Post reply

Warning - while you were reading 250 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: The Forbidden
« on: February 13, 2019, 03:12:01 AM »

Not exactly. There are no ground units that can be equipped with missile launchers. However, you can design a survey missile and a small military station (structural shell instead of armour) equipped with a box launcher to simulate the ISS being used as a probe launch platform, being supplied with new missiles through an abstracted interaction of a space port/ordnance transfer facility and maintenance facilities.

I thought the rules of structural shell was that no military systems could be put on board, essentially making it that only civilian stations could have it and be built by industry.

That is, indeed, the rules of Structural Shells as posted on the C# Aurora changes list.  Still, you could squeeze a single, very large missile launcher into a 1000 ton ship and fire your survey missiles at asteroids. . .  GEO survey missiles, anyway.  http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=8495.msg103096#msg103096 doesn't mention GRAV survey sensors.

You could also get around the no-military-systems limitation by creating a separate module for the station. In 7.1 I simulate large orbital space stations by creating a complex of complementary modules all linked by tractor beams - a large orbital habitat module or two linked to various specialized military modules for station defense/local command and control, etc.

For this specific example I would just create a 'space station'(more like a missile pod) that consists of little more than a fire control and a box launcher or two to fire your survey missiles and then bolt it onto your ISS with a tractor link.

What's next ? Apollo FTL telemetry links ? ^^

But yeah, that's a valid point, personally I prefer one big station however, but it's just a matter of taste, as a nebulous complex of smaller structures makes more sense than one big station.
Posted by: Lamandier
« on: February 12, 2019, 09:50:52 AM »

Not exactly. There are no ground units that can be equipped with missile launchers. However, you can design a survey missile and a small military station (structural shell instead of armour) equipped with a box launcher to simulate the ISS being used as a probe launch platform, being supplied with new missiles through an abstracted interaction of a space port/ordnance transfer facility and maintenance facilities.

I thought the rules of structural shell was that no military systems could be put on board, essentially making it that only civilian stations could have it and be built by industry.

That is, indeed, the rules of Structural Shells as posted on the C# Aurora changes list.  Still, you could squeeze a single, very large missile launcher into a 1000 ton ship and fire your survey missiles at asteroids. . .  GEO survey missiles, anyway.  http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=8495.msg103096#msg103096 doesn't mention GRAV survey sensors.

You could also get around the no-military-systems limitation by creating a separate module for the station. In 7.1 I simulate large orbital space stations by creating a complex of complementary modules all linked by tractor beams - a large orbital habitat module or two linked to various specialized military modules for station defense/local command and control, etc.

For this specific example I would just create a 'space station'(more like a missile pod) that consists of little more than a fire control and a box launcher or two to fire your survey missiles and then bolt it onto your ISS with a tractor link.
Posted by: misanthropope
« on: February 11, 2019, 06:31:16 PM »

sorry for sowing confusion, lost track of where each thread originated.
Posted by: JacenHan
« on: February 11, 2019, 04:59:18 PM »

I think he meant to post that in the power generation topic.
Posted by: Steve Walmsley
« on: February 11, 2019, 04:09:27 PM »

What is gimping auto-mines and asteroid mines? I haven't seen Steve post any changes to them.

I haven't posted any changes to automated mines. Asteroid mining modules (now orbital mining modules) have gained a major advantage due to the space station changes, plus they can be used for moons as well. The new downside is the maximum diameter for mining which will take some asteroids out of reach until tech improves.
Posted by: Garfunkel
« on: February 11, 2019, 12:14:50 PM »

What is gimping auto-mines and asteroid mines? I haven't seen Steve post any changes to them.
Posted by: misanthropope
« on: February 10, 2019, 09:15:45 AM »

if you're gimping auto-mines *and* asteroid mines, you're making asteroids considerably more player-intensive- and they're already conspicuously high on the ol' clicks-per-unit-reward metric.  i exploit asteroids in 7.1, but if i couldnt just throw capital at them, they would be nothing but a visual noise and processor slowdown.

Posted by: Zincat
« on: February 08, 2019, 12:19:17 PM »

Thanks for the latest change. I have always wondered why fuel storages were so expensive. I had assumed it was a deliberate choice, and I was not happy about it.

