C# Aurora Changes Discussion

[chrislocke2000]

I thought some of the main issues with missiles v beams were the five second tick which allowed the missiles to cover so much time and the simplistic damage range with the minimum of 1 causing lots of issues with making point defence too powerful.

With the new super fast process it struck me that switching the minimum tick to 1 sec or less would be a major rebalance and that having damage out put that was fractional to now so that it was effective v missiles but poor against ships would allow for more rapid firing but lower power weapons

[Steve Walmsley]

Just to clarify as I cannot see it spelt out and I tend to have multple NPRs starting on Earth.

Max planet population of Earth = 12 Billion = (player race population x  population density modifier) + (sum of all (NPR population on planet x population density modifier))

Max pop would vary by species. So species A might have of max pop of 12 billion while species B might be 18 billion. Species A will stop growing at 12b, while species B will stop growing at 18b. This means the growth in population of B could stop A growing. In addition, the growth in population of Species B will eventually cause unrest due to overcrowding in Species A (which could lead to conflict). I guess you could RP this as the species B population objecting to the growth of the species A population and demanding their leaders do something about it.

[Steve Walmsley]

I made a suggestion for shared efficiency vs size curve between missiles and normal engines some time back here:

http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=7448.msg76067#msg76067

Shared efficiency vs size curve makes alot of sense and would also improve fighter design considerably as engine size would actually matter for them, as well as add the same exponential scaling from missile engines to ship engines ( and allow bigger but reasonable efficiency bonuses for above +100HS engines too if we want ).

I don't think it's a good idea to allow normal engines to use the same boost levels as missiles can however, since it would allow Point defense fighters/FAC carried in hangars to fly out and match the speed of any incoming missile, thus being able to fire effectively for as long as it takes to shoot down all the missiles even if you only have a small amount of PD ships.

I'll take a look.

[Haji]

With the new super fast process it struck me that switching the minimum tick to 1 sec or less would be a major rebalance and that having damage out put that was fractional to now so that it was effective v missiles but poor against ships would allow for more rapid firing but lower power weapons

Gauss cannons already make it impossible to use repeatable launchers, as they are simply too good, effectively forcing the use of box launchers. Allowing even smaller point defence weapons would make it next to impossible to get past point defence, even before anti-missiles are included. That will not balance things, it will make missiles completely useless.

[alex_brunius]

I'll take a look.

And here was the numbers for ship engines (earlier in same thread):

http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=7448.msg75697#msg75697

I have been playing around a bit with a formula and think something like this would work good and feel balanced for engine size:

Formula: sqrt(10/HS)

Code: [Select]

HS Consumption
1,0 316%
1,2 289%
1,4 267%
1,6 250%
1,8 236%
2,0 224%
2,2 213%
2,4 204%
2,6 196%
2,8 189%
3,0 183%
3,5 169%
4,0 158%
4,5 149%
5,0 141%
5,5 135%
6,0 129%
7,0 120%
8,0 112%
9,0 105%
10,0 100%
11,0 95%
12,0 91%
13,0 88%
14,0 85%
15,0 82%
16,0 79%
17,0 77%
18,0 75%
19,0 73%
20,0 71%
22,0 67%
24,0 65%
26,0 62%
28,0 60%
30,0 58%
32,0 56%
34,0 54%
36,0 53%
38,0 51%
40,0 50%
45,0 47%
50,0 45%
55,0 43%
60,0 41%
65,0 39%
70,0 38%
75,0 37%
80,0 35%
85,0 34%
90,0 33%
95,0 32%
100,0 32%
Edit: I also like the idea to remove detail from the bigger engines ( who needs HS47 engines indeed?) and add it to smaller where it matters, or add more even bigger engines to strech the scale further, so both those have gone into my example above

[Steve Walmsley]

And here was the numbers for ship engines (earlier in same thread):

http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=7448.msg75697#msg75697

I was about to ask for that link

[Steve Walmsley]

And here was the numbers for ship engines (earlier in same thread):

http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=7448.msg75697#msg75697

I have run the numbers, joined up the missile and engine modifier suggestions and compared to the current version. FCM is Fuel Consumption Modifier. TBH I like your version a lot better than mine

it creates a smooth transition for both engine types, which is more realistic and consistent, provides a bonus to larger ships, makes the fuel portion of missile design more interesting (as fuel is not a major concern at the moment) and allows larger engines to be designed beyond the current 50 HS limit. I could also add a tech line to allow the larger engines.

This would probably complement the sensor changes as they would reduce missile ranges anyway.

[JOKER]

My idea about problem 1 is that range of large beam weapon may not rely on tech. Fire control only improve hit chance, not max range.

[Haji]

it creates a smooth transition for both engine types, which is more realistic and consistent, provides a bonus to larger ships, makes the fuel portion of missile design more interesting (as fuel is not a major concern at the moment) and allows larger engines to be designed beyond the current 50 HS limit. I could also add a tech line to allow the larger engines

While my initial reaction was ambivalent now that I had time to think about it I'm not so sure I like the impact it will have on fighters and gunboats.

The main strength of the fighters lies in the ability to avoid detection. However you are now increasing sensor ranges for high resolutions while also forcing use of shorter range missiles which may make them completely useless. Not to mention they won't have that much range so it will be much easier to run down the carriers.

Similarly since the 100% engine is 10hs gunboats will become much shorter ranged than they are now and using motherships for them is somewhat fiddly at the moment. Now if you actually want to encourage larger ships, that's fine, but if you also want smaller vessels to be useful you should probably do some serious testing.

Edit: I misread. The fuel consumption for anti-missiles will be increased by a factor of about four, so I have no complaints.

