Post reply

Warning - while you were reading 139 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: Kristover
« on: Yesterday at 12:21:24 PM »

Since fleets are not permanent structures, it's probably impossible or not practical, to maintain such tracking. For admin commands, tied as they are to Naval Headquarter buildings, it might be feasible. In that case, you could name the lowest admin-level "7th Fleet" and it's the Aurora equivalent of shore-based HQ/support element for the ships that go out in harm's way. That way it doesn't matter which ships are part of "7th Fleet" over the years, it's the admin command that racks up achievements.

This sounds a lot like what I plan to do with my C# Federation play-through where I plan each Naval HQ to be a Fleet HQ building.  I tend to write lots of notes on my Commanders and Ships and could easily see doing this for the 'Fleet HQ' if there is a similar note structure.
Posted by: Garfunkel
« on: Yesterday at 11:52:34 AM »

Since fleets are not permanent structures, it's probably impossible or not practical, to maintain such tracking. For admin commands, tied as they are to Naval Headquarter buildings, it might be feasible. In that case, you could name the lowest admin-level "7th Fleet" and it's the Aurora equivalent of shore-based HQ/support element for the ships that go out in harm's way. That way it doesn't matter which ships are part of "7th Fleet" over the years, it's the admin command that racks up achievements.
Posted by: sloanjh
« on: Yesterday at 09:52:57 AM »

Quote from: Steve Walmsley
Ship Achievements

All the medal conditions that potentially apply to ship commanders are recorded for the ship as well. This is maintained separately from the ship commander, so when a commander moves on to a new ship, the current ship retains its achievements, which will continue to increase under the next commander. A ship does not need a commander for the achievements to be recorded.
Would carriers get the achievements based on the actions of the parasite craft assigned to them?

Off-Topic: show




Until this email, only the parasite received the achievement :)

I've now added a separate 'Strike Group' tracker as well. The parasite still gets the credit, but the assigned mothership now gets a separate credit flagged with (SG) for strike group. Separate achievement entries are shown for the carrier itself and the strike group, even if they are the same achievement.  So if a Battlestar has destroyed 10,000 tons of shipping directly and its Vipers have destroyed 20,000 tons, the achievement list for the Battlestar will show:

Military Shipping Tonnage Destroyed: 10,000 tons
Military Shipping Tonnage Destroyed (SG): 20,000 tons.

This brings up the question of whether you want to have fleet formations also track accomplishments of their constituent ships.  On the plus side it would give some storytelling flavor to e.g. "the famous 7th fleet".  On the minus side if the design paradigm is that fleet instances can be easily thrown away, then there might need to be a lot of support coding to make sure that people don't accidentally kill off a beloved fleet.

John
Posted by: Tikigod
« on: February 27, 2020, 12:12:37 PM »

Quote from: Steve Walmsley
Ship Achievements

All the medal conditions that potentially apply to ship commanders are recorded for the ship as well. This is maintained separately from the ship commander, so when a commander moves on to a new ship, the current ship retains its achievements, which will continue to increase under the next commander. A ship does not need a commander for the achievements to be recorded.
Would carriers get the achievements based on the actions of the parasite craft assigned to them?

Off-Topic: show




Until this email, only the parasite received the achievement :)

I've now added a separate 'Strike Group' tracker as well. The parasite still gets the credit, but the assigned mothership now gets a separate credit flagged with (SG) for strike group. Separate achievement entries are shown for the carrier itself and the strike group, even if they are the same achievement.  So if a Battlestar has destroyed 10,000 tons of shipping directly and its Vipers have destroyed 20,000 tons, the achievement list for the Battlestar will show:

Military Shipping Tonnage Destroyed: 10,000 tons
Military Shipping Tonnage Destroyed (SG): 20,000 tons.

Similar to the personnel system recently discussed, any chance of having a ship service history log for looking back at notable ships and their achievements? As the change details only appear to mention currently active ships having their achievements observable.

As part of avoiding bloat, would make sense if it only ever recorded military designated vessels and their accomplishments.
Posted by: Garfunkel
« on: February 27, 2020, 11:41:39 AM »

I never knew that I wanted ship "scores" like that and now I wonder how I have managed to live without it!

