Post reply

Warning - while you were reading 202 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 is the fourth planet?:

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

Please read the rules before you post!


Topic Summary

Posted by: Scandinavian
« on: Yesterday at 11:47:32 PM »

But something will need to be done about the beam weapon range vs. missile speed ratio. Because as it stands, missiles of comparable tech level will cross the engagement envelope of beam weapons in two or three 5-second increments. Unless you have beam weapons suffer basically no accuracy degradation from engagement range, that renders final defensive fire strictly superior to area defense (1 shot at maximum accuracy vs. fewer than two shots on average, the first of which is at less than half accuracy). Changing the accuracy profile by range of beam weapons enough for that to matter under this attack geometry would radically modify beam combat as well, assuming it is even possible.
Posted by: misanthropope
« on: Yesterday at 10:58:02 AM »

if the parameter you're tweaking is relative speed, there is a fine line between "area defense is worthless" and "a FAC screen can kill ungodly waves with area defense".  beam accuracy at range seems the safer lever to pull on.  if the tracking time bonus is finally enabled in c# that should help beam defense considerably.
Posted by: Whitecold
« on: Yesterday at 12:42:56 AM »

When on the topic of point defense.

Wouldn't it make sense if there was a point in researching range upgrades to Gauss cannons and if weapon range had a bit of impact on final fire PD as well?


I mean if our incoming missiles travels at say 40'000km/s that means that during a 5 second increment it will travel 200'000km. A Gauss cannon with 10'000km range should have a significant disadvantage in how much volume of fire it can output compared to one with 50'000km range due to being able to open fire only in the very last 0.25 seconds instead of the last 1.25 seconds.

If a Gauss Cannon can fire 5 rounds per 5 seconds an even rate of fire would mean it's actually only within range long enough to be hit by 1 round for the 10'000km range Gauss and only 2 rounds for the 50'000km Gauss. Even if we assume the Gauss cannon fires bursts up to 1 second long and then reloads for 4 seconds the 10'000km range Gauss still is at a significant disadvantage only having time for 25% of a full burst, and that could be even worse vs faster lategame missiles.

I guess what I'm asking for is a more logical resolution of the last 5 seconds of missile approach vs PD. And also more weapons capable of firing faster than once every 5 seconds, for example a 10cm laser with 12 recharge rate capacitors logically should be able to fire 4 times each 5 second increment ( 12/3 = 4 ).

This would naturally require a rebalance of point defense weapons, probably increasing the range and/or rate of fire of Gauss a bit and potentially nerfing laser PD a bit as well.
The same actually holds true for Laser PD, which right now seems pretty much inferior to Gauss weapons, because again area defense seems useless, and thus range doesn't matter, because the missiles are just too fast.
Posted by: Steve Walmsley
« on: April 18, 2019, 06:51:37 AM »

At this stage of development, I don't want to make any significant changes to combat, as it works well. The concept of salvos also needs to exist as it is used in many different parts of the code. The simplest fix is probably to allow fire controls to target multiple salvos in a single firing phase. I'm not at home at the moment, but I will check later how easy that would be to implement.
Posted by: alex_brunius
« on: April 18, 2019, 04:39:27 AM »

When on the topic of point defense.

Wouldn't it make sense if there was a point in researching range upgrades to Gauss cannons and if weapon range had a bit of impact on final fire PD as well?


I mean if our incoming missiles travels at say 40'000km/s that means that during a 5 second increment it will travel 200'000km. A Gauss cannon with 10'000km range should have a significant disadvantage in how much volume of fire it can output compared to one with 50'000km range due to being able to open fire only in the very last 0.25 seconds instead of the last 1.25 seconds.

If a Gauss Cannon can fire 5 rounds per 5 seconds an even rate of fire would mean it's actually only within range long enough to be hit by 1 round for the 10'000km range Gauss and only 2 rounds for the 50'000km Gauss. Even if we assume the Gauss cannon fires bursts up to 1 second long and then reloads for 4 seconds the 10'000km range Gauss still is at a significant disadvantage only having time for 25% of a full burst, and that could be even worse vs faster lategame missiles.

I guess what I'm asking for is a more logical resolution of the last 5 seconds of missile approach vs PD. And also more weapons capable of firing faster than once every 5 seconds, for example a 10cm laser with 12 recharge rate capacitors logically should be able to fire 4 times each 5 second increment ( 12/3 = 4 ).

