Suggestions for 5.7 and beyond

[bean (OP)]

Could we at least get some sort of bombardment capability against enemy forces?  It's sort of annoying that all lasers are blocked by the atmosphere, when visible light ones aren't IRL.  This would force specialized bombardment units later in the game, as I'm not going to mount visible light lasers generally when I have far UV ones available.

[IanD]

The current mechanics are designed to prevent this

I didn't want to make it easy to wipe out an entire alien race and then move in your own settlers the next day. In a game called Starfire, the above used to be a tactic known as "Genocide for Fun and Profit" (GFFP). I wanted to have some significant decisions as part of planetary conquest. Either wipe out aliens but destroy the environment or mount an invasion to conquer the planet without massive environment damage.

Steve

But if the atmospheric pressure is less than 1 atmosphere an advanced 20cm X-ray laser can do it now I was quite impressed how much damage they could do to a mining colony

[Erik L]

Could we at least get some sort of bombardment capability against enemy forces?  It's sort of annoying that all lasers are blocked by the atmosphere, when visible light ones aren't IRL.  This would force specialized bombardment units later in the game, as I'm not going to mount visible light lasers generally when I have far UV ones available.

Missiles work nice. Torpedos should too. Make all the bad troop go away

[MehMuffin]

Maybe an additional research tree in Missiles/Kinetic Weapons for reduced radiation warheads?

[bean (OP)]

Missiles work nice. Torpedos should too. Make all the bad troop go away

Yes.  They also leave radiation everywhere.
And the 1 atmosphere thing annoys me.  Why that arbitrary cutoff?  In reality, it should be based on pressure/gravity, to simulate the thickness of the atmosphere in question. 
And I would definitely like reduced radiation warheads.  Actually, nuclear shaped charges would be better, both from realism and utility standpoints.  (Normal warhead damage to population and radiation, some multiple of damage to target.)

[Erik L]

Yes.  They also leave radiation everywhere.
And the 1 atmosphere thing annoys me.  Why that arbitrary cutoff?  In reality, it should be based on pressure/gravity, to simulate the thickness of the atmosphere in question. 
And I would definitely like reduced radiation warheads.  Actually, nuclear shaped charges would be better, both from realism and utility standpoints.  (Normal warhead damage to population and radiation, some multiple of damage to target.)

That goes back to GFFP. If it's easy to take over an enemy planet, there's no reason not to. Why bother making friends when you can wipe them out and take over their real estate?

Beams are already less attenuated with pressures less than 1.0 atm. I don't recall if it's a linear scaling (.5 atm = 50% damage) or not. I suppose Steve needed a point where he said "Beams do not work through atmospheres this dense." And that was 1.0 atm.

The shaped charge is an interesting idea. PDC-buster warheads.

[bean (OP)]

That goes back to GFFP. If it's easy to take over an enemy planet, there's no reason not to. Why bother making friends when you can wipe them out and take over their real estate?

Beams are already less attenuated with pressures less than 1.0 atm. I don't recall if it's a linear scaling (.5 atm = 50% damage) or not. I suppose Steve needed a point where he said "Beams do not work through atmospheres this dense." And that was 1.0 atm.

The shaped charge is an interesting idea. PDC-buster warheads.

My point on beams is that atmospheric thickness (path length * density) is not linear with sea-level pressure.  It varies inversely with surface gravity as well.  That would be an interesting mechanical change.  It's easier to terraform high-gravity worlds, because you get more pressure out of a given mass of gas.

[wedgebert]

My point on beams is that atmospheric thickness (path length * density) is not linear with sea-level pressure.  It varies inversely with surface gravity as well.  That would be an interesting mechanical change.  It's easier to terraform high-gravity worlds, because you get more pressure out of a given mass of gas.

Except that in almost all cases, a higher gravity world is also going to be larger, thus requiring a larger amount of gas to achieve the same pressure. My brain isn't working right now or I might try to calculate if the gravity saves you more atmosphere than the extra surface area costs you.

[bean (OP)]

Except that in almost all cases, a higher gravity world is also going to be larger, thus requiring a larger amount of gas to achieve the same pressure. My brain isn't working right now or I might try to calculate if the gravity saves you more atmosphere than the extra surface area costs you.

