Aurora 4x
C# Aurora => C# Suggestions => Topic started by: liveware on May 12, 2020, 01:50:09 PM
-
As mentioned in the v1.10 changes thread, there are some who enjoyed the old VB6 mechanic where active shields caused fuel depletion. I for one would be happy to see this mechanic return, as it adds considerable tactical depth to the game. It would also be interesting if shields impacted sensor performance in a negative way. Some possible researchable tech lines which I have thought about that could accompany this feature might be:
1. Reduced fuel consumption while shields are active
2. Reduced reduction in sensor performance while shields are active (possibly with a negative impact on shield performance)
3. The capability to automatically engage shields if a hostile ship/missile is detected within a certain range
4. The capability to automatically disengage shields if fuel falls below a certain level
Just some ideas... anyone else have any?
-
I actually prefer the implementation of shields as they currently exist, though I think their EM signature should be increased.
Fuel usage was simply an exercise in logistics and micromanagement; it made calculating remaining range a pain, accidentally leaving ships with shields on led to them being forgotten, using up their fuel in orbit. The new refueling mechanics would make this even more complicated. (No way to just equalize fuel if you made the FATAL ERROR of leaving them on)
Ultimately, leaving shields on for 8 hours of combat meant that their fuel use was trivial through the actual length of their use, but they could suddenly cause a huge logistical problem if you left them on for a longer increment.
Making them have a larger EM signature would probably lead to more tactical dynamics, forcing you to consider EMCON until you’re sure the enemy has spotted you, at which point you can scramble to charge your shields before the shooting starts. As it stands with the sensor changes, EM sensors are only good for detecting Active sensors or EXTREMELY shield-heavy designs. (I don’t have the numbers right next to me) Adding depth in this way would be preferable to complicating logistics even further, imo.
I think we can both agree that there is room for them to grow. As it stands now, it’s always a good idea to have them enabled if you have them.
-
I suppose I like the concept that shield use should affect sensor range. If your shields are up, you should be blind, IMO.
The fuel use concept I also like, but it should be a decision that borders on the verge of strategy and tactics (again, this is just my opinion). It should be tactically useful to engage shields, but perhaps have a noticeable impact on strategic fuel reserves. This would prevent their indiscriminate use, and encourage thoughtful application, possibly only on very important strategic ships or installations.
-
I suppose I like the concept that shield use should affect sensor range. If your shields are up, you should be blind, IMO.
The fuel use concept I also like, but it should be a decision that borders on the verge of strategy and tactics (again, this is just my opinion). It should be tactically useful to engage shields, but perhaps have a noticeable impact on strategic fuel reserves. This would prevent their indiscriminate use, and encourage thoughtful application, possibly only on very important strategic ships or installations.
Not much stopping you from turning off your active sensors when your shields go active. But this is a RP decision more so than a mechanical one.
-
That's certainly a possibility.
However what I am picturing is more of an interference problem, whereby shields cause a degradation in sensor performance without totally disabling them.
The fuel thing would be much more complicated to micromanage from a RP perspective.
-
I disliked the fuel usage for shields for similar logistical reasons (forgetting them on, fuel use during the combat engagement negligible, etc.)
I did like that there was a reason to switch them off outside combat, and thus run the risk of being caught 'with your shields down'.
If a change is made, I would want to add a tactical decision.
An idea / suggestion. Not sure how well this would work in practice.
Shields interfere with / diver power from engines
Active shields reducing engine output. With a cap on maximum penalty.
Not sure what the ratio would be, but just for explaining the concept, let us say 5 EP penalty per shield point. Maximum penalty of 50% EP reduction.
Technologies to reduce penalty
- A new technology that reduces the EP penalty per shield point.
Fully researched, maybe it is just 3 EP penalty per shield point. (This would be like fuel efficiency on engines, you always want the most recent research active. Doesn't affect shield build cost.)
- A new technology that exchanges some EP penalty for Power cost.
New design dropdown on shields. Each point of power (supplied by separate power plant) reduces the EP penalty by 1. (Linear, not percentage.)
Tech level determines maximum external power you can supply to the shield this way. Starts off at 0. (Cannot reduce penalty at all.)
