Questions Not Worth Their Own Thread: C# Edition

[Black]

Is there any easy way to mass-award a medal for officers and ground units? I've set up the automatic conditions that are available for medals, but for example I wanted to create a Campaign medal to commemorate the capture of a new system, and wanted all officers involved in my battle fleets and ground units to receive it. Is there a better way to do that then just going to the officers window, doing a wide search for all naval officers , then scrolling through the list and looking for people with assignments to some billet on a ship involved.

Is there a way to like, award a medal to the fleet and automatically have all officers receive it, same for ground units? Thanks!

You can mass award medals for fleet in Naval Organization tab, just select fleet formation and then click on button Award Medal that is located on the bottom of the window. Award Medal window will open and on the right side there are checkbox that you can select, so you can for example award medal to all ship commanders.

For ground formations, go to Ground Forces tab and select formation, now click on Hierarchy Medal button (bottom part of the window) and on the right side, select Ground Formation Commander checkbox.

[Droll]

Sure, but dont the maintanence facilities produce MSPs?

Ground based maintenance facilities will produce MSP if they have workers and if the body they are on has the required resources that MSP needs.

Ship/station based maintenance facilities don't need workers but only maintain ships at their location. They DO NOT produce their own MSP but will still consume it when maintaining ships. Thus, you will periodically need to replenish the MSP stores of that ship/station.

[nuclearslurpee]

If i put enough maintenance facilities on an asteroid, will i be able to maintain a permanent station around it? Or more than one?
My line of tought is that i need a permanent station to protect an asteroid field for mining purposes and to be an early warning and interception facility. But since its permanent, i will need to maintain it. And while i am onto this, i would probably just stuck some patrol Corvettes around and i can use the station to refuel them. (So i wont have to use too many pop on the asteroid plus the hangars will be used for that too.)
I am open to suggestions on how to make this idea better tough.

Maintenance facilities require population to operate, so you can do this just fine but you will need a populated colony to do so.

An easier approach may be Maintenance Modules on a (commercial) station as these require no population and can be built to any size you want.

Either approach will require you to routinely ship MSPs to the asteroid though, so just be sure you've planned for that necessity.

Sure, but dont the maintanence facilities produce MSPs?

The ground-based facilities can, however unless your asteroid has perfect proportions of accessible duranium, uridium, and gallicite it will be much less taxing to ship the MSPs built elsewhere than to ship minerals for the facilities to produce MSPs on-site.

Ship-based facilities cannot produce their own MSP in any way.

[Agraelgrimm]

Thanks Nuclear.
Now, im sorry to be on this topic again, but as far as gauss cannons go for PD, the smaller ones, with crappy accuracy, does their actual accuracy increases with faster missile tracking speed, racial tracking, gauss velocity speed and ROF or do they gets capped at lets say 8.5% accuracy or whatever they get from their size proportion?

[Droll]

Thanks Nuclear.
Now, im sorry to be on this topic again, but as far as gauss cannons go for PD, the smaller ones, with crappy accuracy, does their actual accuracy increases with faster missile tracking speed, racial tracking, gauss velocity speed and ROF or do they gets capped at lets say 8.5% accuracy or whatever they get from their size proportion?

Gauss weapons with reduced size do benefit from all the other stuff.
In your case with all the factors listed in your post the most your gauss will achieve is 8.5% accuracy. However if your tracking is low, the gauss accuracy will be even less than 8.5%.
You can however get higher than 8.5% accuracy if you have a CIC console with a strong tactical officer. In this case with a 50% tactical skill (the best) you would have at most 12.75% accuracy on these gauss weapons, which assumes that your tracking speed perfectly matches the missile speed and no ECM disadvantages are present.

[Agraelgrimm]

Thanks Nuclear.
Now, im sorry to be on this topic again, but as far as gauss cannons go for PD, the smaller ones, with crappy accuracy, does their actual accuracy increases with faster missile tracking speed, racial tracking, gauss velocity speed and ROF or do they gets capped at lets say 8.5% accuracy or whatever they get from their size proportion?

Gauss weapons with reduced size do benefit from all the other stuff.
In your case with all the factors listed in your post the most your gauss will achieve is 8.5% accuracy. However if your tracking is low, the gauss accuracy will be even less than 8.5%.

You can however get higher than 8.5% accuracy if you have a CIC console with a strong tactical officer. In this case with a 50% tactical skill (the best) you would have at most 12.75% accuracy on these gauss weapons, which assumes that your tracking speed perfectly matches the missile speed and no ECM disadvantages are present.

So Small gauss cannons for smaller crafts like FACs and patrol crafts are a bad idea then?

[nuclearslurpee]

Thanks Nuclear.
Now, im sorry to be on this topic again, but as far as gauss cannons go for PD, the smaller ones, with crappy accuracy, does their actual accuracy increases with faster missile tracking speed, racial tracking, gauss velocity speed and ROF or do they gets capped at lets say 8.5% accuracy or whatever they get from their size proportion?

Beam weapon accuracy is given by five factors (neglecting :

• Base weapon accuracy, which only matters for Gauss cannons, everything else has 100%.
• Tracking speed, which may be limited by the weapon or the beam fire control.
• Fire control range versus range to the target.
• Missile tracking bonus (only applies when the target is a missile).
• Target ECM vs. fire control ECCM.

