C# Aurora Changes Discussion

[Steve Walmsley]

Does this mean I can set a rule that all systems with no planets be named NX-<system number>?

Not as things stand, but it wouldn't be hard to add a player option to name certain types of systems in certain ways.

[alex_brunius]

The concept of in-flight refuelling is a little different. Aurora 'fighters' are not F-18s operating from the Nimitz, that can be refuelled by A-6 tankers. As they operate in the same medium as the carrier, they are more like small, missile-armed patrol boats. The existing ability to refuel these small craft in flight was more a side-effect of the abstract refuelling system than an intention to replicate tankers the size of tactical aircraft.

I don't think that comparison is that valid since the speed difference is much bigger in Aurora. In reality your having Carriers going @30-35 knots and speedboats @40-50 knots (not even twice), while in Aurora our Carriers @5000km/s can have fighters @30000km/s (6 times the speed).

If you take into account the speed of missiles where fast Aurora fighters can outrun slow missiles this becomes even more apparent. So even though operating in the same medium the engine and fuel consumption mechanics means that max power mod fighters in Aurora actually behave alot closer to real airborn F-18 fighters in comparison to their mothership and missile speeds ( Being closer to the missiles in speed then then to the Carrier ).

I don't want to create a small (50 ton?) refuelling system as it would decrease the need for the type of planning and decision-making I am trying to create.

Why not solve it with a "fighter only" dropdown or version on the refueling system which make it 10 times smaller and 10 times slower + only possible to go on fighters? (maybe FAC too).

[Iranon]

There is no fundamental speed difference between ships and fighters.
We may have 5000km/s carriers with 30000km/s fighters... but at the same tech level we may well have full-size warships that go 30000km/s (goals: pick off things from outside their beam range, strong railgun PD, be almost untouchable with ECM) and fighters that go 5000km/s (rationale: don't need performance if I can slip in under their long-range sensors).

In general, I don't think the changes to refueling will add much if any depth.
Speed is very expensive in Aurora, in other words range/fuel efficiency is dirt cheap.

The fuel use/speed relationship may not look too different from real life... but IRL it is a trade-off during operation with a few restrictions (some constant burning rate to keep things other than main propulsion online). In Aurora, high-powered ships always burn fuel like crazy, there is no economical cruising unless you tractor them or put them in a hangar.

Ships heavily optimized for fuel efficiency are quite attractive in general even if that's not our primary goal. I already find it best to invest practically nothing in fuel logistics and build frugal ships (excepting those I'm ferrying around by tractor/hangar).
Pressure to go this route will only increase with the limit to tankers; end result being more complexity that is best played around and adds little depth but some annoyances/restrictions (without unlimited emergency refuels, I'll want some fuel redundancy/reserves).
The only thing that would really lead to legitimate depth in logistics would be a complete rebalance of power to fuel efficiency to make fuel efficiency more expensive in terms of other design goals... but I don't see a simple fix without unfortunate side effects there.

[alex_brunius]

There is no fundamental speed difference between ships and fighters.
We may have 5000km/s carriers with 30000km/s fighters... but at the same tech level we may well have full-size warships that go 30000km/s

Nothing "fundamentally" is preventing you from building flying Carriers of 100'000 ton IRL that go just as fast as the F18s they carry either...

It's just that no one is going to do that because it's just as stupid as it would be to do in Aurora for reasons of fuel economy, range, design, cost, endurance, reliability and other tradeoffs that are pretty accurately modeled in the game...

[ryuga81]

I don't want to create a small (50 ton?) refuelling system as it would decrease the need for the type of planning and decision-making I am trying to create. However, even with a 500 ton refuelling system it would be possible to create relatively small tankers (1500 - 2000 tons perhaps) that could refuel fighters. More KC-135 than A-6. These small tankers wouldn't be useful for larger ships due to their capacity but they would serve to refuel long-range strikes while remaining hard to detect.

And what do you think about the idea of allowing some minimal emergency fuel transfer on ships without refuelling equipment?

[83athom]

And what do you think about the idea of allowing some minimal emergency fuel transfer on ships without refuelling equipment?

I don't like the idea, because if you are in that situation, then either something bad happened or you didn't plan ahead and were unprepared.

[Iranon]

 Maybe we should take this elsewhere, but...

Nothing "fundamentally" is preventing you from building flying Carriers of 100'000 ton IRL that go just as fast as the F18s they carry either...

It's just that no one is going to do that because it's just as stupid as it would be to do in Aurora for reasons of fuel economy, range, design, cost, endurance, reliability and other tradeoffs that are pretty accurately modeled in the game...

The square-cube law is a pretty fundamental consideration.
Your example doesn't apply because nothing in Aurora goes as fast as an F-18 relative to standard ship speeds.

PT boats would go through their considerable fuel load within hours at full speed, so a short mission life is nothing exclusive to aircraft. Aurora fighters are also heavier than those, and much heavier than period fighter aircraft. Styling fighters as aircraft may be done for RP reasons, but the mechanics don't really make it a natural fit. I think you're trying to jam a square peg into a round hole here.