At higher tech levels you can have small shields without speed penalty, but would require more power-plant power. Or exchange a part of a large shield's speed penalty for power cost.
Reasoning:
It would give a reason to deactivate shields. But is not 'fatal' for ships just hanging around for long periods. (In fact, favors defenders a bit more than attackers. Not sure if that is good or bad.)
Want to get there with fully charged shields? Slower speed. Get there as fast as possible? Have to enable shields at the last moment. Want to run away? Can disable shields for more speed, but leaves you more vulnerable.
It would be a tactical design choice for combat ships beyond "add some more fuel". (I.e. do you want that kiting ship to have a little less speed and a little more survivability?)
Stations would have a bit of a leg up, in that they won't care about the speed penalty. I see this as a bonus.
I also like the EM sensor blindness, but in practice I think that just means having a shieldless spotter with big sensors in the fleet. Or in a fleet slightly behind the main fleet.
-
Requiring shields to be off in order to jump between systems would interesting as well, if you want to jump you have to turn off your shields.
-
Frankly, I don't like any of these suggestions.
Armor is already stronger than shields per-ton, at least up to mid game. Didn't reach late tech yet in any of my new c# games, though it shouold even up a bit there. Shields also require twice the research of armor, and quite a bit of it to be competitive.
Why would you want to make shields even weaker than they already are? Having shields on already have some negatives in the way of EM radiation, which makes it harder to stay hidden. At most, that can be increased a bit.
And also, from a roleplay perspective, anything sci-fi really screams SHIELDS to me. It make no sense to have further limitations in game regarding shields.
As to the fuel thing, in vb6 it was just micro and very, very boring...
-
Frankly, I don't like any of these suggestions.
Armor is already stronger than shields per-ton, at least up to mid game. Didn't reach late tech yet in any of my new c# games, though it shouold even up a bit there. Shields also require twice the research of armor, and quite a bit of it to be competitive.
Why would you want to make shields even weaker than they already are? Having shields on already have some negatives in the way of EM radiation, which makes it harder to stay hidden. At most, that can be increased a bit.
And also, from a roleplay perspective, anything sci-fi really screams SHIELDS to me. It make no sense to have further limitations in game regarding shields.
As to the fuel thing, in vb6 it was just micro and very, very boring...
I agree. Shields mechanic it's now working as it supposed to be. The vb6 fuel was an interesting approach but why you should use fuel when there is energy provided by a power plant? I do agree once shields are up the EM signature should increase also as per many sci fi literature and filmography it's reasonable to assume that shields should be detectable once up. So My signature should have an EM xxxx (S) where S is shields.
-
Frankly, I don't like any of these suggestions.
Armor is already stronger than shields per-ton, at least up to mid game. Didn't reach late tech yet in any of my new c# games, though it shouold even up a bit there. Shields also require twice the research of armor, and quite a bit of it to be competitive.
Why would you want to make shields even weaker than they already are? Having shields on already have some negatives in the way of EM radiation, which makes it harder to stay hidden. At most, that can be increased a bit.
And also, from a roleplay perspective, anything sci-fi really screams SHIELDS to me. It make no sense to have further limitations in game regarding shields.
As to the fuel thing, in vb6 it was just micro and very, very boring...
I agree. Shields mechanic it's now working as it supposed to be. The vb6 fuel was an interesting approach but why you should use fuel when there is energy provided by a power plant? I do agree once shields are up the EM signature should increase also as per many sci fi literature and filmography it's reasonable to assume that shields should be detectable once up. So My signature should have an EM xxxx (S) where S is shields.
Sorium was never an energy source, otherwise beam weapon reactors would consume it. Instead it is reaction mass and/or a catalyst for exotic effects. From a fluff perspective consuming it to run shields was perfectly reasonable, but from a logistics and game-play perspective I agree that a different system would be preferable.
Jumps depleting shields could have interesting implications for gate crashing, and limiting speed with shields up would make you choose between fast closure/escape and risking hits at range. Another 'fun' possibility would be to make shielded contacts targettable using just passive EM sensors. Personally I think active sensors should be vulnerable to HARM style targetting, too.
