Post by: Steve Walmsley on February 15, 2008, 04:15:39 PM
I have been playing around with the idea of changing fighters so they are designed on the Class window instead of using the seperate Fighter Design window. In this case, fighters would be just like any other ship, except smaller, which would make many things in the game a lot easier as from a programming perspective as fighters would no longer need rules catering to a separate category of unit. On the other hand, it would then make targeting harder because fighters would be targeted individually rather than as a squadron, as they are now. There would also no longer be the concept of a squadron identity and fighters would be commanded individually. On the gripping hand, many of the restrictions around fighters would be removed and they could fire and move individually as required with the same flexibility as a ship.
A combination of the two might be a possibility. A "fighter" would be identified as such by using a fighter engine. If you could create squadrons as an administrative entity, they could have names, etc. Each fighter could be assigned to a squadron and then when you want to launch fighters from a ship (from parasite hangars, not the current hangar bays), you could instead launch a squadron name and all fighters from that squadron would launch together and form a single fleet. "Fighters Squadrons" would still be fleets in all but name and would receive orders on the fleet window. To solve the targeting issue, perhaps another option would be for any shots against fighters that are already destroyed to be re-allocated to any other fighters within a certain radius (perhaps using the anti-fighter PD mode that was suggested in another post)
To accomplish this I need a tiny engine along the lines of the FAC engines plus components such as cockpit, smaller fire control systems, etc. I also need an equivalent of the launch rails, using missile launchers that are effectively single shot or a very long reload. There is no reason why this couldn't be used on ships too so my concern is that it might be unbalancing. However, there is no real reason why fighter rails couldn't be used on ships so this would address that inconsistency. I have added some auto-assign options for fire control in v2.6 where the computer figures out what fire control and weapons you would likely assign to one another. This would make assigning weapons, etc for small craft such as fighters much easier. I should also note that I haven't really figured out the exact mechanics for deployment of new type of fighters. They would still be built in fighter factories but deployed straight into fleets rather than the existing squadrons.
After trying various ideas for designing fighters using the Class Design window, I have come up with the following changes:
1) A new type of Engine which is 1 HS, has 3x normal power, uses 100x normal fuel and is 5x more likely to explode. As with FAC engines, only one would be allowed per fighter.
2) A new command module, which is a 0.1 HS crew quarters capable of supporting 20 crew
3) Because of their small size, fighters do not require the same level of structural integrity. Therefore they only use armour in certain key areas and require only half the armour amount of larger vessels.
4) The cost of missile fire controls has been changed so that cost is based directly on range rather than the more complex formula used at the moment. This makes shorter ranged missile fire control a little cheaper and longer ranges about the same. I have also added an option for a 0.5 HS missile fire control with half the racial fire control range.
5) A new missile launcher option of 1/4 normal size that reloads 100x more slowly than normal and includes on-mount missile storage for one missile. Also, changes to the reduced size launchers to decrease the crew requirement of the smaller launchers.
6) Fractional size missile launchers to accomodate the above
7) Fighters are allowed to have fractional class sizes, so you could have a 4.3 HS fighter (or 215 tons). I am not entirely sure about this because I am concerned that there may be places in the program that assume integer class sizes. However, for such small size craft it adds a useful level of variety so I am going to try and eliminate any problems. There may be a little trial and error involved at first.
Here are some examples of the wide variety of fighter designs that are possible when using the new ideas. You could also have different types of fighters in the same fleet (or squadron).
Code: [Select]
Sepulchre-L class Light Fighter 160 tons 14 Crew 32.3 BP TCS 3.2 TH 36 EM 0
11250 km/s Armour 1 Shields 0-0 Sensors 1/0/0/0 Damage Control 0-0 PPV 1
Magazine 4
Fighter Ion Engine (1) Power 36 Efficiency 100.00 Signature 36 Armour 0 Exp 25%
Fuel Capacity 10,000 Litres Range 2.7 billion km (2 days at full power)
Talon 04-3200 Missile Launcher (1) Missile Size 4 Rate of Fire 3200
M200 Missile Fire Control (1) Range: 200k km
Battleaxe ASM (2) Speed: 18,000 km/s Endurance: 16 secs Range: 288k km Warhead: 4 Size: 4Code: [Select]
Sepulchre-H class Heavy Fighter 215 tons 16 Crew 39.5 BP TCS 4.3 TH 36 EM 0
8372 km/s Armour 1 Shields 0-0 Sensors 1/0/0/0 Damage Control 0-0 PPV 2
Magazine 8
Fighter Ion Engine (1) Power 36 Efficiency 100.00 Signature 36 Armour 0 Exp 25%
Fuel Capacity 10,000 Litres Range 2.0 billion km (2 days at full power)
Talon 04-3200 Missile Launcher (2) Missile Size 4 Rate of Fire 3200
M200 Missile Fire Control (1) Range: 200k km
Battleaxe ASM (2) Speed: 18,000 km/s Endurance: 16 secs Range: 288k km Warhead: 4 Size: 4Code: [Select]
Arrow class Interceptor 190 tons 15 Crew 36.5 BP TCS 3.8 TH 36 EM 0
9473 km/s Armour 1 Shields 0-0 Sensors 1/0/0/0 Damage Control 0-0 PPV 1.5
Magazine 6
Fighter Ion Engine (1) Power 36 Efficiency 100.00 Signature 36 Armour 0 Exp 25%
Fuel Capacity 10,000 Litres Range 2.3 billion km (2 days at full power)
Talon M2-1600 Missile Launcher (3) Missile Size 2 Rate of Fire 1600
M200 Missile Fire Control (1) Range: 200k kmCode: [Select]
Sepulchre-R class Recon Fighter 145 tons 13 Crew 35.3 BP TCS 2.9 TH 36 EM 0
12413 km/s Armour 1 Shields 0-0 Sensors 1/0/0/0 Damage Control 0-0 PPV 0
Fighter Ion Engine (1) Power 36 Efficiency 100.00 Signature 36 Armour 0 Exp 25%
Fuel Capacity 20,000 Litres Range 6.0 billion km (5 days at full power)
N1 Navigation Sensor (1) GPS 240 Range 2.4m km Resolution 15
Secondary Mode: GPS 48 Range 480k km Resolution 12Code: [Select]
Viking class Tanker 235 tons 15 Crew 45.7 BP TCS 4.7 TH 36 EM 0
7659 km/s Armour 1 Shields 0-0 Sensors 1/0/0/0 Damage Control 0-0 PPV 0
Fighter Ion Engine (1) Power 36 Efficiency 100.00 Signature 36 Armour 0 Exp 25%
Fuel Capacity 150,000 Litres Range 27.6 billion km (41 days at full power)Code: [Select]
Hawkeye class Spaceborne Early Warning 400 tons 36 Crew 113.6 BP TCS 8 TH 36 EM 0
4500 km/s Armour 1 Shields 0-0 Sensors 1/0/0/0 Damage Control 0-0 PPV 0
Fighter Ion Engine (1) Power 36 Efficiency 100.00 Signature 36 Armour 0 Exp 25%
Fuel Capacity 10,000 Litres Range 1.1 billion km (2 days at full power)
Recherche-80 Search Sensor (1) GPS 3600 Range 36.0m km Resolution 45
Secondary Mode: GPS 720 Range 7.2m km Resolution 36Steve
Post by: Erik L on February 15, 2008, 04:30:24 PM
Post by: Steve Walmsley on February 15, 2008, 06:03:18 PM
Quote from: "Erik Luken"
I notice all of your armed fighters had missiles. What about beam type weapons?
As with the existing fighters, beam weapons are not very useful because beam fire control tends to be larger than missile fire control, a reactor is required and the beam weapons themselves are quite large. In Starfire, the fighter lasers were completely overpowered and far more effective than their ship-based counterparts in terms of power vs mass.
I guess one option would be some type of slow-firing weapon along the same lines as a slow firing missile launcher but you would still need the fire control. A reasonable 1 HS fire control using the current Templar tech would be possible using 50% for range and 1.5x for speed.
Fighter Fire Control
50% Accuracy at Range: 12,000 km Tracking Speed: 4800 km/s
Size: 1 HTK: 1 Cost: 27 Crew: 5
Chance of destruction by electronic damage: 100%
Materials Required: 6.75x Duranium 20.25x Uridium
Development Cost for Project: 270RP.
