Post by: SteveAlt on February 20, 2009, 12:32:45 AM
Fire is a major threat on board warships, both in reality and in Aurora v4.0. Damage control is a key factor in preventing such fires from gutting a ship. Up until now, damage control in Aurora has been mainly used for repairing systems after combat and therefore high damage control ratings were not essential. With the introduction of fires in v4.0, damage control ratings will become a significant factor in warship design. Fast reactions (i.e. high damage control ratings) to fires will be essential to avoid them spreading out of control.
When any system is destroyed, there is a 10% chance a fire will result. The strength of the fire will be equal to the HTK of the system that was destroyed. If multiple systems trigger fires, the fires will be treated as one large fire with the combined HTK of the affected systems. During each damage control phase, which takes place after movement and before combat, damage control teams will attempt to extinguish the fire. The percentage chance of success is equal to Damage Control Rating x (Length of Increment / Strength of Fire)
For example, if there is a strength 5 fire on board a ship with a damage control rating of 3 and the clock is advanced by 30 seconds, the chance of extinguishing the fire is equal to 3 x (30/5) = 18%. If there is a strength 10 fire on board a ship with a damage control rating of 14 and the clock is advanced by 5 seconds, the chance of extinguishing the fire is equal to 14 x (5/10) = 7%
If the fire is not extinguished during the damage control phase, there is a small chance it will either increase in strength or cause further damage. If it increases in strength, it will be by a random amount up to half the existing strength. If damage occurs, it will be a random amount between 1 and the strength of the fire. This chance is equal to (Strength of Fire x Length of Increment) / 20
For example, if the clock is advanced by 30 seconds, a strength 5 fire has a (5 x 30) / 20 = 9% chance of causing damage or increasing in strength. If the clock is advanced by 5 seconds, a strength 10 fire has a (10 x 5) / 20 = 2.5% chance of causing damage or increasing in strength.
I might still play around with these numbers a little, based on playtesting, but the general process will remain the same.
In space, there is an alternative way to put out fires and that is to evacuate the atmosphere from the affected sections of the ship. This is a drastic measure that could have serious implications for the crew and for equipment that is not designed to operate in temperatures close to absolute zero. I considered having this as a separate option with associated appropriate penalties but I decided that would be too much micromanagement. Instead, it is assumed to be part of the normal damage control process. Quick reactions to fires will probably involve this method. However, perhaps due to battle damage, system failures, the location of the fire or the presence of sensitive equipment, it will not always be possible. These types of situations could explain the circumstances for story purposes when fires get out of control
While fires are burning, the maximum increment allowed will be 1 minute. Otherwise, incrementing by an hour or so would guarantee to put out the fire without further damage.
Magazine Explosions
Secondary Magazine explosions have been fixed for v4.0. There is a 10% chance that any magazine hit may cause a secondary explosion. For the purposes of simplicity, it assumed that empty magazines will be hit first. When a magazine containing missiles is hit, the 10% chance is checked. If an explosion occurs, all warheads in the magazine will detonate simultaneously, probably with catastrophic results.
Steve
Post by: jfelten on February 20, 2009, 03:49:43 AM
This is also going to favor smaller ships since there will be less to loose. If I build a single 20,000 ton ship there is a chance that one unlucky hit is going to start a fire that could grow to destroy the entire ship. If I build four 5,000 tons ships the risk is "firewalled". Not sure if you want that result either. I guess you could add some sort of bulkhead system to divide a larger ship in to fireproof sections. All it would take is a thin layer of vacuum between sections of a ship which would limit any fire spreading threat to power etc. connections which could be fire hardened near the bulkhead. Actually, if fire was such a great threat to space warships, I would think that would be an intrinsic part of the design of all ship compartments. Engineering adapts to risks. Materials science progresses along with the rest and is essential to much other progress.
Instead of opening sections to vacuum I suggest that automated systems would reduce air pressure and/or oxygen content enough to greatly slow the fire but not so low as to be fatal to people. At battle stations I would expect the crew to be in pressure suits anyway or at least have them readily available.
Nuclear warheads, especially future tech versions, are not going to nuclear detonate accidentally or from external explosion/fire. Things have to happen in a precisely controlled sequence that some external explosion cannot cause. Fuel/Detonators might be explosive, although it seems unlikely that the fuel of missiles able to reach such speeds in a non-newtonian manner is going to be powered by a chemical reaction so is unlikely to be flammable. Of course since that part is completely made up you can call it however you wish, it just seems extremely unlikely so is a bit hard to achieve suspension of disbelief about. It could make quite a mess of things but isn't going to go up in a massive nuclear explosion.
Post by: Cassaralla on February 20, 2009, 03:56:03 AM
Post by: jfelten on February 20, 2009, 04:10:57 AM
Quote from: "Cassaralla"
Perhaps a tech line of fire proofing and fire fighting could be introduced to reduce this chance to represent systems evolving to better combat the risk?
It is logical that such would automatically be incorporated in military (and civilian) research. Real world warships continually improve in fire resistance and fire fighting technologies.
Post by: SteveAlt on February 20, 2009, 04:18:20 AM
Quote from: "Cassaralla"
Perhaps a tech line of fire proofing and fire fighting could be introduced to reduce this chance to represent systems evolving to better combat the risk?There is already a line of damage control systems
Steve
Post by: SteveAlt on February 20, 2009, 04:31:09 AM
Quote from: "jfelten"
10% means that large ships taking damage are extremely likely to have large fires. Not sure if that is your intention.I think the reverse is actually going to be true. Your enemy is going to cause the same amount of damage regardless of the size of your ships. Therefore, whether large or small, assuming similar armour, a ship is going to take the same amount of amount of damage and 10% of that will result in fires. Larger ships will usually have more engineering sections and will have the option of fitting additional damage control system so their damage control rating will be much higher and they will extinguish fires far faster than smaller ships.
This is also going to favor smaller ships since there will be less to loose. If I build a single 20,000 ton ship there is a chance that one unlucky hit is going to start a fire that could grow to destroy the entire ship. If I build four 5,000 tons ships the risk is "firewalled". Not sure if you want that result either.
Quote
I guess you could add some sort of bulkhead system to divide a larger ship in to fireproof sections. All it would take is a thin layer of vacuum between sections of a ship which would limit any fire spreading threat to power etc. connections which could be fire hardened near the bulkhead. Actually, if fire was such a great threat to space warships, I would think that would be an intrinsic part of the design of all ship compartments. Engineering adapts to risks. Materials science progresses along with the rest and is essential to much other progress.Fire is a great threat to modern surface warships. They still catch fire despite all engineering efforts to prevent it. The Sheffield was lost not because of the exocet damage but because of the resulting fire. More than one Japanese carrier in WW2 was lost to fire damage because of inadequate damage control whereas the US ships had very good damage control and saved many ships that might have been lost.
Quote
Instead of opening sections to vacuum I suggest that automated systems would reduce air pressure and/or oxygen content enough to greatly slow the fire but not so low as to be fatal to people. At battle stations I would expect the crew to be in pressure suits anyway or at least have them readily available.Those sound reasonable and we can assume they are part of the damage control process.
Quote
Nuclear warheads, especially future tech versions, are not going to nuclear detonate accidentally or from external explosion/fire. Things have to happen in a precisely controlled sequence that some external explosion cannot cause. Fuel/Detonators might be explosive, although it seems unlikely that the fuel of missiles able to reach such speeds in a non-newtonian manner is going to be powered by a chemical reaction so is unlikely to be flammable. Of course since that part is completely made up you can call it however you wish, it just seems extremely unlikely so is a bit hard to achieve suspension of disbelief about. It could make quite a mess of things but isn't going to go up in a massive nuclear explosion.The main reason is that ships blowing up due to magazine explosions is fun (well in a game at least) and fun gameplay is the most important factor. In terms of technobabble, you could argue that the warheads are actually anti-matter and they probably would explode.
Steve
Post by: jfelten on February 20, 2009, 05:50:33 AM
Quote from: "SteveAlt"
Fire is a great threat to modern surface warships. They still catch fire despite all engineering efforts to prevent it. The Sheffield was lost not because of the exocet damage but because of the resulting fire. More than one Japanese carrier in WW2 was lost to fire damage because of inadequate damage control whereas the US ships had very good damage control and saved many ships that might have been lost.
