Author Topic: C# Aurora Changes Discussion  (Read 441809 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline bean

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • b
  • Posts: 916
  • Thanked: 55 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #420 on: November 30, 2016, 09:48:58 AM »
No it doesn't.

There is a reason you don't use this http://www.nmeda.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/gas-pump-regulations-for-people-with-disabilities.jpg to transfer fuel from one of these http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/images/tanker-lng-image101.jpg to this https://i.ytimg.com/vi/CXYSu1Rw394/maxresdefault.jpg
Yes.  There are many, many reasons for that.  First, we don't run on gasoline.  (I'm a volunteer tour guide on the Iowa).  We use DFM, which is a cousin of diesel, although we originally used bunker oil.  The middle picture is a natural gas carrier, which has no unrep capabilities.  The only ships powered by natural gas are LNG carriers, because they can use boil-off for fuel.
However, all of that is because you deliberately selected three incompatible systems.  Since we're starting from scratch, we can design the system for compatibility, and I see no particular reason why we wouldn't.  I could sort of accept a system which only works on fighters, but I don't like it.  At very least, it should be able to use an extender hose to refuel bigger ships when stationary.

The USS Iowa actually have a fuel Endurance of between 42 and 6.5 days, so it could be kept topped up if constantly connected to a dedicated tanker with between 2 to 14 hoses depending on speed ( and assuming there was a tanker able to keep up with it! ).
At the lower speeds, lots of tankers could.  At high speed, the tanker would have to be a dinosaur-burning carrier.

As a matter of fact, having a warship in need of refueling, and no tanker available (i.e. because it was destroyed on the way or whatever), and absolutely no other way to refuel it is very bad. I actually believe all ships should be able to transfer fuel (albeit at a very slow rate) in case of emergency.
I'd agree with this.

Quote
I mean, if a current navy carrier was stranded somewhere without fuel, for whatever reason, and there was only its escort (destroyers, whatever) available and no dedicated tankers in sight, i'm pretty sure they would find a way to refuel the carrier despite not having dedicated tanker equipment (even if it meant manually ferrying barrels around with boats).
They have hoses for that contingency, IIRC.  That said, current carriers are all nuclear-powered, and I can't see how one could end up stranded without fuel.
This is Excel-in-Space, not Wing Commander - Rastaman
 

Offline 83athom

  • Big Ship Commander
  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1261
  • Thanked: 86 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #421 on: November 30, 2016, 09:53:57 AM »
As a matter of fact, having a warship in need of refueling, and no tanker available (i.e. because it was destroyed on the way or whatever), and absolutely no other way to refuel it is very bad. I actually believe all ships should be able to transfer fuel (albeit at a very slow rate) in case of emergency.
Thinking of the mechanics of such a system, presents a major weakpoint in warship design. If a warship could only take in fuel, it could be designed in a way for fuel to only flow in one direction (in), making the overall design safer from a lucky hit. However, one designed for fuel to flow in both directions is more complicated, more expensive, and creates a weakpoint.
I mean, if a current navy carrier was stranded somewhere without fuel, for whatever reason, and there was only its escort (destroyers, whatever) available and no dedicated tankers in sight, i'm pretty sure they would find a way to refuel the carrier despite not having dedicated tanker equipment (even if it meant manually ferrying barrels around with boats).
Sure, lets give a floating city that runs off of nuclear reactors, with enough internal fuel to run 20 years, some fossil fuels to top it off.
Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set fire to him and he's warm for the rest of his life.
 

Offline bean

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • b
  • Posts: 916
  • Thanked: 55 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #422 on: November 30, 2016, 10:02:44 AM »
Thinking of the mechanics of such a system, presents a major weakpoint in warship design. If a warship could only take in fuel, it could be designed in a way for fuel to only flow in one direction (in), making the overall design safer from a lucky hit. However, one designed for fuel to flow in both directions is more complicated, more expensive, and creates a weakpoint.
That's not remotely how the systems are designed.  You occasionally need to take fuel out in a way that does not involve burning it.  For instance, if you need to do maintenance in a fuel tank.  Or if you're going into dry dock, where they would rather not have the ship full of flammable things.  Warship fuel systems are a lot more complicated than the one in your car.

Sure, lets give a floating city that runs off of nuclear reactors, with enough internal fuel to run 20 years, some fossil fuels to top it off.
Let's assume that the carrier in question is an LHD.  As I said, I believe they carry equipment for doing this kind of thing.
This is Excel-in-Space, not Wing Commander - Rastaman
 

Offline 83athom

  • Big Ship Commander
  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1261
  • Thanked: 86 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #423 on: November 30, 2016, 10:20:19 AM »
That's not remotely how the systems are designed.  You occasionally need to take fuel out in a way that does not involve burning it.  For instance, if you need to do maintenance in a fuel tank.  Or if you're going into dry dock, where they would rather not have the ship full of flammable things.  Warship fuel systems are a lot more complicated than the one in your car.
Correct. However I was talking about something even more complicated that than current day warship fuel systems. First, we have to determine what state of matter refined Sorium is. Is it a gas, fluid, super-fluid, solid, plasma, or an other state we don't know about? Secondly, we have to think about the properties of TN material, such as it doesn't follow the laws of physics. Thirdly, we have to know whether or not refined Sorium can react with anything outside of the forced reactions to generate power/thrust.

