Author Topic: C# Aurora Changes Discussion  (Read 441719 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Zincat

  • Captain
  • **********
  • Z
  • Posts: 566
  • Thanked: 111 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #735 on: May 15, 2017, 02:29:29 AM »
So, the new changes to engines are now in. I rather like them, especially for reduced missile range AND reduced efficiency of size 1-10 ship engines. It really encourages having bigger engines for bigger ships and I think that's nice.

I actually kind of hope we will see something similar for reactors to be honest. I dislike the (common) usage of size 1 reactors on ships. There's basically zero disadvantages, and it reduces explosion damage if a reactor is hit. I'd really like something to discourage what I consider an exploit.

I think a case can be made for the fact that, like with engines, bigger reactors have higher efficiency, and so a higher energy output per unit of volume. This would basically solve the problem by itself, in my opinion.
 

Offline Bughunter

  • Bug Moderators
  • Rear Admiral
  • ***
  • Posts: 929
  • Thanked: 132 times
  • Discord Username: Bughunter
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #736 on: May 15, 2017, 03:16:38 AM »
I think the idea is good, but it sounds like it would also hurt small fighter/FAC beam ships.
 

Iranon

  • Guest
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #737 on: May 15, 2017, 03:18:11 AM »
Engine changes look good for the most part. My main concern is that, with fuel efficiency now mattering for missiles, power multiplier tech becomes even less useful compared to engine type.

Generally, "balanced" research and shipbuilding becomes much weaker in the new version, inefficiencies are punished much harder. One underlying principle will be: Ignore fuel logistics as completely as you can, ruthlessly optimise for low fuel consumption instead.
The presence of the various logistics-related techs will be a trap for players who don't fully understand the mechanics.
 

Offline Garfunkel

  • Registered
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • Posts: 2781
  • Thanked: 1047 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #738 on: May 15, 2017, 07:57:40 AM »
I disagree - we can't know for sure until someone crunches the numbers and even then, it depends on your empire and fleet size.
 

Offline chrislocke2000

  • Captain
  • **********
  • c
  • Posts: 544
  • Thanked: 39 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #739 on: May 15, 2017, 08:53:58 AM »
Engine changes look good, I just think will need to consider impact on a couple of areas:

- How hits to kill is calculated to prevent massive engines on ships becoming very effective damage soaks, especially against mesons etc.

- Research progression may need to be non linear if you don't want the design of such large engines to become a major hurdle to use given the way current research costs scale up with larger engines.

- Maintenance costs and repair costs may also need a look at. Can see ships needing some very large engineering sections or additional maintenance bays to cover the off chance of a failure. Could we have different grades of failure such that only a major one needed the full repair?

Finally with the change in fuel need any chance of having a look at drop tanks for fighters and use of external pylons instead of box launchers? In both cases would think that having a mechanic that allows the reported mass of the fighter to reduce once missiles fired or tanks dropped would have a positive impact on range and give some options on fuel v striking power.
 

Offline Titanian

  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • ******
  • T
  • Posts: 105
  • Thanked: 20 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #740 on: May 15, 2017, 08:58:55 AM »
- Research progression may need to be non linear if you don't want the design of such large engines to become a major hurdle to use given the way current research costs scale up with larger engines.
Well, since research cost would be the only thing stopping people from always using the maximum size engines because of the huge amount of fuel they save, I would actually leave that the way it is.
 

Iranon

  • Guest
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #741 on: May 15, 2017, 09:46:43 AM »
I disagree - we can't know for sure until someone crunches the numbers and even then, it depends on your empire and fleet size.

I did, and it doesn't.

*

Something else to consider:
If engine cost and HTK scaling remain as they are, huge low-power engines will become ridiculously efficient damage sinks. 5BP for 200HTK? Feel free to shoot your magazines dry against targets that consist almost entirely of these.
« Last Edit: May 15, 2017, 09:59:00 AM by Iranon »
 

Offline Bremen

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • B
  • Posts: 743
  • Thanked: 150 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #742 on: May 15, 2017, 10:15:15 AM »
I heartily approve of the missile part of the change. By and large, the only thing missile range matters is against other missiles (does it really matter if your missiles are 300mkm against their 200mkm instead of 150mkm against their 100mkm?), so it's not as big a change as it looks, and the overall reduction in missile ranges will make for interesting design considerations.

The changes for larger engines are interesting as well. It's going to majorly shift up my design philosophy (I usually design warships around max size engines) and promotes building very large warships. It also makes redundancy vs fuel efficiency a big consideration; a ship with one big engine will be more fuel efficient, but also be vulnerable to losing that engine.

Fighters do suffer a bit, but less than missiles; looks to me like fighters will be seeing about double fuel use compared to missiles quintupling. Combined with the sensor change I could see this turning missile fighters into a major tactical advantage.
 

Offline Michael Sandy

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • M
  • Posts: 771
  • Thanked: 83 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #743 on: May 15, 2017, 03:54:54 PM »
I think the idea is good, but it sounds like it would also hurt small fighter/FAC beam ships.

Ayup.  Right now, when I design fighters, I design a whole bunch of size 1 engines with different efficiencies.  Because the fuel efficiency difference between a size 1 engines and a size 5 is really negligible.  But with the new system, going for engine redundancy instead of engine size comes at a HUGE fuel cost.

It really kills the beam fighters, because there is no way you can have a fighter that is fast enough to catch a large ship that is so much more fuel efficient than it.  A capital ship may use less fuel than a single fighter.

Granted, cheese like reduced sized spinal lasers on fast fighters to rip unshielded swarms apart becomes more difficult, but I think there are some real issues with having THAT much fuel efficiency difference between ships.
 

