C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions

[Bremen]

Yes... you are partially right... but there would be no need to do that... you would move into a decent range and be at a disadvantage for a while and after that you would get advantage in accuracy (as your fire-control range is better). Now it is a mettle of whose fleet is stronger. Once either side feel they are loosing they can try to disengage and retreat. This would produce partial destruction of a fleet rather than one fleet always ending up destroyed every time.

Boosting would be necessary for both sides having a chance to flee in combat situation where the difference in tech is not too great. It might not work all the time but it will at times do so.

So.. yes... it would give a power boost to the one who are defending in beam combat. I don't see a direct problem with that.

I mean, yeah, a fleet could voluntarily move into range and fight it out instead of winning without ever being shot at. This is also true in the current version of the rules. But in both the current version and your proposed changes it wouldn't happen, since the fleet with the range and speed advantage wouldn't voluntarily give up its advantage.

As for boosting, yes, I get that you want a fleet to be able to disengage if it's losing beam combat. But the problem with that is that if either side can disengage from beam combat whenever they want, the result will be beam combat never happening, because one side is always going to be at a disadvantage, and the result of that is going to be both sides only being pure missile combatants because there's no way to force beam combat. At this point we're just repeating ourselves.

[QuakeIV]

Specifically the claim that 'beam combat will never happen if they can disengage' is not true.  There are two distinct interpretations of that which seem apparant to me at this time.

First one is that they will never engage in the first place because they see a disadvantageous engagement and choose to not take said engagement.  In order to do that the player would need to reliably predict that that is the case, and I think it could be reasonably claimed that neither the AI nor the player will be perfect at this.  It would also require that the defender have no targets that they are obliged to defend, which is also unlikely (you would probably have to defend your main population, if not any other critical installations you might possess).  In general though I think it would be a relatively good thing, because it means a star could change hands without a fight even necessarily taking place.  You show up with a fleet, present an unwinnable situation, and the enemy chooses to withdraw (and is actually able to reliably do so).  That type of scenario has I think been lacking from aurora for quite a while but is entirely realistic and in my opinion can be fun because locating a large percentage of the low tech enemies fleet isn't necessarily an instant game over for them, meaning the conflict can be drawn out and there is a chance more things will happen.

The second possible interpretation is that the ships trade blows, and then the side that is currently losing decides to run away.  I think thats fine, because you will probably kill some of them anyways since most likely there are several mobility kills if nothing else, and even if not then you have inflicted damage that they now need to go repair, thereby inflicting a load on their repair and logistical infrastructure, as well as temporarily taking ships out of action, which will make a difference to their overall ability to continue fighting.

e: In general I would argue that if a damaged fleet is able to withdraw, then it allows a much more logistical form of warfare.  If both sides can usually withdraw before a ship is outright destroyed (barring an unlucky mobility kill) then that means you would potentially be trying to win by straining their logistics to the point that they can no longer make enough of their fleet ready to continue offering effective resistance.  This is a much more fun and complicated concept in my opinion, because you now have new design considerations, regarding how you build your ships, and how you prepare for a conflict.  Deep wells of replacement components for repairs might become more useful, for instance.

[Profugo Barbatus]

I'm not sure how well disengagement would work, now that I think on it. Assuming both beam only forces have boost, if the inferior group flipped on boost and turned tail for a jump point, the superior force can just flip on their boost and head for the same jump point, likely reach it first (depends on the speed advantage and the range before the retreat was called), and drop back to regular drives and intercept. If the range was great enough that the inferior defender can make it before the attacker, then they could have achieved the exact same retreat in a version of the game where boost never existed.

The only reason we don't see this happen currently is the superior force can engage, instead of bypassing them to sit at the jump point.

[Bremen]

I'm not sure how well disengagement would work, now that I think on it. Assuming both beam only forces have boost, if the inferior group flipped on boost and turned tail for a jump point, the superior force can just flip on their boost and head for the same jump point, likely reach it first (depends on the speed advantage and the range before the retreat was called), and drop back to regular drives and intercept. If the range was great enough that the inferior defender can make it before the attacker, then they could have achieved the exact same retreat in a version of the game where boost never existed.

