Author Topic: C# Aurora Changes Discussion  (Read 442239 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline alex_brunius

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1240
  • Thanked: 153 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #645 on: March 28, 2017, 03:26:59 AM »
I think the most interesting change for fighters & FAC/gunboats with a unified fuel consumption vs size formula is that engine size becomes a whole new and very important design consideration for small crafts.

A size 10 (500ton) FAC or small corvette engine will have close to identical fuel consumption to before but smaller engines will become much less efficient. Your still going to be able to have close to similar performance with the largest fighter engines, 6HS (300ton) will just have 29% higher consumption, but when going down towards 1HS (50ton) we are quickly losing out on alot of range or extra fuel needed.

This becomes an important trade off with fighter total size which you want to keep low to be able to get closer without getting detected, especially if more granularity to engine size is added such that fighters can be made extremely small using say a 0.5HS (25ton) or 1.2HS (60ton) engine.

Long range strike fighters could be going for pretty big engines for fuel efficiency similar to now, while shorter ranged Interceptors or Gauss PD fighters could opt for smaller engines to keep their size down and speed high, or get some redundancy when engaging enemy fighters thus sacrificing efficiency.



it creates a smooth transition for both engine types, which is more realistic and consistent, provides a bonus to larger ships, makes the fuel portion of missile design more interesting (as fuel is not a major concern at the moment) and allows larger engines to be designed beyond the current 50 HS limit. I could also add a tech line to allow the larger engines.

Thanks for considering my suggestion!

The formula ( SQRT(10/HS) ) is pretty flexible.

If you think that the fuel consumption difference between largest capital engine and smallest AMM becomes too extreme you can adjust the exponent (SQRT = ^0.5) to be something closer to 0 instead. With ^0.4 instead consumption for a 0.5 MSP AMM engines goes from 2000% -> 1098% and consumption for a 200 HS capital ship engines goes from 22% -> 30% thus narrowing the span a bit.

And if you want to shift the 100% efficiency "base" engines in either direction you just change the 10/HS to 5/HS or what size you feel should be the base.

I trust you will be able to find some formula that you feel work well here.
« Last Edit: March 28, 2017, 03:29:27 AM by alex_brunius »
 

Offline MarcAFK

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 2005
  • Thanked: 134 times
  • ...it's so simple an idiot could have devised it..
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #646 on: March 28, 2017, 06:34:46 AM »
I'm going to say I love it but with a qualifier as I barely use fighters myself so there are implications I can only grasp from reading the dissenting points discussed here. But I think there must be some increase to missile fuel use as fuel is usually a minor part of missile design except in late tech level ultra high power missiles, or ultra long range designs.
" Why is this godforsaken hellhole worth dying for? "
". . .  We know nothing about them, their language, their history or what they look like.  But we can assume this.  They stand for everything we don't stand for.  Also they told me you guys look like dorks. "
"Stop exploding, you cowards.  "
 

Offline Haji

  • Captain
  • **********
  • Posts: 442
  • Thanked: 53 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #647 on: March 28, 2017, 09:29:16 AM »
But I think there must be some increase to missile fuel use as fuel is usually a minor part of missile design

That is true but only on lower technological levels. The thing is until Steve changes the ECM rules (or adds some form of penaids) from middle fusion era forward agility will make anti-missiles very accurate. We're talking about 50% accuracy against well designed missile. The situation flat out breaks when you reach anti-matter are and interception chances begin reaching 75%. Right now the only way to help shipkillers bypass such defences is to increase speed which requires maximum boost engines (6x) and very large engines (60% of the entire missile) leaving precious little space for anything else. Simple truth is my anti-matter era designs are shorter ranged than previous ones and have warheads only as powerful as those of early fusion were and the anti-missile still have 50% chance of intercepting them. So on that technological level, fuel management becomes a real issue for missiles.

