Author Topic: C# Aurora Changes Discussion  (Read 441907 times)

0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.

Iranon

  • Guest
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #375 on: November 17, 2016, 09:10:49 AM »
Regarding missile range: Scalingwith tech is interesting here.
Sensor range increases greatly if we advance a tech level across the board, because it's affected by two multiplicative lines.
Missile range doesn't increase very much, or even decreases if we make use of higher multiplier tech.

Early on, very long missile range is expensive in terms of sensors and fire control.
Later on, very long missile range is expensive in terms of missile performance.
 

Offline bean

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • b
  • Posts: 916
  • Thanked: 56 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #376 on: November 17, 2016, 11:24:05 AM »
Regarding missile range: Scalingwith tech is interesting here.
Sensor range increases greatly if we advance a tech level across the board, because it's affected by two multiplicative lines.
Missile range doesn't increase very much, or even decreases if we make use of higher multiplier tech.

Early on, very long missile range is expensive in terms of sensors and fire control.
Later on, very long missile range is expensive in terms of missile performance.
That's why you use multi-stage missiles.  A low-speed booster, with fast penetration warhead(s) works really well since 6.0 came out.
This is Excel-in-Space, not Wing Commander - Rastaman
 

Offline Felixg

  • Chief Petty Officer
  • ***
  • F
  • Posts: 47
  • Thanked: 1 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #377 on: November 18, 2016, 05:49:31 AM »
I personally would love to see energy weapon ranges scale higher to be more competitive with missiles, even if it is only on things like spinal mounts.

Also while I am wishing it would be cool if things like railguns could be used against dirt side targets!
 

Offline alex_brunius

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1240
  • Thanked: 153 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #378 on: November 18, 2016, 06:21:35 AM »
I personally would love to see energy weapon ranges scale higher to be more competitive with missiles, even if it is only on things like spinal mounts.

Also while I am wishing it would be cool if things like railguns could be used against dirt side targets!

Energy weapons are capped by fire control range. So just increasing the weapon range on it's own will do almost nothing.


I think it's also an issue with the speed of light at higher techs, since light can travel at most 300k km/s = 1.5m km per 5 second increment, and the game wants to have energy weapons hit within the same increment without traveling faster then the speed of light.


If energy weapon ranges and FC ranges would be drastically increased it could also mean PD weapons with long range become very OP, because they might get dozens of shots off against each missile instead of just 1-2.
 

Offline TCD

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • T
  • Posts: 229
  • Thanked: 16 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #379 on: November 18, 2016, 08:57:04 AM »
Energy weapons are capped by fire control range. So just increasing the weapon range on it's own will do almost nothing.


I think it's also an issue with the speed of light at higher techs, since light can travel at most 300k km/s = 1.5m km per 5 second increment, and the game wants to have energy weapons hit within the same increment without traveling faster then the speed of light.


If energy weapon ranges and FC ranges would be drastically increased it could also mean PD weapons with long range become very OP, because they might get dozens of shots off against each missile instead of just 1-2.
There's also a simple logic to limiting it to a 5s period, based on targeting challenges. Take an Aurora ships with an  inertia-free engines capable of 5000km/s speed. So in a 5s tick a ship could theoretically move to anywhere in a 25,000km diameter sphere. Even diverting 0.1% of engine power to evasive action gives a 25km diameter of sphere for the ship to sit in. I would therefore suggest that the game is actually far too generous about beam weapon to hit chances at maximum range. Now, if you had faster than light energy weapons that would be a different question.
 

Offline bean

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • b
  • Posts: 916
  • Thanked: 56 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #380 on: November 18, 2016, 10:21:37 AM »
There's also a simple logic to limiting it to a 5s period, based on targeting challenges. Take an Aurora ships with an  inertia-free engines capable of 5000km/s speed. So in a 5s tick a ship could theoretically move to anywhere in a 25,000km diameter sphere. Even diverting 0.1% of engine power to evasive action gives a 25km diameter of sphere for the ship to sit in. I would therefore suggest that the game is actually far too generous about beam weapon to hit chances at maximum range. Now, if you had faster than light energy weapons that would be a different question.
I agree with your math, but my interpretation is that this clearly proves that beam weapons already propagate at superluminal speeds somehow.
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 #381 on: November 18, 2016, 04:04:57 PM »
I agree with your math, but my interpretation is that this clearly proves that beam weapons already propagate at superluminal speeds somehow.
Ha, yes, perhaps best not to probe too deeply on this one. Maybe the lasers fire through tiny jump gates?
 

Offline bean

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • b
  • Posts: 916
  • Thanked: 56 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #382 on: November 18, 2016, 05:38:54 PM »
Ha, yes, perhaps best not to probe too deeply on this one. Maybe the lasers fire through tiny jump gates?
That's basically the only way the math works, yes.  We already know that there's some superluminal propagation, which is used by the sensors.  I'd assume that this is the mechanism behind beam weapons, too.  It also neatly explains why projectile weapon damage falls off with range, which shouldn't really happen if the projectiles are in a vacuum.
This is Excel-in-Space, not Wing Commander - Rastaman
 

Offline ryuga81

  • Chief Petty Officer
  • ***
  • r
  • Posts: 40
  • Thanked: 3 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #383 on: November 27, 2016, 02:16:23 PM »
"A Refuelling System is 500 tons and has a cost ranging from 10 BP to 100 BP, depending on the tech level."

