no jumpships

[alexwildstar (OP)]

Or if not interpenatration  how about variable warphole size.


   example lets say a wormhole can usually allow ten ships thru at a time  and you shove twenty ships thru it closes the wormhole for x amount of time.    

   This would make certain conections more valueable because if it a big wormhole you can move ships back and forth fairly quickly.  

   But again I know most of you are happy with the game system it is so I am not really asking for any changes I was just inquiring.

  I have been reading the forums since before the forums were made.   I enjoyed all the fiction you guys have put out just please keep one going past the dang it just getting interesting phase lol

[Erik L]

Regarding alternate FTL travel...

Currently, with the jumpships/gates, interstellar travel is effectively instantaneous. Warp or other drives would slow expansion down greatly to deal with the travel times. Plus, a stellar map would need to be generated. The current stars are isolated. No spatial relationship to each other.

Regarding smaller jump drives...

Steve at one point stated that the size 15 is the smallest due to how he saw them. There is no technical reason why they aren't smaller. Though a courier sized jump drive, with a squadron size 1 (and a relative decrease in overall size) would be nice. The smallest jump capable ships I've ever designed were in the 3000 ton range. Engine, jump drive, support and a sensor.

Regarding other topics in this post...

Destabilizing the jump point would be interesting. Similar to how the Honorverse jump points work. I think though, instead of a rating on the point, have it work like the Honorverse points work. X tonnage through the point = X time the point is shut down. Routine traffic shuts it down for a few seconds. A mass invasion shuts it down for hours.

[SteveAlt]

Steve:  How hard would it be to have an "ignore jump engines" flag similar to the "ignore maintenance" one?  If it's as easy as I suspect, why not just try throwing it in for 3.3 to see if people like it?  I for one would like to try this - I think it would make exploration and colonization much less of a struggle (from the attention to detail and economic planning point of view).

It would actually be a lot more work to allow for optional jump engines than simply no jump engines because I would have to account for both situations whenever jump engines are currently required. However, I have found a very easy way to get around this. These is now an option on the game window for all jump points to be generated with jump gates. So if you want a game without jump engines, just choose that option.

On the subject of "small" jump ships: one of the things I would like to see is to lower the minimum jump engine size from 15 down to something like 5.  I like to build small courier classes, and they end up hauling around a lot of useless jump engine mass (which increases their size), especially as efficiency goes up.  If your jump engine efficiency is 5, then it doesn't make a lot of sense to build a ship with jump engines that's any smaller than 75 HS.

For a long time I have stuck to the minimum 15 HS, mainly because I wanted jump engines to be something for larger ships only. As you mention below, Babylon 5 was the main inspiration for the jump engine model and jump-capable ships tended to be fairly large. The White Stars were unusual in that ships as small as that didn't usually have jump engines. However, as you point out, as you get more efficient jump engines the effective minimum size of jump capable ships increases. Therefore I have added a new line of tech that reduces the minimum size of jump engines. Each level of this tech line has pre-requisites of the previous level and a jump drive efficiency tech. So once you have Jump Drive Efficiency 4, you can research Minimum Jump Engine Size - 12. Once you have Jump Drive Efficiency 5, you can research Minimum Jump Engine Size - 10, and so on.

On the subject of battle riders:  IIRC, Steve's original vision for jump ships came from Babylon 5.  So, from a techno-babble point of view, you should probably think of a jump-capable ship not as a mother ship (with non-jump-capable parasites), but instead as having a portable wormhole generator.  This is in fact the way I tend to use them - I park a jump ship at a jump point and it acts as a "bridge" for ships moving between systems.  As Steve says, most combat tends to be in deep space, so the mechanics of jump transit is somewhat moot for the battles.  From the exploration and colonization point of view, however, the jump/non-jump dichotomy does add a lot of complexity - jump ships are expensive, and therefore limit the number of planets you can be ferrying colonists and factories to simultaneously.  (PS - you wouldn't believe the amount of time I spent with the Million Credit Squadron Traveler expansion.)

Yes, that's true. The concept came straight from Babylon 5 with the larger ship opening up jump points for the smaller ships to use. So as you say, its not a battle-rider. Although I guess in terms of gameplay function they are similar as both require a specialised ship to get other ships through the jump point. I regularly use the same tactic as John by parking a jump ship at a jump point and using it as a mobile jump gate. I also tend to build a lot of jump gates within the core systems to facilitate travel for non-jump-capable ships

Steve

[SteveAlt]

Yes my point was to just remove the need for ships to be either jumpships or normal ships.  I was just wondering if there an option to eliminate the need.    


    It the one thing that has kept me from actually using Auroa is I absolutly hate the battle rider concept.  I am assuming most people are familar with traveler when i say battle rider.

    How far has any one made it in a campaign.  Reading the fiction I have not seen alot of battle with more than 20 ships per side.  (which does make for good balance and interesting battles but just wondering how the mechanics work when ya get to say a good size fleet of say 10 DN and escorts.

