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: Steve Walmsley
« on: November 13, 2008, 09:15:22 PM »

Quote from: "Kurt"
Steve -

As I have noted over in my Six Powers Campaign posts, I am currently fighting out a planetary assault.  The Soviet Fleet is attacking an alien race, and has run into their planetary defenses.  The implications of what is going on there are wide reaching, and I'm going to have to think about this for a while.  However, this has raised something that I have been thinking about for a while.  

The aliens are launching missiles from their PDC's at the incoming Soviet fleet.  Each base has a launch capacity of ten missiles and has two fire controls (FC's).  Their plan of attack is to combine salvoes so that they can overwhelm the Soviet point defense.  While Aurora currently allows me to do that, it is cumbersome, and it got me thinking about the situation.  

As Aurora currently works, I assign missile launchers to an FC, which guides the missiles launched by that launcher to the target.  This includes every missile launched by that launcher that is currently active.  This is somewhat cumbersome, because I have to change the launcher FC assignments if I want to juggle the number of missiles assigned to an attack wave, and even then it is difficult.  

What I'd like to see is being able to assign missile salvoes directly to FC's, instead of launchers.  Launchers would still be assigned to FC's, but this would only affect the missiles they are currently launching, rather than missiles already launched.  This would also allow one ship to handle another's missiles, because once in space the FC assignments have nothing to do with the launchers.  Missile salvoes would be directly assigned to an FC, rather than through their launcher.  

Is this feasible, or would it be too difficult to change?
I am fairly sure this is how it works now. When a missile is launched, it is linked to the fire control that was controlling the launcher from which it was fired. When that fire control switches targets, so does the missile. If you fire one salvo then assign the launchers to a different fire control and fire a second salvo at a different target, the two missile salvos should home on separate targets even though they were fired from the same launchers.

Steve
Posted by: Kurt
« on: November 10, 2008, 11:52:53 AM »

Steve -

As I have noted over in my Six Powers Campaign posts, I am currently fighting out a planetary assault.  The Soviet Fleet is attacking an alien race, and has run into their planetary defenses.  The implications of what is going on there are wide reaching, and I'm going to have to think about this for a while.  However, this has raised something that I have been thinking about for a while.  

The aliens are launching missiles from their PDC's at the incoming Soviet fleet.  Each base has a launch capacity of ten missiles and has two fire controls (FC's).  Their plan of attack is to combine salvoes so that they can overwhelm the Soviet point defense.  While Aurora currently allows me to do that, it is cumbersome, and it got me thinking about the situation.  

As Aurora currently works, I assign missile launchers to an FC, which guides the missiles launched by that launcher to the target.  This includes every missile launched by that launcher that is currently active.  This is somewhat cumbersome, because I have to change the launcher FC assignments if I want to juggle the number of missiles assigned to an attack wave, and even then it is difficult.  

What I'd like to see is being able to assign missile salvoes directly to FC's, instead of launchers.  Launchers would still be assigned to FC's, but this would only affect the missiles they are currently launching, rather than missiles already launched.  This would also allow one ship to handle another's missiles, because once in space the FC assignments have nothing to do with the launchers.  Missile salvoes would be directly assigned to an FC, rather than through their launcher.  

Is this feasible, or would it be too difficult to change?

Kurt
Posted by: Steve Walmsley
« on: November 06, 2008, 06:49:05 PM »

Quote from: "Hagar"
When can we expect Version 3.2 to be available?
Within the next few days. Almost all bugs are fixed (well, the ones I know about) and almost all new functionality has been tested. I was testing the new point defence changes today (where allied ships can protect one another and not shoot at each other's missiles) and they are working fine.

I have updated a few things today and this is a good a place as any to list them.

1) I fixed a problem where dust density reduced sensor strength to zero, instead of a minimum of one.
2) Added a minimum EM sensor strength of 1 to all ships (same as the minimum Thermal sensor strength of 1)
3) When icons are shown on the galactic map to show which systems have habitable planets, any improvements in colonization skill are ignored (otherwise all the 2.00 planets show as 1.9 or lower)
4) Conditional orders such as refuel, resupply and overhaul now remove all other orders when executed because they are likely to be no longer relevant when the ship shifts position so radically. This is to avoid survey ships returning to the next location on their order list when checking from their new location after refuelling would be much better

Steve
Posted by: Hagar
« on: November 05, 2008, 03:58:28 PM »

When can we expect Version 3.2 to be available?
Posted by: Steve Walmsley
« on: November 03, 2008, 02:40:54 PM »

Quote from: "Erik Luken"
Quote from: "Randy"
You can basically achieve this by just making a copy of your database, engaging in the combat, and then replacing with the pre-battle database to get back to peace :-)

But it's not easily done between ships of your own design.
Not sure if it is in v3.1 but in v3.2 you can just transfer ships to another race on the Misc tab of the Ship window. Its a small section called Transfer Ship to Alien Empire with a list of race and a Transfer button. If you want to fight your own ships, create a "Training Race" and pass them some ships.