The only reason we don't see this happen currently is the superior force can engage, instead of bypassing them to sit at the jump point.

Maybe, but that requires that both sides know where the jump point is, and even if they do it only gives the faster force a few seconds to engage before the other force can jump. Or the slower force can just decline to use the jump point until the faster force leaves.

My main point is that currently, the only way beam ships can kill missile ships is by closing the range and forcing them into a beam fight. Any change that makes it more difficult to force a beam fight therefor disproportionately favors missile ships because it makes them very nearly impossible to kill.

[QuakeIV]

Boosting would need to be something you really really want to avoid doing, in order to avoid the superior side just happily doing it as well to chase down the lower tech enemy.

Perhaps you are damaging certain delicate ship components over time by doing it.  The list of said components could probably be fairly arbitrary since its just not really known what parts would be the most sensitive to 'boosting', especially that far into the future, so you could equally say the fire controls break down or the sensors or something else.  Then you actually need to sit around repairing things for a while before you are fully operational again.

It would still presumably be usable to chase down an inferior enemy at that point, but I feel like if the damage set in fairly quickly and you wind up burning through a lot of MSP and time to get back to readiness every time you do it, then it would greatly discourage it.  The idea being its generally only worth it if you are going to really score big by continuing the pursuit, or in the case of the fleeing side, its mainly worth it if the ships were probably going to die anyways, so sustaining some damage instead is preferable.

[Jorgen_CAB]

Yes... you are partially right... but there would be no need to do that... you would move into a decent range and be at a disadvantage for a while and after that you would get advantage in accuracy (as your fire-control range is better). Now it is a mettle of whose fleet is stronger. Once either side feel they are loosing they can try to disengage and retreat. This would produce partial destruction of a fleet rather than one fleet always ending up destroyed every time.

Boosting would be necessary for both sides having a chance to flee in combat situation where the difference in tech is not too great. It might not work all the time but it will at times do so.

So.. yes... it would give a power boost to the one who are defending in beam combat. I don't see a direct problem with that.

I mean, yeah, a fleet could voluntarily move into range and fight it out instead of winning without ever being shot at. This is also true in the current version of the rules. But in both the current version and your proposed changes it wouldn't happen, since the fleet with the range and speed advantage wouldn't voluntarily give up its advantage.

As for boosting, yes, I get that you want a fleet to be able to disengage if it's losing beam combat. But the problem with that is that if either side can disengage from beam combat whenever they want, the result will be beam combat never happening, because one side is always going to be at a disadvantage, and the result of that is going to be both sides only being pure missile combatants because there's no way to force beam combat. At this point we're just repeating ourselves.

No... that no shot scenario will never occur as you will have to get in range if you want to fight unless you have twice the range. It would not work as you believe it would as there is a timer on when you can fire at full efficiency after moving. If the slower fleet can't flee there is no point if them moving unless you move out of their range while being still, but that is akin to not wanting to fight and would be a pointless move to make if you want to attack.

If you can't win against the opponent you might as well just allow them to run away and perhaps shadow them at range.

[Jorgen_CAB]

I'm not sure how well disengagement would work, now that I think on it. Assuming both beam only forces have boost, if the inferior group flipped on boost and turned tail for a jump point, the superior force can just flip on their boost and head for the same jump point, likely reach it first (depends on the speed advantage and the range before the retreat was called), and drop back to regular drives and intercept. If the range was great enough that the inferior defender can make it before the attacker, then they could have achieved the exact same retreat in a version of the game where boost never existed.

The only reason we don't see this happen currently is the superior force can engage, instead of bypassing them to sit at the jump point.

How do you know there are no reinforcement waiting there... using boost for longer ranges will mess with your fuel, MSP and maintenance cycles and can basically mean you have to abort your offensive and the opponent win anyway as you have to retreat back to where you came from. You might find an enemy reserve task-force heading your way... now you wasted fuel, MSP and burned your fleet stamina for nothing. The defender retreated a few frigates while you waster a couple of cruiser running after them. The list could go on...

There are strategical reasons for not wanting to use boost to follow a retreating enemy... not everything is about destroying assets... that is rarely what missions is all about, just a bonus.