-
I actually prefer the implementation of shields as they currently exist, though I think their EM signature should be increased.
Fuel usage was simply an exercise in logistics and micromanagement; it made calculating remaining range a pain, accidentally leaving ships with shields on led to them being forgotten, using up their fuel in orbit. The new refueling mechanics would make this even more complicated. (No way to just equalize fuel if you made the FATAL ERROR of leaving them on)
Ultimately, leaving shields on for 8 hours of combat meant that their fuel use was trivial through the actual length of their use, but they could suddenly cause a huge logistical problem if you left them on for a longer increment.
Making them have a larger EM signature would probably lead to more tactical dynamics, forcing you to consider EMCON until you’re sure the enemy has spotted you, at which point you can scramble to charge your shields before the shooting starts. As it stands with the sensor changes, EM sensors are only good for detecting Active sensors or EXTREMELY shield-heavy designs. (I don’t have the numbers right next to me) Adding depth in this way would be preferable to complicating logistics even further, imo.
I think we can both agree that there is room for them to grow. As it stands now, it’s always a good idea to have them enabled if you have them.
I agree with this.
Also as I said in the changes discussion thread, there might be some room for shield generator malfunctions, for example when the shield is damaged enough to go down or just an increased rate when on. This would make maintenance supplies more important for shorter confrontations, but not cripple you like fuel can.
-
I actually prefer the implementation of shields as they currently exist, though I think their EM signature should be increased.
Fuel usage was simply an exercise in logistics and micromanagement; it made calculating remaining range a pain, accidentally leaving ships with shields on led to them being forgotten, using up their fuel in orbit. The new refueling mechanics would make this even more complicated. (No way to just equalize fuel if you made the FATAL ERROR of leaving them on)
Ultimately, leaving shields on for 8 hours of combat meant that their fuel use was trivial through the actual length of their use, but they could suddenly cause a huge logistical problem if you left them on for a longer increment.
Making them have a larger EM signature would probably lead to more tactical dynamics, forcing you to consider EMCON until you’re sure the enemy has spotted you, at which point you can scramble to charge your shields before the shooting starts. As it stands with the sensor changes, EM sensors are only good for detecting Active sensors or EXTREMELY shield-heavy designs. (I don’t have the numbers right next to me) Adding depth in this way would be preferable to complicating logistics even further, imo.
I think we can both agree that there is room for them to grow. As it stands now, it’s always a good idea to have them enabled if you have them.
I agree with this.
Also as I said in the changes discussion thread, there might be some room for shield generator malfunctions, for example when the shield is damaged enough to go down or just an increased rate when on. This would make maintenance supplies more important for shorter confrontations, but not cripple you like fuel can.
Maintenance supplies are already critical for short engagements due to beam weapons drinking them like water. Please don't add to that.
-
Sorium was never an energy source, otherwise beam weapon reactors would consume it. Instead it is reaction mass and/or a catalyst for exotic effects. From a fluff perspective consuming it to run shields was perfectly reasonable, but from a logistics and game-play perspective I agree that a different system would be preferable.
I know it wasn't an energy source but I was just talking about the implications of such choice. If you have an independent source of power to feed the shields why you should use more fuel? I agree with what you said anyway. :-)
Maintenance supplies are already critical for short engagements due to beam weapons drinking them like water. Please don't add to that.
And I agree here too.
I think all mechanics in this department are working fine in terms of depleting resources.
-
I think the shields concern energy, that is power plants, capacitors and energy weapons: when the shields are active, the reloading/ recharging times will extend linearly;increase in the design phase the number of capacitors decreases the recharging time; maybe during the engagement you could decide to favor one system over another: 0/100 - 30/70 - 40/60 - 50/50 -...
Speaking of sensor blindness ... I think shields are a kind of electrostatic dissipative armor, not a sort of reflective magic sphere or something around the hull, so sensors (antennas, scan array, ...) could be external, unprotect but redundant and expendable
-
Excellent, I see there is a dissent of opinion on this topic.
I disliked the fuel usage for shields for similar logistical reasons (forgetting them on, fuel use during the combat engagement negligible, etc.)
I did like that there was a reason to switch them off outside combat, and thus run the risk of being caught 'with your shields down'.
