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 - boggo2300

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 50
Announcements / Re: Out of Town
« on: October 03, 2017, 03:31:11 PM »

I believe that's a sword not a hammer...

Aurora Suggestions / Re: Semi-Official 7.x Suggestion Thread
« on: October 02, 2017, 03:54:04 PM »
You are right, I forgot a step (switching from long guns to short guns), but razee frigates were generally the ships equipped with carronades. Mostly because normal frigates were a little fragile for the throw weight a carronade battery could offer, so they needed to be more sturdily built in comparison. Razees were perfect for that because all the other bits were already in place and all that was needed was removing the superfluous top gun deck.

It also meant you had a use for captured ships of the battle you couldn't maintain on that level. Well, for more than spare parts anyway.

No carronades were actually very widely used, most ships of the line carried a deck of them as well as long guns, and most frigates used them as their primary guns with Long guns in a secondary role for some range,  carronades giving you more bang for the weight so to speak.

H.M.S. Indefatigable (sticking with Hornblower) though a Razee (though so many British Frigates were Razees rather than Frigate built it could be considered the norm) had;
twenty-six 24-pounder guns on her gundeck, and mounted eight 12-pounder guns on her quarterdeck and a further four on her forecastle, as well as four 42-pounder carronades on her quarterdeck and two on her forecastle.

Incidentally because of this,  Indefatigable was much more dangerous at close range AFTER she was Razee'd than before as a 64 gun third rate!

C# Aurora / Re: Replacing PDCs
« on: September 24, 2017, 04:37:35 PM »
Thanks for all the comments and suggestions. I am going away for a week on holiday so I won't be posting (or working on Aurora). I'll start work on ground units when I get back.


Aurora Chat / Re: Bigger = Better?
« on: September 24, 2017, 04:33:05 PM »
to the original question;

at least not in my opinion

Biggest (military) ship I've ever made was a 55,000 ton carrier.

usually I have
Sloop/Corvette           <1,000 ton
Frigate/Destroyer       1,000-2,500 ton
Cruisers                     2,500-10,000 ton
Battleships                 9,000-40,000 ton
Carriers                    10,000-55,000 ton

with the vast majority of classes being at the low end of the range.  My favourite game had no ship larger than 10,000 tons  though it was a quite odd ball game with 3 fledgling moon colonies in orbit around the same gas giant trying to er "unify" and everyone was dead within 10 years in game time

The Academy / Re: RamDisk
« on: September 19, 2017, 04:28:18 PM »
next year maybe

C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« on: August 27, 2017, 04:39:53 PM »
I really hope you're going to allow us to er disallow titans,  last thing I'm gonna want is my NPR running around with giant robots

Aurora Bugs / Re: Official v7.10 Bugs Reporting Thread
« on: August 01, 2017, 04:42:55 PM »
So it's a Heisenbug.

I'm uncertain what you mean Erik!

C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« on: July 18, 2017, 04:29:25 PM »
Aurora is too detailed to do real time, you just could not give the game justice to get everything done in a real time fashion. Also next thing if it was real time then we see the dumbing down or automation of the game. Because of the fact you cannot control everything.

HOWEVER is there is to be any realtime, my recommendation is only for the 5 sec tick option, which instead of the current select the number of tick to happen it just is 5 sec on and 5 sec off button, this would work better in this version due to speed improvements and would make battles a little more easier. I never know how many ticks to do and the tick off button is not very responsive when you have more then you wanted ticks and need to turn it off.

And more importantly RTS games are usually about as strategic as a game of hockey

Aurora Chat / Re: What's going on in your empire/planet/battlefield?
« on: July 13, 2017, 05:21:57 PM »
The Battleships day was over even before the first world war,  Jutland was the final hurrah, and that basically had to be engineered to occur, after the age of sail, and with decreased reliance on port visits fleet encounters became something much harder to succeed at, because the enemies fleet didn't necessarily have to be in such a predictable place,  and without fleet actions battleships were just a huge resource sink, the extended detection and attack range was what brought on the rise of the carrier.

In Aurora terms, because travel between systems occurs at fixed locations your fleet movements have once again become predictable which again gives an opportunity for battlewagons to become useful.

Thanks for your post, because I'd never really put any thought into what and why and now I have I'm percolating an idea for a new doctrine for Aurora involving Direct fire vessels for warp assault and defence and carriers for in system control

The Academy / Re: Commanders
« on: July 13, 2017, 05:12:23 PM »
were commanders

I'd want to keep track of them as well,  damned hairy brutes!!

sorry, I read that and the image just wouldn't get out of my head

Aurora Chat / Re: What's going on in your empire/planet/battlefield?
« on: July 12, 2017, 04:54:42 PM »
Indeed. Although american ships generally run on the heavier side. And several british ones also. Including some of their battlecruisers

WW2 carriers, varies between 7800 for Escort carriers, to 30800 for the Essex class.

Sounds about right i havent really researched carriers as much.

Actually if you exclude the South American Battleships (which were almost all Dreadnoughts or Pre-Dreadnoughts (and dammit that's the correct spelling, it refers to a specific ship and that was it's name!!!!!) the average displacement of a Battleship was closer to 30000 tons.  The only Battlecruisers still in service by WW2 of greater than 30000tons were, HMS Renown and HMS Repulse at 32800tons and HMS Hood, displacing 47500 tons or thereabouts, and larger than all British Battleships! all the others were in the mid 30000 tons range (being the three Courageous class).  Battlecruisers were a first world war thing though and all of the remaining ones were quite old by 1939 (as were most Battleships that weren't German or Japanese I suppose).  HMS Vanguard was the only British battleship to exceed 40000 tons by the way, and that wasn't even completed until 1944

Aurora Chat / Re: What's going on in your empire/planet/battlefield?
« on: July 11, 2017, 04:45:07 PM »
WW2 destroyers were between 1000 and 2500 tons displacement actually.

WW2 cruisers were between 2000 and 17200 tons displacement (those extremes are outliers the majority were around 10000)

WW2 battleships, between 14000 and 74170 (Yamato) with the average just over 22000, Iowas were 45000

WW2 carriers, varies between 7800 for Escort carriers, to 30800 for the Essex class.

C# Aurora / Re: @Megatraveller Galactic (our) Map
« on: July 04, 2017, 04:47:08 PM »
Space isn't 2d

Travellers mapping was always a kludge for simplicity, even ignoring the z access a system could be over 3 light-years out of position, Traveller had many good things about it (though Megatraveller=worst Traveller if you ask me, no I'm wrong, Mark Millers Traveller (Traveller 4) actually was) but mapping was definitely not one of them.

The Academy / Re: What are luxury liners good for?
« on: June 20, 2017, 04:20:31 PM »
same as "War, HUH, Yeah"

Absolutely nothing!

say it again!

C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« on: June 14, 2017, 04:33:48 PM »
English beer doesn't count Steve, it's more like custard than the nectar of life ;)

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 50