Aurora 4x

Fiction => Steve's Fiction => Aurora => Crusade => Topic started by: Steve Walmsley on July 01, 2019, 12:32:54 PM

Title: Crusade - Comments Thread
Post by: Steve Walmsley on July 01, 2019, 12:32:54 PM
Please post comments in this thread
Title: Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
Post by: nukeLEAR on July 01, 2019, 04:00:07 PM
Loving those 40k ship designs, I think you did a great job translating them into Aurora

Now we just gotta see them in action  :P
Title: Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
Post by: Father Tim on July 01, 2019, 11:55:46 PM
Constuction rate 12, Production +15%
Mining rate 10, Mining +5%

And no one researching Mining Rate 12.  I foresee a mineral crunch in the Imperium's future.
Title: Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
Post by: Hazard on July 02, 2019, 04:30:35 AM
This can be covered by building more mines.
Title: Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
Post by: Steve Walmsley on July 02, 2019, 04:45:00 AM
Constuction rate 12, Production +15%
Mining rate 10, Mining +5%

And no one researching Mining Rate 12.  I foresee a mineral crunch in the Imperium's future.

Yes, I was very tight on research points, even with double normal. However, I should have had mining 12 :)

I'll research that after jump stabilisation.

EDIT: I checked and I have researched Mining 12 pre-game
Title: Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
Post by: Father Tim on July 02, 2019, 06:42:16 PM
Hmm. . .  the Mining Modifiers table of the Mining Tab of the Economics window doesn't show it, but I assume that will fix itself after time advances. . . or after a production cycle, at the very latest.  Likewise, the mineral data table doesn't show the +5% bonus of the planetary governor, but it does include the '12 tons per mine' technology.  Again, I have confidence everything will dispay corectly after a production cycle.
Title: Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
Post by: Panopticon on July 03, 2019, 02:41:06 AM
You have a lot of confidence in this pre-alpha build of the game!
Title: Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
Post by: Steve Walmsley on July 03, 2019, 03:23:32 AM
Hmm. . .  the Mining Modifiers table of the Mining Tab of the Economics window doesn't show it, but I assume that will fix itself after time advances. . . or after a production cycle, at the very latest.  Likewise, the mineral data table doesn't show the +5% bonus of the planetary governor, but it does include the '12 tons per mine' technology.  Again, I have confidence everything will dispay corectly after a production cycle.

Thanks for the spot. I'll check it tonight. I think I probably did the mining screenshot before I appointed the colony governor.
Title: Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
Post by: Rabid_Cog on July 03, 2019, 04:07:09 AM
And before you pushed the population up to 1.25 bil from 1 bil.
Title: Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
Post by: Garfunkel on July 04, 2019, 08:04:38 PM
Looking forward to seeing this unfold!
Title: Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
Post by: Jovus on July 05, 2019, 09:31:31 AM
I like this!

Personally, I'd argue your ships should be a lot bigger - about twice the size. First, because you're intentionally going with sometimes-terrible designs against the aliens, so you need a little more tonnage to compensate. Second, and much more important, these are WH40K ships.

According to this chart (http://www.st-v-sw.net/STSWvolumetrics.html) a Galaxy-class starship from Star Trek is about 6500 tonnes. (I'm going with low estimates here not to blow everything up.) Further, let's assume it's roughly rectangular, in the same ratios as an Imperial WH40K ship. This is wildly untrue, but it drops the tonnage estimates of the Imperium considerably, so it's a very favourable assumption.

Finally, a Galaxy-class is 642 meters. Let's bump up to 650 for ease of math; that means that for every meter of starship you add to the beam, keeping the other dimensions constant, you add 10 tonnes. If we assume a 1:1:6 ratio of width:height:length for these starships (a figure I arrive at by holding my fingers up against a picture of a Dauntless), and we assume constant density (and, of course, that the Federation and the Imperium follow identical materials engineering practices), then we can get comparative tonnages based purely on the beam length, which is our available information.

The Dauntless is 4500 meters, which weighs in at a little higher than 950,000 tonnes.

Clearly that would be absurd to try to replicate in Aurora, and I don't mean I think you should give yourself that much more tonnage. But I also think it would be really cool to see how really big ships (100kt and higher) act in C# what with the changes to shock damage and so forth.
Title: Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
Post by: Garfunkel on July 06, 2019, 04:02:40 AM
Though I agree it would be cool to see really big ships, the downside of that is that the shipyards would take immense amounts of population to run and the ships themselves would take several years to construct.
Title: Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
Post by: Jorgen_CAB on July 06, 2019, 05:32:55 AM
Though I agree it would be cool to see really big ships, the downside of that is that the shipyards would take immense amounts of population to run and the ships themselves would take several years to construct.

One 10.000t shipyard with 10 slipways will take the same amount of workers in C# as one 100.000t shipyard. The 10.000t yard would build ships roughly 30% quicker in regards to tonnage built though but will also require more time to retool due to how slipways work in general. The difference in construction time is not that large since a 100.000t ship only take roughly 30% more time to build than a similar technology 10.000t ship.

You can then also look at the general development of ships and cost. Larger ships tend to cost less in total than the same tonnage of smaller ships, they also tend to be able to upgrade for less since they have more varied components that are upgraded in iterations. Large ships have many defensive benefits to many smaller ships too etc...

The small ships have many benefits too. They are generally quicker to build completely new variants of, they build quicker in general, can be specialised more efficiently and are stealthier, tend to use less research intensive components.

Both small and large ships respectively have advantages and disadvantages... to be frank I think a combination of ship types will always be the best. Some large really powerful ships backed up with smaller more efficient specialised ships. They tick different important boxes in an overall strategy.
Title: Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
Post by: Hazard on July 06, 2019, 05:41:19 AM
Also, you generally need to provide some degree of PPV, and while you can do that with ground forces, ground forces are not as mobile. Smaller ships are actually very suited to the system garrison duty because they don't tie as many resources down to the system and waste less combat power on garrison duty, while if you are pressed you can field them and replace them after a battle relatively easily because you'll be building them in larger numbers and slightly faster anyway.
Title: Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
Post by: Jorgen_CAB on July 06, 2019, 07:01:31 AM
Also, you generally need to provide some degree of PPV, and while you can do that with ground forces, ground forces are not as mobile. Smaller ships are actually very suited to the system garrison duty because they don't tie as many resources down to the system and waste less combat power on garrison duty, while if you are pressed you can field them and replace them after a battle relatively easily because you'll be building them in larger numbers and slightly faster anyway.