If a change is made, I would want to add a tactical decision.
An idea / suggestion. Not sure how well this would work in practice.
Shields interfere with / diver power from engines
The logistical challenge is exactly what I find appealing. It is a challenging balance which may provide a benefit or malus. I also like the concept of using reactor power output to power both shields and weapons, this seems more 'realistic'. Other games implement similar concepts.
Sorium was never an energy source, otherwise beam weapon reactors would consume it. Instead it is reaction mass and/or a catalyst for exotic effects. From a fluff perspective consuming it to run shields was perfectly reasonable, but from a logistics and game-play perspective I agree that a different system would be preferable.
I had always assumed sorium was the reactor fuel source and it's combustion products were propellant, but that the reaction rate was so low that refueling was practically never required. This is not the case it seems? If sorium is just a reaction mass then I am curious where the in-game reactors draw their power from?
-
Speaking of sensor blindness ... I think shields are a kind of electrostatic dissipative armor, not a sort of reflective magic sphere or something around the hull, so sensors (antennas, scan array, ...) could be external, unprotect but redundant and expendable
In this case they should be vulnerable to damage, even when shields are active.
I could see an argument for shields blinding EM sensors but leaving thermal sensors viable. Not sure how grav sensors should be effected. Might be an interesting way to differentiate sensor types.
-
Maintenance supplies are already critical for short engagements due to beam weapons drinking them like water. Please don't add to that.
Perhaps the beam weapons are consuming MS a fuel? ;)
-
I think shields are cool as it is. The "tactical choice" of fuel usage doesn't actually exist because the amount of fuel they used was negligible anyways. You are always going to have them on in combat and as someone else mentioned armour tends to provide more protection per tonnage. The only difference is that you are "forced" to turn off shields between extended breaks in combat - that isn't a tactical choice since it is sub-optimal to do otherwise.
I think it would be interesting to have diplomatic implications for raising shields against neutral NPRs. I dont remember if EM signature size affects the threat level of a ship but IMO it should. There is a difference between a fleet of ships jumping into a system with shields raised and ready to take a beating versus a fleet that just blunders through with its pants down. Likewise all of a sudden raising shields should be a tell on intent no? It would add a layer to turning on shields without adding annoying logistics/button mashing.
-
I think shields are cool as it is. The "tactical choice" of fuel usage doesn't actually exist because the amount of fuel they used was negligible anyways. You are always going to have them on in combat and as someone else mentioned armour tends to provide more protection per tonnage. The only difference is that you are "forced" to turn off shields between extended breaks in combat - that isn't a tactical choice since it is sub-optimal to do otherwise.
I think it would be interesting to have diplomatic implications for raising shields against neutral NPRs. I dont remember if EM signature size affects the threat level of a ship but IMO it should. There is a difference between a fleet of ships jumping into a system with shields raised and ready to take a beating versus a fleet that just blunders through with its pants down. Likewise all of a sudden raising shields should be a tell on intent no? It would add a layer to turning on shields without adding annoying logistics/button mashing.
I suppose I did not play enough VB6 to learn the intricacies of shields. I always kept them off outside of combat and on when actively engaged. I liked this level of interaction. Perhaps if shields had a more significant fuel expense then it would become more important strategically? Just thinking out loud. However if one had a large number of ships and/or ships with large shields this could become a difficult balance objective.
I do like the concept of a diplomatic impact of raising shields. Very star-treky.
-
I had always assumed sorium was the reactor fuel source and it's combustion products were propellant, but that the reaction rate was so low that refueling was practically never required. This is not the case it seems? If sorium is just a reaction mass then I am curious where the in-game reactors draw their power from?
If that was the case you should need fuel to power also weapons, which is my point: why for the shield yes but for weapons not.
I find it obvious that the power of the reactor should come from a source depending on your tech, but I could be wrong easily.
IE a Nuclear Powered reactor it's getting energy from Uranium Bars. Different is when you have an engine that requires fuel to keep working or to generate constantly an impulse. Bear in mind, these are not physics concepts but game mechanics. The whole concept of fuel in space is unknown as fuel will depend on the engine you are building (could be dark matter, a magnetic field or a solar wind) and the gravitational forces that pull you around. KSP gives you a pretty good idea of how flight in space and fuel looks like with our current technology and Avorion simulates the inertia, vacuum of space and the energy as fuel quite well.
