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 - MarcAFK

Pages: [1] 2 3 4
Supposdely yes
It's a great idea really, I'm sure the rest of the military likes the idea...
This proposal is opposed by the U.S. Air Force, Air Force Space Command, and other military leaders, including Secretary of Defense James Mattis, Secretary of the Air Force Heather Wilson, Chief of Staff of the Air Force General David L. Goldfein, and the current commander of Air Force Space Command General John W. Raymond.[5][6][7][8] Other former military and space leaders in opposition to this effort include Secretary Sean O'Keefe, former Secretary of the Navy and NASA administrator; Lisa Disbrow, former Under Secretary of the Air Force; General Victor E. Renuart Jr., former commander of U.S. Northern Command and NORAD; and Lieutenant General Edward G. Anderson III, former deputy commander of U.S. Northern Command and NORAD
...Uh, well ok, but what do they know.
The following users thanked this post: superstrijder15

Theres no way those ranks are genuine, are they?
The following users thanked this post: xhunterx

C# Aurora / Re: Release date?
« on: May 31, 2017, 06:13:43 AM »
This year if we're lucky?
It's a guess but I'm probaby pretty close.
The following users thanked this post: Ynglaur, iceball3

C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« on: May 28, 2017, 01:29:41 AM »
I don't like the idea of artificially adding in an extra multiplier to missiles, but Honestly i think missile ranges are far too long and if making an arbitrary change results in an improvement  to gameplay I'm all for it.
Personally I don't like shields being decoupled from fuel usage, but only because I'm a fan of the idea of them requiring power plants, and power plants needing fuel anyway. XD.
The following users thanked this post: serger

« on: April 03, 2017, 07:58:40 AM »
It's a great idea to be sure, you would be interested to know this kind of thing has come up in the past, I'm sure you'll get some ideas on how to organize your competition from the following threads.
War Stories of Alpha Centauri Arena
Alpha Centauri Fleet Challenge
Battle for Barnard's Star
[Forum Game] The Design Championship.
[Forum Game] SAC 6000
The Aurora Yacht Club
Thx to sublight for getting the ball rolling with those first 3 threads, shebs design championships was also quite succussful.
The following users thanked this post: SerBeardian

Bureau of Ship Design / Re: engine-less ships
« on: February 14, 2017, 06:12:39 AM »
Even better, if you put an orbital habitat onto a vessel it adds 200'000 tons, but also makes the 'ship' buildable using planetary factories. You can cram a ton of harvesting modules onto a ship and put a good percentage of industry towards it then afterhowever long you're willing to wait you'll get a massive fuel harvesting platform.
The following users thanked this post: Tor Cha

The Academy / Re: My ship broke ... what now?
« on: February 13, 2017, 01:55:49 AM »
The ship doesn't quite have enough MSP storage to allow for repair of the broken component.
The following users thanked this post: Tor Cha

The Academy / Re: [solved]change empire name
« on: February 08, 2017, 11:22:18 PM »
No problem. Apologies to the other guy who's post appears to have vanished.
The following users thanked this post: Odin

Population over 2 trillion causes an overflow bug, but growth stops after 200 billion anyway, even though the planet will still show a positive growth percentage.
The following users thanked this post: Darknote

The Academy / Re: Mines that go boom and missile buoys
« on: February 05, 2017, 11:43:25 PM »
Putting thermal sensors on the warheads is a good way of avoiding overkill, you might still get every mine launching at one ship, but once that's destroyed the remainders will retarget anything in range. If you don't put thermals on the sensor stage then you shouldn't get friendly fire incidents. Unless some unlucky NPR wanders into a warp point assault or something.
Theres some other ways to avoid mine overkill. Laying mines with alternating sensor range, or missile speed is one idea, or maybe having each mine launch different submunitions.
You could even make multistage mines where after being triggered half the mine jumps out as warhead stages following the enemy, and the other half of the mine is an entirely new mine.
The following users thanked this post: Tor Cha

The Academy / Re: Mines that go boom and missile buoys
« on: January 31, 2017, 09:50:12 PM »
Post your mine design here.
If your first stage has no engine and fuel then it's considered a buoy, it will be dropped exactly where the launching ship is and will wait around with it's sensors on looking around, if it detects something it will launch the second stage at it. That second stage should have a sensor on it too but I don't think that's actually required, but I could be wrong, the first stage might vanish the second it launches it's payload. (which makes no sense as it should stick around long enough to light it's target to destruction).
If your first stage has engines and fuel then it's not a bouy, it will travel to a waypoint it's aimed at, or any other target, when it reaches that target or runs out of fuel it will fire it's secondary. Which means if your secondary payload is the warhead it'll be wasted.
If you want to long range launch mines you'll need 3 stages, a Payload missile to hit the target, a secondary bouy with sensors to look for targets, and a tertiary stage which carrys the bouy to the waypoint.
That stage will probably be quite large unless you make the mines very small, In my opinion since mines don't require fuel or an engine, and you can lay carefully with large slow reloading launchers then it makes sense to make them quite large, potentially able to mission kill a ship with a single hit. Or at least carry enough standard missiles to cause a decent alpha strike.
The following users thanked this post: Tor Cha

The Academy / Re: Populations and Worlds
« on: January 31, 2017, 09:38:54 PM »
A world that is perfectly habitable to your people is displayed as colony cost of 0.
This requires an acceptable gravity and atmosphere.
If a planet is within the gravity tolerance of your species then the colony cost displays how much infrastructure is needed to sustain a population on that body due to the hostile atmosphere, colony cost of 1 requires 100 infrastructure for 1 million people, cost of 2 requires 200 for a million, etc.
Reducing colony cost requires removing toxic gasses, changing the temperature to one acceptable to your species, lowering or raising the pressure, and finally ensuring there is the right quantity of oxygen.
If the body is very low gravity then you'll need to use underground infrastructure, which is always calculated as if the body has a colony cost of 3.0, and must be built on site, by the population and initially by construction engineers. Normal infrastructure costs 2 duranium each but underground costs 10 duranium, so it's more expensive and takes a while to build but is the only sensible option for low gravity colonies. Unless you use orbital habitats which have the advantage of being movable.
The following users thanked this post: Tor Cha

Aurora Suggestions / Re: Him Vs Her
« on: January 31, 2017, 09:24:14 PM »
Hahaha, no but seriously some of us do play Alien races who don't have any gender. I'm not going to call for custom genders though, but maybe an option to add extra genders and appropiate pronouns might be handy to some people?
But how complex could this get, what if Ive got a complex hive caste system which physically only has 2 sexually active genders but technically other types of caste could be considered different genders.
I'm an Alpha soldier drone, don't misgender me you lousy beta worker!
The following users thanked this post: superstrijder15

The Academy / Re: Comet Mining
« on: January 30, 2017, 12:04:37 AM »
You can use asteroid mining modules for anything below a specific gravity. I think it's anything less than .1 g?
You can make a colony on any body execept for gas giants, but comets and very small asteroids probably require orbital habitats to hold the population.
The following users thanked this post: Tor Cha

What about if ECM reduces the effective tonnage of a contact by 10% per level. So not only does the displayed tonnage look like 9000 tons instead of 10000 tons, but also the actual range the contact is picked up at is the same as if it was 9000 tons anyway.
So I guess when active sensor checks are done you would look at a contact's ECM level compared to the active sensor, then look at the tonnage, adjust it for ECM, then check if it's in range ?
The following users thanked this post: superstrijder15

Pages: [1] 2 3 4