One important aspect in C# is that we can no longer can support an infinite number of 3000t ships at a specific maintenance site. This will limit the amount of ships we station as garrison duty and also makes high quality ships more important in general. This, I think, will mean that we want those garrison ships to actually matter more than before and not just generate PPV as cheaply as possible.

I probably would always use a healthy mix of ground defences and ships in space to provide security in most places. It obviously also depends on where the colonies are, their strategic value, population size and how close they are to any potential threats.
Title: Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
Post by: Father Tim on July 06, 2019, 08:38:01 AM
I have always relied 100% (minus planetary missile silos) on ground troops to instantly suppress the unrest generated by my completely unprotected* colony populations.  I don't expect that to change in C# Aurora 2020 v1.

- - -

*When my fleet moves elsewhere, I mean.  The point is to never have to worry about keeping guns back to guard planets;  my fleet is mobile warfare.
Title: Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
Post by: Jovus on July 06, 2019, 09:35:53 AM
Also, there's an argument to be made that, at least at certain sizes, the tax paid on time-to-build a ship is made up for with the increased combat viability of having all that tonnage in one place. Armour and shields both become a lower percentage of total tonnage weight (at least, I think armour does, at certain breakpoints); you're less likely to pay tax in the form of suboptimal crew space allotments (and it's negligible, percentage-wise, if you do). With the changes in how shock and weapon overpenetration work, higher tonnage is much less likely to suffer shock damage at all, and in reduced amounts. A single 2HTK ship component is better than 2 1HTK ship components, and so forth.

Anyway, I don't think the comments to Steve's AAR should turn into an argument about which is better somehow, because it doesn't matter (build to taste) and this isn't the place anyhow. I was just making a case for building the ships bigger in this AAR particularly, both for greater verisimilitude-for-source, and so that Steve could test how his rules interactions work out with ships outside his usual build envelopes.
Title: Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
Post by: Hazard on July 06, 2019, 12:08:37 PM
While true, it's still much easier to support 3 or 4 5k ton vessels than a single 15 or 20 k ton vessel in the same system. If only because you need to ship in less maintenance support, or can rotate them out without having to deal with potential rising political unrest because your ship is no longer in the system and will not return until it has completed its maintenance cycle and sailed back.

It's very much a question of how you want to handle your colonies though, and the specific requirements of your empire.
Title: Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
Post by: Jovus on July 06, 2019, 01:26:17 PM
sailed back.

Ermagersh. I think my next campaign (when C# comes out) might just be a Spelljammer one. Thanks for the inspiration.
Title: Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
Post by: DEEPenergy on July 06, 2019, 04:20:10 PM
Looking forward to more. I noticed your ship designs you posted don't display of the weapon's damage and the fire control sensor accuracy anymore, is it intentional?
Title: Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
Post by: Father Tim on July 06, 2019, 04:33:23 PM
Looking forward to more. I noticed your ship designs you posted don't display of the weapon's damage and the fire control sensor accuracy anymore, is it intentional?

Particle Lance damage doesn't vary, so it's not displayed in the same way as lasers or rail guns.  I believe the "V4" in the weapon's name is a reference to it doing 4 damage.
Title: Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
Post by: Jorgen_CAB on July 06, 2019, 05:29:32 PM
While true, it's still much easier to support 3 or 4 5k ton vessels than a single 15 or 20 k ton vessel in the same system. If only because you need to ship in less maintenance support, or can rotate them out without having to deal with potential rising political unrest because your ship is no longer in the system and will not return until it has completed its maintenance cycle and sailed back.

It's very much a question of how you want to handle your colonies though, and the specific requirements of your empire.

In C# Aurora it is the same support needed for one 15kt ship as it is 3 5kt ships.

Although, for garrison duty I would never use large ships at all... small FAC or fighters are far more effective for that in general anyway because you are operating from a secure power base and not roaming the stars where you need both range and comfort for the crew.

There is a role to play for all kinds of ships. It is generally when you stare yourself blind on only one concept where you start finding big flaws or weaknesses to exploit in some way. That is also why I never really see all small or large ships or all specialised or generalist ships in my campaigns but a healthy mix of all kinds of ships mostly based on a organic development of doctrine due to potential enemies capabilities and the surrounding needs.

If you have the infrastructure and yards you would in general want one super big ship at 100kt rather than 10 10kt ships, but that is rarely possible in practical terms... the drawback is of course that one ship can only be at one place at a time where 10 ships are way more flexible. But in a showdown one big ship is almost always going to be more powerful. This then obviously come at a price of needing more resources to build up the infrastructure and time for such a fleet to grow and mature. This is why it is wise to invest in both small, medium and large ships in general. It is not stupid or unwise to use smaller ships and neither is it stupid to build large space hulk like ships either. It all depends on the conditions.
Title: Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
Post by: Hazard on July 06, 2019, 06:12:09 PM
In C# Aurora it is the same support needed for one 15kt ship as it is 3 5kt ships.

An understandable but erroneous conclusion.

While there's a much smaller gap between the logistical pressures between a large ship and a fleet of the same total weight of smaller ships, it's there. 3 5kt ships can effectively be fielded with only 5 kt in maintenance capacity, with 1 in overhaul, 1 in transit and 1 doing whatever useful thing you want to use the ships for. This is in contrast to the single 15kt ship with the same level of maintenance facilities, which is more or less stuck in overhaul or running out its maintenance clock, suffering ever escalating demands on MSP and other logistical support.

When it comes to designing and building a force you can field, you can't design and build a force meant to be 3 times or more larger than your maintenance capacity unless that force is effectively not meant to come home to be overhauled and maintained.

You can actually do that, with ships designed with a maintenance lifetime of a decade or more that are never upgraded, only scrapped and replaced. This is generally what you do with military stations anyway. But most fleets aren't designed with this level of disposability in mind, so most fleets are going to need more than 1/3rd of the total fleet weight in maintenance capacity, and depending on many factors, possibly substantially more.

Although, for garrison duty I would never use large ships at all... small FAC or fighters are far more effective for that in general anyway because you are operating from a secure power base and not roaming the stars where you need both range and comfort for the crew.

Changes in sensor mechanics make smallcraft swarms less viable due to being detected earlier. They're decent PPV for their weight and highly modular in deployment numbers though, which makes it easier to tailor to the colony's PPV demands.

