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: Kana
« on: April 22, 2008, 12:05:32 AM »

Quote from: "Steve Walmsley"
Quote from: "Kana"
So what would be the possiblity of actually putting in armor or even shield facings?  Is it considered a worth while concept?
The problem is that Aurora doesn't have any facings at all so I would have to add a whole set of other rules around turn rates, etc. in order to have facings. Given the scope of the game and the potential size of some of the battles, that's a level of detail I have deliberately avoided.

Steve


Roger that.
Posted by: Steve Walmsley
« on: April 20, 2008, 09:40:28 AM »

Quote from: "Kana"
So what would be the possiblity of actually putting in armor or even shield facings?  Is it considered a worth while concept?

The problem is that Aurora doesn't have any facings at all so I would have to add a whole set of other rules around turn rates, etc. in order to have facings. Given the scope of the game and the potential size of some of the battles, that's a level of detail I have deliberately avoided.

Steve
Posted by: Kana
« on: April 18, 2008, 04:39:16 PM »

So what would be the possiblity of actually putting in armor or even shield facings?  Is it considered a worth while concept?
Posted by: Steve Walmsley
« on: March 23, 2008, 03:13:59 PM »

Quote from: "kdstubbs"
Steve, I like the Armor concept--leads to the natural development of amorphous armor that automatically repairs armor damage--but reduces total armor thickness over time.  Would not be instantaneous repair, but would allow the ship to rotate on its axis to take the damaged armor out of the line of fire while it tried to repair itself--probably a high tech level system.

Self-repairing armour sounds like an interesting idea. Maybe a basis for bio-technology ships.

Steve
Posted by: kdstubbs
« on: March 23, 2008, 01:18:05 PM »

Gentlemen,
     The comment on lasers getting too large for turrets sparked an idea.  In reality--which this isn't--battleship navies put up to 18 inch guns into double and triple turrets.  That would have interesting concepts for naval warfare in aurora, I would hate to see what a 650 mm (21inch) laser turret would do to smaller ships let alone modern SDs.  Especially if they were using some type of Magnetic beam steering systems for the lasers.--which would get rid of the slew rate problem for really large beam weapons.  However, the idea of main gun turrets, ala HMS Dreadnought or the USS North Carolina (The first real all big gun ships wer laid by the US and Japan, but Great Britain launched her Dreadnought first, thus giving her name to the class)  (Note, just moved can't find my History of Seapower to confirm that it was the USS North Carolina that started the US Dreadnought type).  Point is Big Gun turrets with some type of fast techno-babble steering system would not face the need for mechanical slewing of the turret to track the target.  It could make for some interesting ship design concepts.

Steve, I like the Armor concept--leads to the natural development of amorphous armor that automatically repairs armor damage--but reduces total armor thickness over time.  Would not be instantaneous repair, but would allow the ship to rotate on its axis to take the damaged armor out of the line of fire while it tried to repair itself--probably a high tech level system.


Kevin
Posted by: Steve Walmsley
« on: March 23, 2008, 11:27:12 AM »

Quote from: "Brian"
How about some chance that when turrected weapons are fired that they hit close together.  I was thinking a 25% chance that they hit within 3 spaces of each other.  It would simulate the nature of a turret where the weapons are close together and presumbably firing simultaneously.

It would also give a reason for someone to decide to put large lasers in turrets.  Currently I find that turrets just get to big to put my heavy lasers in a turret.

Interesting idea, although it would actually be quite difficult to do given the current mechanics because turrets are treated just as a multiple-shot weapon, such as railguns, when in reality one uses concurrent shots and the other uses consecutive shots. I probably won't do this for the next version because I want to concentrate on just getting the new armour mechanics working but its defintely something to consider for the future.

Steve
Posted by: Steve Walmsley
« on: March 23, 2008, 11:22:55 AM »

Quote from: "??rgr?mr"
I love this idea! Leviathan was my second favorite space game just behind SFB. I always did like their usage of armor.

Are you going to use the concept of different types of damage patterns and the possible 'widowing' of armor?

There will be different damage templates for different weapons but there won't be widowed armour.

