Post reply

Warning - while you were reading 799 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:
Are you human?:

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

Please read the rules before you post!


Topic Summary

Posted by: Doren
« on: Today at 10:35:13 AM »

I think double fire gauss would be a little overpowered :)

Maybe something on the lines of advanced railguns, with an extra shot. Having said that, I haven't really looked at ruin-only weapons yet for C. I'll revisit the weapon concepts when I do.
I honestly think that you should not get directly stronger stuff from ruins just alternatives for example meson weapon type could be rather interesting to get out of ruins (well not that interesting that we are accustomed to be able to use them from the get go) as it is rather unique among the weapon types

It might be pretty cool if you were able to specify in game setup which weapon/shields and special tech-lines you want to be available freely, ruin only ( and at what chance ) or not available at all. I would for sure up the chance a bit to discover some ruin-only techs since in my experience you had to explore alot of ruins to get anything at all ( or I was just unlucky ).

Although being able to disable some techs that's normally freely available might cause some issues for the AI unless it's a player empire only setting.
Possibly though right now there's not too many possibilities in tech other than couple weapon techs that could be interesting to get from the ruins while not hindering the normal gameplay. Unless of course, you were running campaing which is heavy tech restricted on purpose
Posted by: mtm84
« on: Today at 04:25:30 AM »


It might be pretty cool if you were able to specify in game setup which weapon/shields and special tech-lines you want to be available freely, ruin only ( and at what chance ) or not available at all. I would for sure up the chance a bit to discover some ruin-only techs since in my experience you had to explore alot of ruins to get anything at all ( or I was just unlucky ).

Although being able to disable some techs that's normally freely available might cause some issues for the AI unless it's a player empire only setting.

If I remember right, Master of Orion 3 had a system where by each race would only see 75-80 percent of the tech tree in any one game, chosen randomly.  I'm not quite sure how you would adapt that to Aurora's tech system but its food for thought.  I'm all for having increased game/SM options (SM ability to seed special techs in ruins, anyone?)
Posted by: alex_brunius
« on: Today at 04:00:14 AM »

I think double fire gauss would be a little overpowered :)

Maybe something on the lines of advanced railguns, with an extra shot. Having said that, I haven't really looked at ruin-only weapons yet for C. I'll revisit the weapon concepts when I do.

It might be pretty cool if you were able to specify in game setup which weapon/shields and special tech-lines you want to be available freely, ruin only ( and at what chance ) or not available at all. I would for sure up the chance a bit to discover some ruin-only techs since in my experience you had to explore alot of ruins to get anything at all ( or I was just unlucky ).

Although being able to disable some techs that's normally freely available might cause some issues for the AI unless it's a player empire only setting.
Posted by: Steve Walmsley
« on: Today at 02:43:53 AM »

I would like to suggest more advanced ruin only weapons. I recommend adding advanced gauss cannons with double the fire rate and advanced particle lances with higher damage.

I think double fire gauss would be a little overpowered :)

Maybe something on the lines of advanced railguns, with an extra shot. Having said that, I haven't really looked at ruin-only weapons yet for C. I'll revisit the weapon concepts when I do.
Posted by: Steve Walmsley
« on: Today at 02:42:27 AM »

I would like to suggest the ability to refit fighters and i'm not if this was mentioned if its possible in the new version to use maintenance facilities to maintain fighters.

I tend to build a group of low fuel consumption / long range patrol fighters on nearly every colony and just being able to organically upgrade them or just even maintain them without building a space station just for that would be awesome.

Apart from being able to build them in fighter factories (which is covered by the technobabble on ships near gravity fields), fighters are treated like any other ship. You can build and refit them in shipyards and they are maintained by maintenance facilities.
Posted by: mtm84
« on: Today at 02:24:40 AM »

I don’t think he will allow upgrading of fighters but in C# they can use normal maintenance facilities, and the new fleet organization should make it easy to swap out new fighters for old ones.

Edit: well looks like you can refit fighters, which he may have mentioned and I forgot about.  I blame it being late.
Posted by: papent
« on: Today at 01:50:28 AM »

I would like to suggest the ability to refit fighters and i'm not if this was mentioned if its possible in the new version to use maintenance facilities to maintain fighters.

I tend to build a group of low fuel consumption / long range patrol fighters on nearly every colony and just being able to organically upgrade them or just even maintain them without building a space station just for that would be awesome.
Posted by: SevenOfCarina
« on: Today at 01:39:28 AM »

IMO, component design should be more like turret design, where you enter desired performance (desired sensor range, engine power, etc.) and let Aurora crunch the numbers using techs that you have access to and return appropriate values for the other parameters (sensor size, engine boost, etc.).

Failing that, could we please at least get more increments for BFC tracking speed and range? Even just 0.75x, 1.25x, 2.50x and 3.50x would be appreciated. I'd also like to suggest that the multiplier be gated behind tech, like max and minimum engine boost.

