Author Topic: C# Aurora Changes Discussion  (Read 441716 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Zincat

  • Captain
  • **********
  • Z
  • Posts: 566
  • Thanked: 111 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #240 on: October 19, 2016, 10:12:25 AM »
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.

I'm not saying there should be a difference. Since the problem is gravity-based then TN engines would not work on either type of planets, atmosphere or no atmosphere.
I was just pointing out the system we have now would have not worked anyway on a planet with atmosphere  :) You would have ended up with a badly damaged planet just by launching missiles from a PDC.


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.

To be honest, I think making them in space would be more consistent. There would need to be some tinkering on spaceyards, but still more advisable. To bring up a 500 ton ship you need a very much larger one, if you consider the more or less "conventional travel" of "orbital ships" and such.

Fighter factories should be renamed though. Maybe to "orbital ships factories" or something similar.
 

Offline 83athom

  • Big Ship Commander
  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1261
  • Thanked: 86 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #241 on: October 19, 2016, 10:19:47 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.
Think of the launchers as magnetic launch rails to fire the missiles away from the ship/gravity source before the engines ignite.
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 #242 on: October 19, 2016, 10:36:16 AM »
To be honest, I think making them in space would be more consistent. There would need to be some tinkering on spaceyards, but still more advisable. To bring up a 500 ton ship you need a very much larger one, if you consider the more or less "conventional travel" of "orbital ships" and such.

Fighter factories should be renamed though. Maybe to "orbital ships factories" or something similar.
Depends on your tech level.  If we're allowed to exceed the limits of conventional thermal rockets, then I could see a case where a ship with a 500 ton payload would be, oh, 2-300 tons dry.  The big advantage of fighter factories I want to retain is that they don't need to be retooled.
This is Excel-in-Space, not Wing Commander - Rastaman
 

Offline Zincat

  • Captain
  • **********
  • Z
  • Posts: 566
  • Thanked: 111 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #243 on: October 19, 2016, 10:45:26 AM »
Depends on your tech level.  If we're allowed to exceed the limits of conventional thermal rockets, then I could see a case where a ship with a 500 ton payload would be, oh, 2-300 tons dry.  The big advantage of fighter factories I want to retain is that they don't need to be retooled.

Ah that. Well, I suppose Steve could easily solve/ manage that complication. For example, significantly reduce the retool time/cost for very small tonnage or similar. Or maybe even remove it alltogether and just increase the cost of fighters a little bit to account for retooling, instead of having to do it at the shipyard-level.

Think of the launchers as magnetic launch rails to fire the missiles away from the ship/gravity source before the engines ignite.

That could work, but it would also mean that for the first 10-20 seconds or so of flight, those missiles would be extremely slow comparatively speaking. This would need to be modeled  by the game.  Anything in orbit with PD would shred them apart  in that period of time, before their engine ignite. For the weapon systems that exist in the game, calculating the trajectory and hitting a 2km/sec missile  just before it ignites its TN engine is trivial.

For example in Steve most recent game, when there was the surprise attacck in orbit against another nation by (I think) the USA? No maybe it was Germany? Anyway, any PDC-based missile would have been useless with this model, shot down by the fleet PD just before they ignited their engines.

Could be done but really, I think it would be both cleaner, more consistent with the technobabble AND more interesting to just go with "Any serious weapon to be used against TN fleets is based in space as well" if Steve wants to go with this dual approach of TN-flight/Orbital flight.
« Last Edit: October 19, 2016, 10:50:52 AM by Zincat »
 

Offline bean

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • b
  • Posts: 916
  • Thanked: 55 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #244 on: October 19, 2016, 11:03:07 AM »
That could work, but it would also mean that for the first 10-20 seconds or so of flight, those missiles would be extremely slow comparatively speaking. This would need to be modeled  by the game.  Anything in orbit with PD would shred them apart  in that period of time, before their engine ignite. For the weapon systems that exist in the game, calculating the trajectory and hitting a 2km/sec missile  just before it ignites its TN engine is trivial.

For example in Steve most recent game, when there was the surprise attacck in orbit against another nation by (I think) the USA? No maybe it was Germany? Anyway, any PDC-based missile would have been useless with this model, shot down by the fleet PD just before they ignited their engines.