That is true but aside from a handful of nuclear powered ships, all naval warships are powered by petroleum which is very flammable and carried in large quantities. And the lubricants for much of the machinery is also petroleum based = flammable. They also carry ordnance that is flammable / explosive. It is unlikely a space going warship in the future would have a fraction of such flammables on board. Most things will burn if you get the hot enough but the greatest danger of a fire getting out of control is from petrochemicals and explosive ammunition. Also keep in mind that for fire you have to have an oxidizer (oxygen). It is a reasonable assumption that there is only so much oxygen inside a ship and a very limited rate at which it can be replenished. Depending on the fuel, the mass of air required to burn can be much greater than the mass of fuel (in modern cars I think it is round 15:1 air:fuel). So no matter how much fuel you have to burn, the amount of air/oxygen available is probably what is going to limit the fire. I just don't think there is enough air inside a ship to sustain a big fire and allow it to grow out of control even if you have plenty of fuel. On a wet navy ship there is a limitless supply of air.
Quote from: "SteveAlt"
The main reason is that ships blowing up due to magazine explosions is fun (well in a game at least) and fun gameplay is the most important factor. In terms of technobabble, you could argue that the warheads are actually anti-matter and they probably would explode. Steve
There are a couple things I don't like about it. The game currently tries to be realistic in areas that it can be such as orbital mechanics. At least to the extent that it can be immersive. But if something goes totally over the top such as nuclear warheads going off like popcorn, it ruins the experience since nobody will believe it is possible, like a bad movie or such. Antimatter would be much more believable but I thought you specified somewhere that missile warheads were nuclear based?
Another concern I have is the golden BB effect. Now that could be believable since there is plenty of historical precedent for it. Although I would argue that is almost always something like a magazine explosion which gets less and less likely as technology progresses. But even if believable or realistic, it is a game killer. As you mention, sometimes gameplay has to come first. Nobody past puberty wants to play a game where the battle can be totally thrown to a single wildly lucky chance event. Eventually someone is going to loose the game because a tiny ship gets a lucky "die roll" on the intact enemy super dreadnought. It might make a good movie when the evil guys death star gets blown up by the heroes, but it doesn't work in games against evenly matched players. I've seen many a home brew campaign game die an early death because some sort of golden BB rule resulted in something ridiculous happening. That is not "fun". Even the winner looses in the end when the others stops playing the game.
I'm not saying these ideas can't work and add color. But I want to urge caution because I've seen similar things effectively ruin game systems in the past. It even crosses game genres. You can get away with a lucky hit causing extra damage (aka a "critical hit") but if you allow golden BB's to outright destroy intact ships and such, in my opinion it will poison the game.
Post by: Hawkeye on February 20, 2009, 07:55:20 AM
Quote from: "jfelten"
Instead of opening sections to vacuum I suggest that automated systems would reduce air pressure and/or oxygen content enough to greatly slow the fire but not so low as to be fatal to people. At battle stations I would expect the crew to be in pressure suits anyway or at least have them readily available.
I would even go so far as to assume, that a warship approaching combat will blow off its atmosphere in order to prevent preasure waves from enemy weapon hits.
I would assume a nuke going off 50m to starbord (or a megawat laser explosively evaporating part of your hull/railgun slug hitting with some 10.000 km/s) will crate quite a shockwave from hitting the hull. No need to give that shockwave a medium to travel through the ship.
Post by: IanD on February 20, 2009, 07:57:17 AM
to design an auto venting system into a compartment that activates once it gets hot enough. I think the current chance of exploding damaged systems causing a follow-on explosion is pretty good, all you would need to add would be a number of the crew being caught in the compartment and injured/killed by either the initial explosion or venting of air from the compartment if not at battle stations (and presumably suited-up). Would that mean casualties from maintenance failures would be higher that that from combat, since the crew would not be suited-up?What would be the effect of crew casualties? Are there any at present?
As for propellant exploding, just how inert is sorium?
Regards
Ian
Post by: IanD on February 20, 2009, 08:01:16 AM
Quote
Fire is a great threat to modern surface warships.
One thing I really like about Aurora so far is that its not just the wet navy in space.
Regards
Ian
Post by: schroeam on February 20, 2009, 08:48:54 AM
Adam.
Post by: jfelten on February 20, 2009, 09:51:08 AM
Quote from: "adradjool"
One thing everyone is forgetting is that the VAST majority of fires are not caused by fuel, propellants, or explosives, but by electricity. Various safeguards are put into place regarding the prevention of fires from the obvious explosives (Halon, AFFF, CO2, PKP, flashpoint temperature, etc.). Electrical fires are the catalyst and the resulting big fire is the flammable material (paper, linens, plastics, insulation) that catches fire and spreads. As long as there is oxygen present a fire will burn, well below the limit for humans to stay conscious, or live, therefore lowering the oxygen available in the space is not an option, totally eliminating oxygen to the fire is the only option, or cooling it. As the temperature from the fire rises, the space affected with eventually reach a point where everything will catch fire. Some chemical fires create their own oxygen (counter-measures, phosphorous, magnesium) and pose a much high risk due to their higher temperatures and inability to remove the oxygen. Nukes are not a danger as an explosive until they are armed, but I agree with the 10% rule Steve has imposed, and would think that it might actually be a little higher during battle. If anyone has questions on the effect of a fire on a ship caused by an electrical fire look up the USS BONEFISH fire. Sure, WWII ships suffered from fuel fires, but that is unlikely in this reality until we learn what point Sorium burns, or explodes, when in fuel form. Steve is also right in that the number one way to prevent fires from limiting your ability to fight your ship is your Damage Control ability.
Adam.
I believe you are thinking more in terms of peacetime fires vs battle damage fires?
Post by: IanD on February 20, 2009, 10:05:32 AM
From Wikipedia
Quote
While the sub was submerged, seawater began leaking onto cables and electrical buses in a battery supply cableway. Electrical arcing between cables caused an explosion which flashed into a fire within minutes
No doubt it would be possible to postulate a scenario where the water dispenser leaked leading to a fire, but all the causes of the fire would have to be internal maintenance faults or the result of battle damage and would have to have fuel. The fire suppression venting system should be automatic and it would not be the first or last time a hatch has been dogged with the knowledge that there were still live crew in the compartment.
It could well be doctrine that when going into combat the ship is depressurised just to try and eliminate such hazards as fire and decompression.
Regards
Ian
Post by: schroeam on February 20, 2009, 10:16:50 AM
Decompressing the ship prior to battle would have extremely negative effects on the ability of the crew to have the split second reactions necessary in battle. Try walking around in an exposure suit for even half an hour, see how easy you are able to operate, and fast you get exhausted.
Post by: jfelten on February 20, 2009, 11:10:35 AM
Quote from: "adradjool"
Decompressing the ship prior to battle would have extremely negative effects on the ability of the crew to have the split second reactions necessary in battle. Try walking around in an exposure suit for even half an hour, see how easy you are able to operate, and fast you get exhausted.
I'm not convinced of that. It is far from uncommon for soldiers to have to fight in hostile environments loaded down with adverse weather gear plus weapons and equipment. If a Roman soldier could lug 20+ Kg across continents by foot, I'm sure a sailor could wear a pressure suit for a few hours if it gave him and his ship a survival advantage in battle. Our boys humping 30Kg on foot patrol in Iraq wouldn't have too much sympathy either. Ever have to work in MOPP gear? See someone decked out in firefighting equipment? For the average crewman it doesn't have to be an Apollo moon mission space suite. All it has to do is keep him alive for a few seconds until he can reach the next hatch or a pressure closet. It is virtually guaranteed that suite technology will advance resulting in lighter and lighter suits.
Besides, most of the split second stuff will be taken care of by computers.
Post by: cjblack on February 20, 2009, 12:57:31 PM
Post by: schroeam on February 20, 2009, 02:50:54 PM
Adam.
Post by: Erik L on February 20, 2009, 03:43:50 PM
Post by: MWadwell on February 21, 2009, 02:28:35 AM
Quote from: "adradjool"
As long as there is oxygen present a fire will burn, well below the limit for humans to stay conscious, or live, therefore lowering the oxygen available in the space is not an option, totally eliminating oxygen to the fire is the only option, or cooling it.
<SNIP>
You might want to check this - as a INERGEN system is able to put out fires, but still allow people to enter the room afterwards.
