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: Charlie Beeler
« on: March 24, 2008, 10:23:23 AM »

Quote from: "MWadwell"
Quote from: "Charlie Beeler"
Matt,

There are 2 major factors in why the Eurasian escort cruiser faired so poorly.  

The first being that the lasers only ranged to 60k km thus only had a single shot at the incoming missiles.  Higher wave length lasers can address this short coming.

The problem with this, is that at the moment, both sides are of comparable tech, and if one side puts it's R&D into higher wavelengths, and the other puts it into faster missiles, the balance between the two is unchanged.

And the beam-armed race also needs to upgrade their power and capacitor R&D as well, so that I wouldn't expect the anti-missile beam weapons to get better faster than missiles do.
In a game where the laser race didn't do agressive initial tech for things like wave length, beam fire control range, and targeting speed your correct...to a degree.  On the other hand if they did, but didn't build initial systems correctly the disparity isn't so great.  

I routinely start laser races with 40k-48k beam FC range, tracking of 4k/kps,capacitor 3's, and far ultra violet lasers.  Build beam fire controls at 4x/4x (yes is mass expensive) and turreted 10cm fuv lasers (again mass expensive) and also spend the mass for an active sensor that can see size 4 missiles out to 160k you have a pd suite that engage incoming missiles in the starting game effectively 3 times in the detection envelope.  This assumes that starting missiles most likely aren't going tobe faster than 12K/kps, which at least in most of my starting games isn't unreasonable.(starting research points of 300k per race)  I am talking about v2.5 and it does look like some of this may change with v2.6

Quote from: "MWadwell"
Quote from: "Charlie Beeler"
The second is the differential between the fire control and turret tracking speed (12.8k kps) and the speed of the incoming missiles (17.8k kps).  This one is expensive but can be overcome over time.  The counter for the missile user is to keep missile velocities up.

To be honest, this isn't such a big thing - as Steve pointed out that the Oceania missiles are faster than they should have been (they should be going 14 240 km/s rather than 17 800 km/s).
Agreed, but still is some degridation of accuracy for the defender.

Quote from: "MWadwell"
Quote from: "Charlie Beeler"
A third solution is to build ships that have armor that will shrug off expected warhead sizes.  It's an expensive solution in terms of hull space usage and a bit "cheesy" while being the quickest response.  Of course the missile race just deploys missiles with larger warheads...

But missiles do a LOT more damage than lasers - especially at long range (where beam weapons only do a single point of damage) - so ship armour actually makes missiles better (as it weakens beam weapons).

It's a trade off.  Size 10 warheads do make up armoring prohibative in early games.  That's what a fleet with good point defense suites will be much better.

I still don't see missiles as game dominating.  Then again I didn't in Starfire either.  It's a matter of what your willing to build and how your willing to build it.

Quote from: "MWadwell"
However, I know that this has changed with Steve introducing the new armour rules.


Yep.  The new armor makes up armoring as I described basicly moot.  Which is fine by me since I considered what I was doing a bit of a cheat.
Posted by: MWadwell
« on: March 23, 2008, 04:16:18 PM »

Quote from: "Charlie Beeler"
Matt,

There are 2 major factors in why the Eurasian escort cruiser faired so poorly.  

The first being that the lasers only ranged to 60k km thus only had a single shot at the incoming missiles.  Higher wave length lasers can address this short coming.

The problem with this, is that at the moment, both sides are of comparable tech, and if one side puts it's R&D into higher wavelengths, and the other puts it into faster missiles, the balance between the two is unchanged.

And the beam-armed race also needs to upgrade their power and capacitor R&D as well, so that I wouldn't expect the anti-missile beam weapons to get better faster than missiles do.

Quote from: "Charlie Beeler"
The second is the differential between the fire control and turret tracking speed (12.8k kps) and the speed of the incoming missiles (17.8k kps).  This one is expensive but can be overcome over time.  The counter for the missile user is to keep missile velocities up.

To be honest, this isn't such a big thing - as Steve pointed out that the Oceania missiles are faster than they should have been (they should be going 14 240 km/s rather than 17 800 km/s).

Quote from: "Charlie Beeler"
A third solution is to build ships that have armor that will shrug off expected warhead sizes.  It's an expensive solution in terms of hull space usage and a bit "cheesy" while being the quickest response.  Of course the missile race just deploys missiles with larger warheads...