It's mcuh better this way  ;D
Posted by: QuakeIV
« on: February 08, 2019, 12:32:47 AM »

I guess I could see it if a system had enemy ships passing through periodically and you wanted to launch a bunch of low observable survey missiles then bug out with the actual ship.
Posted by: The Forbidden
« on: February 07, 2019, 06:14:38 AM »

Not exactly. There are no ground units that can be equipped with missile launchers. However, you can design a survey missile and a small military station (structural shell instead of armour) equipped with a box launcher to simulate the ISS being used as a probe launch platform, being supplied with new missiles through an abstracted interaction of a space port/ordnance transfer facility and maintenance facilities.

I thought the rules of structural shell was that no military systems could be put on board, essentially making it that only civilian stations could have it and be built by industry.

That is, indeed, the rules of Structural Shells as posted on the C# Aurora changes list.  Still, you could squeeze a single, very large missile launcher into a 1000 ton ship and fire your survey missiles at asteroids. . .  GEO survey missiles, anyway.  http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=8495.msg103096#msg103096 doesn't mention GRAV survey sensors.

FAC survey missile platform ? I like the idea. Though it'll probably cost more than a proper survey ship in the long run.
Posted by: Father Tim
« on: February 07, 2019, 02:47:41 AM »

Not exactly. There are no ground units that can be equipped with missile launchers. However, you can design a survey missile and a small military station (structural shell instead of armour) equipped with a box launcher to simulate the ISS being used as a probe launch platform, being supplied with new missiles through an abstracted interaction of a space port/ordnance transfer facility and maintenance facilities.

I thought the rules of structural shell was that no military systems could be put on board, essentially making it that only civilian stations could have it and be built by industry.

That is, indeed, the rules of Structural Shells as posted on the C# Aurora changes list.  Still, you could squeeze a single, very large missile launcher into a 1000 ton ship and fire your survey missiles at asteroids. . .  GEO survey missiles, anyway.  http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=8495.msg103096#msg103096 doesn't mention GRAV survey sensors.
Posted by: The Forbidden
« on: February 06, 2019, 06:52:48 PM »

Not exactly. There are no ground units that can be equipped with missile launchers. However, you can design a survey missile and a small military station (structural shell instead of armour) equipped with a box launcher to simulate the ISS being used as a probe launch platform, being supplied with new missiles through an abstracted interaction of a space port/ordnance transfer facility and maintenance facilities.

I thought the rules of structural shell was that no military systems could be put on board, essentially making it that only civilian stations could have it and be built by industry.
Posted by: Hazard
« on: February 06, 2019, 04:14:52 PM »

Not exactly. There are no ground units that can be equipped with missile launchers. However, you can design a survey missile and a small military station (structural shell instead of armour) equipped with a box launcher to simulate the ISS being used as a probe launch platform, being supplied with new missiles through an abstracted interaction of a space port/ordnance transfer facility and maintenance facilities.
Posted by: IanD
« on: February 06, 2019, 02:19:49 PM »

In an old AAR conventional start I abandoned a couple of years ago waiting for V7.2 I started surveying Sol using a size 20 or 24 missile equipped with a geosurvey module launched from a PDC. Is there any way now to replicate Cape Canaveral? With the demise of PDC I cannot see one but I have not followed the entire C# discussion.
Posted by: Steve Walmsley
« on: February 02, 2019, 10:06:43 AM »

Hi Steve, with your newly proposed shipyard worker number change, and the wealth generation change, I crunched some numbers, assuming base shipbuilding rate of 500, base wealth generation techs, and assume ship building rate in C# is not changed.


So the starting naval yards can cover 1/12 of their max wealth cost themselves, raising to a limit of 1/2 when the yards are very large.
The starting commercial yards can cover 1/15 of their max wealth cost themselves, raising to a limit of 1/5 when the yards are very large.

In some sense, this means military yards are cheaper to run than commercial yards, wealth wise. This sounds a bit strange to me.

Yes, that is true. It is because of the disparity between the commercial - naval split in workers (1 vs 10) and the commercial naval split in build speed (1 vs 4) . I could change this in a few ways:

1) Slowing down commercial building, which I don't really want to do because it seems about right,
2) Increasing naval building rates, which I don't want to do for the same reason.
3) Increasing the population requirement for commercial shipyards. May be too much because the changes to shipyard workers have already increased overall requirements
4) Decreasing pop requirements for naval shipbuilding (which I just increased).
5) A combination of 3+4 to keep the total requirements similar

However, having said all that, I think the current situation is probably fine. Military ships have a much higher lifetime cost due to maintenance requirements while many commercial ships are improving the overall economy.
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