If you have the infrastructure and yards you would in general want one super big ship at 100kt rather than 10 10kt ships, but that is rarely possible in practical terms... the drawback is of course that one ship can only be at one place at a time where 10 ships are way more flexible. But in a showdown one big ship is almost always going to be more powerful. This then obviously come at a price of needing more resources to build up the infrastructure and time for such a fleet to grow and mature. This is why it is wise to invest in both small, medium and large ships in general. It is not stupid or unwise to use smaller ships and neither is it stupid to build large space hulk like ships either. It all depends on the conditions.

Spinal mounts and Particle Lances do not turn ships of substantially smaller size than their target into the capital ship murderers that are VB6 meson/microwave smallcraft swarms, but it does make them a rather credible threat, especially against early armour dependent ships. The particle lance's ability to burn through en entire armour column to spend all of its remaining power on internal damage is not to be underestimated. Shields change the equation considerably however; shock damage aside, they're effectively an armour column as large as the total rating of the shield. That doesn't help much against missiles, which tend to wash over the armour layers and wear them away anyway, but against something that has good piercing against thick armour has more trouble with that.

And those 10 10kt ships get ten shots per round until a ship is forced to disengage, while the 100kt ships probably only gets 1 shot per round, if it has a spinal weapon.
Title: Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
Post by: Jorgen_CAB on July 06, 2019, 06:50:05 PM
In regard to sensors then the fact that small sensors now a way more powerful will offset the fact that smaller resolution sensors are better. Small size sensors are even stronger now so a small ship can generally see the larger ship before itself is spotted and for a much cheaper price in both resources and research. So small ships will become way more impact full in C# Aurora than they ever was before.

I certainly agree that smaller ships have a flexibility that larger ships does not. But in general larger ships will be more powerful for the same tonnage and resources put into them if you only consider the ship itself and not everything else you need to do to get them there.

And those 10 10kt ships get ten shots per round until a ship is forced to disengage, while the 100kt ships probably only gets 1 shot per round, if it has a spinal weapon.

Yes, spinal weapons is one of the aces of smaller ships... although most longer ranged weapons are (even if not spinal mounted) caped at the range of the fire-control anyway. So even a very large ship will be able to carry quite a few other heavy lasers or beam weapons to use. A large ship like that would likely not be a pure beam ship either, that would be kind of a waste. The whole point with such a ship would be its general purpose nature, it is one of the strength of such ships.

You might also find that in a rather even fight the shield strength on ships might just be too strong at extreme ranges no matter what you do unless ships involved are basically all beam oriented that is.

The armour depth between a 10kt ship and a 100kt ship are more the twice the depth for the same armour weight. In a design that I had for an example the 10Kt had 6 layers of armour for 10.6% total size and the 100kt ship 12 levels for 9.6% of its size in armour. It is quite a difference in durability in terms of deep impact weapons. You then also have the resistance to chock damage in addition to that effect. Another rather important detail are damage control which can be quite effective on large ships and very important in long range conflicts or conflicts that drags out on time.
Title: Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
Post by: Steve Walmsley on July 13, 2019, 05:19:41 PM
Looking forward to more. I noticed your ship designs you posted don't display of the weapon's damage and the fire control sensor accuracy anymore, is it intentional?

You can turn them on/off now if desired, so I had them off to shorten the design summary in my word doc :)
Title: Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
Post by: Hazard on July 21, 2019, 10:10:05 AM
You know, one of the least realistic bits of Aurora is the establishing colonies phase, especially early on. Sure, let's just move 0.1% of the global population off world to a completely virgin planet without any atmosphere or hydrosphere and completely without any settlement planning prior to dropping off the infrastructure and population.

I don't mind, if only because 'send in some hundred pioneers to survey non-TN materials and constraints, develop a plan of action to build up a new colony, then send in the off world construction crews with their thousands of personnel and support equipment to actually build the physical colony, while recruiting new colonists and training them for their new environment and only then send in the million or so new colonists', is boring and too much work.
Title: Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
Post by: Bremen on July 21, 2019, 11:58:40 AM
Ah, the always tricky phase where you're peacefully expanding with no contact yet and have to wrestle with the guns vs butter choice of spending more on economic expansion or military defense (which will likely be obsolete with the next few tech advances anyways). Of course, being Warhammer Imperium inspired, it's no surprise this campaign is leaning heavily on the military aspect :P
Title: Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
Post by: Steve Walmsley on July 21, 2019, 12:20:51 PM
Ah, the always tricky phase where you're peacefully expanding with no contact yet and have to wrestle with the guns vs butter choice of spending more on economic expansion or military defense (which will likely be obsolete with the next few tech advances anyways). Of course, being Warhammer Imperium inspired, it's no surprise this campaign is leaning heavily on the military aspect :P

Yes :)

Out of all my campaigns, I think this one has the largest military in proportion to the economy. I don't I mentioned it anywhere yet but C# Aurora has a lower chance of NPR and spoiler generation in the first few systems you explore, allowing a little expansion before you run into something (most of the time anyway). The chance gradually increases with more systems and reaches normal between 10-20 systems, depending on the type of contact. That should make venturing into space early a more attractive option.
Title: Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
Post by: Titanian on July 24, 2019, 09:53:53 AM
I don't I mentioned it anywhere yet but C# Aurora has a lower chance of NPR and spoiler generation in the first few systems you explore, allowing a little expansion before you run into something (most of the time anyway).
How does that work in starts with multiple nations? Do nation A and B, both starting from Earth, get their own counter? Can this be turned off?
Title: Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
Post by: Steve Walmsley on July 24, 2019, 12:21:36 PM
I don't I mentioned it anywhere yet but C# Aurora has a lower chance of NPR and spoiler generation in the first few systems you explore, allowing a little expansion before you run into something (most of the time anyway).
How does that work in starts with multiple nations? Do nation A and B, both starting from Earth, get their own counter? Can this be turned off?

It is the total number of systems known to player races, excluding Sol. No flag at the moment.
Title: Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
Post by: punchkid on July 25, 2019, 06:46:24 AM
Does this also apply for NPRs that start at game start? or only the chance of generating NPRs on system discorvery?
Title: Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
Post by: Steve Walmsley on July 25, 2019, 09:31:01 AM
Does this also apply for NPRs that start at game start? or only the chance of generating NPRs on system discorvery?

