Post reply

Warning - while you were reading 180 new replies have been posted. You may wish to review your post.

Note: this post will not display until it's been approved by a moderator.

Name:
Email:
Subject:
Message icon:

Verification:
Is Pluto a planet?:

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

Please read the rules before you post!


Topic Summary

Posted by: Ranged66
« on: Yesterday at 02:03:47 PM »

Not sure how hard this will be to implement:

A game creation option to make JPs orbit too
If enabled, perhaps give them a chance to spawn in some Lagrangian points (L1, L2 or L3?) of planets
Posted by: QuakeIV
« on: September 14, 2019, 10:01:57 PM »

That sounds like a really fun idea to me.
Posted by: Ranged66
« on: September 14, 2019, 05:38:33 AM »

Facility:

Mining Hub. When placed on a planet, it will send out small automated mining vessels (mechanics could be similar to mass driver packets, just for fluff and looking cool) to nearby (1m km, upgrades with engine efficiency tech?) asteroids and small moons, slowly harvesting their minerals at a set amount per year. Could scale with the mining techs.

Module/mechanic:

Laboratory module. Make it huge, expensive, crew-intensive and heavy, but I've always wanted to make science vessels. There must be heaps of discoveries waiting to be found in those new star systems, considering the breakthroughs we already made with our limited space exploration IRL. It could allow for a new mechanic, where some planets can spawn with a pool of 'research points' in a specific field. A science vessel could perform research near the planet, then return and offload those research points into a tech currently being researched.
Posted by: QuakeIV
« on: September 14, 2019, 12:13:15 AM »

Could just be that the 'fire control' is a huge supercomputer cluster that tries to predict the enemies position, and higher tech ones can generate acceptable hit probabilities against more agile enemies.

As for the turrets themselves and stuff, perhaps it relates to their ability to very rapidly make extremely minute adjustments to the direction they are pointing?  Assuming a 1km target at 128,000km range (I often have turrets that can shoot this far to my memory), thats about a 1.5 arcsecond target region (assuming my calculator fiddling just now was correct), which it seems to me is a tricky sort of target to snapshot instantaneously.

Not really sure about spinals to be honest, that just seems a bit wacky that ship agility significantly helps them aim.  I assume they have a degree of gimballing in their mounts, but it seems like said gimballing would be the main deciding factor to decide a hit in most cases.
Posted by: Bremen
« on: September 13, 2019, 02:38:20 PM »

This touches on the element my brain can't wrap around which is that linear speed translates to tracking speed.  But in a fluid, turning is the death of linear speed.  The titanic was famously a fast ship that couldn't turn.

I feel like if work was going to be added here, it should consider a factor for ship level agility like what missiles have. A "rudder tech" tech and component line.   Perhaps a speed penalty for tracking when agility is low. A tracking penalty for attacks against when agility is high.  Tracking penalty for spinals when high speed goes above rudder sizing.

I know the game also traditionally has infinite acceleration, but at least this would bring a little acceleration factor into play without the full newtonian calculations.
The whole tracking speed calculation of the game doesn't make much sense - after all, the only thing a turret should care for is the angular velocity. If something comes at you directly, it's speed should not matter at all.

No, this is the opposite of the problem. What matters for accuracy is how much space the target could possibly be in by the time your weapon hits - which in Aurora with lightspeed beams is going to be between zero and five seconds after being fired. So if the target moves at 1000 km a second, it could (theoretically) be anywhere within 5000 km of where it is now when the beam reaches it.

Realistically, it would be effectively impossible to pick anywhere within a 5,000 km sphere at random and hit the target, so it would probably be fair to say that ships can't just instantly change their speed and direction. But assuming the acceleration/deceleration/turning abilities of a ship are roughly proportional to its speed, then it's reasonable to say that accuracy should scale relative to that speed.

Meanwhile angular velocity should only really matter if it can literally rotate around you faster than the turret can, which isn't likely with a minimum combat distance of 10,000 km.
Posted by: Bughunter
« on: September 12, 2019, 10:56:05 AM »

The whole tracking speed calculation of the game doesn't make much sense - after all, the only thing a turret should care for is the angular velocity. If something comes at you directly, it's speed should not matter at all.

