Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
C# Aurora / Re: STO Operations
« Last post by Bremen on Yesterday at 11:50:17 PM »
Quote from: Steve Walmsley link=topic=10187. msg110488#msg110488 date=1539803965
The active sensor is tiny.  The STO design for the Commonwealth (from the Colonial Wars campaign) for a 25cm spinal laser is 507 tons.  Of that, the active sensor is 5 tons, the static mount is 12 tons, the reactor is 40 tons, the fire control is 50 tons and the weapon is 400 tons.

Wait, a 12tn mount is holding up a 400tn weapon?

I think the 400 tons includes the mount. When you put a 400 ton weapon on a ship, it only gets 400 tons bigger, which implies that weight includes all the structure and aiming apparatus.
2
C# Aurora / Re: STO Operations
« Last post by sloanjh on Yesterday at 10:21:06 PM »
In fact that could be a tech line - vehicle payload - that would have to be incorporated into mobile ground versions of naval components.  I would recommend the size/cost of the vehicle scale non-linearly with payload (e.g. payload^1.5) to represent the fact that (probably) a single 100 ton dumptruck is more than 10x the size/cost of ten 10 ton dumptrucks.

This would be inconsistent with how size efficiency works for all other purposes. We wouldn't have larger Trucks, Container Ships or Airplanes IRL if there was no benefit in doing so, like increased payload per investment or reduced running cost per payload.

A truck/ship/plane that's twice as long in all directions have 4 times the surface area ( resistance from air/sea/ground ) and 8 times as much volume. ( Very simplified but basic physics go in this direction ).

The formulas in Aurora are similar, larger engines or ships are more efficient than smaller ones on a per ton basis.

Don't want to rathole/hijack thread on this, but the square-cube law is why I suspect that for ground vehicles bigger might make things worse - twice as tall means that the suspension system needs to be twice as strong, which changes materials properties and all sorts of other stuff.  If you also assume only having wheels on the outside (one row on each side) then you've also got to strength issues for as you make the width larger.  So I suspect that the chassis cost for 4 10-ton turrets is cheaper than the chassis cost for one 80 ton turret (twice as big in all directions) or even one 40 ton turret (same turret mass, but twice the weight per axle and axles that are twice as long).  I expect you're correct at the low end of the payload range (that bigger vehicles give economies of scale), but at the high end (e.g. huge mining dump trucks) it seems that there's something that's cutting things off and I suspect it's the above discussion.  If Steve were to go down this road (which it sounds like he's not, hence my desire not to hijack the thread), there should probably be a mechanism to cut off the size of the bigger systems.  Increasing cost faster than linearly was simply a kludge way to manage that abstraction.

But what I really wanted to say was:

Just did a bunch of googling on dump trucks and military vehicles.  Appears that typical dump trucks are rated for 20-40 tons, monster mining dump trucks are rated as much as 300-450 tons.  Tank transporters are > 70 tons.  Soviet (it looked like) mobile ballistic missile launcher carried a 50 ton missile.  Seems like axle loads for the bigger military transporters are 10-15 tons per axle.  So I suspect with current tech, you can have fairly mobile (tank transporter) vehicles with ~100 ton payload or slow (big mining truck) vehicles with ~400 ton payload.  Above that, and I suspect you're into "crawlers" which move at walking speed or slower and probably should simply be considered static.  Note that I'm thinking in terms of "ready to fire" weapons systems in the above, which can't be broken down into smaller pieces and reassembled.

This says to me that Steve's 25cm spinal laser could be conceivably be vehicle mounted, especially with TN tech, whether components are individually mounted or unified into a CIWS-like system.

John
3
C# Aurora / Re: STO Operations
« Last post by conquer4 on Yesterday at 10:13:11 PM »
Quote from: Steve Walmsley link=topic=10187. msg110488#msg110488 date=1539803965
The active sensor is tiny.  The STO design for the Commonwealth (from the Colonial Wars campaign) for a 25cm spinal laser is 507 tons.  Of that, the active sensor is 5 tons, the static mount is 12 tons, the reactor is 40 tons, the fire control is 50 tons and the weapon is 400 tons.

Wait, a 12tn mount is holding up a 400tn weapon?
4
C# Aurora / Re: STO Operations
« Last post by Tuna-Fish on Yesterday at 02:57:15 PM »
The active sensor is tiny. The STO design for the Commonwealth (from the Colonial Wars campaign) for a 25cm spinal laser is 507 tons. Of that, the active sensor is 5 tons, the static mount is 12 tons, the reactor is 40 tons, the fire control is 50 tons and the weapon is 400 tons.