It only applies to generating new NPRs or spoilers. You could still run into game start NPRs immediately. However, in game settings you can choose the min and max distance from Earth in LY for any starting NPRs.
Title: Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
Post by: Father Tim on July 25, 2019, 04:03:50 PM
It only applies to generating new NPRs or spoilers. You could still run into game start NPRs immediately. However, in game settings you can choose the min and max distance from Earth in LY for any starting NPRs.

And if I'm not using 'Real Stars' how does that work?  Is there still a Min & Max distance setting for NPRs, and if so, how is it calculated?
Title: Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
Post by: Steve Walmsley on July 25, 2019, 04:53:18 PM
It only applies to generating new NPRs or spoilers. You could still run into game start NPRs immediately. However, in game settings you can choose the min and max distance from Earth in LY for any starting NPRs.

And if I'm not using 'Real Stars' how does that work?  Is there still a Min & Max distance setting for NPRs, and if so, how is it calculated?

No, it is only for real stars. Random stars doesn't have any concept of real space distance so it uses the same system number method as VB6 for starting NPRs.
Title: Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
Post by: Bremen on July 26, 2019, 02:07:42 AM
And of course the game where you go maximum military spending results in completely peaceful expansion with no enemies so far. Murphy's law at work, par for the course :P

It's still interesting watching them expand. I tend to do something similar when I play, trying to create at least a small manned colony in each system, and I suppose the new population limits probably make that even more important.
Title: Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
Post by: Steve Walmsley on July 26, 2019, 02:19:42 AM
And of course the game where you go maximum military spending results in completely peaceful expansion with no enemies so far. Murphy's law at work, par for the course :P

Especially as I added the new spoiler type as well. I have even been stepping through the spoiler and NPR generation code to check they are still working :)

Title: Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
Post by: Steve Walmsley on July 26, 2019, 10:06:16 AM
And of course the game where you go maximum military spending results in completely peaceful expansion with no enemies so far. Murphy's law at work, par for the course :P

And now I know why there are no enemies :)

The NPR and Rakhas generation won't happen if a planet has a dangerous gas in the atmosphere. Unfortunately, oxygen was being treated as a dangerous gas! Aaaaaarggh!

Tempted to restart but I think I've come so far in this campaign I will just continue. At least I got chance to build up a lot :)
Title: Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
Post by: chrislocke2000 on July 26, 2019, 10:48:37 AM
Well that should certainly also make for some interesting logistics when you eventually do have to fight them.
Title: Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
Post by: Bremen on July 26, 2019, 12:18:16 PM
Well that should certainly also make for some interesting logistics when you eventually do have to fight them.

"Amateurs talk about tactics, but professionals study logistics."

I personally feel war with a spread out empire is more interesting anyways; early on you can mostly just gather all your ships into one big death ball, but later on with a multi-system empire that becomes less feasible, and you also have things like emplaced defenses and defense in depth. And of course the logistics of fuel and missile stockpiles.

Not that the Imperium is likely to have to worry about being on the defensive with that fleet they've got :P
Title: Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
Post by: Steve Walmsley on July 26, 2019, 02:06:34 PM
Well that should certainly also make for some interesting logistics when you eventually do have to fight them.

"Amateurs talk about tactics, but professionals study logistics."

I personally feel war with a spread out empire is more interesting anyways; early on you can mostly just gather all your ships into one big death ball, but later on with a multi-system empire that becomes less feasible, and you also have things like emplaced defenses and defense in depth. And of course the logistics of fuel and missile stockpiles.

Not that the Imperium is likely to have to worry about being on the defensive with that fleet they've got :P

We'll find out soon - first contact!
Title: Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
Post by: Jovus on July 27, 2019, 12:24:59 PM
Not that the Imperium is likely to have to worry about being on the defensive with that fleet they've got :P
We'll find out soon - first contact!

F5 F5 F5 F5...

To add some actual content: I really like the new logi screens you put together and posted shots of. I feel like that's been a keystone that's been missing for truly grand space-operatic Weber-esque wars, and I'm happy to see it. Plus it's really cool how Actual Play drives Actual Design.
Title: Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
Post by: Zincat on July 30, 2019, 01:17:16 AM
Looks like Precursors.

A pity I was hoping for the new spoilers  ;D

By the way, I'm not holding my breath for the possible success of any sort of probing strikes. Looks like a recipe for disaster in this situation... The alien forces look quite formidable. The presence of AMM is particularly daunting for the Empire's weaponry. Maybe they're on ground based installations though, which could provide an opening for the Empire

I understand, of course, that you are roleplaying here   8)

Title: Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
Post by: Bremen on July 30, 2019, 01:36:29 AM
It feels to me terraforming small bodies might be a little too easy, if they're running around colonizing asteroids with the plan to quickly terraform them. Lack of gravity to hold an atmosphere would become an issue at some point. Even if, on re-reading, it was an absolutely gigantic asteroid (that's more than half the diameter of the moon).

Looks like Precursors.

A pity I was hoping for the new spoilers  ;D

By the way, I'm not holding my breath for the possible success of any sort of probing strikes. Looks like a recipe for disaster in this situation... The alien forces look quite formidable. The presence of AMM is particularly daunting for the Empire's weaponry. Maybe they're on ground based installations though, which could provide an opening for the Empire

I understand, of course, that you are roleplaying here   8)

Do precursors use fuel harvesters? Though the fact that the passive augurs didn't detect signs of a population argues that it probably isn't an NPR either. Interesting.
Title: Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
Post by: arty on July 30, 2019, 03:41:45 AM
think swarm ?
Title: Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
Post by: Agoelia on July 30, 2019, 04:50:21 AM
think swarm ?


I don't think so, unless in #C they have access to AMM
Title: Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
Post by: Steve Walmsley on July 30, 2019, 07:10:07 AM
It feels to me terraforming small bodies might be a little too easy, if they're running around colonizing asteroids with the plan to quickly terraform them. Lack of gravity to hold an atmosphere would become an issue at some point. Even if, on re-reading, it was an absolutely gigantic asteroid (that's more than half the diameter of the moon).

I am still playing around with balancing Terraforming as it has changed so much. There are several new factors.

1) You need 0.5 atm of water vapour to go from zero water to 20% (minimum for no water-based colony cost) and that water vapour will take five years to condense (0.1 atm per year). So even if you add the water vapour quickly, you still can't make a water-less world completely habitable in less than five years. A large world with water is still a better option than a mid-sized world without and larger worlds are more likely to have water.