From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inergen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inergen)):
"Inergen is used at design concentrations of 40-50% to lower the concentration of oxygen to a point that cannot support combustion.
A component of Inergen is carbon dioxide, which allows the human body to adapt to the environment of reduced oxygen that is present after discharge of agent. Discharge of Inergen results in an approximate 3% concentration of carbon dioxide within the space. This directs the human body to take deeper breaths and to make more efficient use of the available oxygen."
Post by: SteveAlt on February 21, 2009, 04:28:11 AM
Quote from: "jfelten"
So no matter how much fuel you have to burn, the amount of air/oxygen available is probably what is going to limit the fire. I just don't think there is enough air inside a ship to sustain a big fire and allow it to grow out of control even if you have plenty of fuel. On a wet navy ship there is a limitless supply of air.That is an excellent point. I hadn't considered the fact that wet-navy ships wouldn't burn so much without an external oxygen supply. I'll give some thought to how that would affect the idea of fires.
Quote
Based on the warhead descriptions they start off nuclear and eventually move to anti-matter. I suppose an alternative could be to base magazine explosions on the missile fuel but if that was the case then hits on fuel storage would be catastrophic.Quote from: "Steve"The main reason is that ships blowing up due to magazine explosions is fun (well in a game at least) and fun gameplay is the most important factor. In terms of technobabble, you could argue that the warheads are actually anti-matter and they probably would explode.There are a couple things I don't like about it. The game currently tries to be realistic in areas that it can be such as orbital mechanics. At least to the extent that it can be immersive. But if something goes totally over the top such as nuclear warheads going off like popcorn, it ruins the experience since nobody will believe it is possible, like a bad movie or such. Antimatter would be much more believable but I thought you specified somewhere that missile warheads were nuclear based?
Quote
Another concern I have is the golden BB effect. Now that could be believable since there is plenty of historical precedent for it. Although I would argue that is almost always something like a magazine explosion which gets less and less likely as technology progresses. But even if believable or realistic, it is a game killer. As you mention, sometimes gameplay has to come first. Nobody past puberty wants to play a game where the battle can be totally thrown to a single wildly lucky chance event. Eventually someone is going to loose the game because a tiny ship gets a lucky "die roll" on the intact enemy super dreadnought. It might make a good movie when the evil guys death star gets blown up by the heroes, but it doesn't work in games against evenly matched players. I've seen many a home brew campaign game die an early death because some sort of golden BB rule resulted in something ridiculous happening. That is not "fun". Even the winner looses in the end when the others stops playing the game.It isn't just a movie situation; there are a lot of examples in real life. The one that comes to mind immediately is the Hood. In the Battle of the Denmark Strait, she was virtually undamaged when a shell penetrated her magazine and the 48,000 ton ship blew up, killing all but three of her crew. In the battlecruiser action prior to the main Battle of Jutland, the battlecruiser Queen Mary was lost when both of her forward magazines exploded, killing all but 9 of her 1275 man crew. In the same action, involving a dozen ships, Indefatigable was lost after two huge magazine explosions. Later in the main battle, the battlecruiser Invincible was destroyed when a 12" shell detonated the magazine under her Q turret. So the three largest British ships lost in the battle were all destroyed by magazine explosions. On the German side, the only capital ships lost were Lutzow, which got pounded to to destruction and Pommern, which (surprise!) was lost to a magazine explosion. Of the three Armoured Cruisers lost by the British in the battle, one of those, "Defence", was lost to a magazine explosion.
I'm not saying these ideas can't work and add color. But I want to urge caution because I've seen similar things effectively ruin game systems in the past. It even crosses game genres. You can get away with a lucky hit causing extra damage (aka a "critical hit") but if you allow golden BB's to outright destroy intact ships and such, in my opinion it will poison the game.
So while losing a ship to a lucky hit might be unfortunate, it is no way unrealistic in terms of naval history. Besides, Aurora ia a game involving fleets rather than single ship actions so the occasional loss of single ships to magazine explosions will hurt but should not be a game killer.
Steve
Post by: welchbloke on February 21, 2009, 04:59:53 AM
Post by: IanD on February 21, 2009, 11:10:38 AM
Quote
the Hood. In the Battle of the Denmark Strait, she was virtually undamaged when a shell penetrated her magazine and the 48,000 ton ship blew up, killing all but three of her crew. In the battlecruiser action prior to the main Battle of Jutland, the battlecruiser Queen Mary was lost when both of her forward magazines exploded, killing all but 9 of her 1275 man crew. In the same action, involving a dozen ships, Indefatigable was lost after two huge magazine explosions. Later in the main battle, the battlecruiser Invincible was destroyed when a 12" shell detonated the magazine under her Q turret. So the three largest British ships lost in the battle were all destroyed by magazine explosions.
So Steve are you saying all our ship designs have a basic design flaw?
The German ships in WW1 had better protected magazines because they had already had experience of such a near catastrophe with the Seydlitz, I think at the Dogger Bank action in which the danger of an explosive flash in a turret descending the trunk to the cordite-handling room was exposed.Does this mean there should be another tech line which governs how well the ships are designed to stand up to battle damage? Which in turn could affect the chance of the power plant, magazine, sorium fuel bunkerage etc detonating and destroying the ship?
Regards
Post by: sloanjh on February 21, 2009, 02:04:27 PM
Quote from: "IanD"
Steve wroteQuotethe Hood. In the Battle of the Denmark Strait, she was virtually undamaged when a shell penetrated her magazine and the 48,000 ton ship blew up, killing all but three of her crew. In the battlecruiser action prior to the main Battle of Jutland, the battlecruiser Queen Mary was lost when both of her forward magazines exploded, killing all but 9 of her 1275 man crew. In the same action, involving a dozen ships, Indefatigable was lost after two huge magazine explosions. Later in the main battle, the battlecruiser Invincible was destroyed when a 12" shell detonated the magazine under her Q turret. So the three largest British ships lost in the battle were all destroyed by magazine explosions.
So Steve are you saying all our ship designs have a basic design flaw?
Does this mean there should be another tech line which governs how well the ships are designed to stand up to battle damage? Which in turn could affect the chance of the power plant, magazine, sorium fuel bunkerage etc detonating and destroying the ship?
Regards
Isn't that the internal armor rating? I assume magazines can be armored. That does raise an interesting point, though - for purposes of calculating the size of fire, etc, internal armor probably shouldn't contribute to HTK (I don't think it does now, but can't remember).
John
Post by: Cassaralla on February 21, 2009, 03:42:15 PM
Post by: SteveAlt on February 22, 2009, 09:38:59 AM
Quote from: "sloanjh"
Isn't that the internal armor rating? I assume magazines can be armored. That does raise an interesting point, though - for purposes of calculating the size of fire, etc, internal armor probably shouldn't contribute to HTK (I don't think it does now, but can't remember).There are no armoured magazines at the moment. Internal armour is out of date anyway after the armour system change so I think it needs replacing with a new concept.
Steve
Post by: SteveAlt on February 22, 2009, 09:51:36 AM
Quote from: "Cassaralla"
On the matter of magazine explosions, perhaps a tech like the Battletech CASE system (I forget what the acronym stoof for in that game) could be implemented. If I remember correctly it was a storage system designed to blow just the location of the missiles if a critical caused an explosion and leave the rest of the mech undamaged. In Aurora this would be like venting the explosion via hull panels that blow out, saving the ship itself from total loss.
Quote from: "IanD"
Does this mean there should be another tech line which governs how well the ships are designed to stand up to battle damage? Which in turn could affect the chance of the power plant, magazine, sorium fuel bunkerage etc detonating and destroying the ship?
Both of these are good ideas. I think what I may do is replace the existing standard magazine systems with player-designed magazines. This would include size, the efficiency of the mechanism (which would allow more storage space), the resistance to damage (which would replace the concept of internal armour and give the magazine more HTK) and an ejection system (which would be the basis of the chance of a magazine explosion). Larger magazines would be inherently more efficient and the armour for one large magazine would be less than that required for several smaller ones (In the same way that a 10,000 ton ship needs less armour than 2x 5000 ton ships).
The resistance to damage concept could also be built into engines, reactors and fuel storage. Perhaps instead of an actual resistance to damage tech line, you could choose the HTK number and the size/cost of each HTK level would be determined by the current armour technology.