Good point. I'm sort of kicking myself over missing it.
As to what it does, I believe that gravity scales directly with radius, while surface area scales with the square of radius, so it is easier to terraform smaller planets.  The above assumes constant density, of course.

[xeryon]

I know you are assuming constant density, but wouldn't constant would be impossible to achieve?  With differing gravity the compaction of the primary materials that make up the body will vary.  Unless a given body is exactly the same material composition if you change its radius its density is sure to alter.  Not to mention the effect, although I think slight, that orbiting bodies would have on the gravitational pull.  I am no scientist, but I would assume with enough orbiting bodies when several of them line up you would have a big change in the (perceived?) localized gravity and it would change the compaction and density of the materials as well.

[bean (OP)]

I know you are assuming constant density, but wouldn't constant would be impossible to achieve?  With differing gravity the compaction of the primary materials that make up the body will vary.  Unless a given body is exactly the same material composition if you change its radius its density is sure to alter.  Not to mention the effect, although I think slight, that orbiting bodies would have on the gravitational pull.  I am no scientist, but I would assume with enough orbiting bodies when several of them line up you would have a big change in the (perceived?) localized gravity and it would change the compaction and density of the materials as well.

That's what is known as tidal effects.  It does happen, but if it's at the level where it can be felt, it generally would prevent any body from being formed.
As for density, we're dealing with solids, which don't compress much, if at all.  I simply stated it because it was necessary for the comparison.  Given differing compositions, we'll see differences in density.

[chrislocke2000]

For orbital bombardment maybe a better way of doing it is to reflect the lasers in the attack strength of the troops you are using on the ground. This then represents the ability of low orbit ships to support troops with fire missions on identified hostile troops without giving them a mechanic of mass destruction. I also prefer the idea that orbital laser systems are doing precision damage rather than wide spread damage.

As mentioned by another poster before you could also require the use of visible light lasers with a corresponding low range that makes them of limited use in ship to ship combat and gives another design decision.

To me this strikes a good balance between simple world destruction and reflecting the tactical advantage of gaining low orbit superiority with your correctly equipped ships.

To balance this we could always have another unit, say air defence unit, that is able to shoot at ships once they are in low orbit with strength tied to say your laser tech. These would be like PDCs but unlike them you could not target them specifically - representing the ability to disguise them / move them about.

[Erik L]

For orbital bombardment maybe a better way of doing it is to reflect the lasers in the attack strength of the troops you are using on the ground. This then represents the ability of low orbit ships to support troops with fire missions on identified hostile troops without giving them a mechanic of mass destruction. I also prefer the idea that orbital laser systems are doing precision damage rather than wide spread damage.

As mentioned by another poster before you could also require the use of visible light lasers with a corresponding low range that makes them of limited use in ship to ship combat and gives another design decision.

To me this strikes a good balance between simple world destruction and reflecting the tactical advantage of gaining low orbit superiority with your correctly equipped ships.

To balance this we could always have another unit, say air defence unit, that is able to shoot at ships once they are in low orbit with strength tied to say your laser tech. These would be like PDCs but unlike them you could not target them specifically - representing the ability to disguise them / move them about.

Could require ships to have an order of "Enter low orbit" or something to that effect. But instead of adding a new unit, maybe making ships in low orbit attackable by AST or HVA units. Or even go the other way. INF and GAR can attack low orbit ships on the premise they use long range weapons as opposed to the AST/HVA heavier, shorter range weapons.

[Garfunkel]

That's a lot more of an open question then you make it out to be.  For example, what kind of infantry battalion?

Which is why I used Garrison Bn as my example. Such units would likely be classified as light infantry or motorized infantry if we think of NATO terms and a WW2 era armoured division could defeat it, if with nothing else then through artillery. Whereas a LTA has no chance of beating a GAR in Aurora.

[Erik L]

I'd like to create naming rules for things like SY. Instead of Naval Yard 1, 2, 3, etc. have an option to use the colony/planet name as a basis. So Mars Yards 1, or Alpha Centauri A III Yards 2.

The real world yard names are nice, but really only work for an Earth-based empire.