2) Population capacity is a new consideration. This body is very large for an asteroid, but it is barely above minimum gravity and has a maximum population capacity of fifty million. Small worlds can be colonized more quickly but have limited population. You can't terraform any world with less than 0.1 gravity.

3) Many more worlds are available to be colonised due to the higher speed of terraforming small bodies. In VB6 Aurora, this asteroid would never be considered as a realistic terraforming prospect because it lacked atmosphere. Faster terraforming for small worlds means you have a choice on using your terraforming resources on many small colonies or fewer larger colonies. More choice and more decisions.

4) You can create terraforming stations and build them using construction factories. In VB6, you would need an orbital habitat for that, which is much less practical. This means you can put a lot of terraforming modules into space if that is your priority.

I need to see how this works out in practice, but when the aliens were discovered the terraformers were working on two worlds larger than Earth. Large worlds are slow to terraform but they are also a lot more likely to have existing water and atmospheres and larger mineral deposits. Even this asteroid would probably not be considered for terraforming except for the nearby aliens.
Title: Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
Post by: Steve Walmsley on July 30, 2019, 07:11:06 AM
Do precursors use fuel harvesters?

They don't in VB6, but the AI uses fuel in C#.
Title: Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
Post by: clement on July 30, 2019, 07:23:08 AM
It feels to me terraforming small bodies might be a little too easy, if they're running around colonizing asteroids with the plan to quickly terraform them. Lack of gravity to hold an atmosphere would become an issue at some point. Even if, on re-reading, it was an absolutely gigantic asteroid (that's more than half the diameter of the moon).

I am still playing around with balancing Terraforming as it has changed so much. There are several new factors.

1) You need 0.5 atm of water vapour to go from zero water to 20% (minimum for no water-based colony cost) and that water vapour will take five years to condense (0.1 atm per year). So even if you add the water vapour quickly, you still can't make a water-less world completely habitable in less than five years. A large world with water is still a better option than a mid-sized world without and larger worlds are more likely to have water.

2) Population capacity is a new consideration. This body is very large for an asteroid, but it is barely above minimum gravity and has a maximum population capacity of fifty million. Small worlds can be colonized more quickly but have limited population. You can't terraform any world with less than 0.1 gravity.

3) Many more worlds are available to be colonised due to the higher speed of terraforming small bodies. In VB6 Aurora, this asteroid would never be considered as a realistic terraforming prospect because it lacked atmosphere. Faster terraforming for small worlds means you have a choice on using your terraforming resources on many small colonies or fewer larger colonies. More choice and more decisions.

4) You can create terraforming stations and build them using construction factories. In VB6, you would need an orbital habitat for that, which is much less practical. This means you can put a lot of terraforming modules into space if that is your priority.

I need to see how this works out in practice, but when the aliens were discovered the terraformers were working on two worlds larger than Earth. Large worlds are slow to terraform but they are also a lot more likely to have existing water and atmospheres and larger mineral deposits. Even this asteroid would probably not be considered for terraforming except for the nearby aliens.

With these factors, you can now have "population farms" to rapidly increase your population. A couple dozen small planets/moons that have been terraformed would allow for a large number of high growth colonies. You could then have an appropriate number of colony ship assigned to remove population from each colony based on its growth rate and deliver those to large planet and high value colonies that need high populations.

I do not remember what the population growth rate for a 50 Million population world is, but if it is ~10% then you can get 5 Million pop per colony which can build up very quickly if you had 20 or 30 of those.

This also strikes me as a very WH40K thing to do, forced migration from small colonies to the newly settled hive worlds.
Title: Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
Post by: Bremen on July 31, 2019, 12:26:29 AM
It feels to me terraforming small bodies might be a little too easy, if they're running around colonizing asteroids with the plan to quickly terraform them. Lack of gravity to hold an atmosphere would become an issue at some point. Even if, on re-reading, it was an absolutely gigantic asteroid (that's more than half the diameter of the moon).

I am still playing around with balancing Terraforming as it has changed so much. There are several new factors.

1) You need 0.5 atm of water vapour to go from zero water to 20% (minimum for no water-based colony cost) and that water vapour will take five years to condense (0.1 atm per year). So even if you add the water vapour quickly, you still can't make a water-less world completely habitable in less than five years. A large world with water is still a better option than a mid-sized world without and larger worlds are more likely to have water.

2) Population capacity is a new consideration. This body is very large for an asteroid, but it is barely above minimum gravity and has a maximum population capacity of fifty million. Small worlds can be colonized more quickly but have limited population. You can't terraform any world with less than 0.1 gravity.

3) Many more worlds are available to be colonised due to the higher speed of terraforming small bodies. In VB6 Aurora, this asteroid would never be considered as a realistic terraforming prospect because it lacked atmosphere. Faster terraforming for small worlds means you have a choice on using your terraforming resources on many small colonies or fewer larger colonies. More choice and more decisions.

4) You can create terraforming stations and build them using construction factories. In VB6, you would need an orbital habitat for that, which is much less practical. This means you can put a lot of terraforming modules into space if that is your priority.

I need to see how this works out in practice, but when the aliens were discovered the terraformers were working on two worlds larger than Earth. Large worlds are slow to terraform but they are also a lot more likely to have existing water and atmospheres and larger mineral deposits. Even this asteroid would probably not be considered for terraforming except for the nearby aliens.

With these factors, you can now have "population farms" to rapidly increase your population. A couple dozen small planets/moons that have been terraformed would allow for a large number of high growth colonies. You could then have an appropriate number of colony ship assigned to remove population from each colony based on its growth rate and deliver those to large planet and high value colonies that need high populations.

I do not remember what the population growth rate for a 50 Million population world is, but if it is ~10% then you can get 5 Million pop per colony which can build up very quickly if you had 20 or 30 of those.

This also strikes me as a very WH40K thing to do, forced migration from small colonies to the newly settled hive worlds.

I believe (not 100%) that the population growth curve is now determined by how much of the population capacity is filled. So for pop growth farms you'd want the biggest habitable planet you could find, not a bunch of small ones.
Title: Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
Post by: Father Tim on July 31, 2019, 02:59:01 AM
I believe (not 100%) that the population growth curve is now determined by how much of the population capacity is filled. So for pop growth farms you'd want the biggest habitable planet you could find, not a bunch of small ones.