But missiles do a LOT more damage than lasers - especially at long range (where beam weapons only do a single point of damage) - so ship armour actually makes missiles better (as it weakens beam weapons).

However, I know that this has changed with Steve introducing the new armour rules.
Posted by: Steve Walmsley
« on: March 23, 2008, 03:09:21 PM »

Quote from: "Strega"
Since ship weapons cannot target fighters at even 2/3 normal missile range, the reduced range of fighter missiles is irrelevant.  The fighters can easily close to missile range against any non-fighter-equipped ship and salvo their missiles, which are crushingly powerful.  
A very good anti-fighter weapon is a missile so the range of fighter missiles is important compared to ship-launched anti-fighter missiles. Fighters are also a lot easier to detect in v2.6 because they are going to be size 2-5.

Quote
That's water under the bridge given the incoming armor rules, though.  However, if you want to keep a 21st century feel, bear in mind that only a very large warship can carry enough armor to stave off even a medium sized RL antiship missile, and there are currently zero such warships in service worldwide.

Yes, although the missiles and detection are modern naval, the lasers, torpedoes and now the armour are strictly sci-fi.

Steve
Posted by: Charlie Beeler
« on: March 23, 2008, 02:06:12 PM »

Quote from: "Strega"
Since ship weapons cannot target fighters at even 2/3 normal missile range, the reduced range of fighter missiles is irrelevant.  The fighters can easily close to missile range against any non-fighter-equipped ship and salvo their missiles, which are crushingly powerful.  

That's water under the bridge given the incoming armor rules, though.  However, if you want to keep a 21st century feel, bear in mind that only a very large warship can carry enough armor to stave off even a medium sized RL antiship missile, and there are currently zero such warships in service worldwide.


The fighter detection range is a function of how you design your active sensors and the underlying tech of the sensor components.  In 2.5 I regularly build active sensors that can see fighters at 500k and others that can engage missiles at 400k for area defense.  From Steve's descriptions this will need to continue and expand/refine if a fleet ever hopes to deal with fighters.  Smart analysis of how a system is being employed will reveal at least one weakness that can be exploited.  It may take some agressive tech resesarch but can be done.
Posted by: Strega
« on: March 23, 2008, 11:49:35 AM »

Since ship weapons cannot target fighters at even 2/3 normal missile range, the reduced range of fighter missiles is irrelevant.  The fighters can easily close to missile range against any non-fighter-equipped ship and salvo their missiles, which are crushingly powerful.  

That's water under the bridge given the incoming armor rules, though.  However, if you want to keep a 21st century feel, bear in mind that only a very large warship can carry enough armor to stave off even a medium sized RL antiship missile, and there are currently zero such warships in service worldwide.
Posted by: Steve Walmsley
« on: March 23, 2008, 11:34:54 AM »

Quote from: "Strega"
The 10-damage fighter missiles seem awfully powerful.  Since the ships in Aurora and Starfire are relatively equivalent in ability to take damage, it is the equivalent of fighters firing long range HBMs.  I have trouble accepting fighters carrying three missiles that are each twice as powerful as shipboard  ones.

Although Aurora obviously has influences from 3rdR, it's a very different game and much more like modern naval warfare. A modern fighter can easily take out a destroyer if it gets solid hits so I am not that concerned about fighters having powerful missiles. However, a couple of points to consider.

With the new armour system, Aurora warships will get much tougher, although commercial shipping will get weaker, so the three strength-10 missiles from an Oceanian fighter may not even penetrate the armour of even a fairly small warship.

The reason the Falchion missiles on the fighters have larger warheads than the shipboard Katanas is that the Falchions are a third larger but shorter-ranged and have 33% less chance to hit. They are designed to be ship-killers so much more of their mass is in the warhead. The Tribals are specifically designed to combat Fast Attack Craft so their missiles are more accurate but with smaller warheads and their sensors and fire control systems can track small targets.

Steve
Posted by: Strega
« on: March 23, 2008, 08:40:50 AM »

The 10-damage fighter missiles seem awfully powerful.  Since the ships in Aurora and Starfire are relatively equivalent in ability to take damage, it is the equivalent of fighters firing long range HBMs.  I have trouble accepting fighters carrying three missiles that are each twice as powerful as shipboard  ones.
Posted by: Steve Walmsley
« on: March 21, 2008, 05:41:28 AM »

Quote from: "Charlie Beeler"
Steve,

funny you should mention FASA's Renegate Legion series...

