Posted by: Steve Walmsley
« on: Today at 05:30:55 PM »Decoys can be any size. A few, smaller decoys would give you more flexibility if want to lessen a strike rather than commit everything.
Posted by: nuclearslurpee
« on: Today at 01:34:50 PM »I thought that only decoy missiles with the correct signature will defend a ship. In other words, a 20,000 ton ship must be defended by decoys which each have a signature of 20,000, not multiple decoys with signatures that add up to 20,000.
Hmmm...after reviewing the section on decoy missiles I can't rule out your take on it, or mine. It isn't clear. Arguably your take is better given the limitation on decoy launcher size, but that could be an oversight.
This way would make more sense to me as well. However, my observations of NPR designs is that they don't really match the decoy size to the ship size, and I assume Steve would not deliberately saddle the NPRs with an unworkable design feature.
Posted by: Kurt
« on: Today at 11:54:07 AM »A quick question on decoy launchers.
After reviewing the section on the 2.20 changes list on decoy missiles and launchers, I'm left a bit confused and wondering if I've done something wrong. After recent reverses, my navy is looking to install decoy missiles and launchers on its capital ships. Easy enough. I used the missile designer to design a decoy missile for a new 30,000 ton strike cruiser design. The resulting missile is 150 MSP (375 tons), with a decoy signature of 30,000 tons. As intended. The problem arises in trying to design a launcher. The section in the create research project window for designing the decoy launcher gives the largest size launcher as 99. This appears to mean that I cannot have a decoy missile for anything larger than 19,800 tons. Is this correct?
I feel like I'm missing something. Is there a research branch I'm missing?
Kurt
I have noticed the same thing and believe this is an oversight on Steve's part. Probably copied from the regular missile launcher designer.
I'm still a bit unclear on the mechanics, but it seems like two decoys of half the size are as effective as a single full-size decoy. I'm not sure how the size scaling is supposed to work to make "right sized" decoys the most effective.
I thought that only decoy missiles with the correct signature will defend a ship. In other words, a 20,000 ton ship must be defended by decoys which each have a signature of 20,000, not multiple decoys with signatures that add up to 20,000.
Hmmm...after reviewing the section on decoy missiles I can't rule out your take on it, or mine. It isn't clear. Arguably your take is better given the limitation on decoy launcher size, but that could be an oversight.
Posted by: nuclearslurpee
« on: Today at 11:24:58 AM »A quick question on decoy launchers.
After reviewing the section on the 2.20 changes list on decoy missiles and launchers, I'm left a bit confused and wondering if I've done something wrong. After recent reverses, my navy is looking to install decoy missiles and launchers on its capital ships. Easy enough. I used the missile designer to design a decoy missile for a new 30,000 ton strike cruiser design. The resulting missile is 150 MSP (375 tons), with a decoy signature of 30,000 tons. As intended. The problem arises in trying to design a launcher. The section in the create research project window for designing the decoy launcher gives the largest size launcher as 99. This appears to mean that I cannot have a decoy missile for anything larger than 19,800 tons. Is this correct?
I feel like I'm missing something. Is there a research branch I'm missing?
Kurt
I have noticed the same thing and believe this is an oversight on Steve's part. Probably copied from the regular missile launcher designer.
I'm still a bit unclear on the mechanics, but it seems like two decoys of half the size are as effective as a single full-size decoy. I'm not sure how the size scaling is supposed to work to make "right sized" decoys the most effective.
Posted by: Kurt
« on: Today at 11:06:15 AM »A quick question on decoy launchers.
After reviewing the section on the 2.20 changes list on decoy missiles and launchers, I'm left a bit confused and wondering if I've done something wrong. After recent reverses, my navy is looking to install decoy missiles and launchers on its capital ships. Easy enough. I used the missile designer to design a decoy missile for a new 30,000 ton strike cruiser design. The resulting missile is 150 MSP (375 tons), with a decoy signature of 30,000 tons. As intended. The problem arises in trying to design a launcher. The section in the create research project window for designing the decoy launcher gives the largest size launcher as 99. This appears to mean that I cannot have a decoy missile for anything larger than 19,800 tons. Is this correct?
I feel like I'm missing something. Is there a research branch I'm missing?
Kurt
After reviewing the section on the 2.20 changes list on decoy missiles and launchers, I'm left a bit confused and wondering if I've done something wrong. After recent reverses, my navy is looking to install decoy missiles and launchers on its capital ships. Easy enough. I used the missile designer to design a decoy missile for a new 30,000 ton strike cruiser design. The resulting missile is 150 MSP (375 tons), with a decoy signature of 30,000 tons. As intended. The problem arises in trying to design a launcher. The section in the create research project window for designing the decoy launcher gives the largest size launcher as 99. This appears to mean that I cannot have a decoy missile for anything larger than 19,800 tons. Is this correct?
I feel like I'm missing something. Is there a research branch I'm missing?
Kurt
Posted by: nuclearslurpee
« on: June 19, 2025, 06:02:22 PM »Hello, what is the view of the community regarding MCP (Model Context Protocol) ?
From what I understand it should be allowed as this is not a mod, it reads a copy of the db same as aurora marvin and provide logs to an AI to provide after action report/roleplay.
Would I be correct ?
