Author Topic: C# Aurora Changes Discussion  (Read 441992 times)

0 Members and 6 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Scandinavian

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • S
  • Posts: 158
  • Thanked: 55 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #210 on: October 18, 2016, 02:20:30 PM »
Sure it does. Ultralight materials means you can build bigger dual-role vessels before it becomes impractical, but it doesn't abolish the square-cube scaling geometry.
 

Offline bean

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • b
  • Posts: 916
  • Thanked: 56 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #211 on: October 18, 2016, 02:24:00 PM »
I just noticed a problem with the technobabble.  How do PDC hangars work?  It might be best to close them off for consistency.

Similar to how you certainly can build an oil tanker that you can beach (and get back into the water, unharmed). Nothing in the laws of physics prohibits it. But nobody does, because there is no use case for that.
You say that, but...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Misoa_%28F117%29
(OK, it wasn't a tanker at the time, but I couldn't resist.)

That just doesn't work with current game technobabble of the ultra-dense TN materials.
Yes and no.  There would be some design penalty, but it would be minor enough that I'd expect them to just take it.

Sure it does. Ultralight materials means you can build bigger dual-role vessels before it becomes impractical, but it doesn't abolish the square-cube scaling geometry.
Square-cube would hardly stop you flying small ships to the ground at relatively minimal penalty.  Unless the technobabble stopped you, that is.  Don't get me wrong, you're entirely correct about real-life examples, but analogies often break down near TN systems.
This is Excel-in-Space, not Wing Commander - Rastaman
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Star Marshal
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 11649
  • Thanked: 20350 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #212 on: October 18, 2016, 02:58:06 PM »
Good point re PDCs.

One option is to remove PDCs entirely, although that causes other issues with planetary bombardment vs ground forces. On the gripping hand, a counter to that is to make ground forces harder to destroy with bombardment (dispersal, hard to detect or well dug-in).

Second option is just to remove hangars from PDCs.
 

Offline Scandinavian

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • S
  • Posts: 158
  • Thanked: 55 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #213 on: October 18, 2016, 03:54:43 PM »
Square-cube would hardly stop you flying small ships to the ground at relatively minimal penalty.

I don't see a problem with having a "landing module," similar to "cargo handling" modules, but conferring a "landing ability." You'd then need to have a Landing Ability score above [technology factor] x [vessel mass]^1.5 x [planetary gravity] / [PDC hangar modifier]

This would enable smaller vessels to land with relatively minimal penalty, but would make a real trade-off worth considering when you get into capital ships or commercial freighter designs: Does it only need to go hub-to-hub, or does it have to be able to set down on every barren rock (say, to set down the construction crew to build the base)?

Not sure how hard it would be to code, or whether the use cases justify it, but it would seem to be a more plausible restriction than "no atmosphere-capable TN vessels ever."
 
The following users thanked this post: palu

Offline Zincat

  • Captain
  • **********
  • Z
  • Posts: 566
  • Thanked: 111 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #214 on: October 18, 2016, 03:55:13 PM »
Good point re PDCs.

One option is to remove PDCs entirely, although that causes other issues with planetary bombardment vs ground forces. On the gripping hand, a counter to that is to make ground forces harder to destroy with bombardment (dispersal, hard to detect or well dug-in).

Second option is just to remove hangars from PDCs.

I would just remove hangars from PDC. And missile launchers, and beams. Let me explain why.

If we go with the technobabble you wrote in the last page, which by the way I really like as a pseudo-science explanation, then there is no point in having a PDC hangar, because no ships nor fighters can be based on the planet. Even fighters have a TN engine,  travel at TN speed and as such are TN ships through and through. So they have to be based on ORBITAL bases. They cannot handle the atmosphere.

Same for missiles, which have a TN engine and likewise travel at TN speed. So, they too should be based on orbital bases and such. And same with beams (which btw are already mostly just worth it outside the atmosphere)

I think this model has a very high potential, and better differentiates between ground combat and space combat. Leaving the pseudo science aside, I think it's a very good model that could make the game more balanced and interesting, and less exploitable as well.

