Post reply

Warning - while you were reading 64 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:

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

Please read the rules before you post!


Topic Summary

Posted by: Garfunkel
« on: Yesterday at 07:09:17 PM »

Suggestion 2: civilian mineral harvesters that go after comets/roids/moons.  We already have fuel harvesters so why not!
How would that differ from CMCs aside from the fact that instead of automines on a colony, there are asteroid miners on a colony?
Posted by: Whitecold
« on: Yesterday at 02:25:42 PM »

Suggestion: Remove Refit costs associated with changing the size of space stations, as they don't have any armor that needs to be rebuilt.
This would make growing, sprawling space stations possible. At that point it would also be really cool if shipyards could be integrated into space stations, to make supermassive orbiting structures. (The yards would still need the population)
Posted by: Ranged66
« on: Yesterday at 12:13:48 PM »

Suggestion: possibility to make civilians haul minerals on contract too.

Suggestion 2: civilian mineral harvesters that go after comets/roids/moons.  We already have fuel harvesters so why not!
Posted by: Shuul
« on: October 20, 2018, 05:01:01 PM »

I wonder if it is possible to add some tooltips with C# aurora?
Posted by: DEEPenergy
« on: October 20, 2018, 02:08:00 PM »

I think this has been talked about before but remove the restriction that jump engines can only jump ships as large as the ship they are mounted on. In other words a 4000 ton ship should be able to jump an 8000 ton ship if the jump engine is rated for that size.
Posted by: Barkhorn
« on: October 20, 2018, 12:12:57 PM »

Quote from: Ranged66
A suggestion on the ground combat:

Population could contribute some troops/strength as well. . . snip. . .
I would tend to agree that some of the citizenry would volunteer if it seemed to them there was a need to.   

A few questions come to mind if we consider the citizenry rising up to join the fight:
  • Can they leave the infrastructure that supports them in hostile environments to go fight?
  • Are they self armed in entirety, or to some percentage?
    • If not self armed, can the soldiers arm them and if so, how many guns can they distribute? Presumably 100k soldiers do not have enough guns to arm 4 million volunteers.   You have probably already lost the orbitals so good luck shipping in more guns before the fight is over.
    • If they are self armed, do all civilians possess a gun or only some fraction.  Does the fraction that volunteer apply only to the armed percentage, or the total population yielding both armed and unarmed volunteers
    • What value, if any, might unarmed volunteers hold?  Some bonus to recovery/replacement rates for lost personnel?
  • Should player government and/or commander traits and/or administrator traits be used to influence the expectation/willingness to accept/seek out volunteers?
  • Is there a limit to how many will be useful at any given task?  Absurd example, 1 million civvies trying to do the work that was done by 100 personnel will probably get nothing done, just get in each other's way.
    • Is there a tipping point?  Seems reasonable that while too many would be detrimental, too few would benefit from adding some more.
    • Are there any roles they might be a viable substitute?  Seems plausible that for any such role, while too few and too many both don't get enough done, the optimal quantity might also not get enough done.
  • Should they be affected by research as if they were a ground force unit?  I would think yes, today we can buy guns far better than we could have in the 1800's, research tends to advance what we can obtain.
  • Can they leave the infrastructure to venture out into the hostile atmosphere to be resistance fighters?
    • If not, you won't be doing much resisting staying bottled up in the domes
    • If you can leave the dome to resist, how likely are people to resist knowing the hostiles can simply vent every dome they encounter and let your supplies run out to end you.
    • If its a breathable atmosphere, then resistance in any taken populated areas seems plausible.   Outright combat or just a modifier to efficiencies?
  • Is there really a point where the civvies would be so disloyal as to turn on you?
    • The grass would have to be known, not thought, but known to be greener on the other side of the fence before they turn on you.   Wealthier, benevolent, and have treated conquered planets well already?  The civvies might just try to trade you in for a better life.
    • xenophobia, biological/environmental compatibility, and ability to even communicate is likely to be a factor.   Even if the grass is greener, do they leave the planet suitable for you, or terraform it to them and leave you restricted to infrastructure in perpetuity?
    • if you know the grass is definitely greener right here, then its a choice between helping and apathy, not rebellion.   If the invaders are known to mistreat the conquered, apathy is less likely, if they are known to exterminate it seems absurd, and in both cases, rebellion/assisting the invaders seems incredibly unlikely.

