Author Topic: C# Aurora Changes Discussion  (Read 441736 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Star Marshal
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 11649
  • Thanked: 20349 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #225 on: October 19, 2016, 04:49:11 AM »
Salivating already.  Very excited at these proposals, but could the NPR's handle it?

That is a good question :)

I think so. I will be able to add more decision-making to NPRs because the code will execute faster now. They will definitely need ground assault capabilities though.
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Star Marshal
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 11649
  • Thanked: 20349 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #226 on: October 19, 2016, 04:58:26 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.)

I was considering the TN fighters overnight. Maybe orbital shipyards can start at 250 tons, not 1000 tons, so TN fighters are built in orbit. Fighter factories would build planetary fighters and perhaps (as suggested in an earlier post) ground-to-orbit capacity.

Mass drivers may become a ship component (as that helps with deep space stations). In fact, you could build some form of mineral collection facility near a jump point to make logistics easier. Any minerals beyond the cargo capacity would be lost.

I think DSTS would be OK, as would factories. It is TN-powered flight in a gravity well that would be restricted.

NPR starting OOB is a separate issue. I'll address that though.
 
The following users thanked this post: palu

Offline IanD

  • Registered
  • Commodore
  • **********
  • Posts: 725
  • Thanked: 20 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #227 on: October 19, 2016, 05:11:38 AM »
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?

That is easily solvable if you allow a slow construction in orbit without the use of shipyards, say 1/5 rate of shipyards with a limit of only one project in progress at any one time. Shipyards may not be essential for ship construction, just much more efficient.
IanD
 

Offline chrislocke2000

  • Captain
  • **********
  • c
  • Posts: 544
  • Thanked: 39 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #228 on: October 19, 2016, 05:22:45 AM »
Really like the idea of having different fighters for close combat support around planets. Potentially could see these as smaller versions of the existing fighters and be designed with 5ton base size components rather than 50 ton. Same could then be done for corresponding ground units and anti fighter defences.

I like the idea of phases to a planetary assault with the need options to win air superiority pre landing troops etc.

On some of the issues around how the suggested technobabble causes issues with the logic of other areas of the game and existing use of TN materials in other units and ground facilities potentially a solution would be that not all TN materials have an issue with gravity wells. For example perhaps the technobabble is actually that only refined Sorium becomes hugely unstable in gravity and hence can't be brought into a gravity well, given this is the fuel for all TN ships it stops them landing etc but does not stop a Nutronium tank or auto mine being built and used on a planet. Also you can build anything on the planet but then need to ship up and down as already discussed?
 

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 #229 on: October 19, 2016, 06:26:11 AM »
For example perhaps the technobabble is actually that only refined Sorium becomes hugely unstable in gravity and hence can't be brought into a gravity well, given this is the fuel for all TN ships it stops them landing etc but does not stop a Nutronium tank or auto mine being built and used on a planet. Also you can build anything on the planet but then need to ship up and down as already discussed?

Problem with sorium being unstable in gravity well is that you would not be able to refine and store it on the planet.

I was thinking about PDC missile launchers and hangars some more, because I would really prefer for them to stay in the game. What about increasing size of PDC launchers and hangars and say that they are quipped with small mass driver that catapults missile or fighter from pdc. Of course that would not solve the problem with the fighters actually landing on PDC.

And about restrictions of TN-powered flight in gravity wells. If we accept this then we shouldn't be able to use missiles to attack planets, because missiles would be lost in the moment they would get too deep into gravity well.
« Last Edit: October 19, 2016, 06:31:08 AM by Black »
 

Offline Tree

  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • ******
  • Posts: 143
  • Thanked: 27 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #230 on: October 19, 2016, 06:51:45 AM »
I was thinking about PDC missile launchers and hangars some more, because I would really prefer for them to stay in the game. What about increasing size of PDC launchers and hangars and say that they are quipped with small mass driver that catapults missile or fighter from pdc. Of course that would not solve the problem with the fighters actually landing on PDC.
Mass drivers are capable of catching huge mineral packets, surely if the fighter shuts its TN engines off, it could land on a PDC hangar the same way.
 

