Author Topic: Taking out engines  (Read 848 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Rich.h

  • Captain
  • **********
  • Posts: 432
  • Thanked: 19 times
    • View Profile
Taking out engines
« on: November 15, 2016, 08:11:43 AM »
I know that we have HPM's for sensors but it just occurred to me that engine damage seems to just be a random internal hit. Is this actually the case or do folks have any tactics to specifically target engines of ships?
 

Offline 83athom

  • Big Ship Commander
  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1190
  • Thanked: 79 times
    • View Profile
Re: Taking out engines
« Reply #1 on: November 15, 2016, 08:17:10 AM »
Engines are usually one of the first internal structures hit by damage due to their size. If you look at the DAC/Rank/Info tab, you can see the order that things are most likely to get hit in. While damage is "random", it is adjusted by the size of the components and how many of them there are.
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 TCD

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • Posts: 150
  • Thanked: 5 times
    • View Profile
Re: Taking out engines
« Reply #2 on: November 15, 2016, 08:42:55 AM »
It would be nice to have a "target X" command, perhaps with a firing speed penalty though? Engines should be a pretty obvious target, as should turrets. Wouldn't it be cool if we could send in fighters to target a ships pd turrets in preparation for a missile strike!
 

Offline alex_brunius

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • Posts: 795
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: Taking out engines
« Reply #3 on: November 15, 2016, 10:39:23 AM »
It would be nice to have a "target X" command, perhaps with a firing speed penalty though? Engines should be a pretty obvious target, as should turrets. Wouldn't it be cool if we could send in fighters to target a ships pd turrets in preparation for a missile strike!

Wouldn't a hitchance penalty be more appropriate?

It could scale based off how big % of the ship that the actual target is ( so an engine that's 30% of the target would be much easier to hit then a small sensor that's just 3% of it's size ).
 

Offline 83athom

  • Big Ship Commander
  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1190
  • Thanked: 79 times
    • View Profile
Re: Taking out engines
« Reply #4 on: November 15, 2016, 10:50:38 AM »
I don't think that would be appropriate as even though you may miss the specific module that you're aiming at, you still are likely to hit the target otherwise.
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 TCD

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • Posts: 150
  • Thanked: 5 times
    • View Profile
Re: Taking out engines
« Reply #5 on: November 15, 2016, 11:01:10 AM »
I don't think that would be appropriate as even though you may miss the specific module that you're aiming at, you still are likely to hit the target otherwise.
Yes, that was my thinking. If I'm aiming for a small turret then my chance of hitting something on the ship should be pretty much the same. What it should do is cost time though, perhaps a 5s aimed shot firing delay?

I guess the success chance could also scale with to hit chance, so that at long ranges it is very hard to target a specific component, but if hit chance is 100% it is pretty easy to target something specifically. This would also give a further boost to faster ships/faster turrets/faster missiles* improving to hit chance.

*I suppose missiles should be able to target components also, although that could further skew the game in their favour if they can selectively take out missile defence/sensors etc?
 

Offline 83athom

  • Big Ship Commander
  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1190
  • Thanked: 79 times
    • View Profile
Re: Taking out engines
« Reply #6 on: November 15, 2016, 11:07:15 AM »
*I suppose missiles should be able to target components also, although that could further skew the game in their favour if they can selectively take out missile defence/sensors etc?
I would prefer it if you would have to add the specific sensor types on the missiles for that. Adding thermal sensors make the missiles target engines and other heat sources. EM sensors make them target enemy active sensors and shield systems. Active sensor equipped missiles prioritize blisters on the surface of ships (like weapons, sensors, etc). But that is if Steve makes it so you could target specific modules (which overall I don't think is a good idea).
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 TCD

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • Posts: 150
  • Thanked: 5 times
    • View Profile
Re: Taking out engines
« Reply #7 on: November 15, 2016, 11:11:59 AM »
I would prefer it if you would have to add the specific sensor types on the missiles for that. Adding thermal sensors make the missiles target engines and other heat sources. EM sensors make them target enemy active sensors and shield systems. Active sensor equipped missiles prioritize blisters on the surface of ships (like weapons, sensors, etc). But that is if Steve makes it so you could target specific modules (which overall I don't think is a good idea).
That would be a nice solution. Why don't you like specific module targeting? Balance issues?
 

Offline 83athom

  • Big Ship Commander
  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1190
  • Thanked: 79 times
    • View Profile
Re: Taking out engines
« Reply #8 on: November 15, 2016, 11:13:21 AM »
That would be a nice solution. Why don't you like specific module targeting? Balance issues?
That, and how would you target specific things you may not know exist?
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 TCD

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • Posts: 150
  • Thanked: 5 times
    • View Profile
Re: Taking out engines
« Reply #9 on: November 15, 2016, 11:54:23 AM »
That, and how would you target specific things you may not know exist?
Fair enough, I was thinking mainly of engines and turrets, which should both be visible targets, but agree that the balance side is tricky. But anything that makes boarding a better option seems like a something worth discussing.
 