Perhaps none of that matters at all and it all simply hides behind abstractions, and you get 'given' a number of civilian combat units presumed to have equal traits but lesser abilities than standard soldiers, at the cost of some population loss, and what you do with them is up to you.   Presumably once the battle is over any surviving volunteers auto disband and rejoin the population.
No matter how advanced the weapons get, conscripts will always be useful.  Maybe not on the front line, but there's always room for more workers behind the lines.  This is likely to only get MORE true as combat units require more and more supplies.  These conscripts can be building and operating logistics infrastructure; driving trucks, paving roads, laying rail lines.  They can also be building emplacements; you don't need Navy SEALS and laser guns to pour concrete.
Posted by: Ranged66
« on: October 20, 2018, 04:41:44 AM »

In Aurora VB, civilian spaceliners act like colony ships with low capacity.  They won't move unless there are destinations that normaly colony ships would visit too available.

Small change suggestion: Make civilian spaceliners able to ferry their tourists between stable planets too.  This could add some other interesting elements like beauty/tourism scores for planets.  A world with large rings or moons of gas giants could be great destinations for those luxury liners because of the spectacle in the skies above.

Could even make them travel between uncolonised worlds in gated systems to act like cruise ships, loiter around a bit in orbit with a beautiful view before leaving again.  Or add the possibility to make luxury bases/space stations at those beautiful locations that luxury liners will ferry tourists to and from.

It's little fluff stuff like this that makes me love space 4x games when they do it.  Distant Worlds has part of these too and you can make some decent income by maintaining your empire's wealthiest citizens with resort bases.
Posted by: King-Salomon
« on: October 19, 2018, 03:45:15 PM »

Thinking about ground combat again:

maybe combat in deadly environment (pressure, temperature, breathable air) should be much more deadly than fighting in an earth-like environment..

I mean, a simple hole in a pressure-armour would kill the soldier in these while it would maybe just scratch or wound him on earth... you can train you troops for better fighting in theses areas but that does not result in a less deadly environment if the breather/suit/vehicle is penetrated

to add these in combat looses could make fighting in not earth-like environments much more interesting (and would give some races with other environment stats more exclusive pro/cons) nothing too strange but maybe something like this would work : factor for casualties = 1 + colony costs of the planet   [with  colony costs capmax 2)   so there would be up to 3 times more looses in a deadly environment when fighting the same battle as on earth...

wouldn't make much difference when colony cost is for both sides the same, but attacking a high pressure species (or maybe spoilers) on their high pressure home planet would be much of an achievement...
Posted by: Hazard
« on: October 17, 2018, 11:02:37 AM »

It has always been difficult to fight against an enemy that has no uniform, nor needs to defend any particular ground.

This is true today, it'll be true tomorrow and it has been true in history.

Historically that has been fought either through law enforcement efforts or flat out genocide. The only way to fight such an enemy is by denying them anything to hide behind, and you can do that by convincing the general population that they're better served ratting them out, or by ensuring there's no general population left to support them.

The gun has not really changed this fact. A war still needs the resources to pursue that war.

The only thing that has changed in this equation is that people in general have grown less tolerant of genocide and similar tactics to pursue the conclusion of an asymmetrical war.
Posted by: Jorgen_CAB
« on: October 17, 2018, 05:57:41 AM »

A suggestion on the ground combat:

Population could contribute some troops/strength as well, depending on the loyalty and happiness of the planet.  A planet that loves its empire will have many patriotic citizens taking up arms themselves to help fend off the invaders, while a planet that already hates the ruling empire might even aid the invaders in getting captured.

