Post reply

Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.

Note: this post will not display until it's been approved by a moderator.

Name:
Email:
Subject:
Message icon:

shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview

Please read the rules before you post!


Topic Summary

Posted by: consiefe
« on: May 14, 2020, 03:41:48 AM »

I'm actually not a fan of fuel shield relationship. Shields consume power and Steve choosed to make shield power plant integrated in the shields. I don't remember the sizes of VB6 but I assume they are bigger now. They also contribute to AFR and cost considerably. Also they make your ships can be seen from a long way like a billboard. Also I'd think AI can utilise them better now.

So my vote is on shields without fuel req.
Posted by: liveware
« on: May 13, 2020, 11:52:33 PM »

Quote from: QuakeIV on May 13, 2020, 11:26:38 PM
This would mean that there was a decent chance that you could possibly be caught trying to charge your shields from zero as the enemy is engaging you.

This situation was relatively common in the Nexus game I referred to previously. This tactical choice of when to raise shields is an interesting mechanic in my opinion.
Posted by: liveware
« on: May 13, 2020, 11:37:36 PM »

Quote from: Hamof on May 13, 2020, 08:50:11 PM
IIRC, in Nexus you were rarely controlling more than 10 ships at a time, if even that many. Typically it'd be less than 5. By comparison, how many ships are in your average Aurora fleet?

My apologies, I did not answer your question.

In any given tactical situation in Aurora, I directly command at most about 10 ships, not including fighter craft. Including fighter craft, I command at most about 500. I consider fighter craft separately because I issue orders to them en masse, whereas I tend to micromanage larger ships.

In Nexus, I rarely commanded more than 8 ships directly.
Posted by: liveware
« on: May 13, 2020, 11:30:20 PM »

Nexus and Aurora are certainly different games, and their scope differs considerably... Often by orders of magnitude. Nexus was much more of a tactical simulation than the strategic glory of Aurora.

However I did enjoy the level of control Nexus provided with regards to ship power management. Sometimes I need to drop all weapon and shield power and redirect all effort to engines in order to escape a powerful enemy. Aurora allows the player to assign individual weapon fire controls and targets but restricts power management. If I can target a ships weapons, why can't I control the engines? Or the shields?

Just seems to make more sense to me. Obviously there is development effort required to bring this sort of mechanic into reality, so I am content with the present system. But sometimes I day dream of something different...
Posted by: QuakeIV
« on: May 13, 2020, 11:26:38 PM »

I liked the old fuel cost mechanic because it obliged you to make choices about whether to power the shields up or not (rather than just leaving them running forever).  This would mean that there was a decent chance that you could possibly be caught trying to charge your shields from zero as the enemy is engaging you.  Having them just have maintenance failures like with guns might be the way to solve that better (i havent checked if thats currently the case or not).  It would also make a lot of sense I think for it to really take a toll to just leave them running.
Posted by: Hamof
« on: May 13, 2020, 08:50:11 PM »

Quote from: liveware on May 13, 2020, 07:38:37 PM
Quote from: SpikeTheHobbitMage on May 13, 2020, 09:28:39 AM
Quote from: liveware on May 12, 2020, 08:30:24 PM
Yes. This is exactly what I am struggling with. Reactor power source and engine power source are intricately entwined by my way of evaluating the probelm. If one has created a reactor with a high T_hot why would one not use this T_hot in the engine design for a ship which equips the same engine and reactor? This maximizes thermal efficiency of the design. Aurora creates a distinction between these concepts which seems arbitrary to me.
Ah, you mean use a single reactor for propulsion, weapons systems, sensors, and shields.  From a fluff perspective, there are the problems of power distribution and rapid demand variability that weapons and possibly shields inflict, which are not friendly to the large reactors needed for propulsion, while sensors can be run off of surplus power.  From a game play standpoint that level of detail would trend towards the power micromanagement that Steve wants to avoid, while integrating weapons with their reactors like is done with engines would require all weapons to be redesigned every time reactor tech improves, which would be prohibitively expensive.
Many moons ago there existed a game called "Nexus" which allowed for a very detailed level of power management at the individual ship level. I have always held to this standard of power control. It seems Steve and I differ in this regard... It is ultimately his game, not mine, however much I might enjoy it.

