Post reply

Warning - while you were reading 35 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:
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: Polestar
« on: Today at 02:29:30 PM »

The great win we're all looking forward to in Aurora is the C# speed-up. This gain makes certain other wins possible, and I'd like to suggest one of them: Removing the 5-second minimum combat time step, or "pulse".

A lot happens in five seconds. Weapons charge up, wait, and only fire at the end of the interval. Beam weapon design is made considerably less flexible, with key tech advances being those that allow weapons to finish charging every 5*n seconds. Fast missiles teleport from medium range to hull contact in one jump, which again limits the design of non-CIWS missile defences.

I propose that the game move to a one-second (or smaller) sub-interval - a "pulse" - for combat, and that pulse occur sequentially, system-by-system (this could obviously be multithreaded) in which there is active combat, during each interval. These intervals could (if desired) remain as they are, with a 5 second interval continuing to be the minimum.
Posted by: Jorgen_CAB
« on: November 13, 2018, 05:14:58 PM »


I understand the concerns about agility and I will do something to address it. I rarely reach AM levels in my games so it hasn't been on my radar as much as it should have. I think I may need a different mechanic to replace agility but haven't decided how to handle it. I will also look at EW for missiles.

Plus, once I start running a campaign I will see how the theory works in practice. If there are problem, I will change it.

Sorry to bring up an old comment but I was looking through the thread and I had some feedback in this issue. As pointed out agility has an almost exponential effect on AMM efficiency since Agility don't do anything for missile defense and speed is what mostly define missile defense aside from ECM now as well in a different way.

But... when we look at missiles in real life there is a similar war going on between agile or speed as defense for missiles. I don't think any of them has won that fight yet as both have merits.

My suggestion would be to make agility on offensive missiles act as defense against enemy missiles but serve no purpose against beam attacks. The reasoning being that the agility is not quick enough to avoid a laser or Gauss shot at close range.

So... speed and Agility would be two separate defensive mechanisms and don't directly add to a missiles chance to intercept or hit something.

Now you could add agility to everything and use the same rules for missiles and ships. The heavier an object is the more space is needed for each point of agility thus a small missile need very little internal speed for agility and a large 10.000t ship need allot more space for internal integrity to conduct evasive maneuvers against missiles but you could potentially add some Agility to ships to reduce the chance to hit them... especially useful on slower ships.

This would also fix the current problem and add some more interesting things to equip things like fighters and ships with. It will also not make agility overpowered at intercepting missiles as you gain technology as you also use it to avoid missiles.

For offensive missiles agility will be useful to avoid enemy missiles but will do nothing against Beam PD, so you can't go nuts on it which will still make AMM slightly more efficient in the use of Agility.

You can also make small Interceptor fighters really good at dodging incoming missiles which can be interesting in a anti-fighter or space superiority role.

You could just make it something simple such as 5p Agility in the AMM versus 3p Agility on the ASM means 3/5 = 60% chance of avoiding a hit if the missile hit due to speed. Of course the balance would then be how easy it is to hit through speed or how to balance it.
Posted by: MarcAFK
« on: November 11, 2018, 06:35:14 AM »

Harpoon? Should have tried a shaped charge like Hayabusa.
Posted by: Garfunkel
« on: November 09, 2018, 06:23:52 PM »

Cool beans.

Turns out Vangelis made an album:
list=PLMftvPCnRjqnk-CVVlZZrAD6j9P6VK3ue
More Aurora background music :D
Posted by: QuakeIV
« on: November 09, 2018, 04:35:42 PM »

The Rosetta mission assumed that, then it's harpoons bounced off the hard surface of the comet.
Posted by: Garfunkel
« on: November 09, 2018, 12:11:34 PM »

Quite interesting. I thought all comets were basically unstable piles of rubble barely held together. Guess I was wrong and they are more solid.
Posted by: Steve Walmsley
« on: November 09, 2018, 10:40:24 AM »

It is likely that with planets with sufficiently eccentric orbits to be automatic colonisation candidates that only need a seed population for civilian shipping to move populations into position. If that happens and the planet becomes sufficiently cold or hot to need infrastructure to compensate for the colony cost that will be very... unfortunate. Will it be possible to tick a box for planets like that for the colonisation and infrastructure demand calculations to consider the max colony cost instead of the current colony cost?