That doesn't mean I'm opposed to the fuel consumption changes. To be honest I mostly don't care about them, as it makes little difference whether standard missile range will be 150m km (as it is in my campaigns right now) or 50m km (as will probably be the case in the C# version). I'm only worried it will impact some specialised but widely used designs, such as fighters, but Steve thinks it will be fine and since I can't go any try things myself, that is the end of it I guess.
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Star Marshal
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 11651
  • Thanked: 20354 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #648 on: March 28, 2017, 12:56:13 PM »
That is true but only on lower technological levels. The thing is until Steve changes the ECM rules (or adds some form of penaids) from middle fusion era forward agility will make anti-missiles very accurate. We're talking about 50% accuracy against well designed missile. The situation flat out breaks when you reach anti-matter are and interception chances begin reaching 75%. Right now the only way to help shipkillers bypass such defences is to increase speed which requires maximum boost engines (6x) and very large engines (60% of the entire missile) leaving precious little space for anything else. Simple truth is my anti-matter era designs are shorter ranged than previous ones and have warheads only as powerful as those of early fusion were and the anti-missile still have 50% chance of intercepting them. So on that technological level, fuel management becomes a real issue for missiles.

That doesn't mean I'm opposed to the fuel consumption changes. To be honest I mostly don't care about them, as it makes little difference whether standard missile range will be 150m km (as it is in my campaigns right now) or 50m km (as will probably be the case in the C# version). I'm only worried it will impact some specialised but widely used designs, such as fighters, but Steve thinks it will be fine and since I can't go any try things myself, that is the end of it I guess.

I understand the concerns about agility and I will do something to address it. I rarely reach AM levels in my games so it hasn't been on my radar as much as it should have. I think I may need a different mechanic to replace agility but haven't decided how to handle it. I will also look at EW for missiles.

Plus, once I start running a campaign I will see how the theory works in practice. If there are problem, I will change it.
 
The following users thanked this post: Happerry, Haji

Offline Haji

  • Captain
  • **********
  • Posts: 442
  • Thanked: 53 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #649 on: March 28, 2017, 01:07:13 PM »
Ah, sorry didn't mean to sound like I was nagging you, just wanted to disagree with someone's perspective.
 

Offline IanD

  • Registered
  • Commodore
  • **********
  • Posts: 725
  • Thanked: 20 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #650 on: March 28, 2017, 01:18:03 PM »
Quote
SteveAlt   Chronicle of the Vathorian Imperator - Part 3
« on: May 21, 2008, 01:37:43 PM »
Code: [Select]
AS-2 Jaguar Anti-Ship Missile
Missile Size: 3 MSP  (0.15 HS)     Warhead: 9    Armour: 0     Manoeuvre Rating: 10
Speed: 26700 km/s    Endurance: 16 minutes   Range: 25.0m km
Cost Per Missile: 3.5833
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 267%   3k km/s 80%   5k km/s 53.4%   10k km/s 26.7%
Materials Required:    2.25x Tritanium   1.3333x Gallicite   Fuel x625
Development Cost for Project: 358RP

Code: [Select]
AM-2 Bobcat II Anti-Missile Missile
Missile Size: 1 MSP  (0.05 HS)     Warhead: 1    Armour: 0     Manoeuvre Rating: 10
Speed: 32000 km/s    Endurance: 39 minutes   Range: 75.0m km
Cost Per Missile: 0.7833
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 320%   3k km/s 100%   5k km/s 64%   10k km/s 32%
Materials Required:    0.25x Tritanium   0.5333x Gallicite   Fuel x625
Development Cost for Project: 78RP

So with the new sensor rules its back to the missile ranges of Aurora v3.0!   ;D
IanD
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Star Marshal
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 11651
  • Thanked: 20354 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #651 on: March 28, 2017, 05:32:06 PM »
Ah, sorry didn't mean to sound like I was nagging you, just wanted to disagree with someone's perspective.

Didn't take it as nagging and happy to hear all perspectives :) Just wanted to reassure that I will reconsider if the reality doesn't match the intention.
 

Offline Zincat

  • Captain
  • **********
  • Z
  • Posts: 566
  • Thanked: 111 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #652 on: March 29, 2017, 01:57:39 PM »
Yay for email notifications. And for the terraforming updates :)

Really loving the changes about max population, terraforming speed based on planet size and finally, at long last, water.
Water is absolutely necessary to life as we know if, so finally having that factored into colonization choices is really really nice.