Furthermore I encourage Mr. Steve to keep this game his game! That is a fine ideal to strive towards!
IIRC, in Nexus you were rarely controlling more than 10 ships at a time, if even that many. Typically it'd be less than 5. By comparison, how many ships are in your average Aurora fleet?
Posted by: Froggiest1982
« on: May 13, 2020, 08:02:39 PM »

Quote from: liveware on May 13, 2020, 07:38:37 PM
Furthermore I encourage Mr. Steve to keep this game his game! That is a fine ideal to strive towards!

I agree, he gave birth a masterpiece we are all enjoying and discuss today meaning his path is correct.

I sometimes wonder what would have been if he was more into something else rather than videogames and scifi.

But I tell you something: that dimension? I wouldn't like it!
Posted by: liveware
« on: May 13, 2020, 07:38:37 PM »

Quote from: SpikeTheHobbitMage on May 13, 2020, 09:28:39 AM
Quote from: liveware on May 12, 2020, 08:30:24 PM
Yes. This is exactly what I am struggling with. Reactor power source and engine power source are intricately entwined by my way of evaluating the probelm. If one has created a reactor with a high T_hot why would one not use this T_hot in the engine design for a ship which equips the same engine and reactor? This maximizes thermal efficiency of the design. Aurora creates a distinction between these concepts which seems arbitrary to me.
Ah, you mean use a single reactor for propulsion, weapons systems, sensors, and shields.  From a fluff perspective, there are the problems of power distribution and rapid demand variability that weapons and possibly shields inflict, which are not friendly to the large reactors needed for propulsion, while sensors can be run off of surplus power.  From a game play standpoint that level of detail would trend towards the power micromanagement that Steve wants to avoid, while integrating weapons with their reactors like is done with engines would require all weapons to be redesigned every time reactor tech improves, which would be prohibitively expensive.

Many moons ago there existed a game called "Nexus" which allowed for a very detailed level of power management at the individual ship level. I have always held to this standard of power control. It seems Steve and I differ in this regard... It is ultimately his game, not mine, however much I might enjoy it.

Furthermore I encourage Mr. Steve to keep this game his game! That is a fine ideal to strive towards!
Posted by: liveware
« on: May 13, 2020, 07:34:24 PM »

Quote from: Jorgen_CAB on May 13, 2020, 05:55:07 AM
There have been many discussions about more detailed power distribution on ships and Steve said that he did not want power to be something you need to micromanage in battle so it can't be too detailed in that regard.

This answers my original question concisely. It is for the ship commanders to determine power allocation, not the emperor.

While I find allocation of ship resources to be an interesting problem, it is best left to ship commanders to accomplish.

Posted by: SpikeTheHobbitMage
« on: May 13, 2020, 09:28:39 AM »

Quote from: liveware on May 12, 2020, 08:30:24 PM
Yes. This is exactly what I am struggling with. Reactor power source and engine power source are intricately entwined by my way of evaluating the probelm. If one has created a reactor with a high T_hot why would one not use this T_hot in the engine design for a ship which equips the same engine and reactor? This maximizes thermal efficiency of the design. Aurora creates a distinction between these concepts which seems arbitrary to me.
Ah, you mean use a single reactor for propulsion, weapons systems, sensors, and shields.  From a fluff perspective, there are the problems of power distribution and rapid demand variability that weapons and possibly shields inflict, which are not friendly to the large reactors needed for propulsion, while sensors can be run off of surplus power.  From a game play standpoint that level of detail would trend towards the power micromanagement that Steve wants to avoid, while integrating weapons with their reactors like is done with engines would require all weapons to be redesigned every time reactor tech improves, which would be prohibitively expensive.
Posted by: kenlon
« on: May 13, 2020, 07:36:46 AM »

B5 Wars was better,  :P
Posted by: vorpal+5
« on: May 13, 2020, 06:02:30 AM »

Yes me too, but this is Steve's game.

