Aurora 4x
VB6 Aurora => Aurora Suggestions => Topic started by: Theokrat on July 30, 2012, 08:42:12 AM
-
Ships should experience semi-random accidents. I will first describe why I think that is sensible in terms of realism and gaming, then how it could be implemented very easily within the existing framework, and finally how this would change the game in a positive way.
Motivation:
Space is a pretty hostile environment and spaceflight is challenging. Every now and then something is bound to go wrong, and when it does it can actually go quite horribly wrong. Certainly accidents have happened in spaceflight, but also in normal flight and in ordinary shipping. Granted most errors have little consequences or are discovered before they develop into a major problem, but some of the most notable historic events in spaceflight or seafaring involve accidents that were not contained quite easily.
Currently the game covers this aspect through “maintenance failures”. When this occurs, maintenance supplies are deducted from the ship’s stock if available and nothing happens. Only when insufficient supplies are available things start to go badly. Hence currently players can prevent major accidents 100% by making sure sufficient maintenance supplies are available. A minor twist could change this and introduce a more interesting and realistic situation.
Implementation:
This could be implemented by an additional check for maintenance failures. Failures can be “noticed beforehand” or come “unexpected” with some chance (Say 90%/10:
- A noticed failure is subject to the same rules as they currently stand: The crew spends some maintenance supplies if they are available but the system is not in fact impaired. I.e. a sign of fatigue is found on a bit of the system, which is replaced before something goes wrong.
- An “unexpected” failure would destroy (or damage?) the ship component in question (regardless of remaining supply points) with the normal rules applied to destroyed ship components. So for an engine, power plant or magazine this could result in a sizable “secondary” explosion, potentially affecting other components as well (just as normally happens when damage is applied). I.e. a system develops an unnoticed error that causes it to fail with the normal consequences of failure.
Effects on the game:
Most maintenance failures would be “noticed beforehand” and thus be little more than a side-remark in the event log. A smaller part would be “unexpected” and thus result in damage to one system. Normally this would be limited damage that can be repaired via on board emergency-repairs (using twice as many supplies, as by the current rules), or through shipyards. In rare occurrences damage would be very significant due to “secondary” explosions which might even lead to the loss of a ship. Players could minimize but not eliminate this by frequent overhauls and a large number of engineering modules. Additional computational requirements would likely be very limited.
I think the effect would be an interesting layer of gameplay through the new feature of space catastrophes. Because this would occur seldom it would not increase micromanagement by a lot, but instead provide an out-of-the ordinary event which players must react to – start search and rescue operations, potentially savage wrecks, relief a stranded vessel whose sole engine was destroyed (maybe tow it back home via a tug?).
-
Sounds like an interesting addition.
The changes that are rumored to be coming in 5.7 regarding personnel and training could go a long way to making this even more interesting. TF training, crew morale and fatigue could be be additional factors that increase the chances for accidents to occur.
I always thought there was one personnel skill that was overlooked and that would be engineering. A navel officer with engineering skills would be able to slow the maintenance clock, reduce the number of maintenance supplies consumed, reduce the annual failure rates and with this suggestion it would mitigate accidents.
I always thought Aurora was missing a good Kaylee.
-
hmm i think you allready pay as much as a new component would cost in maintainence supplys for a failture.
in addition you can repair destroyed systems with the same number of maintainence supplys and some time spend repairing/building.
so youre idear that it would require 2x maintainence supplys would be odd, because you could build it new with just 1x allready, maybe you could argue that an repair could be cheaper then the required 1x maintainence supplys for a compleat replacement.
idk if you had bigger ships, but they experiance alot of maintainence problems, if there would be a chance for secundary explosions from engines, powerplants or magazines, every time, large ships would get less interresting quickly.
about officer eneneering skill - something like this is allready in place
youre crew experience will reduce or increase the chances for maintainence failures, if i understand it right.
still i dont think the commanding officer has any effects. - so maybe an engeneering skill would be interresting.
-
ships do have accidents if you don't maintain them. some parts will just fail, others can fail catastrophically and blow up the ship(engines and reactors typically).
-
Sounds like an interesting addition. [...]
Thanks! The frequency of maintenance failures is already linked to a number of factors, which could also be used to further distinguish between the prevented/noticed failures and the actual unexpected failures.
hmm i think you allready pay as much as a new component would cost in maintainence supplys for a failture.
in addition you can repair destroyed systems with the same number of maintainence supplys and some time spend repairing/building.
so youre idear that it would require 2x maintainence supplys would be odd, because you could build it new with just 1x allready, maybe you could argue that an repair could be cheaper then the required 1x maintainence supplys for a compleat replacement.
