Post reply

Warning - while you were reading 122 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

Please read the rules before you post!


Topic Summary

Posted by: Iranon
« on: February 22, 2020, 04:40:57 PM »

Reading through the change list, I played around with a few paper designs and made a few calculations. Overall impression: The new ruleset seems less robust in some ways. I mentioned some of the points earlier, sorry for the repetition...

For point defence weapons, which will be firing many many shots at low hit rates, cost-effectiveness will be hugely important: weapon cost is directly proportional to "ammunition expenditure". This mostly kills long-ranged weapons for area defence, except as a last resort.
Area defence with small weapons remains useful for very fast interceptors that can keep pace with enemy missiles, assuming that's still achievable.
Despite the reduction of Gauss research costs and the increased efficiency of turret gear, bottom-of-the-barrel railguns may be preferable to anything else as point defence because of breakdown costs.

Similar considerations apply to long-ranged beam combat, because we also have low hit rates here. Shooting near the limit of (balanced-research) particle beam range would be harder on the firing ship than on the target. Highest priority would be anything that improves relative hit rate - fire control range and E(C)CM rather than the weapons themselves, probably being shield-heavy (allows suffering no real damage at closer range, saving wear and tear on the guns). If we can control the range without very stressed and fuel-hungry engines, we may favour slow-firing weapons - with most lines, 5 C1 weapons will incur 1/5 of the costs per shot than 1 C5 weapon.
Encouraging holding fire when hit chances are low is a nice concept, but problematic in Aurora because of the very low beam ranges. Beam fring rates are comparable to 20th century wet navy ships, but the difference between extreme and modest range against a retreating target can be closed in seconds rather than hours. Long-range shots with most lines are penalised in terms of damage as well as accuracy, further shortening effective range if there's any meaningful cost to firing a weapon.

Changes to missile launchers strongly favours something that was first among equals anyway: Box launchers in parasites (possibly engineless or otherwise bare-bones) to get around reloading limits.
Somewhat-reduced launchers become bulkier, full-sized ones suffer most from weapon malfunctions, directly-mounted box launchers are now dangerous (and another RP sink to only mitigate the risk somewhat).

New sensor model overwhelmingly favours small ships when it comes to mutual detection range. This pretty much solves missile-vs-missile combat from the get go, if that remains relevant at all (lack of salvo restriction makes lots and lots of cheap flak even more viable. We also lose point blank missile fire - imo, that was a good desperation measure that was more likely to breathe life into an otherwise one-sided situation than to be a balance problem, and also gave CIWS some validity).

Changes to fuel logistics strongly encourage ruthlessly optimising designs for fuel efficiency, which imo was already very attractive (tonnage efficiency suffers, but not cost efficiency). Now we have a bunch of techs lines soaking up RP and some logistics concerns that we can simply evade at design time, without any major concessions.
Likewise, getting propulsion design slightly wrong will be even more costly.

Changes to maintenance, especially the way MSPs are handled, seems to encourage ignoring the system. Plentiful engineering, scrap or abandon/salvage at end of life. Used to be a viable niche choice, now it seems more efficient than playing by the system.
Also not helpful: New components encourage large ships, and as I understand it the equipment failure system still gives up when faced with large ships carrying many cheap components. This is especially relevant combined with large low-tech weapons being less affected by weapon failure.

I'm excited about ground combat, AI changes, varied NPR design themes, more fleshed-out diplomacy, performance and other quality-of-life improvements...
but many basics pertaining to ship design, one of the core strengths of the game, seem less open-ended despite added complexity, and more prone to "one right way" rather than a wide range of reasonable trade-offs with different soft counters. Furthermore, the favoured one often seems unintuitive.
Posted by: Tikigod
« on: February 12, 2020, 05:42:43 PM »

EDIT: Asteroids now have a belt identifier, so I will be able to delete an asteroid belt.

Awesome!  ;D ;D
Posted by: Steve Walmsley
« on: February 12, 2020, 07:15:05 AM »

Maybe an option to remove a whole ring of asteroids could be added? Removing all of those 500 asteroids you just accidentally created might be quite the chore otherwise ;). Would also help with the times where large amounts of them are created so far away from the star they won't matter anyway.

As things stand, I could add an option to remove all Trojan asteroids for a specific body or all asteroids for a specific star, but not an 'asteroid belt'. Once the asteroids are added there is no association between them. Until now, that wasn't an issue :) 

The other option is to create some form of asteroid belt identifier, which shouldn't be too difficult.

