C# Aurora Changes Discussion

[Viridia]

It would be nice if designating missiles as AMM's in the design stage was an option. In a recent game I was using size 2 launchers, but due to the missile size, these weren't being fired even with the anti-missile fire controls set to engaging incoming targets. Energy weapons too I've found a pain using as point defence, because they seem to suffer from the same issue. Having all of them set to on by default would be great, and fits with how most militaries would work anyway.

[eponymous]

steve:

the way you described damage templates over in the "changes" thread makes it sound unnecessarily complicated.   i have no idea how much processing time is wasted, because im not at all a programmer, but nested loops will apply the damage correctly

"G" is the penetration coefficient (you referred to it as gradient)

apply the first G points to the hit location H, then loops:

increase W (the current width of the crater)
repeat G times:
     apply damage from column (H-W) right until (H)
     apply damage from (H+W) left until H

gotta break when you run out of damage, gotta do the usual mod thing to apply the damage to an armor column that is actually on the ship.   if you want to replicate the bug that the crater stops getting wider after a certain damage level that isnt hard but it's on you


     

[TCD]

I don't mind as long as whatever option chose for auto-fire is really, really obvious. Trying to get defensive fire to work is already very challenging for new players (and I suspect many less new players as well). And I think its somewhat counter-intuitive that setting a fire-control to "area defensive fire" won't necessarily result in it firing.

Maybe the new interface could make some use of colour to help this? Maybe green for fire controls that have everything turned on so that they will autofire? Red for "offline" controls with no target/cease fire orders.

I could also use colour coding for weapons being correctly assigned to fire controls, something that is easy to miss with big ships.

[Steve Walmsley]

I don't mind as long as whatever option chose for auto-fire is really, really obvious. Trying to get defensive fire to work is already very challenging for new players (and I suspect many less new players as well). And I think its somewhat counter-intuitive that setting a fire-control to "area defensive fire" won't necessarily result in it firing.

Maybe the new interface could make some use of colour to help this? Maybe green for fire controls that have everything turned on so that they will autofire? Red for "offline" controls with no target/cease fire orders.

I could also use colour coding for weapons being correctly assigned to fire controls, something that is easy to miss with big ships.

C# Fire controls currently are green when off and orange when active.

[King-Salomon]

@ components view:

while I like the new screenshot a lot, some QoL pointers I am missing:

1) it is really hard to read lines and rows without some "focus line" - would it be possible to get something like a background-color every 4-5 lines for easier reading?

2) for same or related components (Crew Quarters, Weapons etc) it would be easier to have them in a "block" instead of mixed up in the lines - guess it is "first added, first shown"? it would be much easier to have all a logical order of the components were you can see with "one look" which components are there

3) what I am missing (but its really just a minor point) is a "total TN-Mineral cost" .. I would add a line between Gallicite and Wealth with the total mineral costs

[Steve Walmsley]

@ components view:

while I like the new screenshot a lot, some QoL pointers I am missing:

1) it is really hard to read lines and rows without some "focus line" - would it be possible to get something like a background-color every 4-5 lines for easier reading?

2) for same or related components (Crew Quarters, Weapons etc) it would be easier to have them in a "block" instead of mixed up in the lines - guess it is "first added, first shown"? it would be much easier to have all a logical order of the components were you can see with "one look" which components are there

3) what I am missing (but its really just a minor point) is a "total TN-Mineral cost" .. I would add a line between Gallicite and Wealth with the total mineral costs

1) If you click on a line, the whole line is highlighted.

2) Display order is based on the Sort options at the bottom.

3) Good idea. I'll add that.

[alex_brunius]

1) If you click on a line, the whole line is highlighted.

Still lacks a bit for overview if you need to click. It might make sense to have spreedsheet standard slightly alternating background color for lines like this:
http://www.ksosoft.com/images/spreadsheet-auto-contraction.png

[alex_brunius]

My Reaction when seeing battle results appear in the changes list:

[Steve Walmsley]

Just for interest...

 I am just starting to look at the code for missiles detecting their own targets. I was aware that the new sensor changes would make missile sensors much more effective (which is why I added the rule about 0.25 MSP minimum). However, seeing it in action will be quite different than the theory.

For example, assume we have a race with active sensor tech of 21 and EM tech of 11. A VB6 active sensor with resolution 100 and size of MSP 0.25 (or 0.0125 HS), with active strength of 0.26, could detect ships of 5000 tons at 285,000 kilometres. The same missile sensor in C# Aurora will detect 5000 ton ships at 4,430,000 kilometres.

If we change the above active sensor for a Thermal sensor of the same size (and assume Thermal Tech 11), it will have a thermal sensitivity of 0.14. The Commonwealth Tribal M class destroyer (standard laser-armed design of 6365 tons) has a thermal signature of 650. The VB6 version of the sensor would detect the ship at 90,000 kilometres. In C#, the range will be 2,370,000 kilometres. That range gap will drop though for more powerful active sensors and for larger target ships. The C# passive advantage is more pronounced for small sensor and small signatures.

