Post reply

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: Ghostly
« on: Yesterday at 11:52:15 AM »

Quote from: mobody on Yesterday at 09:28:48 AM
Can someone help me with a proper design for mines?

I designed a two stage missile. The first stage has no engine and sensors and the second stage just has the engine and a warhead. I tried laying them by creating a waypoint and targeting it but I'm not sure that that's going to work.
What I want to happen is that these second stage rockets start firing when a hostile ship approaches.
Is such a behaviour even possible in Aurora?

Also, is there a way to mark one of your ships as hostile in order to use it as shooting practice? Or is there any other way to test out a ship's combat performance?

The answer to both of your questions is the "Designate as Target" checkbox in the Misc tab of the Ship Overview section in the Naval window. You can use it both for target practice and to test your two-stage mines, though the designated ship's PD won't work against them. But from your description, they should work just fine. For more info, check here and here.
Posted by: mobody
« on: Yesterday at 09:28:48 AM »

Can someone help me with a proper design for mines?

I designed a two stage missile. The first stage has no engine and sensors and the second stage just has the engine and a warhead. I tried laying them by creating a waypoint and targeting it but I'm not sure that that's going to work.
What I want to happen is that these second stage rockets start firing when a hostile ship approaches.
Is such a behaviour even possible in Aurora?

Also, is there a way to mark one of your ships as hostile in order to use it as shooting practice? Or is there any other way to test out a ship's combat performance?
Posted by: skoormit
« on: Yesterday at 03:32:12 AM »

Quote from: paolot on July 06, 2025, 02:08:55 PM
Please, can you share some examples of stations that you place at DSPs (far from planets)?
Do you prefer one large behemoth, filled with sensors, missiles, guns, refuelling capacity, MSP, hangar, etc.? or few smaller bases, each one specialised for one or two missions (that can be built in parallel, and each one easily moved by one tug)?

For commercial stations (to be built without yards), I prefer each class fulfills one role, and I'll build different sizes for each role.
So I might have a small maintenance station with 2 modules, a medium one with 10 modules, and a large one with 50 modules. With scaling MSP storage.
And a similar array of fuel stations. And commercial hangar stations. Etc.

For military stations to be garrisoned off-colony, I usually make a 10kt design crammed with box launchers and an active sensor appropriate to support ASM fire.
60month deployment time is preferred, but I expect these to be stationed alongside maintenance bases, so I won't add nearly as much eng spaces as I would for a long-deployment ship.
Posted by: Garfunkel
« on: July 06, 2025, 07:32:15 PM »

Mine are always modular. Faster to build and makes it easier to tailor the 'base' to what the mission needs.
Posted by: paolot
« on: July 06, 2025, 02:08:55 PM »

Please, can you share some examples of stations that you place at DSPs (far from planets)?
Do you prefer one large behemoth, filled with sensors, missiles, guns, refuelling capacity, MSP, hangar, etc.? or few smaller bases, each one specialised for one or two missions (that can be built in parallel, and each one easily moved by one tug)?
Posted by: alex_brunius
« on: July 05, 2025, 03:22:17 AM »

Quote from: nuclearslurpee on July 03, 2025, 07:21:24 PM
Intuitively, I think players expect a decoy to "look like" the ship it's decoying from, i.e., to have the same signature. I can see why the actual mechanic is different, as its more flexible and less micromanage-y than requiring exact size matching (plus avoid issues with ship sizes that aren't nice, round numbers), but the fact that an infinite swarm of size-5 decoys is arguably optimal (same performance and cost as any other option, maximum flexibility) seems to eliminate what could/should be a gameplay decision point.

I don't agree smaller decoys are always optimal. For when your facing negligable missile threats smaller sized decoys mean ships with standard settings will always launch some decoys even against tricklefire from AMMs that your PD or Shields can shrug off which adds cost (or alot micro if you want to turn it off situationally).

For larger decoys it's much easier to have a sensible cut-off setting so that for negligable threats with fewer incoming MSP then 0 decoys will be launched, while still ensuring all decoys will be launched against that deadly alpha strike.
Posted by: nuclearslurpee
« on: July 04, 2025, 05:27:12 PM »

Quote from: AdamantineAxe on July 04, 2025, 05:18:41 PM
Can player races resurvey a system if they suspect a dormant jump point?