EDIT: Asteroids now have a belt identifier, so I will be able to delete an asteroid belt.
Posted by: Titanian
« on: February 12, 2020, 06:34:54 AM »

Maybe an option to remove a whole ring of asteroids could be added? Removing all of those 500 asteroids you just accidentally created might be quite the chore otherwise ;). Would also help with the times where large amounts of them are created so far away from the star they won't matter anyway.
Posted by: Alsadius
« on: February 11, 2020, 04:00:57 PM »

Quote
The Add Lagrange button adds a Lagrange point to the currently selected body, even if it would not normally qualify for one.

Is there a Remove Lagrange button as well? Or would you need to delete the body and try again?

Edit: I see this was addressed in a subsequent post. Thanks.
Posted by: TMaekler
« on: February 10, 2020, 05:16:15 AM »

In VB6 research was bound to a planet. If you started research on one planet, stopped it and continued it later on another planet, it didn’t use the already done research on the former planet. You had to start from scratch or finish it on the former planet. Will that change in C#?
Posted by: Steve Walmsley
« on: February 10, 2020, 04:19:40 AM »

The new system updates options look great, no more constant generating of systems when you are trying to find a home for a non Sol player race.

Assume the TN materials generator can still be re-run on any planets at set up stage?

Yes, or you can specify the minerals individually.
Posted by: chrislocke2000
« on: February 10, 2020, 03:28:27 AM »

The new system updates options look great, no more constant generating of systems when you are trying to find a home for a non Sol player race.

Assume the TN materials generator can still be re-run on any planets at set up stage?
Posted by: froggiest1982
« on: February 09, 2020, 06:21:52 PM »

I'm pretty sure we could already delete (non-primary) stars in VB6 (I've used it to get rid of annoying super-distant binary systems), so we've had the opportunity to mess up our games for a while.

I see; I've I haven't tried that ever I think.
Posted by: JacenHan
« on: February 09, 2020, 04:13:35 PM »

I'm pretty sure we could already delete (non-primary) stars in VB6 (I've used it to get rid of annoying super-distant binary systems), so we've had the opportunity to mess up our games for a while.
Posted by: Steve Walmsley
« on: February 09, 2020, 04:11:40 PM »

In the cancel star option what happen if we cancel a star with a planet gravitating having a population?

Example, I jump in a System which has a second star orbiting 30LY away and the system has generated an NPR on one of the planets there.

Did you test the above yet?

thanks

The intention of the star system design functionality is to build starting star systems for RP purposes, rather than for deleting parts of systems mid-campaign. I would not recommend the latter unless you are sure about what it is in the system. The "are you sure" popups before any deletion happens warn that affected populations will be deleted. However, the specific example above wouldn't be a problem because an NPR would not be generated in a location that cannot easily reach the primary star.

Even if an NPR or other population was on the system body, there are a lot of safeguards in place in C#. When a population is deleted, the following are also deleted; Research projects, queued research, sectors, admin commands, contacts for the pop/SY/ground forces, all fleet orders for fleets that had the pop as a destination, shipyards, shipyard tasks, commander assignments and ground forces. The NPR would still function in this scenario, even if you just deleted its capital, but it wouldn't be much of a threat.

BTW I assume you mean Delete. Cancel means you are NOT deleting or modifying the star.
Posted by: Garfunkel
« on: February 09, 2020, 03:38:28 PM »

Deleting a star deletes all planets orbiting it. Deleting a planet deletes all moons orbiting it and every colony on it. So I would say that deleting a star leads to everything else orbiting that star vanishing as well.

These new possibilities can be quite useful but are definitely a big risk of accidentally messing up your game  :o
Posted by: froggiest1982
« on: February 09, 2020, 02:28:05 PM »

In the cancel star option what happen if we cancel a star with a planet gravitating having a population?

Example, I jump in a System which has a second star orbiting 30LY away and the system has generated an NPR on one of the planets there.

Did you test the above yet?

thanks
Posted by: Steve Walmsley
« on: February 09, 2020, 08:29:37 AM »

In the new diplomacy system it looks to me that an NPR never will declare a system it shares as its capitol with another race as worthy of fully conquering. For RP reasons that option might be interesting, so having an option that overrules the NPR calculations in SM mode might be worth considering.

It will try to conquer that system if relations fall far enough. Once an alien race is declared hostile, any prior territorial agreements are ignored.
Posted by: TMaekler
« on: February 09, 2020, 07:28:36 AM »

In the new diplomacy system it looks to me that an NPR never will declare a system it shares as its capitol with another race as worthy of fully conquering. For RP reasons that option might be interesting, so having an option that overrules the NPR calculations in SM mode might be worth considering.
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