Although, more detailed power management and having to prioritize would remind me fondly of Starfleet battles!!  :)

https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/29663/star-fleet-battles-captains-edition-basic-set

Posted by: Jorgen_CAB
« on: May 13, 2020, 05:55:07 AM »

There have been many discussions about more detailed power distribution on ships and Steve said that he did not want power to be something you need to micromanage in battle so it can't be too detailed in that regard. Using fuel to power reactor might be sound from a technical point of view but the general consensus or thought by Steve was that the amount of fuel used was too insignificant in the whole during any particular battle, that is also one of the reason why fuel usage for shields was removed too.

Whether Sorium provide the means for a ship to move or is the power source itself I think does not matter much. But in general Sorium or fuel probably is the kind of stuff that the ships engine need to move it from one spot to the next. As movement in Aurora don't use thrust it actually mean that the ship have the same actual velocity in the physical space all the time. Movement in aurora are basically manipulation of space itself through the use of the Eather dimension which is why Sorium is needed so the engine can react with it. Power is needed for that reaction to occur.

The smaller an engine is the harder it is to get the Sorium to react so you need more Sorium to get the same effect. There is also a relationship between the power used in conjunction of the engines design. So if you have a very large engine using a very low power setting you will get a much more efficient interaction between Sorium and the Eather... the reverse is also true... if you inject allot of power versus the size then the efficiency of Sorium decline.

The way the game is currently set up is that you only need to bother with reactor power for weapons as that is the most variable and interesting part of the energy distribution. Steve also want to avoid having to deal with power micromanagement during battles, that have been stated before.

Personally I'm in the camp that would like a more detailed power system, but it is what it is.
Posted by: mergele
« on: May 12, 2020, 09:31:17 PM »

I think shields in the current situatuion are perfectly fine at doing their thing and I dislike many of the suggestions here that suggest bigger impact changes.  What I could get behind would be a bit increased EM signature, readable strength through EM signature or maybe shields requiring power from power plants.  Pretty much changes that tweak the current situation a bit. 

Shields going down during jump isn't much of an issue except if you are ambushed and didn't expect that because siege breakers are already pure armor, shields disabling ASS sounds just horrible, shields slowing the ship hurts the design space, shields randomly breaking aside from the current maintenance failures would be a very very thight balance between "they never crash anyways" and "Every 20th shot they are down anyways, just use more armor".
Posted by: liveware
« on: May 12, 2020, 08:30:24 PM »

Quote from: SpikeTheHobbitMage on May 12, 2020, 07:27:18 PM
Except that the only difference between a nuclear pulse engine and any other engine type in Aurora is the built-in reactor.  Just like the difference between a nuclear powered ship and a fuel oil powered ship is in the fire-box.  The boiler, turbine, and propeller are the same.

Quote from: SpikeTheHobbitMage on May 12, 2020, 08:04:27 PM
Aside from sails and conventional rockets, reaction mass and power source generally aren't related.  Surface ships use sea water as reaction mass, independent of their power source.  Non-rocket aircraft use air as reaction mass, both for propulsion and lift.  Ion drives use inert gas that is ionized and repelled using a separate energy source.  Aurora ships are nuclear powered and use Sorium as reaction mass.

Yes. This is exactly what I am struggling with. Reactor power source and engine power source are intricately entwined by my way of evaluating the probelm. If one has created a reactor with a high T_hot why would one not use this T_hot in the engine design for a ship which equips the same engine and reactor? This maximizes thermal efficiency of the design. Aurora creates a distinction between these concepts which seems arbitrary to me.