Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
Mechanics / Re: Task Force Survey Officer
« Last post by serger on Today at 02:24:35 PM »
Build a special "Command Vessel" with a flag bridge to cart the administrative staff around?

Why not?
There is my midgame solution from the last campaign:

Finally my Survey Command consists of two types of Task Forces - GEV TF and GSV TF respectively. Each of them consits of command&supply part and surveyors part.

Command&Supply part consists of 1 command ship, 1 military-grade jump tender and 1 jump-capable tanker.
GEV survey part consists of GEV division (up to 6 GEVs) only.
GSV survey part consists of GSV division and 1 survey light carrier with a flight of recon fighters.

Code: [Select]
V5Q Royalist class Command Ship    1 000 tons     37 Crew     302 BP      TCS 20  TH 140  EM 0
7000 km/s     Armour 1-8     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 1     PPV 0
Maint Life 10.93 Years     MSP 189    AFR 8%    IFR 0.1%    1YR 3    5YR 43    Max Repair 150 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 51 months    Spare Berths 0   
Flag Bridge   

PDMS-c G5 (7)    Power 20    Fuel Use 59.4%    Signature 20    Exp 10%
Fuel Capacity 165 000 Litres    Range 50.0 billion km   (82 days at full power)

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes

Code: [Select]
V5J Spellbinder class Jump Tender    1 000 tons     20 Crew     151.4 BP      TCS 20  TH 140  EM 0
7000 km/s    JR 1-50     Armour 1-8     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 1     PPV 0
Maint Life 15.7 Years     MSP 95    AFR 8%    IFR 0.1%    1YR 1    5YR 11    Max Repair 12 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 180 months    Spare Berths 0   

JDM3-1000 G2     Max Ship Size 1000 tons    Distance 50k km     Squadron Size 1
PDMS-c G5 (7)    Power 20    Fuel Use 59.4%    Signature 20    Exp 10%
Fuel Capacity 250 000 Litres    Range 75.8 billion km   (125 days at full power)

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes

Code: [Select]
Ogre class Jump Tanker    22 500 tons     140 Crew     1088 BP      TCS 450  TH 2000  EM 0
4444 km/s    JR 2-25(C)     Armour 1-70     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 1     PPV 0
MSP 30    Max Repair 125 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 120 months    Spare Berths 1   

JDC2-22500 G1     Max Ship Size 22500 tons    Distance 25k km     Squadron Size 2
PDCT-H G5 (4)    Power 500    Fuel Use 5.3%    Signature 500    Exp 5%
Fuel Capacity 3 845 000 Litres    Range 580.3 billion km   (1511 days at full power)

This design is classed as a Commercial Vessel for maintenance purposes

Code: [Select]
V5P Explorer class Geological Survey Vessel    1 000 tons     23 Crew     254.4 BP      TCS 20  TH 160  EM 0
8000 km/s     Armour 1-8     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/1/0/1     Damage Control Rating 0     PPV 0
Maint Life 8.32 Years     MSP 111    AFR 11%    IFR 0.2%    1YR 3    5YR 43    Max Repair 100 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 82 months    Spare Berths 0   

PDMS-c G5 (8)    Power 20    Fuel Use 59.4%    Signature 20    Exp 10%
Fuel Capacity 180 000 Litres    Range 54.5 billion km   (78 days at full power)

Geological Survey Sensors (1)   1 Survey Points Per Hour

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes

Code: [Select]
V5G Foxhound class Gravitational Survey Vessel    1 000 tons     23 Crew     254.4 BP      TCS 20  TH 160  EM 0
8000 km/s     Armour 1-8     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/1/1/0     Damage Control Rating 0     PPV 0
Maint Life 8.32 Years     MSP 111    AFR 11%    IFR 0.2%    1YR 3    5YR 43    Max Repair 100 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 82 months    Spare Berths 0   

PDMS-c G5 (8)    Power 20    Fuel Use 59.4%    Signature 20    Exp 10%
Fuel Capacity 180 000 Litres    Range 54.5 billion km   (78 days at full power)

