Author Topic: C# Aurora Changes Discussion  (Read 441730 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Tree

  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • ******
  • Posts: 143
  • Thanked: 27 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #255 on: October 20, 2016, 12:57:28 AM »
I'm... honestly kind of opposed to this change. I think it's overcomplicating things for no real gain; I mean, just look at the last few pages for an example of how it complicates things.

I think things work fine as we are. We don't need a strict separation between what's in space and what's not.
Yes.
 
The following users thanked this post: Happerry, iceball3

Offline Elouda

  • Gold Supporter
  • Lieutenant
  • *****
  • Posts: 194
  • Thanked: 21 times
  • Gold Supporter Gold Supporter : Support the forums with a Gold subscription
    2020 Supporter 2020 Supporter : Donate for 2020
    2021 Supporter 2021 Supporter : Donate for 2021
    2022 Supporter 2022 Supporter : Donate for 2022
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #256 on: October 20, 2016, 01:16:51 AM »
Agreed with the above. I wouldn't mind some additional detail here, but the whole ground/space engagement rules are taking things too far, and I think would detract from overall enjoyment.
 
The following users thanked this post: Happerry, iceball3, palu

Offline consiefe

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • c
  • Posts: 159
  • Thanked: 17 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #257 on: October 20, 2016, 02:43:22 AM »
I love when a game mimics real science as much as possible but i really enjoy present depth of this game as it stands now and really against the idea of this level of complexity on how many rules the player should follow to play the game. 

I love Aurora because it has minimal limitations on the way that the player wants to play.  This is limit overload.  I agree with the posts above.
 
The following users thanked this post: iceball3

Offline IanD

  • Registered
  • Commodore
  • **********
  • Posts: 725
  • Thanked: 20 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #258 on: October 20, 2016, 03:18:25 AM »
You are trying to model a tactical and strategic game. I agree with the above posts, its being over thought. Apply the KISS  principal. If you think you need too many workers in the shipyards look at historical data (see below for UK). Reduce the numbers in the yards, increase the "support" numbers eg the population required to feed, house entertain etc.

                                              June 1940   June 1942
New naval shipbuilding               62,400        75,900
Naval repairs and conversions   41,500         38,400
HM Dockyards                             26,400        34,900
Merchant ship repair                  44,000         58,500
Total                                          203,100       244,300

The separation of TN and "conventional" space IMO goes to far. While Aurora is Steves game when I play it I want to impose my own rational on it! Be it Star Trek, Star Wars or (usually) something else. For instance in RL visible light lasers work in atmospheres but X-Ray lasers would be severly attenuated. In Aurora they both work equally well in atmospheres  below 1 Atm. and niether can shoot out of the atmpsphere. Does this really matter to the enjoyment of the game - no!

Ian
« Last Edit: October 20, 2016, 04:44:44 AM by IanD »
IanD
 
The following users thanked this post: iceball3, palu

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Star Marshal
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 11649
  • Thanked: 20349 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #259 on: October 20, 2016, 03:47:21 AM »
OK, I've read back though and we are getting quite complex :)  I still like some of the proposed changes though so lets go back to a simpler version.

This all began because I was answering a question on replenishment at the same time as other orders and then suggested moving all logistics into orbit. The subsequent discussion went from that point because we needed a reason to keep ships in space. That reason then sparked a series of different consequences. So how about this instead:

1) We have technobabble that states ships can't land on planets, so logistics is generally in orbit (fuelling, cargo transfer, maintenance modules, etc). This will make non-planet based logistics much easier and will makes orbital space and the early game more interesting

2) if a planet exists, the logistics facilities will draw on its resources, otherwise they will use their own.

3) If orbital facilities don't exist, ships can mount 'shuttle bays' that allow slower interaction with the planet.

4) If ships can't land on planets then, under the current technobabble, there are lots of potential consequences around fighters and missiles not being able to move from surface to orbit (and vice versa), with subsequent impact on PDC hangars, ground-based weapons, etc.. Instead, we could change the currently proposed technobabble by saying that turbulence in the fluidic Aether near gravity wells is proportional to the mass of the object moving through the Aether. Once that mass exceeds 500 tons, there is a serious chance of damage to a vessel.

