Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - hiphop38

Pages: [1]
C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« on: October 21, 2016, 02:23:47 AM »
Just for simplicity. It would be extra work without extra game play if players had to know the tonnage limit for every different system body. The same applies to terraforming (at the moment anyway) with the size of the body not affecting the amount of atmosphere required.
The math doesn't really work that way.  It's a lot more complicated, depending on the nature of your launch system.  I'd suspect that the infrastructure is going to dominate in most of Aurora, not the physical payload of the shuttles themselves.

Alot of stuff in Aurora have math that "doesn't really work that way" in reality  ::)

Even with the TN technobabble Aurora is not really modelling economy of scale except for warship armor for example. And I'm thankful because it would be a pain to calculate and estimate for example factory output or infrastructure needs if they used a non-linear formulas instead.

My point was that if shuttles are worth the effort of adding they should be a meaningful constraint, and as such having gravity impact their efficiency in a linear way ends up closer to reality then it having zero impact does.

To be honest I feel that Steve is missing a big opportunity in Aurora to have the planets feel unique and special when he is hesitating to use their gravity, surface area and other properties in as much of the game mechanics as possible.

I think it would help alot to make the game more immersive and tell interesting stories if you didn't just terraform planet #20 in a long row of planets that in game mechanics feel identical to eachother until it also can sustain infinite population, but if you actually had to spend 5 times as long time to terraform the planet due to it's larger surface area, and in return it could sustain 4 billion instead of the 300 million the smaller moon can sustain, but as a tradeoff the large size and gravity put extra requirements on your shuttle needs.
( just example numbers )

I'm sure there are many other areas and game mechanics where the same concept could be expanded into like:
  • Planets with larger surface areas and larger biospheres could slow down ground combat resolution ( harsh fighting for years on the huge planet with endless jungles )
  • On low gravity bodies assembling PDCs might be much easier
  • A large amount of water/hydrosphere might reduce the surface area you can live on without infrastructure
  • Certain planets could have other unique traits or economical bonuses ( similar to the research anomalies )

The following users thanked this post: hiphop38

C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« on: October 20, 2016, 10:51:58 AM »
The following users thanked this post: hiphop38

C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« on: October 19, 2016, 11:26:05 AM »
Could be done but really, I think it would be both cleaner, more consistent with the technobabble AND more interesting to just go with "Any serious weapon to be used against TN fleets is based in space as well" if Steve wants to go with this dual approach of TN-flight/Orbital flight.

Yes, I will have to think carefully about the interface between planetary and space combat. For example, we have the scenario of planetary fighters moving into orbit, firing off TN missiles at approaching ships and then retreating back into the safety of the gravity well (maybe that should be allowed but also maybe not).If we want true distinction between planetary and space combat, perhaps the technobabble is that any weapon that can be used to hit TN ships has to penetrate the 'Aether' (Good suggestion!) and because of the turbulent nature of the Aether within gravity wells, TN weapons cannot be used to fire into or out of the gravity well (even beam weapons).

Perhaps TN missiles are created in orbital factories too because their warheads become unstable in gravity wells. Actually better would be created in ordnance factories as now but 'assembled' in orbit (in effect immediately delivered to a magazine on an orbiting base or space station) - that solves the 'planetary fighters popping out to fire' issue.

There would have to be new types of weapons designed to be used only in 'normal space'. These would not normally be effective against TN ships as they can't penetrate the Aether, just other planetary-based PDCs, fighters, factories, etc..

An option (thinking out loud) for orbital fire support is that you could have these weapons on board a TN ship. However, it would have to emerge from the Aether to use them, making it visible and leaving it vulnerable to planet-based weapons / fighters.

Something on those lines would create a very stark distinction between planetary and space combat. Almost a WH40k type distinction. Winning the battle in space would no longer virtually guarantee winning on the surface.
The following users thanked this post: hiphop38

C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« on: October 17, 2016, 05:52:51 PM »
BTW a side effect of the concept of putting all logistics into space is that it makes space-based 'populations' much easier. In effect, the ground-based element of a colony becomes the supply source of the orbital infrastructure (infrastructure in this case meaning orbital dockyards, fuelling and cargo hubs, ordnance transfer facilities, barracks, etc.).

The orbital infrastructure would draw from its own stores of fuel, spares, ordnance, even minerals to produce its own spares - maybe even some form of automated orbital ordnance factories (expensive but no manning requirements). If those stores were depleted, the orbital infrastructure would draw on the population below.

If there is no population below, the 'orbital' infrastructure would effectively become 'deep space infrastructure' and could still function on its own resources.

Building on the space station idea, fleets could interact directly with the space station, instead of the population on the planet, and have the option of unloading to (or loading from) the station or using the station facilities to unload directly to the planet. A planet could have more than one station but it would probably make sense to combine them (so ships can use all the station abilities at once). Space stations could also be boarded and captured (if they are defended by troops that could mean some interesting battles), which would also potentially lead to situations where you try to defeat enemy forces without damaging the valuable space stations.

Because stations can be joined together, you could build them at the capital and ship them out in pieces.

The following users thanked this post: hiphop38

C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« on: June 23, 2016, 03:59:02 AM »
I've been considering multiple officers per ship for a while. I just never got around to it. The rewrite is the best opportunity though so I will very likely add this when I get to the Commanders window. I also like the different bridges suggestion.

I've been on holiday with my family this week and away from my PC so not got anything done. I'm back at the weekend and will be continuing work on the mining and shipyard tabs of the economics window.
The following users thanked this post: hiphop38

C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« on: June 18, 2016, 06:47:15 AM »
I probably will look at fleet organization when I start on the Fleet window ( and I will add a max rank for commanders)
The following users thanked this post: hiphop38

Pages: [1]