Offline alex_brunius

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • Posts: 795
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: Taking out engines
« Reply #10 on: November 16, 2016, 03:23:21 AM »
I don't think that would be appropriate as even though you may miss the specific module that you're aiming at, you still are likely to hit the target otherwise.

No, your not as likely to hit at all if you aim for an external component at the edge of the hull (like engines or sensors), as if you had aimed for the CoM/Center of Area.

If we assume a random distribution around the target you are about 50% to 25% as likely to hit the target at all when aiming for a component at the edge of the hull ( depending on target shape ). Aiming for extruding things like a long antenna could be even worse where it's a very narrow target and a miss means missing the ship almost guaranteed.


Some examples of how it could work.

You have 50% hit chance with normal fire and opt to aim for engine that's 30% of the enemy size, this changes your chance to hit to be:

50%(base)*30%(size of target)*2(aim factor) = 30% chance to hit the engines instead of the normal 15%, but it's capped to 25% since chance to hit target at all is cut in half.

Same target but you aim for sensors that's 3% of the enemy size:

50%(base)*3%(size of target)*2(aim factor) = 3% chance to hit sensors instead of normal 1.5%, and you have 25-3=22% chance to hit another random part of the ship even if you fail to hit the small sensors.



I do like the idea of heat seeking missiles that go for the engines or power-plants however. Could make us see alot more boarding actions :)
« Last Edit: November 16, 2016, 03:26:51 AM by alex_brunius »
 

Offline smoelf

  • Chief Petty Officer
  • ***
  • Posts: 33
    • View Profile
Re: Taking out engines
« Reply #11 on: November 16, 2016, 03:42:52 AM »
That, and how would you target specific things you may not know exist?

Maybe it could be dependent on previously acquired knowledge of the class? Due to thermal signature and observed speed it would be easy enough to determine that it has engines that can be targeted, and the same goes for active sensors. Perhaps you would get preliminary knowledge of the ship class when it fires its weapons. If it fires size 4 missiles, you'd know it has size 4 missile launchers, which can then be targeted, and so on.

Finally it might provide a new importance to espionage. I haven't played Aurora all that much, so I don't know how important espionage is in late game, but it would definitely be more useful, if it allowed you to gain knowledge of a ship you haven't encountered before, so that you'd have the knowledge required to target key components on it when you finally meet it.
 

Offline SwordLord10

  • Professional Noob
  • Drgong - Russian
  • Warrant Officer, Class 2
  • *
  • Posts: 65
  • Thanked: 1 times
  • How many missiles? ALL THE MISSILES!
    • View Profile
Re: Taking out engines
« Reply #12 on: November 16, 2016, 09:40:42 AM »
I would prefer it if you would have to add the specific sensor types on the missiles for that. Adding thermal sensors make the missiles target engines and other heat sources. EM sensors make them target enemy active sensors and shield systems. Active sensor equipped missiles prioritize blisters on the surface of ships (like weapons, sensors, etc). But that is if Steve makes it so you could target specific modules (which overall I don't think is a good idea).
That would also add capacity for decoys, like "noisemakers" used on submarines today
Aurora II should only use jump gates and fleet jumpships
http://www.popsci.com/article/technology/will-wormhole-travel-ever-be-possible
 

Offline TCD

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • Posts: 150
  • Thanked: 5 times
    • View Profile
Re: Taking out engines
« Reply #13 on: November 16, 2016, 10:22:26 AM »
I've been thinking more about this and also see a huge logical problem with module/component targeting and generalised armor. If my seeker missiles/targeted shots can pick out say the engines, why do they also splash damage across the whole length of a ships armor belt? And localised armor seems like it would get messy very fast, unless certain modules stick out above the general armor and are therefore vulnerable.

I think Steve was planning to do that for turrets, but I don't think it was ever implemented?
 

Offline ryuga81

  • Chief Petty Officer
  • ***
  • Posts: 35
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Re: Taking out engines
« Reply #14 on: November 28, 2016, 06:07:20 AM »
Well, a simple implementation to this would be to have a second roll take place if your first hit didn't land on the targeted component type (i.e. if you are targeting engines, and you don't hit any with your first roll, you get a second chance). There would be several component types, but nothing too specific (fit as many things on as few groups possibile):

  • Engines
  • Weapons (all weapon systems, including CIWS, magazines etc.)
  • Personnel (crew quarters, troop transports and drop pods)
  • Logistics (fuel tanks, cargo spaces, hangars...)
  • Sensors (active/passive sensors, fire controls, grav/geo survey sensors)

Targeting ability should be a special "flag" on a fire control, make it cost more (perhaps require a research as well) and make it significantly larger, so you wouldn't simply use targeting on every ship you have, only on bigger or dedicated ones (typically you would want it on meson armed ships).
 

 

Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51