Let's assume that the carrier in question is an LHD.  As I said, I believe they carry equipment for doing this kind of thing.
I don't equate Fleet-carriers/Supercarriers with Amphibious Assault Ships as a general basis. Yes, both are carriers. Yes they would have systems in place to transfer fuel. But, these are designed for fuel to flow in multiple directions on the basis that this is a carrier that serves as a base for an invasion assault. I know I am oversimplifying it, but I am not an expert of ship building or carrier operations.
Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set fire to him and he's warm for the rest of his life.
 

Offline Zincat

  • Captain
  • **********
  • Z
  • Posts: 566
  • Thanked: 111 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #424 on: November 30, 2016, 10:29:00 AM »
Ok, let us try to separate the two discussions here.

As a GAMER, I can understand how nice it would be to be able to just transfer fuel from any ship to any ship, have fuel transfering systems even on small ships and the like.

But since Aurora tries for pseudo-realism...
1) These ships are far more complex than we can imagine, since they are much more technologically advanced than us. These are not gasoline burning engines. Remember, to the caveman a simple phone would be "Incomprehensible magic". They are surely more complex than nuclear reactors, so I really HAVE to assume you can't just strap some tube between two ships and transfer some gasoline-equivalent fuel.
2) It would be one thing if we were talking of immobile ships in space. But here, we're talking of transfering fuel between two ships half-submerged into another dimension, moving at trans-newtonian speed in some sort of pseudo-dimensional bubble. And you want to connect them and transfer fuel. Once again, I have to suppose that this require some exceptionally sturdy and specialized equipment. And most assuredly, not throwing barrels of fuel from one ship to another at trans-newtonian speed...


That aside, I think the point is rather moot. I will say it again, it seems to me that Steve wants to create an additional, logistical layer for the game. One where you have to deploy tankers and refueling stations across your territory and defend them, for example. If every ship could just transfer fuel, then all of that would be pointless. And Steve would have not coded this change.
 

Offline bean

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • b
  • Posts: 916
  • Thanked: 55 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #425 on: November 30, 2016, 12:37:19 PM »
Correct. However I was talking about something even more complicated that than current day warship fuel systems. First, we have to determine what state of matter refined Sorium is. Is it a gas, fluid, super-fluid, solid, plasma, or an other state we don't know about? Secondly, we have to think about the properties of TN material, such as it doesn't follow the laws of physics. Thirdly, we have to know whether or not refined Sorium can react with anything outside of the forced reactions to generate power/thrust.
So?  Steve has specifically said that refined Sorium is volatile, or at least more volatile than current naval fuels.  If that's the case, they will have a way to pump it out so they can do things like work on the ship in the yard.

Quote
I don't equate Fleet-carriers/Supercarriers with Amphibious Assault Ships as a general basis. Yes, both are carriers. Yes they would have systems in place to transfer fuel. But, these are designed for fuel to flow in multiple directions on the basis that this is a carrier that serves as a base for an invasion assault. I know I am oversimplifying it, but I am not an expert of ship building or carrier operations.
You missed his point.  He was talking about destroyers refueling a modern carrier in an emergency.  You objected that modern carriers are nuclear.  I pointed out that this was probably a mistake on his part, and the scenario could be salvaged by assuming that the destroyers were transferring the fuel to an LHD.  The 'they' in my statement (and I take responsibility for this being ambiguous) was all warships, destroyers or LHDs.

Ok, let us try to separate the two discussions here.

As a GAMER, I can understand how nice it would be to be able to just transfer fuel from any ship to any ship, have fuel transfering systems even on small ships and the like.

But since Aurora tries for pseudo-realism...
1) These ships are far more complex than we can imagine, since they are much more technologically advanced than us. These are not gasoline burning engines. Remember, to the caveman a simple phone would be "Incomprehensible magic". They are surely more complex than nuclear reactors, so I really HAVE to assume you can't just strap some tube between two ships and transfer some gasoline-equivalent fuel.
2) It would be one thing if we were talking of immobile ships in space. But here, we're talking of transfering fuel between two ships half-submerged into another dimension, moving at trans-newtonian speed in some sort of pseudo-dimensional bubble. And you want to connect them and transfer fuel. Once again, I have to suppose that this require some exceptionally sturdy and specialized equipment. And most assuredly, not throwing barrels of fuel from one ship to another at trans-newtonian speed...