Steve
Posted by: Steve Walmsley
« on: March 23, 2008, 11:21:51 AM »

Quote from: "Charlie Beeler"
I like this a lot.  It neatly addresses the issue of invulnerable ships because of armor that is just heavier than the incoming fire.  I've exploited that trait even though I didn't like it.  

I presume that it will require shipyard time to repair damaged armor.

Yes, armour will now be damaged and repaired like other systems.

Steve
Posted by: Brian Neumann
« on: March 23, 2008, 06:43:30 AM »

How about some chance that when turrected weapons are fired that they hit close together.  I was thinking a 25% chance that they hit within 3 spaces of each other.  It would simulate the nature of a turret where the weapons are close together and presumbably firing simultaneously.

It would also give a reason for someone to decide to put large lasers in turrets.  Currently I find that turrets just get to big to put my heavy lasers in a turret.

Brian
Posted by: Þórgrímr
« on: March 22, 2008, 02:40:50 PM »

Quote from: "Charlie Beeler"
The new armor was intially discussed in things thread:
http://aurora.pentarch.org/viewtopic.php?t=1071

I think Steve is looking at not using widowed armor. But...I agree it was one of the things I liked about the concept.  The variance of application of damage by the different weapon systems is the other.  It has a more realistic feel.

Down the road I can see some of the armor technologies not neccessarily adding more protection per ton, but possibly being more reistant to specific types of weapons damage.  And by extention more vulnerable to others as well.  Not something for a first rollout of new rules though.


Charlie, thanks for the link.  :D



Cheers, ??rgr?mr
Posted by: Charlie Beeler
« on: March 22, 2008, 09:33:07 AM »

The new armor was intially discussed in things thread:
http://aurora.pentarch.org/viewtopic.php?t=1071

I think Steve is looking at not using widowed armor. But...I agree it was one of the things I liked about the concept.  The variance of application of damage by the different weapon systems is the other.  It has a more realistic feel.

Down the road I can see some of the armor technologies not neccessarily adding more protection per ton, but possibly being more reistant to specific types of weapons damage.  And by extention more vulnerable to others as well.  Not something for a first rollout of new rules though.
Posted by: Þórgrímr
« on: March 22, 2008, 08:13:38 AM »

I love this idea! Leviathan was my second favorite space game just behind SFB. I always did like their usage of armor.

Are you going to use the concept of different types of damage patterns and the possible 'widowing' of armor?



Cheers, ??rgr?mr
Posted by: Arwyn
« on: March 21, 2008, 08:29:48 PM »

Thats a very interesting idea, and one I like. (BTW, I loved Renegade Legion, and Centurion, and Leviathan, some of the best space games from the 80's IMO)

It also means that ship damage and combat is going to be a bit more random, and less grinding. A couple of solid missile hits can really do internal damage, or they may just slowly scour the hull down. I like the idea, and even better if its simple to code!
Posted by: Brian Neumann
« on: March 21, 2008, 06:43:22 PM »

Quote from: "Steve Walmsley"
Quote from: "Brian"
You mentioned previously that you might change mesons because of their ability to penetrate armor.  I would actually leave it alone as they still only do one point of damage.  I don't know if you have played around with meson's mutch, but that one point cap on damage can actually be significant when hitting larger systems.  If the system is not automatically destroyed then the meson's become less effective.
It sounds as if you have used mesons more than I have so I will take your advice and leave them alone for the moment.

Steve


They are actually my prefered point defence weapon, with the added bonus that even significantly higher tech/larger ships have to be carefull about coming into close range of them.  In addition because of how the old armor rules worked their effective range was no all that lower against ships than the comparable lasers would be (1 point damage by a laser that does 3 or 4 points effectivly negated by armor also reduced their effective range significantly.)

Brian
Posted by: Charlie Beeler
« on: March 21, 2008, 05:12:33 PM »

I like this a lot.  It neatly addresses the issue of invulnerable ships because of armor that is just heavier than the incoming fire.  I've exploited that trait even though I didn't like it.  

I presume that it will require shipyard time to repair damaged armor.