Basically, with this, PDC are for ground combat, orbital bombardment defense, and some cheap gauss PD maybe.
Anything else, that is fighters, missiles, beam batteries and serious beam or AMM PD installations have to be in space, in appropriately dimensioned starbases.
« Last Edit: October 18, 2016, 03:56:49 PM by Zincat »
 

Offline bean

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • b
  • Posts: 916
  • Thanked: 56 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #215 on: October 18, 2016, 04:33:42 PM »
Not sure how hard it would be to code, or whether the use cases justify it, but it would seem to be a more plausible restriction than "no atmosphere-capable TN vessels ever."
The problem with that is that it breaks the shipbuilding model rather badly.  Various people are going to ask, quite reasonably, why they can't build ships with landing modules on planets with their factories instead of having to use shipyards.  There are ways to deal with that (something something trans-newtonian alignment) but it's more consistent to just get rid of the problem entirely by banning all TN ships from all planets.

I would just remove hangars from PDC. And missile launchers, and beams. Let me explain why.
Unless you mean 'lasers' when you say 'beams', that literally only leaves ground troop barracks by my math.

Quote
If we go with the technobabble you wrote in the last page, which by the way I really like as a pseudo-science explanation, then there is no point in having a PDC hangar, because no ships nor fighters can be based on the planet. Even fighters have a TN engine,  travel at TN speed and as such are TN ships through and through. So they have to be based on ORBITAL bases. They cannot handle the atmosphere.
That's what I pointed out, although it's a matter of gravity, not atmosphere.  Otherwise, you'd just park the fighters on Luna.

Quote
Same for missiles, which have a TN engine and likewise travel at TN speed. So, they too should be based on orbital bases and such.
Maybe.  But maybe the missile is smaller and less affected by turbulence.  (Unless we ban missiles from firing into planets, too, we have to allow this.)  Or maybe we fit the missiles with a conventional booster to throw it clear of the atmosphere. 
Quote
And same with beams (which btw are already mostly just worth it outside the atmosphere)
This matches my interpretation of beam weapon physics (they have to propagate superliminally to have any chance of hitting), but that's not canon.  Also, mesons.

I will say that space station hangars should probably work more like PDC hangars than normal hangars, in that maintenance needs to be cheap.
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 #216 on: October 18, 2016, 04:50:16 PM »
One option is to remove PDCs entirely, although that causes other issues with planetary bombardment vs ground forces.
My issue with this is that I like the idea of planetary bunkers or military bases.
Second option is just to remove hangars from PDCs.
I like this one better. Alternatively you could make it so you can only land fighter sized designs in planetary hangars.

Honestly, PDCs need a bit of work.
1) Hangar; Changes to hangar mechanics (either removing them or restricting what can land).

2) Shields; While the large bonuses to armor (in the form of several free layers) is great, PDCs start lagging behind ships in defence because of a lack of shields. I don't see any reason (unless technobabble)why they can't equip them.

3) Weapons; While others (Zincat) are saying just to remove weapons from PDCs, I think they need a bit of expansion. While Lasers are useless in atmosphere, I don't really see why Railguns, Gauss Cannons, or Particle Beams are locked through the same rule set as they all are kinetic weapons. And the only real way they would be viable is if you could turret them. Missiles are a part of this to as even though missiles have TN engines, they could be magnetically launched out of the atmosphere/gravity well. A small change to PDC launchers is that are a bit larger (while keeping the rof buff) to represent the extra bulk to launch them out, and make it so PDCs cant equip regular launchers to ballence it out. I assuming that the change to refuel/loading rates will also include ordinance, fixing the "unlimited" magazines when over a planet body, making a reason for PDCs to have magazines.

4) Maintenance; Remove the intended deployment time part of designing a PDC. It simplifies them a bit, and gives a reason to use them over a long deployment time ship. Possibly also make it so they require 3/4 to 1/2 the needed crew, as it would be easier to maintain/man a base than a ship. Also, have them cost more wealth (based on size/tonnage) to maintain.

5) Refiting/Decomitioning; This is the biggest drawback to PDCs currently. There is no way to change a built design to give it updated systems, or a way to scrap it to replace it with something else. While I agree that you should be able to change things that represent the general layout (barracks, engineering space, magazines), You should be able to change out external things such as sensors or weapons easily enough or update systems like fire control without a major issue.
« Last Edit: October 18, 2016, 04:52:38 PM by 83athom »
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.
 
