Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
Bureau of Ship Design / Re: Beam Cruisers
« Last post by Felius on Today at 06:08:50 PM »
Thinking on the next iteration, was considering dropping the Gauss turrets from the main cruiser and create a dedicated PD vessel, getting something like:

Code: [Select]
Illustrious Mk4 class Cruiser    20 000 tons     621 Crew     8159.6 BP      TCS 400  TH 4800  EM 5400
12000 km/s     Armour 9-65     Shields 180-300     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 10     PPV 98.22
Maint Life 1.3 Years     MSP 2550    AFR 320%    IFR 4.4%    1YR 1602    5YR 24034    Max Repair 1200 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 12 months    Spare Berths 1   
Cryogenic Berths 400   

Brooks & Heath Research Inc 2400 EP Inertial Fusion Drive (2)    Power 2400    Fuel Use 41.34%    Signature 2400    Exp 15%
Fuel Capacity 3 500 000 Litres    Range 76.2 billion km   (73 days at full power)
D'Aoust-Villon  Omicron R300/432 Shields (30)   Total Fuel Cost  540 Litres per hour  (12 960 per day)

Cameron & Franklin 75cm C10 Far X-Ray Laser (1)    Range 480 000km     TS: 12000 km/s     Power 147-10     RM 8    ROF 75        147 147 147 147 147 147 147 147 130 117
Cameron & Franklin 35cm C8 Far X-Ray Laser (3)    Range 480 000km     TS: 12000 km/s     Power 32-8     RM 8    ROF 20        32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 28 25
Quad Bellemare-Astruc R21/C6 Meson Cannon Turret (2x4)    Range 210 000km     TS: 32000 km/s     Power 24-24     RM 21    ROF 5        1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
van Dijck Ordnance CIWS-320 (1x10)    Range 1000 km     TS: 32000 km/s     ROF 5       Base 50% To Hit
Bonnaire-Delorit Fire Control S02 240-8000 (1)    Max Range: 480 000 km   TS: 8000 km/s     98 96 94 92 90 88 85 83 81 79
Cardigan -Goodge Fire Control S03 120-24000 (1)    Max Range: 240 000 km   TS: 24000 km/s     96 92 88 83 79 75 71 67 62 58
Boyer-Rivard Inertial Confinement Fusion Reactor Technology PB-1 (1)     Total Power Output 24    Armour 0    Exp 5%
Levengood Marine Inertial Confinement Fusion Reactor Technology PB-1 (1)     Total Power Output 60    Armour 0    Exp 5%

de Witt & van Dijk Active Search Sensor MR57-R1 (1)     GPS 240     Range 57.6m km    MCR 6.3m km    Resolution 1

ECCM-5 (1)     Compact ECCM-4 (1)         ECM 50

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes
Still only one fire control for each group of guns, but thinking on it, we while it'd mean a loss of range, I could have them use the other weapon fire control. Will probably trade the reactors for multiple size one reactors too, and might increase the tracking speed of the Meson fire control to equal that of the meson turret, although that's also a bit costly for not that much gain when they can already use a different fire control system. An increase in the laser FC speed might be in the books though, to match that of the ship itself. Might drop a few shields for extra engineering spaces too.
2
C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Last post by wedgebert on Today at 05:43:54 PM »
Absolutely in favor, I would *love* to actually keep consistent companies for equipment and ordinance and so forth.

Would be interesting to have civilian companies also as additional production capacity - not only handing transport orders to them, but also building equipment... .

I was thinking about something like this. Assuming a capitalistic society, what if you had something along the following:

Multiple companies, each with fields of interest (maybe some are like Rolls Royce and focus on engines, other are Intel like and do computers, etc).

Instead of designing a new technology, you instead put out a request to these companies. "I want a 15cm UV laser with 10sec recharge". Then after some time, these companies come back with their prototypes that each have small tweaks to your request.. Maybe the Foobar Corporation's laser does an extra point of damage but takes a little extra material to make. But Barfoo Inc has a model that can fire a little farther. Then you pick the one you want and it becomes a thing to build.


3
C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Last post by the obelisk on Today at 03:56:28 PM »
Another suggestion of mine: Remove the missile engine component, and revert to designing missile engines along with the missile itself, adding options for boost modifier/engine generation/fuel consumption there.
The missile engine component adds an annoying step to missile design. Unlike regular engines they are very rarely reused, every new missile usually requires a new engine. Furthermore there is no incentive to use multiple engines on a missile if you can use a single one instead, and I don't think there should be one.
Also, I'd suggest to remove the cap on missile engines to 5 MSP, especially with the new incentives to large missiles.
The missile engine only adds unnecessary complications, you should not have to use an external performance calculator to find out which engine size you need in the first place.
Maybe add the ability to create missile engines in missile creation without removing missile engines as a component?

Other random quality of life suggestion: Instead of suggesting random new companies for naming components, have a separate panel where you can save the names of the companies you have in your game (and generate suggestions)
Then you can select the company name in a dropdown menu, as you will be likely be reusing company names.
I think that's been discussed before, could be wrong.
4
Bureau of Ship Design / Re: Beam Cruisers
« Last post by Michael Sandy on Today at 01:54:06 PM »
I play beam cruisers a lot more specialized.  I don't build many of them, but I build them fast enough to out speed and outrange enemy beam ship encountered.  But a slugger philosophy, where you expect to meet enemies with similar ranged weapons, and want to beat them by having more weapons or more armor/shields, is workable.
5
The Academy / Re: Deep Space Maintenance
« Last post by Michael Sandy on Today at 01:47:09 PM »
"with internal hangars big enough to contain the entire military contingent of the war fleet one intends to station there."