Steve
Posted by: Erik Luken
« on: October 28, 2008, 01:38:18 PM »

Quote from: "Randy"
You can basically achieve this by just making a copy of your database, engaging in the combat, and then replacing with the pre-battle database to get back to peace :-)

But it's not easily done between ships of your own design.
Posted by: Randy
« on: October 28, 2008, 01:05:11 PM »

James wrote:
Quote
Something that would be handy to have is a way to have war games or mock battles, between two ships of your own design (or of a design that you know about from another party). This way you can weed out the truly bad designs from among your designed ranks. For instance, I haven't had any battles yet during my play of Aurora so I have no feel for the strengths or weaknesses of particular weapons or ship designs.
Something that would be handy to have is a way to have war games or mock battles, between two ships of your own design (or of a design that you know about from another party). This way you can weed out the truly bad designs from among your designed ranks. For instance, I haven't had any battles yet during my play of Aurora so I have no feel for the strengths or weaknesses of particular weapons or ship designs.

You can basically achieve this by just making a copy of your database, engaging in the combat, and then replacing with the pre-battle database to get back to peace :-)
Posted by: James Patten
« on: October 26, 2008, 02:42:58 PM »

Something that would be handy to have is a way to have war games or mock battles, between two ships of your own design (or of a design that you know about from another party).  This way you can weed out the truly bad designs from among your designed ranks.  For instance, I haven't had any battles yet during my play of Aurora so I have no feel for the strengths or weaknesses of particular weapons or ship designs.
Posted by: Brian
« on: October 25, 2008, 02:12:53 PM »

Quote from: "SteveAlt"
I am still thinking about it. Not sure if I am going to do it for v3.2 as I am getting close to a release and the above is a significant change to the mechanics, rather than an add-on like Espionage. I agree that the best way to handle it is probably just to extend beam fire control ranges as they are currently the real restriction on beam ranges. As to multiple shots, the real longe range missile-killer is another missile but I agree that some form of long-ranged laser would make a good mid-range anti-missile weapon with anti-missiles at longer ranges and probably gauss cannon and railguns for point balnk fire. I also agree that torpedo ranges could do with being extended. Unlike a lot of other beam weapons they have no serious anti-missile function so perhaps greater range would make them more attractive.

Steve

I would actually suggest that the torpedo's outrange a comparable tech laser.  This would help make them more usefull, and it would fit the design of the weapon.  Railguns are the short range heavy hitters, Torpedo's have the longest range, and Lasers are more versitile.  Meson's are the only beam weapon that does not fit with the others, but it is a special use weapon anyway.  It works best against heavily protected targets, or as a planetary close range pd battery.

Brian
Posted by: SteveAlt
« on: October 25, 2008, 12:22:07 PM »

Quote from: "Brian"
Are you still thinking of extending the range of beam weapons?  I have been thinking about it for the last week or so and I like the idea.  The main reason relates to the changes in missile capabilities.  When you first started designing Aurora it was quite reasonable to expect a decent point defense laser to get 2-3 shots at the incomming missiles.  Now you are lucky to get the chance at a second shot because of how much faster missiles have the potential of being.  This led to a good trade-off on numbers of short range (10cm) pd weapons versus fewer, longer range ones that had multiple chances to fire.  Currently this does not work as even the longer range laser's just don't have the range to engage the missiles more than once with area fire.  (you would need to have them constantly switching between area and final defence firing almost every 5 second turn which is way to much micro-management for me)  One of the side effects has been to make the gauss weapons much more effective than lasers, or mesons at point defence because of the large number of short range shots.  Railguns are still somewhat effective as they also got a lot of shots but at a lower effective chance to hit.  If fire control ranges for beam weapons are extended then this gives a chance for the laser and meson fields to be usefull as point defense weapons again.

