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:

Verification:
What color is the sky?:

shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview

Please read the rules before you post!


Topic Summary

Posted by: Jorgen_CAB
« on: April 16, 2018, 03:42:08 PM »

I put hangars on my capital ships for that very reason.  I just use size 9 sensors that fit into fighter pods, that I build with fighter factories.  No retool cost.

It means if I have a squadron of 6 capital ships, I will have a flag bridge pod, an EM Pod, 2 Res 1 pods, a thermal pod, and 2 anti-ship pods and possibly an anti small craft active sensor.  It also means that if I lose a ship that carried a sensor, instead of having to retool, I just switch out the sensor pods.

There is an added benefit:  because you can only activate and de-activate active sensors on a ship by ship basis, by having the sensors on pods I can ensure by res 1 sensor is ALWAYS up, but I can switch off my noisy anti-Swarm mommy ship/commerce hunting res 500 sensor.

I am going with LACs as my primary early missile ship in my current game, so I might only build size 50 antimissile  and anti-ship sensors for PDCs for my colonies.  Might be an interesting tactic, find an asteroid that will be within range of the target enemy planet at some point in the orbit, build a sensor and point defense base there, using construction bridges on pre-fabs.

This is exactly what you should do with all those expensive modules. Since Hangars basically make maintenance free for whatever is in them and hangars themselves is very cheap you can get away with extremely advanced ship at nearly no maintenance cost.

There are many interesting things you can do with modular ships if you like to game the mechanics, especially if you also include tractor beams as well.

Aurora are probably a rather open ended game to begin with for a reason and only you as the player decide how you want to play the game and which limits you put on your games. There is no right or wrong way to play the game. I you feel something is a bit gamey you can just decide to not do it, some things are left in for players to explore if they like.
Posted by: Michael Sandy
« on: March 31, 2018, 11:08:54 PM »

I put hangars on my capital ships for that very reason.  I just use size 9 sensors that fit into fighter pods, that I build with fighter factories.  No retool cost.

It means if I have a squadron of 6 capital ships, I will have a flag bridge pod, an EM Pod, 2 Res 1 pods, a thermal pod, and 2 anti-ship pods and possibly an anti small craft active sensor.  It also means that if I lose a ship that carried a sensor, instead of having to retool, I just switch out the sensor pods.

There is an added benefit:  because you can only activate and de-activate active sensors on a ship by ship basis, by having the sensors on pods I can ensure by res 1 sensor is ALWAYS up, but I can switch off my noisy anti-Swarm mommy ship/commerce hunting res 500 sensor.

I am going with LACs as my primary early missile ship in my current game, so I might only build size 50 antimissile  and anti-ship sensors for PDCs for my colonies.  Might be an interesting tactic, find an asteroid that will be within range of the target enemy planet at some point in the orbit, build a sensor and point defense base there, using construction bridges on pre-fabs.
Posted by: alex_brunius
« on: March 29, 2018, 02:50:24 AM »

So another aspect of making the ship design more modular and designing ship hulls which you can later add components on (a bit like you can fit different missiles in the same launcher) is that it could allow you to also temporarily refit the ship for a specific mision profile.

Say you have a big carrier with a huge hangar space. You need a ship with a huge sensor array to go check something stat, you don't have time, or maybe resources to build a new ship, but you just so happen to have a very large sensor laying around. So you stuff it in the hangar space, maybe with some extra generators and hook it all up. Presto! You got yourself a temporary listening ship. It far less efficient as purpose built ship in terms of sensor strengt to hull strengt as you are kinda have to make it fit into a space it was not made for. But hey, you got something that works in a pinch.

This would allow for more tactical options, interesting retrofitted pirate ship or other people and organisations engaging using haphazard ships as need be. Or just spyops where you can disguise your ships, like stuffing a hangar in a transporter or whatever to surprise your enemies.

What prevents you from designing a "ship" that is 100% sensor using the one you have laying around and building it very quickly since all components are completed + just stuff it into the hangar in current Aurora?

You can probably use a small DD shipyard for this or something, so should be quick to retool..

This would probably take less then 20% of the time and resources needed to rebuild a new Carrier which includes the large sensor integrated.
Posted by: hostergaard
« on: March 27, 2018, 09:22:48 AM »

So another aspect of making the ship design more modular and designing ship hulls which you can later add components on (a bit like you can fit different missiles in the same launcher) is that it could allow you to also temporarily refit the ship for a specific mision profile.

Say you have a big carrier with a huge hangar space. You need a ship with a huge sensor array to go check something stat, you don't have time, or maybe resources to build a new ship, but you just so happen to have a very large sensor laying around. So you stuff it in the hangar space, maybe with some extra generators and hook it all up. Presto! You got yourself a temporary listening ship. It far less efficient as purpose built ship in terms of sensor strengt to hull strengt as you are kinda have to make it fit into a space it was not made for. But hey, you got something that works in a pinch.