For obvious reasons this is not possible in games such as Aurora or Stellaris or they will become tedious and extremely hard.
Finally, in Aurora the fuel source is Sorium and it is universal, and I am more than fine with that.
-
I had always assumed sorium was the reactor fuel source and it's combustion products were propellant, but that the reaction rate was so low that refueling was practically never required. This is not the case it seems? If sorium is just a reaction mass then I am curious where the in-game reactors draw their power from?
Well, given that they are fission/fusion/antimatter plants depending on tech level, that should be pretty obvious. I always assumed that sorium was the magic goo that made TN drives ignore the usual laws of physics, not an actual power source.
-
I had always assumed sorium was the reactor fuel source and it's combustion products were propellant, but that the reaction rate was so low that refueling was practically never required. This is not the case it seems? If sorium is just a reaction mass then I am curious where the in-game reactors draw their power from?
If that was the case you should need fuel to power also weapons, which is my point: why for the shield yes but for weapons not.
I find it obvious that the power of the reactor should come from a source depending on your tech, but I could be wrong easily.
IE a Nuclear Powered reactor it's getting energy from Uranium Bars. Different is when you have an engine that requires fuel to keep working or to generate constantly an impulse. Bear in mind, these are not physics concepts but game mechanics. The whole concept of fuel in space is unknown as fuel will depend on the engine you are building (could be dark matter, a magnetic field or a solar wind) and the gravitational forces that pull you around. KSP gives you a pretty good idea of how flight in space and fuel looks like with our current technology and Avorion simulates the inertia, vacuum of space and the energy as fuel quite well.
For obvious reasons this is not possible in games such as Aurora or Stellaris or they will become tedious and extremely hard.
Finally, in Aurora the fuel source is Sorium and it is universal, and I am more than fine with that.
This argument to a large extent summarizes my problems with Aurora's fuel/energy system. Fuel provides heat. Heat provides work via propellant. Propellant provides ship max velocity. In actuality propellant provides acceleration, not max velocity (arguably based on ship design). Two separate problems seemingly combined as one.
Don't get me wrong, I really enjoy Aurora and what it represents as a creative platform, but sometimes I struggle with the magic wand of TN physics. It occasionally breaks my RP flow.
-
I had always assumed sorium was the reactor fuel source and it's combustion products were propellant, but that the reaction rate was so low that refueling was practically never required. This is not the case it seems? If sorium is just a reaction mass then I am curious where the in-game reactors draw their power from?
Well, given that they are fission/fusion/antimatter plants depending on tech level, that should be pretty obvious. I always assumed that sorium was the magic goo that made TN drives ignore the usual laws of physics, not an actual power source.
Yes. Except your choice of reactors doesn't really impact your choice engines. You could theoretically run a conventional reactor with nuclear pulse engines. Might not be the best ship, but you could run this setup.
This bothers me because it breaks my understanding of Carnot efficiency laws. I am admittedly an engine nerd, though not infallible, though also I might quantify my statement by stating that I am not an amateur. By my reconning, Carnot efficiency = thermal_efficiency * T_hot / (T_hot + T_cold), where T_hot and T_cold are the maximum and minimum temperature theoretically achievable by a given heat engine. According to known physics, these laws are inviolable. So I allow for TN physics to break this rule, but it bothers my soul.
However (comma),
We are not talking strictly about heat engines. We are talking about motive power which is a somewhat different animal. In this case we wish to relate T_hot (or thermal_efficiency) to a max ship velocity rating. That is not so simple a problem and hence I am inclined to wave the TN wand to achieve this result.
-
Excellent, I see there is a dissent of opinion on this topic.
I disliked the fuel usage for shields for similar logistical reasons (forgetting them on, fuel use during the combat engagement negligible, etc.)
I did like that there was a reason to switch them off outside combat, and thus run the risk of being caught 'with your shields down'.
If a change is made, I would want to add a tactical decision.
An idea / suggestion. Not sure how well this would work in practice.