As long as you're under 1/3rd cap, you should get un-modified growth rates.  You'll need Imperial colony ships, though, unless your 'farm worlds' pop capacity is 75+ million.
Title: Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
Post by: Hazard on July 31, 2019, 04:43:31 AM
I believe (not 100%) that the population growth curve is now determined by how much of the population capacity is filled. So for pop growth farms you'd want the biggest habitable planet you could find, not a bunch of small ones.

On the other hand, planets that have no TN resources can still work perfectly well as sources of population, or wealth when you put down some finance centers.
Title: Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
Post by: Bremen on August 12, 2019, 12:02:04 PM
Sounds like there's a bit of a curse on the Ascension name  ;D
Title: Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
Post by: Steve Walmsley on August 12, 2019, 12:26:31 PM
Sounds like there's a bit of a curse on the Ascension name  ;D

Currently building Ascension Tertius :)
Title: Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
Post by: LoSboccacc on August 13, 2019, 07:57:33 AM
goddamn cliffhangers  ;D

so are enemy still relatively static in their tech level? is that gonna change before release?
Title: Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
Post by: Steve Walmsley on August 13, 2019, 09:42:02 AM
goddamn cliffhangers  ;D

so are enemy still relatively static in their tech level? is that gonna change before release?

No, not static :)

The new NPR research is a lot better than before, in both planning and execution. Their tech choices are matched with their design theme. In more than one test game the NPRs have gone up tech levels and designed new ships. You will probably run into ships from the same NPR with different levels of tech.
Title: Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
Post by: The Forbidden on August 13, 2019, 10:30:07 PM
goddamn cliffhangers  ;D

so are enemy still relatively static in their tech level? is that gonna change before release?

No, not static :)

The new NPR research is a lot better than before, in both planning and execution. Their tech choices are matched with their design theme. In more than one test game the NPRs have gone up tech levels and designed new ships. You will probably run into ships from the same NPR with different levels of tech.

Will the NPRs refit their ships then ? Or will they keep the old ones as is ?
Title: Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
Post by: Steve Walmsley on August 14, 2019, 03:24:07 AM
goddamn cliffhangers  ;D

so are enemy still relatively static in their tech level? is that gonna change before release?

No, not static :)

The new NPR research is a lot better than before, in both planning and execution. Their tech choices are matched with their design theme. In more than one test game the NPRs have gone up tech levels and designed new ships. You will probably run into ships from the same NPR with different levels of tech.

Will the NPRs refit their ships then ? Or will they keep the old ones as is ?

At the moment they just build new ones and keep the old ones. I might add some refit code at some point.
Title: Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
Post by: Steve Walmsley on August 16, 2019, 11:51:38 AM
Just found a slight bug...

A ship with automated AMM launch can fire as many times as it wants to in a single phase. I wondered how the defenders of Procyon took out so many missiles at once. Now I know :)

I'll fix that before the new attack starts :)
Title: Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
Post by: Hazard on August 16, 2019, 12:58:32 PM
Wait, launchers set to AMM duty currently don't cycle to empty but instead load instantly or shoot from the magazine?

That's really broken.
Title: Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
Post by: Doren on August 16, 2019, 02:24:36 PM
Wait, launchers set to AMM duty currently don't cycle to empty but instead load instantly or shoot from the magazine?

That's really broken.
I'd call it pretty fine leveling field to counter box launcher volleys  :P
Title: Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
Post by: Steve Walmsley on August 16, 2019, 02:28:05 PM
Wait, launchers set to AMM duty currently don't cycle to empty but instead load instantly or shoot from the magazine?

That's really broken.

They were flagged for reload, but I forgot to break the cycle of checking each hostile salvo once they chose a target, so they fired at all of them :)

Apart from the defence of the bomber strike in Procyon, it hasn't affected the campaign. I have seen similarly large bugs in other areas as well over the last few months - this is why I am running test campaigns.
Title: Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
Post by: Bremen on August 24, 2019, 06:18:30 PM
Looks like we're going to finally see some ground combat with the new system. I'm looking forward to it!
Title: Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
Post by: Zincat on August 25, 2019, 05:12:21 AM
Looks like we're going to finally see some ground combat with the new system. I'm looking forward to it!

What Bremen said. Really looking forward to it.

All in all, I'm rather impressed by the AI's actions. The fact it really changed plans during the battle as its ships were destroyed is quite nice. It was not succesful.... but it is very appealing to see. I really look forward to more balanced engagements :)

I would even suggest, if necessary, to force the generation of a large NPR nearby :P While these engagements are very promising, I feel that I want to see what a NPR is doing, possibly for some time.


If there is one complaint I would voice Steve.... You have explored a LOT of systems by now, right? I have not kept track, but maybe 80+ systems? I'm quite perplexed by the lack of the swarm and the new spoiler race. I mean, maybe it was just me, but it seemed that the swarm was rather common in VB Aurora. Did something change, or were you simply unlucky? Personally, I like my galaxy to be rather "full" of threats
Title: Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
Post by: Jovus on August 25, 2019, 05:33:27 AM
If there is one complaint I would voice Steve.... You have explored a LOT of systems by now, right? I have not kept track, but maybe 80+ systems? I'm quite perplexed by the lack of the swarm and the new spoiler race. I mean, maybe it was just me, but it seemed that the swarm was rather common in VB Aurora. Did something change, or were you simply unlucky? Personally, I like my galaxy to be rather "full" of threats

This made me realize that it would be very cool if there were some options to tweak non-NPR threat generation. Maybe you want to see them at every turn, or maybe you want a mostly empty galaxy.
Title: Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
Post by: Steve Walmsley on August 25, 2019, 06:30:41 AM
Looks like we're going to finally see some ground combat with the new system. I'm looking forward to it!

What Bremen said. Really looking forward to it.

All in all, I'm rather impressed by the AI's actions. The fact it really changed plans during the battle as its ships were destroyed is quite nice. It was not succesful.... but it is very appealing to see. I really look forward to more balanced engagements :)

I would even suggest, if necessary, to force the generation of a large NPR nearby :P While these engagements are very promising, I feel that I want to see what a NPR is doing, possibly for some time.