Finally, lets change the above active sensor for an EM sensor of the same size, which will have an EM strength of 0.14. Now lets assume we want to use that missile for a HARM attack on a ship with an active sensor using the same tech. Lets say size 3, resolution 100. In VB6, the missile sensor will detect the ship-based sensor emission at 882,000 kilometres. In C#, the range will be 7,424,621 kilometres. That range advantage will drop though for more powerful active sensors or more powerful emissions

Even so, there is a lot more scope for passive attacks and mines will probably become effective in other places beside jump points.

[Hazard]

Relevant counter point; what's the detection values for noticing those missiles? On Active and Thermal sensors, since with an active strength of .26 I'm not expecting an EM sensor to detect even an active sensor missile before it's considerably too late, while missile engines have relatively notable signatures and active sensors detect everything of the right HS.

[Bremen]

That's a big change and it's definitely going to have tactical ramifications. For instance, in addition to mines being more potent, I also think sensor drones and buoys might suddenly be more practical.

Since I've seen the point raised that fighter strikes are going to be extremely difficult to spot, it also raises the possibility of launching a spread of resolution 4 tracking missiles at where you think inbound fighters might be, especially if you spot them coming with a scout ship or a sensor drone.

I'm going to go with my response to most of the other balance changes - Awesome! Emergent tactics are a lot of fun, and if it leads to anything too overpowered it can always be rebalanced later.

[QuakeIV]

Oh hey sensor missiles, brilliant!

Might be really unpleasant to make use of potentially though, in terms of finicky clicks to get waypoints laid out and such.

[Shiwanabe]

Relevant counter point; what's the detection values for noticing those missiles? On Active and Thermal sensors, since with an active strength of .26 I'm not expecting an EM sensor to detect even an active sensor missile before it's considerably too late, while missile engines have relatively notable signatures and active sensors detect everything of the right HS.

While this is a valid concern, a GPS of .26 wouldn't take into account the Resolution of the active sensor.

Currently we don't know if Steve will be applying it as a straight multiplier (ala VB6) or raising it to the 1/1.5 as it is in the active range equation.
So, here's a quick table of both options and the detection ranges. (Assuming Steve isn't going to use a root in the GPS equation)

	GPS	EM 1	EM 5	EM 10	EM 20	EM 50	EM 100	EM 200	EM 500	EM 1000	EM 2000
RES	26.25	1,281,000	2,865,000	4,051,000	5,729,000	9,058,000	12,810,000	18,120,000	28,650,000	40,510,000	57,290,000
RES^(1/1.5)	5.655	594,600	1,330,000	1,881,000	2,659,000	4,204,000	5,946,000	8,408,000	13,300,000	18,810,000	26,590,000

[Snipped quote for section break and topic change]

While this is indeed easier to see which ship damaged which target and includes most/all the relevant information on that attacking side, the defensive side is missing a lot of information that is very useful for designing future ships.

Damage report is not split by incoming damage type - Not especially relevant in this case, but very relevant if only some of the incoming fire causes shock damage
Attackers know the number of penetrating hits, defenders only know the amount of armor damage taken. - Of the 50 damage taken, 44 was stopped by armor. Was the 6 damage taken from 2 damage-3 hits? 6 damage-1 hits? (Attacker knows it was 2 damage-3 hits and 1 damage-1 hit, for 3-7 internal damage)

The other thing I notice is that crew deaths are not being reported for damage taken. Is this a change to when crew die? Or are they only being reported on ship destruction?

On an unrelated note, do missiles still use 5x as much fuel as ships? I've been looking at updating the missile calculator gdoc and I've noticed that without that 5x multiplier missile ranges would actually increase. I remember you saying things about wanting to remove the missile exceptions to fuel use, but I've also seen you saying you want to reduce missile range, so a clarification would be useful for providing an accurate opinion.

[Person012345]

I don't like the entire concept of the streamlining of combat readouts, but I'm willing to give it a try. My gut reaction is negative though, I kind of like reading a long ass scroll detailing every weapon and every hit. This summary just feels kind of sterile to me. Maybe it'll feel better when playing it though, when more familiar with the actual designs involved.

[Steve Walmsley]

While this is indeed easier to see which ship damaged which target and includes most/all the relevant information on that attacking side, the defensive side is missing a lot of information that is very useful for designing future ships.

Damage report is not split by incoming damage type - Not especially relevant in this case, but very relevant if only some of the incoming fire causes shock damage
Attackers know the number of penetrating hits, defenders only know the amount of armor damage taken. - Of the 50 damage taken, 44 was stopped by armor. Was the 6 damage taken from 2 damage-3 hits? 6 damage-1 hits? (Attacker knows it was 2 damage-3 hits and 1 damage-1 hit, for 3-7 internal damage)

The other thing I notice is that crew deaths are not being reported for damage taken. Is this a change to when crew die? Or are they only being reported on ship destruction?

On an unrelated note, do missiles still use 5x as much fuel as ships? I've been looking at updating the missile calculator gdoc and I've noticed that without that 5x multiplier missile ranges would actually increase. I remember you saying things about wanting to remove the missile exceptions to fuel use, but I've also seen you saying you want to reduce missile range, so a clarification would be useful for providing an accurate opinion.

The defenders only know the amount of damage rather than the type. That was a conscious decision and it is the same in VB6. The damage per hit is already listed on the defender summary.

I'll add the crew casualties.

This is the rule post on missile engines:

http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=8495.msg102804#msg102804