Could we also get a small, 2HS 100 colonist transport module for conventional starts with multiple pre-TN colonies? It'll be useful to RP pre-TN colonisation with conventional starships like BFR.
Posted by: totos_totidis
« on: August 19, 2019, 01:35:53 PM »

I would like to suggest more advanced ruin only weapons. I recommend adding advanced gauss cannons with double the fire rate and advanced particle lances with higher damage.
Posted by: Steve Walmsley
« on: August 18, 2019, 04:50:09 AM »

Will this somehow change efficiency of CIWS? I mostly rely on them for missile defense.

CIWS is a single weapon with an integral fire control so it will still only be able to handle a single salvo. If you have two CIWS, they can both fire at the same salvo or at two different salvos.
Posted by: alex_brunius
« on: August 17, 2019, 08:50:21 PM »

Will this somehow change efficiency of CIWS? I mostly rely on them for missile defense.

It was some time since I played, but doesn't CIWS already come with it's own built in Fire control in each turret?
Posted by: Shuul
« on: August 17, 2019, 03:09:01 PM »

Please take a look at how PD engages missile salvos. As it is right now you need too many fire-controls for small missiles salvos because if one PD turret linked to a fire-control leave even one missile the next turret will be used on that one instead of shooting on a new salvo where they would score allot more missile kills.

This should be looked at from a game balance perspective in my opinion, beam PD fire-controls already are way more expensive than missile fire-controls in general.

I would suggest that PD is put on a list where the biggest is on the top (or rather the one that have the most likely higher kills). Each control then target the largest salvo in that increment that hit also sorted into some list where the largest salvo always get put on top.

Currently you need almost somewhat like 25-50% more fire-controls even against relatively small salvos such as fighters unless there is a very high chance one turret can destroy all incoming missiles in one go. You could of course put more turrets on each fire control but turrets are pretty big. There also are problems with mixing ships with smaller turrets and larger ones, if you are unlucky the smaller turret fire first and simply waste its ammunition since the larger could have killed the salvo.

A good example of the problem is... lets say you have 10 salvos of incoming missiles of 6 missiles in each salvo. You have a quad Gauss turret to engage them and you are quite likely to kill all missiles on one turret and you have ten turrets and PD fire-controls. Lets say out of the ten salvos you would theoretically miss one or two missiles. In practice this means that you get six to twelve missiles to leak and not one or two. In this instance I rather have triple turrets and a few more fire-controls but that also is way more expensive... and very taxing on certain resources. Also given the change to maintenance then size of the ships matter allot more than before so just adding more turrets to each fire control to reduce the chance of missing a missile is weaker than before.

I think a change to this would make the weird salvo mechanic less abusable and small salvo attacks such as fighters less problematic unless you intend to destroy entire salvos with AMM.

I've been giving this some thought. I think I do need to improve the situation vs small salvos. However, the way the sequence of play works is a problem for the above solution. Each salvo moves one at once, rather than all together. As a salvo attacks its target, the local point defence will shoot at it, without consideration for what other salvos may arrive later in the turn. This late in development, I don't want to mess around with the sequence of play as that would be a huge task.

What might work though is to simply lift the restriction on each fire control only engaging a single target during point blank fire. Each weapon would still be only able to engage a single salvo. So you could have the same number of fire controls and have two twin turrets per fire control in the above situation, with each turret allowed to shoot a different salvo. You would still tend to have multiple fire controls anyway for redundancy, but fewer than are required now.

EDIT: I've implemented the above. Only needed to move a couple of lines of code. Also, missiles moved in descending order of speed. I've updated that to descending order of speed then by descending order of salvo size, so the largest salvos of the same type of missile will move first.

Will this somehow change efficiency of CIWS? I mostly rely on them for missile defense.
Posted by: Jorgen_CAB
« on: August 17, 2019, 06:57:27 AM »

Please take a look at how PD engages missile salvos. As it is right now you need too many fire-controls for small missiles salvos because if one PD turret linked to a fire-control leave even one missile the next turret will be used on that one instead of shooting on a new salvo where they would score allot more missile kills.

This should be looked at from a game balance perspective in my opinion, beam PD fire-controls already are way more expensive than missile fire-controls in general.

I would suggest that PD is put on a list where the biggest is on the top (or rather the one that have the most likely higher kills). Each control then target the largest salvo in that increment that hit also sorted into some list where the largest salvo always get put on top.

Currently you need almost somewhat like 25-50% more fire-controls even against relatively small salvos such as fighters unless there is a very high chance one turret can destroy all incoming missiles in one go. You could of course put more turrets on each fire control but turrets are pretty big. There also are problems with mixing ships with smaller turrets and larger ones, if you are unlucky the smaller turret fire first and simply waste its ammunition since the larger could have killed the salvo.