Offline Hazard

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • H
  • Posts: 643
  • Thanked: 73 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #744 on: May 15, 2017, 05:50:20 PM »
Regarding the problem of huge engines becoming damage sinks, it may be necessary to give diminishing returns on HTK as engines grow larger. Or to give engines a similar stat like what magazines have to boost their HTK.

Actually, although I understand it'd likely be too much of a bother, I'd like the ability to define an 'inner' and an 'outer' armour belt, and define per part type what is inside and what's outside. It'd make all or nothing armour schemes possible, with the bridge, magazines, engines and powerplants inside the inner armour belt, everything else outside the inner armour belt, and maybe thin armour protecting the outside. But then you'd need to figure out how to handle HTK in the outside layer.
 

Offline Gyrfalcon

  • Bug Moderators
  • Commander
  • ***
  • G
  • Posts: 331
  • Thanked: 199 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #745 on: May 16, 2017, 01:18:41 AM »
Ayup.  Right now, when I design fighters, I design a whole bunch of size 1 engines with different efficiencies.  Because the fuel efficiency difference between a size 1 engines and a size 5 is really negligible.  But with the new system, going for engine redundancy instead of engine size comes at a HUGE fuel cost.

It really kills the beam fighters, because there is no way you can have a fighter that is fast enough to catch a large ship that is so much more fuel efficient than it.  A capital ship may use less fuel than a single fighter.

Granted, cheese like reduced sized spinal lasers on fast fighters to rip unshielded swarms apart becomes more difficult, but I think there are some real issues with having THAT much fuel efficiency difference between ships.

That's actually what I'm wondering about. Given the (massive) increased fuel cost of small engines compared to the old system, are fighters even viable any longer? Or are you just better off using multi-stage missiles instead of carriers?
 

Offline Michael Sandy

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • M
  • Posts: 771
  • Thanked: 83 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #746 on: May 16, 2017, 01:44:20 AM »
I think that for small fighters and ships to be viable with the new engine paradigm, DETECTION issues would have to greatly favor small fighters and ships.

If larger sensors only increase range as the square root of their power, small sensor footprint can be more advantageous.
 

Iranon

  • Guest
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #747 on: May 16, 2017, 04:13:37 AM »
I'm fairly sure missile fghters will remain viable, but we may be pushed in a direction where they are slower than capital ships, and live and die by being too small for enemy sensors.

Fast beam fighters will be hit harder. Even in the present version, I usually prefer full-sized warships... maybe hangar-based and with 3 days of mission life, but still full-sized. Sensor footprint matters less if you need to close to beam range. In the next version, the fuel savings over fighters will be considerable.

I see a moderate conceptual shift: Compared to ships, we're encouraged to think of fighters as boats rather than aircraft.
 

Offline Bremen

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • B
  • Posts: 743
  • Thanked: 150 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #748 on: May 17, 2017, 01:06:05 AM »
Fighters are taking a comparatively smaller hit than missiles, so if anything I think they might come out of this better than before. From a tactics point of view fighters are really more weapons systems like missiles than independent warships.

Missile fighters: Missile range (assuming the same fuel) is getting reduced by a factor of 4-5. Fighters are losing about half their range. So missile fighters will be even better at their current role, allowing missile strikes far beyond normal missile range. As for the actual mechanics of whether missile fighters can salvo without return fire, that will continue to be more dependent on sensor range than missile range, so this change probably wont alter the equation in either direction.

Beam fighters: In my experience, beam fighters' biggest weakness is enemy AMMs. This change is going to greatly reduce the range of AMMs, allowing beam fighters to close and engage much easier. The reduction in missile range will also mean their carriers are in less danger from enemy missiles. I don't know if this will make beam fighters actually excel, but I don't think it will hurt them.

The mere fact that they're fighters means that the fuel use is less likely to bother them on a strategic level since they'll remain docked in their carriers when not fighting. If anything I think the losers here will be smaller escort ships; larger engines mean that big warships will have better fuel economy. Maybe it's time to dust off my idea for parasite warships that remain in hangers until battle starts :)
 

Offline alex_brunius

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1240
  • Thanked: 153 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #749 on: May 17, 2017, 05:05:19 AM »
It really kills the beam fighters, because there is no way you can have a fighter that is fast enough to catch a large ship that is so much more fuel efficient than it.  A capital ship may use less fuel than a single fighter.

Granted, cheese like reduced sized spinal lasers on fast fighters to rip unshielded swarms apart becomes more difficult, but I think there are some real issues with having THAT much fuel efficiency difference between ships.

The difference from engine size isn't actually THAT huge.

If you look at the max size engine it's 20k ton so assumes a 40-80k capital ship ton (depending on engine % tonnage you want). If we go with something average like 60k ton then we have a 120 times larger ship consuming slightly less then 10 times less fuel per ton ( then your 500 ton fighter with 250 ton engine will at same power modifier ).

So in the end our capital ship is consuming 12 times more fuel with the new max size engine compared to a normal fighter do.


Ofcourse you normally want to crank up the power mod on the fighters more then you capital ships as well, but that does give them a significant speed advantage, so you get something important for it in return.



So, the new changes to engines are now in. I rather like them, especially ... AND reduced efficiency of size 1-10 ship engines. It really encourages having bigger engines for bigger ships and I think that's nice.

This is actually the main reason I suggested to update the formula in the first place. To get more trade-offs into design of small ship / fighter engines. That it also lower missile ranges a bit and allows bigger engine are just nice bonuses.
« Last Edit: May 17, 2017, 05:41:43 AM by alex_brunius »