Steve
Post by: SteveAlt on February 22, 2009, 10:01:58 AM
Quote from: "welchbloke"
IIRC Admiral Beatty made the comment at Jutland 'Something's wrong with our bloody ships today'. I agree that the loss of ships to magazine explosions is realistic, but the golden BB effect does deserve some consideration. As with everything else in Aurora, I'm sure that Steve will introduce a piece of functionality for fire damage that, following first contact with the enemy (us!), matures into another colourful element of what is an excellent game.Yes, I agree that is what will likely happen. My experience with the 3DG made me a firm believer in the concept that if you get a group of intelligent people together, then it is highly unlikely that any idea supported by the majority will be a bad one. Through their comments, feedback and suggestions, the players of Aurora have made it a far better game than I could possibly have accomplished by myself.
Steve
Post by: SteveAlt on February 22, 2009, 12:43:28 PM
Quote from: "SteveAlt"
I have been reading up on accidents involving nuclear weapons. As an example, there is an interesting report on twenty-six accidents between 1950 and 1980 on the following webpage: http://www.milnet.com/cdiart.htm (http://www.milnet.com/cdiart.htm)Quote from: "jfelten"There are a couple things I don't like about it. The game currently tries to be realistic in areas that it can be such as orbital mechanics. At least to the extent that it can be immersive. But if something goes totally over the top such as nuclear warheads going off like popcorn, it ruins the experience since nobody will believe it is possible, like a bad movie or such. Antimatter would be much more believable but I thought you specified somewhere that missile warheads were nuclear based?Based on the warhead descriptions they start off nuclear and eventually move to anti-matter. I suppose an alternative could be to base magazine explosions on the missile fuel but if that was the case then hits on fuel storage would be catastrophic.
This supports the view that is it is extremely difficult to get a nuclear weapon to explode by accident. However, it also demonstrates that the conventional explosives in the warhead can do a considerable amount of damage by themselves. At this point it occured to me that when an Aurora warship is hit by the nearby detonation of a nuclear weapon, only a fraction of the power of that warhead will actually hit the ship, with the rest of the explosion being wasted on empty space. Therefore the strength of the warhead in game terms really represents the fraction of the explosive power that would affect the ship. Even a single small nuclear weapon detonating inside a ship would apply all its energy against that ship and almost certainly destroy it. Which means that the best way to implement a realistic magazine explosion scenario is for the explosion to represent the conventional explosives within the warheads plus the missile engines, possibly the fuel and possibly a quantity of radioactive material. A large conventional explosion taking place within a ship is still going to go a massive amount of damage. I am tempted to assign an explosive amount equal to either a percentage of the warhead strength or a fixed amount (perhaps 1 point of damage) per missile. The percentage would likely be 10-20%. While the conventional explosives on a nuclear weapon are obviously not equal to 10-20% of the maximum warhead yield, they might be equal to 10-20% of the amount of energy that hits a ship from the nuclear detonation, especially as they would be exploding inside the ship.
Does this sound like a more reasonable scenario?
Steve
Post by: SteveAlt on February 22, 2009, 02:36:45 PM
1) Size
2) HTK
3) Armour Type
4) Magazine Ejection System. This is the percentage chance of successfully ejecting the magazine contents in case of damage. Starting chance is 70%. Increments are: 80, 85, 90 (4000 RP), 93, 95. 97, 98, 99
5) Magazine Feed System Efficiency. How much of the internal space of the magazine is used for actual storage rather than the mechanism. Starting efficiency is 75%. Increments are: 80, 85 (4000 RP), 90, 92, 94, 96, 98, 99
Leaving aside armour and HTK for now, you just select the size of the magazine. The ejection and efficiency are set to the best available. For example, I have set the Commonwealth to 90% for the Ejection System and 85% for the Efficiency. So if they select a 3 HS Magazine (same size as the existing Standard Magazine), the storage space available would be equal to 3 HS x 85% efficiency = 2.55HS. As each HS is equal to 20 missile size points, this translates to a magazine capacity of 51 (the existing standard magazine has a capacity of 50). Because of the 90% chance of successful ordnance ejection when damaged, the magazine has a 10% of an internal explosion. If the magazine was 10HS (as per the existing large magazine), the internal storage space would be 10 x 85% = 8.5 HS and the capacity would be 8.5 x 20 = 170. This is less than the existing large magazine (180 capacity). This can be improved with technology and larger magazines also become more attractive when armouring is considered.
The old internal armour system is no longer consistent with the updated external armour system so I decided to replace it with a method of improving HTK (hits-to-kill) instead. All magazines are assumed to have a base HTK of 1, regardless of size. You have the option of choosing a higher HTK if you wish. In this case, an amount of internal armour is added to make the magazine harder to destroy. The amount of internal armour added is based on exactly the same formula as that used for ships, except that for each additional point of HTK you only need armour strength equal to one tenth of the surface area of the magazine. This is because you are only increasing the chance for the magazine to survive a hit rather than adding armour strong enough to absorb hits. The amount of space required for the armour is deducted from the size of the magazine before internal space is calculated. This sounds complex so an example should make it clearer.
Lets assume a 1 HS magazine using the tech of the Commonwealth (90% Ejection System, 85% Efficiency, Composite Armour). With a normal HTK of 1, the magazine has internal storage space of 0.85 and therefore a capacity of 17.
If we increase the HTK to 3, then some internal armour is required. Determing the surface area of the magazine based on its volume (or HS) is straightforward maths
- Radius = ((Magazine HS * 0.75) / PI) ^ (1 / 3)
Surface Area = (Radius ^ 2) x 4 x PI
The armour strength required is equal to one tenth of the surface area multiplied by the total HTK - 1. In this case: 2 x (4.8368 / 10) = 0.9674
Once the amount of armour strength required is determined, the actual HS of that armour is a simple matter of dividing the required strength by the strength per HS of the best available armour, which is 8 for composite armour. So, in this case, the amount of armour required in HS is 0.9674 / 8 = 0.1209.
That 0.1209 HS worth of armour is deducted from the size of the magazine before internal space is calculated: 1 - 0.1209 = 0.8791
Which means that when the efficiency of 85% is applied to the remaining space, the capacity of the magazine drops accordingly: Internal Storage: 0.8791 x 85% = 0.7472, Capacity = 0.7472 x 20 = 14.944, rounded down to 14. So an increase in HTK for the 1 HS magazine from 1 to 3, decreases its capacity from 17 to 14. If the HTK was increased to 5, then the capacity would drop to 12.
As objects get larger, the ratio of their surface area to their volume decreases, which is why in Aurora larger ships require less armour tonnage on a per HS basis for the same thickness of armour than a smaller ship. This also applies to magazines, so the percentage of capacity lost by larger magazines is less for a given HTK. For example, the 3HS magazine with a 51 capacity described earlier would have a capacity of 46 for 3 HTK and a capacity of 42 for 5 HTK. A 10 HS magazine with a 170 capacity would have capacities of 160 and 150 for HTKs of 3 and 5. If you increased it to a HTK of 10, the capacity would fall to 127.
This gives the player some real decisions to make, both in terms of how much research time he wants to spend on magazines and in how much protection against secondary explosion is emphasised over magazine capacity.
Steve
Post by: waresky on February 22, 2009, 02:45:37 PM
This "game" become deepest every time u upgrade:)
ty
Giorgio
Post by: jfelten on February 23, 2009, 05:39:26 AM
Quote from: "SteveAlt"
This supports the view that is it is extremely difficult to get a nuclear weapon to explode by accident. However, it also demonstrates that the conventional explosives in the warhead can do a considerable amount of damage by themselves. At this point it occured to me that when an Aurora warship is hit by the nearby detonation of a nuclear weapon, only a fraction of the power of that warhead will actually hit the ship, with the rest of the explosion being wasted on empty space. Therefore the strength of the warhead in game terms really represents the fraction of the explosive power that would affect the ship. Even a single small nuclear weapon detonating inside a ship would apply all its energy against that ship and almost certainly destroy it. Which means that the best way to implement a realistic magazine explosion scenario is for the explosion to represent the conventional explosives within the warheads plus the missile engines, possibly the fuel and possibly a quantity of radioactive material. A large conventional explosion taking place within a ship is still going to go a massive amount of damage. I am tempted to assign an explosive amount equal to either a percentage of the warhead strength or a fixed amount (perhaps 1 point of damage) per missile. The percentage would likely be 10-20%. While the conventional explosives on a nuclear weapon are obviously not equal to 10-20% of the maximum warhead yield, they might be equal to 10-20% of the amount of energy that hits a ship from the nuclear detonation, especially as they would be exploding inside the ship.