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 #231 on: October 19, 2016, 06:58:34 AM »
Mass drivers are capable of catching huge mineral packets, surely if the fighter shuts its TN engines off, it could land on a PDC hangar the same way.

Well for some reason I didn't realize this. This should do.
 

Offline DIT_grue

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • D
  • Posts: 197
  • Thanked: 33 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #232 on: October 19, 2016, 07:08:17 AM »
The TN ships are designed for travel which primarily takes place in the other dimension (which we need a name for) that is based on liquid physics, with only a small portion of the ship existing in our own dimension.

I've been using Aether. It seems to me to be an obvious recycling candidate for a near-future human scientist looking around for a name for an omni-present (or roughly so) pseudo-liquid facet of reality.


As to the general discussion, the issue I'd like to draw attention to is beachheads for planetary invasions. As I understand it, in the present system using a ship with troop bays but plenty of cargo handling does not mechanically disadvantage your army compared to drop pods - which are therefore almost confined to the niche of boarding operations. At minimum, the new mechanics being considered could justify pods allowing you to land your ground forces without having to establish air superiority first. But I'd like it if someone could come up with more tradeoffs, so there is a broader spread of workable options.
 

Offline chrislocke2000

  • Captain
  • **********
  • c
  • Posts: 544
  • Thanked: 39 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #233 on: October 19, 2016, 07:19:23 AM »
Problem with sorium being unstable in gravity well is that you would not be able to refine and store it on the planet.



Yes, I would think that could actually be pretty interesting side effect, needing either larger orbital fuel silos (big hit and run target) or make use of low gravity planets or asteroids to bunker the fuel.

On missiles being used against planet targets I agree that reverse problem should also hold true but that could be solved by a simple two stage missile that delivers the warhead whilst the TN engine and fuel is left to blow up in the upper atmosphere.
 

Offline 83athom

  • Big Ship Commander
  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1261
  • Thanked: 86 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #234 on: October 19, 2016, 07:29:06 AM »
As I understand it, in the present system using a ship with troop bays but plenty of cargo handling does not mechanically disadvantage your army compared to drop pods - which are therefore almost confined to the niche of boarding operations. At minimum, the new mechanics being considered could justify pods allowing you to land your ground forces without having to establish air superiority first. But I'd like it if someone could come up with more tradeoffs, so there is a broader spread of workable options.
For one thing, CDMs are a lot smaller than the transport bays (50/10 compared to 10/2[20/4]). Several things happen because of this. A) Designs using these are smaller and faster, as to capture ships or run through defenses. B) You can fit a lot more troops in for a similar size. The second thing is that you can move troops from a transport bay, to drop pods while in flight, doing the same thing as having a lot of extra cargo handling for a lot less of the mass. Thirdly, the cryo drop pods negate the "drawbacks" the normal drop pods have anyways, while still being smaller than the original bays.

And on the topic of why TN engines don't work in gravity, the technobabble seems to be that the reaction in the engine itself is unstable with a large gravity well,, not the fuel source. This is evident because 1) it is found in the ground and often on bodies with very high gravity. 2) Because everything has gravity, and if it is unstable with gravity then it could never be stable.
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 Bughunter

  • Bug Moderators
  • Rear Admiral
  • ***
  • Posts: 929
  • Thanked: 132 times
  • Discord Username: Bughunter
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #235 on: October 19, 2016, 08:08:58 AM »
You could decide the drive field instability in gravity only occurs at a certain size of drive field, which just happens to be anything larger than a missile.
 

Offline Zincat

  • Captain
  • **********
  • Z
  • Posts: 566
  • Thanked: 111 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #236 on: October 19, 2016, 08:50:01 AM »
You could decide the drive field instability in gravity only occurs at a certain size of drive field, which just happens to be anything larger than a missile.

