Post reply

Warning - while you were reading 10 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: Father Tim
« on: November 18, 2019, 01:12:35 AM »

Reviewing the new Ground Combat rules -- specifically Fortification -- I'm not seeing any way to reduce fortification other than (the owner) setting a unit to Front Line Attack or removing it from the colony entirely.  I had remembered (or maybe just assumed) that combat would reduce a unit's fortification level when it was fired upon.

Does shooting at a ground unit reduce its fortification in any way?  Is there a ground-support mission (for fighters or ships) to reduce fortification levels?
Posted by: Garfunkel
« on: November 01, 2019, 12:54:17 PM »

You remember right. From the Wiki:
Quote
One Missile Size Point (MSP, not to be confused with Maintenance Supply Points, also called MSP) equals 1/20 HS (Hull Spaces), or 2.5 tons.
Posted by: Jorgen_CAB
« on: November 01, 2019, 06:52:12 AM »

I have been wondering about the mass of ships in Aurora for some time now.  The International Space Station (ISS) is 412 Metric tons, an F-35 is 27 Metric tons, the Space Shuttle is ~2,000 Metric tons just before takeoff (With boosters, fuel), and 75 Metric tons empty.  I am struggling to get a sense of the size of ships/fighters are in Aurora.  Fighters in Aurora can be bigger than the ISS.  I know trans-newtonian elements would be larger, but this is still strange to me.

Aurora doesn't differentiate between size and mass so 'tons' are used for both. An Aurora 'ton' is fourteen cubic metres, which is the volume of one ton of liquid hydrogen. The ISS is large in terms of width and height but internal volume is very small.

Never really reflected on what the size the ships and missiles actually would roughly be...

So a Size 1 AMM could be roughly 0.5*0.5*3 meters and a 1000ton ship could be roughly 12*12*100m in size.


So I would say that Newtonian materials are way lighter and stronger than current material which seems perfectly fine to me.

Nah. A size 1 AMM is 1.25 tons, so 1.25*1.25*11m or so (Alternately, about the size of a small bus or a large van). That's actually really big, and I think that fits - I picture missiles in Aurora as basically just single use spacecraft, given their enormous ranges.

It also suggests that a Nimitz class Aircraft carrier sized ship would be in the range of 30-50,000 tons, as Aurora measures things. That's big but not overly so for an Aurora capital ship, so again, I think it fits pretty well.

Yes I was just dividing 14 cubic meters with 20... while it is 50/20 tons times 14 so 35 cubic meters... or rather 2.5 tons per AMM. A far as I rememer 20 MSP are equal to size one (50 tons)... but I might remember wrong here.
Posted by: Bremen
« on: October 31, 2019, 07:19:06 PM »

I have been wondering about the mass of ships in Aurora for some time now.  The International Space Station (ISS) is 412 Metric tons, an F-35 is 27 Metric tons, the Space Shuttle is ~2,000 Metric tons just before takeoff (With boosters, fuel), and 75 Metric tons empty.  I am struggling to get a sense of the size of ships/fighters are in Aurora.  Fighters in Aurora can be bigger than the ISS.  I know trans-newtonian elements would be larger, but this is still strange to me.

Aurora doesn't differentiate between size and mass so 'tons' are used for both. An Aurora 'ton' is fourteen cubic metres, which is the volume of one ton of liquid hydrogen. The ISS is large in terms of width and height but internal volume is very small.

Never really reflected on what the size the ships and missiles actually would roughly be...

So a Size 1 AMM could be roughly 0.5*0.5*3 meters and a 1000ton ship could be roughly 12*12*100m in size.


So I would say that Newtonian materials are way lighter and stronger than current material which seems perfectly fine to me.

Nah. A size 1 AMM is 1.25 tons, so 1.25*1.25*11m or so (Alternately, about the size of a small bus or a large van). That's actually really big, and I think that fits - I picture missiles in Aurora as basically just single use spacecraft, given their enormous ranges.

It also suggests that a Nimitz class Aircraft carrier sized ship would be in the range of 30-50,000 tons, as Aurora measures things. That's big but not overly so for an Aurora capital ship, so again, I think it fits pretty well.
Posted by: Jorgen_CAB
« on: October 31, 2019, 05:41:41 PM »

I have been wondering about the mass of ships in Aurora for some time now.  The International Space Station (ISS) is 412 Metric tons, an F-35 is 27 Metric tons, the Space Shuttle is ~2,000 Metric tons just before takeoff (With boosters, fuel), and 75 Metric tons empty.  I am struggling to get a sense of the size of ships/fighters are in Aurora.  Fighters in Aurora can be bigger than the ISS.  I know trans-newtonian elements would be larger, but this is still strange to me.

Aurora doesn't differentiate between size and mass so 'tons' are used for both. An Aurora 'ton' is fourteen cubic metres, which is the volume of one ton of liquid hydrogen. The ISS is large in terms of width and height but internal volume is very small.