Shields interfere with / diver power from engines
The logistical challenge is exactly what I find appealing. It is a challenging balance which may provide a benefit or malus. I also like the concept of using reactor power output to power both shields and weapons, this seems more 'realistic'. Other games implement similar concepts.
Sorium was never an energy source, otherwise beam weapon reactors would consume it. Instead it is reaction mass and/or a catalyst for exotic effects. From a fluff perspective consuming it to run shields was perfectly reasonable, but from a logistics and game-play perspective I agree that a different system would be preferable.
I had always assumed sorium was the reactor fuel source and it's combustion products were propellant, but that the reaction rate was so low that refueling was practically never required. This is not the case it seems? If sorium is just a reaction mass then I am curious where the in-game reactors draw their power from?
There are two problems with power management that detailed: UI for the player would be fiddly, fussy, and micromanagy, and the AI would need to deal with it as well. In an FPS where you only have to deal with managing power for one ship it can add to game-play, but when you are trying to manage fleets it becomes problematic.
I used to think so too, until some old-timers corrected me. Early game reactors are nuclear powered but get replaced with more exotic alternatives such as anti-matter as technology progresses. That is why beam weapons and sensor buoys require reactors but not Sorium. Engines have built in reactors to power them, which is why they depend on reactor tech, and improvements only affect power density, not range. Fuel efficiency and minimum/maximum power affect whatever gizmo combines that reactor output with Sorium to make it go.
Yes. Except your choice of reactors doesn't really impact your choice engines. You could theoretically run a conventional reactor with nuclear pulse engines. Might not be the best ship, but you could run this setup.
Except that the only difference between a nuclear pulse engine and any other engine type in Aurora is the built-in reactor. Just like the difference between a nuclear powered ship and a fuel oil powered ship is in the fire-box. The boiler, turbine, and propeller are the same.
-
I am fine with buoys requiring antimatter fuel, but reaction mass troubles me unless the source of such mass is approximately equivalent to the energy source of the buoy reactor energy source.
-
I used to think so too, until some old-timers corrected me. Early game reactors are nuclear powered but get replaced with more exotic alternatives such as anti-matter as technology progresses. That is why beam weapons and sensor buoys require reactors but not Sorium. Engines have built in reactors to power them, which is why they depend on reactor tech, and improvements only affect power density, not range. Fuel efficiency and minimum/maximum power affect whatever gizmo combines that reactor output with Sorium to make it go.
I am curious if you would be willing to elaborate on your knowledge of this topic. I might perhaps, also hail from the Shire and am interested in other perspectives.
-
Aside from sails and conventional rockets, reaction mass and power source generally aren't related. Surface ships use sea water as reaction mass, independent of their power source. Non-rocket aircraft use air as reaction mass, both for propulsion and lift. Ion drives use inert gas that is ionized and repelled using a separate energy source. Aurora ships are nuclear powered and use Sorium as reaction mass.
-
Except that the only difference between a nuclear pulse engine and any other engine type in Aurora is the built-in reactor. Just like the difference between a nuclear powered ship and a fuel oil powered ship is in the fire-box. The boiler, turbine, and propeller are the same.
Aside from sails and conventional rockets, reaction mass and power source generally aren't related. Surface ships use sea water as reaction mass, independent of their power source. Non-rocket aircraft use air as reaction mass, both for propulsion and lift. Ion drives use inert gas that is ionized and repelled using a separate energy source. Aurora ships are nuclear powered and use Sorium as reaction mass.
Yes. This is exactly what I am struggling with. Reactor power source and engine power source are intricately entwined by my way of evaluating the probelm. If one has created a reactor with a high T_hot why would one not use this T_hot in the engine design for a ship which equips the same engine and reactor? This maximizes thermal efficiency of the design. Aurora creates a distinction between these concepts which seems arbitrary to me.
-
I think shields in the current situatuion are perfectly fine at doing their thing and I dislike many of the suggestions here that suggest bigger impact changes. What I could get behind would be a bit increased EM signature, readable strength through EM signature or maybe shields requiring power from power plants. Pretty much changes that tweak the current situation a bit.