That would allow:
Code: [Select]
Sepulchre class Fighter 375 tons 48 Crew 84.6 BP TCS 7.5 TH 36 EM 0
4800 km/s Armour 1 Shields 0-0 Sensors 1/0/0/0 Damage Control 0-0 PPV 3
Fighter Ion Engine (1) Power 36 Efficiency 100.00 Signature 36 Armour 0 Exp 25%
Fuel Capacity 10,000 Litres Range 1.2 billion km (2 days at full power)
10cm C3 Near Ultraviolet Laser (1) Range 24,000km TS: 4800 km/s Power 3-3 RM 3 ROF 5 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Fighter Fire Control (1) Max Range: 24,000 km TS: 4800 km/s 58 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Stellarator Fusion Reactor (1) Total Power Output 3 Armour 0 Exp 5%The reactor has enough power to maintain the 5 second rate of fire so although the fighter is slow and only effective at point blank range, it has a lot more staying power than the missile fighters. Its possible that beam weapons could be reduced in size for a much lower rate of fire, although I don't think that you could get the same savings as you could with missile launchers because the reload mechanism is probably a much greater part of the launcher than the recharge mechanism on a beam weapon, especially as the power source is external. However, bearing in mind that beam weapons are usually faster firing anyway, lets assume that a beam weapon could be reduced in size by 25% for a drop in 4x increase in rate of fire and it could be reduced to 50% of normal size for a 20x increase in ROF (this compares to 50% reduction for 5x increase in ROF for a missile weapon). This gives us cut-down versions of the 10cm and 12cm lasers that are both 2 HS. As the 12cm is more powerful, I'll use that. I'll also only use a visible light laser as range is not really a factor given the fire control limitations.
12cm Fighter Laser
Damage Output 4 Rate of Fire: 135 seconds Range Modifier: 2
Max Range 80,000 km Laser Size: 2 Laser HTK: 1
Power Requirement: 4 Power Recharge per 5 Secs: 0.15
Cost: 6 Crew: 10
Materials Required: 1.2x Duranium 1.2x Boronide 3.6x Corundium
Development Cost for Project: 60RP
I have added 0.1 HS and 0.2 HS options for reactors. Even the basic Pressurised Water Reactor provides enough power so I will go with the cheapest option.
Mini-PWR
Power Output: 0.2 Internal Armour: 0 Explosion Chance: 5
Reactor Size: 0.1 Reactor HTK: 1
Cost: 1 Crew: 1
Materials Required: 0.25x Duranium 0x Neutronium 0.75x Boronide
Development Cost for Project: 10RP
These improve the fighter to:
Code: [Select]
Sepulchre class Fighter 300 tons 27 Crew 66.4 BP TCS 6 TH 36 EM 0
6000 km/s Armour 1 Shields 0-0 Sensors 1/0/0/0 Damage Control 0-0 PPV 2
Fighter Ion Engine (1) Power 36 Efficiency 100.00 Signature 36 Armour 0 Exp 25%
Fuel Capacity 10,000 Litres Range 1.4 billion km (2 days at full power)
12cm Fighter Laser (1) Range 24,000km TS: 6000 km/s Power 4-0.15 RM 2 ROF 135 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Fighter Fire Control (1) Max Range: 24,000 km TS: 4800 km/s 58 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mini-PWR (1) Total Power Output 0.20 Armour 0 Exp 5%Very different to the missile armed fighters but I guess it could be considered an assault fighter as its combat power over time is vastly superior to the missile armed fighters. The offset is that it's slower and needs to reach point blank range
Steve
Post by: Erik L on February 15, 2008, 07:06:51 PM
Post by: Haegan2005 on February 15, 2008, 10:46:56 PM
Post by: Steve Walmsley on February 16, 2008, 04:05:22 AM
Quote from: "Haegan2005"
How about a capacitor design? With a slow recharge reactor. When I think of fighter beam weapons I think also of anti-fighter uses, not antishipping, though that could be useful as well.
The last fighter above has a slow recharge laser, firing every 135 seconds, with a tiny reactor putting out 0.2 energy every 5 seconds.
The problem with beam weapons on fighters is that I am trying to keep the game internally consistent. If I create some type of mini-beam weapon for fighters, I can't think of any real reason why ships couldn't also mount a similar weapon to use against both fighters and missiles. Ships would also be able to carry a considerable number of mini-beams, making missiles far less useful.
In modern day warfare, the most useful anti-fighter weapon is a missile and the same applies in Aurora. Unless I can think of some way of giving a fighter a small, short-range anti-fighter weapon that ships couldn't use for some reason, I am not sure how fighters could have small, effective beam weapons while retaining internal consistency.
Steve
Post by: Steve Walmsley on February 16, 2008, 04:16:06 AM
Steve
Post by: Steve Walmsley on February 16, 2008, 04:22:57 AM
Steve
Post by: Steve Walmsley on February 16, 2008, 04:43:31 AM
Quote from: "Steve Walmsley"
Because of their small size, fighters do not require the same level of structural integrity. Therefore they only use armour in certain key areas and require only half the armour amount of larger vessels.
I have been playing around with the mechanics for this. I realise that the proposed fighters need to receive 2 points of damage to penetrate the armour, which means smaller missiles wouldn't be any use. However, fighters are much larger than missiles so they need some protection from a single point of damage. Therefore I have set the damage code so that the limited fighter armour described above will only affect approximately 50% of hits. Therefore a 1 point hit against a fighter will have a 50% chance of causing damage.
Steve
Post by: kdstubbs on February 16, 2008, 10:01:11 AM
I think you should reconsider your slow load fighter missile concept. If you will remember, the Bear Bomber, and the B-1 and B-2 Bombers carry rotary lauchers for up to six cruise missiles. These could be ground attack or anti-ship missiles. There is nothing physically impossible about mounting rotary fired anti-fighter missiles, so given that the ratio between the fighter size and the fighter missile is not large, what would be wrong with designing a dog fighting missile with rotary laucher, and what would be wrong about a PD laser on your fighter.
If you will recall the Primary Beam used in Edward E Smith's Lensman series, one shot lasing modules, that allowed the ship to generate a beam of very high intensity--that burned out the laser cavity with each shot. So the Primary had to reload (much like the X-Ray laser concept of the thebans in Crusade).
I cannot imagine a warship or a fighter (160-215 tons) not having some type of reactor--some power reactors are very small--the Nerva propulsion system developed by Nasa in the 60's and 70's was very small
Just a thought
Kevin
Post by: Steve Walmsley on February 16, 2008, 10:32:47 AM
Quote from: "kdstubbs"
Steve,The slow reload is to add a disadvantage to small launchers. If a small launcher reloads as quickly as a large launcher then no one would ever use anything but small launchers as they would have no disadvantages. There is also no reason within the game why full size warships could not use the same launchers as the fighters so that would multiply the number of missiles that could be launched by four times for all ships. That's not necessarily unreasonable in the real world where ships often fire off their entire missile load very quickly but I want to create a more pre-pod Honor Harrington type feel to missile combat.
I think you should reconsider your slow load fighter missile concept. If you will remember, the Bear Bomber, and the B-1 and B-2 Bombers carry rotary lauchers for up to six cruise missiles. These could be ground attack or anti-ship missiles. There is nothing physically impossible about mounting rotary fired anti-fighter missiles, so given that the ratio between the fighter size and the fighter missile is not large, what would be wrong with designing a dog fighting missile with rotary laucher, and what would be wrong about a PD laser on your fighter.
However, I am working on adding an even smaller launcher, probably 15% normal size, that can only be reloaded inside a hangar. That would allow fighters to have something very similar to the six-shot rotary launcher you described and it would still only be the size of a one regular ship-based launcher. This may also be useful for Fast Attack Craft, although their greater endurance and range may mean they are better with small but reloadable launchers. Full size ships probably would not make as much use of these launchers because they would need a huge hangar for reloading but it would still be possible to build some type of massive one shot warship if required, as long as you had a huge mothership able to reload it.
The problem with the small PD laser for fighters is that it has to follow the same rules as those on ships. If I create a small, effective beam weapon for fighters then there is no reason why ships couldn't use it too and suddenly missiles become far less effective. I need to maintain internal consistency within the game.
Quote
If you will recall the Primary Beam used in Edward E Smith's Lensman series, one shot lasing modules, that allowed the ship to generate a beam of very high intensity--that burned out the laser cavity with each shot. So the Primary had to reload (much like the X-Ray laser concept of the thebans in Crusade).Some type of one shot beam weapon might be possible, especially something like a torpedo, but again I have to allow ships to be able to do the same thing so I can't create anything unbalancing.
Quote
I cannot imagine a warship or a fighter (160-215 tons) not having some type of reactor--some power reactors are very small--the Nerva propulsion system developed by Nasa in the 60's and 70's was very small
You will be able to build 0.1 HS (5 ton) reactors in v2.6 and mount them on fighters if required. However, they will follow the same rules as the larger ship-based reactors and produce a proportionate amount of power.
Steve
Post by: Steve Walmsley on February 16, 2008, 11:08:59 AM
Fighters cannot be constructed or refitted by regular shipyards. They are still built by fighter factories and will be placed in a designated fleet when completed. This will make it easier to build large numbers of fighters and will also allow smaller colonies to potentially build their own fighters for defence, although they will need to build some basic orbital bases or PDCs for the reloading facilities.