If there is one complaint I would voice Steve.... You have explored a LOT of systems by now, right? I have not kept track, but maybe 80+ systems? I'm quite perplexed by the lack of the swarm and the new spoiler race. I mean, maybe it was just me, but it seemed that the swarm was rather common in VB Aurora. Did something change, or were you simply unlucky? Personally, I like my galaxy to be rather "full" of threats

The AI was seriously outgunned during the battle as I had about a 3-1 tonnage advantage. I think it was going to lose regardless, but it certainly made it more difficult for me than a similar situation in VB6 :) 

Spoilers ahead for the Swarm...

There are some differences in swarm generation. For VB6, there is a 1 in 40 chance that the Swarm will appear in any given system. In C#, that chance is 1 in 30 for eligible systems. An eligible system is determined by having one or more system bodies with a 'Swarm Mining Score' of 4 or more. That mining score is determined for a system body using the following rules:

1) Sum all accessibilities for mineral deposits over 1000 tons.
2) Use double accessibility for Duranium
3) Use double accessibility for a deposit over 1m tons.
4) Use 1.5x accessibility for a deposit over 100k tons.
5) Use 1.25x accessibility for a deposit over 10k tons.

As you can see, that isn't too difficult to achieve and it provides the swarm with a base of mining operations. However, given that requirement and the 1 in 30 chance, the swarm is going to appear less often than in VB6. Also, there is a reduction in the chance of generating spoilers and NPRs in the first few systems you explore. The random roll has been made many times but hasn't hit yet. I could lower that chance a little to make the swarm appear more frequently, but the Swarm is a much greater threat in C# and not all its new capabilities were demonstrated in the last AAR. Also, each Swarm generated is a separate 'race', so you can have multiple Swarms with different capabilities. Swarms generated later in the game will generally be more capable than those generated early.


I have explored 100 systems so far. There are two NPRs in the game and they have explored about 60 between them. C# allows you to control the min and max distance (in LY) from Sol at which NPRs are generated, so you can create games where you meet very quickly or allow a lot of time to build up. In this case I generated them relatively far out so they would be well-developed

Spoilers for Rakhas...

Rakhas require certain conditions for them to be generated. Surface temp between -50C and +70C, gravity between 0.08G and 2.9G, at least 10% hydro extent and at least 0.03 oxygen. If all these conditions are met, there is a random roll from 1-8 to see if they appear. If that roll is less than the sum of mineral accessibility, with Duranium doubled, the Rakhas are generated. They won't be that common, but they will tend to be on desirable worlds. Otherwise, they could just be ignored.
Title: Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
Post by: Steve Walmsley on August 25, 2019, 06:31:33 AM
If there is one complaint I would voice Steve.... You have explored a LOT of systems by now, right? I have not kept track, but maybe 80+ systems? I'm quite perplexed by the lack of the swarm and the new spoiler race. I mean, maybe it was just me, but it seemed that the swarm was rather common in VB Aurora. Did something change, or were you simply unlucky? Personally, I like my galaxy to be rather "full" of threats

This made me realize that it would be very cool if there were some options to tweak non-NPR threat generation. Maybe you want to see them at every turn, or maybe you want a mostly empty galaxy.

Yes, it would be easy to add a modifier for swarm and Rakhas generation.
Title: Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
Post by: Zincat on August 25, 2019, 06:57:56 AM
A lot of information about the spoilers :). Snipped for legibility

Thanks for the detailed explanation on swarm and rakhas Steve. I can understand better now why we have not seen either of those.

I do have to agree with Jovus though. It would be great if we could set a modifier for spoiler generation, to make them either more common or rarer. Really hoping you will allow us to do it, as it would be great for RP.  :P
Title: Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
Post by: Jovus on August 25, 2019, 09:16:13 AM
I imagine simplest to understand from a user perspective without, hopefully, taking too much extra effort, would be a simple scalar multiplier applied to the target number (for roll-under) or the roll (for roll-over). This wouldn't change anything about any requirements for generation, which would be a good thing.
Title: Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
Post by: chrislocke2000 on August 26, 2019, 04:55:16 AM
It’s a shame the npr decided to open fire at maximum range with its sto weapons in that last encounter. I assume if they had waited until the player fleet had started to bombard the planet or until they were at point blank range they could have inflicted a lot more damage on the fleet? Does the AI have. Concept of concealment?
Title: Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
Post by: Bughunter on August 26, 2019, 05:13:56 AM
Quote
This time the bombers re-allocated the remaining thirteen torpedoes to functioning launchers and sent a small second torpedo wave in the wake of the first

With a launcher reload time of 79 minutes, should this really be possible? Unless the second wave was 79 minutes behind.
Title: Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
Post by: Steve Walmsley on August 26, 2019, 05:24:10 AM
Quote
This time the bombers re-allocated the remaining thirteen torpedoes to functioning launchers and sent a small second torpedo wave in the wake of the first

With a launcher reload time of 79 minutes, should this really be possible? Unless the second wave was 79 minutes behind.

No it shouldn't. Good spot.
Title: Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
Post by: punchkid on August 27, 2019, 03:13:50 AM
The new spoilers sound really cool.  I love that they are more likely to appear in desirable systems.
Can't wait to see you bump into some of them.
Title: Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
Post by: AlStar on August 28, 2019, 10:15:54 AM
Quote
To their surprise, the defenders, numbering approximately one hundred and sixty, were robotic with an almost skeletal, metallic appearance.  The robotic crew was plainly not designed for combat and had only minimal weapons.  Despite fierce resistance they were no match for the Imperial space marines and the vessel was taken in two minutes of intense combat.
Interesting that they're actually 'manned' ships with a crew of robots sitting at the stations; I'd always imagined Precursor ships as solid slabs of metal and circuitry. 
Title: Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
Post by: Steve Walmsley on August 28, 2019, 10:18:57 AM
Quote
To their surprise, the defenders, numbering approximately one hundred and sixty, were robotic with an almost skeletal, metallic appearance.  The robotic crew was plainly not designed for combat and had only minimal weapons.  Despite fierce resistance they were no match for the Imperial space marines and the vessel was taken in two minutes of intense combat.
Interesting that they're actually 'manned' ships with a crew of robots sitting at the stations; I'd always imagined Precursor ships as solid slabs of metal and circuitry.

I came up with that at the moment the marines boarded and I thought "Hmm, who are they going to fight?" :)
Title: Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
Post by: Hazard on August 28, 2019, 10:41:07 AM
Not humanoid robots I'd expect, although there would definitely be a need for robots capable of accessing components for maintenance purposes. You don't generally see solid slabs of anything unless it's not intended to be maintained except at the surface or at a massive maintenance facility that can take said solid slab apart.