Last but not least the anti-missiles. With your new sensor rules it will finally be easier to perform longer ranged interceptions even on low technology levels, which is important as that was the main reason box launchers were so very powerful below fusion era. However you are kind of undoing that by increasing anti-missile fuel consumption by factor of about seventeen. That's a very, very large change.

Of course it has some benefits. As I mentioned a couple of times already agility is far too powerful on medium to high tech levels and the increased fuel consumption will cut into space you have for said agility, forcing come interesting potential trade-offs. But on low levels anti-missile interception chances are usually 'meh' (20% or so), the launchers have 10 sec recycle time, which is a huge handicap, and now not only you'll have trouble putting in some agility (still weak on this level) but also you may be unable to fully utilise your fire control range. That can be problematic.

[Steve Walmsley]

While my initial reaction was ambivalent now that I had time to think about it I'm not so sure I like the impact it will have on fighters and gunboats.

The main strength of the fighters lies in the ability to avoid detection. However you are now increasing sensor ranges for high resolutions while also forcing use of shorter range missiles which may make them completely useless. Not to mention they won't have that much range so it will be much easier to run down the carriers.

Similarly since the 100% engine is 10hs gunboats will become much shorter ranged than they are now and using motherships for them is somewhat fiddly at the moment. Now if you actually want to encourage larger ships, that's fine, but if you also want smaller vessels to be useful you should probably do some serious testing.

The point about range for fighters & gunboats is valid, although they have the option to accept a lower engine boost to compensate. With these engine rules the carrier should be able to carry more fuel for the fighters, or dedicate more space to engines.

However, in sensor terms fighters & gunboats are better off overall than before. The improved range for high resolution sensors is only for the smaller end of the scale (to make non-specialist ships less vulnerable). Once you get past size 5 for resolution-20 sensors, the range is less than before. For fighter detection, a resolution-5 sensor is worse than before once it reaches size-8.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

The main strength of the fighters lies in the ability to avoid detection. However you are now increasing sensor ranges for high resolutions while also forcing use of shorter range missiles which may make them completely useless. Not to mention they won't have that much range so it will be much easier to run down the carriers.

Fighter missiles won't necessarily become shorter ranged.  They will likely grow larger and slower with smaller warheads instead.  Similar effects could happen for fighters; less payload tonnage in order to add more fuel.  The sensor changes also mean it will be much easier to put sensor capability onto fighters and pickets. 

Interceptor fighters, ie fighters with AMMs and anti-missile sensors, will be *very* viable....

[Bremen]

The main strength of the fighters lies in the ability to avoid detection. However you are now increasing sensor ranges for high resolutions while also forcing use of shorter range missiles which may make them completely useless. Not to mention they won't have that much range so it will be much easier to run down the carriers.

You can't really look at the changes in a vacuum. For instance, greatly reducing the range of missiles, if you made no other changes, would make fighters far more effective. Missile fighters already work best as providing a range boost for more efficient shorter range missiles, and this will increase the efficiency bonus of short range missiles. Less efficient missile engines don't just mean all missiles are less efficient, it means the longer range a missile is the less efficient it becomes, and missile fighters are currently the king of short range missile combat.

The sensor change is also a mixed bag for fighters. It improves sensors with lower resolutions, but it also improves smaller sized sensors, like the kinds fighters (even dedicated sensor fighters) would mount. Using the numbers in the thread, a size 10 anti-fighter (res 5) sensor will now actually see its range go down, while a size 2 resolution 100 sensor would go up. Warships will frequently have size 10+ sensors, whereas fighters wouldn't and gunboats barely would.

Edit: Thinking about it, the sensor change combined with the reduced missile range change might well mean space superiority fighters finally become viable, since they could carry small anti fighter missiles in to intercept missile fighters before they could launch.

[Haji]

Fighter missiles won't necessarily become shorter ranged.  They will likely grow larger and slower with smaller warheads instead.  Similar effects could happen for fighters; less payload tonnage in order to add more fuel. 

Which is possibly the biggest problem. Fighters already struggle to get through point defence designed by a human. Now the missile detection range will be higher, allowing for more anti-missiles to be fired, while fighter missiles themselves will become slower and easier to intercept. That will make fighter strikes even worse than they are now.

Of course to a certain extent this will be true for all missile based designs. The reason I'm singling out the fighters is, as I said, they have more problems putting enough missiles into space to get past enemy defences. After all a missile armed ship carries it's ordnance directly. A carrier on the other hand carries smaller craft that carry actual missiles, leading to much smaller salvoes per tonne (or per wealth/minerals).

Of course it may still turn out fine, but this is why I wrote my original post - the changes never mentioned fighters so it may have turned out as an unintended consequence. It's something that requires testing, but the only one who can test it is Steve himself.

[Spotswood]

Has the idea ever been floated to give fighters a dodge bonus which could be increased with things like chaff or other coutermeasures?

[Iranon]

OTOH, I feel missile fighters are already somehow encouraged to defeat PD with number of salvos rather than sheer volume, so they may not be marginalised as badly as you fear.

OTOH, if this becomes a necessity we may see a considerable reduction of viable types... especially if we further discount the gamey ones.

*

Removing the discrepancy between ship and missile speed is a dangerous increase of design freedom without major changes to the underlying system. Launching platforms able to keep up with their missiles can render most conventional point defence meaningless, beam ships able to keep up with enemy missiles can shoot down an arbitrary number. There are probably other things I haven't thought of.
Already powerful but constrained niche designs , these will require less extreme tech requirements/design concessions if natural speeds of ships and missiles converge.