Steve
Post by: kdstubbs on February 16, 2008, 11:09:47 AM
The fighter rail gun could give you some useful advantages--especially if they fired one kilogram shells at very high velocities. Missiles could be targeted by computer controlled gatling guns, or small diameter lasers in pulse mode--giving higher watts per square centimeter.
Again steve, just a thought
Kevin
Post by: Steve Walmsley on February 16, 2008, 11:31:12 AM
Quote from: "kdstubbs"
given that fighter missiles will be much smaller than ship fired missiles, they will have a corresponding range limitation and smaller magazine. Lets say A fighter might only mount one rotary launcher and only six missiles for dog fighting, but would only be able to mount one or two anti-ship missiles.That should be taked care of by the existing mechanics. Players can build missile launchers able to fire a variety of different missile sizes and the cut-down versions of those launchers will be proportionate to the full-size versions. Equally they can build different missile types of various sizes that could be intended for anti-ship or anti-fighter work.
Quote
Also in space a gatling gun, or fighter rail gun might be useful for close in combat. Gatling guns in the American civil war came in 25 and 37 mm, and in some cases fired a one pound shell. So the size of the gatling gun is relative.
The fighter rail gun could give you some useful advantages--especially if they fired one kilogram shells at very high velocities. Missiles could be targeted by computer controlled gatling guns, or small diameter lasers in pulse mode--giving higher watts per square centimeter.
I have been thinking about something similar. However, to maintain consistency anything that works for a fighter should also work for a ship. So if the gatling weapon is small and can destroy a fighter then it can certainly destroy a missile and ships will want to mount plenty of the small anti-fighter/anti-missile gatlings, which will be far more effective on a mass basis than the existing laser weapons, making missiles are suddenly less effective. The problem is finding a small fighter weapon that doesn't cause problems elsewhere within the game.
I was thinking along the lines of a gatling that could be used by ships to protect only themselves at point blank range and did one point of damage. That would make it useless against other ships or to protect other ships, making it worse than the existing lasers for escorts. Unfortunately, to make it useful to a fighter it would want to use that weapon offensively, to target other fighters or even missiles. Which then begs the question of why ships couldn't use it "offensively" to shoot down missiles heading for other ships, which then makes it better than the existing lasers and I am back to square one. I am just not sure there can ever be a effective small, fighter "beam weapon" that won't break the game in some other area.
Steve
Post by: sloanjh on February 16, 2008, 11:34:28 AM
Quote from: "Steve Walmsley"
I'm actually in the anti-beam camp - I don't see a reason to have a beam weapon just for the sake of having a beam weapon. That being said, I do think there should be some sort of "gun" system, whether it be flechettes, high-speed rail-gun (similar to a Vulcan), or mini-beams for dogfighting. Note that modern warships do mount such systems - Phalanx is basically a Vulcan cannon combined with a larger ammo magazine and an AI system (the radar/computer) to shoot at incoming targets. It is only secondary armament because it is essentially a point-blank/dogfight weapon.
The problem with beam weapons on fighters is that I am trying to keep the game internally consistent. If I create some type of mini-beam weapon for fighters, I can't think of any real reason why ships couldn't also mount a similar weapon to use against both fighters and missiles. Ships would also be able to carry a considerable number of mini-beams, making missiles far less useful.
This brings up the issue of dogfighting, and the "why pay for life-support" in the missile vs. drone question. What if you gave cockpits (fighter and possibly GB) a "dogfight fire-control" capability that allowed the ship's speed to be used as a tracking speed and can be used for any dogfighting (i.e. non-missile) system? (You might want to include the requirement that any target be detected by the ship's own sensors.) The way that this helps is the following:
- Dogfight fire-control allows fighter (and possibly GB) to pay a much lower mass cost for dogfighting systems, since they don't require on-board fire control.
A ship-mounted dogfighting system capable of engaging independent targets is much less useful, since it has to pay for a high-speed fire control for each target, i.e. the total mass cost of a 10x weaker ship-mounted mini-beam might be only 2x smaller than the corresponding "normal" mount, since both need a full-blown fire-control system to be able to do independent targeting.
If a 10x weaker mini-beam has 10x shorter range, then it will only be useful as a point-blank system. If your size vs. range is set up so range goes up with size faster than linearly (e.g. 10x weaker is only 5x smaller), then a single full-strength beam will be much more effective at short range in an anti-ship role than a bunch of mini-beams - think of the difference between 18 inch guns and 20mm AA mounts on WW II battleships.
If you allow "light" (0.5) armor in all ship classes (not just fighters) then that puts the concept of "thin-skinned" non-combatants into the game, gives fighters something to shoot at with their dogfighting weapons - think of the scene in Red Storm Rising where the F-15s strafe the Russian freighter. There would be a strong temptation to put light armor on GB (since they rely on speed rather than armor for defense), which in turn could lead to anti-GB fighter designs.
Quote
In modern day warfare, the most useful anti-fighter weapon is a missile and the same applies in Aurora. Unless I can think of some way of giving a fighter a small, short-range anti-fighter weapon that ships couldn't use for some reason, I am not sure how fighters could have small, effective beam weapons while retaining internal consistency.Two counter-examples:
- The Phantom was originally an all-missile design. Vulcan cannon were added once it saw action in Vietnam - first in a gun pod and later as an internal system. I don't think the USAF has designed an all-missile fighter since.
The comment about WWII battleships above reminded me that warship designs (at least for the US in the Pacific) had a LOT more light AA at the end of WWII than at the beginning. So allowing lots of light anti-missile/anti-fighter mounts on warships has a basis in the past - the trick is figuring out how to keep missiles as a viable weapons system from a play-balance point of view (hence faster missiles).
So for the small, short-range system, I would say there's no need to keep ships from mounting (lots of) them - they'll only be effective as AA and they'll be much less efficient as ship mounts due to the need for (expensive high speed) fire-control. This is similar to the mass difference between a Phalanx mount on a ship and an internal Vulcan mount on a fighter.
So I guess I am still in the camp that anti-ship mini-beams don't really make sense (unless at point-blank range). This can be enforced by having the range vs. size curve for beam weapons be quicker than linear. It is also enforced by the fact that Aurora armor makes one big hit much more effective than many tiny hits.
John
Post by: Þórgrímr on February 16, 2008, 01:39:10 PM
Fighter squadrons are not ships, not even close, they are mobile weapons platforms that operate as a group, not as individuals, and as such NEED a base for support. They are not small ships to be stationed in orbit without even a base to station them on. Even gunboats need some sort of base or tender to support them.
So turning fighters into just small ships makes no sense. Except for ease of programming.
I know my opinion does not count for squat here, but I just could not ignore this proposal. Aurora already has gunboats, why do you need an even smaller version of the gunboat?
??rgr?mr
Post by: Charlie Beeler on February 16, 2008, 09:08:38 PM
I like a lot of what has been suggested.
But...
I'd prefer to try to keep the size of fighters small.
They should at least start with missile rails that can only be reloaded aboard ship not from an internal magazine. A possible later upgrade being internal rotory systems.
A series of light extremely short ranged weapons for engaging other fighters is a must. It should be a self contained system similiar in principal to gattling and chain guns (ie weapon and magazine as a unit). As they progress in grade the rate of fire should increase (5 rounds per 5 sec, 6 per 5, etc). Each round does a fractional point of damage. Not all necessarily hit though.
To go with the light weapons a modification to armor handling is needed. Simplest is that an armor rating of 1 is handled different. Allow for cumulative fractional damage to eventually get a single hit through. As an example fighter gun rounds do .1points of damage. If within a single 5 second pulse a fighter with armor rating of 1 recieves 11 hits, the eleventh penetrates for a single point of internal damage. The counter resets to 0. It also resets to 0 a the beginning of the next pulse along with sheild regeneration. Yes, ships with armor ratings of 1 are vulnerable as well, ships in combat areas should use tin cans for armor
. Progressive ability to penatrate higher armor ratings should be allowed, but should be expensive to research and implement. Mainly to keep fighter to fighter viable not as warship killers.
Post by: Haegan2005 on February 16, 2008, 11:00:20 PM
Quote
I'd prefer to try to keep the size of fighters small.
They should at least start with missile rails that can only be reloaded aboard ship not from an internal magazine. A possible later upgrade being internal rotory systems.
A series of light extremely short ranged weapons for engaging other fighters is a must. It should be a self contained system similiar in principal to gattling and chain guns (ie weapon and magazine as a unit). As they progress in grade the rate of fire should increase (5 rounds per 5 sec, 6 per 5, etc). Each round does a fractional point of damage. Not all necessarily hit though.
To go with the light weapons a modification to armor handling is needed. Simplest is that an armor rating of 1 is handled different. Allow for cumulative fractional damage to eventually get a single hit through. As an example fighter gun rounds do .1points of damage. If within a single 5 second pulse a fighter with armor rating of 1 recieves 11 hits, the eleventh penetrates for a single point of internal damage. The counter resets to 0. It also resets to 0 a the beginning of the next pulse along with sheild regeneration. Yes, ships with armor ratings of 1 are vulnerable as well, ships in combat areas should use tin cans for armor
Progressive ability to penatrate higher armor ratings should be allowed, but should be expensive to research and implement. Mainly to keep fighter to fighter viable not as warship killers
I happen to agree.