The following users thanked this post: Black

Offline alex_brunius

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1240
  • Thanked: 153 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #217 on: October 18, 2016, 05:18:04 PM »
Yeah, What if you can only have max 500 ton fighters in PDC hangars? ( unless on a really low gravity body ).

It would be really cool to see an atmospheric flight module for fighters allowing them to fight/fly inside an atmosphere. Not sure how complex it would be but it could work similar to stealth/jumpdrives as a fraction of tonnage depending on tech, and they would not attack ground forces directly but support them making their normal attack ticks greatly stronger instead if you got air superiority.


 

Offline Black

  • Gold Supporter
  • Rear Admiral
  • *****
  • B
  • Posts: 868
  • Thanked: 218 times
  • Gold Supporter Gold Supporter : Support the forums with a Gold subscription
    2022 Supporter 2022 Supporter : Donate for 2022
    2023 Supporter 2023 Supporter : Donate for 2023
    2024 Supporter 2024 Supporter : Donate for 2024
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #218 on: October 18, 2016, 05:32:47 PM »
It would prefer solution that would keep the ability of PDCs to mount weapons and hangars. Would something like what alex_brunius be possible? I like to build various asteroid bases and forts and they are quite common in various sci-fi worlds.
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Star Marshal
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 11649
  • Thanked: 20350 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #219 on: October 18, 2016, 05:57:13 PM »
Yeah, What if you can only have max 500 ton fighters in PDC hangars? ( unless on a really low gravity body ).

It would be really cool to see an atmospheric flight module for fighters allowing them to fight/fly inside an atmosphere. Not sure how complex it would be but it could work similar to stealth/jumpdrives as a fraction of tonnage depending on tech, and they would not attack ground forces directly but support them making their normal attack ticks greatly stronger instead if you got air superiority.

Or maybe we have fighters that have 'orbital manoeuvring' instead of TN engines. So you have TN space-based fighters and a separate class of fighters that can operate in orbital space or close to the planet (essentially similar to an advanced version of modern day fighters). That fits with the 'cargo shuttles' concept of no TN engines close to planets, adds a new use for carriers, adds close air support for ground combat and even adds dogfights in planetary orbit. There is even now a reason for anti-air units or flak defences. You could also have these fighters based on PDCs. I think WH40k has a distinction between space fighters and atmospheric fighters (although in this case it is gravity well vs non-gravity well)

In fact, if we assume that TN missile engines can't handle gravity wells too, you could use these fighters to deliver ordnance to the surface. Then we start looking at potential beam weapons usage for orbital fire support too :)

« Last Edit: October 18, 2016, 05:58:46 PM by Steve Walmsley »
 

Offline Zincat

  • Captain
  • **********
  • Z
  • Posts: 566
  • Thanked: 111 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #220 on: October 18, 2016, 08:22:48 PM »
Or maybe we have fighters that have 'orbital manoeuvring' instead of TN engines. So you have TN space-based fighters and a separate class of fighters that can operate in orbital space or close to the planet (essentially similar to an advanced version of modern day fighters). That fits with the 'cargo shuttles' concept of no TN engines close to planets, adds a new use for carriers, adds close air support for ground combat and even adds dogfights in planetary orbit. There is even now a reason for anti-air units or flak defences. You could also have these fighters based on PDCs. I think WH40k has a distinction between space fighters and atmospheric fighters (although in this case it is gravity well vs non-gravity well)

In fact, if we assume that TN missile engines can't handle gravity wells too, you could use these fighters to deliver ordnance to the surface. Then we start looking at potential beam weapons usage for orbital fire support too :)

This is even better. I like this possible solution very much.

It would both solve the problem of PDCs, and increase the tactical and logistical considerations of a planetary assault.

To take a planet, first you have to deal with the fleets and orbital platforms around it. Then you have to consider whether to overwhelm the planetary defenses with massive amount of troops, or to bring in support, in the form of specific ships and carriers with crafts/weapons that can affect PDCs, defenses and ground troops.

As it is right now, if you bring a large enough fleet around a planet you can just deal with anything and everything you can find on the surface. If you go through with this idea instead, a large TN fleet might blockade the planet, yes, but it cannot provide consistent ground support, nor obliterate the PDCs from orbit. This actually makes the existance of "fortress planets" feasible, planets very difficult to capture regardless of the orbital defenses.