If I decide to add eccentric orbits for planets, I will add something on those lines.
Posted by: Hazard
« on: November 09, 2018, 09:19:57 AM »

It is likely that with planets with sufficiently eccentric orbits to be automatic colonisation candidates that only need a seed population for civilian shipping to move populations into position. If that happens and the planet becomes sufficiently cold or hot to need infrastructure to compensate for the colony cost that will be very... unfortunate. Will it be possible to tick a box for planets like that for the colonisation and infrastructure demand calculations to consider the max colony cost instead of the current colony cost?
Posted by: Steve Walmsley
« on: November 09, 2018, 06:41:29 AM »

Regarding the changing colony cost of comets and  planets with eccentric orbits.
I like the idea at first, but now i have some concerns depending the micromanaging overhead
and the additional game play value.

Depending on the orbit time, the population has to be moved to and away form the comet/planet constantly,
or only the minimum supported population at maximum colony cost is send to the comet/planet.

Will the maximum colony cost be shown?
Will shipping lines use the current or the maximum colony cost for sending colony ships?
What is the benefit of constant moving population over only moving the minimum population.

A max colony cost is calculated for each comet, as well as it's normal colony cost. You can flip between them on the system view (there is a checkbox to change).

I've set it so the standing order for unload colonists ignores comets, which is what effectively happens now anyway. That prevents other potential issues with colony ships chasing comets. The decisions about considering potential max colony cost and whether to use the comet will only sit with the player.
Posted by: Kelewan
« on: November 09, 2018, 05:48:21 AM »

Regarding the changing colony cost of comets and  planets with eccentric orbits.
I like the idea at first, but now i have some concerns depending the micromanaging overhead
and the additional game play value.

Depending on the orbit time, the population has to be moved to and away form the comet/planet constantly,
or only the minimum supported population at maximum colony cost is send to the comet/planet.

Will the maximum colony cost be shown?
Will shipping lines use the current or the maximum colony cost for sending colony ships?
What is the benefit of constant moving population over only moving the minimum population.
Posted by: space dwarf
« on: November 08, 2018, 11:14:34 AM »

Quote from: Vroom link=topic=8497. msg110717#msg110717 date=1540884818
Steve, could you please add female names into the Roman names database.

It's imposible  :(.  Weman has no personal name in Roman Empire/Republic.  Only name of family.

For example: if family name is August, then daughter named Augusta.
If family has more than one daughters, then number should be added to name.  Augusta I, Augusta II. . .
If mother also has name Augusta, then she becomes Augusta Senior and daughter name is Augusta Junior.

then add those feminised family names, silly
Posted by: Hamof
« on: November 07, 2018, 02:03:44 PM »

I feel like there should be lines between the mineral columns, might look better that way. Possibly also between the mineral amount and the mineral accessibility.
Posted by: Wise PingWin
« on: November 07, 2018, 02:07:38 AM »

Quote from: Vroom link=topic=8497. msg110717#msg110717 date=1540884818
Steve, could you please add female names into the Roman names database.

It's imposible  :(.  Weman has no personal name in Roman Empire/Republic.  Only name of family.

For example: if family name is August, then daughter named Augusta.
If family has more than one daughters, then number should be added to name.  Augusta I, Augusta II. . .
If mother also has name Augusta, then she becomes Augusta Senior and daughter name is Augusta Junior.
Posted by: Profugo Barbatus
« on: November 03, 2018, 01:46:24 AM »

Linked windows, me and my multi empire games thank you Steve.
Posted by: froggiest1982
« on: November 02, 2018, 04:14:25 PM »

"Linked Windows
C# Aurora has a option to link all the open windows, so that when you change the current Race in one window, all the other windows change to the same race."

Massive quality of life improvement for those who likes Roleplay with multiple races!
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