Post by: Steve Walmsley on February 17, 2008, 06:15:27 AM
Quote from: "Charlie Beeler"
I presume that part of the reason for the fighter status change has to due with the errors generated in movement that I reported.Yes, that was one of the main reasons for me to start looking at the way fighters are handled. A lot of the abiltiies that yourself and others have asked me to add to fighters are already available for ships. Making fighters use the same rules as ships also makes them internally consistent so they are much more believable than a different type of unit following different rules. Finally, until v2.6 I had to maintain code for ships, fighters and precursors separately, which meant if anything major changed in movement, sensors, combat, etc I had to update three separate areas of code which took three times as long and had three times the potential for error, or simply for missing something. Now I should be able to add features more quickly and with less potential for problems.
Quote
I like a lot of what has been suggested. But... I'd prefer to try to keep the size of fighters small.I have created a new weapon system called the Launch Rail, although its more like a box launcher in reality. It can only be reloaded within a hangar so although ships could mount them it's not a great idea unless there is a huge hangar nearby for reloads. This also means that fighters will need carriers or bases with hangars if they want to reload. I'll combine the existing hangar bays and parasite hangers into one system similar to parasite hangars but half the size for more flexibility.
They should at least start with missile rails that can only be reloaded aboard ship not from an internal magazine. A possible later upgrade being internal rotory systems.
The Launch Rail is 15% of the size and cost of a full size launcher, although because there is no reload rate it is usually much cheaper than that because only the base reload tech is needed. The Launch Rail will require 15x the base reload time once it is on board a mothership, so a Size 4 Launch Rail will require 30 minutes to reload (30 seconds x size 4 x 15). I'll probably add some code to speed that up with a fighter operations bonus. Here is an example below
Code: [Select]
Size 4 Launch Rail
Maximum Missile Size: 4 Mothership Reload Time: 30 minutes
Launcher Size: 0.6 Launcher HTK: 1
Cost Per Launcher: 1.2 Crew Per Launcher: 0
Materials Required: 0.3x Duranium 0.9x Tritanium
Development Cost for Project: 12RP
Note that Launch Rails are not affected by increases in Reload Rate Technology as they are reloaded by the crew of the MothershipThe Launch Rail can be developed at any time as there is no pre-requisite. The smaller reloadable launchers are more expensive to develop and will need the preceding tech as well. Although you could potentially put a reloading launcher on board a fighter it won't be a good idea because the fighters are relatively short-ranged and will likely be able to land and reload their launch rails more quickly than the smallest reloadable launcher. For example, the quarter size launcher with Missile Reload Tech 3 will require well over an hour to reload and is almost twice the size of a Launch Rail. Unless it was for some specialist function it would not make sense to build a fighter with half the firepower and twice the reload time. It may make sense to do that for Fast Attack Craft though because they will have much longer deployment periods.Quote
A series of light extremely short ranged weapons for engaging other fighters is a must. It should be a self contained system similiar in principal to gattling and chain guns (ie weapon and magazine as a unit). As they progress in grade the rate of fire should increase (5 rounds per 5 sec, 6 per 5, etc). Each round does a fractional point of damage. Not all necessarily hit though.
To go with the light weapons a modification to armor handling is needed. Simplest is that an armor rating of 1 is handled different. Allow for cumulative fractional damage to eventually get a single hit through. As an example fighter gun rounds do .1points of damage. If within a single 5 second pulse a fighter with armor rating of 1 recieves 11 hits, the eleventh penetrates for a single point of internal damage. The counter resets to 0. It also resets to 0 a the beginning of the next pulse along with sheild regeneration. Yes, ships with armor ratings of 1 are vulnerable as well, ships in combat areas should use tin cans for armor
Progressive ability to penatrate higher armor ratings should be allowed, but should be expensive to research and implement. Mainly to keep fighter to fighter viable not as warship killers.
I like the general principle, although I will probably handle the mechanics a little differently. The main thing is though that you have now given me the basis for an anti-fighter weapon that ships won't automatically want to use, which is great!
How about instead of fractional points of damage, which I would have to track and possibly allow for repair later, have a weapon that has the potential to cause damage to fighters and missiles but not ships with a full 1 point of armour. I would implement John's idea along with this so that ships also had the option to use the 0.5 fighter armour. However, there is only a chance for each hit to penetrate 0.5 armour, or even the 0 armour of missiles, rather than a cumulative effect that isn't used in other parts of the game.
The mechanic in coding terms would be that each shot from the mini-gun has a chance of inflicting a full 1 point of damage. If that happens, that shot would kill a missile, and have a 50% chance to penetrate the 0.5 armour of a fighter and still bounce off a ship with warship armour. This would allow also strafing of "thin skinned" ships or FACs if the player used 0.5 armour for them.
I could do this by having a reasonable chance to hit and each shot from the mini-gun that hit would then be tested for penetration (which could be part of the technology for the weapon) and if it penetrated it caused a point of damage. An easier way to handle it would just be a low or very low chance to hit but any hit was a 1 point hit. The beauty of this weapon is that it is fine for an extended dogfight between fighters and a low-odds shot at a missile but it isn't a good weapon for ships given they usually have a very limited time to engage a missile. Technological advancements could include higher rates of fire as you suggested. I would also use John's idea about using a zero or small size gun-only fire control system that used the fighter's own speed for its tracking speed.
I may also add an ability for fighters to "lock" another fighter into a dogfight based on a combination of speed and pilot (commander) initiative. Once locked, the fighter with high speed/initiative would always move last during movement, giving it the ability to stay with its opponent and continue firing.
How does that sound?
Steve
Post by: Haegan2005 on February 17, 2008, 06:52:42 AM
Quote
Note that Launch Rails are not affected by increases in Reload Rate Technology as they are reloaded by the crew of the Mothership[/code]
The Launch Rail can be developed at any time as there is no pre-requisite. The smaller reloadable launchers are more expensive to develop and will need the preceding tech as well.
I like this idea.
Quote
How about instead of fractional points of damage, which I would have to track and possibly allow for repair later, have a weapon that has the potential to cause damage to fighters and missiles but not ships with a full 1 point of armour. I would implement John's idea along with this so that ships also had the option to use the 0.5 fighter armour. However, there is only a chance for each hit to penetrate 0.5 armour, or even the 0 armour of missiles, rather than a cumulative effect that isn't used in other parts of the game.
The mechanic in coding terms would be that each shot from the mini-gun has a chance of inflicting a full 1 point of damage. If that happens, that shot would kill a missile, and have a 50% chance to penetrate the 0.5 armour of a fighter and still bounce off a ship with warship armour. This would allow also strafing of "thin skinned" ships or FACs if the player used 0.5 armour for them.
I rather like this idea
Quote
I would also use John's idea about using a zero or small size gun-only fire control system that used the fighter's own speed for its tracking speed.
Excellent idea. Any thoughts about lasers and cannon similar to the Starfire gunpacks? Could the gunpacks be linked to the mini-gun idea above? This could also use the rail launcher idea for size limits.
Quote
I may also add an ability for fighters to "lock" another fighter into a dogfight based on a combination of speed and pilot (commander) initiative. Once locked, the fighter with high speed/initiative would always move last during movement, giving it the ability to stay with its opponent and continue firing.
Steve
This "lock" adds yet another realistic dimension to using fighters and makes me actually want to stage a fight for them. I have had carriers for ten years for most of my races and none of them wants to get in a fight but one and he hasn't found anyone yet(or so he thinks).
Post by: Steve Walmsley on February 17, 2008, 06:58:01 AM
Quote from: "??rgr?mr"
Sounds to me like you wish to turn fighters into just another version of a gunboat. Why have them at all if you are just going to turn them into even smaller ships. Does not make sense to me.Fighters are smaller versions of gunboats only in the sense that gunboats are smaller versions of ships. All three will use the same rules and physics, which will make the game much more internally consistent.
Quote
Fighter squadrons are not ships, not even close, they are mobile weapons platforms that operate as a group, not as individuals, and as such NEED a base for support. They are not small ships to be stationed in orbit without even a base to station them on. Even gunboats need some sort of base or tender to support them.Fighters will require bases or carriers with hangars to reload their launch rails and because of their horrendous fuel requirements will need carriers if they need to be deployed in the outer system, let alone other systems. I will still have squadrons with designations and nicknames, etc but they will be administrative (maybe even mini-task forces) and you will easily be able to move fighters between squadrons. I will track where every fighter in a squadron is at the moment and you will be able to launch and land by squadron. However, because you move fighters as fleets you will have much more flexibility in splitting squadrons, establishng CAP as part of a formation and even have damaged fighters pulling out to return to base.