As far as I know, you do already pay 2x for repairing via the "emergency repair" option. At any rate, I am not proposing any changes to the repair procedures. I am merely suggesting that maintenance failures should sometimes result in destroyed systems even when sufficient supplies are available.
idk if you had bigger ships, but they experiance alot of maintainence problems, if there would be a chance for secundary explosions from engines, powerplants or magazines, every time, large ships would get less interresting quickly.
Not necessarily. The failure chances are primarily based on engineering quarters per tonnage, so larger ships are not more vulnerable than the same tonnage in smaller ships, nor is it inherently more likely that damage occurs to vital systems. Actually larger ships might have a certain advantage because it is more economical to add damage control systems to these. Moreover, the larger total of engineering components allows larger ships to cope with damage betters (In a fleet of smaller ships an engineering section on ship A could not support repairs on ship B).
ships do have accidents if you don't maintain them. some parts will just fail, others can fail catastrophically and blow up the ship(engines and reactors typically).
That is correct, but currently this only happens if you do not have sufficient maintenance supplies on board. Thus you can prevent this from happening 100%. I am arguing that this is a) not realistic as catastrophic failure does occur even on generally well-maintained systems (and certainly on routinely maintained systems) and b) it would be more fun to have this as a meaningful feature of the game (i.e. one that you can not circumvent completely)
-
How often do you envision this happening? What are the chances of a reasonably well maintained ship suffering a catastrophic maintenance failure?
-
I am merely suggesting that maintenance failures should sometimes result in destroyed systems even when sufficient supplies are available.
I can kind of see it in theory. But in practice it doesn't seem like it would have any significant effect in the current damage control paradigm, since virtually any damage is repairable. Only isolated ships would be affected. (Or ship groups with low overall supplies.)
-
Just to elaborate a bit further: I have been eagerly reading some AARs, and it simply stroke me as odd that during man's first serious steps in the Universe, no major accident occurred. No equivalent of the Challenger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Challenger_disaster), K-27 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_submarine_K-27) or HMS Vanugard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Vanguard_(1909)) or USS Maine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Maine_(ACR-1)).
I also remember reading a thread by a new player who's ships kept on blowing up on him. At first he actually viewed that as a game feature (and enjoyed it!), but decided to post when it kept on happening. Of course it quickly turned out he had blundered by placing large powerplants on ships without the need or capacity to maintain them. That was rectified and I think he never lost a ship to accidents again. And has any of you lost a ship to anything other than enemy force? Should that not happen once in a while (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Noncombat_internal_explosions_on_warships)? Would it not be cool to start rescue operations and all that?
How often do you envision this happening? What are the chances of a reasonably well maintained ship suffering a catastrophic maintenance failure?
I do not have any hard number in mind, and of course it depends on the number of ships, the maintenance level and the fragility of the critical components (magazine ejection chance, or "overpowered" engines).
Basically the chance would be relatively low: 1) A maintenance failure would have to occur 2) It would have to be rolled as "unexpected" 3) It would need to occur on a component that can cause secondary explosions 4) The component would have to fail the role deciding on secondary explosions 5) the resulting damage would need to be large enough to either destroy the ship or cause enough follow-up secondary explosions for the ship to fail. A loss of ship would only when all five conditions are met, which should be quite seldom.
From an it-adds-an-interesting-element-to-the-game-but-does-not-happen-too-frequently-to-be-unenjoyable point of view I would suggest that, for an average game, a ship-loss could occur once or twice a decade, but I am quite open on that.
I can kind of see it in theory. But in practice it doesn't seem like it would have any significant effect in the current damage control paradigm, since virtually any damage is repairable. Only isolated ships would be affected. (Or ship groups with low overall supplies.)
Agreed, and I dont think it should. After all damage control may be relevant in battle when damage is accumulating quickly, while normally it would not really matter if it takes one or two hours to repair that sensor that just broke.
-
I did have a Gravsurvey ship that ran out of maintenance supplies when its jump engine broke down. I was unable to get another ship there in time, and eventually it suffered catastrophic system failure and exploded.
I sadly realized only later that I had a maximum of 99 maintenance supplies in the design, but it took 100 to fix the grav sensors. That led to a bit of redesign and retrofitting later on. (The grav sensors had an unfortunate tendancy to fail, rendering the ship useless for its designed purpose.)
I'm guessing that ships that "accidentally" end up inside the event horizon of a class seven black hole while exploring a jump point don't really count, do they?
-
Just having random "bloops you lost a ship" doesn't add much, but perhaps there should be a morale/wealth bonus to rescuing said survivors within time. No random event, if they are going to be added, should be entirely negative(or necessarily positive for that matter).
-
The concept has merit but I agree that it does need to mean something in the context of the big picture of your empire. If it is just a renamed maintenance failure it ends up just being RP fun and likely not worth the time to implement.