Now we actually have a reason for the previously arbitrary limit of 500 tons on fighters and all the complexities around fighters and missiles go away. It becomes very similar to the current game, except that we have logistics in orbit. How does that sound?

 
The following users thanked this post: Happerry, palu

Offline consiefe

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • c
  • Posts: 159
  • Thanked: 17 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #260 on: October 20, 2016, 04:34:34 AM »
It's much better now.  But I would love some ships to have ability to land on actual planets for RP reasons.  I really don't like limitations.  You can add an adaptation time to the gravitation force which the ship stands still during that time.   
 

Offline Tree

  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • ******
  • Posts: 143
  • Thanked: 27 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #261 on: October 20, 2016, 07:16:23 AM »
If you completely ignore what happens between orbital facilities and ground ones and leave it to imagination, it's way better, yes.
So will these orbital facilities be designed like ships and orbitals currently? Will current buildings be renamed to "Orbital [Building]" while new and cheaper ones would be on the ground?

But really, I'm confused as to why we need a reason for ships to stay in space in the first place. Maybe you could still allow ships to land, refuel and replenish supplies on the ground, but it'd all take more time than in orbital stations? Kind of like a spaceport speeds up loading/unloading. I remember reading you wanted refueling to actually take some time.

Since we're into writing technobabble now, imho you should make interesting/rewarding mechanics first, and write technobabble that fits later, it's not like we're constrained by real science and engineering.
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Star Marshal
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 11649
  • Thanked: 20349 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #262 on: October 20, 2016, 07:29:01 AM »
If you completely ignore what happens between orbital facilities and ground ones and leave it to imagination, it's way better, yes.
So will these orbital facilities be designed like ships and orbitals currently? Will current buildings be renamed to "Orbital [Building]" while new and cheaper ones would be on the ground?

But really, I'm confused as to why we need a reason for ships to stay in space in the first place. Maybe you could still allow ships to land, refuel and replenish supplies on the ground, but it'd all take more time than in orbital stations? Kind of like a spaceport speeds up loading/unloading. I remember reading you wanted refueling to actually take some time.

Since we're into writing technobabble now, imho you should make interesting/rewarding mechanics first, and write technobabble that fits later, it's not like we're constrained by real science and engineering.

The reason for ships to stay in space is so populations on planets and 'populations' in deep space can function in the same way with a single set of rules. The technobabble is to intended support that concept.

BTW, there are no 'landing' mechanics right now. Ships interact with the surface but the means is undefined (beyond entering a PDC hangar).
« Last Edit: October 20, 2016, 07:33:07 AM by Steve Walmsley »
 

Offline OJsDad

  • Petty Officer
  • **
  • O
  • Posts: 22
  • Thanked: 1 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #263 on: October 20, 2016, 08:12:41 AM »
OK, I've read back though and we are getting quite complex :)  I still like some of the proposed changes though so lets go back to a simpler version.

This all began because I was answering a question on replenishment at the same time as other orders and then suggested moving all logistics into orbit. The subsequent discussion went from that point because we needed a reason to keep ships in space. That reason then sparked a series of different consequences. So how about this instead:

1) We have technobabble that states ships can't land on planets, so logistics is generally in orbit (fuelling, cargo transfer, maintenance modules, etc). This will make non-planet based logistics much easier and will makes orbital space and the early game more interesting

I've really enjoyed reading the back and forth on this subject.  Lots of good discussion.

I'm not sure you need any technobabble to explain why ships don't land.  Just look at shipping today.  Ships do everything at ports.  Cargo going to or originating further inland are transported to the ports via other means.  Having your logistics in space allows for cheaper and easier handling of ship upkeep and transfer of freight too and from the surface. 

You could also throw in safety issues with having large ships possible crashing into large metro areas.  You could even say that sorium is a toxic substance that if released in the atmosphere, would have a very high casualty rate.  Thus keeping those facilities and the ships that use very large quantities of them out of the atmosphere.  Yes, shuttles would have the fuel, but at very small amounts and being smaller craft, they have more affordable safety measures to prevent the fuel from escaping.
 