It doesn't come right at you. Some evasive manoeuvrers from the missile is counted into the calculation as I understand it.
Posted by: Titanian
« on: September 12, 2019, 08:01:18 AM »

This touches on the element my brain can't wrap around which is that linear speed translates to tracking speed.  But in a fluid, turning is the death of linear speed.  The titanic was famously a fast ship that couldn't turn.

I feel like if work was going to be added here, it should consider a factor for ship level agility like what missiles have. A "rudder tech" tech and component line.   Perhaps a speed penalty for tracking when agility is low. A tracking penalty for attacks against when agility is high.  Tracking penalty for spinals when high speed goes above rudder sizing.

I know the game also traditionally has infinite acceleration, but at least this would bring a little acceleration factor into play without the full newtonian calculations.
The whole tracking speed calculation of the game doesn't make much sense - after all, the only thing a turret should care for is the angular velocity. If something comes at you directly, it's speed should not matter at all.
Posted by: TheRowan
« on: September 11, 2019, 08:36:21 AM »

Game balance. If fighters/FAC both get a bonus to tracking from ship speed + can use turrets, then they would always be the best Point Defense platform, which I don't think should be the case.

I don't have an issue with turreted fighters being the most effective Point Defence platform, because they already have a price attached to that effectiveness. Using PD Fighters means you also need a Fire Control for every fighter rather than multiple turrets per FC on a larger ship. It means you need hangar bays, taking up more space than just mounting the weapons directly on the ship. You need mutiple crew quarters for each crewmember on your PD fighters (one on the fighter, one on the carrier). You need scanners on each fighter or run the risk of a separate scanner being destroyed and rendering the entire squadron ineffective. In other words, you may get the most effective PD platform, but not necessarily the most efficient.
Posted by: papent
« on: September 11, 2019, 05:01:22 AM »

I feel like if work was going to be added here, it should consider a factor for ship level agility like what missiles have. A "rudder tech" tech and component line.   Perhaps a speed penalty for tracking when agility is low. A tracking penalty for attacks against when agility is high.  Tracking penalty for spinals when high speed goes above rudder sizing.
If used Maybe call it thruster or maneuver tech ?

---

Game balance. If fighters/FAC both get a bonus to tracking from ship speed + can use turrets, then they would always be the best Point Defense platform, which I don't think should be the case.
In a way fighters and to a lesser extent FACs are already Superior PD units in a void outside of a campaign. Due to BFC bonus for fighters and small sensor pickup for FACs; fighters been used in a few of Steve's campaigns as fleet interceptors for PD and I have used PD FACs with long range endurance engines to escort survey ships. Outside of the void and in a campaign due to maintenance, fuel, crew, and other concerns not to mention the micromanagement to effective use such an advantage would mitigate the effects on game balance. Also as with most things in Aurora it's can be managed with self control on the players behalf of course.

The idea that ship speed contributes more to tracking the smaller the ship does make alot of sense, but for balance you need to make turrets better for larger ships too in that case or the risk is that everyone will build as small fighters as they can get away having just engine and a minimal turret for PD.

That would create an interesting follow-on effect as the largest reasonable size for a beam combat ship would additional have to be balanced against your turret tracking speed in addition to other considerations.
Or adding a hanger Bay to the design and carry a squadron of interceptors for PD which can be targeted by the enemy PD or interceptors...

I personally think that would be pretty awesome.
Posted by: dukea42
« on: September 10, 2019, 08:16:33 PM »

This touches on the element my brain can't wrap around which is that linear speed translates to tracking speed.  But in a fluid, turning is the death of linear speed.  The titanic was famously a fast ship that couldn't turn.

I feel like if work was going to be added here, it should consider a factor for ship level agility like what missiles have. A "rudder tech" tech and component line.   Perhaps a speed penalty for tracking when agility is low. A tracking penalty for attacks against when agility is high.  Tracking penalty for spinals when high speed goes above rudder sizing.