Does this sound like a more reasonable scenario?
Steve
I suppose you'll have to run some numbers. Obviously the amount of missiles in the magazine will vary depending on how many have been expended at that point, but if only a handful going off is going to blow the ship up, then that is what is going to happen most of the time.
One thing people sometimes forget is that if something presents a danger, then efforts will be made to mitigate it. It doesn't take a lot of intelligence to realize if you have a room full of explosives, there is a chance they might blow up in battle, and take steps to reduce both the likelihood or it happening and the damage should it occur. I'm sure we could think up lots of ideas along those lines. Perhaps something like the reported armored cargo holds on airlines such as
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static ... rity/2.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/world/2001/war_on_terror/airline_security/2.stm)
to channel the blast out and away from the ship. I think we can assume that each magazine would be separated to reduce the chances of an explosion in one damaging another magazine.
Wasn't there some sort of system in Starfire to try to automatically jettison antimatter warheads should the computer calculate that an explosion was imminent? Not that something being in Starfire automatically makes it a good or bad idea.
Whether the missile engine/fuel would explode is totally up to you. It isn't a conventional chemical reaction so there is no reason to assume it would. There is no believable way that much energy could be derived from a chemical reaction so it's pretty much wide open.
Post by: SteveAlt on February 23, 2009, 08:39:36 AM
Quote from: "jfelten"
I suppose you'll have to run some numbers. Obviously the amount of missiles in the magazine will vary depending on how many have been expended at that point, but if only a handful going off is going to blow the ship up, then that is what is going to happen most of the time.Well I assume warship designers are aware of the dangers but that hasn't stopped warships blowing up from magazine explosions on a regular basis. From the Napoleonic wars, to Tsushima, to Jutland and many engagements in WW2, including the loss of the Fus? in the last battleship action in history at the Surigao Strait. Remember the spectacular picture of HMS Antelope in the Falklands War? That was her magazine exploding due to damage caused by a 500lb bomb (after unsuccessful defusing attempts). So however much warship designers are aware of the dangers of magazine explosions and however much they would prefer they didn't happen, they plainly do happen on a very regular basis.
One thing people sometimes forget is that if something presents a danger, then efforts will be made to mitigate it. It doesn't take a lot of intelligence to realize if you have a room full of explosives, there is a chance they might blow up in battle, and take steps to reduce both the likelihood or it happening and the damage should it occur. I'm sure we could think up lots of ideas along those lines.
Quote
Perhaps something like the reported armored cargo holds on airlines such asAccording to the reports I read, that hardening is to prevent the loss of a airliner to a few ounces of semtex. It isn't going to work against any serious bomb. Once again, I can only quote the numerous ships lost the magazine explosions and point out that the designers of those warships were no doubt well aware of the risks. In any event, in v4.0, you now have the option to design your own magazines and choose how much protection you want them to have.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static ... rity/2.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/world/2001/war_on_terror/airline_security/2.stm)
to channel the blast out and away from the ship. I think we can assume that each magazine would be separated to reduce the chances of an explosion in one damaging another magazine.
Quote
Wasn't there some sort of system in Starfire to try to automatically jettison antimatter warheads should the computer calculate that an explosion was imminent? Not that something being in Starfire automatically makes it a good or bad idea.I think it was called the CRAM system. As noted in the magazine design I laid out in an earlier post, this will be part of v4.0 as well. It isn't going to be 100% successful though, which is when the magazine explosions will happen.
Quote
Whether the missile engine/fuel would explode is totally up to you. It isn't a conventional chemical reaction so there is no reason to assume it would. There is no believable way that much energy could be derived from a chemical reaction so it's pretty much wide open.From what I have read, it doesn't matter if the engine/fuel explodes as the conventional explosives in the nuclear warheads are going to do plenty of damage by themselves. For example:
On May 22, 1957, a B-36 ferrying a nuclear weapon from Biggs Air Force Base, Texas to Kirtland accidentally discharges a bomb in the New Mexico desert. The high explosive material detonates, completely destroying the weapon and making a crater 25 ft in diameter and 12 ft deep. .
On March 11, 1958, a B-47 bomber accidentally drops a nuclear weapon over Mars Bluff, South Carolina. The conventional explosive trigger detonates, leaving a crater 75 feet wide and 35 feet deep
On November 4, 1958 , a B-47 catches fire on take-off and crashes, killing one crew member. The high explosive in the nuclear weapon on board explodes leaving a crater 35 feet in diameter and 6 feet deep. Nuclear materials are recovered near the crash site.
These were all gravity bombs with no engine or fuel. In addition, the Department of Energy Nuclear Security Administration states that an explosion of the HE in a nuclear warhead will disperse radioactive material and propel shrapnel up to 2000 feet, which indicates the strength of the conventional explosive. The relevant factsheet is: http://www.doeal.gov/laso/EmergencyPubl ... tsheet.pdf (http://www.doeal.gov/laso/EmergencyPublicInformation/NucWeaponsfactsheet.pdf)
British Ministry of Defence Guidelines issued to local authorities near nuclear weapon storage sites states that detonation of the HE in a warhead would propel explosive fragments up to 600 metres (1950 feet)
All of the above makes it abundantly clear that the amount of HE involved in just one warhead, exploding in a confined space and expending all of its energy against the ship, is going to cause a considerable amount of damage. Therefore I have decided to go with magazine explosions causing 20% of the warhead damage. As I stated earlier, when a nuclear warhead explodes outside the ship the vast majority of the warhead yield doesn't hit the ship so the Aurora warhead damage is based on the tiny fraction that does hit the ship. Therefore the actual percentage of the real warhead yield involved in an HE explosion is probably about 0.1%.
Steve
Post by: jfelten on February 23, 2009, 08:59:04 AM
Quote from: "SteveAlt"
Well I assume warship designers are aware of the dangers but that hasn't stopped warships blowing up from magazine explosions on a regular basis. From the Napoleonic wars, to Tsushima, to Jutland and many engagements in WW2, including the loss of the Fus? in the last battleship action in history at the Surigao Strait. Remember the spectacular picture of HMS Antelope in the Falklands War? That was her magazine exploding due to damage caused by a 500lb bomb (after unsuccessful defusing attempts). So however much warship designers are aware of the dangers of magazine explosions and however much they would prefer they didn't happen, they plainly do happen on a very regular basis.
I'm not sure I would call it "a very regular basis". It was certainly a very tiny percentage of warships that had their magazines explode. And I certainly wouldn't count anything from the time of wooden ships and black powder. They took what precautions they could but the technology was very crude. It is a wonder they didn't blow up right and left.
Quote from: "SteveAlt"
According to the reports I read, that hardening is to prevent the loss of a airliner to a few ounces of semtex. It isn't going to work against any serious bomb. Once again, I can only quote the numerous ships lost the magazine explosions and point out that the designers of those warships were no doubt well aware of the risks. In any event, in v4.0, you now have the option to design your own magazines and choose how much protection you want them to have.
Yes but that is a civilian passenger airliner where things like minimizing weight is critical and the likely threat is a fairly small bomb. It was just to illustrate that it is possible to harden and compartmentalize a ship vs explosions. We are talking about warships armored to resist nuclear and antimatter warheads after all, even if only a small percentage of that energy impact the armor it is still a lot of energy.
Anyway, we'll know more once 4.x is out and people have a chance to try it out.
Post by: SteveAlt on February 23, 2009, 10:39:32 AM
Quote from: "jfelten"
It's not by any means a very tiny percentage. I don't know why I keep continuing this discussion when you ignore the facts I present but I'll give it one more go. Restricting ourselves to capital ships as they were the most important, lets look at the major battles of WW1 and WW2Quote from: "SteveAlt"Well I assume warship designers are aware of the dangers but that hasn't stopped warships blowing up from magazine explosions on a regular basis. From the Napoleonic wars, to Tsushima, to Jutland and many engagements in WW2, including the loss of the Fus? in the last battleship action in history at the Surigao Strait. Remember the spectacular picture of HMS Antelope in the Falklands War? That was her magazine exploding due to damage caused by a 500lb bomb (after unsuccessful defusing attempts). So however much warship designers are aware of the dangers of magazine explosions and however much they would prefer they didn't happen, they plainly do happen on a very regular basis.