There are all manner of reason for why you would not want to follow an enemy trying to retreat. Things are not as simple as just one fight allot of the time.

[Bremen]

No... that no shot scenario will never occur as you will have to get in range if you want to fight unless you have twice the range. It would not work as you believe it would as there is a timer on when you can fire at full efficiency after moving. If the slower fleet can't flee there is no point if them moving unless you move out of their range while being still, but that is akin to not wanting to fight and would be a pointless move to make if you want to attack.

Umm, no, you are completely wrong there, and I've repeatedly tried to explain why. Ok, let me try again.

Fleet A moves at 5,000 km/s and has a range of 200,000 km. Fleet B moves at 6,000 km/s and has a range of 240,000km. Whenever they move a fleet has its range cut by 50% for 60 seconds (or whatever, these numbers only matter for the example).

Fleet B moves to a range of 201,000km and stops. Fleet A now has three choices:

A) Remain stationary. After 60 seconds, Fleet B starts shooting them and they die.
B) Approach Fleet B. Fleet B uses its superior speed to hold them at a range of 101,000 km and shoots them until they die.
C) Retreat from Fleet B. Fleet B uses its superior speed to close to a range of 101,000 km and shoots them until they die. If Fleet A stops at any point, Fleet B shoots them for 40 seconds, then backs away to 201,000 km and stops as well - at this point this whole scenario repeats, but with Fleet A already damaged.

This is the scenario without boosting. Boosting is a different discussion, and has its own isssues. But even with boosting, there's no way for the slower and shorter ranged fleet to ever get to fire.

[Jorgen_CAB]

No... that no shot scenario will never occur as you will have to get in range if you want to fight unless you have twice the range. It would not work as you believe it would as there is a timer on when you can fire at full efficiency after moving. If the slower fleet can't flee there is no point if them moving unless you move out of their range while being still, but that is akin to not wanting to fight and would be a pointless move to make if you want to attack.

Umm, no, you are completely wrong there, and I've repeatedly tried to explain why. Ok, let me try again.

Fleet A moves at 5,000 km/s and has a range of 200,000 km. Fleet B moves at 6,000 km/s and has a range of 240,000km. Whenever they move a fleet has its range cut by 50% for 60 seconds (or whatever, these numbers only matter for the example).

Fleet B moves to a range of 201,000km and stops. Fleet A now has three choices:

A) Remain stationary. After 60 seconds, Fleet B starts shooting them and they die.
B) Approach Fleet B. Fleet B uses its superior speed to hold them at a range of 101,000 km and shoots them until they die.
C) Retreat from Fleet B. Fleet B uses its superior speed to close to a range of 101,000 km and shoots them until they die. If Fleet A stops at any point, Fleet B shoots them for 40 seconds, then backs away to 201,000 km and stops as well - at this point this whole scenario repeats, but with Fleet A already damaged.

This is the scenario without boosting. Boosting is a different discussion, and has its own isssues. But even with boosting, there's no way for the slower and shorter ranged fleet to ever get to fire.

The problem here is that you assume that fleet A wants to escape... in this scenario then I agree that fleet B will win as it is superiors in all three categories of speed, firepower AND range... they should win.

If fleet A have twice the firepower it can just stop and wait for fleet B to fly into their max range and start firing on it as it approaches, once they get to 101.000km they don't run... they keep fighting and will win as they still have superior firepower, even if fleet B get to fire at full range after 60 seconds. This is the point...

If they are inferior they can still make a stand and do SOME damage to the enemy fleet.

The faster fleet can still disengage as it is faster when it realise it is weaker in fire-power. But even if fleet B is stronger in fire-power then fleet A might still do SOME damage to fleet B and so the reinforcement that is coming will force fleet B to retreat instead of fleet B destroying that one too without breaking a sweat.

If fleet B moves outside of fleet B at 201.000km and stop then fleet A moves to 241.000km and stops and you can repeat that indefinitely which simply is ludicrous to do... either you commit or you don't. Sure fleet B can start following fleet but A can stop at any point and B will come under fire or have to move outside that 200.000km before A can fire. Sooo... you either commit to the fight or you don't... going back and forth will not really yield any result that way. The C scenario is the only one that can result in the quicker fleet doing damage without any in return if the time is not enough for B to fire a few times.