That aside, I think the point is rather moot. I will say it again, it seems to me that Steve wants to create an additional, logistical layer for the game. One where you have to deploy tankers and refueling stations across your territory and defend them, for example. If every ship could just transfer fuel, then all of that would be pointless. And Steve would have not coded this change.
Nobody's objecting to the theory that UNREP should take specialized equipment, and that the current model is overly simplistic.  ryuga81 was suggesting that we allow stationary ships to very slowly transfer fuel, and I think a case can be made for that, although it's probably not worth it.
This is Excel-in-Space, not Wing Commander - Rastaman
 

Offline boggo2300

  • Registered
  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 895
  • Thanked: 16 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #426 on: November 30, 2016, 02:29:35 PM »
was talking about destroyers refueling a modern carrier in an emergency.  You objected that modern carriers are nuclear.  I pointed out that this was probably a mistake on his part, and the

The US Navy isn't the only navy with Carriers, and if memory serves, only the US, French and Chinese have Nuclear carriers
The boggosity of the universe tends towards maximum.
 

Offline bean

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • b
  • Posts: 916
  • Thanked: 55 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #427 on: November 30, 2016, 09:24:02 PM »
The US Navy isn't the only navy with Carriers, and if memory serves, only the US, French and Chinese have Nuclear carriers
Only the US and French, actually  Liaoning is a dino-burner, and I expect the first batch of successors to be, too.
This is Excel-in-Space, not Wing Commander - Rastaman
 

Offline MarcAFK

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 2005
  • Thanked: 134 times
  • ...it's so simple an idiot could have devised it..
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #428 on: November 30, 2016, 09:42:02 PM »
Ok, let us try to separate the two discussions here.

As a GAMER, I can understand how nice it would be to be able to just transfer fuel from any ship to any ship, have fuel transfering systems even on small ships and the like.

But since Aurora tries for pseudo-realism...
1) These ships are far more complex than we can imagine, since they are much more technologically advanced than us. These are not gasoline burning engines. Remember, to the caveman a simple phone would be "Incomprehensible magic". They are surely more complex than nuclear reactors, so I really HAVE to assume you can't just strap some tube between two ships and transfer some gasoline-equivalent fuel.
2) It would be one thing if we were talking of immobile ships in space. But here, we're talking of transfering fuel between two ships half-submerged into another dimension, moving at trans-newtonian speed in some sort of pseudo-dimensional bubble. And you want to connect them and transfer fuel. Once again, I have to suppose that this require some exceptionally sturdy and specialized equipment. And most assuredly, not throwing barrels of fuel from one ship to another at trans-newtonian speed...


That aside, I think the point is rather moot. I will say it again, it seems to me that Steve wants to create an additional, logistical layer for the game. One where you have to deploy tankers and refueling stations across your territory and defend them, for example. If every ship could just transfer fuel, then all of that would be pointless. And Steve would have not coded this change.
This raises an important point, there is an order of magnitude more complexity with underway refuelling, which steve's dedicated refuelling modules can accomplish and I think rightly so they are limited to certain module sizes, something you can't just cram into every ship.
However when a fleet is at rest, in orbit or at a base should there be limited ability to transfer fuel even when theres no dedicated fuel facilities in the taskgroup or location?
" Why is this godforsaken hellhole worth dying for? "
". . .  We know nothing about them, their language, their history or what they look like.  But we can assume this.  They stand for everything we don't stand for.  Also they told me you guys look like dorks. "
"Stop exploding, you cowards.  "
 

Offline ryuga81

  • Chief Petty Officer
  • ***
  • r
  • Posts: 40
  • Thanked: 3 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #429 on: December 01, 2016, 04:19:29 AM »
Sure, lets give a floating city that runs off of nuclear reactors, with enough internal fuel to run 20 years, some fossil fuels to top it off.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazilian_aircraft_carrier_S%C3%A3o_Paulo_%28A12%29
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_aircraft_carrier_Giuseppe_Garibaldi
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_ship_Juan_Carlos_I
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/INS_Vikramaditya

None of these carriers in active service run off nuclear reactors (that is also the same assumption in Aurora, ships run on fuel, so they are the best comparison here).

ryuga81 was suggesting that we allow stationary ships to very slowly transfer fuel, and I think a case can be made for that, although it's probably not worth it.

Yep, I was suggesting that some basic fuel transfer abilities should always be available, at least with stationary ships, for emergencies (topping up a carrier that way might take weeks, but pumping in just a little fuel to make it to safety, whether it is a jump point or a planet fortress a few bilion km away, should not be a problem)
« Last Edit: December 01, 2016, 04:27:11 AM by ryuga81 »
 

Offline Jorgen_CAB

  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • J
  • Posts: 2822
  • Thanked: 673 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #430 on: December 02, 2016, 08:24:23 AM »
I think the game will just become more interesting with a more restrictive system of transferring fuel, missiles and supplies to and from ships.