Quote
So turning fighters into just small ships makes no sense. Except for ease of programming.Ease of programming is useful and should allow me to do more with less problems. However, I am writing Aurora because its fun to play and given the depth of gameplay available, I don't think you could argue that Aurora's primary goal is easier programming.
Quote
I know my opinion does not count for squat here, but I just could not ignore this proposal. Aurora already has gunboats, why do you need an even smaller version of the gunboat?
I am not sure why you think your opinion counts less than anyone else as you have had many good ideas in the past that I have added to the game and you have contributed a lot in terms of material. Fighters won't be just smaller gunboats. They will be faster, much shorter-ranged, probably use far more one-shot weapons and will require hangars. As a result of Charlie's suggestion, fighters will use a close range dogfight weapon that probably would not be much use for gunboats and they will be far more fragile. Their deployment and combat use will likely be very different to Gunboats.
Steve
Post by: Steve Walmsley on February 17, 2008, 10:08:56 AM
Note that only ships with an armour thickness of 1 can be thin-skinned.
Steve
Post by: Steve Walmsley on February 17, 2008, 10:37:42 AM
Quote from: "sloanjh"
I'm actually in the anti-beam camp - I don't see a reason to have a beam weapon just for the sake of having a beam weapon. That being said, I do think there should be some sort of "gun" system, whether it be flechettes, high-speed rail-gun (similar to a Vulcan), or mini-beams for dogfighting. Note that modern warships do mount such systems - Phalanx is basically a Vulcan cannon combined with a larger ammo magazine and an AI system (the radar/computer) to shoot at incoming targets. It is only secondary armament because it is essentially a point-blank/dogfight weapon.I had been avoiding a gun system because of the fact that ships would also want any small, effective gun system as well and it would create balance problems. However, Charlie's idea of a less effective gun that would inflict a point of damage over time gave me the breathrough I needed. Although I will implement it slightly differently using a full point of damage and low chance to hit it was his concept of causing damage over time that was the key idea. Now I can create a system that is good for fighters in extended dogfights but is not much use to ships because they need high kill probabilities within a very limited timespan.
Quote
This brings up the issue of dogfighting, and the "why pay for life-support" in the missile vs. drone question. What if you gave cockpits (fighter and possibly GB) a "dogfight fire-control" capability that allowed the ship's speed to be used as a tracking speed and can be used for any dogfighting (i.e. non-missile) system? (You might want to include the requirement that any target be detected by the ship's own sensors.)I will add a gun-only fire control system that uses the ship's speed as its tracking speed, although I will probably create a tiny independent system rather than adding it to a "cockpit" system because the code is set up to link weapons to specific fire control systems.
Quote
If you allow "light" (0.5) armor in all ship classes (not just fighters) then that puts the concept of "thin-skinned" non-combatants into the game, gives fighters something to shoot at with their dogfighting weapons - think of the scene in Red Storm Rising where the F-15s strafe the Russian freighter. There would be a strong temptation to put light armor on GB (since they rely on speed rather than armor for defense), which in turn could lead to anti-GB fighter designs.I have added this to the game for v2.6
Quote
So I've done a complete 180 here - I think a small, short-range mini-beam system could be set up for fighters that would not skew ship-to-ship play balance, and would increase the richness of "combined arms" tactics between ships, GB, and fighters, especially if 0.5 armor were allowed on ships and GB as well. The one play balance tweak that might be needed would be to increase missile speed (both to make them a more difficult fire-control target and so that fighters can't keep up with them) - a typical light (anti-fighter) missile should probably be 2x or 4x faster than an equivalent-tech fighter.I don't want to play too much with missile speed because the missile combat side of the game works well at the moment and I don't want to risk changing it. A low-chance to hit fighter weapon will mean that missiles should not be too badly affected by a system designing for anti-fighter use. Also, using current Templar tech (which is the same tech used for the fighters) with the new missile design window that allows 0.25 space increments, I can create a 2 space anti-fighter missile:
Code: [Select]
Partisan Anti-Fighter Missile
Missile Size: 2 Warhead: 1 Armour: 0
Speed: 30,000 km/s Endurance: 10 seconds Range: 300k km
Manoeuvre Rating: 10
Cost Per Missile: 0.575
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 300% 3k km/s 100% 5k km/s 60% 10k km/s 30%
Materials Required: 0.25x Tritanium 0.15x Sorium 0.75x Gallicite
Development Cost for Project: 58RPCombining this with the Stilleto class Interceptor, which can carry five of these and still maintain almost 9500 km/s, creates a reasonable anti-fighter platform.Code: [Select]
Stiletto class Interceptor 190 tons 12 Crew 30.5 BP TCS 3.8 TH 36 EM 0
9473 km/s Armour 1 Shields 0-0 Sensors 1/0/0/0 Damage Control 0-0 PPV 1.5
Magazine 10
Fighter Ion Engine (1) Power 36 Efficiency 100.00 Signature 36 Armour 0 Exp 25%
Fuel Capacity 10,000 Litres Range 2.3 billion km (2 days at full power)
Size 2 Launch Rail (5) Missile Size 2 Mothership Reload Time 15 minutes
M200 Missile Fire Control (1) Range: 200k km
Partisan Anti-Fighter Missile (5) Speed: 30,000 km/s Endurance: 10 secs Range: 300k km Warhead: 1 Size: 2Quote
So for the small, short-range system, I would say there's no need to keep ships from mounting (lots of) them - they'll only be effective as AA and they'll be much less efficient as ship mounts due to the need for (expensive high speed) fire-control. This is similar to the mass difference between a Phalanx mount on a ship and an internal Vulcan mount on a fighter.
So I guess I am still in the camp that anti-ship mini-beams don't really make sense (unless at point-blank range). This can be enforced by having the range vs. size curve for beam weapons be quicker than linear. It is also enforced by the fact that Aurora armor makes one big hit much more effective than many tiny hits.
Using a combination of your ideas and Charlie's I think I should be able to create a reasonable fighter-based anti-fighter "beam" weapon that can also allow for occasional missile kills and strafing thin-skinned ships, while not creating a effective new point defence system for ships.
Steve
Post by: sloanjh on February 17, 2008, 01:59:02 PM
Quote from: "Steve Walmsley"
How does that sound?
Sounds good. For the record
I still have four wishes/concerns, but overall it sounds good.- I'm still worried that fighters are going to be as fast as or faster than equivalent-tech missiles. This doesn't feel realistic to me.
I'd still like to see a short-range, low-mass, low-aperture fighter mini-beam, more for consistency reasons than anything else. Unfortunately, Aurora equates aperture with power (as opposed to range), so I don't see how to do this in terms of game mechanics.
Just how horrendous is the fuel consumption? Is it bad enough to make fighters unusable? Could a day of fighter-ops suck the carrier's tanks dry? How does this correlate with fuel consumption in a present-day CVBG? A thought: What if you made going slow more efficient than going fast? I see two ways to do this:
- A "military throttle" setting that would consume fuel much more efficiently than full power ("afterburner"). 1/2 speed or lower might have a significantly lower fuel cost. This would probably apply only to fighter/FAC.
Make engine/fuel efficiency proportional to speed. This would mean fuel consumed per unit time would go like the square of the speed - doubling the speed costs 4x the fuel/second (2x from efficiency and 2x because you go twice as far). The fuel consumption of a ship at max speed would stay the same - this would just change the interpolation formula for e.g. a 1/2 max speed setting.
How big of a performance hit do you think this will cause? I've been running 1 hr increments on 24 hr advances, and a significant portion of my game-play time is spent waiting for the update.
As I said, though, I like the ideas you've used (especially getting thin-skinned vessels into the game).
John
PS - On the performance issue: I think a lot of the performance hit comes from "survey next 5 system bodies" in systems with a LOT of asteroids - have you thought of looking at your algorithms there to get better scaling behavior with N (the number of asteroids/moons)?
Post by: Charlie Beeler on February 17, 2008, 02:10:53 PM
I'm really looking forward to the next release.
Something for future consideration. A change to the fighter/parasite launch function. Allow only 1 craft per bay/hanger to launch/land per a specific time increment. To facilitate rapid combat launches add catapults/tubes that have tonage limits "reload" rates similiar to missile launchers. Most probably won't care for this idea, but I like to build at least one race that has a small fighter compliment on all warships and use them as close combat supplements instead of plaforms for use when loitering beyond the enemies fire range.
Post by: Kurt on February 17, 2008, 05:12:10 PM
Quote from: "Steve Walmsley"
I have added the thin-skinned option for all ships. Fighters are automatically thin-skinned but every other ship type has the option by setting a checkbox on the Class Design window. Thin-skinned means that you only need half the normal armour amount but each time the ship is hit there is a 50% chance that the armour will have no effect. Not a good idea for warships but useful for freighters etc. Bear in mind that a thin-skinned ship is vulnerable to a single point of damage.
