Author Topic: C# Aurora Changes Discussion  (Read 441784 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline TCD

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • T
  • Posts: 229
  • Thanked: 16 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #390 on: November 28, 2016, 09:23:13 AM »
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.
Or possibly to assist with delivery of fighters to the front line? But in my view the problem is that fighter tankers are a rather silly concept in the first place. People have got used to them, but that doesn't make them a good idea. Are there any real world or sci-fi examples? From a gameplay and balance perspective forcing people to move their carriers closer to the enemy seems like a good thing.
 

Offline Darkminion

  • Petty Officer
  • **
  • D
  • Posts: 26
  • Thanked: 6 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #391 on: November 28, 2016, 09:31:28 AM »
Or possibly to assist with delivery of fighters to the front line? But in my view the problem is that fighter tankers are a rather silly concept in the first place. People have got used to them, but that doesn't make them a good idea. Are there any real world or sci-fi examples? From a gameplay and balance perspective forcing people to move their carriers closer to the enemy seems like a good thing.
Quite a few examples can be found. The best one for this topic is
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_A-6_Intruder#KA-6D
And there are more listed here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tanker_aircraft
Many of these seem to have been replaced by buddy fueling in modern carrier based strikefighters.
 

Offline 83athom

  • Big Ship Commander
  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1261
  • Thanked: 86 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #392 on: November 28, 2016, 09:34:17 AM »
Are there any real world or sci-fi examples?
Yes, a multitude.
From a gameplay and balance perspective forcing people to move their carriers closer to the enemy seems like a good thing.
Well that is debatable. There are reasons you would use small refueling ships in order to boost the range of sortie without moving you carrier closer. But you would need to send the mission of the tanker first, risking that to enemy detection while it is on the way.

Quite a few examples can be found. Many of these seem to have been replaced by buddy fueling in modern carrier based strikefighters.
You ninja.
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 bean

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • b
  • Posts: 916
  • Thanked: 55 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #393 on: November 28, 2016, 10:36:56 AM »
There are other reasons besides fighters to have a small refueling system.  I'd want them to fit to my bigger ships, both so they can refuel escorts (the Iowa-class battleships were fitted with specialized equipment for this) and so that ships which lose all fuel tanks are not totally stranded until I can bring a tanker up.
There are lots of things that carriers do besides provide fuel.  Things like accommodations and weapons.  Fighter tankers will actually use more fuel than moving the carrier up (assuming normal engine ratios), and mean longer intervals between strikes.  It's not a complete victory for the tankers.
For that matter, each tanker takes up a spot on the carrier's deck that would otherwise be occupied by a fighter.  The virtual attrition at least somewhat balances the longer range.
This also ignores another use of fighter-tankers, which is doing jobs too small to require a full tanker.  I've found them incredibly helpful for new players who underestimate the fuel requirements of their fleet, because they don't take yards and can be built quickly.  Even if the player is experienced, they can be useful for helping ships which get in trouble.
« Last Edit: November 28, 2016, 10:48:27 AM by byron »
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 #394 on: November 28, 2016, 03:40:07 PM »
Quite a few examples can be found. The best one for this topic is
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_A-6_Intruder#KA-6D
And there are more listed here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tanker_aircraft
Many of these seem to have been replaced by buddy fueling in modern carrier based strikefighters.
Ha, as always on this forum I must bow to superior knowledge. I've only seen photos with big tankers refueling fighters, so appreciate the new knowledge, and withdraw my objection to a smaller fueling system.
 

Offline TCD

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • T
  • Posts: 229
  • Thanked: 16 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #395 on: November 28, 2016, 03:54:16 PM »
There are other reasons besides fighters to have a small refueling system.  I'd want them to fit to my bigger ships, both so they can refuel escorts (the Iowa-class battleships were fitted with specialized equipment for this) and so that ships which lose all fuel tanks are not totally stranded until I can bring a tanker up.
I can see the logic for that, but I'm not sure a fighter sized refueling system would be appropriate for that. If it was 50t say I'd be tempted to stick it on every ship I design, which seems to go against the spirit of Steve's changes. Is the real problem that 500t is too big for the basic refueling system. Perhaps 250t would be more appropriate? That would mean that large warships could justify taking a refueling system, but not frigates etc.

This also ignores another use of fighter-tankers, which is doing jobs too small to require a full tanker.  I've found them incredibly helpful for new players who underestimate the fuel requirements of their fleet, because they don't take yards and can be built quickly.  Even if the player is experienced, they can be useful for helping ships which get in trouble.
That's a pretty neat thought, and one that never occurred to me.
 

Offline bean

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • b
  • Posts: 916
  • Thanked: 55 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #396 on: November 28, 2016, 04:27:47 PM »
I can see the logic for that, but I'm not sure a fighter sized refueling system would be appropriate for that. If it was 50t say I'd be tempted to stick it on every ship I design, which seems to go against the spirit of Steve's changes. Is the real problem that 500t is too big for the basic refueling system. Perhaps 250t would be more appropriate? That would mean that large warships could justify taking a refueling system, but not frigates etc.
I want the 50t systems to make fighter tankers, and the secondary application for bigger warships is a bonus.  They're supposed to be 1/10th the rate of the bigger systems, so a sufficiently big ship might get a full-sized refueling system.  I'd like it if they stacked, but I can see why Steve might not do that.