I think Kurt's campaign has probably had the largest battles so far so he is likely to be in the best position to comment. I played a lot of large Starfire battles and it soon got difficult because if you had ten times as many ships you had to make ten times as many dice rolls. Even with Starfire Assistant, that was still a problem. During the design of Aurora I have tried to solve this problem in two ways. Firstly, by creating an economic model that resulted in smaller fleets. That seems to be working but in the long term it is more of a delaying tactic because if you play long enough you will still eventually get very large fleets. The second way I tackled it was to make automation a large part of most battles, and that is a scalable solution. For example, if you have four battleships of the same class in a battle, you setup the fire control and missile assignments of the first one and then use the copy feature on the F8 window to setup the others. You can also use the copy feature to pass on the targeting. If you have forty battleships of the same class in a battle then it takes exactly the same amount of time to set them up too. Once the battle starts, the ships will fire at their assigned targets without the need for further user input and again it makes little difference as to the numbers, except perhaps that ships will get destroyed more quickly so you have to change targeting more often. Once point defences systems are setup on one escort, you can copy that to the other escorts of the same class. As PD is automated, it makes no difference if you have 2 escorts or 20 escorts. With formations, once they are setup the escorts will decide on their own moves without user input. So in Aurora there will be a little more effort for larger battles but the effort required should increase very slowly compared to the increase in battle size.

Steve

[sloanjh]

Steve:  How hard would it be to have an "ignore jump engines" flag similar to the "ignore maintenance" one?  If it's as easy as I suspect, why not just try throwing it in for 3.3 to see if people like it?  I for one would like to try this - I think it would make exploration and colonization much less of a struggle (from the attention to detail and economic planning point of view).

It would actually be a lot more work to allow for optional jump engines than simply no jump engines because I would have to account for both situations whenever jump engines are currently required. However, I have found a very easy way to get around this. These is now an option on the game window for all jump points to be generated with jump gates. So if you want a game without jump engines, just choose that option.

I was actually thinking you might be able to put an "is jump engine" flag on regular jump engines.  But I also thought of the "jump gates everywhere" trick.  Between the two of them, I figured one would be easy :-)

[SteveAlt]

Steve:  How hard would it be to have an "ignore jump engines" flag similar to the "ignore maintenance" one?  If it's as easy as I suspect, why not just try throwing it in for 3.3 to see if people like it?  I for one would like to try this - I think it would make exploration and colonization much less of a struggle (from the attention to detail and economic planning point of view).

It would actually be a lot more work to allow for optional jump engines than simply no jump engines because I would have to account for both situations whenever jump engines are currently required. However, I have found a very easy way to get around this. These is now an option on the game window for all jump points to be generated with jump gates. So if you want a game without jump engines, just choose that option.

I was actually thinking you might be able to put an "is jump engine" flag on regular jump engines.  But I also thought of the "jump gates everywhere" trick.  Between the two of them, I figured one would be easy  I hadn't realized the jump gate option was already coded up, though - I'll have to try it out.

The jump gates everywhere option will be in v3.3. It isn't available in the current release.

Steve

[Larac]

This is a subject that I've pondered off and on for a long time.  In a more general term, travel between systems.

I can fully apprecieate the need from the pov of the developer to require sts(system to system) travel be through specific fixed locations.  It makes the game mechanics easier to address.  By limiting to only one sts method and only one means to use it this is easily accomplished.

From the pov of players this usually works out as well.  Though sometimes a player, or group of players, desire more randomness.  A way to introduce more randomness, but retain a finite set of controls, would be to introduce different sts techs that don't neccessarily use the same fixed locations and pathways.  Yes this would create overlapping networks, but would still be controlable from the developer pov.  

My opinion is to retain the jump engines and jumpgates as implemented.  They work.  But maybe start by introducing a new engine tech that is massing somewhere between drive engines and jump engines that function for both purposes.  Other techs can be developed that use different networks, etc etc etc.

I don't think the original poster was suggesting replacing jump points with something else, just removing the need for jump engines. Now that I have started thinking about it I was just wondering whether requiring ships to be escorted through jump points by jump-capable ships or to use jump gates was a good idea in terms of gameplay vs playability or whether I should change to the Starfire method of allowing all ships to transit jump points. It seemed a good idea at the time because I wanted to avoid certain situations that arose in Starfire and jump drives were the method I chose. Over time I just got used to it. However, now I have played a lot of Aurora I think other aspects of the game prevent those same Starfire-type situations occuring so I find myself wondering if the restrictions on use of jump points are still necessary. l certainly won't be replacing jump points with some type of warp drive between systems as that would require a complete overhaul of the game and huge coding challenges. However removing the requirement for jump drives and jump gates in order to transit jump points would be relatively straightforward. I just need to decide if that is a good idea or whether it would take something away from the game.

Steve

I like the idea that ships can enter the Warp Point on their on, perhaps have the Jump Ships that allow more through at one time.