I'm not sure I would call it "a very regular basis". It was certainly a very tiny percentage of warships that had their magazines explode.
WW1
Dogger Bank: 1 ship lost (German). 1 ship heavily damaged by a magazine explosion (Also German)
Jutland. 5 capital ships sunk (3 British and 2 German): 4 out of 5 lost to magazine explosions.
So in WW1, out of six capital ships lost in battleship actions, two thirds were lost to magazine explosions! (Blucher was really a large armoured cruiser so its actually 80%)
WW2 (lets look at German losses first)
Bismarck was battered to destruction - no apparent magazine explosion
Tirpitz was attacked several times but was eventually sunk by RAF Lancasters after a bomb started a fire that caused a magazine explosion and blew the C turret off the ship.
Battle of North Cape: Scharnhorst crippled by magazine explosion in A and B turrets and eventually sunk. No British losses
Gneisnau (sister ship of Scharnhorst) was severely damaged in a bombing raid when her magazine exploded (losing her entire bow). She took no further part in the war.
So of the four German battleships, three suffered magazine explosions.
British losses:
Royal Oak - torpedoed by U-47. (From uboataces.com) "The resulting fire ignited the cordite magazine, causing it to go off with a fiery orange blast right up through the decks"
Hood - completely destroyed by magazine explosion. 3 survivors
Barham - torpedoed by U-331. Magazines exploded and she sank with loss of 2/3rd of her crew
Repulse - sunk by Japanese aircraft
Prince of Wales - same (both ships capsized due to damage from torpedoes)
So of the five british battleships lost, three suffered magazine explosions
Japanese losses
Hiei - sunk by US aircraft
Kirishima - lost at Guadalcanal. No contemporary report of magazine explosion but when the wreck was found in 1992, the bow had been blown off.
Mutsu suffered a catastrophic magazine explosion and sank instantly
Yamashiro - sunk at Surigao Strait
Fuso - lost to magazine explosion at Surigao Strait
Musashi - sunk after repeated bomb and torpedo hits
Yamato - sunk en route to Okinawa. "At 14:23, having taken 10 torpedo and 7 bomb hits, Yamato's forward ammunition magazines detonated. The smoke from the explosion—over 4 miles (6.4 km) high—was seen 100 miles (160 km) away"
So the Japanese lost three battleships to magazine explosions, including the largest battleship ever built, and possibly four
US losses
The only two permament (as in never refloated) US Battleships lost were Arizona and Oklahoma. Arizona was lost to a catastrophic magazine explosion
So rather than a tiny percentage, it appears that around half the battleships sunk in WW1 and WW2 suffered magazine explosion. I hope this finally squashes the myth that magazine explosions were a rare event and explains why I believe they are needed to maintain realism in Aurora. In so many games, from Starfire to SFB, you have to pound every ship to complete destruction. That is simply doesn't reflect the real world where many ships, including some of the most powerful ever built, were lost to sudden, catastrophic explosions. I really don't want to spend any more time on this when I should be testing v4.0 so this will have to be my final word on the subject.
Steve
Post by: waresky on February 23, 2009, 03:20:54 PM
Am agree with u all,if u put into Aurora the magazine troubles am happy,every things in Aurora r welcome.
Good work.
p.s: 4.0 r nea rto coming?:D..or u waitn 4.1?
Post by: IanD on February 24, 2009, 08:55:08 AM
Regards
Ian
Post by: SteveAlt on February 24, 2009, 10:30:21 AM
Quote from: "IanD"
Thus for a total of 63 Capital ships to see service in WW2, 27 were lost as a result of enemy action (41%) of those 11 suffered magazine explosions as a result of enemy action (17% of the total, 42% of those lost).Thanks for the corrections and additions. The general point remains the same though, which is that magazine explosions were a common problem, despite no doubt considerable efforts on the part of designers to prevent them.
Quote
In term for Aurora I guess there should be a possibility of a critical hit, which can then result in:Before I work my way through the list, am I correct in assuming you haven't played the game yet, or at least haven't fought a battle, as many of these points are already covered within the game?
Quote
Engine room hit and loss of all or some % propulsion, (repairable),Each engine is tracked separately. Each can be hit, which reduces propulsion power and speed and has the possibility of a secondary explosion. They can be repaired.
Quote
Machinery space hit ranging from Power pile ruptured – no electrics ship dead in space, radioactive tomb, (unrepairable), reduced scrap value, to power conduits damaged/destroyed, (repairable) – ship dead except for no or little movement.There are not machinery spaces in Aurora in the above context. However, reactors are needed to power energy weapons and can be damaged. This may result in slower firing or useless weapons and again there is the possibility of secondary explosions.
Quote
Magazine or other volatiles etc hit – ship disintegrates or % lost or breaks in two (all unrepairable), reduced scrap value.Magazine hits in v4.0 have a potential to cause a magazine explosion. The chance of this happening will depend on the design of the magazine and the severity of the explosion will depend on the ordnance (if any) in the affected magazine.
Quote
Bridge hit, x time before emergency controls rigged.The Bridge is a separate system in Aurora, although at the moment the only real consequence of a bridge hit is the possible death of the ship commander. I should probably add some further penalty based on slow response to commands.
Quote
Life support hit – This need to be a reduction in efficiency/range habitability of ship – don’t know how you would implement this?Life support (shown as Crew Quarters in Aurora) can be hit , although there is no set penalty yet.
Quote
This also raises the question of separate engine rooms (as in Starfire) and machinery spaces; do you really want all your reactors in one place?in Aurora, each engine on a ship is treated individually, as are individual reactors, and can be damaged independently.I assume they can be treated much as Steve suggested for magazines.
Steve
Post by: waresky on February 24, 2009, 11:18:26 AM
Ive fought 2 only Capitals (Cruiser Vs Cruisers,Pinnace,CLE,Destroyers,PDC Missiles platform)Battles (more same as skirmish than a real Naval heavy battle)
Post by: IanD on February 24, 2009, 01:39:20 PM
Steve wrote
Quote
Before I work my way through the list, am I correct in assuming you haven't played the game yet, or at least haven't fought a battle, as many of these points are already covered within the game?I have played the game, up to 3.1 but waiting for the features in 4.0 to start again. However you are right I have yet to find another race out there, even the ones I planted!
Quote
in Aurora, each engine on a ship is treated individually, as are individual reactors, and can be damaged independently.I have lost the occasional engine to failed maintenance but the idea of a critical hit was to make the penalty somewhat more extreme, I supposed that if your engine compartment received the close attention of a nuclear warhead you might end up with a pile of slag rather than the remains of an engine you could repair. It also separated maintenance failures from battle damage.
Quote
There are not machinery spaces in AuroraMy assumption, since wet navy ships need a power plant and current ion engine designs all require an electricity supply. I thought they were "hidden" in the design, I didn't take into account Trans Newtonian physics!
Regards
Ian
Post by: Larac on February 25, 2009, 03:01:25 PM
In space an easy way to stop a fire is of course starve it.
Between Selective venting and CO2 floods one should be able to control fires to some degree.
Of course CO2 is fairly easy to come by as a by product sort of from Humans, but systems would take room and mass always a trade off.
Most small craft and perhaps up to Destroyers would skip it and use a After Event system, but the really big stuff would be looking for all sorts of ways to stop it from starting in the first place.
Switching Topics
Been reading a lot of Ian Douglas as these are fleet battles things like Fires are ignored but implied. A good read though.
Is there a good author that focuses on a single warship, read most of Weber, Drake, and others. But always looking for more.
Also read the Destroyer Men books about a US destroyer in another Earth, that was a good single ship focused even if wet Navy.
Thanks All
Lee
Post by: SteveAlt on March 03, 2009, 07:19:43 PM
Quote from: "IanD"
That's a good point. The reason that systems wrecked by hostile fire and systems that have failed through maintenance are treated the same is for ease of gameplay rather than realism. Otherwise I would have to track two type of damages and two types of repair and display both to the player. I didn't think the minor improvement in gameplay would be worth the increase in complexity. Critical hits are possible in Aurora but they take the form of additional damage due to secondary explosions, which falls within the existing damage resolution.Quotein Aurora, each engine on a ship is treated individually, as are individual reactors, and can be damaged independently.I have lost the occasional engine to failed maintenance but the idea of a critical hit was to make the penalty somewhat more extreme, I supposed that if your engine compartment received the close attention of a nuclear warhead you might end up with a pile of slag rather than the remains of an engine you could repair. It also separated maintenance failures from battle damage.