 ;D
Posted by: Steve Walmsley
« on: February 27, 2020, 10:33:34 AM »

Quote from: Steve Walmsley
Ship Achievements

All the medal conditions that potentially apply to ship commanders are recorded for the ship as well. This is maintained separately from the ship commander, so when a commander moves on to a new ship, the current ship retains its achievements, which will continue to increase under the next commander. A ship does not need a commander for the achievements to be recorded.
Would carriers get the achievements based on the actions of the parasite craft assigned to them?

Off-Topic: show




Until this email, only the parasite received the achievement :)

I've now added a separate 'Strike Group' tracker as well. The parasite still gets the credit, but the assigned mothership now gets a separate credit flagged with (SG) for strike group. Separate achievement entries are shown for the carrier itself and the strike group, even if they are the same achievement.  So if a Battlestar has destroyed 10,000 tons of shipping directly and its Vipers have destroyed 20,000 tons, the achievement list for the Battlestar will show:

Military Shipping Tonnage Destroyed: 10,000 tons
Military Shipping Tonnage Destroyed (SG): 20,000 tons.
Posted by: L0ckAndL0ad
« on: February 27, 2020, 10:07:56 AM »

Quote from: Steve Walmsley
Ship Achievements

All the medal conditions that potentially apply to ship commanders are recorded for the ship as well. This is maintained separately from the ship commander, so when a commander moves on to a new ship, the current ship retains its achievements, which will continue to increase under the next commander. A ship does not need a commander for the achievements to be recorded.
Would carriers get the achievements based on the actions of the parasite craft assigned to them?

Off-Topic: show


Posted by: Jorgen_CAB
« on: February 25, 2020, 09:30:12 PM »

The one thing that "might" make area fire beam weapons somewhat useful in the new version is if long range missiles tend to be rather slower now. That actually could make area fire weapons more useful despite the MSP cost for failures.
Posted by: Garfunkel
« on: February 25, 2020, 11:57:40 AM »

Iranon, I agree that area defence with large beam weapons is now even more useless but going from 1% usability into 0.5% usability is not that big of a difference. Area defence beams were always a gimmick that barely worked at all. Adding the failure rate on top doesn't really change the picture, in my opinion.

OTOH, for planets/moons/asteroids/comets it actually becomes more valid because AFAIK ground units with STO/CIWS capability do not have a failure rate, they just consume supplies, and you don't need maintenance facilities to take care of them either. So if you were using PDCs on airless moons with long-range lasers/particle beams as area defence, that's still possible.

Quote
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.
This I do not understand. You cannot make a blanket statement like that since you don't define engines. Yeah, closing speed could be seconds. It could be hours too if one side is running away and the other side is gaining only very slowly. Maybe it'll be 20 minutes, which gives quite a number of opportunities for long-range sniping.

Long-range sniping-kiting has always been iffy and this doesn't change in C# and I'm not sure why you seem to be so worried about it. Is it a dominant/favourite playstyle of yours?

As for missile launchers, you're somewhat mistaken. Because even a 5-sec AMM launcher is not going to be firing for hours AND because it is so small, will only consume very small amounts of MSP. I can't see that becoming an issue to the point where players would abandon full-size launchers in favour of box launchers. Bigger launchers are not going to be firing every 5-seconds and the slower they fire, the fewer chances there are for failure. Reduced-size launchers are not significantly bulkier than before - 0.75 remains the same, 0.5 becomes 0.6, 0.33 becomes 0.4 and 0.25 becomes 0.3 - so we would have to crunch some numbers to see how much of a difference it makes on a ship with 20 launchers or 50 launchers. Furthermore, the changes to missiles (more fuel required, no armour, ECM/ECCM) make it so that to me it seems that bigger missiles fired on a slower pace is better than smaller missiles fired more often. With the caveat that an overwhelming alpha strike reigns supreme and always will.

To me, it seems that while the sensor changes favour small ships, the engine/shield/powerplant changes favour large ships. So perhaps large Battlestars equipped with sensor-drones and box launcher-drones will be mechanically the superior option but unless the AI ruthlessly exploits that particular approach with no alternatives, something that I doubt Steve would program, it won't be a problem any more than any of the current exploit-y options.