Could be done but really, I think it would be both cleaner, more consistent with the technobabble AND more interesting to just go with "Any serious weapon to be used against TN fleets is based in space as well" if Steve wants to go with this dual approach of TN-flight/Orbital flight.
This is already how ICBMs work, more or less, and while it would render missiles useless against targets in the same orbit, they could still work against targets approaching from deep space, which is, IMO, more important.
This is Excel-in-Space, not Wing Commander - Rastaman
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Star Marshal
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 11649
  • Thanked: 20349 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #245 on: October 19, 2016, 11:26:05 AM »
Could be done but really, I think it would be both cleaner, more consistent with the technobabble AND more interesting to just go with "Any serious weapon to be used against TN fleets is based in space as well" if Steve wants to go with this dual approach of TN-flight/Orbital flight.

Yes, I will have to think carefully about the interface between planetary and space combat. For example, we have the scenario of planetary fighters moving into orbit, firing off TN missiles at approaching ships and then retreating back into the safety of the gravity well (maybe that should be allowed but also maybe not).If we want true distinction between planetary and space combat, perhaps the technobabble is that any weapon that can be used to hit TN ships has to penetrate the 'Aether' (Good suggestion!) and because of the turbulent nature of the Aether within gravity wells, TN weapons cannot be used to fire into or out of the gravity well (even beam weapons).

Perhaps TN missiles are created in orbital factories too because their warheads become unstable in gravity wells. Actually better would be created in ordnance factories as now but 'assembled' in orbit (in effect immediately delivered to a magazine on an orbiting base or space station) - that solves the 'planetary fighters popping out to fire' issue.

There would have to be new types of weapons designed to be used only in 'normal space'. These would not normally be effective against TN ships as they can't penetrate the Aether, just other planetary-based PDCs, fighters, factories, etc..

An option (thinking out loud) for orbital fire support is that you could have these weapons on board a TN ship. However, it would have to emerge from the Aether to use them, making it visible and leaving it vulnerable to planet-based weapons / fighters.

Something on those lines would create a very stark distinction between planetary and space combat. Almost a WH40k type distinction. Winning the battle in space would no longer virtually guarantee winning on the surface.
 
The following users thanked this post: hiphop38

Offline TCD

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • T
  • Posts: 229
  • Thanked: 16 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #246 on: October 19, 2016, 11:38:52 AM »
Depends on your tech level.  If we're allowed to exceed the limits of conventional thermal rockets, then I could see a case where a ship with a 500 ton payload would be, oh, 2-300 tons dry.  The big advantage of fighter factories I want to retain is that they don't need to be retooled.
But why shouldn't fighter factories need to be retooled? They do in real life. In fact if you take the F35 as your example it seems to take far longer to design, build and deliver a new generation of modern fighter jets than a new warship.

And how can we justify the arbitrary cutoffs between fighters/FACs/ships anyway? It seems much more intellectually satisfying to treat all TN craft in the same way for manufacturing purposes. If you want deep-space fighters, why couldn't you build a new ("small") orbital dockyard, add 10 slipways* and build away? If you want variants with different payloads etc then you need to design them to be interchangeable, just as with larger warships.

*I'm assuming that adding an extra slipways for a, say 500T dockyard would be very quick and cheap even with the current mechanics.
 

Offline TCD

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • T
  • Posts: 229
  • Thanked: 16 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #247 on: October 19, 2016, 11:45:31 AM »
Yes, I will have to think carefully about the interface between planetary and space combat. For example, we have the scenario of planetary fighters moving into orbit, firing off TN missiles at approaching ships and then retreating back into the safety of the gravity well (maybe that should be allowed but also maybe not).If we want true distinction between planetary and space combat, perhaps the technobabble is that any weapon that can be used to hit TN ships has to penetrate the 'Aether' (Good suggestion!) and because of the turbulent nature of the Aether within gravity wells, TN weapons cannot be used to fire into or out of the gravity well (even beam weapons).

Perhaps TN missiles are created in orbital factories too because their warheads become unstable in gravity wells. Actually better would be created in ordnance factories as now but 'assembled' in orbit (in effect immediately delivered to a magazine on an orbiting base or space station) - that solves the 'planetary fighters popping out to fire' issue.

There would have to be new types of weapons designed to be used only in 'normal space'. These would not normally be effective against TN ships as they can't penetrate the Aether, just other planetary-based PDCs, fighters, factories, etc..