If the WP allowed say 600 tons through a cycle then the Jump Ship would extend that to based on Tech from 30-80%.
In terms of reason the Jump Drives attune the WP to a more efficient though short lived state.
A Jump Gate build on a WP would add like 25-50% but would be constant.

This gives a good reason to have Jump Ships but allows a more open area.

I prefer WP movement as a Campaign controlling device, and because it makes certain systems Very  valuable no mater what the system contains.

Lee

[waresky]

I love the Hardest of Aurora,pose Strategical situations.

Maintenance and JumpShip (tender) capable are very hard to manage on peaceful..think on War theathre.. Doomsday:D

[schroeam]

I like the idea of requiring some sort of special technology to use jump points rather than just the theory behind their existence.  Maybe change the jump drive to an addition to the ships engines.  Maybe have each engine tech level require an increase in jump tech level to allow the newer engines to utilize the jump add-on.  This will also prevent those pesky alien races that may have just been awakened from following you back through the jump point with their small, yet still potent, fleet of warships and lay waste to the first colony they come to.  

Then again, I am rather attached to the restrictions placed on jump drives, making massive invasions a logistical nightmare.  If I recall, one of your original goals for this game was to scale down fleet sizes, making each individual ship more valuable to the overall game.

Thanks

Adam.

[jfelten]

The large jump drives do greatly complicate and slow down game play.  I'm not sure that complication is worth it, especially if you are going for a wide player audience.  But since they are already in the game, you could make them smaller.  That would "take the edge off" and give people a viable option of putting jump drives on all or most of their ships, or at least their warships.  Frugal players willing to invest the additional time could still gain some benefit of building a jump gate network and leaving jump drives off of most of their commercial ships.

[Hawkeye]

I realy like the way, jumpships work in aurora.

Yes, jumpengines take a lot of space, but look at the steam plants of WW2 battleships and carriers . Those took a lot of space too (more than the regular engines of spaceships in aurora, I think). I don´t know about moders naval vessels, but I doubt less than 20% of total mass are sufficient.

The thing is: With jump engines so small, you can mount them on a warship and still arm and armor it propperly, it becomes a no brainer to mount them on all military ships, simply because the trad off (IMO) is negligible.
As it is now, there are so many choices.

Do I form a taskforce with just one or two jumpships, that will have to shuttle back and forth to bring the whole force through a jumppoint (and risk defeat in detail in the process), or am I including enough jumpships to bring the TF through in one go?

Darn, if only I could fit in this quad PD-turret, but this would bring the mass of the CE above my current jumpengine limit, perhaps if I reduce armor or shields

Do I go the way of jumpgates, freeing up my design process considerably, but also open my system to possible aliens, or do I go with jumpships, limiting my desing possiblilities to a rather resticted tonnage?

What if the jumpships are destroyed, stranding my whole taskforce out in nowhere? Hm, I will have to build the JS to withstand an attack, so, do I armor/shield it or give it active defenses, as there rarely seems enough space to do both?

Decisions,decisions, decisions, that´s what I like!

[welchbloke]

I realy like the way, jumpships work in aurora.

Yes, jumpengines take a lot of space, but look at the steam plants of WW2 battleships and carriers . Those took a lot of space too (more than the regular engines of spaceships in aurora, I think). I don´t know about moders naval vessels, but I doubt less than 20% of total mass are sufficient.

The thing is: With jump engines so small, you can mount them on a warship and still arm and armor it propperly, it becomes a no brainer to mount them on all military ships, simply because the trad off (IMO) is negligible.
As it is now, there are so many choices.

Do I form a taskforce with just one or two jumpships, that will have to shuttle back and forth to bring the whole force through a jumppoint (and risk defeat in detail in the process), or am I including enough jumpships to bring the TF through in one go?

Darn, if only I could fit in this quad PD-turret, but this would bring the mass of the CE above my current jumpengine limit, perhaps if I reduce armor or shields

Do I go the way of jumpgates, freeing up my design process considerably, but also open my system to possible aliens, or do I go with jumpships, limiting my desing possiblilities to a rather resticted tonnage?

What if the jumpships are destroyed, stranding my whole taskforce out in nowhere? Hm, I will have to build the JS to withstand an attack, so, do I armor/shield it or give it active defenses, as there rarely seems enough space to do both?

Decisions,decisions, decisions, that´s what I like!

Hawkeye's post encapsulates my view perfectly.  I wouldn't like to see a reduction in the size of Jump Drives to the point that they can be used on every warship.

[rmcrowe]

Another vote for keeping jumpships.  It makes the decision tree more interesting to the ship/fleet designer.

robert

[SteveAlt]

Thanks for all the feedback on this subject. In the end, I have decided to leave jump drives as they are except for the addition of an extra tech line to reduce minimum jump drive size. For players who want a non-jump drive game, there is an option on the Game window in v4.0 to generate all jump points with existing jump gates.

Steve