The 19th century was the time when conscription ruled, and it was all about who could get the most men into the field, but since then, total manpower became less and less important compared to the amount of weapons you can afford, which is why we have many more professional armies again.
In Aurora the cost of equipment and weapons is likely only to rise, and the value of people without the proper equipment and the proper training to use it will fall.
Loyalty might matter in how easy it is to pacify a planet, but generally I'd consider the value of untrained volunteers nil, and if you do want to train a militia, you can spam large quantities of PWL equipped light infantry to fit the bill.

True... but increase in weapon power have also shown that asymmetric warfare have become way more dangerous as well. In fact asymmetric warfare are extremely dangerous today, what if they could be supplied things like nukes and the like. Just the introduction of the regular gun with its ease of use and lethality have shown how powerful or difficult it is to fight an enemy that have no uniform and defend no particular ground, tanks are virtually useless as are air-force and the like.

I think Aurora could simulate asymmetric warfare as well as regular warfare since they are both equally important.

Problem with asymmetric warfare is that it is purely a political, cultural or ethical driven and you can only defend against it with force and fight it with soft methods.

Aurora currently only deal with conventional warfare. The more powerful weapons get the more dangerous asymmetric warfare will become.
Posted by: alex_brunius
« on: October 17, 2018, 05:55:32 AM »

The 19th century was the time when conscription ruled, and it was all about who could get the most men into the field, but since then, total manpower became less and less important compared to the amount of weapons you can afford, which is why we have many more professional armies again.

Isn't that just because there have been very few straight up actual wars between large modern forces of similar powers?

I mean sure you can point to things like Desert Storm or the 2003 Invasion of Iraq but desert warfare is a bit special and tend to disproportionately favoring the side with a technological edge and air-supremacy, since there is nowhere to hide.

I don't think the Modern US forces would have done equally well if they had to go back into the jungles in Vietnam for example and fight man to man against an enemy that for all intents and purposes can afford to arm somewhere in the ballpark of 100-1000 men for the same $ price as getting a single US soldier there costs. And this holds true pretty much no matter how advanced weapons or how much firepower you have. The limitation isn't in either firepower, range or accuracy of weapons if you will be fighting close range combat in low visibility conditions.

The combat ability of untrained men also depends greatly on morale and motivation. If your fighting in defense of your home for the survival of your race against alien slime scum your probably a bit more motivated than if your fighting for a corrupt middle eastern dictator that hides in a bunker and expects you to die so he can conquer more oil and become even richer.
Posted by: Whitecold
« on: October 17, 2018, 04:03:10 AM »

A suggestion on the ground combat:

Population could contribute some troops/strength as well, depending on the loyalty and happiness of the planet.  A planet that loves its empire will have many patriotic citizens taking up arms themselves to help fend off the invaders, while a planet that already hates the ruling empire might even aid the invaders in getting captured.

The 19th century was the time when conscription ruled, and it was all about who could get the most men into the field, but since then, total manpower became less and less important compared to the amount of weapons you can afford, which is why we have many more professional armies again.
In Aurora the cost of equipment and weapons is likely only to rise, and the value of people without the proper equipment and the proper training to use it will fall.
Loyalty might matter in how easy it is to pacify a planet, but generally I'd consider the value of untrained volunteers nil, and if you do want to train a militia, you can spam large quantities of PWL equipped light infantry to fit the bill.
Posted by: amram
« on: October 17, 2018, 02:35:21 AM »

Quote from: Ranged66
A suggestion on the ground combat:

Population could contribute some troops/strength as well. . . snip. . .
I would tend to agree that some of the citizenry would volunteer if it seemed to them there was a need to.   

