C# Aurora Changes Discussion

[Shuul]

Steve, I see that misses are not armoured now. But how should I proceed my size torpedos from one single amm or one shot from pd? Is there a point in really big misses now?

[Steve Walmsley]

Steve, I see that misses are not armoured now. But how should I proceed my size torpedos from one single amm or one shot from pd? Is there a point in really big misses now?

The new rules on EW & Sensors for missiles will make smaller missiles less effective.

[Shuul]

The new rules on EW & Sensors for missiles will make smaller missiles less effective.

Ok, this is good to know. But anyway, is it a good idea to remove this functionality? I really liked to make extremely expensive huge cruise missiles, now they are not viable as can be shot down by one hit

[Steve Walmsley]

The new rules on EW & Sensors for missiles will make smaller missiles less effective.

Ok, this is good to know. But anyway, is it a good idea to remove this functionality? I really liked to make extremely expensive huge cruise missiles, now they are not viable as can be shot down by one hit

You could still use multiple warheads and ECM to create large dangerous missiles. The problem with armour was it was creating missiles that was much harder to kill than their mass would suggest.

[Bremen]

The change to shock damage seems like a huge buff to bigger ships, in a version that's already full of smaller ones. It's not gamebreaking or anything, but I can't help but feel the meta in C# is going to be "have a few huge ships and no escorts".

[Steve Walmsley]

The change to shock damage seems like a huge buff to bigger ships, in a version that's already full of smaller ones. It's not gamebreaking or anything, but I can't help but feel the meta in C# is going to be "have a few huge ships and no escorts".

It is true that larger ships have been generally increased in power vs smaller ones, but there are so many different roles in Aurora that it makes sense to have a variety of different sizes and types of ships. There are some potential pitfalls for very large ships as well, such as the magazine changes. Ultimately, though shock damage becomes increasingly overpowered as tech increases, so this is an effort to scale it with size and tech. The original intention for shock damage was to improve large missile warheads vs small ones (AMM spam), which the new rule still does with the 5% minimum.

[Bremen]

It is true that larger ships have been generally increased in power vs smaller ones, but there are so many different roles in Aurora that it makes sense to have a variety of different sizes and types of ships. There are some potential pitfalls for very large ships as well, such as the magazine changes. Ultimately, though shock damage becomes increasingly overpowered as tech increases, so this is an effort to scale it with size and tech. The original intention for shock damage was to improve large missile warheads vs small ones (AMM spam), which the new rule still does with the 5% minimum.

I disagree about the roles encouraging smaller ships - with how Aurora works, there's no real downside to folding multiple roles into a single large ship that there wouldn't be in multiple smaller ships (IE, if you add every component from a 5000 ton escort ship and a 10000 ton carrier, you end up with a 15000 ton ship that does both just as well).

If the problem is shock damage scales with regards to tech, wouldn't it make sense to have shock damage chances reduced by the tech level of armor it's hitting? Otherwise it's equating higher tech = bigger ships, which wouldn't necessarily be true.

[Shuul]

I disagree that large ships are the current meta. I always felt handicapped with large ships, as they are expensive, slower, critical damage causes much more collateral damage, they cannot be split into few more fleets in case of a need, they need more advanced logistics to support, they need better tech to operate efficiently, they are easily detected etc.
They defenetly do NOT need to be nerfed. Otherwise they will be not viable.

[Whitecold]

About the meson change, is there no caliber dependence now? Unless there is, I still see little reason to use anything but the 10cm

[Steve Walmsley]

About the meson change, is there no caliber dependence now? Unless there is, I still see little reason to use anything but the 10cm

Calibre has the same effect as VB6 and increases range. I did also consider having larger calibres generates more damage points, each of which would try to penetrate armour independently.

[Whitecold]

About the meson change, is there no caliber dependence now? Unless there is, I still see little reason to use anything but the 10cm

Calibre has the same effect as VB6 and increases range. I did also consider having larger calibres generates more damage points, each of which would try to penetrate armour independently.

I think that will still be underwhelming compared to all other tech lines, which get more damage over their effective range.

The change to shock damage seems like a huge buff to bigger ships, in a version that's already full of smaller ones. It's not gamebreaking or anything, but I can't help but feel the meta in C# is going to be "have a few huge ships and no escorts".

I think the true counterbalance to large ships is that they are hard to build, take a long time, and can only be in one place at once. The reduced sensor reach already opened up possibilities for forward scouts, and forward ships to take out enemy forward scouts, and possibly ships to take out enemy scout killers.
Having enough platforms is an aspect that could be reinforced by making WP less easy to lock down, or add otherwise more infrastructure and ships in systems that need to be escorted and protected.

[Iceranger]

Steve, about your proposed meson change, it does not change the 2 concerns you had initially: they can still do pretty well in ground battle, and they can still engage small lightly armored orbital drop ships relatively easily.  But the anti-capital ship capability of meson cannons now become not relevant.

[MarcAFK]

Microwaves do extra damage to shields, while they're not intended as anti-shield weapons, this does help to break through shields so they can be effective, what about a similar mechanic for mesons?
Thick armour negates most hits of mesons, but perhaps they could do enhanced damage to armour while still doing single points against internals? Maybe affected by calibre, higher calibre doing 2 or 3 damage to armour, making mesons a superiour sandpapering weapon, or perhaps just higher calibre helping to penetrate more armour layers, lower chance of hitting each layer of armour?

[Steve Walmsley]

Steve, about your proposed meson change, it does not change the 2 concerns you had initially: they can still do pretty well in ground battle, and they can still engage small lightly armored orbital drop ships relatively easily.  But the anti-capital ship capability of meson cannons now become not relevant.

1) I don't mind about mesons attacking lightly armoured drop ships. They are vulnerable to other weapons as well. I minded them attacking the 125,000 ton transport design with 3400 armour that a hundred 20cm lasers couldn't penetrate (see the Dropping Troops thread that sparked the meson thread).
2) There are no mesons in ground battles
3) My other concern was the power of mesons in multi-race starts (see the Trans-Newtonian campaign for a good example). That is less of an issue now because bases can be armoured to mitigate the problem to some extent and it reduces the meson advantage over other beam weapons. The problem was that mesons were disabling ships and bases before they could even fire back. PDCs were very vulnerable in that situation but they no longer exist.

[Steve Walmsley]

Microwaves do extra damage to shields, while they're not intended as anti-shield weapons, this does help to break through shields so they can be effective, what about a similar mechanic for mesons?
Thick armour negates most hits of mesons, but perhaps they could do enhanced damage to armour while still doing single points against internals? Maybe affected by calibre, higher calibre doing 2 or 3 damage to armour, making mesons a superiour sandpapering weapon, or perhaps just higher calibre helping to penetrate more armour layers, lower chance of hitting each layer of armour?

I did consider having the larger meson calibres have more than one point of damage, with each point penetrating (or damaging armour) separately. I was just concerned that by adding multiple shots I was offsetting the armour changes. The idea of higher armour damage but only a single penetrating shot is interesting though. If play test shows mesons are now too weak, that might be a good compromise.