Shields going down during jump isn't much of an issue except if you are ambushed and didn't expect that because siege breakers are already pure armor, shields disabling ASS sounds just horrible, shields slowing the ship hurts the design space, shields randomly breaking aside from the current maintenance failures would be a very very thight balance between "they never crash anyways" and "Every 20th shot they are down anyways, just use more armor".
-
There have been many discussions about more detailed power distribution on ships and Steve said that he did not want power to be something you need to micromanage in battle so it can't be too detailed in that regard. Using fuel to power reactor might be sound from a technical point of view but the general consensus or thought by Steve was that the amount of fuel used was too insignificant in the whole during any particular battle, that is also one of the reason why fuel usage for shields was removed too.
Whether Sorium provide the means for a ship to move or is the power source itself I think does not matter much. But in general Sorium or fuel probably is the kind of stuff that the ships engine need to move it from one spot to the next. As movement in Aurora don't use thrust it actually mean that the ship have the same actual velocity in the physical space all the time. Movement in aurora are basically manipulation of space itself through the use of the Eather dimension which is why Sorium is needed so the engine can react with it. Power is needed for that reaction to occur.
The smaller an engine is the harder it is to get the Sorium to react so you need more Sorium to get the same effect. There is also a relationship between the power used in conjunction of the engines design. So if you have a very large engine using a very low power setting you will get a much more efficient interaction between Sorium and the Eather... the reverse is also true... if you inject allot of power versus the size then the efficiency of Sorium decline.
The way the game is currently set up is that you only need to bother with reactor power for weapons as that is the most variable and interesting part of the energy distribution. Steve also want to avoid having to deal with power micromanagement during battles, that have been stated before.
Personally I'm in the camp that would like a more detailed power system, but it is what it is.
-
Yes me too, but this is Steve's game.
Although, more detailed power management and having to prioritize would remind me fondly of Starfleet battles!! :)
https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/29663/star-fleet-battles-captains-edition-basic-set
(https://cf.geekdo-images.com/imagepage/img/B_P4FjfTAlfyZK1QfgIcQCQVIwI=/fit-in/900x600/filters:no_upscale()/pic412282.jpg)
-
B5 Wars was better, :P
-
Yes. This is exactly what I am struggling with. Reactor power source and engine power source are intricately entwined by my way of evaluating the probelm. If one has created a reactor with a high T_hot why would one not use this T_hot in the engine design for a ship which equips the same engine and reactor? This maximizes thermal efficiency of the design. Aurora creates a distinction between these concepts which seems arbitrary to me.
Ah, you mean use a single reactor for propulsion, weapons systems, sensors, and shields. From a fluff perspective, there are the problems of power distribution and rapid demand variability that weapons and possibly shields inflict, which are not friendly to the large reactors needed for propulsion, while sensors can be run off of surplus power. From a game play standpoint that level of detail would trend towards the power micromanagement that Steve wants to avoid, while integrating weapons with their reactors like is done with engines would require all weapons to be redesigned every time reactor tech improves, which would be prohibitively expensive.
-
There have been many discussions about more detailed power distribution on ships and Steve said that he did not want power to be something you need to micromanage in battle so it can't be too detailed in that regard.
This answers my original question concisely. It is for the ship commanders to determine power allocation, not the emperor.
While I find allocation of ship resources to be an interesting problem, it is best left to ship commanders to accomplish.
-
Yes. This is exactly what I am struggling with. Reactor power source and engine power source are intricately entwined by my way of evaluating the probelm. If one has created a reactor with a high T_hot why would one not use this T_hot in the engine design for a ship which equips the same engine and reactor? This maximizes thermal efficiency of the design. Aurora creates a distinction between these concepts which seems arbitrary to me.
Ah, you mean use a single reactor for propulsion, weapons systems, sensors, and shields. From a fluff perspective, there are the problems of power distribution and rapid demand variability that weapons and possibly shields inflict, which are not friendly to the large reactors needed for propulsion, while sensors can be run off of surplus power. From a game play standpoint that level of detail would trend towards the power micromanagement that Steve wants to avoid, while integrating weapons with their reactors like is done with engines would require all weapons to be redesigned every time reactor tech improves, which would be prohibitively expensive.