I'm sorry, but this makes no sense. You are of course  free to like how things are now, with missiles from PDCs, but if we do use technobabble at least it has to be consistent :)

I for one really like this proposal of separating "orbital" fighters, weapons and such from TN fleets/starbases/weapons. It adds in my opinion a very interesting strategic/tactical layer and it is more consistent.

I will also say that it makes more sense regarding missiles to attack planets, when considering a pseudo-science point of view. With max tech, you can design a TN missile that travels at half the speed of light. Supposing a planet with an atmosphere, an item such as this should be obliterated the moment it comes into contact with said atmosphere.

And if we instead postulate that this is not the case because the Tn missile is not really traveling in our "dimension" or something similar, there is still the problem of the impact. A 2 ton missile, for example, impacting the ground at half the speed of light. The kinetic energy released is immense. A warhead would even be unnecessary ...

Yes I know, I'm seeing things my way. But hey, I like this idea and I'm allowed to have a preference  ;D



EDIT: In fact, now that I think about it, even just launching such a TN missile from a PDC makes no sense. Even if the TN missile would mostly be "in the other dimension" or something similar, the remaining mass in this dimension should either make it blow up as it tries to leave the atmosphere, or at least have horribly disrupting and damaging consequences on the surrounding cities/landscape.

An item streaking through the atmosphere at half the speed of light? Well, I don't want to think of the possible effects. Hope you don't have fragile things nearby. You know, cities, mountains, oceans, that kind of fragile things.

The more I think about this, the more I like the idea of restricting Tn engines of any kind to operating in space and space alone.
« Last Edit: October 19, 2016, 09:15:00 AM by Zincat »
 

Offline chrislocke2000

  • Captain
  • **********
  • c
  • Posts: 544
  • Thanked: 39 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #237 on: October 19, 2016, 09:09:31 AM »
And on the topic of why TN engines don't work in gravity, the technobabble seems to be that the reaction in the engine itself is unstable with a large gravity well,, not the fuel source. This is evident because 1) it is found in the ground and often on bodies with very high gravity. 2) Because everything has gravity, and if it is unstable with gravity then it could never be stable.

Agree that was why I was trying to make the distinction between raw Sorium and refined Sorium for fuel however your suggested technobabble on reaction in the engine seems to be a simpler basis on which to change the wider game elements.
 

Offline bean

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • b
  • Posts: 916
  • Thanked: 55 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #238 on: October 19, 2016, 09:50:59 AM »
I'm entirely in favor of having specialized close-planetary forces, although I will point out that it could significantly complicate logistics if you have to stand all deep-space forces off from the planet.  My proposal would be to instead basically have two domains, deep-space and near-space. Deep-space forces are what we have now, and are greatly slowed when in gravity wells.  Not totally stopped, but reduced to a crawl, something like 1% of normal speed, and that's only when they're outside of range of TN tidal forces, so they still can't land.  Near-space forces are maybe 10% as fast as normal, but are not slowed by gravity wells.  So your deep-space ships can still dock right on top of your planet, but can't fight there, and it's possible to transfer your 'planetary fighters' between planets, just very slow.
As for building fighters on planets, that's why I suggested a limit on orbital lift of 500 tons.  It provides a nice explanation for the fighter cutoff, and keeps the system more or less as-is.
This is Excel-in-Space, not Wing Commander - Rastaman
 

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 #239 on: October 19, 2016, 09:54:48 AM »
EDIT: In fact, now that I think about it, even just launching such a TN missile from a PDC makes no sense. Even if the TN missile would mostly be "in the other dimension" or something similar, the remaining mass in this dimension should either make it blow up as it tries to leave the atmosphere, or at least have horribly disrupting and damaging consequences on the surrounding cities/landscape.

An item streaking through the atmosphere at half the speed of light? Well, I don't want to think of the possible effects. Hope you don't have fragile things nearby. You know, cities, mountains, oceans, that kind of fragile things.

The more I think about this, the more I like the idea of restricting Tn engines of any kind to operating in space and space alone.

Imho this is opening another can of worms. If the atmosphere is the problem, then for example Moon base can launch TN fighters and missiles without any problem.