Posted by: Steve Walmsley
« on: Today at 03:07:36 AM »Can XCM be scrapped? If so, how many materials could we get back at maximum?
Yes, they can be scrapped. They would provide 720 wealth and 720 Corundium.
Yes, they can be scrapped. They would provide 720 wealth and 720 Corundium.
Posted by: Steve Walmsley
« on: Today at 03:02:22 AM »Something I'd like to ask is whether Sensor Jammers' interaction with ECCM remains unchanged.
Sensor Jammers are also affected by the same change as Fire Control Jammers, using the 0.75^(ECM Advantage) formula to affect sensor range. I'll note that separately in the changes list.
Posted by: alex_brunius
« on: Yesterday at 04:57:24 PM »Yeah, but why not convert them into 10 automines instead of a new facility type? Does taking twice the cargo space really matter?In a lot of my low or mid tech games before Civilians snowball and you have the economy to use them for free shipping then cargo space can matter quite a bit. I often find myself limited if not by cargo space, then by cargo space of faster haulers than can move the installations and other stuff around quickly to where I want it.
It also depends alot on playstyle and how heavily you militarize (if you use too much SY and Production on military stuff leaving too little for Commercial ships), but certainly possible to get yourself into this position.
Posted by: paolot
« on: Yesterday at 04:48:35 PM »Can XCM be scrapped? If so, how many materials could we get back at maximum?
Posted by: Droll
« on: Yesterday at 11:50:09 AM »And idea for industrial NPRs and "ships" might be to limit them to having a constellation of conventional tech battlestations. Since they won't be going anywhere and will have the support of the homeworld logistically it would probably be the simplest way of giving industrial NPRs a military presence in space.
They wouldn't be a threat like you mentioned for conventional ships but at least they'll be in the way
They wouldn't be a threat like you mentioned for conventional ships but at least they'll be in the way
Posted by: Ghostly
« on: Yesterday at 11:06:04 AM »Not sure how I feel about a new type of installation being added just to handle captured CMCs, but it sure beats having to pay enemy civilians after you conquer their stuff! I definitely agree with making them less efficient than automines though.
It also makes me wonder whether an "aggressive nationalization" type of play could be had now, allowing your civilians to breed CMCs on eligible but undesirable bodies (duranium-only planets, for example) before making them independent, conquering them and moving their installations elsewhere. This has the same energy as building force labor camps for your main race, not something I'd do but something that allows interesting roleplay possibilities.
Also, I can't thank you enough for the ECM changes and the spinal Particles, truly amazing stuff! Something I'd like to ask is whether Sensor Jammers' interaction with ECCM remains unchanged, and whether you've given any thought to the possibility of ECM having partial effects against superior ECCM and vice versa, as discussed here. I know it's not as straightforward as making the ECM penalty multiplicative, but it might be a great addition to the game if done right.
It also makes me wonder whether an "aggressive nationalization" type of play could be had now, allowing your civilians to breed CMCs on eligible but undesirable bodies (duranium-only planets, for example) before making them independent, conquering them and moving their installations elsewhere. This has the same energy as building force labor camps for your main race, not something I'd do but something that allows interesting roleplay possibilities.
Also, I can't thank you enough for the ECM changes and the spinal Particles, truly amazing stuff! Something I'd like to ask is whether Sensor Jammers' interaction with ECCM remains unchanged, and whether you've given any thought to the possibility of ECM having partial effects against superior ECCM and vice versa, as discussed here. I know it's not as straightforward as making the ECM penalty multiplicative, but it might be a great addition to the game if done right.
Posted by: Steve Walmsley
« on: Yesterday at 10:09:48 AM »Why not just convert captured CMCs into automines?
A couple of reasons. If they were converted into automated mines, why don't civilians just use auto mines in the first place? Other civilian/commercial equipment tends to be larger and less efficient, so the same should apply to civilian mining colonies. Secondly, for game balance purposes, I didn't want to create an easy source of additional automated mines. The XMC can still be used in the same role, but is less efficient due to the transport requirements.
Posted by: Ush213
« on: Yesterday at 09:43:10 AM »Yeah, but why not convert them into 10 automines instead of a new facility type? Does taking twice the cargo space really matter?