The one big question I have is how does the cost (not size) scale when you extend the fire controls up to the maximum allowed in the late game. In VB, late game sniper laser ships tend to have most of their cost in the FC, even when they pack a lot of lasers per single FC. Does only using integrated FC make STO defences cost-prohibitive when your enemy can shoot at you from a million km away?
5
C# Aurora / Re: STO Operations
« Last post by Steve Walmsley on Yesterday at 02:19:25 PM »
I'm comfortable with the STO ground units being one unit just for simplicity purposes. My main concern is if you start adding things like ECCM and active sensors they might get too big to be practical, but that will have to be seen I think.

The active sensor is tiny. The STO design for the Commonwealth (from the Colonial Wars campaign) for a 25cm spinal laser is 507 tons. Of that, the active sensor is 5 tons, the static mount is 12 tons, the reactor is 40 tons, the fire control is 50 tons and the weapon is 400 tons.

Given the relatively small size of the non-weapon components, it is easier and simpler for this to be a CIWS-style integrated unit.
6
C# Aurora / Re: STO Operations
« Last post by space dwarf on Yesterday at 01:47:36 PM »
One unit doesnt neccesarily mean "one object" though, right? Like a brigade HQ is 500 tons, but that doesnt mean its a 500-ton vehicle?
7
C# Aurora / Re: STO Operations
« Last post by Bremen on Yesterday at 01:45:00 PM »
I'm comfortable with the STO ground units being one unit just for simplicity purposes. My main concern is if you start adding things like ECCM and active sensors they might get too big to be practical, but that will have to be seen I think.
8
C# Aurora / Re: STO Operations
« Last post by Garfunkel on Yesterday at 01:04:29 PM »
Modern AAA/SAM systems are mobile and, as others pointed out, mounted on multiple vehicles. Generally there are 1-3 weapon platforms, 1-3 loader platforms (for missile systems, for cannon systems there are 1-2 ammunition vehicles), a fire control vehicle, and a support/mechanic vehicle. These systems rely on external other units to provide up-to-date area surveillance information, which can also be mobile, so you could add a search radar vehicle to the total count. Similarly, for Theatre Ballistic Missiles and Artillery Missiles, the systems are roughly similar: you have multiple launch vehicles, equal number of loader vehicles, and a command & control vehicle, plus supply/support vehicles.

I don't know how feasible it would be to code something like this in C# Aurora. Once you design an ground-based STO weapon, the game automatically creates a unit that includes reactor vehicle, gauss cannon vehicle, beam fire control vehicle, and then the player can adjust their numbers for that unit? Or just design each vehicle separately and group them together, like any other ground unit? How would that fit together with static units, do they need separate components as well? Can the game easily check that all necessary components/vehicles are in a unit, without creating undue memory/CPU usage?

On one hand, being able to put ship component to vehicles would neatly sidestep any special rules issues like we had with PDCs. But I don't know how "bad" it would be under the hood, and I've understood that Steve's one priority for C# has been to streamline the code and make it more uniform, ie as few special cases as possible.
9
C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Last post by Hazard on Yesterday at 11:02:37 AM »
It has always been difficult to fight against an enemy that has no uniform, nor needs to defend any particular ground.

This is true today, it'll be true tomorrow and it has been true in history.

Historically that has been fought either through law enforcement efforts or flat out genocide. The only way to fight such an enemy is by denying them anything to hide behind, and you can do that by convincing the general population that they're better served ratting them out, or by ensuring there's no general population left to support them.

The gun has not really changed this fact. A war still needs the resources to pursue that war.

The only thing that has changed in this equation is that people in general have grown less tolerant of genocide and similar tactics to pursue the conclusion of an asymmetrical war.
10
C# Aurora / Re: STO Operations
« Last post by Whitecold on Yesterday at 09:20:17 AM »
In fact that could be a tech line - vehicle payload - that would have to be incorporated into mobile ground versions of naval components.  I would recommend the size/cost of the vehicle scale non-linearly with payload (e.g. payload^1.5) to represent the fact that (probably) a single 100 ton dumptruck is more than 10x the size/cost of ten 10 ton dumptrucks.

This would be inconsistent with how size efficiency works for all other purposes. We wouldn't have larger Trucks, Container Ships or Airplanes IRL if there was no benefit in doing so, like increased payload per investment or reduced running cost per payload.

A truck/ship/plane that's twice as long in all directions have 4 times the surface area ( resistance from air/sea/ground ) and 8 times as much volume. ( Very simplified but basic physics go in this direction ).

The formulas in Aurora are similar, larger engines or ships are more efficient than smaller ones on a per ton basis.
The real limit on ground vehicles is usually the weight limit of bridges, as well as the size of tunnels, roads and railcars. Also, STO are all static mounts, so for transport they are broken down into parts which would likely be either their own specialty vehicles or fit onto standard trucks. You would have a fire control vehicle, generators fitting into containers that power a laser in a container, which then feeds the mirror turrets on their own platforms.
There is no need to build everything into a monolithic platform on the ground, especially when you want to set it up in cramped underground bunkers.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10