This would naturally require a rebalance of point defense weapons, probably increasing the range and/or rate of fire of Gauss a bit and potentially nerfing laser PD a bit as well.
Posted by: chokuto
« on: April 17, 2019, 10:38:25 PM »

I would be in favour of doing away with the salvo concept entirely as I think it adds unnecessary complexity and exposes an exploit.

With this approach I do think that something would have to be done about only need one fire control for final defensive fire.

Quote
And as a counterpoint allow remaining pd after destroying a salvo to retarget other salvos hitting in teh same increment, but at a malus based on the firecontrol tech.

Maybe a railgun or guass cannon should have a to hit penalty for each subsequent missile it is targeting. Potentially a tech line to reduce this, but not sure whether this would be on the fire control or the weapon. Also would think this should apply to turreted weapons but not sure how
Posted by: MarcAFK
« on: April 17, 2019, 09:44:50 PM »

I like those ideas, but I would offer a counter suggestion which also involves ECM.
Firstly, don't give fire controls arbitary hard limits to the amount of missiles or salvos they can control, but instead add mechanics where controlling multiple salvos causes a malus to accuracy and ECM/ECCM.
In an environment where theres little ecm or risk of your salvos being shot down you should be able to commit massive alpha strikes, but in a more restrictive environment you may wish to make less but better controlled salvos.
In addition, allow individual fire controls to split salvos up if desired, add a drop down or something so it can be split in 2/3/4/5 etc.
And as a counterpoint allow remaining pd after destroying a salvo to retarget other salvos hitting in teh same increment, but at a malus based on the firecontrol tech.
These 2 alone should do away with the exploit. However the AI will need to know how to deal with these mechanics, though already AI can be cheesed with the current salvo mechanics.
Posted by: Scandinavian
« on: April 17, 2019, 06:09:45 PM »

Given the greatly increased performance of the C# version, I'd propose doing away with the salvo concept entirely (or, mechanically, assign each missile to its own salvo).

This will slightly increase the propensity of AMMs to overkill when launching multiple AMMs per ASM, but it would remove the arbitrary distinction between 5 missiles fired by the same fire control in the same increment, and the same 5 missiles fired by 5 different FCs.

This would necessitate reworking the interaction between beam PD and missiles. My proposal would be to consolidate all missiles that are valid targets for beam PD during the increment, and resolve firing as if they had been one large salvo. The defender would need to be able to set how the PD should prioritize the missiles (which can be basically three attributes): Thermal signature, target cross-section (size), and speed, and whether they should be targeted in random order, lowest to highest, or highest to lowest.

If implemented in isolation, it would mean that no vessel ever required more than 1 FC for final defensive fire. However, to counter that, we could limit the number of weapons a single FC could control (with a single turret counting as one weapon, giving an additional advantage to turreting your PD weapons).

To balance this restriction, missile fire controls should be similarly restricted on the number of missiles they can have in space at any given time.

To begin with, I'd suggest letting an FC control 5 missiles or beam weapons, with a tech line for growing control capacity. Reducing this number during the component design phase should have an effect on size and cost (so FCs that only need to control one missile or weapon at short range get to claw their way down to fighter size without invoking special rules for fighters.).
Posted by: Jorgen_CAB
« on: April 17, 2019, 03:39:19 PM »

Are you talking about creating many small salvos to confuse point defence?

Yes, that is one of the artefacts of the current mechanic.

You can get this artefact in a few ways... one is making PD very expensive through use of the often cheaper missile fire-controls or by loading different missiles and fire them from the same fire control and thus creating several salvos from the same fire-control.

I do think there could be some balance between needing FC to control and target missiles based on tech level rather than having fixed salvo sizes. This might also "solve" the extreme Box launcher salvos that also often can make PD very weak in the other direction, especially when these two are combined to make the PD very expensive to maintain.

There is also some issues (in my opinion) with the bonus you get to fighter beam fire controls. They are so much cheaper that it is more efficient to create small turreted Gauss or rail gun fighters. A Gauss turret with an 85% reduced Gauss turret can often be up to 50% faster in tracking than on a ship and still cheaper to operate by stuffing it in a hangar.