An option (thinking out loud) for orbital fire support is that you could have these weapons on board a TN ship. However, it would have to emerge from the Aether to use them, making it visible and leaving it vulnerable to planet-based weapons / fighters.

Something on those lines would create a very stark distinction between planetary and space combat. Almost a WH40k type distinction. Winning the battle in space would no longer virtually guarantee winning on the surface.
It sounds to me as if you're suggesting something close to submarine warfare then? We can keep our fleets of TN warships safely "submerged" just off the coast, but our torpedoes are then useless against anything onshore, or we can "surface" to use our deck gun, but at that point become vulnerable to return fire.

I would be a very radical change to the feel of the game.
 

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 #248 on: October 19, 2016, 11:52:46 AM »
It sounds to me as if you're suggesting something close to submarine warfare then? We can keep our fleets of TN warships safely "submerged" just off the coast, but our torpedoes are then useless against anything onshore, or we can "surface" to use our deck gun, but at that point become vulnerable to return fire.

I would be a very radical change to the feel of the game.

Yeah I always saw Aurora as a sandbox game that allows us to recreate various sci-fi worlds or create our own. This would IMO limit that possibility quite significantly, this is also the reason that I don't really like the possibility of removal of PDC launchers and hangars.

I am of course all in for new features that will give us more possibilities for planetary warfare or anything else. But I think that symbiosis with current features is the best way even if we have to sacrifice a bit of technobabble for it.
« Last Edit: October 19, 2016, 12:05:38 PM by Black »
 
The following users thanked this post: Happerry, palu

Offline bean

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • b
  • Posts: 916
  • Thanked: 55 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #249 on: October 19, 2016, 12:09:29 PM »
But why shouldn't fighter factories need to be retooled? They do in real life. In fact if you take the F35 as your example it seems to take far longer to design, build and deliver a new generation of modern fighter jets than a new warship.
Not exactly.  The difference is that fighters tend to be higher-profile than warships, and a bit more tightly integrated.  And the physical tooling is a fairly minor part of that.  The electronics dominate both. 

Quote
And how can we justify the arbitrary cutoffs between fighters/FACs/ships anyway? It seems much more intellectually satisfying to treat all TN craft in the same way for manufacturing purposes. If you want deep-space fighters, why couldn't you build a new ("small") orbital dockyard, add 10 slipways* and build away? If you want variants with different payloads etc then you need to design them to be interchangeable, just as with larger warships. 
A fair point, but I would point out that there's a significant difference between the way the two types of vessels (fighters and warships) are constructed IRL.  If I'm planning to mass-produce small craft, then I'm likely to use the airplane model instead of the ship model.  Larger craft can't be moved like that, and aren't likely to be built in the same numbers anyway.
This does raise the question of why I can't use assembly lines for craft of 600 tons, and I don't have a good answer for that.

There would have to be new types of weapons designed to be used only in 'normal space'. These would not normally be effective against TN ships as they can't penetrate the Aether, just other planetary-based PDCs, fighters, factories, etc..

An option (thinking out loud) for orbital fire support is that you could have these weapons on board a TN ship. However, it would have to emerge from the Aether to use them, making it visible and leaving it vulnerable to planet-based weapons / fighters.
TN ships will have to be able to leave the Aether to work in normal space, unless all of the dock facilities and such are also 'submerged'.  Again, I'd suggest that 'surfacing' should greatly slow the ships, giving advantage to those that are not designed to 'submerge'.

Quote
Something on those lines would create a very stark distinction between planetary and space combat. Almost a WH40k type distinction. Winning the battle in space would no longer virtually guarantee winning on the surface.
I'm sort of against this on aesthetic grounds, but it could make the game interesting in different ways.
This is Excel-in-Space, not Wing Commander - Rastaman
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Star Marshal
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 11649
  • Thanked: 20349 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #250 on: October 19, 2016, 01:25:16 PM »
At the moment I am just considering options - not committing to anything definite.

I really like
a) The concept of splitting planetary and space-based movement due to the distortion in the 'Aether' caused by gravity wells
b) Moving the logistics facilities off world supported by non-TN shuttles.

I am still open on exactly how the interface works between planetary and space. I don't think missiles could be launched from the surface or against it due to the restrictions on engine (although there are complexities around a 'bomb' second stage). That opens up planetary fighters carrying 'bombs' from orbit to the surface, but it also opens up planetary fighters firing TN missiles from orbit (and then hiding again). There has to be some way to manage that element of it. We can't state that planetary fighters are unable to reach orbit, because we need shuttles to reach orbit to support the logistics option. Maybe it isn't that bad, as once ships are in beam range they could engage those fighters if they come out of the gravity well.