Quote
That's a pretty neat thought, and one that never occurred to me.
It took a while for me to figure out.  I was helping a friend who had grossly under-speced his freighters, and after a couple of staging trips, the thought hit me.
(Another use is for the early game when you need to move fuel around and it isn't worth it to build a dedicated tanker, although I suspect that will be less important with the new rules.)
This is Excel-in-Space, not Wing Commander - Rastaman
 

Offline Zincat

  • Captain
  • **********
  • Z
  • Posts: 566
  • Thanked: 111 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #397 on: November 28, 2016, 06:19:56 PM »
I like the current draft where refueling system is 500t. It's a good balance for such a critical system, I think.

I don't want something that is going to be stuck on every single ship just because it is small. 500t is perfect, you're not going to stick that on every ship. If it was 50t, you WOULD stick it on every ship.


Alternatively, a compromise could be done if Steve can and want to code it. A 50t small fueling system can be made, BUT it only works if the ships are not moving. Call it "small stationary fuel transfer system" or something similar. If you want a logic reason for that limitation, since it's small it cannot handle the stress/complication of fuel transfer when under way. It will only work if both ships are not moving.

I could work with this compromise. I think however that just allowing 50t fuel transfer systems for every ship without limitations would not be balanced at all.
 

Offline QuakeIV

  • Registered
  • Commodore
  • **********
  • Posts: 759
  • Thanked: 168 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #398 on: November 28, 2016, 06:46:00 PM »
It seems like you could just make the smaller ones much slower, that is to say slower than their relative size would suggest.
 

Offline Zincat

  • Captain
  • **********
  • Z
  • Posts: 566
  • Thanked: 111 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #399 on: November 28, 2016, 08:43:24 PM »
It seems like you could just make the smaller ones much slower, that is to say slower than their relative size would suggest.

Forgive me, but this is not in agreeement with what Steve is after, I think.

It seems to me that with the refueling changes, Steve wants to introduct a new layer of complexity in the game. Basically, refueling now becomes a serious logistic concern, instead of just a "magic fuel transfer" between ships as it is now. And so, tankers and the new refueling stations become an important part of projecting power in space.

No longer you can just dump fuel on planets and refuel there, or just transfer fuel between ships. You now need a specific infrastructure in order to do that, and so you need dedicated tankers or forwards bases (the refueling stations). I personally like it, though I can understand why some may not,

But if this system is applied, and it seems to me it will be, then it is not advisable, and should not even be possible in fact, to have  a small and cheap refueling system on every ship. No matter how slow it is at transferring fuel, it would defeat the entire point of this new system of refueling. What does it matter if it is slow, if you can just slap it on every ship? You may as well just do away with it.

And this is why I think 500 tons is a good size for this system. You don't put something like this on every ship, just on ships you want to have it on. And it seems to me this is exactly what Steve wants to achieve with this change.
« Last Edit: November 28, 2016, 08:45:02 PM by Zincat »
 

Offline QuakeIV

  • Registered
  • Commodore
  • **********
  • Posts: 759
  • Thanked: 168 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #400 on: November 28, 2016, 09:00:14 PM »
I disagree.  I think it would generally be worth it to bring in a bigger refuelling system if you want to gas up a big warship, while also allowing you to have a much smaller system that could gas up tiny fighters within the same general timeframe.  If you can get the massive warship refuelled in a few hours, then you can probably get it back into a running engagement within the same system.  If you are spending months gassing it up with a tiny fighter refuelling boom, then the fight is over by the tme you are ready to go.  Heck, it seems to me you could expect the course of the war to change in that time frame.

It would also allow you to do very very slow emergency refuelling in the field if every ship was equipped with at least a very small fuel transfer system.  It seems like that could potentially be dramatic.
« Last Edit: November 28, 2016, 09:02:35 PM by QuakeIV »
 

Offline 83athom

  • Big Ship Commander
  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1261
  • Thanked: 86 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #401 on: November 29, 2016, 06:40:05 AM »
I disagree.  I think it would generally be worth it to bring in a bigger refuelling system if you want to gas up a big warship, while also allowing you to have a much smaller system that could gas up tiny fighters within the same general timeframe.
Umm... isn't that what carriers are for?
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 MarcAFK

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 2005
  • Thanked: 134 times
  • ...it's so simple an idiot could have devised it..
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #402 on: November 29, 2016, 07:24:31 AM »
Or the 50 ton system could be fighter only, albeit higher tech level
" 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 Zincat

  • Captain
  • **********
  • Z
  • Posts: 566
  • Thanked: 111 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #403 on: November 29, 2016, 09:21:12 AM »
Or the 50 ton system could be fighter only, albeit higher tech level

I'm sorry but this, just no. How would you possibly motivate this? Why would it be fighter only?

"We have this new, shiny fuel transferring system here. And it's small. So, you know what, we're only putting it on fighters. Because large ships suck".

There is no possible realisitic and logical reason that justifies why a miniaturized refueling system would be mounted on fighters only. Why not FACs? Why not larger ships? What makes it impossible to mount it on larger ships?
 

Offline bean

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • b
  • Posts: 916
  • Thanked: 55 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #404 on: November 29, 2016, 09:26:28 AM »
Or the 50 ton system could be fighter only, albeit higher tech level
I'll second Zincat on this.  I really, really don't like that sort of restriction on systems totally independent of logical justification.  It smacks of special pleading.
This is Excel-in-Space, not Wing Commander - Rastaman