Never really reflected on what the size the ships and missiles actually would roughly be...

So a Size 1 AMM could be roughly 0.5*0.5*3 meters and a 1000ton ship could be roughly 12*12*100m in size.


So I would say that Newtonian materials are way lighter and stronger than current material which seems perfectly fine to me.
Posted by: Steve Walmsley
« on: October 31, 2019, 04:40:47 PM »

I have been wondering about the mass of ships in Aurora for some time now.  The International Space Station (ISS) is 412 Metric tons, an F-35 is 27 Metric tons, the Space Shuttle is ~2,000 Metric tons just before takeoff (With boosters, fuel), and 75 Metric tons empty.  I am struggling to get a sense of the size of ships/fighters are in Aurora.  Fighters in Aurora can be bigger than the ISS.  I know trans-newtonian elements would be larger, but this is still strange to me.

Aurora doesn't differentiate between size and mass so 'tons' are used for both. An Aurora 'ton' is fourteen cubic metres, which is the volume of one ton of liquid hydrogen. The ISS is large in terms of width and height but internal volume is very small.
Posted by: TinkerPox
« on: October 31, 2019, 03:49:34 PM »

I have been wondering about the mass of ships in Aurora for some time now.  The International Space Station (ISS) is 412 Metric tons, an F-35 is 27 Metric tons, the Space Shuttle is ~2,000 Metric tons just before takeoff (With boosters, fuel), and 75 Metric tons empty.  I am struggling to get a sense of the size of ships/fighters are in Aurora.  Fighters in Aurora can be bigger than the ISS.  I know trans-newtonian elements would be larger, but this is still strange to me.
Posted by: IanD
« on: October 31, 2019, 02:04:44 PM »

Just playing V7.1 to remind me of some of Aurora's more esoteric points. It brought up a couple of questions.

1) I have been watching a couple of NPRs go at it hammer and tongs for approximately a couple of weeks game time (and the same amount of real time!). In C# under what circumstances will the NPR invade? I ask as I just watched 21000+ nuclear warheads impact the home world of the opposing NPR. (It didn't end the fighting and I wonder when turns will stop being every 5 seconds.)

2) The other question is as C#is so fast will we in future notice that two NPRs are fighting?

Ian
Posted by: Steve Walmsley
« on: October 26, 2019, 05:25:18 AM »

The composition of troops and their organization can impact the effectiveness of an army quite a lot. If two armies with equivalent mechanized parts were to engage, usually the better organized had an edge over the other - despite the fact that on paper there wasn’t much of a difference.

Have you made any experience in that area, Steve? How does the new army structure affect the effectiveness of the armed forces?

You can split out forces into front-line, support and rear echelon (supply, artillery, anti-air, etc) and you can have forces with better leadership or better morale, plus you can assign artillery or orbital support to front line formations. However, two front-line formations with exactly the same elements, leadership, morale, and support will be functionally identical.
Posted by: TMaekler
« on: October 26, 2019, 03:01:17 AM »

The composition of troops and their organization can impact the effectiveness of an army quite a lot. If two armies with equivalent mechanized parts were to engage, usually the better organized had an edge over the other - despite the fact that on paper there wasn’t much of a difference.

Have you made any experience in that area, Steve? How does the new army structure affect the effectiveness of the armed forces?
Posted by: Steve Walmsley
« on: September 27, 2019, 10:13:37 AM »

Regarding Ordnance Transfer Hubs on space stations, are they capable of transferring ordnance from one ship to another without needing internal magazines? I'd imagine you don't want huge amounts of unstable ordnance clustered in one place.

They can only transfer between themselves and a ship. Although you could just have a magazine for temporary use as you transfer ship A -> hub -> ship B
Posted by: SevenOfCarina
« on: September 27, 2019, 06:09:26 AM »

Regarding Ordnance Transfer Hubs on space stations, are they capable of transferring ordnance from one ship to another without needing internal magazines? I'd imagine you don't want huge amounts of unstable ordnance clustered in one place.
Posted by: Steve Walmsley
« on: September 23, 2019, 05:06:57 PM »

I was looking through the changes list and I noticed that you said that the bonuses a tactical officer gives are TBD. Did you ever figure this out or is it still on the to do list?

Tactical is used for combat to-hit bonus.
Posted by: JustAnotherDude
« on: September 23, 2019, 12:17:55 PM »

I was looking through the changes list and I noticed that you said that the bonuses a tactical officer gives are TBD. Did you ever figure this out or is it still on the to do list?
Posted by: Steve Walmsley
« on: September 15, 2019, 08:27:44 AM »

Are there any plans for a future implementation of orbital eccentricity for all bodies? As I understand, C# Aurora is supposed to be significantly more performant, and we already have comets in-game anyway. Maybe in v1.x?

It is something I have been considering for a while. Most of the requisite code is already in place, so it probably will happen at some point.
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