C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions

[amschnei]

It might be nice to have the new early game tech have proper names, rather than “improved X tech”

For the engines you could use fission and fusion for the “lower” and “upper” tech respectively:

Fission Thermal Engine
Fusion Thermal Engine
Fission Pulse Engine
Fusion Pulse Engine

Something similar could be done for the reactors, though I can’t think of something right now.

[alex_brunius]

It might be nice to have the new early game tech have proper names, rather than “improved X tech”

For the engines you could use fission and fusion for the “lower” and “upper” tech respectively:

Fission Thermal Engine
Fusion Thermal Engine
Fission Pulse Engine
Fusion Pulse Engine

Something similar could be done for the reactors, though I can’t think of something right now.

If you want proper names then "fusion" IMO should be avoided since stellarator, tokamak + confinement further down the tree all are different types of fusion engine powerplants.

[Steve Walmsley]

I'm open to suggestion on the new engine names.

[dukea42]

How about just "Engine Power X".   We already get to name them when designed. It has always seemed, out of character for lack of a better term, that there was newtonian sounding engine names.

Do TN engines even need to have a thruster?

It seems like this is the one place in the game trying to label instead of spec the technology.

[Hazard]

It might be nice to have the new early game tech have proper names, rather than “improved X tech”

For the engines you could use fission and fusion for the “lower” and “upper” tech respectively:

Fission Thermal Engine
Fusion Thermal Engine
Fission Pulse Engine
Fusion Pulse Engine

Something similar could be done for the reactors, though I can’t think of something right now.

No.

Because fission and fusion are vastly different ways of handling nuclear reaction based energy production with very different traits. You could build a fusion thermal engine, but it'd basically be a fission thermal engine with a different heat source plugged into the system that's a lot more fiddly to keep working. A nuclear pulse engine would be using a fission-fusion-fission bomb as its power source (look up the Orion Nuclear Pulse Drive) because if you can build fusion bombs the greater efficiency per unit of mass/fuel only makes sense.

[amschnei]

I’ve not read enough hard sci-fi to say what would be a “reasonable” tech progression (insofar as a sci-fi world based on materials which are named for the fact that they defy the laws of physics can be construed as reasonable).  My main point was just that having a handful of techs called “improved whatever” and all the others have unique flavor names looked a little odd.  I don’t care what the names are, exactly.  And even if it stays as in it’s hardly a big deal, it just seems an easy change to increase the immersion.

[Steve Walmsley]

I’ve not read enough hard sci-fi to say what would be a “reasonable” tech progression (insofar as a sci-fi world based on materials which are named for the fact that they defy the laws of physics can be construed as reasonable).  My main point was just that having a handful of techs called “improved whatever” and all the others have unique flavor names looked a little odd.  I don’t care what the names are, exactly.  And even if it stays as in it’s hardly a big deal, it just seems an easy change to increase the immersion.

Yes, I understand. There are different types of nuclear thermal (Solid core, liquid core, gas core), so I could use those three and move nuclear pulse to what is now improved nuclear pulse.

[Bremen]

Well, engines don't have to just have real theoretical propulsion names, since we've got the lore of TNE to work with.

Maybe the first (1000 RP) engine should be something like Sorium-Catalyzed Rocket Engine? Basically "we found magic space rocks, let's throw some in our chemical thrusters."

On the theoretical real world engine front, I've always liked the idea of Antimatter Catalyzed Nuclear rockets. They'd probably be pretty high up the tree, though, so using them as a new engine there would mean re-adjusting the other engine names downward, which might throw veteran players off.

[Jorgen_CAB]

I allays imagined engines to be very different from the ones operating in normal space, so nothing like a thruster at all.

Since they don't seem to convey any sort of G force on ships and they have no acceleration they operate on a very different level. I always imagined them acting more like an Alcubierre drive type of principle and interacting with the ether in a way that is hard to describe in scientific terms.

The names of the drives could be very different and definitely have more of Trans Newtonian theme... they certainly are not going to operate with Anti-matter, or Ion, Fusion or the like as they use Sorium fuel and the engine itself is something completely different.

[Ranged66]

Suggestion for new engine/reactor naming!

Ignore the typo at Liquid Sorium Engine Technology  :/

[SevenOfCarina]

I think the generic xx Engine Power per HS would allow us a bit more leeway to RP. On a side note, would it be possible for players to rename non-racial technologies?

[Bluebreaker]

Will there be any change to the mineral cost of components, particularly engines? I always felt that by the time you got into fusion techs, gallicite cost of engines and missiles get out of control really fast.

[QuakeIV]

For me X power engines would be less enjoyable than having names for it.  If the tech isn't meant to refer to anything in particular then the basis of comparison is harder because someone could say 'this is an ion drive' and then someone else say that it's just an incrementally better chemical rocket or something and the fluff explanation of what's going on there subsequently means nothing.

[ExChairman]

Ship fatigue: With my latest campaign I have ships that are up to 50 years old, starting as a frigate of around 5000 tons, now 10-12 000 ton destroyers. Somehow there should be a penalty for "long lived" ships

[mtm84]

Ship fatigue: With my latest campaign I have ships that are up to 50 years old, starting as a frigate of around 5000 tons, now 10-12 000 ton destroyers. Somehow there should be a penalty for "long lived" ships

I think if you are spending that much resources into maintaining/refitting a ship, you would have essentially replaced all the original parts with new ones over its lifetime anyways.