There is also the question of how orbital to surface combat is handled. If TN beam weapons function normally in a gravity well then perhaps the current restrictions on beam weapons in atmosphere are removed, or lessened, and the combat becomes between PDCs and orbital warships, with the PDCs benefiting from better armour and perhaps more powerful beam weapons. If that is true, then there needs to be some reason that orbital warships can't simply wipe out ground forces.

The alternative is some form of restriction on TN weapons functioning at all within gravity wells but leads to my previous suggestion.

Anyway, still considering and open to suggestions :)
« Last Edit: October 19, 2016, 01:26:48 PM by Steve Walmsley »
 

Offline alex_brunius

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1240
  • Thanked: 153 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #251 on: October 19, 2016, 01:57:50 PM »
Another conceptual question that needs answering is: Do orbit and planet have completely separated inventories? ( minerals, components, missiles, buildings, Infrastructure ) and if so how is all this extra management handled in a smooth none frustrating way?
 

Offline Zincat

  • Captain
  • **********
  • Z
  • Posts: 566
  • Thanked: 111 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #252 on: October 19, 2016, 04:17:45 PM »
Ok, I'm trying to write my personal, comprehensive suggestion of how it could be. Wall of text incoming and still a work in progress, up to discussion. Obviously in the end Steve chooses, but I hope this can be useful.

First, let's list the subjects we have in play.
- TN ships (They do not strictly follow the conventional rules of time/space and physics)
- Non TN (Orbital) ships (significantly slower. Follow the normal rules of time/space and physics)
- Starbases/shipyards/orbital installations
- Planet and planetary troops/PDC
And the weapons
- Missiles (because of the TN engine)
- Other "beam" weapons (anything that does not have a TN engine, basically). For now I'm grouping them all together.

Now, I think we all agree that TN ships and starbases/shipyards/orbital installations have to be able to shoot at each others at a minimum. Else nothing works. Also, the premise for the change is that TN ships "travel in the Aether" because of their engines. And that the Aether is disturbed (in a lethal way!) by gravity wells. There are a few immediate consequences:
- TN ships can never land on a planet
- TN missiles cannot be launched at a planet, nor they can be directly launched from a planet
- "Orbital" shuttles and small ships deal with most or all of the surface-to-space operations necessary for a spacefaring civilization to work. This is actually quite well represented already by spaceports (although hyronically, not by dessign).

I think some goals and objectives should also be listed. I mean, what do we want to obtain here with these changes?
- A system that is more or less coherent and works in a logical way following technobabble
- A system that is also fun to play. It should give more options for tactics and variety, while not being an obstacle to gameplay.
- A system that is not unbalanced, because this is a game and FUN>>>everything else. If we come up with something where one option trumps everything else, there's no point and it's not fun. If a single ship in orbit can blast away any number of troops and PDCs, there's no point building any of those.

Now come the questions though, who can shoot at who? And with which weapons? If a starbase can shoot at a ship, can a PDC? If not, why not? If a TN ship can shoot at a starbase, can it shoot at a PDC/planet? If not, why not? How do we solve all this without creating new problems? In the current game, in my opinion, this is not done in any consistent way (sorry Steve :) ) A ship can shoot missiles at a planet, but railguns do not work. That does not make much sense to be honest.

So, here comes my proposed technobabble solution. It's not perfect but I think it's quite comprehensive. It has to do with the nature of the Aether (or whatever we want to call it) and Gravity
Since the Aether is basically a different, superfluid dimension in which a ship can move using a TN engine, a ship with an active TN engine is considered to be only partially in the real space. The "other half" of the ship is in the Aether. And large gravity wells are incompatible with the Aether. Strong gravity is, infact, the contrary of the Aether. You could say that anything within a large gravity well is in a "superdense" state of existance (or dimension), the very contrary of the Aether.
Basically you have the Aether (superfluid), normal space (neutral state), and large gravity wells (superdense)

Because of this, these are my proposed rules:
- A ship in the Aether (superfluid) can interact and can be interacted only by other entities NOT in a large gravity well (superdense).
- An installation in a large gravity well(superdense) well can interact and can be interacted only by other entities NOT in the Aether (superfluid).
- Anything in normal space (neutral state) can interact both with large gravity well (superdense) and Aether (superfluid)
- A TN engine can transition a ship from normal space to Aether and vice-versa, but the process takes time in which the ship is immobile and unresponsive (1 minute? time to be decided and discussed). This has nothing to do with speed. A ship can be in the Aerther and completely stopped, 0km/second, but it still "phased out". Only if the TN engine is completely shut down then the ship goes back to normal space.
- An object from a "superdense" gravity well that leaves it, like a shuttle, enters normal space (neutral space) after the same time (1 minute?). The process is basically automatic, but NOT instant.