It simply give a new layer to the logistical problem we face during a game. I already try to mimic these problem in my game and don't allow ships to freely exchange either fuel, supplies or missiles without special equipment such as cargo handling systems and tractor beams. Makes things more interesting and feels a bit more realistic.

So basically at least one ship involved in a transfer need to have both a tractor beam and two cargo handling systems.

This also means I can't build super small tankers for my fighters and need slightly larger fuel boats to handle them... although I allow fighters to be refueled from a ship with no tractor beam and one cargo handling system.

personally I enjoy restrictions, that is what makes choices matter so much more and you always need to make compromises.
 
The following users thanked this post: TCD

Iranon

  • Guest
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #431 on: December 02, 2016, 10:29:57 AM »
A simple way would be to give ships/colonies a very low base refueling rate if they lack relevant components, then apply decent multiplier to refueling rate when stationary (automatic for colonies for obvious reasons...).
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Star Marshal
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 11649
  • Thanked: 20349 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #432 on: December 02, 2016, 11:49:44 AM »
Lively debate :)

As some posters have stated, the intent of these changes is to add some additional decision-making to power projection. You will need to plan ahead in terms of the logistics involved in keeping fleets supplied and refuelled when operating away from major bases. This is very similar to the 19th century Royal Navy establishing coaling stations around the world. The Royal Navy didn't dump coal on the nearest available rock. Instead, it created the necessary infrastructure at strategic locations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuelling_station

As the 20th Century progressed, underway replenishment was developed, particularly by the US Navy, and this become more effective over time. This development is now reflected in Aurora

The concept of in-flight refuelling is a little different. Aurora 'fighters' are not F-18s operating from the Nimitz, that can be refuelled by A-6 tankers. As they operate in the same medium as the carrier, they are more like small, missile-armed patrol boats. The existing ability to refuel these small craft in flight was more a side-effect of the abstract refuelling system than an intention to replicate tankers the size of tactical aircraft.

I don't want to create a small (50 ton?) refuelling system as it would decrease the need for the type of planning and decision-making I am trying to create. However, even with a 500 ton refuelling system it would be possible to create relatively small tankers (1500 - 2000 tons perhaps) that could refuel fighters. More KC-135 than A-6. These small tankers wouldn't be useful for larger ships due to their capacity but they would serve to refuel long-range strikes while remaining hard to detect.

 

Offline bean

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • b
  • Posts: 916
  • Thanked: 55 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #433 on: December 02, 2016, 05:04:18 PM »
I don't want to create a small (50 ton?) refuelling system as it would decrease the need for the type of planning and decision-making I am trying to create. However, even with a 500 ton refuelling system it would be possible to create relatively small tankers (1500 - 2000 tons perhaps) that could refuel fighters. More KC-135 than A-6. These small tankers wouldn't be useful for larger ships due to their capacity but they would serve to refuel long-range strikes while remaining hard to detect.
I understand the logic, but I'm not sure that it would decrease the need for planning as much as you think.  A 50t refueling system would be very slow, to the point that it would only be viable as an emergency system or to fuel fighters.  And I have a hard time seeing why you couldn't build a smaller refueling system.  Minimum gauge isn't going to come into play at this scale. 
How would a 250t system work?  It's a bit big for a fighter, but you could get a useful one on an FAC, which has a much better utility/price ratio than something 1.5-2x the size.  Make it 1/3rd the pump rate to avoid abuse.  I've generally found 2000t to be one of those unpleasant gaps where you try to avoid building ships.
This is Excel-in-Space, not Wing Commander - Rastaman
 

Offline Erik L

  • Administrator
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • *****
  • Posts: 5654
  • Thanked: 366 times
  • Forum Admin
  • Discord Username: icehawke
  • 2020 Supporter 2020 Supporter : Donate for 2020
    2022 Supporter 2022 Supporter : Donate for 2022
    Gold Supporter Gold Supporter : Support the forums with a Gold subscription
    2021 Supporter 2021 Supporter : Donate for 2021
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #434 on: December 02, 2016, 09:42:51 PM »
Quote
System Naming

In C# Aurora, you can optionally assign one of the new Naming Themes to a system. Any future exploration beyond that point will use the selected naming theme. This allows you to have different naming themes for different warp chains.

The order of name selection for new systems will therefore be:
1) Actual System Name (for known stars)
2) Next name for Naming Theme associated with the system from which the exploring ship originated (if a theme is set)
3) Next name for Racial System Theme
4) "System #" + System Number

You can still rename systems directly and will be able to use text, or select any name from any name theme.

Does this mean I can set a rule that all systems with no planets be named NX-<system number>?