[83athom]

Your example doesn't apply because nothing in Aurora goes as fast as an F-18 relative to standard ship speeds.

An F-18 goes 34x as fast as a Zumwalt class destroyer (1,290 mph top speed vs 35 mph). Early-ish game "standard" speeds are around 5,000km/s. 34x that is 170,000km/s, which can't be achieved at the same tech. However in other ship doctrines, "standard" speed is more around 2,000km/s at the same tech as before and 34x of that is only 68,000km/s, which can feasibly be achievable in game. While I agree with the general statement, you have to understand that "standard" is very, very flexible. To someone else, "standard" may even be 10,000km/s at the same tech.

However, the sqaure-cube law may not be so tidy in sci-fi when you consider hyper-dense materials (like Collapsium or similar "fluff" heavy material) that may weigh 500 times as much per volume than titanium. An end level tech frigate which weighs 5x as much as its early game comparison may be a very similar size, or even smaller.

[alex_brunius]

The square-cube law is a pretty fundamental consideration.
Your example doesn't apply because nothing in Aurora goes as fast as an F-18 relative to standard ship speeds.

PT boats would go through their considerable fuel load within hours at full speed, so a short mission life is nothing exclusive to aircraft. Aurora fighters are also heavier than those, and much heavier than period fighter aircraft. Styling fighters as aircraft may be done for RP reasons, but the mechanics don't really make it a natural fit. I think you're trying to jam a square peg into a round hole here.

Not really. Consider that Aurora missiles don't go as fast as a F-18 vs ships either if you try to translate and jam the scale in 1:1.

If you define missiles as the fastest things, commercial ships as the slowest and plot where Carriers and their Fighters end up on that scale in reality vs Aurora your going to find that they end up pretty much in the same relative spots, even if their individual ratio between each-other may be more compressed in Aurora (due to the smaller total span and the need to fit in more tech level advancements).

An F-18 goes 34x as fast as a Zumwalt class destroyer (1,290 mph top speed vs 35 mph). Early-ish game "standard" speeds are around 5,000km/s. 34x that is 170,000km/s, which can't be achieved at the same tech

And the real missiles the F-18 fires goes 2000-3000 mph top speed. Which using your the same comparison to ingame numbers would make them around the speed of light, so clearly it doesn't apply.


My point was a more general one that fighters are closer to the missile speed-range, then the ship speed-range in Aurora. Just like real fighters are closer to the missile speed ranges then the ship or speedboat speed range.

Therefor they are more logical to compare with airborne fighters then with speedboats.

[iceball3(forgot pass)]

In my opinion, applying more fueling restrictions to players shouldn't really be done without consideration to inhibiting AI fuel or "emulated fuel" operations for the sake of fairness.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

I imagine that jumpships equipped with a single refueling system will probably be able to handle most 'oops' emergencies, except in the extreme early game like going too far exploring the kuiper belt. 

For any situation where you'd like to RP 'emegency refueling', I think SpaceMaster can cover it.

Although, it comes to mind that if turn processing/pathfinding is fast enough, ships might be able to calculate for themselves if their fuel levels might soon be insufficient to return to the nearest refueling base.  Only survey ships really need this functionality, anyway.

 

[Happerry]

Personal opinion with my admittedly meager experience at Aurora is that the fueling system as discussed doesn't sound fun or interesting, but does sound like an annoying chore.

[Michael Sandy]

Given that ships are expected to operate for months on their own, in other star systems with no way to communicate with home except by sending a ship, I would expect that any ship designed for extended patrols would be capable of dealing with a variety of emergencies.

Like temporarily dealing with extra crowding from rescuing the crew of a disabled ship, or temporarily providing power to another ship so they could shut down and repair their reactor, or refuel another ship, with enough fuel to get them to the nearest starbase or other facility.

Also, people are getting all fussy about interchangeable fuel between carriers and fighters and LACs when they swallow the notion that a captured 5 hs missile can be fired from a 5 hs launcher, regardless of whether said launcher is cylindrical, square, hexagonal or whatever.  There are far more incompatible things that are used interchangeably, mostly because of the rule of FUN.

My two cents is have a 50 hs fighter system that has 5% of the capacity of a 500 hs system, for 20% of the cost.  So it isn't NECESSARY to have the smaller system, but it allows a play style.  A fighter tanker would be 1/4 as efficient as the larger system, but it could keep up with the fighter wing without increasing the signature of the fighter wing.

[83athom]

My two cents is have a 50 hs fighter system that has 5% of the capacity of a 500 hs system, for 20% of the cost.

I would be open to this through technology research, and not available right away, however I think they should be 50 tons and 500 tons respectively instead of 2500 tons and 25000 tons  .

[Michael Sandy]

Doh.  I was thinking in one unit and writing in a different one.  No programming martian lander craft for me!