The expression for beam weapon accuracy is therefore:

Code: [Select]

ACC% = (weapon_accuracy%) * [tracking_speed / target_speed * (1 - target_range / BFC_range) * missile_tracking_bonus - 0.10 * (target_ECM - BFC_ECCM)]
with some min/max limits omitted for brevity, and effects from commander bonuses neglected. It is important to notice that the effect of ECM is subtracted from the product of every term except weapon accuracy. This is important, otherwise even a single level of ECM would make the 8%-accuracy Gauss weapon completely useless, but thankfully this is not the case.

So to answer your question: the accuracy of your Gauss weapon is going to be capped at its listed weapon accuracy. The effect of tracking speed, range, etc. is only to keep your accuracy as close to that maximum value as possible. However, remember that the 8% accuracy Gauss cannon may have only 1/12 the accuracy, but it is also 1/12 the size of a full-size Gauss cannon, so your theoretical hit rate and damage output are not dependent on the size and accuracy of the Gauss cannon itself (again, there are some effects in practice from salvo overkill which make larger cannons a bit worse at least for PD purposes).

So Small gauss cannons for smaller crafts like FACs and patrol crafts are a bad idea then?

No, they are fine, just remember that Gauss cannons nearly always should be turreted with the maximum tracking speed you can get (based on BC tech), otherwise they tend to be less effective than other weapon types. If your FACs are actually very fast, railguns are usually going to be more efficient, but for a small patrol craft that moves at your normal fleet speed Gauss cannon turrets are perfectly fine regardless of what size you make the cannons themselves. For a small ship you might want to use the bigger cannons though just so you can get more value from using a single-weapon BFC.

[Agraelgrimm]

I was considering making the smaller gauss cannons supplementary on the main railgun. So then i will have a one shot railgun and some smaller gaus cannons, maybe 4-6 single turreted cannons to supplement that, the rest is just engines and sensors. I may even put a bigger engine and make it 1.3k tons. Do you think that works? The tought process is to make it more likely that they will be able to close the distance without getting blown up in the process.

[ISN]

Is there any reason why missile active sensors seem to have a minimum size you can use? If I try to make a missile with an active sensor smaller than 0.25 it doesn't add a reactor and the design display doesn't list the active sensor.

[nuclearslurpee]

I was considering making the smaller gauss cannons supplementary on the main railgun. So then i will have a one shot railgun and some smaller gaus cannons, maybe 4-6 single turreted cannons to supplement that, the rest is just engines and sensors. I may even put a bigger engine and make it 1.3k tons. Do you think that works? The tought process is to make it more likely that they will be able to close the distance without getting blown up in the process.

It's probably okay, at least the design makes sense. Personally I'd probably jump it up to 1.5 or 2 tons and use a bigger railgun at that point.

At some point though the best answer is to build a ship and see if it kills anything.    I call it "Learning from Getting Blown Up Experience". 

Is there any reason why missile active sensors seem to have a minimum size you can use? If I try to make a missile with an active sensor smaller than 0.25 it doesn't add a reactor and the design display doesn't list the active sensor.

Not sure why but 0.25 HS is the minimum. My guess is for balance reasons, because if you could put a 0.001 HS sensor on a missile with a range of 10k km, it would be incredibly overpowered and there would be no reason to ever build a missile without it.

[ISN]

Is there any reason why missile active sensors seem to have a minimum size you can use? If I try to make a missile with an active sensor smaller than 0.25 it doesn't add a reactor and the design display doesn't list the active sensor.

Not sure why but 0.25 HS is the minimum. My guess is for balance reasons, because if you could put a 0.001 HS sensor on a missile with a range of 10k km, it would be incredibly overpowered and there would be no reason to ever build a missile without it.

I see now that this is actually listed in the rules post -- I should've checked that first! Thanks.

Related question: How do you set the distance at which missile second stages will separate? I set the separation range to 1700k km but they seem to be separating at about twice that, roughly 3400k km.

[Droll]

Related question: How do you set the distance at which missile second stages will separate? I set the separation range to 1700k km but they seem to be separating at about twice that, roughly 3400k km.

What is the range of the 1st stage? Does it happen to be roughly 3400k km?

As an aside, I do wish that there would be a way to set the separation range based on distance to target since contacts might be moving towards (separates too late) or away (separates too early) from the missile.

[ChubbyPitbull]

As an aside, I do wish that there would be a way to set the separation range based on distance to target since contacts might be moving towards (separates too late) or away (separates too early) from the missile.

Is that not how it works? It did at least in VB Aurora; you'd set separation distance from target. So you had to choose a distance such that the active sensors on the second stage could pick up the target, and the second stage it self had enough range to reach it even if it was moving.

[ISN]

Related question: How do you set the distance at which missile second stages will separate? I set the separation range to 1700k km but they seem to be separating at about twice that, roughly 3400k km.

What is the range of the 1st stage? Does it happen to be roughly 3400k km?

As an aside, I do wish that there would be a way to set the separation range based on distance to target since contacts might be moving towards (separates too late) or away (separates too early) from the missile.

No, the first stage is long-range, around 150m km. The second stage has a range of around 2m km. I tested setting the separation range down to 1m km, and now they're separating at around 2m km. (I'm testing this in SM mode.) I can't tell if this is a bug or if I'm just doing this wrong -- I haven't used missiles in C# yet, and I barely used them in the old VB version.

EDIT: To clarify, they're separating at 2m km from the target.

[Droll]

As an aside, I do wish that there would be a way to set the separation range based on distance to target since contacts might be moving towards (separates too late) or away (separates too early) from the missile.

Is that not how it works? It did at least in VB Aurora; you'd set separation distance from target. So you had to choose a distance such that the active sensors on the second stage could pick up the target, and the second stage it self had enough range to reach it even if it was moving.

Ah ok, that does make sense, I don't know why this always confuses me.