Gravitational Survey Sensors (1)   1 Survey Points Per Hour

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes

Code: [Select]
V5H Oberon class Survey Light Carrier    1 000 tons     16 Crew     164.5 BP      TCS 20  TH 140  EM 0
7000 km/s     Armour 1-8     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 0     PPV 0
Maint Life 6 Years     MSP 36    AFR 22%    IFR 0.3%    1YR 2    5YR 26    Max Repair 10 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 50 months    Flight Crew Berths 7   
Hangar Deck Capacity 250 tons     Magazine 18   

PDMS-c G5 (7)    Power 20    Fuel Use 59.4%    Signature 20    Exp 10%
Fuel Capacity 150 000 Litres    Range 45.5 billion km   (75 days at full power)

Strike Group
1x F/L-51 Mab Buoy Laying Boat   Speed: 12578 km/s    Size: 1.59
2x F/R-5T Titania Recon Fighter   Speed: 13888 km/s    Size: 1.44

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes

Code: [Select]
F/R-5T Titania class Recon Fighter    72 tons     1 Crew     15.6 BP      TCS 1.44  TH 20  EM 0
13888 km/s     Armour 1-1     Shields 0-0     Sensors 2/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 0     PPV 0
Maint Life 0 Years     MSP 0    AFR 14%    IFR 0.2%    1YR 0    5YR 6    Max Repair 12 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 1 months    Spare Berths 1   

PDMS-c G5 (1)    Power 20    Fuel Use 59.4%    Signature 20    Exp 10%
Fuel Capacity 5 000 Litres    Range 21.0 billion km   (17 days at full power)

TSDS-o G4 (1)     Sensitivity 2     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  2m km

This design is classed as a Fighter for production, combat and maintenance purposes

Code: [Select]
F/L-51 Mab class Buoy Laying Boat    80 tons     1 Crew     16 BP      TCS 1.59  TH 20  EM 0
12578 km/s     Armour 1-1     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 0     PPV 0.15
Maint Life 0 Years     MSP 0    AFR 15%    IFR 0.2%    1YR 0    5YR 6    Max Repair 10 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 1 months    Spare Berths 1   
Magazine 1   

PDMS-c G5 (1)    Power 20    Fuel Use 59.4%    Signature 20    Exp 10%
Fuel Capacity 5 000 Litres    Range 19.1 billion km   (17 days at full power)

MLSB-c (1)    Missile Size 1    Hangar Reload 7.5 minutes    MF Reload 1.2 hours
FCMD-o G4-2 (1)     Range 5.2m km    Resolution 170
TSB-c G3 (1)  Speed: 0 km/s   End: 0m    Range: 0m km   WH: 0    Size: 1    TH: 0/0/0

Missile to hit chances are vs targets moving at 3000 km/s, 5000 km/s and 10,000 km/s

This design is classed as a Fighter for production, combat and maintenance purposes

As you can see, V5Q Royalist build cost is very small part of entire Survey Task Force, and she isn't a big fuel consumer too (because of her waiting-on-the-JP role).
2
C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Last post by iceball3 on Today at 02:17:51 PM »
I am currently working through the code for the various component designs (as you can probably tell from recent posts) and I have reached missile engines.

The new engine changes were intended to make all engine types (missile and ship) follow the same set of rules for size vs fuel efficiency. One impact of this change was that applying this new size modifier for fuel consumption would penalise missile engines. However, now I am in the missile engine code I have realised that the VB6 code applies a x5 modifier to fuel consumption for missile engines on top of the modifiers for size, fuel consumption tech and boost tech.

If I don't use this x5 modifier in C#, missile engines won't change very much in terms of fuel consumption vs VB6. The whole point of the changes was to have the same rules for all engines so if (for game play reasons) I wanted to keep the x5 modifier and reduce missile ranges, I need a reason for it. I think my original rationale was that missile engines were one use only and not designed for efficiency.

So maintain same rules for all engines and keep missile ranges as they are (and missile fuel a minor consideration) or keep the x5 modifier and make fuel a serious consideration for missiles.

