventional starships like BFR.
 
The following users thanked this post: TMaekler

Offline papent

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • Posts: 163
  • Thanked: 45 times
  • Off We Go Into The Wild Blue Yonder
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1346 on: August 23, 2019, 01:50:28 AM »
I would like to suggest the ability to refit fighters and i'm not if this was mentioned if its possible in the new version to use maintenance facilities to maintain fighters.

I tend to build a group of low fuel consumption / long range patrol fighters on nearly every colony and just being able to organically upgrade them or just even maintain them without building a space station just for that would be awesome.
In my humble opinion anything that could be considered a balance issue is a moot point unless the AI utilize it against you because otherwise it's an exploit you willing choose to use to game the system. 
Rule 0 Is effect : "The SM is always right/ What SM Says Goes."
 

Offline mtm84

  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • ******
  • m
  • Posts: 131
  • Thanked: 36 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1347 on: August 23, 2019, 02:24:40 AM »
I don’t think he will allow upgrading of fighters but in C# they can use normal maintenance facilities, and the new fleet organization should make it easy to swap out new fighters for old ones.

Edit: well looks like you can refit fighters, which he may have mentioned and I forgot about.  I blame it being late.
« Last Edit: August 23, 2019, 02:49:15 AM by mtm84 »
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Star Marshal
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 11649
  • Thanked: 20350 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1348 on: August 23, 2019, 02:42:27 AM »
I would like to suggest the ability to refit fighters and i'm not if this was mentioned if its possible in the new version to use maintenance facilities to maintain fighters.

I tend to build a group of low fuel consumption / long range patrol fighters on nearly every colony and just being able to organically upgrade them or just even maintain them without building a space station just for that would be awesome.

Apart from being able to build them in fighter factories (which is covered by the technobabble on ships near gravity fields), fighters are treated like any other ship. You can build and refit them in shipyards and they are maintained by maintenance facilities.
 
The following users thanked this post: papent, serger

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Star Marshal
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 11649
  • Thanked: 20350 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1349 on: August 23, 2019, 02:43:53 AM »
I would like to suggest more advanced ruin only weapons. I recommend adding advanced gauss cannons with double the fire rate and advanced particle lances with higher damage.

I think double fire gauss would be a little overpowered :)

Maybe something on the lines of advanced railguns, with an extra shot. Having said that, I haven't really looked at ruin-only weapons yet for C. I'll revisit the weapon concepts when I do.