Posted by: Marski
« on: March 01, 2016, 01:13:03 PM »Really would like that possibility of planets seceding on their own though, managing the population in tropico was hell of a fun and I wish I could enjoy it in a grand manner such as in Aurora.
Posted by: iceball3
« on: February 22, 2016, 02:29:56 AM »Ten thousand survivors? The hell was that thing?Really big goat. I didn't blow it up hard enough.
Posted by: QuakeIV
« on: February 21, 2016, 10:01:48 PM »Ten thousand survivors? The hell was that thing?
Posted by: iceball3
« on: February 21, 2016, 06:39:46 PM »Quick, someone sacrifice a goat!I'm on it.
The blood price has been payed.
Posted by: boggo2300
« on: February 21, 2016, 02:54:14 PM »Because, the Forum Deities willed it that way.
Quick, someone sacrifice a goat!
Posted by: Erik L
« on: February 19, 2016, 10:25:01 AM »Because, the Forum Deities willed it that way.
Posted by: Marski
« on: February 19, 2016, 09:44:33 AM »Why is this now in a separate thread and with my post as the OP?
Oh well, I take it as an indication that someone took an interest in my suggestion about the potential for politics in the gameplay.
Oh well, I take it as an indication that someone took an interest in my suggestion about the potential for politics in the gameplay.
Posted by: TheDeadlyShoe
« on: February 15, 2016, 04:57:42 AM »i loaded up a random game of mine.
A 9000-ton 1550-bp frigate's missile armament amounted to 2800 tons and cost about 540 bp, including all necessary components for independent operation.
a 127000-ton 1276-bp freighter design from the same game could mount that, upping its tonnage to 130,000 and its cost to 1816 bp. That is a 2.2% armament.
Although the freighter has no armor its huge engine array gives it many times the HTK of the frigate. (Huge engines could do with less HTK, lol.)
You could say go to a 1% armament, a 1300 ton weapons array in this case but then you are looking at pointlessly-small armaments for all but the largest commercial ships. And further complication as you set up Freighter Leader classes that use all their military space for actives.
But a lot of that is besides the point. The problem with maintenance free warships isn't necessarily cost, it's logistics concerns. Maintenance concerns place significant limits on the ability of empires to project power and conduct vital tasks like wormhole blockades. Even the new 7.2 remote maintenance stations require delivery of MSP from an industrial center. In contrast a 'commercial auxiliary' could - paired with a rec center - maintain an indefinite wormhole blockade until the heat death of the universe.
A 9000-ton 1550-bp frigate's missile armament amounted to 2800 tons and cost about 540 bp, including all necessary components for independent operation.
a 127000-ton 1276-bp freighter design from the same game could mount that, upping its tonnage to 130,000 and its cost to 1816 bp. That is a 2.2% armament.
Although the freighter has no armor its huge engine array gives it many times the HTK of the frigate. (Huge engines could do with less HTK, lol.)
You could say go to a 1% armament, a 1300 ton weapons array in this case but then you are looking at pointlessly-small armaments for all but the largest commercial ships. And further complication as you set up Freighter Leader classes that use all their military space for actives.
But a lot of that is besides the point. The problem with maintenance free warships isn't necessarily cost, it's logistics concerns. Maintenance concerns place significant limits on the ability of empires to project power and conduct vital tasks like wormhole blockades. Even the new 7.2 remote maintenance stations require delivery of MSP from an industrial center. In contrast a 'commercial auxiliary' could - paired with a rec center - maintain an indefinite wormhole blockade until the heat death of the universe.
Posted by: bean
« on: February 12, 2016, 09:13:32 AM »Might be a bit of an interesting change. Afterall, I really don't understand why 250kt freighters get whiny over 100t being devoted to a size 2 sensor.Hmm. I picked 5% out of a hat, with an eye on smaller ships. It might have to be scaled down some on larger ships.
5% might be a little high though. As lets face it, despite a 250kt "freighter" being termed a "freighter" I really don't see why it should be able to pack, 12kt worth of box launchers, and still termed civilian. Thats a pretty high powered freighter.
Though, as it is a "commercial" ship. With the exception os specifically trained crews, perhaps they could just get a "poorly trained" penalty to combat with the exception of CIWS (as those are fully self controlled)
And how expensive is that big commercial ship going to be, anyway? I can't see lack of maintenance offsetting the extra costs of a really big ship.
Posted by: Paul M
« on: February 12, 2016, 07:30:05 AM »In starfire a ship is civillian with up to 20% military hardware onboard. The civillian designation reduces maintenance costs and construction costs but at a serious (x2) combat penalty to internal damage. I've never seen it abused frankly BUT clearly the limit has to be lower (2% in aurora).
