Posted by: Erik L
« on: May 03, 2008, 02:08:19 AM »de-stickying.
Steve -
I'm at work, so forgive me if the things I'm suggesting are already available in 2.41.
I've had a nifty idea for a new campaign. I probably won't use it for a while, particularly if I can get the Quad-System campaign back up after 2.5 comes out, but I like it enough that I'll let it percholate around in my head to develop for a while.
The thing is, multi-system NPR's would be necessary for this new campaign. Therefore, I'd need the following:
1. Some way to link systems together via their warp points. IIRC, SA already has something like this for linking warp points in two different systems, and will also allow you to either delete warp points or create them, which would be nice too.
2. Some way to grant survey data to a race, both geo and gravitic. This could either be done on the system view, where you could give this information to the race viewing the system, or could be done during race creation, for whatever race is active at the time. I'd really like something that would let me do this at any time, not just during system creation.
As far as I can see, these two things are the bare minimum necessary for the creation of a multi-system NPR, as you would need to link systems and you'd need to have explored the systems to exploit them.
Kurt
Quote from: "SteveAlt"Quote from: "Erik Luken"Well... Most ground units I build get R3 ranks... I'd like to reserve R3/R4 for HQ, then move the rest down. Similar for fighter squads. Maybe R2 for them.At the moment, fighter squadrons of 18 fighters or less are R2 and squadrons with 19 or more fighters are R3. It's probably easiest just to make all fighter squadrons R2 anyway, regardless of the number of fighters. I'll do that for v2.5.
As far as ground units go, HQ are currently R3, Heavy Assault and Assault Infantry are R2, Mobile Infantry, Garrison and Engineer are R1. I have changed them within the last few weeks so if you are seeing a lot of R3 ground units in version 2.41, I must have changed them since that was released.
Steve
I was wondering about that. I've built some light carriers that had squadrons of only 5 fighters with squadron commanders that out ranked the ships commander.
Steve -
I've been playing around with 2.4, and I've got a question/comment/request. I'd like a little more flexibility with the races/governments, but it is possible that I'm just missing things.
Mostly, I'd like to be able to create a new government, seperate of any race, then once the government is created, be able to assign an existing race to the government. This would facilitate setting up multiple governments on the same planet for the same race.
Like I said, it's possible that this can be done now and I just haven't figured it out.
It would be nice to have a query for all known alien ruins/installations. Maybe through the "potential colony sites" screen?
What you are describing is similar to the method I used before the current oneQuoteSorry - my bad. By "passive" I meant "GPD" throughout the post.QuotePuts the interaction between active sensors and passive detectors on a more understandable footing - passive always has a huge range advantage.With the current system, as in the real world, GPD (Real world ESM) sensors do have a huge range advantage over active search sensors. Also, as in the real world active sensors outrange thermal sensors. EM sensors are just an Aurora-ism used vs shields. I think one point of potential confusion in that in the real world, EM sensors are used to detect radar emissions and in Aurora that role is taken by GPD sensors that are being used to detect gravitic emissions (to explain FTL sensors). One option is for me to combine EM and GPD sensors into a single system that accomplishes both tasks, which would avoid confusion and simplify things a little.QuoteQuoteYou can't squeeze more and more range out of an active sensor by going to coarser resolutions.But I want players to be able to do that :-) Just out of curiosity, does anyone know how many radars there are on an Aegis CA or DDG? I suspect there's a LOT fewer - my recollection is that the electronic steering/phased array nature of the system lets it pretend to be a whole bunch of different antena types that used to require different systems.QuoteGoing back to the idea of multiple modes. How about an active sensor that has one or more alternative modes which are less effective. For example, a sensor with a strength of 50 and a resolution of 40 would have a secondary antenna with a strength of 25 and a resolution of 20 (although that might be over-generous). This would automatically function when the system was activated. This provides a shorter range ability against smaller targets. In fact, this secondary (and perhaps even tertiary) ability could be another tech line and form part of active sensor design. For example, the baseline might be a secondary function with 10% strength and 80% resolution. The next step would be a secondary function with 15% strength and 75% resolution, etc.
I really want to avoid a straightforward more strength = more range vs all sizes of target (which is the case even if we use active focusing as a second type of "strength"). In the real world, radars are specialised for different tasks and I want to reflect that within Aurora.
Steve
That would help - thanks. I think I'm pushing the line "Aegis-like systems (phased array) are a lot more tunable (multi-mode) than those with mechanical antennae, plus we've already got complexity in fire control."
I realize I'm probably not going to convince you on this, which is ok The main thing I was concerned about was the "GPS" vs. "detection strength" confusion in GPD range, which then triggered me on the multi-mode issue. I would prefer not having to explictly specify additional modes (e.g. have the range go up like the square root of the resolution difference), but I realize that's probably too far away from your design philosophy. The multi-mode idea seems like a good comprimise that, as you say, has basis in the real world.
One side note - you could still have GPD tech help improve active range if you wanted to (simulating more sensitive detectors). I think I confused you by saying "passive" rather than GPD in my discussion.
Thanks,
John
PS - Thanks for spending time on the detailed reply.
Quote from: "sloanjh"Hi Steve,I want to tackle this first and then I will respond to the rest of the post. In Aurora I want active sensors to generally outrange equal tech/size thermal and EM sensors but generally be outranged by equal tech/size GPD sensors. I think the reason you believe GPD sensors are outranged is a misunderstanding over mechanics.
If I'm interpreting the class summary page correctly, I think Grav Pulse Detection Sensors need to be a LOT more sensitive.
I've got an active sensor MR15000-R15, which the tech report page (ctrl-F7) says has detection strength 100 and a max range of 15m km. I'm at lowest sensor tech, so this thing takes up 10 HS.
I've also got a GPD10-50 sensor that takes up the same hull size (again, lowest tech), which the class summary page says has a detection range of 5m km at strength 100. It seems to me that this means that the active sensor has a range that's 3 times as big as an equivalent size passize sensor. For the same hull size (and tech level), I can make an active MR500000-R500 sensor, which has a range of 500m km - 300 times as large as the corresponding passive sensor.