C# Suggestions

[nuclearslurpee]

IIRC, last time we had one of those it got super removed (was it called hyperdrive?). My guess is that Steve wants to keep components more fixed.

One of the big design goals with C# was to get rid of "special cases" that were present in VB6 and keep everything working by the same set of mechanics. For example that's why we don't have PDCs anymore, which were basically a special case of ships, and instead we have STOs which are their own thing as a ground forces element. Conceptually not that different but mechanically much better for Steve the programmer. Similarly this is why we no longer have separate missile engines as now the same engines as everything else with an overboost feature.

[serger]

Focal size affects per-shot damage

In the cost of the size, and that is what infantry cannot pay.

[Droll]

Focal size affects per-shot damage

In the cost of the size, and that is what infantry cannot pay.

I mean the smallest laser IIRC is 150 tons and an infantryman in most cases takes 5 tons maybe 6 if you like PWI.
Meanwhile the lowest tech infrared gives infantry weapons that can fire out to 10,000km, which I'm going to assume is not a feasibly usable range for a dude with a laser gun.

For a 12mm focal size infantry "machinegun" compared to 10cm(100mm) focal size space gun if we assume linear progression that results in 1,100 km range, 10% of this is still 110km in case of damage falloff so suffice to say, regardless of what wavelength technology that you have, it won't have any effect on the damage potential of ground weapons. Maybe you could argue artillery - but indirect fire laser artillery doesn't make sense anyways.

On the other hand with focal size you could argue that it also represents the increase in the complexity of laser weapons and not just the raw size that it can be built in. Something which could feasibly benefit a laser armed ground army.

IMO now that I think about it it probably makes more sense to have capacitor tech affect racial weapon tech since it is important for almost every type of energy weapon in the game and allows you more RP flexibility. Only problem is capacitor tech only goes up to 25 but then again rakhas only have 15 racial weapon strength anyways. Capacitors make even more sense in the context of lasers because it usually is the main driving factor when using reduced size lasers - directly attacking the argument that lasers too big for infantry.

[Borealis4x]

Someone had an idea somewhere about adding in commercial buoy launchers for launching sensors and such. I'd like to second it; you shouldn't need to dedicate a military ship to setting up buoys. Hell, I'd ask if a regular freighter could deploy them if possible; no reason to need a special launch system other than game engine restraints.

[serger]

I mean the smallest laser IIRC is 150 tons and an infantryman in most cases takes 5 tons maybe 6 if you like PWI.
Meanwhile the lowest tech infrared gives infantry weapons that can fire out to 10,000km, which I'm going to assume is not a feasibly usable range for a dude with a laser gun.

For a 12mm focal size infantry "machinegun" compared to 10cm(100mm) focal size space gun if we assume linear progression that results in 1,100 km range, 10% of this is still 110km in case of damage falloff so suffice to say, regardless of what wavelength technology that you have, it won't have any effect on the damage potential of ground weapons.

Well, linear formulas of Aurora mechanics just are not those I'm happy to see - too much physical and mathematical education sitting in my head - and so I'm just not looking at this direction if I could.
But tech line names and their general logics - there is no option of not looking at this direction, that is what I must play with (well, some part I can rewrite in DB, changing tech names only to not break smth). And I cannot beleave that you can directly improve infantry weapon researching bigger naval guns. But I can beleave - there is nothing to beleave really, because it's natural - that tech line, leading to increase of effective range of any gun (any caliber of them) will improve infantry weapon in the same way.

Maybe you could argue artillery - but indirect fire laser artillery doesn't make sense anyways.

Yep. I'd suggest tha arty must depend on kinetic techs only.

IMO now that I think about it it probably makes more sense to have capacitor tech affect racial weapon tech

Second this.

[Jorgen_CAB]

Focal size affects per-shot damage

In the cost of the size, and that is what infantry cannot pay.

I mean the smallest laser IIRC is 150 tons and an infantryman in most cases takes 5 tons maybe 6 if you like PWI.
Meanwhile the lowest tech infrared gives infantry weapons that can fire out to 10,000km, which I'm going to assume is not a feasibly usable range for a dude with a laser gun.

For a 12mm focal size infantry "machinegun" compared to 10cm(100mm) focal size space gun if we assume linear progression that results in 1,100 km range, 10% of this is still 110km in case of damage falloff so suffice to say, regardless of what wavelength technology that you have, it won't have any effect on the damage potential of ground weapons. Maybe you could argue artillery - but indirect fire laser artillery doesn't make sense anyways.

On the other hand with focal size you could argue that it also represents the increase in the complexity of laser weapons and not just the raw size that it can be built in. Something which could feasibly benefit a laser armed ground army.

IMO now that I think about it it probably makes more sense to have capacitor tech affect racial weapon tech since it is important for almost every type of energy weapon in the game and allows you more RP flexibility. Only problem is capacitor tech only goes up to 25 but then again rakhas only have 15 racial weapon strength anyways. Capacitors make even more sense in the context of lasers because it usually is the main driving factor when using reduced size lasers - directly attacking the argument that lasers too big for infantry.

It is all just an abstraction... the weapons technology is just the level of technology that you can use with ground troops as the general basis for warfare. It is not like you will put a 10cm laser in the hands of an infantryman, that would just be absurd.

The stats for ship mounted weapons have nothing to do with ground based weapons in the slightest in this regard.

[Droll]

It is all just an abstraction... the weapons technology is just the level of technology that you can use with ground troops as the general basis for warfare. It is not like you will put a 10cm laser in the hands of an infantryman, that would just be absurd.

You are right, no one here believes that we are giving infantry 10cm lasers.

But what if your empire has only ever researched laser technology? Then suffice to say your infantry though not using naval lasers, will use some form of laser weaponry. Your argument only holds up in scenarios where an empire has multi-specced into different weapon types which leaves it as an RP restrictive line of thought.