45,000 tonne freighter could have 900 tonnes of military hardware and still be considered civillian. That is about an armed pinnace worth of weapons. The trouble is a 450,000 tonne freighter could mount the weapons of a DD (9000 tonnes, actually since the DD looses space to fuel, lifesupport and engines it would be a substantial weapons package) and have no maintenance. I'm pretty sure that is one heck of a Q-ship.
I think I tend to go along with the Shoe on this. It is a fine topic for theoretical discussion but I suspect its practical application to the game would be migraine headache inducing.
45,000 tonne freighter could have 900 tonnes of military hardware and still be considered civillian. That is about an armed pinnace worth of weapons. The trouble is a 450,000 tonne freighter could mount the weapons of a DD (9000 tonnes, actually since the DD looses space to fuel, lifesupport and engines it would be a substantial weapons package) and have no maintenance. I'm pretty sure that is one heck of a Q-ship.
I think I tend to go along with the Shoe on this. It is a fine topic for theoretical discussion but I suspect its practical application to the game would be migraine headache inducing.
Posted by: sloanjh
« on: February 12, 2016, 07:06:59 AM »IMO: The purpose of the commercial designation is to prevent players from going crazy over having to micro freighter maintenance, not to reflect any kind of reality. A ship with military purpose (like a fleet tender) should indeed be subject to military maintenance rules.
it would be nearly impossible to find a balance between pointlessly tiny armaments and a game-breaking maintenance free Commercial Navy.
Well said.
John
Posted by: TheDeadlyShoe
« on: February 12, 2016, 12:11:46 AM »IMO: The purpose of the commercial designation is to prevent players from going crazy over having to micro freighter maintenance, not to reflect any kind of reality. A ship with military purpose (like a fleet tender) should indeed be subject to military maintenance rules.
it would be nearly impossible to find a balance between pointlessly tiny armaments and a game-breaking maintenance free Commercial Navy.
it would be nearly impossible to find a balance between pointlessly tiny armaments and a game-breaking maintenance free Commercial Navy.
Posted by: linkxsc
« on: February 11, 2016, 09:08:04 PM »All of this gives me an idea for a way to potentially make this system more realistic without making Steve tear his hair out. At the moment, it's assumed that any ship with only civilian systems has no maintenance problems with 1 engineering space, even if it's 200,000 tons, and any ship with any military systems has maintenance problems, even if it's only a size-2 sensor, and this affects everything on the ship.
What if we changed the rules a bit? Instead of the current test, give a two-pronged test of military status. First, all ships get a computed AFR, and a ship cannot be civilian if the AFR is over a certain value. I don't know exactly what this value should be, as I don't have Aurora open, but as a rule of thumb, it's a value that can be done with a typical 5-cargo bay cargo ship and 1 engineering space. Larger ships will need more engineering spaces to count as civilian.
Second, the ship can't be more than, say, 5% military systems by size. This should make it pretty much impossible to build an efficient warship and have it count as 'civilian', while still allowing you to mount a bit of self-defense armament on your fleet tenders.
Another thing that might be helpful would be to drop the 25-HS limit on civilian engines while maintaining the power multiplier regulations.
Might be a bit of an interesting change. Afterall, I really don't understand why 250kt freighters get whiny over 100t being devoted to a size 2 sensor.
5% might be a little high though. As lets face it, despite a 250kt "freighter" being termed a "freighter" I really don't see why it should be able to pack, 12kt worth of box launchers, and still termed civilian. Thats a pretty high powered freighter.
Though, as it is a "commercial" ship. With the exception os specifically trained crews, perhaps they could just get a "poorly trained" penalty to combat with the exception of CIWS (as those are fully self controlled)
Posted by: bean
« on: February 04, 2016, 10:24:45 AM »All of this gives me an idea for a way to potentially make this system more realistic without making Steve tear his hair out. At the moment, it's assumed that any ship with only civilian systems has no maintenance problems with 1 engineering space, even if it's 200,000 tons, and any ship with any military systems has maintenance problems, even if it's only a size-2 sensor, and this affects everything on the ship.
What if we changed the rules a bit? Instead of the current test, give a two-pronged test of military status. First, all ships get a computed AFR, and a ship cannot be civilian if the AFR is over a certain value. I don't know exactly what this value should be, as I don't have Aurora open, but as a rule of thumb, it's a value that can be done with a typical 5-cargo bay cargo ship and 1 engineering space. Larger ships will need more engineering spaces to count as civilian.
Second, the ship can't be more than, say, 5% military systems by size. This should make it pretty much impossible to build an efficient warship and have it count as 'civilian', while still allowing you to mount a bit of self-defense armament on your fleet tenders.