Many moons ago there existed a game called "Nexus" which allowed for a very detailed level of power management at the individual ship level. I have always held to this standard of power control. It seems Steve and I differ in this regard... It is ultimately his game, not mine, however much I might enjoy it.
Furthermore I encourage Mr. Steve to keep this game his game! That is a fine ideal to strive towards!
-
Furthermore I encourage Mr. Steve to keep this game his game! That is a fine ideal to strive towards!
I agree, he gave birth a masterpiece we are all enjoying and discuss today meaning his path is correct.
I sometimes wonder what would have been if he was more into something else rather than videogames and scifi.
But I tell you something: that dimension? I wouldn't like it!
-
Yes. This is exactly what I am struggling with. Reactor power source and engine power source are intricately entwined by my way of evaluating the probelm. If one has created a reactor with a high T_hot why would one not use this T_hot in the engine design for a ship which equips the same engine and reactor? This maximizes thermal efficiency of the design. Aurora creates a distinction between these concepts which seems arbitrary to me.
Ah, you mean use a single reactor for propulsion, weapons systems, sensors, and shields. From a fluff perspective, there are the problems of power distribution and rapid demand variability that weapons and possibly shields inflict, which are not friendly to the large reactors needed for propulsion, while sensors can be run off of surplus power. From a game play standpoint that level of detail would trend towards the power micromanagement that Steve wants to avoid, while integrating weapons with their reactors like is done with engines would require all weapons to be redesigned every time reactor tech improves, which would be prohibitively expensive.
Many moons ago there existed a game called "Nexus" which allowed for a very detailed level of power management at the individual ship level. I have always held to this standard of power control. It seems Steve and I differ in this regard... It is ultimately his game, not mine, however much I might enjoy it.
Furthermore I encourage Mr. Steve to keep this game his game! That is a fine ideal to strive towards!
IIRC, in Nexus you were rarely controlling more than 10 ships at a time, if even that many. Typically it'd be less than 5. By comparison, how many ships are in your average Aurora fleet?
-
I liked the old fuel cost mechanic because it obliged you to make choices about whether to power the shields up or not (rather than just leaving them running forever). This would mean that there was a decent chance that you could possibly be caught trying to charge your shields from zero as the enemy is engaging you. Having them just have maintenance failures like with guns might be the way to solve that better (i havent checked if thats currently the case or not). It would also make a lot of sense I think for it to really take a toll to just leave them running.
-
Nexus and Aurora are certainly different games, and their scope differs considerably... Often by orders of magnitude. Nexus was much more of a tactical simulation than the strategic glory of Aurora.
However I did enjoy the level of control Nexus provided with regards to ship power management. Sometimes I need to drop all weapon and shield power and redirect all effort to engines in order to escape a powerful enemy. Aurora allows the player to assign individual weapon fire controls and targets but restricts power management. If I can target a ships weapons, why can't I control the engines? Or the shields?
Just seems to make more sense to me. Obviously there is development effort required to bring this sort of mechanic into reality, so I am content with the present system. But sometimes I day dream of something different...
-
IIRC, in Nexus you were rarely controlling more than 10 ships at a time, if even that many. Typically it'd be less than 5. By comparison, how many ships are in your average Aurora fleet?
My apologies, I did not answer your question.
In any given tactical situation in Aurora, I directly command at most about 10 ships, not including fighter craft. Including fighter craft, I command at most about 500. I consider fighter craft separately because I issue orders to them en masse, whereas I tend to micromanage larger ships.
In Nexus, I rarely commanded more than 8 ships directly.
-
This would mean that there was a decent chance that you could possibly be caught trying to charge your shields from zero as the enemy is engaging you.
This situation was relatively common in the Nexus game I referred to previously. This tactical choice of when to raise shields is an interesting mechanic in my opinion.
-
I'm actually not a fan of fuel shield relationship. Shields consume power and Steve choosed to make shield power plant integrated in the shields. I don't remember the sizes of VB6 but I assume they are bigger now. They also contribute to AFR and cost considerably. Also they make your ships can be seen from a long way like a billboard. Also I'd think AI can utilise them better now.
So my vote is on shields without fuel req.