-
I'd be heavily against this. My question is this: Does randomly damaging sometimes mission-critical ships regardless of their state of repair actually add any fun or enjoyment to Aurora?
-
If this was really, really rare I wouldnt mind. However, the 10% of each maintenance failure proposed in the first post is way too high.
-
Can't say I am a fan of this either. Perhaps with a suite of other 'random misfortune' options enabled at the game menu. Can't see me ever using it mind.
-
I did have a Gravsurvey ship that ran out of maintenance supplies when its jump engine broke down. I was unable to get another ship there in time, and eventually it suffered catastrophic system failure and exploded.
I sadly realized only later that I had a maximum of 99 maintenance supplies in the design, but it took 100 to fix the grav sensors. That led to a bit of redesign and retrofitting later on. (The grav sensors had an unfortunate tendancy to fail, rendering the ship useless for its designed purpose.)
See, you remembered it as one notable aspect of the game, and if you would be writing an AAR I am sure that you would retell the episode quite nicely. However I bet you won’t have that trouble again now that you know to put a sufficient number of maintenance supplies on board.
I'm guessing that ships that "accidentally" end up inside the event horizon of a class seven black hole while exploring a jump point don't really count, do they?
Well I would say it counts in one way: It demonstrates that a feature that unexpectedly causes some damage and forces you to re-think your plans can be a worthwhile and enjoyable addition to the game. It adds an aspect to the game without spelling “rocks fall, everyone dies”.
Just having random "bloops you lost a ship" doesn't add much, but perhaps there should be a morale/wealth bonus to rescuing said survivors within time. No random event, if they are going to be added, should be entirely negative(or necessarily positive for that matter).
Well currently the positive reward for rescuing the crew is that the crew, and its captain remain at your services. Additionally this avoids capture (or rescuing and “friendly” interviews) by another race. Conversely, rescuing foreigners might provide you with some intel points. I suspect Steve will add some aspects to captured/rescued crews in 5.7, as he already expressed willingness to look into that topic. So whatever it is, there are some benefits but I could agree that those could be more pronounced.
The concept has merit but I agree that it does need to mean something in the context of the big picture of your empire. If it is just a renamed maintenance failure it ends up just being RP fun and likely not worth the time to implement.
Agreed. But even as it is, it would slightly increase the incentive for forward maintenance facilities in order to decrease failure probabilities. Along the lines of Nathan_, one could increase the benefits of rescuing stranded crews (moral, wealth?), which would encourage establishing a SAR service at areas of major traffic. The costs would be rather small: A “fighter” of a fighter engine plus fuel and maybe a jump-engine should get quite far in the 14-day lifepod endurance.
I'd be heavily against this. My question is this: Does randomly damaging sometimes mission-critical ships regardless of their state of repair actually add any fun or enjoyment to Aurora?
Well, since it is primarily a negative event it could be sensible to make it an optional feature.
But yes, I do think there is fun and enjoyment. If you really loose a critical ship in the worst possible moment you would need to scramble, figure out the best possible response to the new situation, get a replacement ASAP, decide whether you want to proceed or aboard… Compared to just moving along with a plan that sounds way more exciting.
Personally, I think that a small element of uncertainty adds to a game, as long as the uncertainty is not so large that you cannot sensibly formulate any plan.
If this was really, really rare I wouldnt mind. However, the 10% of each maintenance failure proposed in the first post is way too high.
I would agree that it has to be rare, and I am completely open to other percentages, the 10% was just for illustration purposes. Note that I did not suggest that you lose a ship in 10% of the maintenance failures. I suggested that (maybe) 10% of maintenance failures should result in damage to the affected component. I suspect that in the majority of cases this would affect a rather unimportant component like a fuel tank or a missile launcher, with the only consequence that the damage must be repaired. Even if an engine is affected it normally has a 95% chance of avoiding catastrophic failure (current rules). Let’s say critical components are affected 30% of the time a maintenance failure occurs, then the total chance of a secondary explosion is 10%*30%*5%; I.e. you could expect roundabout one internal explosion per 700 maintenance failures. And even a minority of secondary explosions would likely lead to the loss an otherwise undamaged ship. But again, I am entirely open for other percentages than the 10% initially suggested, just wanting to make sure the principal suggestion was understood correctly.