I've been thinking about their armor functions.  The basic mechinism for the armor was present in Centurion, Interceptor and Leviathon.  Specificly, I think that armor breaching can be handled without needing to have different values for each facing.  

A basic 2 deminsional array could be used for each ships armor.  Armor rating could determine X while some calc of tonnage would determine Y.  Then you need a function to determine where each weapons hit scored and record.

I know that is way oversimplified, but I think it conveys the basic concept.

It would eliminate one thing that has bugged me, and that I've ruthlessly exploited in early games, which the use of armor to make a ship that invulnerable to weapons fire that is lighter that the armor rating.  
The more I consider it, the more I think this is the way to go. More effective armour, along with shaped damage to that armour, would lead to longer and more interesting energy weapon engagements. It will also reduce the effectiveness of the new very long range missiles because I would give missiles a crater-shaped damage model, which would mean it may take several hits to penetrate armour. The ability of beam weapons to have much greater damage over time than missiles would become really important. The only downside is that Meson Cannon would become much more effective in relative terms so I might adjust their mechanics

I agree that a 2D array is the way to go and I'll publish the details in a separate thread.

Quote
This could be taken a step further in that at a close enough range precision fire would have a chance of targeting an existing break point.  Similiar to the fighter ability in Leviathon.

I'll probably get the basic system up and working and add this ability later.

Steve
Posted by: Steve Walmsley
« on: March 21, 2008, 05:35:44 AM »

Quote from: "srubin6759"
Charles Oines' "The Stars Our Decimation" has a nice, non-sided way of differentiating different types of hits on armor.   (i.e., penetrating, splash damage, etc.)  You can find a free download of the rules at:

http://www.irrationaldesigns.com/TSOD/V ... r_demo.pdf

There is a simple ship design system in the full ruleset.

Thanks for the link. I had a look last night. Its not the same as the Renegade Legion mechanics but definitely along similar lines.

For Aurora I think I will go for a modified version of the Renegade Legion rules without the widowed armour. I'll put the details in a separate post

Steve
Posted by: srubin6759
« on: March 20, 2008, 12:36:12 PM »

Charles Oines' "The Stars Our Decimation" has a nice, non-sided way of differentiating different types of hits on armor.   (i.e., penetrating, splash damage, etc.)  You can find a free download of the rules at:

http://www.irrationaldesigns.com/TSOD/V ... r_demo.pdf

There is a simple ship design system in the full ruleset.

Steve Rubin
Posted by: Charlie Beeler
« on: March 20, 2008, 10:21:54 AM »

Steve,

funny you should mention FASA's Renegate Legion series...

I've been thinking about their armor functions.  The basic mechinism for the armor was present in Centurion, Interceptor and Leviathon.  Specificly, I think that armor breaching can be handled without needing to have different values for each facing.  

A basic 2 deminsional array could be used for each ships armor.  Armor rating could determine X while some calc of tonnage would determine Y.  Then you need a function to determine where each weapons hit scored and record.

I know that is way oversimplified, but I think it conveys the basic concept.

It would eliminate one thing that has bugged me, and that I've ruthlessly exploited in early games, which the use of armor to make a ship that invulnerable to weapons fire that is lighter that the armor rating.  

This could be taken a step further in that at a close enough range precision fire would have a chance of targeting an existing break point.  Similiar to the fighter ability in Leviathon.
Posted by: Steve Walmsley
« on: March 20, 2008, 09:02:54 AM »

Quote from: "TrueZuluwiz"
All this does for me is point out why it takes companies with thousands of employees and budgets of billions to design and build modern weapons. I have no desire to get this far into the arcane details of missile designs. This game is already far too complex for me to ever want to actually play, and shows every sign of getting much worse. Now the fiction is getting to arcane for me to want to read.

I know this game is not going to appeal to probably 95% of people, which is also why it would never be commercially viable. There are plenty of less detailed games out there for people who don't want the depth of Aurora but the wealth of options and level of detail will appeal to a few games (and myself :)) and for me its the game I always hoped someone would create one day. I don't think its really that complex though. Missile design is essentially moving half a dozen sliders about to get a design you like and then clicking Create.