I know the game also traditionally has infinite acceleration, but at least this would bring a little acceleration factor into play without the full newtonian calculations.
Posted by: alex_brunius
« on: September 10, 2019, 03:04:51 PM »

what wrong with turret fighters and the classical multi-gun FAC? :'(

Game balance. If fighters/FAC both get a bonus to tracking from ship speed + can use turrets, then they would always be the best Point Defense platform, which I don't think should be the case.

Mid sized screens or larger ships should be able to field competitive point defense too IMHO.


The idea that ship speed contributes more to tracking the smaller the ship does make alot of sense, but for balance you need to make turrets better for larger ships too in that case or the risk is that everyone will build as small fighters as they can get away having just engine and a minimal turret for PD.
Posted by: papent
« on: September 10, 2019, 01:05:39 PM »

what wrong with turret fighters and the classical multi-gun FAC? :'(

I do agree with your idea that ships less or equal to 20 HS have 100% of ship speed as basic weapon tracking speed and ships greater than 20 HS have 50% of ship speed as basic weapon tracking speed.

Or alternatively: Instead of a blanket 50% for all ships greater than 20 HS decrease it evenly from 100% ship speed as basic weapon tracking speed by 5% every additionally 20 HS greater than 20 HS until you hit 25% Base Weapon tracking speed from ship speeds at a certain size. Creating incentives for smaller ships as high accuracy escorts and for turrets on larger slower ships.
Posted by: alex_brunius
« on: September 09, 2019, 05:28:10 PM »

I propose that turret tracking speed and ship tracking speed be additive values, not "instead of" values.

Proposed maths:
33% of ship speed is base tracking speed for non-fighters, 66% for fighters.
Turrets have their stated tracking speed.
Final weapon tracking speed would be the highest value plus 75% of the other.

...

Thoughts appreciated.

IMO that formula both sounds unnecessarily complex and also contradicts your first statements that they should be additive.

A great feature of the current way it's designed is that it's easy to figure out what the tracking speed will be.


Id suggest something more simple like Fighters + FAC get 100% of ship speed ( but can't use turrets ) while other ships get 50% of ship speed + turret tracking speed.

Posted by: SerBeardian
« on: September 09, 2019, 05:00:58 PM »

Crossposting from the Discord:

Due to how tracking speed works, turrets that are slower than the ship are inherently useless.
This doesn't really make much sense since a turret rotating as the ship turns would have a faster overall tracking speed than one that's mounted to the hull.

I propose that turret tracking speed and ship tracking speed be additive values, not "instead of" values.

Proposed maths:
33% of ship speed is base tracking speed for non-fighters, 66% for fighters.
Turrets have their stated tracking speed.
Final weapon tracking speed would be the highest value plus 75% of the other.

Throwing some numbers out there:
A mag plas ship with 8000km/s movement and hull-mounted weapons would have 2666km/s tracking speed, or 33% base accuracy against itself.
Making the weapons turreted with a 6000km/s tracking speed would add 4500km/s to the final tracking speed, giving a total of 7166km/s.

Final numbers and equations would be up to Steve after playtesting, of course, but something along those lines.

This change would make turrets significantly more competitive in the beam ship world. Currently with speed being both offensive and defensive, combined with more guns per ton for hull-mounted weapons, and turrets adding literally nothing except wasted tonnage until they exceed the ship speed, makes turrets for anything other than PD significantly less effective than just mounting them to the hull. It would also provide a nice choice between spinals (harder hitting but inaccurate) versus turrets (more accurate but weaker), something that just doesn't compare with current weapons mechanics.

Thoughts appreciated.
Posted by: Hazard
« on: September 07, 2019, 08:04:59 PM »

You have that wrong.
Overcrowded populations would seek more room.
Unemployed populations would seek employment.
Unhappy populations would seek to relieve the cause of their unhappiness, which is not modeled (the most common method is some form of regime change, civil unrest tends to be the result of continued heavy discontent in a population). High unrest populations however would generally seek other places with lower unrest.

All of these factors interact and strengthen eachother's impact on migration, but make no mistake, employment tends to be the most key factor involved. People will accept almost any circumstances as long as it means they survive. They just rarely accept them easily.
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 55