Quote from: "IanD"
They are sort of hidden in the design. Again it comes down to gameplay vs complexity. I am trying to find a balance where the things you have to consider when designing a ship are fun and challenging rather than tedious. I am even considering removing separate power plants and adding the reactor cost and space directly to beam weapons (using the reactor tech line on the beam weapon design screen). This would simplfy design a little and prevent one of the areas that I am not completely happy with, where loss of a reactor slows down weapon firing when in reality you would probably stop using one or more of weapons to maintain the rate of fire. That would involve power allocation though which I really want to avoid.QuoteThere are not machinery spaces in AuroraMy assumption, since wet navy ships need a power plant and current ion engine designs all require an electricity supply. I thought they were "hidden" in the design, I didn't take into account Trans Newtonian physics!
I do agree that some type of general power failure would make an interesting situation so I will give that some thought.
Steve
Post by: SteveAlt on March 03, 2009, 07:24:33 PM
Quote from: "Larac"
To begin with perhaps use the Armor on a system to also help degrade the fire, and then a new Tech line for Fire Fighting/Fire Deterrents.There is a tech line for damage control system, which will cover fighting fires as a higher damage control rating increases the speed at which fires are extinguished.
Quote
In space an easy way to stop a fire is of course starve it.jfelten made a good point about the limited supply of oxygen to feed a fire, even if external venting is not possible, so I am reconsidering the overall effect fires at the moment.
Between Selective venting and CO2 floods one should be able to control fires to some degree.
Of course CO2 is fairly easy to come by as a by product sort of from Humans, but systems would take room and mass always a trade off.
Most small craft and perhaps up to Destroyers would skip it and use a After Event system, but the really big stuff would be looking for all sorts of ways to stop it from starting in the first place.
Quote
Switching TopicsI have read Ian Douglas's inheritance trilogy and the more recent Legacy trilogy. I very much enjoyed both, although his publisher needs to employ a better proof-reader
Been reading a lot of Ian Douglas as these are fleet battles things like Fires are ignored but implied. A good read though.
Is there a good author that focuses on a single warship, read most of Weber, Drake, and others. But always looking for more.
Also read the Destroyer Men books about a US destroyer in another Earth, that was a good single ship focused even if wet Navy.
I haven't read the Destroyer Men books but I will take a look.
Steve
Post by: Kurt on March 08, 2009, 10:58:47 AM
Quote from: "SteveAlt"
I have read Ian Douglas's inheritance trilogy and the more recent Legacy trilogy. I very much enjoyed both, although his publisher needs to employ a better proof-reader
I haven't read the Destroyer Men books but I will take a look.
Steve
I heartily recommend the Destroyermen books. I've only read the first one, which is the only one out in paperback so far, but it was very good. The author knows his WW 1/II destroyers, the military, and did a good job setting up an alternate earth.
Having said that, I am reading The Price of Admiralty by John Keegan right now, and I'm on the chapter about Jutland. it fits in with this topic very well, as I have just read his description of the destruction of a third of the British BC force by German fire, largely due to inadequate flash barriers in their turret design.
This got me thinking about damage resolution in Aurora, and it might be time for you to revisit this, Steve, although probably not for 4.0. The new armor system is very interesting, but has made internal armor and turret armor problematic. Currently, Aurora treats turrets and other weapon mountings as internal systems, when turrets can only be considered external systems, and most other weapons mountings are probably the same. Hmmm...basically, Aurora currently considers turrets as having the same armor as the rest of the ship, right? Because first the ship's armor must be breached, and then damage can be scored on internal systems, including the turret.
Perhaps it would be interesting if, during the design process, the designer could add extra armor to the turret. Unlike the current system, the new system would use the armor system currently used for the hull, so that by adding additional armor to the turret the designer is adding additional lines of armor to that one area of the ship. The amount of armor needed for each line would be based on the size of the turret, using the same formula as is used for the ship's hull. The same scheme could be used for the ship's engines and power plants, which, IIRC, are the only things that can be armored now. Hmmm...this might be too complex, though. That would be adding multiple seperate armor boxes for various systems, all of which would have to be tracked.
I don't know, I just feel that with the armor and penetration changes, it is probably time to standardize this issue.
Kurt
Post by: schroeam on March 08, 2009, 09:18:39 PM
Quote from: "Kurt"
Quote from: "SteveAlt"I have read Ian Douglas's inheritance trilogy and the more recent Legacy trilogy. I very much enjoyed both, although his publisher needs to employ a better proof-reader
I haven't read the Destroyer Men books but I will take a look.
Steve
I heartily recommend the Destroyermen books. I've only read the first one, which is the only one out in paperback so far, but it was very good. The author knows his WW 1/II destroyers, the military, and did a good job setting up an alternate earth.
Having said that, I am reading The Price of Admiralty by John Keegan right now, and I'm on the chapter about Jutland. it fits in with this topic very well, as I have just read his description of the destruction of a third of the British BC force by German fire, largely due to inadequate flash barriers in their turret design.
This got me thinking about damage resolution in Aurora, and it might be time for you to revisit this, Steve, although probably not for 4.0. The new armor system is very interesting, but has made internal armor and turret armor problematic. Currently, Aurora treats turrets and other weapon mountings as internal systems, when turrets can only be considered external systems, and most other weapons mountings are probably the same. Hmmm...basically, Aurora currently considers turrets as having the same armor as the rest of the ship, right? Because first the ship's armor must be breached, and then damage can be scored on internal systems, including the turret.
Perhaps it would be interesting if, during the design process, the designer could add extra armor to the turret. Unlike the current system, the new system would use the armor system currently used for the hull, so that by adding additional armor to the turret the designer is adding additional lines of armor to that one area of the ship. The amount of armor needed for each line would be based on the size of the turret, using the same formula as is used for the ship's hull. The same scheme could be used for the ship's engines and power plants, which, IIRC, are the only things that can be armored now. Hmmm...this might be too complex, though. That would be adding multiple seperate armor boxes for various systems, all of which would have to be tracked.
I don't know, I just feel that with the armor and penetration changes, it is probably time to standardize this issue.
Kurt
Perhaps treat the turret as a hardpoint and have the armor setting for the turret in the turret design, much as internal armor for engines is accounted for in their design. The actual type of armor is decided when the ship is built, but the layers of armor is accomplished when the turret is designed. A probablility (size of turret or hardpoint vs size of ship) could be derived to determine if a turret or other hard point is hit, or the hull of the ship. Damage to either could then be figured with the possible destruction of the turret, or damage internally, whichever would fit.
Adam.
Post by: SteveAlt on March 12, 2009, 06:41:31 AM
Quote from: "Kurt"
This got me thinking about damage resolution in Aurora, and it might be time for you to revisit this, Steve, although probably not for 4.0. The new armor system is very interesting, but has made internal armor and turret armor problematic. Currently, Aurora treats turrets and other weapon mountings as internal systems, when turrets can only be considered external systems, and most other weapons mountings are probably the same. Hmmm...basically, Aurora currently considers turrets as having the same armor as the rest of the ship, right? Because first the ship's armor must be breached, and then damage can be scored on internal systems, including the turret.I certainly need to remove the internal armour as it was part of the old armour rules. I am just not sure yet how to replace it. One option is the same as the new magazines, where you can increase their HTK by adding armour. This means I don't have to track actual damage to internal armour but it makes internal systems harder to destroy at the expense of space. I could do that with engines, power plants and turrets. Another option, as you mention above, is to have separate "sections" of armour covering different parts of the ship but that would increase the complexity of both design and damage resolution quite a lot. It would also mean more armour was required for the same level of protection.As an example, five 10m3 spheres have more surface area than one 50m3 sphere so more armour would be required to cover them all to the same depth. I think the HTK system is probably the better option but I am open to ideas.
Perhaps it would be interesting if, during the design process, the designer could add extra armor to the turret. Unlike the current system, the new system would use the armor system currently used for the hull, so that by adding additional armor to the turret the designer is adding additional lines of armor to that one area of the ship. The amount of armor needed for each line would be based on the size of the turret, using the same formula as is used for the ship's hull. The same scheme could be used for the ship's engines and power plants, which, IIRC, are the only things that can be armored now. Hmmm...this might be too complex, though. That would be adding multiple seperate armor boxes for various systems, all of which would have to be tracked.