I would not mind an overview of how FC works at some point. Like engines now scaling I would like FC to work the same on all platforms and that abusing the mechanic less of an issue because sometimes it is hard to avoid even when you try to avoid it.

For example a smaller FC you would put on a fighter (or a ship with one or a few cannon turrets) are able to track or control fewer missiles in flight, thus being smaller and fit on a fighter. That fighter are going to fire a small volley of missiles anyway etc... This would also solve some other issues with fire huge volumes of really small missiles, this would be expensive since it would need allot of FC or very advanced ones etc.. so this would also indirectly help the small versus large missile debate as well.
Posted by: Steve Walmsley
« on: April 17, 2019, 10:16:12 AM »

Just wanted to ask if you have any intention of looking into the fire-control versus salvo issue for Aurora C# at some time?

I mean there are some mechanical issues in how salvos and fire-controls can often be abused mechanically that makes relatively little sense. So.. expanding on the fire-control and how many guns or missiles they can control or incoming targets they can track or some such?

In general I try not to abuse this mechanic but it is often very hard to walk the line since it is a very grey one.

Are you talking about creating many small salvos to confuse point defence?
Posted by: Jorgen_CAB
« on: April 17, 2019, 09:00:54 AM »

Just wanted to ask if you have any intention of looking into the fire-control versus salvo issue for Aurora C# at some time?

I mean there are some mechanical issues in how salvos and fire-controls can often be abused mechanically that makes relatively little sense. So.. expanding on the fire-control and how many guns or missiles they can control or incoming targets they can track or some such?

In general I try not to abuse this mechanic but it is often very hard to walk the line since it is a very grey one.
Posted by: Steve Walmsley
« on: April 12, 2019, 02:31:34 AM »

So Just asking  ;D can we still give titles to the Officers? for Role Play purpose of course. . .  Hail to the Emperor!

Not coded at the moment, but will be easy to add.
Posted by: Lornalt
« on: April 11, 2019, 11:57:49 PM »

So Just asking  ;D can we still give titles to the Officers? for Role Play purpose of course. . .  Hail to the Emperor!
Posted by: Rastaman
« on: March 20, 2019, 11:55:53 AM »

Steve, in one of your posts a while ago you hinted at a new feature you called "active electronic warfare". Do you mean offensive electronic countermeasures (OECM), as employed for example by the USN with their Prowler/Growler aircraft? What are your plans and thoughts on this?

For those new to the idea, this would open up a whole other form of fascinating gameplay:

- OECM can affect an area or better a direction/angle, which would make necessary the proper positioning of ECM craft.
- A new support type of spacecraft.
- The capability of low observable spacecraft, supported by OECM forces, would be enhanced.
- The current form of Aurora ECM would be properly called DECM and its capabilities would have to be more limited/nerfed in contrast to OECM.
- OECM and DECM can be detected and analyzed by ELINT modules, so that stealth spacecraft better do not activate DECM.
- Active sensors, like modern AESA sensors in real life (AN/APG-81, AN/APG-82 etc.), could double as OECM.
- Possibly frequency bands?
Posted by: Steve Walmsley
« on: March 12, 2019, 04:46:06 PM »

Had a few questions pop into my head during lunch and figured I would ask.

1. Is there any possibility for DB access or APIs that would allow us to access game data? There are a few neat tools I have come across for VB6 that allowed you to dump data to create reports or create files that could be imported into Space Engine which helped add a ton of flavor to my games, providing you had access to the DB. Is this something that's an option or could be an option with C# sharp as well?

2. How much are you looking into AI Deployment/Combat when it comes to players devising ways to fool it? Can I crank out large missile drones with as large as possible active sensors to send them on wild goose chases across the known universe? Will the AI be able to discern between fleet contacts and missile contacts in this context? Could I do this endlessly or would it be possible to have them catch on at some point? I cannot remember in VB6 if active sensors on missiles give it away that it was a missile.

I haven't decided yet whether to secure the DB for C# Aurora, but I will probably go for something similar to VB6.

AI should be smarter regarding target selection and will be able to tell the difference between missiles and ships, although I haven't finished coding it yet. I will have to get moving on that though because my latest test game just generated precursors during system generation (about 10 minutes ago) for the first time.
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