Post reply

Warning - while you were reading 34 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


Topic Summary

Posted by: Whitecold
« on: August 12, 2018, 12:27:13 AM »

Fleets undergoing fleet training being unable to use maintenance facilities or Recreational locations seems odd.  That would mean you'd need to remove the fleet from the training structure in order to have it recuperate when the ships and crew get too worn down during training, which seems pretty weird.

Without those rules, a training fleet in the same location as maintenance facilities and recreational facilities would effectively be training without cost.

How will we train short deployment ships, say something like a month deployment or less without massive micromanagement?

Could it be possible with some order that suspend training for a certain time so ships can overhaul and rest the crew while being attached to a training command. An order only available to ships in a training command or some automatic function that have the fleet quit training to be maintained and then automatically resume training again.

From a RP perspective I don't want to give my ship unrealistic long deployment time just to avoid micromanagement with training. There are similar problems in VB Aurora but you can skirt around them to avoid the micromanagement.

The ships moving around the system in some erratic pattern are also a nice touch to bring in the training aspect. And I agree that one should not have to micro fleet training. You should give the order once, and stop when you feel it is well enough. Overhauls/shore leave should be handled by the system itself.
Posted by: Jorgen_CAB
« on: August 11, 2018, 04:46:44 PM »

Fleets undergoing fleet training being unable to use maintenance facilities or Recreational locations seems odd.  That would mean you'd need to remove the fleet from the training structure in order to have it recuperate when the ships and crew get too worn down during training, which seems pretty weird.

Without those rules, a training fleet in the same location as maintenance facilities and recreational facilities would effectively be training without cost.

How will we train short deployment ships, say something like a month deployment or less without massive micromanagement?

Could it be possible with some order that suspend training for a certain time so ships can overhaul and rest the crew while being attached to a training command. An order only available to ships in a training command or some automatic function that have the fleet quit training to be maintained and then automatically resume training again.

From a RP perspective I don't want to give my ship unrealistic long deployment time just to avoid micromanagement with training. There are similar problems in VB Aurora but you can skirt around them to avoid the micromanagement.
Posted by: Steve Walmsley
« on: August 10, 2018, 07:08:54 PM »

Fleets undergoing fleet training being unable to use maintenance facilities or Recreational locations seems odd.  That would mean you'd need to remove the fleet from the training structure in order to have it recuperate when the ships and crew get too worn down during training, which seems pretty weird.

Without those rules, a training fleet in the same location as maintenance facilities and recreational facilities would effectively be training without cost.
Posted by: Whitecold
« on: August 10, 2018, 03:58:55 PM »

What happens to the maintenance of fighters and other parasites during training? The hardware surely has to be used for real, but continuously charging double maintenance with their ridiculously low deployment times is likely prohibitively expensive.
Posted by: Jorgen_CAB
« on: August 10, 2018, 02:41:13 PM »

Fleets undergoing fleet training being unable to use maintenance facilities or Recreational locations seems odd.  That would mean you'd need to remove the fleet from the training structure in order to have it recuperate when the ships and crew get too worn down during training, which seems pretty weird.

I agree... the biggest problem is when your fleet train things like FAC or other patrol ships with very short maintenance cycles or deployment times. The best thing would be that ships in a training command gain no training as long as they are anchored at a maintenance facility.

It would be nice if I could train my low deployment ships without huge micromanagement.
Posted by: the obelisk
« on: August 10, 2018, 11:30:09 AM »

Fleets undergoing fleet training being unable to use maintenance facilities or Recreational locations seems odd.  That would mean you'd need to remove the fleet from the training structure in order to have it recuperate when the ships and crew get too worn down during training, which seems pretty weird.
Posted by: QuakeIV
« on: August 10, 2018, 10:57:34 AM »

If anything, you might only expect momentary confusion in that case if the next planned target was already destroyed.
Posted by: Whitecold
« on: August 10, 2018, 01:45:50 AM »

There's absolutely no reason for a task group to sit idle due to order delay, it makes sense they would continue the old order, the delay is in changing orders.
It's a terrible idea in battle to just sit still while waiting for commands, unless you had specifically been told to sit still beforehand.
Yeah. Similarly it should be possible to assign a target rotation beforehand. If you know when and how you are going to change targets, the crews can plan ahead. (Fire on x till destroyed, then y then z) Changing target priorities should have a delay, but not following a preplanned firing pattern.
Posted by: MarcAFK
« on: August 10, 2018, 01:23:21 AM »

There's absolutely no reason for a task group to sit idle due to order delay, it makes sense they would continue the old order, the delay is in changing orders.
It's a terrible idea in battle to just sit still while waiting for commands, unless you had specifically been told to sit still beforehand.
Posted by: QuakeIV
« on: August 08, 2018, 03:04:57 PM »

I think the main issue is the full stop between orders.  Staying at the same speed and heading until able to react to the next order would be a bit more believable, achieve more or less the same thing and hopefully be easier to implement.
Posted by: Garfunkel
« on: August 08, 2018, 02:49:46 PM »

Agreed.

But that would require that Aurora "remembers" the old order even after you remove or change it. Not sure if things are set-up in a way that would make it easy for Steve to implement such a feature.
Posted by: Jorgen_CAB
« on: August 08, 2018, 11:41:35 AM »

IMO the biggest issue is what happens during delay... if orders change from "keep a distance of 200k" to "keep a distance of 300k", at no time should the task group sit idle and allow a slower enemy to close the range at will.

Agreed, a better behavior would be to continue with the previous order(s) until the delay has expired.

John

This I agree with... if there is an issue with order delay that should be fixed not the delay itself. There should never be a case where zero delay is a must to play the game.

In my opinion having some delay always being the case seem more interesting overall and also mean that crew grade and officers competence always will matter.
Posted by: sloanjh
« on: August 08, 2018, 07:33:04 AM »

IMO the biggest issue is what happens during delay... if orders change from "keep a distance of 200k" to "keep a distance of 300k", at no time should the task group sit idle and allow a slower enemy to close the range at will.

Agreed, a better behavior would be to continue with the previous order(s) until the delay has expired.

John
Posted by: waresky
« on: August 08, 2018, 05:35:26 AM »

2009.zzz...2010....2011....2012....2013....2014....2015...2016....2017...2018...20xx...2120!! Aurora C# ALPHA Day.

:D
:P
Posted by: Iranon
« on: August 08, 2018, 04:42:10 AM »

IMO the biggest issue is what happens during delay... if orders change from "keep a distance of 200k" to "keep a distance of 300k", at no time should the task group sit idle and allow a slower enemy to close the range at will.
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