Steve
Posted by: Steve Walmsley
« on: March 20, 2008, 08:54:27 AM »

Quote from: "sloanjh"
Does anyone know if the hit probability for missiles goes down with the target's speed (as for beams)?  I don't remember.

If not, then maybe it should.  One of the main ingredients for FAC (and fighter) survivability is that their speed makes them hard to hit.  If missiles are ignoring this "agility rating", then they'll be FAC/fighter killers (as happened in the battle in question).

The speed of the target is a big factor in determining if missiles hit. The formula is: Percentage Chance to hit = (MissileSpeed / TargetSpeed) x Missile Maneuverability.

For example, if a 15,000 km/s missile with maneuverability 10 is trying to hit a 4000 km/s target, the chance is (15000/4000) x 10 = 37.5%

Sometimes its better to devote missile space to maneuverability rather than speed to increase the chance to hit.

Steve
Posted by: Steve Walmsley
« on: March 20, 2008, 08:48:11 AM »

Quote from: "Charlie Beeler"
Matt,

There are 2 major factors in why the Eurasian escort cruiser faired so poorly.  

The first being that the lasers only ranged to 60k km thus only had a single shot at the incoming missiles.  Higher wave length lasers can address this short coming.  
Yes, and also larger, longer range fire control systems. I think area defence, formations, good point blank defences and some type of early warning ships or active sensor pickets are going to be the keys to defending against the missile threat

Quote
The second is the differential between the fire control and turret tracking speed (12.8k kps) and the speed of the incoming missiles (17.8k kps).  This one is expensive but can be overcome over time.  The counter for the missile user is to keep missile velocities up.
Very true. I might consider making this tech line cheaper or increasing its capability. Although missile engine power was only increased by 25%, missiles in v2.6 can devote less space to fuel and more space to engines which makes the gain a little greater. To make matters slightly worse,  there was a bug in missile design which meant the Oceanian missiles were about 25% faster than they should have been. The missile engine power should have been 1.6 and was in fact 2.0 due to being rounded by accident.

Quote
A third solution is to build ships that have armor that will shrug off expected warhead sizes.  It's an expensive solution in terms of hull space usage and a bit "cheesy" while being the quickest response.  Of course the missile race just deploys missiles with larger warheads...

I am not sure what to do with armour in the long term. With larger warheads and fairly powerful beam weapons, it is actually quite difficult to armour a ship enough to make a huge difference. I am considering a complete change to the way armour works in combat, although it would be the same in terms of ship design. If I could find a way to make it work effectively, I wouldn't mind using armour rules similar to those in a FASA game called Interceptor. In that board game armour is shown as a block of boxes, say ten wide by seven high, and different weapons have damage "shapes". So a laser drills a hole one box wide straight though the armour whereas another weapon causes a crater and a third a triangle-shaped impression. Any damage that gets through the armour is applied against the ship. In this case, if two lasers hit in the same place, they might drill straight through relatively tough armour.

The first problem for Aurora is that Interceptor has armour on each of six facings and Aurora doesn't have facings. Therefore I would have a single block of armour with the depth of the block based on the the level of armour and the width of the armour block based on the size of the ship. I would add an extra tab to the Ship window showing the current state of the armour. The second problem is that Aurora has no "shaped" damage so I would have to re-assess every weapon in terms of how it affected armour and probably add additional weapons with different characteristics in terms of shaped damage.

Rambled on a little there :).  This is more of a long term thought than an immediate plan though.

Steve
Posted by: Charlie Beeler
« on: March 19, 2008, 07:29:45 AM »

Quote from: "TrueZuluwiz"
All this does for me is point out why it takes companies with thousands of employees and budgets of billions to design and build modern weapons. I have no desire to get this far into the arcane details of missile designs. This game is already far too complex for me to ever want to actually play, and shows every sign of getting much worse. Now the fiction is getting to arcane for me to want to read.


????????

This level of complex control is exactly what I like about the game.  Unlike Starfleet Battles and Starfire ships and systems are not "cookie cutter".  The player has the ability to be potential of showing the opposition something they haven't seen before.  

Don't get me wrong.  I've enjoyed SFB and Starfire almost from the time Steven Cole first published both.  But Aurora is a very different game that has a lot of elements that I've wanted in a game for a very long time.  Does it have everything I want?  Of course not, I'm not the one coding it.