I'm salivating at the thought of designing planetary-assault specific carriers, attack crafts and weapons systems. Bomb carrying strike crafts. Extremely agile dogfight fighters. Radar support crafts (similar to modern day AWACS).  Think of all the RP possibilities :)


Same for planetary defense, if you can't or don't want to use orbital platforms or fleets, you can elect to use large amount of ground defenses, PDCs, orbital fighters. You cannot prevent the enemy from blockading you, but maybe you can gain enough time to bring in your fleets, or even avoid capture alltogether if you stack enough defenses. This would add some very interesting defense options.
« Last Edit: October 18, 2016, 08:32:13 PM by Zincat »
 

Offline Ayeshteni

  • Petty Officer
  • **
  • A
  • Posts: 23
  • Thanked: 2 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #221 on: October 18, 2016, 09:09:52 PM »
Quote from: Zincat link=topic=8497. msg98112#msg98112 date=1476840168
This is even better.  I like this possible solution very much. 

It would both solve the problem of PDCs, and increase the tactical and logistical considerations of a planetary assault.

To take a planet, first you have to deal with the fleets and orbital platforms around it.  Then you have to consider whether to overwhelm the planetary defenses with massive amount of troops, or to bring in support, in the form of specific ships and carriers with crafts/weapons that can affect PDCs, defenses and ground troops.

As it is right now, if you bring a large enough fleet around a planet you can just deal with anything and everything you can find on the surface.  If you go through with this idea instead, a large TN fleet might blockade the planet, yes, but it cannot provide consistent ground support, nor obliterate the PDCs from orbit.  This actually makes the existance of "fortress planets" feasible, planets very difficult to capture regardless of the orbital defenses. 

I'm salivating at the thought of designing planetary-assault specific carriers, attack crafts and weapons systems.  Bomb carrying strike crafts.  Extremely agile dogfight fighters.  Radar support crafts (similar to modern day AWACS).   Think of all the RP possibilities :)


Same for planetary defense, if you can't or don't want to use orbital platforms or fleets, you can elect to use large amount of ground defenses, PDCs, orbital fighters.  You cannot prevent the enemy from blockading you, but maybe you can gain enough time to bring in your fleets, or even avoid capture alltogether if you stack enough defenses.  This would add some very interesting defense options.

Salivating already.  Very excited at these proposals, but could the NPR's handle it?

Aye.
 

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 #222 on: October 19, 2016, 01:13:27 AM »
Sounds great.
" 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 alex_brunius

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1240
  • Thanked: 153 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #223 on: October 19, 2016, 02:54:44 AM »
Sounds awesome indeed! Another idea that might mesh well is to have your fighter factories produce these generic shuttles too, but instead of being treated as units they are providing the planet with "orbital lift capacity" or something like that. This capacity then is used as a constraint on total shipbuilding and everything else you want to bring up into the orbital logistics from surface. The shuttle capacity of all ships in orbit would automaticaly be included and added to the capacity.

That would give fighter factories something useful to do when you don't need them, which I found is quite often.

Probably want a new tab in Economy with a summary of all the capacity of the populations orbital station as well as things like shuttles/ lift capacity and storages in orbit.
 

Offline Tree

  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • ******
  • Posts: 143
  • Thanked: 27 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #224 on: October 19, 2016, 03:52:58 AM »
If we go the way that nothing powered and TN works in a gravity well, why do my ground units need TN materials to be built? Why do my buildings?
How come TN DSTS and mass drivers work? Surely these are definitely halfway into the liquid spacetime universe too (while the other buildings just might not be), and yet in a gravity well, meaning they shouldn't function?
And if fighters are separated, will TN fighters then be produced in orbital shipyards too? That's after all where TN ships are built, since they can't go down a gravity well at all.
But then we also have the problem of NPRs starting OOBs, they often have carriers and BB/BC much more massive than their shipyards (sometimes even bigger than all their naval shipyards put together). How did they come to be if they couldn't build them on the ground and send them up?

You should keep everything as is. Atmospheric fighters are more fit of being a ground unit with special rules than proper ships, I think. (I assume it'd be possible, since marines and combat engineers are fighting GU with special rules already.)
« Last Edit: October 19, 2016, 03:54:33 AM by Tree »
 
The following users thanked this post: palu