That is why we suggested capacitor tech as the driver for ground based weapon tech - every energy weapon that affects the ground weapon strength is affected by capacitor strength, meaning that it provides a much stronger abstraction to ground combat power (since we are assuming that they are based on energy weapons). Now you can imagine a scenario where although the only naval grade weapon you have researched are lasers, you can much more easily justify the fact that your infantry and artillery are more powerful while also pretending that they are ground based railguns.

If researching lasers is what made my ground army stronger why would they be using non-laser weapons?

[Borealis4x]

I wonder if one day ground units will be as customizable as ships, being made up of multiple components you have to design separately. Like body-armor and weapons.

Ground Units need more work to make them less of a hassle to manage first tho.

[Droll]

Like ships, STOs can be built from components (weapons) in the stockpile, reducing their production time significantly

[Kylemmie]

Like ships, STOs can be built from components (weapons) in the stockpile, reducing their production time significantly

Now this is something I've wondered but assumed not since there is no 'use components' checkbox for GU (unless I'm blind, happened before). Seems odd for Steve to give us the choice in shipyard construction but not GU? So if I build STO's with my best Lasers that I'm stockpiling for a naval rush build....the GU STO production will scarf them up?

I totally get the benefit when this mechanic is known and can be planned for, but the current mechanic as presented here seems at odds with what a new player would assume. I have the choice here but not here, so it must work differently. i.e. Not the same.

[Droll]

Like ships, STOs can be built from components (weapons) in the stockpile, reducing their production time significantly

Now this is something I've wondered but assumed not since there is no 'use components' checkbox for GU (unless I'm blind, happened before). Seems odd for Steve to give us the choice in shipyard construction but not GU? So if I build STO's with my best Lasers that I'm stockpiling for a naval rush build....the GU STO production will scarf them up?

Wait you've confused me, to clarify:
That post is me suggesting that we have the option to use components to build STOs, it is not saying that STOs use components right now - they don't and cannot use the component stockpile as of right now.

[xenoscepter]

 - A crazy, stupid idea... what if we could deploy Buoys and/or Mines from Cargo Holds? Haver it so that Cargo Holds could carry any missile or missile stage w/o an engine and then drop them on their location. No active target allowed, but no MFCS needed or indeed even useable. It *could* be used offensively or defensively... technically, for AMMs with active sensor "cans", or big sensor cans to engage a target with the actives... but that's hardly game changing I'd reckon.

 - Maybe have the option to deploy them from magazines? I dunno, perhaps tie it to a cargo shuttle bay. I'd honestly like a minelayer / buoy dropping module...

[TheTalkingMeowth]

- A crazy, stupid idea... what if we could deploy Buoys and/or Mines from Cargo Holds? Haver it so that Cargo Holds could carry any missile or missile stage w/o an engine and then drop them on their location. No active target allowed, but no MFCS needed or indeed even useable. It *could* be used offensively or defensively... technically, for AMMs with active sensor "cans", or big sensor cans to engage a target with the actives... but that's hardly game changing I'd reckon.

 - Maybe have the option to deploy them from magazines? I dunno, perhaps tie it to a cargo shuttle bay. I'd honestly like a minelayer / buoy dropping module...

Unless you are wanting this to be commercial, it's not significantly different than a magazine+pile of launchers+min size MFC. At that point, why add it?

[xenoscepter]

- A crazy, stupid idea... what if we could deploy Buoys and/or Mines from Cargo Holds? Haver it so that Cargo Holds could carry any missile or missile stage w/o an engine and then drop them on their location. No active target allowed, but no MFCS needed or indeed even useable. It *could* be used offensively or defensively... technically, for AMMs with active sensor "cans", or big sensor cans to engage a target with the actives... but that's hardly game changing I'd reckon.

 - Maybe have the option to deploy them from magazines? I dunno, perhaps tie it to a cargo shuttle bay. I'd honestly like a minelayer / buoy dropping module...

Unless you are wanting this to be commercial, it's not significantly different than a magazine+pile of launchers+min size MFC. At that point, why add it?

 - I seem to have been unclear, I want this to be commercial. Be able to store Buoys in a Cargo Hold with Missile Size = Cargo Points, to account for the stowage kit. So a 500 Ton Cargo Hold could hold 100 Szie 5 Missiles, or 5 Size 100 missiles or 50 Size 10 Missiles, etc. I only included mines in my suggestions because I felt it'd be a bit dumb to not be able to dump those too.

[captainwolfer]

- A crazy, stupid idea... what if we could deploy Buoys and/or Mines from Cargo Holds? Haver it so that Cargo Holds could carry any missile or missile stage w/o an engine and then drop them on their location. No active target allowed, but no MFCS needed or indeed even useable. It *could* be used offensively or defensively... technically, for AMMs with active sensor "cans", or big sensor cans to engage a target with the actives... but that's hardly game changing I'd reckon.

 - Maybe have the option to deploy them from magazines? I dunno, perhaps tie it to a cargo shuttle bay. I'd honestly like a minelayer / buoy dropping module...

Unless you are wanting this to be commercial, it's not significantly different than a magazine+pile of launchers+min size MFC. At that point, why add it?

 - I seem to have been unclear, I want this to be commercial. Be able to store Buoys in a Cargo Hold with Missile Size = Cargo Points, to account for the stowage kit. So a 500 Ton Cargo Hold could hold 100 Szie 5 Missiles, or 5 Size 100 missiles or 50 Size 10 Missiles, etc. I only included mines in my suggestions because I felt it'd be a bit dumb to not be able to dump those too.

We already have commercial magazines, though. I could see the use of a commercial "Buoy Deployer" though. It would make minelayers and sensor buoy deployment ships much more economical