Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
C# Aurora / Re: Replacing PDCs
« Last post by alex_brunius on Today at 08:28:31 AM »
Agree that MSP (for all units) and Sorium (for vehicles/aircraft) make sense for ground units rather than a separate resource type . I'll probably have logistic units 'carry' supplies that can be used by ground units, or have some inherent capability. This would be at a low level normally but much higher during combat. Vehicles without fuel would act only on defence and without any mobility bonus.

The issue with having much smaller versions of ship components is that I would have to make those available for ships too. Having much smaller versions of weapons could lead to some balance issues, particularly around point defence and dealing with ultra-short ranges.

Using Space weapons for all larger vehicles (tanks and upward) would make sense IMHO.

An AT-AT would be 600-3000 ton weight ( according to wiki sources I found )

Tanks would be around 50-100 ton weight? ( could be made a bit larger if needed for consistency maybe? )

This isn't far from Aurora Fighters ranging around 200-500 ton.

2
C# Aurora / Re: Replacing PDCs
« Last post by Steve Walmsley on Today at 07:46:30 AM »
The 'fortification level' of a ground unit will act as a divisor on the chance to hit. So fortification level 3 will mean all to-hit chances against that unit are divisible by 3. This will also be true against ships attacking from orbit (more on that in a future post). Fortification level does not affect armour penetration or damage.

Any infantry or static unit will be able to fortify itself to level 3 over time without assistance. Vehicles will be able to fortify to level 2 (although this will negate their mobility bonus it would avoid any fuel use). Super-heavy Vehicles will be able to fortify to level 1.5. Aircraft will not be able to fortify.

Combat Engineers will be able to increase the fortification level of other units over time. Up to level 3 for vehicles and up to level 5 for infantry & static. (I may add some additional fortification bonuses for infantry/static depending on terrain). Combat Engineers will be also able to reduce hostile fortification levels over time.

If a unit chooses to attack, it will lose any fortification bonus. However, you will be able to attack with selected units and leave others in place.

More details later on how long it takes to fortify.
3
C# Aurora / Re: Replacing PDCs
« Last post by Steve Walmsley on Today at 07:35:37 AM »
Have to agree with this when it comes to logistics / supplies / fuel and weapons/deigns or hangars for ground combat.

It would make sense to use similar compatible supplies (MSP) and similar sources of energy (Sorium based fuel for vehicles).

It would make sense to use similar weapons and powerplants for large vehicles, airplanes or smaller space ships (fighters), maybe even sharing the same designer?

It would make sense to have shared hangars for space or ground based fighters that can be used by either of them ( Both space based and ground based ), and some shared capability and multirole where Space Carrier Fighters have an optional "atmospheric flight" component allowing them to take part in air combat or ground support on planets with an atmosphere.

Agree that MSP (for all units) and Sorium (for vehicles/aircraft) make sense for ground units rather than a separate resource type . I'll probably have logistic units 'carry' supplies that can be used by ground units, or have some inherent capability. This would be at a low level normally but much higher during combat. Vehicles without fuel would act only on defence and without any mobility bonus.

The issue with having much smaller versions of ship components is that I would have to make those available for ships too. Having much smaller versions of weapons could lead to some balance issues, particularly around point defence and dealing with ultra-short ranges. Plus this isn't really very different than PDCs. I want ground combat to be more detailed than it is now, but not to the extent of creating space-based warfare on the ground.

4
The Academy / Re: Conventional Start Tech choices
« Last post by Paul M on Today at 05:19:28 AM »
Speaking from practical experience when doing flybyes of potentional trouble spots even with good sensors you have to bring the time down to at a maximum 30s and do a couple of turns at that speeed as you near closest approach.   Bad things may happen if you try and do this with too high a step...again speaking from experience.  You have to do this manually there is no way to automate it.  Most of the time these sorts of flybyes have me at the edge of my seat cause at some point the ship is committed to a close in run where if it has missed something going in it won't be in any position to dodge.

And I'd still overall go with a buoy since it is what you have only without taking advantage of game artifacts.
5
C# Aurora / Re: Replacing PDCs
« Last post by alex_brunius on Today at 03:41:10 AM »
The proposed changes seem more like "tacking fiddly things on" when the better option would be to expand a very good system to apply where it formerly didn't.