I just realized this means no more fighter tankers. Please make a fighter-sized Refuelling System (i.e. 50t transfering 1/10 of researched refueling rate) as well!! :/
 
The following users thanked this post: SpikeTheHobbitMage

Offline 83athom

  • Big Ship Commander
  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1261
  • Thanked: 86 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #384 on: November 27, 2016, 03:50:25 PM »
"A Refuelling System is 500 tons and has a cost ranging from 10 BP to 100 BP, depending on the tech level."

I just realized this means no more fighter tankers. Please make a fighter-sized Refuelling System (i.e. 50t transfering 1/10 of researched refueling rate) as well!! :/
You could easily fit that to a FAC (1000 tons).
Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set fire to him and he's warm for the rest of his life.
 

Offline NihilRex

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • N
  • Posts: 188
  • Thanked: 2 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #385 on: November 27, 2016, 04:01:19 PM »
The new system naming sounds awesome.

I like the idea of having named chains a LOT.
 

Offline alex_brunius

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1240
  • Thanked: 153 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #386 on: November 27, 2016, 05:15:25 PM »
You could easily fit that to a FAC (1000 tons).

No you can't "easily" fit a 500 ton system to a 1000 ton craft without significantly impacting it's performance and payload  ::)

Good luck if you want it to keep up with your fighters ( that typically have 40% of their total tonnage as max power engines), and want to provide meaningful amounts of fuel as well...
 

Iranon

  • Guest
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #387 on: November 28, 2016, 02:45:15 AM »
The whole thing is a bad idea, overcomplicated and likely annoying to use for little added depth... or even reduced depth in practice because it limits ship design. Given how fuel consumption scales, it's going to be preferable to have vessels that don't need underway refueling, or at least don't care about refueling rate. Or go all-out for short-ranged hangar-based craft, commercial hangars adding some new options.

Giving ships the necessary range without outside support was rarely the challenge. For seriously fast ships under tonnage constraints, the major benefit of tanker variants was efficiency through avoiding overhead (fire controls, ECCM, maybe additional armor).
No longer the case. Even if cheap compared to combat systems and even if we get a fighter-sized variant, moving the bulk of the refueling system is going to be expensive making it preferable to build longer-ranged fighters instead.
 

Offline ryuga81

  • Chief Petty Officer
  • ***
  • r
  • Posts: 40
  • Thanked: 3 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #388 on: November 28, 2016, 06:13:21 AM »
No you can't "easily" fit a 500 ton system to a 1000 ton craft without significantly impacting it's performance and payload  ::)

Good luck if you want it to keep up with your fighters ( that typically have 40% of their total tonnage as max power engines), and want to provide meaningful amounts of fuel as well...

^This is exactly the problem. 500 ton refueling system, 250ton fuel tank, that leaves only 25% room for engines and everything else.
 

Offline 83athom

  • Big Ship Commander
  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1261
  • Thanked: 86 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #389 on: November 28, 2016, 07:14:12 AM »
^This is exactly the problem. 500 ton refueling system, 250ton fuel tank, that leaves only 25% room for engines and everything else.
No you can't "easily" fit a 500 ton system to a 1000 ton craft without significantly impacting it's performance and payload  ::)

Good luck if you want it to keep up with your fighters ( that typically have 40% of their total tonnage as max power engines), and want to provide meaningful amounts of fuel as well...
I already fit 500 ton modules in FACs. Here;
Code: [Select]
Corsair class Dropship    1 000 tons     12 Crew     235.8 BP      TCS 20  TH 150  EM 0
10000 km/s     Armour 1-8     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 0     PPV 0
Maint Life 0 Years     MSP 0    AFR 200%    IFR 2.8%    1YR 63    5YR 946    Max Repair 60 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 1 months    Spare Berths 3   
Drop Capacity: 1 Battalion   

Cameron-Gould 40-1 ICFD (5)    Power 40    Fuel Use 336.02%    Signature 30    Exp 20%
Fuel Capacity 180 000 Litres    Range 9.6 billion km   (11 days at full power)

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes
Plenty of speed to keep up with fighters, replace the Drop Module with the refueling system, and you have a mobile fighter refueling point. My fighters typically only need 5,000-10,000 each, so this could extend the range of a squadron or two by a significant margin. It could use some specialized engines (one engine 5x bigger) that are not max power, but I just threw this together from my existing tech to prove a point.

Personally I think you shouldn't be able to build a small thing that could keep a squadron going for a very long range, as that is the whole point of a carrier. The only reason you should be using one of these is to extend the range of a squadron by adding a refueling point. An example of how to use this would be to park this over an asteroid/moon/planet halfway to the target, and let the squadron refuel from it on their way to and from the carrier while making strike runs on an enemy.
« Last Edit: November 28, 2016, 07:21:34 AM by 83athom »
Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set fire to him and he's warm for the rest of his life.
 
The following users thanked this post: Ayeshteni