Offline bean

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • b
  • Posts: 916
  • Thanked: 55 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #264 on: October 20, 2016, 10:01:48 AM »
OK, I've read back though and we are getting quite complex :)  I still like some of the proposed changes though so lets go back to a simpler version.

This all began because I was answering a question on replenishment at the same time as other orders and then suggested moving all logistics into orbit. The subsequent discussion went from that point because we needed a reason to keep ships in space. That reason then sparked a series of different consequences. So how about this instead:

1) We have technobabble that states ships can't land on planets, so logistics is generally in orbit (fuelling, cargo transfer, maintenance modules, etc). This will make non-planet based logistics much easier and will makes orbital space and the early game more interesting

2) if a planet exists, the logistics facilities will draw on its resources, otherwise they will use their own.

3) If orbital facilities don't exist, ships can mount 'shuttle bays' that allow slower interaction with the planet.

4) If ships can't land on planets then, under the current technobabble, there are lots of potential consequences around fighters and missiles not being able to move from surface to orbit (and vice versa), with subsequent impact on PDC hangars, ground-based weapons, etc.. Instead, we could change the currently proposed technobabble by saying that turbulence in the fluidic Aether near gravity wells is proportional to the mass of the object moving through the Aether. Once that mass exceeds 500 tons, there is a serious chance of damage to a vessel.

Now we actually have a reason for the previously arbitrary limit of 500 tons on fighters and all the complexities around fighters and missiles go away. It becomes very similar to the current game, except that we have logistics in orbit. How does that sound?
It sounds good overall, except for one nit.  Currently, you can put vessels larger than 500 tons in PDC hangars.  I've built PDC bases for my strategic strike command, based around FACs, and toyed with PDC 'dry docks' for ship repair.
This is Excel-in-Space, not Wing Commander - Rastaman
 

Offline Inglonias

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • I
  • Posts: 170
  • Thanked: 69 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #265 on: October 20, 2016, 10:12:07 AM »
Quote from: Steve Walmsley link=topic=8497. msg98164#msg98164 date=1476953241
OK, I've read back though and we are getting quite complex :)  I still like some of the proposed changes though so lets go back to a simpler version.

This all began because I was answering a question on replenishment at the same time as other orders and then suggested moving all logistics into orbit.  The subsequent discussion went from that point because we needed a reason to keep ships in space.  That reason then sparked a series of different consequences.  So how about this instead:

1) We have technobabble that states ships can't land on planets, so logistics is generally in orbit (fuelling, cargo transfer, maintenance modules, etc).  This will make non-planet based logistics much easier and will makes orbital space and the early game more interesting

2) if a planet exists, the logistics facilities will draw on its resources, otherwise they will use their own.

3) If orbital facilities don't exist, ships can mount 'shuttle bays' that allow slower interaction with the planet.

4) If ships can't land on planets then, under the current technobabble, there are lots of potential consequences around fighters and missiles not being able to move from surface to orbit (and vice versa), with subsequent impact on PDC hangars, ground-based weapons, etc. .  Instead, we could change the currently proposed technobabble by saying that turbulence in the fluidic Aether near gravity wells is proportional to the mass of the object moving through the Aether.  Once that mass exceeds 500 tons, there is a serious chance of damage to a vessel.

Now we actually have a reason for the previously arbitrary limit of 500 tons on fighters and all the complexities around fighters and missiles go away.  It becomes very similar to the current game, except that we have logistics in orbit.  How does that sound?

I like it.  How will these orbital facilities be represented? As normal facilities are now, or do we have a "space station" that represents however many maintenance facilities or whatever we have in orbit?
 