Note that only ships with an armour thickness of 1 can be thin-skinned.
Steve
I like this idea a lot. Thanks Steve.
Kurt
Post by: Steve Walmsley on February 18, 2008, 06:25:46 AM
Quote from: "sloanjh"
I'm still worried that fighters are going to be as fast as or faster than equivalent-tech missiles. This doesn't feel realistic to me.
Given current Templar tech, which has the same engine tech for missiles and ships, fighters are coming out around 7500 km - 10000 km. Missiles are from 18,000 km/s to 30,000 km/s. The new 0.25 increment option on the missile design window makes a difference because you can create high speed, short range missiles. Anti-fighter missiles will probably be very fast while anti-ship missiles will be slower but still faster than fighters, which is similar to modern warfare. If it proves to be a problem after significant playtesting I will up the missile power a little
Quote
I'd still like to see a short-range, low-mass, low-aperture fighter mini-beam, more for consistency reasons than anything else. Unfortunately, Aurora equates aperture with power (as opposed to range), so I don't see how to do this in terms of game mechanics.Is this in addition to a small gun-type weapon or instead of? Aperture affects both power and range because more powerful lasers have longer ranges.
Quote
Just how horrendous is the fuel consumption? Is it bad enough to make fighters unusable? Could a day of fighter-ops suck the carrier's tanks dry?
Fighters use 100x normal fuel, which is reduced by fuel efficiency. However the engines are still very small. A fighter will probably use about 4000-5000 litres for 24 hours of continuous operations.
Quote
How does this correlate with fuel consumption in a present-day CVBG? A thought:Finding data on fuel storage for modern carriers has proven a little difficult. Assuming 500,000 fuel storage on a carrier with 20 fighters, I would guess that fuel would last 5-7 days of round the clock ops. Given the likely ordnance requirements for such operations, the fuel won't be the major problem
Quote
What if you made going slow more efficient than going fast? I see two ways to do this:I have thought about this in the past, although using an occasional increased power mode and higher fuel cost rather than higher efficiency for lower speed. I am just not sure whether this is a a good idea or not. It would require more micromanagement of movement and fleets often have ships of different max speeds. At the moment if you move slower you do use less fuel but it is directly proportional rather than geometric.A "military throttle" setting that would consume fuel much more efficiently than full power ("afterburner"). 1/2 speed or lower might have a significantly lower fuel cost. This would probably apply only to fighter/FAC.
In both cases, the idea is to give fighters (and possibly FAC/ships) a "cruise" mode that is more fuel efficient. To a certain extent, this mimics the two modes for tactical engines in SF.
Make engine/fuel efficiency proportional to speed. This would mean fuel consumed per unit time would go like the square of the speed - doubling the speed costs 4x the fuel/second (2x from efficiency and 2x because you go twice as far). The fuel consumption of a ship at max speed would stay the same - this would just change the interpolation formula for e.g. a 1/2 max speed setting.
Quote
How big of a performance hit do you think this will cause? I've been running 1 hr increments on 24 hr advances, and a significant portion of my game-play time is spent waiting for the update. I think a lot of the performance hit comes from "survey next 5 system bodies" in systems with a LOT of asteroids - have you thought of looking at your algorithms there to get better scaling behavior with N (the number of asteroids/moons)?
I have stepped through increments in the past to see where the lags appeared and the default orders for surveying system bodies are by far the biggest performance problem. I have looked at this a few times and tried different things without much success. I will give it another go though.
Steve
Post by: Steve Walmsley on February 18, 2008, 03:00:16 PM
Steve
Post by: sloanjh on February 18, 2008, 10:23:31 PM
Quote from: "Steve Walmsley"
This makes me feel a lot better - I was worried about the fighter flying along beside a "typical" high-speed missile. I realize that can happen for a low-speed missiles (e.g. V1 or Tomahawk), but it shouldn't happen for high-speed.Quote from: "sloanjh"I'm still worried that fighters are going to be as fast as or faster than equivalent-tech missiles. This doesn't feel realistic to me.
Given current Templar tech, which has the same engine tech for missiles and ships, fighters are coming out around 7500 km - 10000 km. Missiles are from 18,000 km/s to 30,000 km/s. The new 0.25 increment option on the missile design window makes a difference because you can create high speed, short range missiles. Anti-fighter missiles will probably be very fast while anti-ship missiles will be slower but still faster than fighters, which is similar to modern warfare. If it proves to be a problem after significant playtesting I will up the missile power a little
Quote
I was thinking in terms of the latter (i.e. no micromanagement - you just gain benefit for going more slowly). The reason that I'm suggesting the change is that you don't gain any cruising range using the current algorithm - the reduced fuel consumption rate is cancelled by the slower speed (i.e. longer travel time). Linear growth in range may be a bit excessive, however - you might want to use a fractional power of speed, like 1.5 so that the fuel rate goes like (V/Vmax)^1.5 instead of (V/Vmax)^2, which would result in a sqrt growth in range as speed is cut. In this case you'd have to cut your speed by 4x to double your range, with an overall 8x in travel time.QuoteWhat if you made going slow more efficient than going fast?I have thought about this in the past, although using an occasional increased power mode and higher fuel cost rather than higher efficiency for lower speed. I am just not sure whether this is a a good idea or not. It would require more micromanagement of movement and fleets often have ships of different max speeds. At the moment if you move slower you do use less fuel but it is directly proportional rather than geometric.
Quote
I have stepped through increments in the past to see where the lags appeared and the default orders for surveying system bodies are by far the biggest performance problem. I have looked at this a few times and tried different things without much success. I will give it another go though.
Thanks. Have you thought of dividing the system up into 2D "boxes" and saving an (integer) box ID with each asteroid? If you restricted the algorithm to "asteroid motion off" then you wouldn't ever have to update, and you could localize your search to asteroids that are nearby. Especially if you did planets first - you could easily figure out which boxes might have a nearer asteroid and then restrict your SQL query to that range. You might actually want to have a different set of boxes for each asteroid belt - then you could box in R and Theta. I suspect most people have asteroid motion off anyway for performance reasons (I do). It doesn't really help for moons, but you could check at the local planet before searching the system. Or is the performance problem related to the DB query in a system with lots of bodies?
Just a thought.
Thanks,
John
Post by: sloanjh on February 18, 2008, 10:27:26 PM
John
Post by: sloanjh on February 18, 2008, 10:38:31 PM
Quote from: "Steve Walmsley"
Quote from: "sloanjh"I'd still like to see a short-range, low-mass, low-aperture fighter mini-beam, more for consistency reasons than anything else. Unfortunately, Aurora equates aperture with power (as opposed to range), so I don't see how to do this in terms of game mechanics.Is this in addition to a small gun-type weapon or instead of? Aperture affects both power and range because more powerful lasers have longer ranges.
In addition to. This is based purely on gut feel and consistency. It feels like a (light-speed) micro-beam would give a better stand-off range for dogfighting, plus it seems like there shouldn't be a physics problem with making a 1cm mount if you can make a 10cm mount. If it only does 1 pt damage at "point blank" then you shouldn't need to worry about it being used against warships, while the "one designator per target" issue would keep it from being a game-killing anti-missile mount. OTOH, it opens up a whole can of worms with 2cm and 5cm mounts - you'd probably have to put those in as well. Given the Gauss Gun system, it might not be worth the bother.
John
Post by: Erik L on February 20, 2008, 12:45:41 PM
I've just really skimmed over the posts here, but if I have a fighter design with 2 size 4 rails, mounting 4 size 2 missiles, what is the RoF? 2 or 4?
Post by: Charlie Beeler on February 20, 2008, 01:00:39 PM
Quote from: "Erik Luken"
Regarding Launchrails...
I've just really skimmed over the posts here, but if I have a fighter design with 2 size 4 rails, mounting 4 size 2 missiles, what is the RoF? 2 or 4?
If I understand Steve's comments correctly, you won't be able to do that. Each rail can only hold 1 missile, in this case any missile up to and including size 4. RoF doesn't come into play since you have to reload in the hanger. From the Battle Control Window( F8 ) you then control which rails are allocated to fire.
Post by: Haegan2005 on February 20, 2008, 01:20:16 PM
Post by: Charlie Beeler on February 20, 2008, 01:58:56 PM
Quote from: "Haegan2005"
in version 2.5 and 2.0 if I have 6 rails I can put 2 size three missiles or one size 6 or a size 2 and a size 4, etc.
We're talking about the new tech for v2.6, at least I am.
Post by: Steve Walmsley on February 22, 2008, 07:57:30 AM
Quote from: "Erik Luken"
Regarding Launchrails...
I've just really skimmed over the posts here, but if I have a fighter design with 2 size 4 rails, mounting 4 size 2 missiles, what is the RoF? 2 or 4?