Now, let us try to see how this pans out in all cases:
- A TN ship can shoot at starbases, orbital structures and "orbital ships" who leave the gravity well of the planet, but NOT at the planet itself because the planet is in a "superdense" state (or dimension). Even a beam from a TN ship is half submerged in the aether, so it cannot interact with a "superdense" state like a planet or a PDC or a troop.
- Likewise a planet-based weapon can shoot at orbital starbases or ships, but not at ships in the Aether, which are in the opposite state of "superfluid" and only partially in normal space.
- An orbital station or ship in normal space (outside the gravity well) can interact and shoot at both planet and TN ships, because it's in a neutral state. Only one "step" away from both "superfluid" and "superdense".
- A TN ship can shut down its engine to enter normal space. If so, it is immobile (no engine) but CAN shoot at a planet. And be shot at from any PDC/orbital ship. Doing so is a risk though because the ship is immobile and unresposive for the time aforementioned, vulnerable to either TN fleets ambushes or planetary defenses.
- Or the TN ship can, after cleaning up the orbital installations, blockade the planet safely from the Aether. It can shoot at anything that arrives or tries to leave, but it cannot shoot or be shot at from the planet defenses.
- An object that leaves the gravity well of the planet (superdense state), like an "Orbital" torpedo fighter, can attack a TN ship but only after the aforementioned "transition" time to "neutral space". It can move (because the process is not artificially induced by a Tn engine), but still very risky and not ideal. Before it can shoot, it has to survive until its state is "neutral".
- TN missiles can be shot from TN ships to orbitals, or from orbitals to TN ships. Conventional missiles (or bombs) can work either from orbitals to planet or from planet to orbitals.
- Other weapons always work (because they do not have TN engines), but since they inherit the state of the ship/installation that uses them (laser "phased in the Aether" or "Phased in the superdense"), "superfluid" cannot shoot to "superdense" and vice versa
- A TN fleet can of course carry around "orbital" fighters and the like, to use specifically against planets. Planetary assault carriers, yo! Also of course one can design specific ships whose objective is to exit Aether and duke it out with planets. Planetary assault cruisers, yo! Of course these super specialized TN ships would suffer gravely or be useless in normal engagements, because of the design differences (a planetary assault cruiser would need a TON of armor or shields, thus likely being extremely slow and having little space for weapons).

I think this solves all the problems, more or less. A TN fleet can exit Aether and shoot at planets, but this is slow and dangerous, and PDCs have the tonnage  advantage too because they don't need a lot of the necessary systems for a ship. Likewise, planetary fighters can exit the gravity well and shoot at TN ships, but they have to survive long enough to do that! A TN fleet cannot just slag a planet from the safety of the Aether, nor can planetary fighters shoot at said TN fleets without taking a great risk. And ground troops are more relevant and can be more varied as well (like Steve said, AA troops for example)