This may sound strange after the previous paragraph, but I would not extend the range's of the actual weapons for laser, meson, or railguns.  I would change the ranges for the torpedo's as they are a somewhat different catagory.  If you look at the actual achievable ranges for laser and meson weapons you will see that they can easily outrange the fire control.  A maxed out 30cm laser has a max range of 2.88 million km or double the max fire control range.  This would actually be a viable pd weapon as it would have a 5 second cycle time.  A 80cm laser has a max range of 20.16 million km.  At the max current range it is still doing 14 points of damage.  While mesons are not as long ranged they still easily exceed the fire control range.  Railguns actually do no do as well at long range as thier damage is a lot lower per shot and therefore they have less of a multiplying effect.  For the railguns you might give them somer more range multipliers.  They will still tend to be much shorter ranged than either the laser or meson weapons.
I am still thinking about it. Not sure if I am going to do it for v3.2 as I am getting close to a release and the above is a significant change to the mechanics, rather than an add-on like Espionage. I agree that the best way to handle it is probably just to extend beam fire control ranges as they are currently the real restriction on beam ranges. As to multiple shots, the real longe range missile-killer is another missile but I agree that some form of long-ranged laser would make a good mid-range anti-missile weapon with anti-missiles at longer ranges and probably gauss cannon and railguns for point balnk fire. I also agree that torpedo ranges could do with being extended. Unlike a lot of other beam weapons they have no serious anti-missile function so perhaps greater range would make them more attractive.

Steve
Posted by: Brian
« on: October 25, 2008, 10:35:43 AM »

Are you still thinking of extending the range of beam weapons?  I have been thinking about it for the last week or so and I like the idea.  The main reason relates to the changes in missile capabilities.  When you first started designing Aurora it was quite reasonable to expect a decent point defense laser to get 2-3 shots at the incomming missiles.  Now you are lucky to get the chance at a second shot because of how much faster missiles have the potential of being.  This led to a good trade-off on numbers of short range (10cm) pd weapons versus fewer, longer range ones that had multiple chances to fire.  Currently this does not work as even the longer range laser's just don't have the range to engage the missiles more than once with area fire.  (you would need to have them constantly switching between area and final defence firing almost every 5 second turn which is way to much micro-management for me)  One of the side effects has been to make the gauss weapons much more effective than lasers, or mesons at point defence because of the large number of short range shots.  Railguns are still somewhat effective as they also got a lot of shots but at a lower effective chance to hit.  If fire control ranges for beam weapons are extended then this gives a chance for the laser and meson fields to be usefull as point defense weapons again.

This may sound strange after the previous paragraph, but I would not extend the range's of the actual weapons for laser, meson, or railguns.  I would change the ranges for the torpedo's as they are a somewhat different catagory.  If you look at the actual achievable ranges for laser and meson weapons you will see that they can easily outrange the fire control.  A maxed out 30cm laser has a max range of 2.88 million km or double the max fire control range.  This would actually be a viable pd weapon as it would have a 5 second cycle time.  A 80cm laser has a max range of 20.16 million km.  At the max current range it is still doing 14 points of damage.  While mesons are not as long ranged they still easily exceed the fire control range.  Railguns actually do no do as well at long range as thier damage is a lot lower per shot and therefore they have less of a multiplying effect.  For the railguns you might give them somer more range multipliers.  They will still tend to be much shorter ranged than either the laser or meson weapons.

Brian
Posted by: SteveAlt
« on: October 25, 2008, 09:28:19 AM »

Quote from: "Brian"
You need to put in a prerequisite tech for the cloaking reduction 97%.  The line is blank and when I reasearched everything the best reduction I could get was 95%.  Nothing would show beyond this.  I even did the all reasearch to 100,000,000 points which is way more than needed just to find out if this would work.
It was a typo in the database. 29913 instead of 26913 for the pre-requisite. Fixed for v3.2

Steve
Posted by: SteveAlt
« on: October 25, 2008, 09:26:11 AM »

Quote from: "Randy"
How about the ability to "subvert" captured commanders?

  Join the Dark Side Luke...  :). Perhaps a 1% chance of a defection which comes with a substantial intelligence bonus and the officer gets added to the officer corps of the capturing nation.

Steve
Posted by: SteveAlt
« on: October 25, 2008, 09:24:38 AM »

Quote from: "James Patten"
I think another missing tech is Compressed Fuel Storage.  I remember using it in 2.x, but when 3.0 came along it was there but I couldn't get to it.
It's one of the techs you can only get from ruins.

Steve
Posted by: Randy
« on: October 24, 2008, 11:26:15 PM »

How about the ability to "subvert" captured commanders?

  Join the Dark Side Luke...  :twisted:
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