Thoughts?
Code: [Select]
Engine Power: 8     Fuel Use Per Hour: 6.34 Litres
Fuel Consumption per Engine Power Hour: 0.792 Litres
Engine Size: 1 HS    Engine HTK: 1
Thermal Signature: 8     Exp Chance: 10
Cost: 5    Crew: 1
Materials Required: 5x Gallicite
Military Engine

Development Cost for Project: 50RP

Code: [Select]
Engine Power: 2      Fuel Use Per Hour: 8 Litres
Fuel Consumption per Engine Power Hour: 4 Litres
Engine Size: 5 MSP      Cost: 0.5
Thermal Signature: 2
Materials Required: 0.5x Gallicite
Development Cost for Project: 100RP
For comparative analysis. 1 HS Versus 0.5 HS Missile engine.
Hmm.
I don't suppose we can use the complexity of the situation to kick the 5 lightsecond limit of beams and make them superluminal weapons, eh?
It's a bit tricky figuring, yeah.
3
C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Last post by Steve Walmsley on Today at 10:12:16 AM »
I think you are misunderstanding. What I understood is: If a 10HS shield has strength (say) 100 (10 strength per HS), a 40HS strength shield has double of that strength PER HS (20), so 800 strength. So you could have
4x10HS shields, total strenght 400.
1x40HS shield, total strength 800.

However, it is my understanding that the 40HS shield would recharge at half speed. So, say, if the 4x10HS shields recharge 1 point per second each, the 40 HS shield recharges 2 point per second.
So you have that the smaller shields recharge a total of 4 points per second vs the 2 per second of the larger shield

At least, that's how I undestood it. A tradeoff between strength and recharge speed.

The recharge amount per HS is the same for both the 4x 10HS and the 1x 40HS. However, because the latter has twice the total strength, it takes twice as long to fully recharge.
4
C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Last post by Steve Walmsley on Today at 10:10:36 AM »
With the shield changes, I think I'm misunderstanding something.

If a HS10 shield is equivalent to the shields we currently have (100% of VB6 shields) and a HS40 shield is twice as strong (200% of VB6 shields), why would I ever use a HS40 shield when I could use 4x HS10 shields for twice the strength of a single HS40 shield and half the recharge time?

Recharge time is per shield module, right? So if I have 4 size 10 shield modules that each take 300s to charge, that's still just 300s to charge all 4 of them because all 4 are charging independently? Or is it 300s x 4 modules?

Recharge time aside, unless I've misread something it seems like 4x size 10 shield modules (1+1+1+1=4) is still twice as strong as 1x size 40 shield module (1 x 200% = 2.) Am I mistaken?

The HS40 shield is 200% percent stronger per HS, so it is eight times stronger than the HS10 shield in total. If both have the same recharge technology, the HS40 will take twice as long to recharge as the HS10.
5
Mechanics / Re: Task Force Survey Officer
« Last post by clement on Today at 09:47:12 AM »
My understanding is that this is the case for all officers assigned to the Task Force. That is a key use of the flag bridge and/or creating Task Forces on planets other than Earth, otherwise all those Task Force officers are sitting back on Earth and cannot really contribute to the decision making in the system in which the ships are operating.
6
C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Last post by MagusXIX on Today at 09:46:40 AM »
Missile engines should always feel different than shipboard engines. An engine is never just an engine. Missile engines operate under an entirely different set of circumstances than shipboard engines. For starters, they're much, much smaller, and the miniaturization of an engine is expensive and problematic. Try making a Ferrari engine operate at 1/1000th the size and you'll start to see what I mean. All kinds of hiccups will happen, unless you're working in some kind of theoretical vacuum.

To me, it makes sense that missile engine technology should lag slightly behind standard naval engine technology in terms of efficiency and propulsion, and they should also be dramatically more expensive, pound for pound. It's apples to oranges, really.

I say embrace the divorce of the two systems, missile engines and shipboard engines. To me they've always seemed like they should be two different techs in the same category (Power and Propulsion, obviously.)

Go ahead and make them less fuel efficient. Give'em less oomph per ton, as well, and make them cost more. I feel like the warhead should be the smallest part of any serious missile (excluding whatever whackjob thingamabob people are building in their basements) and the bulk of it should be taken up by engines (including agility) and fuel, where fuel and efficiency should be the most major design considerations.
7
C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Last post by Zincat on Today at 09:41:57 AM »
snipped

I think you are misunderstanding. What I understood is: If a 10HS shield has strength (say) 100 (10 strength per HS), a 40HS strength shield has double of that strength PER HS (20), so 800 strength. So you could have
4x10HS shields, total strenght 400.
1x40HS shield, total strength 800.