Launch rails are handled like missile launchers, except you need to be in a hangar to reload. If you have a fighter with 2 size 4 rails you can launch two missiles of up to size 4. So that might be two Size 4 missiles or two Size 2 missiles. Once you fire, you need to return and reload before you can fire again.
Steve
Post by: Erik L on February 22, 2008, 08:12:16 AM
Quote from: "Steve Walmsley"
Quote from: "Erik Luken"Regarding Launchrails...Launch rails are handled like missile launchers, except you need to be in a hangar to reload. If you have a fighter with 2 size 4 rails you can launch two missiles of up to size 4. So that might be two Size 4 missiles or two Size 2 missiles. Once you fire, you need to return and reload before you can fire again.
I've just really skimmed over the posts here, but if I have a fighter design with 2 size 4 rails, mounting 4 size 2 missiles, what is the RoF? 2 or 4?
Steve
Correct me if I am wrong, but don't the current (2.5) fighter rails allow more than 1 missile if the missile is under the maximum size? I.E. 2 size 4 rails = 2 size 4 missiles, 4 size 2 missiles, 8 size 1 missiles.
Post by: Steve Walmsley on February 22, 2008, 08:16:24 AM
Quote from: "sloanjh"
Thanks. Have you thought of dividing the system up into 2D "boxes" and saving an (integer) box ID with each asteroid? If you restricted the algorithm to "asteroid motion off" then you wouldn't ever have to update, and you could localize your search to asteroids that are nearby. Especially if you did planets first - you could easily figure out which boxes might have a nearer asteroid and then restrict your SQL query to that range. You might actually want to have a different set of boxes for each asteroid belt - then you could box in R and Theta. I suspect most people have asteroid motion off anyway for performance reasons (I do). It doesn't really help for moons, but you could check at the local planet before searching the system. Or is the performance problem related to the DB query in a system with lots of bodies?
The problems were caused by systems with a lot of bodies. I tried a search where I only checked systems within a certain range of X and Y coordinates and then incremented the area after an unsuccessful search but that wasn't any quicker.
After some experimentation I realised that two sub-queries within the SQL were the main problem. The SQL retrieved all system bodies that were not already surveyed and not already a survey destination for another survey ship of the same race. VB code then cycled through the bodies, checked all the distances and found the closest.
Instead, I have now removed the sub-queries and added a pythagoras calculation to the order by clause of the SQL (see below for example). Now I get the bodies in order of distance straight out of the SQL. Then I cycle through them and check each one against other recordsets of surveyed system and destination systems until I get one that is not in either list. That turns out to be considerably faster.
Example code for asteroid only search
Code: [Select]
sSQL = "select SystemBodyID from SystemBody where SystemID = " & SystemID & " and BodyClass = 3 order by sqr(abs(Xcor - " & FleetX & ") + abs(Ycor - " & FleetY & "))"
Set rsSB = dbStarfire.OpenRecordset(sSQL, dbOpenDynaset)Steve
Post by: Steve Walmsley on February 22, 2008, 08:20:55 AM
Quote from: "Erik Luken"
Correct me if I am wrong, but don't the current (2.5) fighter rails allow more than 1 missile if the missile is under the maximum size? I.E. 2 size 4 rails = 2 size 4 missiles, 4 size 2 missiles, 8 size 1 missiles.
Yes that's true for the existing fighters. In v2.6, fighters will be designed in the same way as ships so they follow the same rules. The Launch Rail is a cut down missile launcher, 15% of normal size, which cannot be reloaded outside a hangar. Its more like a launch tube than a hardpoint on an F-16. So just as with ships, you can launch smaller missiles but you can't launch two missiles from the same launcher. However, you could design a multi-stage missile with two warheads for anti-fighter use.
Maybe I should rename the Launch Rail to Box Launcher or something similar to avoid confusion.
Steve
Post by: Charlie Beeler on February 22, 2008, 02:57:50 PM
Maybe. Personally I like the concept change. 1 rail = 1 missile. The rail rating limits how large that missile can be.
A future idea could be hard points and fixtures. A single hard point can hang a single fixture. The class of the fixture defines the number of rails/bombs/etc that it can hold. The hard points class defines the limit of the fixture.
Post by: Steve Walmsley on February 27, 2008, 07:32:47 AM
Assuming a 30 minutes reload time, a 20% ship commander bonus and a 10% task force bonus, the reload time would be:
1.2 x 1.1 = 1.32 (32% reduction)
30 x 0.68 = 20.4 minutes
Steve
Post by: Randy on February 27, 2008, 02:04:52 PM
Instead of making them only reloadable in a hanger, make them take a specific number of action points to reload - based on the size of the missile being loaded, and location of the launch rail.
Eg 10 action points per load point of missile inside a hanger, 100 per missile load point outside of hanger (and this is to load or unload a missile).
Faster inside a hanger because more equipment is readily avilable, and distances involved are shorter.
Then have deck crew to perform the load - and have them generate eg 1 action point per deck crew per minute. (may need to be higher or lower rate)
This allows you to put launch rails on a ship or a fighter, but unless you want to have a rather large crew, you wont be able to reload the external rails very quickly on a ship. Nor will you be able to land a couple dozen fighters and have them all turned around quickly unless you have a number of deck crew...
Using Steve's new campaign as a baseline, an Eagle class fighter has 3 launch rails of 4 points each.
It could thus carry 3 missiles of size 4 (the only size the carrier has). To load 3 Katana missiles on all 12 fighters will take 3x40x12 = 1440 action points. Meaning 144 deck crews could load all of them in 10 minutes (or 48 deck crew to load in 30 minutes).
Have a "Deck Crew" quarters (DCQ) component to represent the equipment and men involved in the process. Maybe 1 DCQ can have 5 deck crews and takes 1 space. Meaning the carrier would have to devote about 10 spaces to deck crews to get 30 minute reload time.
To extrapolate to a ship mounting rails, assume a ship had just as many rails as the 12 fighters do combined (ie 36 rails). To load them with 50 deck crew will still take quite a while. 36x400 = 14400 action points. 50 deck crews would load this in 288 minutes (or almost 5 hours). To get it down to 30 minutes you would need 480 deck crews (using 96 spaces of DCQ + extra space for life support).
Doing this gives two advantages - the reason you don't use rails on an average ship, and also allows you some control over how fast your rails can be reloaded (the more DCQ you use, the faster you can reload. But the bigger your carrier will be...).
Randy
Post by: Steve Walmsley on February 27, 2008, 03:58:23 PM
Quote from: "Randy"
Couple of suggestions for launch rails.At the moment the size of the launch rail is a factor. Larger launch rails take longer to reload. For game mechanic reasons I don't really want the ability to reload missiles outside a hangar, even if it takes several hours. At the moment, a ship cannot reload outside a hangar so if you want specialist ships with launch rails you will need to escort them with a mothership with a large enough hangar deck, which requires a considerable investment in terms of retooling shipyards, build time and cost, maintainance, etc. If you could reload without a hangar, you could fire a huge salvo then retire to reload your ship behind some convenient moon from either your own magazines or a collier. A few hours isn't a lot of time with the timescales of Aurora.
Instead of making them only reloadable in a hanger, make them take a specific number of action points to reload - based on the size of the missile being loaded, and location of the launch rail.
Eg 10 action points per load point of missile inside a hanger, 100 per missile load point outside of hanger (and this is to load or unload a missile).
Faster inside a hanger because more equipment is readily avilable, and distances involved are shorter.
Quote
Then have deck crew to perform the load - and have them generate eg 1 action point per deck crew per minute. (may need to be higher or lower rate)At the moment deck crews are assumed by the crew requirements for the hangar deck. Although I like your suggestion of including deck crews as a specific system, I probably would go for an simpler mechanic because I wouldn't want players to have to micromanage deck crew assignments. Perhaps DCQs could provide a general bonus to reload times instead.
This allows you to put launch rails on a ship or a fighter, but unless you want to have a rather large crew, you wont be able to reload the external rails very quickly on a ship. Nor will you be able to land a couple dozen fighters and have them all turned around quickly unless you have a number of deck crew...
Using Steve's new campaign as a baseline, an Eagle class fighter has 3 launch rails of 4 points each.
It could thus carry 3 missiles of size 4 (the only size the carrier has). To load 3 Katana missiles on all 12 fighters will take 3x40x12 = 1440 action points. Meaning 144 deck crews could load all of them in 10 minutes (or 48 deck crew to load in 30 minutes).
Have a "Deck Crew" quarters (DCQ) component to represent the equipment and men involved in the process. Maybe 1 DCQ can have 5 deck crews and takes 1 space. Meaning the carrier would have to devote about 10 spaces to deck crews to get 30 minute reload time.
