Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - TheDeadlyShoe

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 81
Aurora Chat / Re: What is a financial centre anyway?
« on: Yesterday at 09:35:54 AM »
The real question is, what does wealth represent. Only when you answer that can you answer what a financial center does.

Dipping into negative wealth represents your civilization overloading its ability to accomplish things.  There's not enough people, not enough expertise, too much corruption, and so on and so forth. So financial centers can represent anything that reduces these problems.  It could be bureaucrats to keep track of things, taskmaster AIs to direct activity efficiently, replicant facilities so people can double their workload, robot factories to reduce workload, or financial wizards that optimize economic activity.  Or whatever else you can imagine.

Off Topic / Re: Merry Christmas!
« on: December 25, 2017, 01:19:56 PM »
merry christmas and may santa's stealth tech be unpierced another year

The Academy / Re: Insight of a new player.
« on: December 22, 2017, 05:59:43 PM »
I think Gieweh is saying that civilians grow out of control if you do things like heavily colonize Luna.  I agree about that.

In C#, profits will scale with distance, so short range trading wont be as profitable, maybe.

The Academy / Re: Task Force Training and 'edge cases'
« on: December 17, 2017, 10:56:51 PM »
The slowest to respond ship in a tg determines movement delay. Firing delay is on a per ship basis though. 

Docked parasites don't matter.

If you are bringing tankers etc. with your battlefleet, consider creating a militarized tanker. It doesnt have to be military, but armor, CIWS, speed, and training is nice in a pinch.  Personally, i usually prefer to extend ship range a little and/or create forward fuel dumps.

C# Aurora / Re: Replacing PDCs
« on: December 16, 2017, 03:17:43 AM »
I don't understand why this should be any more complicated to implement than other solutions. It is a design consideration.
I know that Steve wants to keep it simple, but my feel is that 'abandon drop' will be used exclusively against defended targets. If this always damages the bay, and you can only fix it at a yard, there is no point in building non-drop bay equipped transports ever, making it pointless to even implement those. Abandon or wait feels like inflexible handling of drops when you need them to just wait five more minutes somewhere to improve your schedule.
That rather depends on whether drop bays are military or not :)

C# Aurora / Re: Replacing PDCs
« on: December 10, 2017, 12:29:09 AM »
It's simpler, but you lose on design level complexity.

C# Aurora / Re: Replacing PDCs
« on: December 09, 2017, 02:54:31 PM »
Do CIWS fit into this damage conversion dynamic at all?  Probably not, eh.

60-90 seconds seems like forever to sit at zero range for heavy beam weapons.  I can't  see myself ever using anything but Abandon for contested planets. I suppose the ground units are off the ship even at the start though? So they are safe, at least from the STO weapons.

i'd love to see it be a design-level consideration rather than a technology-level consideration. i.e., the number of drop modules you include in your design VS amount of troop bays determines its capabilities, ala Cargo Handling Systems.   You'd have a minimum number for doing Abandons - representing just piling troops into pods, shuttles etc and throwing them at the earth.  Then a threshold for doing return drops, representing that shuttles are loaded normally and have enough fuel to return to orbit.   After that additional modules would reduce the return time, representing lighter loads on shuttles and faster unloading, up to a minimum threshold.  In this context, improved tech would improve the performance per-module and reduce the minimum threshold.

Another possibilities in this design would be ships that could do sequential Abandons - an Abandon only need irreparably damage the minimum # of modules needed to conduct the Abandon.    So in an RP you could have a 'drop pod cruiser' that only does abandons, but can do them multiple times because of its redundant drop modules.

Not sure of the difficult code wise of that VS dedicated modules though.

Aurora Suggestions / Re: Bringing Back Mothballing
« on: December 09, 2017, 02:09:55 PM »
I see a nuance here. I like the part of maintenance as in allocating engineering spaces to ships, and having to keep track of their deployment times. What I don't like is the amount of minerals this evaporates.You should be able to recycle your defective equipment for raw resources, and while this can be expensive, it would absolutely be worthwhile if you run out of a mineral.
Right. Just turn maintenance off but still include lots of engineering spaces.  Plus side: no more component repair events to stop your turns.

I think that doing that is pushing the term to stretch it far beyond what is useful, though.

Sorry I came off as aggressive in this thread; I had just come off an argument about hard vs soft scifi and the definitions thereof, so i am/was sensitive to relatively minor distinctions, and brought that into my posting :(

Handwaving is a pejorative term and it implies that an explanation is being slapdash, inconsistent, or possibly just nonexistent.  I think its sufficient to establish generally consistent rules and that ships and technology in a setting are generally capable of X but not Y., especially in the television or movie formats; info-dump space is strictly limited both as a practical and acting-practices matter.

Like, what if you turn it around? What would *not* qualify as handwavium for a science fiction setting under a wide standard?  If everything is handwavium, than the term is useless, because it's not actually making any useful distinctions between things.

'handwaving' is essentially saying eh, dont worry about it.  The way shields work in star trek is handwaved.  Interstellar debris impacts are not; the problem is specifically addressed.  The ships even have Bussard collectors for free hydrogen. 

Similarly, Aurora does not handwave it, because it relies on inertia canceling which implicitly solves the problem.

I honestly cant remember what the expansion wars books say about it, though i have read them...

Aurora Suggestions / Re: Bringing Back Mothballing
« on: December 07, 2017, 12:34:23 PM »
high energy systems, tanks of chemicals, thousands of nuclear warheads....   just turn maintenance off if it bothers you...  the entire system is designed to be a mineral guzzler

The Academy / Re: Questions about "Minimum Rank and Class Priority"
« on: December 06, 2017, 10:51:05 AM »
i like to use negative priorities so that it doesnt screw things up when i miss setting up a freighter

all this mis use of handwave irritates me1

the deflector in star trek is not handwavium; it's directly addressing the problem!

C# Aurora / Re: Replacing PDCs
« on: December 05, 2017, 11:20:52 AM »
You can still do that, it just has to be an indiscriminate bombardment that'll cause lots of civilian casualties

Aurora Suggestions / Re: Bringing Back Mothballing
« on: December 05, 2017, 10:59:51 AM »
You could just as easily argue that maintenance costs should be eliminated completely with that example.

MSP and maintenance costs are not the same thing.  Maintenance only applies to your maintenance clock.  You lose all the minerals you 'saved' by being deployed if and when you rewind your maintenance clock.  MSP only serves to stave off breakdowns and conduct repairs.  You could never pay maintenance at all if you build ships with sufficiently long lifetimes and retire them rather then overhaul them.

One way to mothball currently is to retrofit a lot of engineering spaces onto a design and then just sit it in orbit somewhere without maintenance facilities. It will decay only slowly. 

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 81