Regarding other issues, here is how I think they would pan out
- All TN ships are assembled in orbit, including TN fighters. You cannot even test a TN engine on a planet, so you have to do it in orbit
- Components can still be prefabricated on the planet. Extreme modularity is supposed here. The parts are then assembled in the Spaceyard.
- I am undecided about missiles. To be honest, I think it would fit more if they were fabricated in space as well. As in, you could make it so a TN engine cannot even EXIST in a gravity well.
- Since people live on planets, not on shipyards (consider how many MILLIONS of people are working there. So no, they live on planets), you need an adequate amount of "orbital" shuttles. The same is true for any spaceport you have, they also need shuttles. So my proposal to solve this is that you need a number (let's say X) of "Orbital ships" factories for each shipyard and each spaceport. For example, 1 of these factories for every 2000 tons of a slipway and 5 for each spaceport. These factories are considered to be always working to build and do maintenance on all the "orbital shuttles". And this abstracts the entire process. Want a new shipyard? Build 3 or whatever more factories and the like. They are, basically, similar to maintenance stations for shipyards and spaceports.
- Additional "Orbital ships" factories above the required number can be used to build "orbital" fighters and crafts.
- Minerals are stored on the planet carried by these shuttles to orbit when required. You don't want to bloat the already huge and frail Shipyards with mineral storage.
- About mass drivers, they still work. Yes, the mineral that is shot and then caught suffers the extreme shifts from "superdense" to neutral to "aether" and vice versa during the trip. But who cares? Even if a chunk of mineral is blown to shreds in the process you are still going to melt it eventually.
- The Cargo Handling component, given the changes in lore, should be renamed to "cargo transfering shuttles" or something similar. Maybe made more bulky as well.
- I think PDCs should have a maintenance cost, albeit lower than ships, for balance purposes. Filling a planet with PDCs should have some cost.


This is it, hope you liked the read. I think it's pretty consistent, it makes sense, and it also provide a decent balance between new functionalities, fun and sound strategy.

EDIT: to clarify, the process to change "state", for example turning on a Tn engine or leaving a gravity well of an orbital ship, would be much akin the jump engine we have now. A period in which the ship cannot do as it pleases, and has limitations.
« Last Edit: October 19, 2016, 04:42:24 PM by Zincat »
 

Offline 83athom

  • Big Ship Commander
  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1261
  • Thanked: 86 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #253 on: October 19, 2016, 05:32:42 PM »
My thoughts on how it could be done (if drastic changes such as discussed were to come about).

- Designs with TN engines can only exist in the "aether" space but can be influenced by "real" space. This would hopefully inference a gravity well technology so you could create pocket gravities in the aether to make an area of denial for ships/missiles. Nebulas are an area where real space and aether butt against each other, so ships are still reduced speed, you cant launch fighter sized objects, no missiles, and there is a reduced sensor coverage, however thermal and EM signatures are more masked in the nebula due to the interactions of the two spaces. I'm 50/50 about whether or not you can activate shields in a nebula (or make it so one of the types of shield can while the other can't).

- The construction of TN fighters and missiles can still be done in a gravity well. However they are just lumps of useless metal until transferred to a suitable location (mothership or missile ship) via orders. This means until they are transported to space, fighters are counted as ordinance/component in a stockpile on the planet and cannot be given orders.

-The buildings can be left as they are because I've always seen them as the orbital facilities and the ground installations needed to support them (transport, etc). If they are changed so they represent only the orbitals, then they could require "support facilities" to be constructed to support their use. A slight change to the way workers are represented would be these support buildings (and similar ones like the spaceport, Sector command, etc) draw people to the "Service Industries" part of the population.

- TN weapons have a distortion affect with gravity wells, meaning that while they have full affect on things in the aether, they have a reduced affect on things in real space within a gravity (things in real space not in gravity are affected fully). TN beam weapons can be fried from real space as they exist in both realities (the weapon and target).

- TN Missiles can only be launched from a gravity (to the aether) from PDCs, but PDC designed launchers are ~20% larger. However, while TN missiles cannot be fired at a gravity well, there could be a form of bombardment missile system similar to the Plasma Torpedo (which I personally wish to come back) that can be targeted and fired from the aether at a planet (whether in the form of a large missile/bomb or a cluster of 1 damage rockets/bomblets). This could be countered by either a type of building (a generic "bombardment defense installation" you would build like a factory), or a module you can put on PDCs/Starbases/Ships (or just make it so the CIWS can fire at them).

-Ships given an order to refuel/restock/etc need to "phaze" out of the aether ("phaze in" to realspace)(I think Phaze Out should refer to entering aether and Phaze In refers to returning to real space) so will be defenseless while performing these kinds of orders. These actions can be canceled while underway, but the ship would need a small period of time before it can return to the aether (dependent on a tech level).


There anything I didn't touch on?
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 Bremen

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • B
  • Posts: 743
  • Thanked: 150 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #254 on: October 19, 2016, 11:25:16 PM »
I'm... honestly kind of opposed to this change. I think it's overcomplicating things for no real gain; I mean, just look at the last few pages for an example of how it complicates things.

I think things work fine as we are. We don't need a strict separation between what's in space and what's not.
 
The following users thanked this post: Happerry, Felixg, Black, palu, consiefe