Another thing that might be helpful would be to drop the 25-HS limit on civilian engines while maintaining the power multiplier regulations.
What if we changed the rules a bit? Instead of the current test, give a two-pronged test of military status. First, all ships get a computed AFR, and a ship cannot be civilian if the AFR is over a certain value. I don't know exactly what this value should be, as I don't have Aurora open, but as a rule of thumb, it's a value that can be done with a typical 5-cargo bay cargo ship and 1 engineering space. Larger ships will need more engineering spaces to count as civilian.
Second, the ship can't be more than, say, 5% military systems by size. This should make it pretty much impossible to build an efficient warship and have it count as 'civilian', while still allowing you to mount a bit of self-defense armament on your fleet tenders.
Another thing that might be helpful would be to drop the 25-HS limit on civilian engines while maintaining the power multiplier regulations.
Posted by: bean
« on: February 04, 2016, 09:59:42 AM »If anything, civilian mounted weapons should require more maintenance because the crew isn't as used to maintaining, or access to supplies, or the like.Well, during WWII, most weapons mounted on US merchant ships were under control of the Naval Armed Guard. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Navy_Armed_Guard
The Guard only had command over the weapons, and were active naval personnel. I don't recall hearing of any particular maintenance problems.
One thing I find strange is that being classed as a military vessel will cause otherwise reliable components to blow up.This is an unfortunate limitation of Aurora. Either a ship is entirely civilian, or it isn't. It's probably something which would be next to impossible to deal with from a programming standpoint.
That commercial behemoth can see hard use for a century... but replace the size-1 navigation sensor with something twice as big, and something will go wrong within days and the ship won't last a year.
It depends if the "weapon" was designed to be used for civilian applications or not.That's an...interesting choice of analogy. I'm not sure you've gotten at the root purpose very well. A gas stove does the same thing, too. Also, using an incinerator as a weapon is pretty much impossible.
A military flamethrower and a civilian incinerator may have the same end function ( produce a flame from fuel ), but with civilian crew trained to operate a civilian incinerator designed to be used around the clock will have alot better reliability and less maintenance needs per operating hour then a military flamethrower designed to be possible to operate only a few seconds bursts with no more fuel then 30 seconds total firing before needing refueling.
Quote
There are not really any direct civilian comparison for battleship guns though ( that I know of ). But if there was an application for civilian use where you need to accelerate a 1ton+ projectile to high speeds another solution then using explosives and a 20m barrel would probably be designed.The only thing that comes to mind is space launch, but that's a terrible analogy for many, many reasons.
Quote
The magnetic trains or high speed trains come pretty close to a civilian applications designed for accelerating heavy stuff to high speeds with minimal wear and tear. Or the hyperloop maybe that is being designed?Let's see. The high-speed train record is 603 km/h according to Wiki. The Iowa's guns had a muzzle velocity of 2869 km/h. That's a big difference, and there are other, much bigger ones. (And the hyperloop is pretty much pure nonsense. I'm not sure what Musk was thinking.)
Quote
I guess what I am trying to get at is that in the end it's the requirements and budget that decides maintenance and wear and tear of the designed solution. You can make very reliable weapons as well, but normally it's much cheaper and easier / better performance not to do it since they don't need to be used as often as civilian systems. And as already pointed out weapons tend to either run out of ammo, or run out of stuff to shoot at way before reliability being an issue.I think you're conflating two different concepts here, service life and reliability. The two are not the same thing, nor is reliability exactly the same as 'low maintenance'. For instance, battleship guns had a very finite service life. Exactly how this compared to civilian applications is sort of irrelevant. For any machine, service life of components is going to be determined by how expensive (in terms of time, money, and labor) they are to replace, versus the expense of making them last longer, which may be in terms besides money. For instance, to continue our analogy, making a longer-lasting gun involved sacrificing a bit of performance.
I'd define reliability as something like 'the ability to perform when needed and avoid unexpected downtime'. Battleship guns were not as reliable as you'd think, actually. The British had particular problems, but read an account of any battleship action and you'll see references to salvos missed because of mechanical problems.
Then you have maintenance requirements. This is how much work is needed to keep the system going, which includes both fixing things that have broken and doing preventative maintenance to keep things from breaking in the first place. This is an area where civilian ships have a distinct edge over military ships today. A lot of the stuff on a warship needs regular work to keep it going, even though it's not 'unreliable' per se. In Aurora terms, a ship with 10 engineering spaces and an AFR of 10% (made-up numbers) is reasonably reliable because of all the engineers from those spaces are doing preventive work, not because stuff is getting fixed faster. A ship with the same systems, 1 engineering space, and a bunch of MSP bays is going to be less reliable (well, stuff will break more, even though it will be instantly repaired).