Offline TCD

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • T
  • Posts: 229
  • Thanked: 16 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #266 on: October 20, 2016, 10:37:52 AM »
It sounds good overall, except for one nit.  Currently, you can put vessels larger than 500 tons in PDC hangars.  I've built PDC bases for my strategic strike command, based around FACs, and toyed with PDC 'dry docks' for ship repair.
Yes... but isn't that really a bit of an exploit? I mean, I can see the possibility of large PDC hangars on asteroids say, or small moons. That seems kind of realistic. But if we're talking about parking a 20kT warship designed mainly for zero-G in an underground hangar in Arizona...

Just because we can do something in the current version doesn't mean we should be able to do it.
 

Offline TCD

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • T
  • Posts: 229
  • Thanked: 16 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #267 on: October 20, 2016, 10:44:20 AM »
OK, I've read back though and we are getting quite complex :)  I still like some of the proposed changes though so lets go back to a simpler version.

This all began because I was answering a question on replenishment at the same time as other orders and then suggested moving all logistics into orbit. The subsequent discussion went from that point because we needed a reason to keep ships in space. That reason then sparked a series of different consequences. So how about this instead:

1) We have technobabble that states ships can't land on planets, so logistics is generally in orbit (fuelling, cargo transfer, maintenance modules, etc). This will make non-planet based logistics much easier and will makes orbital space and the early game more interesting

2) if a planet exists, the logistics facilities will draw on its resources, otherwise they will use their own.

3) If orbital facilities don't exist, ships can mount 'shuttle bays' that allow slower interaction with the planet.

4) If ships can't land on planets then, under the current technobabble, there are lots of potential consequences around fighters and missiles not being able to move from surface to orbit (and vice versa), with subsequent impact on PDC hangars, ground-based weapons, etc.. Instead, we could change the currently proposed technobabble by saying that turbulence in the fluidic Aether near gravity wells is proportional to the mass of the object moving through the Aether. Once that mass exceeds 500 tons, there is a serious chance of damage to a vessel.

Now we actually have a reason for the previously arbitrary limit of 500 tons on fighters and all the complexities around fighters and missiles go away. It becomes very similar to the current game, except that we have logistics in orbit. How does that sound?
That seems like a very sensible compromise. And great to have a justification for the 500 ton limit! Really excited about the thought of capturing and re-capturing huge orbital stations. Especially if you can make NPR default to boarding as well instead of just blowing them up.
 

Offline bitbucket

  • Chief Petty Officer
  • ***
  • b
  • Posts: 44
  • Thanked: 7 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #268 on: October 20, 2016, 10:51:58 AM »
Well, why don't we just factor in the gravity of the body in question when considering what we're trying to do? It's kind of ridiculous to treat a super-earth with 3g the same way as a 10-km asteroid with 0.00005g. Why not just impose a upper gravity limit on where you can use PDC hangars and restrict them to small bodes with microgravity that doesn't disrupt the aether enough to disable engines? You can still have your giant PDC hangers, you're just going to have to build them into asteroids instead of on earthlike planets.

It sounds good overall, except for one nit.  Currently, you can put vessels larger than 500 tons in PDC hangars.  I've built PDC bases for my strategic strike command, based around FACs, and toyed with PDC 'dry docks' for ship repair.

This, for example—limit current PDC hangars to fighter class ships (ship-based hangers in space remain unlimited) and have a "drydock" class module that only works on, say, a body with less than 0.01g which can allow any size of ship you can fit into them.
« Last Edit: October 20, 2016, 11:00:37 AM by bitbucket »
 
The following users thanked this post: hiphop38, palu

Offline alex_brunius

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1240
  • Thanked: 153 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #269 on: October 20, 2016, 10:58:43 AM »
Well, why don't we just factor in the gravity of the body in question when considering what we're trying to do? It's kind of ridiculous to treat a super-earth with 3g the same way as a 10-km asteroid with 0.00005g. Why not just impose a upper gravity limit on where you can use PDC hangars and restrict them to small bodes with microgravity that doesn't disrupt the aether enough to disable engines? You can still have your giant PDC hangers, you're just going to have to build them into asteroids instead of on earthlike planets.

This would be interesting to do for shuttles/ lift capacity too, so with ×2 gravity you need twice as many shuttles  ( they each manage half the cargo to orbit. )
 
The following users thanked this post: palu