I am a bit unsure, however, on terraforming speed. I am afraid that the base speed reduction of terraforming modules (-60% !!)  is too big and that it will make larger planets almost impossible to terraform in a "normal length" game.
« Last Edit: March 29, 2017, 02:01:52 PM by Zincat »
 

Offline Haji

  • Captain
  • **********
  • Posts: 442
  • Thanked: 53 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #653 on: March 29, 2017, 02:04:49 PM »
I am a bit unsure, however, on terraforming speed. I am afraid that the base speed reduction of terraforming modules (-60% !!)  is too big and that it will make larger planets almost impossible to terraform in a "normal length" game.

This really depends on how long it takes you to play. In my games I very often end up with a fleet capable of terraforming a planet in a year or so that either sits useless or begins to terraform every single rock possible simply because I need something to do with it. Because of that I ended up adding a lot of house rules to terraforming.

In addition the vast majority of planets that are potentially habitable are actually mars-sized in my games and for those terraforming will actually be faster.

One question about terraforming. I know we can add water. But can we remove water? I don't know about others, but in my games there are quite few planets without any dry land which, while not an issue from gameplay perspective (so far), can be sometimes problematic from role-playing perspective.
 

Offline bean

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • b
  • Posts: 916
  • Thanked: 56 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #654 on: March 29, 2017, 02:18:54 PM »
I'd like to point out that a low-gravity planet will require more atmosphere to get the same surface pressure.  Dividing the rate by the planetary gravity will correct for this, and will reduce the scaling of the terraforming rate from being approximately proportional to the square of radius to being linear with radius.  That helps avoid the problem of big worlds being too slow or small worlds being too fast.
This is Excel-in-Space, not Wing Commander - Rastaman
 

Offline TCD

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • T
  • Posts: 229
  • Thanked: 16 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #655 on: March 29, 2017, 02:41:28 PM »
I am a bit unsure, however, on terraforming speed. I am afraid that the base speed reduction of terraforming modules (-60% !!)  is too big and that it will make larger planets almost impossible to terraform in a "normal length" game.
I don't really have a problem with terraforming being a real challenge for larger worlds. IMHO terraforming should be a massive undertaking, not something you can accomplish in a half-hearted fashion over a couple of years!
 

Offline Bremen

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • B
  • Posts: 743
  • Thanked: 150 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #656 on: March 29, 2017, 03:28:26 PM »
I see how you can add hydrosphere, but is there any way to remove it?
 

Offline Detros

  • Commander
  • *********
  • Posts: 389
  • Thanked: 26 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #657 on: March 29, 2017, 04:26:47 PM »
One question about terraforming. I know we can add water. But can we remove water? I don't know about others, but in my games there are quite few planets without any dry land which, while not an issue from gameplay perspective (so far), can be sometimes problematic from role-playing perspective.
I see how you can add hydrosphere, but is there any way to remove it?
Heating could possibly add vapour back to atmosphere, paying 1% of Hydro Extent for each 0.05 atm generated. Than you can remove that gas.
Or the other way, couldn't cooling ice-ify the water?

But yes, it seems Steve talks only about one side of the process in the changelist.
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Star Marshal
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 11651
  • Thanked: 20354 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #658 on: March 29, 2017, 04:49:40 PM »
I don't really have a problem with terraforming being a real challenge for larger worlds. IMHO terraforming should be a massive undertaking, not something you can accomplish in a half-hearted fashion over a couple of years!

Yes, I agree. This is one of the things I was trying to achieve with the changes.
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Star Marshal
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 11651
  • Thanked: 20354 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #659 on: March 29, 2017, 04:53:33 PM »
This really depends on how long it takes you to play. In my games I very often end up with a fleet capable of terraforming a planet in a year or so that either sits useless or begins to terraform every single rock possible simply because I need something to do with it. Because of that I ended up adding a lot of house rules to terraforming.

In addition the vast majority of planets that are potentially habitable are actually mars-sized in my games and for those terraforming will actually be faster.

One question about terraforming. I know we can add water. But can we remove water? I don't know about others, but in my games there are quite few planets without any dry land which, while not an issue from gameplay perspective (so far), can be sometimes problematic from role-playing perspective.

Well, they are a problem now :). Hydro Extent above 75% starts to reduce max population. A 100% water world has 1% of the normal max population.

It's a good point about removing water. I just need to figure out a way to remove it within the terraforming rules. On Earth, a small portion of the planet's water is in the atmosphere, so perhaps I should add evaporation as well as condensation, which will provide some water vapour to remove. I'll give it some thought.