A few questions come to mind if we consider the citizenry rising up to join the fight:
  • Can they leave the infrastructure that supports them in hostile environments to go fight?
  • Are they self armed in entirety, or to some percentage?
    • If not self armed, can the soldiers arm them and if so, how many guns can they distribute? Presumably 100k soldiers do not have enough guns to arm 4 million volunteers.   You have probably already lost the orbitals so good luck shipping in more guns before the fight is over.
    • If they are self armed, do all civilians possess a gun or only some fraction.  Does the fraction that volunteer apply only to the armed percentage, or the total population yielding both armed and unarmed volunteers
    • What value, if any, might unarmed volunteers hold?  Some bonus to recovery/replacement rates for lost personnel?
  • Should player government and/or commander traits and/or administrator traits be used to influence the expectation/willingness to accept/seek out volunteers?
  • Is there a limit to how many will be useful at any given task?  Absurd example, 1 million civvies trying to do the work that was done by 100 personnel will probably get nothing done, just get in each other's way.
    • Is there a tipping point?  Seems reasonable that while too many would be detrimental, too few would benefit from adding some more.
    • Are there any roles they might be a viable substitute?  Seems plausible that for any such role, while too few and too many both don't get enough done, the optimal quantity might also not get enough done.
  • Should they be affected by research as if they were a ground force unit?  I would think yes, today we can buy guns far better than we could have in the 1800's, research tends to advance what we can obtain.
  • Can they leave the infrastructure to venture out into the hostile atmosphere to be resistance fighters?
    • If not, you won't be doing much resisting staying bottled up in the domes
    • If you can leave the dome to resist, how likely are people to resist knowing the hostiles can simply vent every dome they encounter and let your supplies run out to end you.
    • If its a breathable atmosphere, then resistance in any taken populated areas seems plausible.   Outright combat or just a modifier to efficiencies?
  • Is there really a point where the civvies would be so disloyal as to turn on you?
    • The grass would have to be known, not thought, but known to be greener on the other side of the fence before they turn on you.   Wealthier, benevolent, and have treated conquered planets well already?  The civvies might just try to trade you in for a better life.
    • xenophobia, biological/environmental compatibility, and ability to even communicate is likely to be a factor.   Even if the grass is greener, do they leave the planet suitable for you, or terraform it to them and leave you restricted to infrastructure in perpetuity?
    • if you know the grass is definitely greener right here, then its a choice between helping and apathy, not rebellion.   If the invaders are known to mistreat the conquered, apathy is less likely, if they are known to exterminate it seems absurd, and in both cases, rebellion/assisting the invaders seems incredibly unlikely.

Perhaps none of that matters at all and it all simply hides behind abstractions, and you get 'given' a number of civilian combat units presumed to have equal traits but lesser abilities than standard soldiers, at the cost of some population loss, and what you do with them is up to you.   Presumably once the battle is over any surviving volunteers auto disband and rejoin the population.
Posted by: Ranged66
« on: October 15, 2018, 05:45:33 AM »

A suggestion on the ground combat:

Population could contribute some troops/strength as well, depending on the loyalty and happiness of the planet.  A planet that loves its empire will have many patriotic citizens taking up arms themselves to help fend off the invaders, while a planet that already hates the ruling empire might even aid the invaders in getting captured.
Posted by: Steve Walmsley
« on: October 12, 2018, 05:30:31 AM »

I will be revisiting every spoiler race to make them more interesting, plus I plan to add new spoiler races. Some details below for the existing spoiler changes if you want them:

1) Precursors now have 'real' ground forces rather than the pop-up robots. They are still robotic but now you will be fighting Centurions and Praetorian Combat Mechs (plus other types). You will also be able to damage abandoned installations so wiping them out from orbit will no longer be a good option. Because the AI needs to worry about fuel, Precursors may also deploy harvesters and logistics infrastructure to support their forces. Finally, they will have a more consistent approach to the composition of the forces, which will vary by game. This is all coded.

2) Swarm will be expanded to include more ship types, although still no missiles. Eventually, they may become similar to Tyranids from WH40k. They will also have ground forces, which will probably use vast numbers of low quality units on front-line attack, supported by occasional very powerful units.

3) Invaders, which were inspired by Andromedans from SFB will move more in that direction. They will have a consistent plan, rather than being a random menace, and will have bases that support their inter-galactic invasion, rather than wormholes. You will be able to defeat that invasion by destroying the bases.


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