A good example of the problem is... lets say you have 10 salvos of incoming missiles of 6 missiles in each salvo. You have a quad Gauss turret to engage them and you are quite likely to kill all missiles on one turret and you have ten turrets and PD fire-controls. Lets say out of the ten salvos you would theoretically miss one or two missiles. In practice this means that you get six to twelve missiles to leak and not one or two. In this instance I rather have triple turrets and a few more fire-controls but that also is way more expensive... and very taxing on certain resources. Also given the change to maintenance then size of the ships matter allot more than before so just adding more turrets to each fire control to reduce the chance of missing a missile is weaker than before.

I think a change to this would make the weird salvo mechanic less abusable and small salvo attacks such as fighters less problematic unless you intend to destroy entire salvos with AMM.

I've been giving this some thought. I think I do need to improve the situation vs small salvos. However, the way the sequence of play works is a problem for the above solution. Each salvo moves one at once, rather than all together. As a salvo attacks its target, the local point defence will shoot at it, without consideration for what other salvos may arrive later in the turn. This late in development, I don't want to mess around with the sequence of play as that would be a huge task.

What might work though is to simply lift the restriction on each fire control only engaging a single target during point blank fire. Each weapon would still be only able to engage a single salvo. So you could have the same number of fire controls and have two twin turrets per fire control in the above situation, with each turret allowed to shoot a different salvo. You would still tend to have multiple fire controls anyway for redundancy, but fewer than are required now.

EDIT: I've implemented the above. Only needed to move a couple of lines of code. Also, missiles moved in descending order of speed. I've updated that to descending order of speed then by descending order of salvo size, so the largest salvos of the same type of missile will move first.

This is a really good improvement in general. Having the largest salvos move first and fire-controls to to engage multiple salvos means that you can engage both large and small salvos with a decent investment in fire-controls more in line with missile fire-control costs.

Later on if you have time and feel it is worth the investment you could look into the whole salvo mechanic and how it works. Perhaps tie fire-controls to controlling missiles and targets and having technology that improve on that which would make it a bit more "realistic".

But all in all I think this is a very good improvement.
Posted by: Steve Walmsley
« on: August 17, 2019, 05:54:24 AM »

Please take a look at how PD engages missile salvos. As it is right now you need too many fire-controls for small missiles salvos because if one PD turret linked to a fire-control leave even one missile the next turret will be used on that one instead of shooting on a new salvo where they would score allot more missile kills.

This should be looked at from a game balance perspective in my opinion, beam PD fire-controls already are way more expensive than missile fire-controls in general.

I would suggest that PD is put on a list where the biggest is on the top (or rather the one that have the most likely higher kills). Each control then target the largest salvo in that increment that hit also sorted into some list where the largest salvo always get put on top.

Currently you need almost somewhat like 25-50% more fire-controls even against relatively small salvos such as fighters unless there is a very high chance one turret can destroy all incoming missiles in one go. You could of course put more turrets on each fire control but turrets are pretty big. There also are problems with mixing ships with smaller turrets and larger ones, if you are unlucky the smaller turret fire first and simply waste its ammunition since the larger could have killed the salvo.

A good example of the problem is... lets say you have 10 salvos of incoming missiles of 6 missiles in each salvo. You have a quad Gauss turret to engage them and you are quite likely to kill all missiles on one turret and you have ten turrets and PD fire-controls. Lets say out of the ten salvos you would theoretically miss one or two missiles. In practice this means that you get six to twelve missiles to leak and not one or two. In this instance I rather have triple turrets and a few more fire-controls but that also is way more expensive... and very taxing on certain resources. Also given the change to maintenance then size of the ships matter allot more than before so just adding more turrets to each fire control to reduce the chance of missing a missile is weaker than before.

I think a change to this would make the weird salvo mechanic less abusable and small salvo attacks such as fighters less problematic unless you intend to destroy entire salvos with AMM.

I've been giving this some thought. I think I do need to improve the situation vs small salvos. However, the way the sequence of play works is a problem for the above solution. Each salvo moves one at once, rather than all together. As a salvo attacks its target, the local point defence will shoot at it, without consideration for what other salvos may arrive later in the turn. This late in development, I don't want to mess around with the sequence of play as that would be a huge task.

What might work though is to simply lift the restriction on each fire control only engaging a single target during point blank fire. Each weapon would still be only able to engage a single salvo. So you could have the same number of fire controls and have two twin turrets per fire control in the above situation, with each turret allowed to shoot a different salvo. You would still tend to have multiple fire controls anyway for redundancy, but fewer than are required now.

EDIT: I've implemented the above. Only needed to move a couple of lines of code. Also, missiles moved in descending order of speed. I've updated that to descending order of speed then by descending order of salvo size, so the largest salvos of the same type of missile will move first.
Posted by: Steve Walmsley
« on: August 16, 2019, 05:24:31 AM »

In c# aurora ground surveys will be conducted not by teams as in vb but by ground forces. I would like to suggest that ground survey be something that can be automated.

There are far fewer surveys now. Many systems don't even have one ground survey site and the most I have seen so far is three.
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