-
my problem here is that maintainence problems can only occur in military ships.
if its not a grav survey, youre intented maintainence problems would hurt alot, remember maintainence failtures can only happen when youre ship is not at an maintainence base -> youre military ship should be in training or in a military mission.
about the intendet system for thouse failtures
catastropic reactor failtures are not common on earth, and new, much saver designes are not deployed yet.
in relation to engines, yes there are problems, but keep in mind, thouse are usualy fuel problems - in aurora - fuel tanks cant explode, so we have to assume its save fuel - so the main reason for engine exidents today is gone.
magazin failtures (idk if they can even explode in a maintainence failture) this would be very odd explosion again. Bombs are usualy build with a "cooking" time - i dont remember how long this time is, but it means that thouse bombs can be in fire for a "long" time without exploding.
a magazin at a spaceship shouldnt even have an oxygen supplay - so no fires. or is youre idear here more about missiles exploding by themselfes? i havent heared about "old" nuclear weapons on earth exploding on themselfes yet.
-
my problem here is that maintainence problems can only occur in military ships.
if its not a grav survey, youre intented maintainence problems would hurt alot, remember maintainence failtures can only happen when youre ship is not at an maintainence base -> youre military ship should be in training or in a military mission.
about the intendet system for thouse failtures
catastropic reactor failtures are not common on earth, and new, much saver designes are not deployed yet.
in relation to engines, yes there are problems, but keep in mind, thouse are usualy fuel problems - in aurora - fuel tanks cant explode, so we have to assume its save fuel - so the main reason for engine exidents today is gone.
magazin failtures (idk if they can even explode in a maintainence failture) this would be very odd explosion again. Bombs are usualy build with a "cooking" time - i dont remember how long this time is, but it means that thouse bombs can be in fire for a "long" time without exploding.
a magazin at a spaceship shouldnt even have an oxygen supplay - so no fires. or is youre idear here more about missiles exploding by themselfes? i havent heared about "old" nuclear weapons on earth exploding on themselfes yet.
Well I would like to point out that the secondary explosion caused by damage to these components is in the game as it is. All these explosions can happen when damage is applied right now. I am only proposing to change the set of events that can lead to damage being applied, not the consequences thereof. So whether or not these things should explode upon damage is a separate discussion.
Notably all these explosions can occur through maintenance failures already, but only when you are very grossly negligent. From a realism point of view, I am arguing that if the explosions can happen through maintenance failures, then they are bound to occur as realistically no institution achieves perfect maintenance. Not NASA, not the Royal Navy, the US Air force or Japanese nuclear operators (which I take to be comparables). Certainly not when using a set of very immature, novel technology (which TN in aurora is).
-
Oh there is no doubt that your suggestion is realistic Theokrat. I agree completely. The real question is 'is it fun'? My feeling is not really, unless part of a suit of optional random events, both good and bad.
-
Well you can RP it as is. Roll a dice or something manually for your ships and cause manual damage to simulate it.
I agree that in general some sort of less... deterministic maintenance system would be interesting. The perfection and predictability of the current system makes it a little too easy once you figure out how it works.
Perhaps if there was some sort of unreliability involved with prototyping designs....?
-
Oh there is no doubt that your suggestion is realistic Theokrat. I agree completely. The real question is 'is it fun'? My feeling is not really, unless part of a suit of optional random events, both good and bad.
Random events could be interesting. As long as there are an equal weight of good vs. bad.
-
i just dont see much reason to "punish" military ships more then they are now.
if they are not at a maintainence facility, they have lots of failtures, and when they are at a maintainence facility you pay alot of resources to keep them in good condition.
maintainence is a problem just for military ships, i just dont see a reason why youre accidents shouldnt hit civilian ships(which have lesser crews, greedy civilians, saving cash on maintainence/miss use of systems).
maybe the maintainence should be activated for civilian ships, then you would get lots and lots of maintainence msgs. maybe you dont even want accidents then.
-
I personaly fully agree with Theokrat. As I am sure many of you know, "Loosing is Fun", and personnaly, the worst thing that can happen in my games is when all my plans actually works.
If when I go to battle, I loose no-one and kill them all, then where was the fun? But if I get surprised by there technologies or unknown ships, if I have to sacrifice ships so the rest can survive, if I have to organise stealth missions to save survivors, or if I need to redesign many components quickly to change the whole fleet... and if in the process I realise I don't have the ressources needed and I have to start mining that system with star swarms in... then things starts to get fun!
I think Accidents who had a great deal of "rethink part of the plans". Accident does NOT mean the ship will blow up. Just that one components will be broken and stop working. It can still be repair with the Damage Control component for a higher cost. But it could also just remain broken until you get to some shipyards. It does not necessarily affect the rest of the ship. If one missile launcher fails, or if one EM sensor fail, it won't stop the ship working. But the ship won't work as perfectly as planned. It would had depth and realise to the game.
This has a big RP side, but RP is a main feature in the game. There are accidents and unexpected health conditions for you officer after all, and why would we bother saving survivor?
I also agree that rescuing survivor should be rewarded and have a positiv effect (or avoid a negativ effect) on moral or population or ship crews for examples.