Attached, a sample of skirmish report generated by it.
Generally, interacting with the DB is fine as long as you don't report bugs from a modified DB.
AI may receive a more mixed reception from the community, depending on the individual.
Posted by: Sigaur
« on: June 19, 2025, 02:24:54 PM »Hello, what is the view of the community regarding MCP (Model Context Protocol) ?
From what I understand it should be allowed as this is not a mod, it reads a copy of the db same as aurora marvin and provide logs to an AI to provide after action report/roleplay.
Would I be correct ?
Attached, a sample of skirmish report generated by it.
From what I understand it should be allowed as this is not a mod, it reads a copy of the db same as aurora marvin and provide logs to an AI to provide after action report/roleplay.
Would I be correct ?
Attached, a sample of skirmish report generated by it.
Posted by: ty55101
« on: June 18, 2025, 01:32:14 AM »Greetings - I'm wondering how to save custom starting scenarios and how to load them in game? Is it possible to include custom NPRs outside of the player starting system?
The only way to save scenarios is by copying the database ("AuroraDB" in your main folder of the game) . This is your entire set of games.
When you start a game there is a checkbox for custom starting NPRs and the options there are what we have access to.
Posted by: Steve Walmsley
« on: June 17, 2025, 07:10:44 AM »I am sorry if this has been asked before, but how viable would using very large missiles to emulate massive spinal guns be?
For example, a size 50 missile with a short range (5-10m km), very high speed and a lot of (10+) decoys ?
I don't have access to a computer now, so I cannot run simulations or "fleet exercises".
I have used size 24 missiles as 'normal' ordnance with ranges less than 10m (as WH40K 'torpedoes') so size 50 isn't too much of a stretch. A large, spinal plasma carronade is the cheapest energy option.
Posted by: Primus Pilus
« on: June 17, 2025, 04:54:41 AM »Greetings - I'm wondering how to save custom starting scenarios and how to load them in game? Is it possible to include custom NPRs outside of the player starting system?
Posted by: gpt3
« on: June 16, 2025, 11:48:55 PM »I am sorry if this has been asked before, but how viable would using very large missiles to emulate massive spinal guns be?It's certainly doable, albeit extremely expensive and only appropriate as an anti-capital weapon. You'll also have to have a roleplay explanation if the missile gets shot down by PD (perhaps someone managed to deflect the projectile).
For example, a size 50 missile with a short range (5-10m km), very high speed and a lot of (10+) decoys ?
I don't have access to a computer now, so I cannot run simulations or "fleet exercises".
Posted by: Froggiest1982
« on: June 15, 2025, 11:41:27 PM »I am sorry if this has been asked before, but how viable would using very large missiles to emulate massive spinal guns be?
For example, a size 50 missile with a short range (5-10m km), very high speed and a lot of (10+) decoys ?
I don't have access to a computer now, so I cannot run simulations or "fleet exercises".
This is probably not the answer you after, but it's the only one I can provide. Everything is possible in Aurora, and if you tie any RP reasons, then you can do what you are saying and beyond.
I would argue that when it comes to missiles, the only drawback is costs. A Size 50 missile very fast will be extremely expensive in terms of minerals as it will consequentially require larger launchers, larger magazines, more fuel, and so on. Research points and production points are also to be considered. A 50 size may also have a large warhead that could result in massive overkills, increasing wastage and, again, expenses.
So, as stated previously, if this is the solution to your RP or specific requirement to do not use the current spinal weapons setup, then it will be possible but counterproductive on many fronts such as costs, detection, and displacement.
Posted by: Protomolecule
« on: June 15, 2025, 07:28:58 PM »I am sorry if this has been asked before, but how viable would using very large missiles to emulate massive spinal guns be?
For example, a size 50 missile with a short range (5-10m km), very high speed and a lot of (10+) decoys ?
I don't have access to a computer now, so I cannot run simulations or "fleet exercises".
For example, a size 50 missile with a short range (5-10m km), very high speed and a lot of (10+) decoys ?
I don't have access to a computer now, so I cannot run simulations or "fleet exercises".
Posted by: randakar
« on: June 09, 2025, 01:10:32 AM »Thamks, Steve.
We're facing what looks like a nasty Jump Point assault.
https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/threads/sirius-business-a-c-aurora-forum-game-v2-5.1621469/post-30289452
Yes, I really need to read through the whole thread. Looks like you are having fun
We started the assault: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/threads/sirius-business-a-c-aurora-forum-game-v2-5.1621469/post-30440938
Yup, definitely a lot of fun.
Posted by: smoelf
« on: June 06, 2025, 03:05:42 PM »I'm working on establishing a new game with a multi-faction start (first time trying this) and it seems there is a behavior I have not previously noticed with financial centres. Do they provide wealth to all colonies on a planet? I have created 5 factions on Earth (conventional start) and given 2 of the factions 5 financial centres each, but after passing time for the first month, it seems that all 5 factions gain wealth from financial centres. Some more than others based on factors that I can't quite divine.
Is this an intentional mechanic of financial centres that I just didn't know about before a multi-faction start? Is there a different way of giving one faction an economical advantage?
Is this an intentional mechanic of financial centres that I just didn't know about before a multi-faction start? Is there a different way of giving one faction an economical advantage?