In my opinion a slower fleet don't have to be able to force a fight, forcing the enemy to leave is enough. At some point that faster fleet will have to fight as sometimes you will need to defend a fixed point.

[papent]

maybe, we can split off the discussion about merits and flaws of a boosting/tuning/afterburner/whatacallit to a seperate thread?

also suggestion would it be possible to assign FAC's (Sub 1000 ton ships) to squadrons?

[Steve Walmsley]

maybe, we can split off the discussion about merits and flaws of a boosting/tuning/afterburner/whatacallit to a seperate thread?

also suggestion would it be possible to assign FAC's (Sub 1000 ton ships) to squadrons?

Squadrons don't exist in the VB6 sense. The new naval organisation in C# will allow you to create 'sub-fleets' that include any type of ship.

[Jorgen_CAB]

maybe, we can split off the discussion about merits and flaws of a boosting/tuning/afterburner/whatacallit to a seperate thread?

Yes.. I think this subject are more or less emptied at this point. 

I will only say that I liked that other suggestion with getting half range while kiting an opponent. Let's say you would get half range as long as you shoot someone moving in a 45-90 (or why not 180) degree cone behind you while moving in the other direction. That would probably be a simpler solution to kiting by a faster fleet with better range and leave fire-power to decide the fight more than just speed and range.

With speed you still are superior as you could run away or close whenever you wish which is strategically very strong. Range would give you a fire-power bonus.

In this instance you should be able to give an order of going into a specific range but also opt to not kite if the opponent tries to get closer to avoid kiting by mistake. This would generally take ships to within the distance that are the closest set by both sides. Or if you have the firepower to do so you could still kite, but you would need to have a significant fire-power advantage to do so.

This would be a far better solution most probably.

[mtm84]

maybe, we can split off the discussion about merits and flaws of a boosting/tuning/afterburner/whatacallit to a seperate thread?

also suggestion would it be possible to assign FAC's (Sub 1000 ton ships) to squadrons?

Squadrons don't exist in the VB6 sense. The new naval organisation in C# will allow you to create 'sub-fleets' that include any type of ship.

I had been meaning to ask this early, how do sub fleets work with the new organization commands?  Do sub fleets have to be part of their parent fleet to get a naval command bonus?  How far do sub fleets nest?

[Bremen]

The problem here is that you assume that fleet A wants to escape... in this scenario then I agree that fleet B will win as it is superiors in all three categories of speed, firepower AND range... they should win.

If fleet A have twice the firepower it can just stop and wait for fleet B to fly into their max range and start firing on it as it approaches, once they get to 101.000km they don't run... they keep fighting and will win as they still have superior firepower, even if fleet B get to fire at full range after 60 seconds. This is the point...

If they are inferior they can still make a stand and do SOME damage to the enemy fleet.

The faster fleet can still disengage as it is faster when it realise it is weaker in fire-power. But even if fleet B is stronger in fire-power then fleet A might still do SOME damage to fleet B and so the reinforcement that is coming will force fleet B to retreat instead of fleet B destroying that one too without breaking a sweat.

If fleet B moves outside of fleet B at 201.000km and stop then fleet A moves to 241.000km and stops and you can repeat that indefinitely which simply is ludicrous to do... either you commit or you don't. Sure fleet B can start following fleet but A can stop at any point and B will come under fire or have to move outside that 200.000km before A can fire. Sooo... you either commit to the fight or you don't... going back and forth will not really yield any result that way. The C scenario is the only one that can result in the quicker fleet doing damage without any in return if the time is not enough for B to fire a few times.

In my opinion a slower fleet don't have to be able to force a fight, forcing the enemy to leave is enough. At some point that faster fleet will have to fight as sometimes you will need to defend a fixed point.

I'm going to take this to PMs for now, since I'm mostly trying to correct Jorgen. If anyone's still interested let me know and we can make a thread for it.

[Father Tim]

I really like the idea that missiles with thermal sensors are more likely to damage engines than other systems, and that missiles with EM sensors are more likely to damage sensors, fire controls and shield generators than other systems.  It provides a reason to use sensor-equipped missiles other than conservation of ammo.