C# Aurora Changes Discussion

[Silvarelion]

On another note, I'm a little sad about the loss of short-range missile barrages ignoring regular point defence. For purpose-built missile brawlers, this changes little because we have other ways of rendering PD irrelevant... but it was a very flavourful desperation tactic for regular missile ships in case they couldn't overcome defences.

Where is this change? I don't think I've seen that announcement.

[alex_brunius]

I guess that will really hit AMMs, where you will always take the 6x boost. Is this the end of the AMM barrage as a useful anti-ship weapon? It's hard to tell but it feels like this would potentially drop AMM ranges inside beam ranges for equivalent technology?

Sensors and fuel changes will hit both sides though, so even missile FAC/Fighters should need to have to approach closer to be able to fire as well.

Also worth bearing in mind you can now create missiles and launchers that are size 1.1 or 1.2, etc. so the AMM no longer has to be exactly size 1.

Yeah I think this option will be very interesting and useful when it comes to both creating hybrid AMM/Anti-FAC missiles with bigger warheads, or creating AMMs with same warhead but more fuel for bit longer range instead.

I'm all for changes which removes or lessen the impact of hard caps like size 1.0 AMMs being the standard that everyone uses and the only thing that works

[bean]

I don't like the changes to missile engines.  The old system, where you had a flat multiplier for engine power, seemed to make more sense, and it's less likely to create odd results.  Missile engines will be designed differently from ship engines.  This happens in real life.  Only penalizing boosted engines makes multi-stage missiles more likely, particularly with the changes to launcher ROF (which I am very much in favor of, BTW).  A flat x2 to fuel burn would make the whole system make more sense.

[iceball3]

I don't like the changes to missile engines.  The old system, where you had a flat multiplier for engine power, seemed to make more sense, and it's less likely to create odd results.  Missile engines will be designed differently from ship engines.  This happens in real life.  Only penalizing boosted engines makes multi-stage missiles more likely, particularly with the changes to launcher ROF (which I am very much in favor of, BTW).  A flat x2 to fuel burn would make the whole system make more sense.

Missile sized engines are already being penalized in the new system, already, due to their size and the size penalty changes.

[alex_brunius]

Missile sized engines are already being penalized in the new system, already, due to their size and the size penalty changes.

Not really.

With old model going from 5MSP engine to 0.5 MSP engine increase fuel consumption by x4.82. In new model it just increase fuel consumption by x3.16.

[Hazard]

Although missile engine designs and ship engine designs would differ, their main difference is in size, not function. This is simply because in space the best method of propulsion you've got is tossing out very hot gas out the back end of the ship. This is part of why the fuel consumption mechanic for missile engines was changed in Aurora C#; a flat increase in engine fuel consumption without any benefit makes no sense, especially when you've a one shot drive by definition where you can afford to squeeze a small amount of extra thrust out of the engine by trading in long term endurance and reliability.

If anything, that engine should be more efficient for its weight, either in power output or fuel consumption.

[Iranon]

Where is this change? I don't think I've seen that announcement.

Can't find it myself at the moment. Hopefully that wasn't just a dream, because I'd expect dreams about Aurora to be much more interesting.

Regarding box launchers and explosion chance:
That needs to be in the game, but we're getting too many techs that we can't do much with. I'd be in favour of simplifying while increasing choice:
for example, a single Ammunition Safety tech that allows us to make a tradeoff between compactness and safety at design time for magazines, that also affects box launchers.

[Iranon]

Regarding the sensor model: Have the implications for active sensors on missiles/buoys been fully considered? Tiny sensors will become hugely more powerful. If that in itself is not considered problematic...  TH and EM ones will probably not be competitive at those sizes, is that fine?

[TCD]

Regarding the sensor model: Have the implications for active sensors on missiles/buoys been fully considered? Tiny sensors will become hugely more powerful. If that in itself is not considered problematic...  TH and EM ones will probably not be competitive at those sizes, is that fine?

Why would better sensors on missiles be a problem?

Presumably TH/EM sensors would have the minor advantage of not giving away your missiles position. Although I'm not sure how relevant that is with the exception of a surprise attack against an enemy without its own actives on? Does missile tracking time include passive as well as active tracking?

[Person012345]

This is simply because in space the best method of propulsion you've got is tossing out very hot gas out the back end of the ship.

Nuclear Pulse Propulsion is theoretically better than tossing out gasses (hot or otherwise).

[serger]

Well, plasma is not a gas technically, but Tsiolkovsky rocket equation doesn't mind if you tossing out plasma or very hot gas.

[NihilRex]

On the topic of launcher reload times - can we get a change to make canister\subcaliber shots worthwhile?

Id like to see a reduced reload time from my size 5.5 launcher if Im throwing 4.9sized missiles.

Im not certain what the math should look like though, because while a size 100 tube should NOT be throwing size 1 missiles like water from a fire hose, it should also not take hours to slide a AMM into a torpedo tube...

[Elouda]

On the topic of launcher reload times - can we get a change to make canister\subcaliber shots worthwhile?

Id like to see a reduced reload time from my size 5.5 launcher if Im throwing 4.9sized missiles.

Im not certain what the math should look like though, because while a size 100 tube should NOT be throwing size 1 missiles like water from a fire hose, it should also not take hours to slide a AMM into a torpedo tube...

Hmmm, I'm not sure if that makes a lot of sense mechanically/realism wise...certainly not beyond some point. Maybe something like up to a 25% reduction for a missile half the size?

I'd rather have the load times stay the same regardless of what you load into it, but have the option to design missile 'canisters' that can fit multiple smaller missiles into a large tube, with some size penalty. Say 25% initially and improvable with tech to 5% or even 0% - so a size 8 launcher could take a canister with 2 size 3s, or 4 size 1.5s, etc. Shots out of a canister like this could be fired individually or all at once, and they'd also work for box launchers (the idea is inspired by the twin/quad packed self-defence missiles real VLS systems can take).

[NihilRex]

Hmmm, I'm not sure if that makes a lot of sense mechanically/realism wise...certainly not beyond some point. Maybe something like up to a 25% reduction for a missile half the size?

I'd rather have the load times stay the same regardless of what you load into it, but have the option to design missile 'canisters' that can fit multiple smaller missiles into a large tube, with some size penalty. Say 25% initially and improvable with tech to 5% or even 0% - so a size 8 launcher could take a canister with 2 size 3s, or 4 size 1.5s, etc. Shots out of a canister like this could be fired individually or all at once, and they'd also work for box launchers (the idea is inspired by the twin/quad packed self-defence missiles real VLS systems can take).

Well, we have no lore on how the launchers work,

If they are just vacuuming out exhaust gases and shoving in a new missile, a tube should be able to cycle rather quickly from a smaller missile.

If they are electromagnetic launchers, then it gets even easier, because the reloads can be waiting close by, and set on the rails quickly.

[iceball3]

Hmmm, I'm not sure if that makes a lot of sense mechanically/realism wise...certainly not beyond some point. Maybe something like up to a 25% reduction for a missile half the size?

I'd rather have the load times stay the same regardless of what you load into it, but have the option to design missile 'canisters' that can fit multiple smaller missiles into a large tube, with some size penalty. Say 25% initially and improvable with tech to 5% or even 0% - so a size 8 launcher could take a canister with 2 size 3s, or 4 size 1.5s, etc. Shots out of a canister like this could be fired individually or all at once, and they'd also work for box launchers (the idea is inspired by the twin/quad packed self-defence missiles real VLS systems can take).

Um. Already ingame.