Quote
To extrapolate to a ship mounting rails, assume a ship had just as many rails as the 12 fighters do combined (ie 36 rails). To load them with 50 deck crew will still take quite a while. 36x400 = 14400 action points. 50 deck crews would load this in 288 minutes (or almost 5 hours). To get it down to 30 minutes you would need 480 deck crews (using 96 spaces of DCQ + extra space for life support).Fighters will generally have a speed advantage so they can pull out of range, reload on their carrier or mothership and come back. Take away the carrier and they are screwed. A regular ship would presumably fire and destroy the enemy, get destroyed trying to retreat or be fast enough to get away. If they are fast enough to stay out of range then reloading for 30 minutes or 5 hours is far less important than the fact they can reload their huge salvo without support. At the moment a quarter size launcher has 100x reload time (so 50 minutes for a 30 second launcher). If I made a 1/6th size launcher with a 500x reload, the game effect would be very similar without the complexity of deck crews. I want the Launch Rail to be something different and not just an even smaller reloadable launcher.
Quote
Doing this gives two advantages - the reason you don't use rails on an average ship, and also allows you some control over how fast your rails can be reloaded (the more DCQ you use, the faster you can reload. But the bigger your carrier will be...).
The current reason for not using launch rails on an average ship is that they are loaded externally, which can only be done in a hangar bay (conveniently forgetting landing on planets with breathable atmospheres
). If I changed the Launch Rail to reloadable without a hangar bay I am concerned it would become much more attractive to regular ships and lose its unique flavour. I do think that some type of DCQ is possible though but used as bonus to reload time rather than tracking individual deck crew actions. Perhaps something like DCQ / Hangar Decks * 10% bonus.Steve
Post by: Brian Neumann on February 28, 2008, 05:52:50 AM
The other is that this redesign makes fighters very long range. All of the designs that I have seen have an endurance of 2 days. Perhaps an even smaller fuel tank so that fighters have an endurance measured in hours instead. While I know we have aircraft that fly for a day or more there is a definite limit based on crew fatigue, and in-flight refueling. Most combat planes do not have more than a few hours of endurance at full speed. The only exeption is the bigger bombers, or planes that have replaced munitions with extra fuel.
Brian
Post by: Steve Walmsley on March 01, 2008, 06:36:19 AM
Quote from: "Brian"
I have 2 questions regarding the new technology. One is that with partial hull spaces available, how will this affect jump engines. If I design a ship for a jump engine that can take 200hs and the ship itself works out to 199.8, what happens with a companion that is 199.9. If this is a problem, perhaps a check box that will pad a ship with null space to the next full hs increment.Only fighters use partial HS so any ships above size 10 (500 tons) will be rounded up to the nearest full HS.
Quote
The other is that this redesign makes fighters very long range. All of the designs that I have seen have an endurance of 2 days. Perhaps an even smaller fuel tank so that fighters have an endurance measured in hours instead. While I know we have aircraft that fly for a day or more there is a definite limit based on crew fatigue, and in-flight refueling. Most combat planes do not have more than a few hours of endurance at full speed. The only exeption is the bigger bombers, or planes that have replaced munitions with extra fuel.
Even if I created a smaller fuel tank, players could still use the existing larger ones so that wouldn't restrict range. One way to reduce range further would be to increase fuel use beyond 100x normal but I think that would make them very expensive and logistically challenging. I realise the endurance of fighters is greater than in modern warfare but the scale of Aurora is much larger than the scale of global warfare. In Aurora, ships can be deployed away from bases for years at a time so on a fighter vs ship ratio fighter endurance is probably comparable to modern warfare. In terms of practical range, the Eagle class fighters in my current campaign have a 5 day endurance and could just about manage a round trip to Jupiter. That is still very much the inner system though. They couldn't manage a round trip from Saturn to Uranus, even if the planets were at the closest point in their orbits.
As fighters are larger in v2.6, you will get less of them on a carrier so the increased range at least means the carriers have a better chance of keeping out of trouble and it gives fighters an interplanetary range within the inner system, making PDCs or orbital installations realistic fighter bases. I have only moved fighters about a little in my current campaign but it feels right so far. Also, don't forget that fighters can only attack targets they know about so in an anti-ship role, they will be probably restricted by ship sensor range rather than fuel.
Steve
Post by: Randy on March 03, 2008, 10:28:24 AM
Quote
I do think that some type of DCQ is possible though but used as bonus to reload time rather than tracking individual deck crew actions.
I don't propose to use it to track actions. I suggest that it determines the speed the actions get done in general. You also do need to account for the "unload action" - if the missiles currently loaded are to be removed and replaced with a different kind.
It should take longer to switch missiles that to just load new ones.
Ie fighter lands with 4 missile "A" onboard. A second fighter also lands at thesame time, but no missiles left.
You want both to be launched carrying 4x misslie "B". The first fighter should take twice as long to get ready to launch as the second.
And what about refueling time? How long does it take to refuel a fighter?
Post by: Steve Walmsley on March 03, 2008, 03:19:42 PM
Quote from: "Randy"
At the moment the game mechanics are based on the launcher getting ready to reload. Once it is ready, it can switch missiles whenever it likes. As you say it would be more realistic to have to unload first if you want to change missiles. I'll take a look at that.QuoteI do think that some type of DCQ is possible though but used as bonus to reload time rather than tracking individual deck crew actions.I don't propose to use it to track actions. I suggest that it determines the speed the actions get done in general. You also do need to account for the "unload action" - if the missiles currently loaded are to be removed and replaced with a different kind.
It should take longer to switch missiles that to just load new ones.
Ie fighter lands with 4 missile "A" onboard. A second fighter also lands at thesame time, but no missiles left.
You want both to be launched carrying 4x misslie "B". The first fighter should take twice as long to get ready to launch as the second.
Quote
And what about refueling time? How long does it take to refuel a fighter?
At the moment, all refuelling and resupply of magazines is done instantly. I need to look at that too for v2.6
Steve
Post by: Brian Neumann on March 03, 2008, 11:02:22 PM
Brian
Post by: SteveAlt on March 04, 2008, 02:54:06 AM
Quote from: "Brian"
How are the changes to missiles going to effect the combat ability of fighters.
They will still be very similar in the v2.6 changes described above. The main differences will be using the new rules for missile fire control and carrying more capable missiles. Here is the updated Eagle class fighter for my current campaign. The Fire Control system is designed to shoot at targets of 2250 tons or greater and has the best range that can be achieved for that type of target using a 1 HS system. The Falchion missile has minimal fuel but matches the range of the fire control, allowing the bulk of the missile to be devoted to warhead and engine. This missile is a short-ranged (for the new rules) ship-killer. Missiles are going to be generally faster in v2.6, partly because of the 25% increase in missile power but partly because I am finding less space is being devoted to fuel. Although you can now create very long ranged missiles if you want to add a large fuel tank, targeting them becomes the issue.
Code: [Select]
Eagle class Fighter 250 tons 12 Crew 35.9 BP TCS 5 TH 24 EM 0
4800 km/s Armour 0.5 Shields 0-0 Sensors 1/0/0/0 Damage Control 0-0 PPV 1.8
Magazine 12
Fighter Nuclear Pulse Engine FN-1 (1) Power 24 Efficiency 70.00 Signature 24 Armour 0 Exp 25%
Fuel Capacity 10,000 Litres Range 1.0 billion km (59 hours at full power)
Mk 3 VLS Single Cell Launcher (3) Missile Size 4 Hangar Reload 30 minutes MF Reload 5 hours
APG-1 Fighter Fire Control (1) Range 16.2m km Resolution 45
Falchion Anti-Ship Missile (3) Speed: 17500 km/s Endurance: 15.3 minutes Range: 16.1m km Warhead: 10 MR: 10 Size: 4There is a significant impact on carriers, which can now carry only 25% of the ordnance and 42% of the fuel they could carry before. Therefore the redesigned Ark Royal has had to sacrifice some engines to keep the strikegroup at 12 fighters while retaining only 40% of the magazine space. That ordnance is more considerably capable than before though. I think underway replenishment ships are going to become very important for fleet deployments and I will look at some specialised replenishment tech.
Code: [Select]
Ark Royal class Carrier 10000 tons 654 Crew 1068.6 BP TCS 200 TH 560 EM 0
2800 km/s Armour 1 Shields 0-0 Sensors 5/5/0/0 Damage Control 0-0 PPV 0
Hangar Deck Capacity 60 Magazine 410 Replacement Parts 10
Nuclear Pulse Engine E7 (14) Power 40 Efficiency 0.70 Signature 40 Armour 0 Exp 5%
Fuel Capacity 310,000 Litres Range 79.7 billion km (329 days at full power)
Falchion Anti-Ship Missile (102) Speed: 17500 km/s Endurance: 15.3 minutes Range: 16.1m km Warhead: 10 MR: 10 Size: 4
SPS-150/75 Active Sensor (1) GPS 1500 Range 15.0m km Resolution 75
SQS-1 Thermal Sensor (1) Sensitivity 5 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 5m km
SE-1 EM Detection Sensor (1) Sensitivity 5 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 5m km
Strike Group
12x Eagle Fighter Speed: 4800 km/s Size: 5Steve