However, it is my understanding that the 40HS shield would recharge at half speed. So, say, if the 4x10HS shields recharge 1 point per second each, the 40 HS shield recharges 2 point per second.
So you have that the smaller shields recharge a total of 4 points per second vs the 2 per second of the larger shield

At least, that's how I undestood it. A tradeoff between strength and recharge speed.
8
C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Last post by Zincat on Today at 09:31:43 AM »
Regarding the latest shield changes: I like them with one caveat.

It is great that they no longer require fuel (can be kept on indefinitely, makes them more useful as a defense measure). It is  great they are stronger the bigger they are. Once again, like for engines and generators, it makes sense that a bigger shield generator would have a bonus due to less miniaturization.

I am uncertain, however,  about the fact they recharge for the same fixed amount instead of a proportional amount. Coupled with the fact that larger shields are comparatively easier to destroy, it makes me wonder what the possible usage of large shields will be.

I feel that shield regeneration is very important in a prolonged fight. I don't know if the added shield strength is going to be enough to justify going with one large shield compared to 5 smaller shields which would regenerate a lot faster, and would be harder to kill off entirely.


So maintain same rules for all engines and keep missile ranges as they are (and missile fuel a minor consideration) or keep the x5 modifier and make fuel a serious consideration for missiles.

Thoughts?

My opinion is that missiles do need to be "shorter range" than before. Fuel cannot be irrelevant as it was before. The new fuel formula should have solved that, but now you have found out this bit of code you did not remember about.

Personally, I would still keep the x5 modifier. I think it's a much needed modifier, for gameplay balance reason between the various weapons. I can understand some might not like that, but there's a lot of other arbitrary choices that were made in this game obviously.

I do think that "make fuel a serious consideration for missiles" is a valid and reasonable thing to do. Because it IS so in real life as well, so I don't see why fuel should be irrelevant in Aurora.
Iranon's proposed solution would only work (somewhat) at low tech level, and would be not relevant anymore afterwards. So I would keep the x5 modifier.
9
Mechanics / Task Force Survey Officer
« Last post by MagusXIX on Today at 09:29:04 AM »
I was perusing the wiki when lo and behold I came across this little line ... ( http://aurorawiki.pentarch.org/index.php?title=Leaders#List_of_Abilities )

"Survey: Used by Geological Team members to discover additional, overlooked Trans-Newtonian Minerals on colony worlds and Task Force Survey Officers to grant a bonus to the Survey efforts of all ships in the Task Force in the same system as the TFSO."

Now, I'd never realized that in order to get the survey bonus from my survey officer I'd need to cart them around to each system as my survey ships/teams operate in them. What's the best way to do this? Put the entire task force administrative staff in a flag bridge on a survey ship that's been modified to have a flag bridge? Build a special "Command Vessel" with a flag bridge to cart the administrative staff around?

This seems a little silly to me. I feel like the Survey Officer should be fine operating from wherever the rest of the Task Force administrative team operates. It's an admin role, not a field role, right? Am I just missing something here?
10
C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Last post by MagusXIX on Today at 09:24:21 AM »
With the shield changes, I think I'm misunderstanding something.

If a HS10 shield is equivalent to the shields we currently have (100% of VB6 shields) and a HS40 shield is twice as strong (200% of VB6 shields), why would I ever use a HS40 shield when I could use 4x HS10 shields for twice the strength of a single HS40 shield and half the recharge time?

Recharge time is per shield module, right? So if I have 4 size 10 shield modules that each take 300s to charge, that's still just 300s to charge all 4 of them because all 4 are charging independently? Or is it 300s x 4 modules?

Recharge time aside, unless I've misread something it seems like 4x size 10 shield modules (1+1+1+1=4) is still twice as strong as 1x size 40 shield module (1 x 200% = 2.) Am I mistaken?
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10