Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Tree

Pages: [1] 2 3 4
1
C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« on: November 09, 2017, 02:56:43 PM »
If they're not too much trouble to code, I am always in favour of toggles to turn off sections of the rules for people who don't want to use them, but one of the stated goals of Aurora was to force the player to choose betwen the difficult task of conquering a planet with ground troops, and the easy route of nuking everything to death from orbit, at the cost of having a largely uninhabitable rock.
And we didn't need a new combat system or biomes for that. We already have that choice to make right now.

2
Aurora Chat / Re: What's going on in your empire/planet/battlefield?
« on: November 08, 2017, 03:39:36 PM »
What is this invade thing you speak of? surely theres only glass the surface from Orbit
or have I been doing it wrong all these years?
That's certainly what I'm going to do in Aurora C#.
Nuke from orbit until they surrender, dodging the new ground combat, and just relocate survivors.

3
C# Aurora / Re: Replacing PDCs
« on: October 18, 2017, 02:32:58 AM »
I'm a bit worried about Steve trying to tackle ground combat. It's a very difficult gameplay to design and balance. Something that rts and grand strategy games today still have difficulties to get right. For me the simple but straightforward ground combat aurora has is fine. I sincerely wish Steve delays this aspect of developement until everything else is ready
It'd be nice to get the Aurora port to C# first and keep the reworked ground combat for Aurora C# 2.0.

4
C# Aurora / Re: Replacing PDCs
« on: October 02, 2017, 10:51:39 AM »
I'm all for more details and fun stuff, but how will NPRs handle all of that? If you have any ideas on this already, that is. Will I be able to spy an NPR world, see they favor heavily infantry with anti-personnel and anti-air weapons, so that I'd know to land in tanks with anti-personnel weapons? What would an NPR do if the roles were reversed, or are they still going to not bother with invasion and just use orbital bombardment to force a surrender?
Will troop transport components be broken up further for all four kinds of units or re-united in a single one?
Will units still retain different kinds of capabilities at basic levels much lower than their specialization? Or would a mortar company finding itself on the front lines become completely useless because it only has bombardment capabilities and absolutely 0 anti-personnel/anti-vehicle?
Also combat walker sound like they could be made generic enough that they're not specifically walkers anymore, just super heavy vehicles or wunderwaffen (such as the Fat Boy from Supreme Commander, or War Wheels from DC). Not sure what else you could call them though, yeah.

And since this is the PDC thread and they're disappearing, well, are we going to be able to build stations with industry directly, like orbital habitats? Or are those components going to remain a special case? It seems like right now from a rapid test I can build an orbital habitat with industry, even if it's loaded with guns and hangars... I don't mind too much being forced to have an orbital habitat module if I want to build a station and bypass the shipyard, but still, would be better (and cheaper) if I didn't need that.

5
C# Aurora / Re: Replacing PDCs
« on: September 19, 2017, 05:18:52 AM »
I guess hangar PDCs will have to be replaced with civilian stations then?

6
Aurora Suggestions / Re: Designing ship hulls instead of ships
« on: September 06, 2017, 03:33:34 AM »
I think several of us are talking about the "additional eligible classes" we can build (we find them on the DAC tab of class design window) when a shipyard is tooled for a specific ship class. Counter-intuitively we can't really design a stripped-down basic frame and build variations from it at added cost.
I think the "if two ships are similar enough, you can build both in the same yard" is plenty intuitive already. Plus yards are clearly specialized by class, makes sense you wouldn't be able to build wildly different ships from just one unless both ships were designed for that from the beginning, making them effectively variants of one another. Which means the game already handles what the OP wanted.

7
C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« on: September 02, 2017, 06:20:01 AM »
Is it already possible in C# to search for a commander by name or sort them by name? Could you add "name" as a search criterion so we could order them alphabetically like we'll be able by bonus?

8
Rye123's Fiction / Re: Second Outbound Flight - 2
« on: August 31, 2017, 07:36:44 AM »
I'm planning to add MSP storage to the fighter, so that'll help a lot too, thanks!