I don't know, I just feel that with the armor and penetration changes, it is probably time to standardize this issue.
Steve
Post by: welchbloke on March 12, 2009, 09:13:01 AM
Quote from: "SteveAlt"
Personally, i think the HTK system would be better; otherwise there will be another increase in complexity without a huge leap in gameplay.Quote from: "Kurt"This got me thinking about damage resolution in Aurora, and it might be time for you to revisit this, Steve, although probably not for 4.0. The new armor system is very interesting, but has made internal armor and turret armor problematic. Currently, Aurora treats turrets and other weapon mountings as internal systems, when turrets can only be considered external systems, and most other weapons mountings are probably the same. Hmmm...basically, Aurora currently considers turrets as having the same armor as the rest of the ship, right? Because first the ship's armor must be breached, and then damage can be scored on internal systems, including the turret.I certainly need to remove the internal armour as it was part of the old armour rules. I am just not sure yet how to replace it. One option is the same as the new magazines, where you can increase their HTK by adding armour. This means I don't have to track actual damage to internal armour but it makes internal systems harder to destroy at the expense of space. I could do that with engines, power plants and turrets. Another option, as you mention above, is to have separate "sections" of armour covering different parts of the ship but that would increase the complexity of both design and damage resolution quite a lot. It would also mean more armour was required for the same level of protection.As an example, five 10m3 spheres have more surface area than one 50m3 sphere so more armour would be required to cover them all to the same depth. I think the HTK system is probably the better option but I am open to ideas.
Perhaps it would be interesting if, during the design process, the designer could add extra armor to the turret. Unlike the current system, the new system would use the armor system currently used for the hull, so that by adding additional armor to the turret the designer is adding additional lines of armor to that one area of the ship. The amount of armor needed for each line would be based on the size of the turret, using the same formula as is used for the ship's hull. The same scheme could be used for the ship's engines and power plants, which, IIRC, are the only things that can be armored now. Hmmm...this might be too complex, though. That would be adding multiple seperate armor boxes for various systems, all of which would have to be tracked.
I don't know, I just feel that with the armor and penetration changes, it is probably time to standardize this issue.
Steve
Post by: Father Tim on March 12, 2009, 04:34:34 PM
Post by: IanD on March 13, 2009, 08:55:37 AM
Quote
Kurt wroteI am not too concerned about turret penetration before the rest of the vessel is breached. My reasoning is thus; the turret faces were some of the heaviest armoured parts of a battleship, and while the turret roof may be considered vulnerable it must be remembered that at Jutland HMS Malaya received a hit on the roof of X turret that
basically, Aurora currently considers turrets as having the same armor as the rest of the ship, right? Because first the ship's armor must be breached, and then damage can be scored on internal systems, including the turret.
Quote
exploded on impact, although the 4.75 ” turret roof was set down a few inches and a very small hole made, a lot of the armour bolts were sheared but the only internal damage was to the local range-finder and the turret remained in action(source http://www.shipsnostalgia.com/guides/Qu ... HMS_Malaya (http://www.shipsnostalgia.com/guides/Queen_Elizabeth_Class_Battleship_-_HMS_Malaya)).
The turrets were usually put out of action by other factors (see my earlier post in this thread on Scharnhorst). However it may be that the probability for externally mounted items (e.g. the turret) being put out of action (not necessarily destroyed) should be higher than for more deeply buried systems such as the CIC or magazine. This is what I was referring to in earlier posts with my reference to machinery spaces, if you can’t get the shells to the turret or you can’t train it, the turret becomes so much dead weight.
Just an after thought but if your magazine is the best protected system right at the heart of your ship and if the absence of oxygen will not inhibit its detonation, just how do you jettison the unused ordinance without creating a weak spot which could cause the event you are trying to minimise?
Regards
Ian
Post by: rmcrowe on March 13, 2009, 03:55:03 PM
Post by: MWadwell on March 15, 2009, 11:16:37 PM
Quote from: "IanD"
QuoteKurt wroteI am not too concerned about turret penetration before the rest of the vessel is breached. My reasoning is thus; the turret faces were some of the heaviest armoured parts of a battleship, and while the turret roof may be considered vulnerable it must be remembered that at Jutland HMS Malaya received a hit on the roof of X turret that
basically, Aurora currently considers turrets as having the same armor as the rest of the ship, right? Because first the ship's armor must be breached, and then damage can be scored on internal systems, including the turret.Quoteexploded on impact, although the 4.75 ” turret roof was set down a few inches and a very small hole made, a lot of the armour bolts were sheared but the only internal damage was to the local range-finder and the turret remained in action(source http://www.shipsnostalgia.com/guides/Qu ... HMS_Malaya (http://www.shipsnostalgia.com/guides/Queen_Elizabeth_Class_Battleship_-_HMS_Malaya)).
The turrets were usually put out of action by other factors (see my earlier post in this thread on Scharnhorst). However it may be that the probability for externally mounted items (e.g. the turret) being put out of action (not necessarily destroyed) should be higher than for more deeply buried systems such as the CIC or magazine. This is what I was referring to in earlier posts with my reference to machinery spaces, if you can’t get the shells to the turret or you can’t train it, the turret becomes so much dead weight.
Just an after thought but if your magazine is the best protected system right at the heart of your ship and if the absence of oxygen will not inhibit its detonation, just how do you jettison the unused ordinance without creating a weak spot which could cause the event you are trying to minimise?
Regards
Ian
Just a word of caution though - it depends on the armouring of the ship.
An example is that battle between HMAS Sydney and the Kormoran in 1941 (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_bet ... r_Kormoran (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_between_HMAS_Sydney_and_German_auxiliary_cruiser_Kormoran))
Of the Sydney's 4 turrents, 3 were put out of action by direct hits on the armoured faces by the Kormorans 150 mm guns (although at ridiculously _low_ ranges).
Post by: jfelten on March 23, 2009, 12:15:59 PM
Quote from: "SteveAlt"
I certainly need to remove the internal armour as it was part of the old armour rules. I am just not sure yet how to replace it. One option is the same as the new magazines, where you can increase their HTK by adding armour. This means I don't have to track actual damage to internal armour but it makes internal systems harder to destroy at the expense of space. I could do that with engines, power plants and turrets. Another option, as you mention above, is to have separate "sections" of armour covering different parts of the ship but that would increase the complexity of both design and damage resolution quite a lot. It would also mean more armour was required for the same level of protection.As an example, five 10m3 spheres have more surface area than one 50m3 sphere so more armour would be required to cover them all to the same depth. I think the HTK system is probably the better option but I am open to ideas.
Steve
The only thing I can think of is to have internal armor give a probability > 0 && < 1 that a given hit will do no damage. Then you don't have to actually track armor damage to it over time, you just "roll the dice" every time that system is hit to see whether the armor nullified it or not.
Post by: ShadoCat on March 25, 2009, 05:39:48 PM
Quote from: "SteveAlt"
I certainly need to remove the internal armour as it was part of the old armour rules. I am just not sure yet how to replace it. One option is the same as the new magazines, where you can increase their HTK by adding armour. This means I don't have to track actual damage to internal armour but it makes internal systems harder to destroy at the expense of space. I could do that with engines, power plants and turrets. Another option, as you mention above, is to have separate "sections" of armour covering different parts of the ship but that would increase the complexity of both design and damage resolution quite a lot. It would also mean more armour was required for the same level of protection.As an example, five 10m3 spheres have more surface area than one 50m3 sphere so more armour would be required to cover them all to the same depth. I think the HTK system is probably the better option but I am open to ideas.
Internal armor won't ever be thick enough to worry about tracking damage to it. I think that it can be simulate quite easily by just increasing the HTK of a system.
If someone wants to have an armored section of their ship then just armor several systems and declare that they are in the same section in the fluff text.
One thing that would add realism but will add programming complexity is the ability to armor some portion of a set of system components. Thus, have a few engines or a few life support modules in the armored section and the rest outside the armored section.
BTW, I glanced up and saw that my browser was flagging "armour" as a misspelling. My first thought was that my typos were making me look like a Brit. Then I realized that the "typos" were in Steve's quoted text. I may be slow but I get there eventually.
Still, I had to resist the urge to spellcheck them into "proper English." <grin>