This would allow for more tactical options, interesting retrofitted pirate ship or other people and organisations engaging using haphazard ships as need be. Or just spyops where you can disguise your ships, like stuffing a hangar in a transporter or whatever to surprise your enemies.
Posted by: TheDeadlyShoe
« on: February 03, 2018, 02:46:32 AM »

IIRC Steve's talked about a system where slipways and slip size are convertible.  I thought it was in Newtonian Aurora but i couldn't find the post.
Posted by: QuakeIV
« on: February 02, 2018, 12:29:52 PM »

That could potentially be really fun.
Posted by: TMaekler
« on: February 02, 2018, 03:59:11 AM »

Interesting concept and idea. Let me throw in my 2 cents... or a little more  :)

How about changing the system of "shipyards" into a two component system:
a) slipways (assembly lines)
b) construction areas

Every shipyard can have one or more slipways, even of different sizes (2x15.000t; 1x20.000t; 1x30.000t). Additionally to this every shipyard can have multiple construction areas where the individual components of the ships are constructed and then given to the respective assembly line (slipway) where it is assembled into the ship.

By this the slipways become independent of what ship can be constructed in it (only the size of the slipway limits the biggest type which could be assembled/refit/scrapped/repaired there). The necessary components for the ship will be constructed in the separate construction areas. And if new technology is researched only new construction areas need to be build for the shipyard to be able to assemble new ship designs (and no longer is there need for a complete refit).
If you want to speed up the construction of new ships multiple assembly areas of one type can be created in one shipyard which then would be used for parallel assembly.
Posted by: TheDeadlyShoe
« on: February 02, 2018, 03:03:39 AM »

I recommend not abusing it even though you can. Aurora isn't sturdy enough for that.
Posted by: QuakeIV
« on: February 02, 2018, 01:41:11 AM »

You could possibly balance it by making people pay a lot in minerals to build a modular hull slot (IE a 200 ton sensor slot) in order to make specialized ship designs potentially much more affordable but less flexible in the long term.

e:  You could imagine the slots being comparable in cost to the systems themselves, so more or less you pay double cost but potentially get long term gains if that ship survives to be retrofitted multiple times.
Posted by: Drgong
« on: February 01, 2018, 06:25:39 PM »

My problem with placeholder hulls to get an advantage in the current system is that taking it to the logical conclusion eliminates retooling entirely.
Retool to the most expensive thing you can build, usually fitting only (hardened?) sensors/fire controls, and you should be able to use it for any practical design forever.

But in game that concept breaks rather quickly in practice as you will end up needing something else. 
Posted by: Iranon
« on: January 30, 2018, 09:12:17 PM »

My problem with placeholder hulls to get an advantage in the current system is that taking it to the logical conclusion eliminates retooling entirely.
Retool to the most expensive thing you can build, usually fitting only (hardened?) sensors/fire controls, and you should be able to use it for any practical design forever.
Posted by: Drgong
« on: January 30, 2018, 03:52:42 PM »

I somewhat understand that issue, so I make it explicit and give the first design name like "32kT Basic Hull" and make them utterly impractical as useable ships.

My RP thinking is that the it's not designing a ship, it's designing a basic hull/frame and tooling the shipyard for that. That's why I'm not opposed to the idea of designing hulls, I just think we already have a perfectly good mechanism for doing that already.

I agree on this.  Also I like the idea that sometimes a hull design or concept has reached it max and it time to rotate them with new ideas.   

(And now I will be tempted to name one of the templates a "F-body" just for giggles.) 
Posted by: El Pip
« on: September 07, 2017, 01:35:54 AM »

I also have a resistance to designing a ship I know I won't build just so I can get a multipurpose shipyard out of the deal. That may just be a hang up I should get over; the rationale you give makes a lot of sense.
I somewhat understand that issue, so I make it explicit and give the first design name like "32kT Basic Hull" and make them utterly impractical as useable ships.

My RP thinking is that the it's not designing a ship, it's designing a basic hull/frame and tooling the shipyard for that. That's why I'm not opposed to the idea of designing hulls, I just think we already have a perfectly good mechanism for doing that already.
Posted by: obsidian_green
« on: September 07, 2017, 01:00:36 AM »

You can't do that, but you can produce an over-designed frame and then build variants of it at standard cost - I had a ~4kt hull full of grav and geo sensors that I used to build 3.5kt grav specific or geo specific survey ships.

Yeah that's true, but I haven't found it as easy to plan ahead with the current setup. Sometimes we're building those shipyards in advance of the designs. I also have a resistance to designing a ship I know I won't build just so I can get a multipurpose shipyard out of the deal. That may just be a hang up I should get over; the rationale you give makes a lot of sense.

I think the "if two ships are similar enough, you can build both in the same yard" is plenty intuitive already. Plus yards are clearly specialized by class, makes sense you wouldn't be able to build wildly different ships from just one unless both ships were designed for that from the beginning, making them effectively variants of one another. Which means the game already handles what the OP wanted.

I'm not a supporter of what the OP wanted and agree that the game already handles it. A lot of the previous posts were about additional eligible classes, so I (probably mistakenly) thought you were addressing that. I'd prefer the mechanics behind that were tweaked along lines I and some other posters suggested, not that stock hulls should be a game feature. I love the way ship design current works.
Posted by: Tree
« on: September 06, 2017, 03:33:34 AM »

I think several of us are talking about the "additional eligible classes" we can build (we find them on the DAC tab of class design window) when a shipyard is tooled for a specific ship class. Counter-intuitively we can't really design a stripped-down basic frame and build variations from it at added cost.
I think the "if two ships are similar enough, you can build both in the same yard" is plenty intuitive already. Plus yards are clearly specialized by class, makes sense you wouldn't be able to build wildly different ships from just one unless both ships were designed for that from the beginning, making them effectively variants of one another. Which means the game already handles what the OP wanted.
Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54