I'm not too used to energy weapons, what does the "6" in "6-0.05" mean?
6 is how much energy it needs to fire, 0.05 is how much energy its capacitor gathers per 5-second increment. So there it'd need 120 5-second increments, making it 600 seconds between shots overall, meaning you only need a power plant that gives out 0.05 energy per 5 seconds, not 6.
You can increase how much energy goes into the weapon/5-second by increasing your capacitor recharge rate tech. Using the reduced-sized modifier also greatly decreases how much energy it gets. I think you might have been too far in miniaturization there, but with a smaller power plant, you should be able to fit a laser closer to normal size.

9
Aurora Suggestions / Re: Designing ship hulls instead of ships
« on: August 25, 2017, 03:54:47 AM »
I still don't see how there'd be any difference with the current Refit button. I can upgrade only engines just fine, or copy a design and replace the guns just fine already, or copy my colony ships and make the newly created a variant a cargo ship.

how unsatisfying designing a ship actually is.
That's like, your opinion, man. Designing ships yourself is one of the best parts of Aurora.

10
C# Aurora / Re: Aurora C# Screenshots
« on: August 06, 2017, 10:15:21 AM »
Will NPR ships still have infinite fuel and maintenance in C#?
What about ammo?

11
C# Aurora / Re: Box Launcher Reloads
« on: July 19, 2017, 10:45:22 AM »
Not to rain on your parade, but given the civilian hangar inefficiency isn't that going to be a massive ship to try and tug around the galaxy? And presumably pretty slow as well. Not to mention the size of civilian jump engine you'll need.
Doesn't matter, civilian shipyards are cheap and easy to get big and I need something to spend all these minerals on anyway. Won't even need to be that massive, just hangars for one ship, and magazines for one reload. And the warships themselves don't need to be huge in the first place.
And not for a lengthy campaign, but for a battle. Every battle.

12
C# Aurora / Re: Box Launcher Reloads
« on: July 19, 2017, 04:21:35 AM »
You should leave both in. Big ships can only be reloaded at (planetary?) maintenance facilities, and fighters only in hangars. I don't know about FACs. Both? Hangars only?

If you force me to use hangars, I'll just build a single one capable of taking one of my big warship (and on a civilian shipyard, since we're getting both civilian hangars and magazines), and instead of 5 hours of reload for all the ships' size 4 box launchers at maintenance facilities, it'll only take 30 minutes for each ship, less if the Fighter Ops bonus is fixed and works on bigger ships. And all that for just a few more clicks.
And if I have to reload my big ships with box launchers in hangars only, I might aswell tractor the hangar closer to the action and reload there and get back to in the fight faster, instead of having to send the ships back to a planet with both the missiles and enough maintenance facilities. Won't even be more logistically involved since I already always have tankers and colliers anyway, they'll just take care of the hangars instead of other ships, and this time the colliers will be massive civilian ships carrying a smegload of missiles for all the box launchers.
I won't ever even use regular launchers anymore and enjoy massive alpha strikes, this'll be fantastic.

13
Bureau of Ship Design / Re: Ships
« on: June 29, 2017, 08:37:33 AM »
Home rule 1: Size 1 passive sensors are needed for navigational reasons.
All ships already sport a hidden strength 1 thermal and EM passive, though. Probably for navigational reasons too.

14
Bureau of Ship Design / Re: Ships
« on: June 29, 2017, 08:15:17 AM »
---
You'd get a 50% increase in range if you replaced your two size 24 engines with one size 48.
You'd get a bit more range and ~500km/s of extra speed with a size 48 engine with a x1 multiplier instead of x0,9, too.

And yeah, you could get rid of the shields; 4 less damage every 5 minutes wouldn't help much. I'd abandon them on the Surgat, and the passives and active (unless you intend for groups of Surgat to operate alone, far from the cruisers but there doesn't seem there'd be much point since they have the same speed and range) and try to fit on one more turret. On the Merenra II, you could ditch the passives (not much use on an escort) and put on bigger actives, or try to put on one extra turret and go for 3 fire controls and 6 turrets.
Same on the Tarthanac, 10 of shield isn't that useful. I'd also abandon the CIWS (the escorts are there for that) and use the freed space to put the lasers on turrets or just add more lasers.

15
Bureau of Ship Design / Re: Your original designs
« on: June 07, 2017, 04:52:15 PM »
* Kaifeng even has MSP less than Max repair - it can't itself even maintain its prices component
Oh damn, missed that one. Usually I go for more MSP than max repair, yes.
And otherwise, yeah, they spend a lot of time in overhaul when not training or fighting.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4