Have to agree with this when it comes to logistics / supplies / fuel and weapons/deigns or hangars for ground combat.

It would make sense to use similar compatible supplies (MSP) and similar sources of energy (Sorium based fuel for vehicles).

It would make sense to use similar weapons and powerplants for large vehicles, airplanes or smaller space ships (fighters), maybe even sharing the same designer?

It would make sense to have shared hangars for space or ground based fighters that can be used by either of them ( Both space based and ground based ), and some shared capability and multirole where Space Carrier Fighters have an optional "atmospheric flight" component allowing them to take part in air combat or ground support on planets with an atmosphere.
6
Not realistically, because you're limited by fire controls.
7
C# Aurora / Re: Replacing PDCs
« Last post by Iranon on Today at 03:13:07 AM »
One of Aurora's biggest strengths is open-ended gameplay with systems that give the player a lot of freedom. Heavy ground units practically scream to use the same components we could mount on ships (possibly with the option to scale things down a bit) rather than an entirely new and much more limited system, and PDCs could be expanded rather than eliminated for interesting interaction with those heavy ground units.

The proposed changes seem more like "tacking fiddly things on" when the better option would be to expand a very good system to apply where it formerly didn't.
8
The Academy / Re: Conventional Start Tech choices
« Last post by Michael Sandy on Today at 01:23:55 AM »
By having the jump point monitors carried by the Grav Survey Carrier, it is often a very short trip for the surveying carrier to go to the newly discovered jump point and place a Long Watch.  It is a very nice synergy, in my opinion.

My fleet doctrine is going to have a hangar on every ship.  That way, I won't need separate variants for sensors or point defense.  I will have sensor pod 'fighters'.  Until I am several tiers up in sensors, I do not expect to build any sensor system larger than 9 HS.  I don't see the point until the cost for researching the system would be less than researching a new tier.

If something eats a survey ship, I like the idea of his fellow survey ships coming back loaded with the most recently developed tech in their fighters.

I have also revised my scouting doctrine.  Because my scout pinnaces rely on close range and basic sensors to spot sensors, populations, they can often miss small pops (like Precursors) if the subpulse is too high.  So either I have to send the scouting orders one planet at a time, or more likely, when doing moon flybys, set the subpulse very low.
9
Bureau of Ship Design / Re: tractor abuse
« Last post by Michael Sandy on Today at 12:22:56 AM »
True.  But it would be great for moving terraforming stations, each that has their own tractor.  So one tractor force could move the entire terraforming force all at once, very fast, thereby wasting very little terraforming time.

Might be amusing to have strategic mobility this way, a whole bunch of driveless carriers with tractors and a commercial tanker or two in the mess, be a heck of a fast response option.
10
C# Aurora / Re: Replacing PDCs
« Last post by Barkhorn on Today at 12:10:57 AM »
Fortification should be automatic for low levels.  All you need for even a fairly advanced trench network, complete with wooden bunkers, is an entrenching tool and time.  It should require no player-input, and slowly ramp up while units are "stationary".  I know there's no actual map that the units move on, but you can base it on some kind of "progress" abstraction.  Like, the fortification level decreases as the ratio of forces changes.  Both sides can only use their fortifications while they're fighting near where they were built.  If one side starts to lose, BOTH sides lose any fortifications they've made.  The defenders would sabotage their bunker complexes as they flee, the attackers would need to leave their fox holes and trenches to give chase.  So basically the only time fortifications should increase are when the war is stalemated.  Which can be approximated by tracking the rate of change of the ratio between the two forces, minus reinforcements.  What I would do is I would perform combat calculations, see who came out on top, and if it was fairly even, increase the fortification for both sides.  If it was uneven, both sides fortifications should decrease to simulate the fighting moving on.  Then I would add any reinforcements that had arrived, and then the cycle repeats.

It should NOT be automatic for high levels.  Building concrete or TN-level fortifications should require economic investment.  They didn't build the Atlantic Wall with just E-tools and elbow grease after all.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10