That is more than you need.  You can comfortably maintain fleet 2.5 times the capacity of the hangar, even 3 times if you are careful about it.  Just keep rotating the fleets through the station.

I build a small hangar early, for maintaining my survey fleets and scouts.  One of the VERY nice things about hangars instead of maintenance bases is you can always get your ships out of a hangar immediately, instead of cancelling an overhaul.
6
I divide scouts into three main categories:
1) System scouts.  The job of a system scout is to scout jump points and find out what threats are there.  Optimization concerns are spending the least amount, but finding out as fast as possible what jump points are safe to explore further.  So bare bones fighter jump scouts can be very cheap and effective for that.  Requires reduced sized engineering systems, endurance >60 billion km

2) Fleet scouts/forward observers: These are relatively short ranged, with boosted engines.  Goal is to have them faster than any detected enemies, so they can track and shadow them.  I build variants with 1 HS for sensors and 3 HS for sensors.

3) Fleet sanitization:  These are sensors designed to detect all threats around a fleet as it moves, instead of scouting ahead of a fleet to a known enemy base.  Instead of building small sensors on specialized platforms, this is about building ginormous sensors that you really don't want to have to research again.  Low end fleet sanitization, might involve a 9 HS sensor.  Something you could fit into a fighter pod, and therefore change out as more advanced sensors became available.  High end, over 30 HS, say, are expensive in terms of research and tooling.  Such scouts really aren't expendable, unless you keep a shipyard completely dedicated to building them.  Which is a significant resource commitment.
7
I've had fair success with the build/orders of my exploration/survey scouts thus far.  However I find myself having to micromanage them as they reach the end of their designed deployment duration.  I need to manually send them home for shore leave and overhaul.  A related issue is that perhaps oddly, I find that when they have reached the point where their morale is dropping, they still have a good 80% of their fuel reserves left, despite (or perhaps because of) my having given them enough to last the duration of their deployment.  Furthermore, they also seem to usually have most of their maintenance supplies still.  I do build their maintenance to outlast their duration, but I am thinking now this may be a mistake. 

I am noticing that there is a conditional order that could in theory send a ship into overhaul automatically.  However there does not seem to be any realistic way to trigger that other than on the condition of either their fuel or supplies running low. 

What is an optimum way to design scouts so that they will last a long time, many years of exploration, but shortly before they reach the point where their morale starts to drop, they automatically trigger an overhaul order? (Note I am assuming an overhaul also tops off their fuel and maintenance supplies, 'and' gives the crew shore leave. )

Up till now, I gave my 6000 ton scouts a crew duration of six years (72 months) and enough engineering spaces to give it slightly over six years of maintenance life.  I do 'not' give them maintenance storage bays, as extending their maintenance life to the same duration with a maintenance bay is actually heavier than doing so with engineering spaces.  They have their own military jump drive (self only) and two each of grav and geo sensors.  I have been giving them three large fuel storage which can keep their engines going for most of that six years.  Apparently though, they spend most of their time not burning their engines.  It would appear that I could perhaps dump some or much of that fuel, extend their crew and maintenance life out even further (with the space that frees up), then set the orders to trigger an overhaul when the fuel runs low.  Does this seem like a good idea to the more experienced players? (I am still very much the newbie to Aurora. )

By the way, I have found that by setting the primary default order to 'Survey Nearest Planet or Moon' and the secondary default order to 'Survey Nearest Survey Location', I can order a scout into an unexplored jump point and forget about it.  The scout will on it's own do a geo survey of all the planets and moons, and once that is done, will survey all the possible jump points, all on it's own.  The events log (which I have set to display on my system screen) makes it very clear which scouts have run out of something to do, so you know when to order them through a new jump point.  (Note, they do not survey asteroids this way. )
8
C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Last post by TMaekler on Today at 11:21:14 AM »
Absolutely in favor, I would *love* to actually keep consistent companies for equipment and ordinance and so forth.

Would be interesting to have civilian companies also as additional production capacity - not only handing transport orders to them, but also building equipment... .
9
C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Last post by Profugo Barbatus on Yesterday at 11:18:24 PM »
Other random quality of life suggestion: Instead of suggesting random new companies for naming components, have a separate panel where you can save the names of the companies you have in your game (and generate suggestions)
Then you can select the company name in a dropdown menu, as you will be likely be reusing company names.

Strongly in favor of this, would hugely help me keep things straight (I might actually start using company names again).

Absolutely in favor, I would *love* to actually keep consistent companies for equipment and ordinance and so forth.
10
C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Last post by QuakeIV on Yesterday at 08:40:59 PM »
Other random quality of life suggestion: Instead of suggesting random new companies for naming components, have a separate panel where you can save the names of the companies you have in your game (and generate suggestions)
Then you can select the company name in a dropdown menu, as you will be likely be reusing company names.

Strongly in favor of this, would hugely help me keep things straight (I might actually start using company names again).
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10