I assumed you had to wait until you could have a sensor detect another race's ship transit through the suspected dormant jump point.

Yes, it was added a while ago, although you were always able to manually resurvey a specific location, IIRC.

Quote from: EclipsedStar on July 04, 2025, 05:22:00 PM
Do you mean literally resurveying jump points

This one.
Posted by: EclipsedStar
« on: July 04, 2025, 05:22:00 PM »

Do you mean literally resurveying jump points/celestial bodies, or do you mean having a ship fly around each body with sensors active to see if anyone's 'home'?
Posted by: AdamantineAxe
« on: July 04, 2025, 05:18:41 PM »

Can player races resurvey a system if they suspect a dormant jump point?

I assumed you had to wait until you could have a sensor detect another race's ship transit through the suspected dormant jump point.
Posted by: nuclearslurpee
« on: July 04, 2025, 02:45:40 PM »

A repeat of an earlier, unanswered question: Do NPRs ever get suspicious of a dormant jump point and conduct resurveys of their systems? Asking for a friend(ly battlefleet)...
Posted by: serger
« on: July 04, 2025, 02:17:59 AM »

I'd suggest to make larger decoys significanty better, something like (size^2) factor for the probability of a missile hitting the decoy. The drawback is obvious, it would not be an imbalance the opposite way.
Posted by: serger
« on: July 04, 2025, 01:06:10 AM »

Quote from: Andrew on July 03, 2025, 08:48:37 PM
One of the closest things to decoys used on modern ships is Chaff, which is a lot of very small things to confuse incoming missiles. So smaller decoys make a degree of sense. Aside from a small number of air launched drones I am not aware of any decoys which do try to match the signature of a real vehicle.

Not a Navy example, yet nearly half of the russian long range drones currently launching at Ukraine every day are Gerbera type, which are mostly decoys, mimiking the main long range strike drone type (Geran-2, the russian licensed copy of Iranian Shahed-136). Gerbera type radar signatures are artifically enlarged to match Geran-2.
Posted by: nuclearslurpee
« on: July 03, 2025, 11:10:52 PM »

Quote from: Andrew on July 03, 2025, 08:48:37 PM
One of the closest things to decoys used on modern ships is Chaff, which is a lot of very small things to confuse incoming missiles. So smaller decoys make a degree of sense. Aside from a small number of air launched drones I am not aware of any decoys which do try to match the signature of a real vehicle.

Quote from: Garfunkel on July 03, 2025, 10:52:56 PM
Modern flares are mimicking the actual engine signature in wavelength, not just heat, to fool heat-seeking missiles as their homing heads have gotten increasingly sophisticated. And decoy drones, most of which specs are secret, are trying to mimic the sensor signatures of real planes or ships. Same with sonar and submarine-launched decoys.

Usually the real-world example I think of when I think of decoys is the AN/SLQ-25 Nixie (because all ECM components should have cute names!). However, even this doesn't try to exactly mimic the ship's "active signature", per se, but tries to draw off fire by mimicking ship noise or by reflecting the torpedo's pings back at it. Since missiles in Aurora usually home on the gravitational signature rather than noise, I think the former method is probably not applicable, but the idea of reflecting the active pings of the enemy sensors/MFCs to confuse incoming ordnance works fine, so if decoys do not have to (or cannot) match ship size I don't think it's a problem, even if it would be nice to support that for roleplay purposes.

One stills lacks a reason to use anything larger than the minimum size of decoys, however.
Posted by: Garfunkel
« on: July 03, 2025, 10:52:56 PM »

Modern flares are mimicking the actual engine signature in wavelength, not just heat, to fool heat-seeking missiles as their homing heads have gotten increasingly sophisticated. And decoy drones, most of which specs are secret, are trying to mimic the sensor signatures of real planes or ships. Same with sonar and submarine-launched decoys.
Posted by: Andrew
« on: July 03, 2025, 08:48:37 PM »

One of the closest things to decoys used on modern ships is Chaff, which is a lot of very small things to confuse incoming missiles. So smaller decoys make a degree of sense. Aside from a small number of air launched drones I am not aware of any decoys which do try to match the signature of a real vehicle.