There are so many changes in C# that I think it's impossible to accurately predict the metagame at this stage since none of us are smart enough to foresee all synergies or surprising possibilities stemming from A interacting with K interacting with Z.

Posted by: Jorgen_CAB
« on: February 25, 2020, 10:46:09 AM »

An interesting question for you Steve... have you ever considered to extend the failure system or something like it to all components. I mean it is one thing for the maintenance cycle to advance slowly if a ship is sitting in space doing nothing. But a ship that is actively moving and using active sensors, shields and all that stuff should wear out allot faster...  I mean you sort of symbolise that when ship are training.

At some time you might do a maintenance system based on components but still have it impact the whole ships maintenance as a whole to avoid micromanagement. With that you would run up the maintenance of ships the more they are in active use which seem quite relevant. Whenever a component is in active use there would be a small chance of a failure... for engines it could be a logarithmic scale on the speed used (perhaps more lenient in the AI though) which would then make it more economical to run the ship at a lower speed unless you need the speed. You also could have technologies and options for reliability on your engines as well for example.

It does not have to be as complex... just something that impact your decisions on how active your ships are and a design choice if you want the ship to be more or less active during its career. A patrol ship would sacrifice some tonnage for more reliable systems as they will be active allot more while a missile boat don't need it as they only will be active if there is a need for them. The same for your fleet... if you mainly intend the fleet to be defending your space you can sacrifice some reliability but if you intend your ships to go on long voyages you will need to design them with more reliable systems.

It kind of work like this even now... but I generally think that it often is a bit too easy to get really long maintenance cycles on ships. It would also be interesting of there are real trade off in the way you actually can use the ships in terms of your economy and strategic use of them.
Posted by: Steve Walmsley
« on: February 25, 2020, 08:40:04 AM »

But we don't need the shipyards for the Overhaul... or was this changed in C#?

It is interesting though what happens if you Overhaul a ship at a site that is over-stacked, I will look though the change list and see if Steve mentioned that.

The overhaul goes more slowly. If you are double-stacked, the overhaul takes twice as long.

Posted by: Jorgen_CAB
« on: February 25, 2020, 08:02:17 AM »

But we don't need the shipyards for the Overhaul... or was this changed in C#?

It is interesting though what happens if you Overhaul a ship at a site that is over-stacked, I will look though the change list and see if Steve mentioned that.
Posted by: Hazard
« on: February 25, 2020, 06:20:25 AM »

And if you over stack enough you can't even run a ship building program, because the shipyards will be busy overhauling lest everything explode. Or explodes even while you are overhauling everything because there's just too much. I agree it's a good change though.
Posted by: Jorgen_CAB
« on: February 25, 2020, 01:30:12 AM »

A planet with say a 5000t maintenance facility could have unlimited numbers of super cheap PD satellites and ships also could carry them although you still need to pay the engine cost, but they are still effective.

I feel the need to point out thats no longer how maintenance works (and rightfully so if you ask me).

Yes... the new maintenance system will favour quality over quantity allot more now than before. If you have a fleet of 100.000t you need to build that wherever you like to station it. So you might need to build up several places with that tonnage not just in one place, unless you have a really small empire and all your fleets will be stationed more or less in your capital. In any way... you are more likely to need more maintenance facilities in general now if you want some flexibility in where you can station your fleets. You can still maintain ships even if you over stack but that means that the maintenance clock just runs much slower and that might be something you are willing to accept now sometimes.

As your maintenance facilities are based on a set number of tonnage it will be more important than ever to make sure you get as much out of every ship stationed there as possible, especially when you consider that maintenance also often will cost you population unless you build them in space where they are more vulnerable to enemies and more expensive.
Posted by: QuakeIV
« on: February 25, 2020, 12:57:58 AM »

A planet with say a 5000t maintenance facility could have unlimited numbers of super cheap PD satellites and ships also could carry them although you still need to pay the engine cost, but they are still effective.

I feel the need to point out thats no longer how maintenance works (and rightfully so if you ask me).
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