Ya i see your point you could carry 20 automines to an asteroid for double the production in the same time you bring one XCM. suppose i missed that point.
Still though it would be worth capturing them for the corrundum saving no. you would have to capture 10 automines for the same output. Cargo hauling is never a bottleneck for me in my games so moving it around isnt an issue for me.
I wonder what problem or gameplay loop Steve was doing to see the need for XCMs
Posted by: Zap0
« on: Yesterday at 09:37:19 AM »Yeah, but why not convert them into 10 automines instead of a new facility type? Does taking twice the cargo space really matter?
Posted by: Ush213
« on: Yesterday at 09:36:12 AM »Like the ECM changes.
Why not just convert captured CMCs into automines?
ECMs are 10X more productive then automines. So they would be more sought after.
Posted by: Zap0
« on: Yesterday at 09:34:13 AM »Like the ECM changes.
Why not just convert captured CMCs into automines?
Why not just convert captured CMCs into automines?
Posted by: Ush213
« on: Yesterday at 09:33:50 AM »New Casus belli unlocked. Harvasting those sweat XCM mines.
Whats the best way to capture these without accidently blowing them up.
It has to be flying in with a super fast and decently shielded/armored troop drop craft and using ground forces, right? Anything else risks blowing them up.
Well they would be on Asteroid right like our own CMCs. so the risk of STOs is minimal? then you just land troops?
Posted by: Bremen
« on: Yesterday at 08:16:08 AM »The ECM change is one I've wanted for a long time - in Aurora you're far more likely to be dealing with low odds shots due to range penalties or a technology gap, so the threat of ECM making shots completely impossible just contributed further to the dominance of missiles. Also I kind of like for Aurora lets you compensate for quality with quantity with missiles and am glad to see the same done with beams.
Spinal particle beams is a change I wasn't expecting since I always kind of thought the lance was the spinal particle variant, but I'm always excited for more weapon options. The range bonus in particular is interesting, particle beams' big weakness (besides overall lowish dps) has always been that they can't quite reach out to the max range of an equal tech fire control, so having a spinal version with increased range greatly reduces the threat of getting kited.
Spinal particle beams is a change I wasn't expecting since I always kind of thought the lance was the spinal particle variant, but I'm always excited for more weapon options. The range bonus in particular is interesting, particle beams' big weakness (besides overall lowish dps) has always been that they can't quite reach out to the max range of an equal tech fire control, so having a spinal version with increased range greatly reduces the threat of getting kited.
Posted by: Pallington
« on: Yesterday at 06:08:00 AM »New Casus belli unlocked. Harvasting those sweat XCM mines.
Whats the best way to capture these without accidently blowing them up.
It has to be flying in with a super fast and decently shielded/armored troop drop craft and using ground forces, right? Anything else risks blowing them up.
In other news, New Meta: Corvette built around having a single AdvSp Particle Lance for the full 900 (? I think?) tons and then like 800 tons of engine ramped up to 250% burn ratio from a gauss/AMM spam carrier. Total size approx 2kt, replacing and in fact totally invalidating plasma for small craft. Also nullifies armor lategame entirely, because the thing does 100 piercing, that crap WILL find and blow up your power plants/engines.
Edit: I should specify it only invalidates plasma for small but not tiny craft. You can't fit this thing on an actual FAC let alone a fighter, and support modules (jamming, defenses, etc) means it's main use is as a better one-shot beam alternative for stuff between 2-4kt. At least, that's what I'm seeing.
Also, Lasers are no longer sufficient anti-craft PD. If they're equal tech BFC, they just sit on the edge at 80%* range, small lasers barely deal any damage even if they hit, and they deal full damage. Everything about this is scary. At the same time, how exciting! Pair it with a more well defended AMM dump corvette (mass box launchers + armor/shields) to defend against enemy AMM and a bomber corvette (more mass box launchers but carrying 1-2mil km max damage "bombs") and you have a three corvette nuke on a stick, <10kt.
Posted by: Ush213
« on: Yesterday at 06:01:03 AM »New Casus belli unlocked. Harvasting those sweat XCM mines.
Whats the best way to capture these without accidently blowing them up.
Whats the best way to capture these without accidently blowing them up.