Kinda difficult when you are dealing with things like laser batteries which very reliably break down as they get fired. It'd mean the weight of your fire will decrease over time as components break down and you have no way to make repairs.


So... not humanoid robots. Arthropod like robots that look like centipedes in their articulation are likely, carrying a variety of tools and supported by other robots with a potentially different shape that do most of the replacement part lugging is what I'd expect.
Title: Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
Post by: Zincat on August 28, 2019, 10:46:57 AM
Not humanoid robots I'd expect, although there would definitely be a need for robots capable of accessing components for maintenance purposes. You don't generally see solid slabs of anything unless it's not intended to be maintained except at the surface or at a massive maintenance facility that can take said solid slab apart.

Kinda difficult when you are dealing with things like laser batteries which very reliably break down as they get fired. It'd mean the weight of your fire will decrease over time as components break down and you have no way to make repairs.


So... not humanoid robots. Arthropod like robots that look like centipedes in their articulation are likely, carrying a variety of tools and supported by other robots with a potentially different shape that do most of the replacement part lugging is what I'd expect.

Honestly, the description is probably just for flavor. As long as there is an "opposition", I don't think the game models WHAT that opposition is. You can imagine it being humanoid, or arthropods, or anything else that strikes your fancy really ^^
Title: Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
Post by: Zincat on September 02, 2019, 01:00:12 PM
The new ground combat sounds AMAZING. I wonder how much that is RP from steve though  :P

What size are those ruins? Do we still have a general "size" like in VB Aurora, before having explored them?

Do you plan to move away from the bombers, so to speak? Or are you just waiting to build much larger carriers and a lot more torpedos?
Title: Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
Post by: Steve Walmsley on September 02, 2019, 03:13:21 PM
The new ground combat sounds AMAZING. I wonder how much that is RP from steve though  :P

What size are those ruins? Do we still have a general "size" like in VB Aurora, before having explored them?

Do you plan to move away from the bombers, so to speak? Or are you just waiting to build much larger carriers and a lot more torpedos?

I was running three combats per day (every 8 hours) so I styled them as morning, afternoon and evening. The 'breakthroughs' are in the game - there is a breakthrough event and the formation attacks a second time, including enemy formations in support or rear echelon. All the intel on the enemy forces is part of tactical intelligence. All the kill numbers are in the events and the tonnage destroyed is recorded for the commander. I wasn't adding a lot of RP. I handled all the disbanding of formations and reassigning units in the game just as I described.

Ruins are a Ruined Colony - sizes are the same as VB6.

I could build more carriers, but I don't have enough ordnance factories as I needed maintenance facilities and financial centres. Besides, I am thinking of converting some of the smaller carrier hybrids to carry ground attack fighters to support invasions.
Title: Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
Post by: Jovus on September 02, 2019, 06:38:27 PM
I could build more carriers, but I don't have enough ordnance factories as I needed maintenance facilities and financial centres. Besides, I am thinking of converting some of the smaller carrier hybrids to carry ground attack fighters to support invasions.

Plus, it'll be really cool to see how well, or how poorly, the Empire does in an energy-range engagement with the Necrons.

Hopefully the High Lords of Terra court-martial the current admiral for cowardice and put someone crazy in charge.
Title: Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
Post by: IanD on September 03, 2019, 06:03:55 AM
Interesting write up. A question I have is when you refit ships are the systems replaced put into storage or just lost? I tend to have front line fleets, kept up to date with the latest equipment and second line squadrons which I would want to upgrade with the items removed from the front line fleet. In VB6 it appears systems removed in refits are just lost. I would like the option to reuse systems removed in refits.

Second question is how easy is it to reassign ground units between formations and how long would it take for a formation to regain full strength if no units reassigned to that formation? How much micro-management required?

Regards Ian
Title: Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
Post by: Steve Walmsley on September 03, 2019, 06:53:42 AM
How easy is it to reassign ground units between formations and how long would it take for a formation to regain full strength if no units reassigned to that formation? How much micro-management required?

Moving units between formations is drag and drop, with the option to move specific numbers of units rather than a whole element. There is a description in the change log.

http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=8495.msg109808#msg109808

Units don't regain strength. You build replacements and assign them, or combine depleted formations.
Title: Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
Post by: Steve Walmsley on September 03, 2019, 06:55:03 AM
When you refit ships are the systems replaced put into storage or just lost? I tend to have front line fleets, kept up to date with the latest equipment and second line squadrons which I would want to upgrade with the items removed from the front line fleet. In VB6 it appears systems removed in refits are just lost. I would like the option to reuse systems removed in refits.

Yes, they are lost in C# too. Should be straightforward to add them to the stockpile instead.
Title: Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
Post by: Zincat on September 03, 2019, 09:12:13 AM
I think IanD makes an excellent point about refitting.

Yes, they are lost in C# too. Should be straightforward to add them to the stockpile instead.

Would make sense. At the very least, players could just scrap them for minerals. Refitting a ship with new lasers should not mean you dump the old ones in a garbage dump, modularity should allow for dismounting the old parts without destroying them.

Title: Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
Post by: chrislocke2000 on September 03, 2019, 09:26:56 AM
That ground combat looked pretty brutal! Given the size of the starting forces relative to a standard start I can see that the spoilers are going to be a real challenge in C#.

Regarding the ground attack fighters any thoughts on adding missions for STO engagement or do these already get caught on the flak suppression mission?
Title: Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
Post by: Steve Walmsley on September 03, 2019, 11:40:19 AM
That ground combat looked pretty brutal! Given the size of the starting forces relative to a standard start I can see that the spoilers are going to be a real challenge in C#.

Regarding the ground attack fighters any thoughts on adding missions for STO engagement or do these already get caught on the flak suppression mission?

Once STO reveal themselves, they can be attacked by normal combat. The ground attack fighters would have a chance to engage them as part of overall strikes usingground support mode but currently not specifically. Might be an interesting idea though. Very Star Wars :)
Title: Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
Post by: ExChairman on September 03, 2019, 11:54:08 AM
I think IanD makes an excellent point about refitting.

Yes, they are lost in C# too. Should be straightforward to add them to the stockpile instead.

Would make sense. At the very least, players could just scrap them for minerals. Refitting a ship with new lasers should not mean you dump the old ones in a garbage dump, modularity should allow for dismounting the old parts without destroying them.

From my experience of the history of Sweden, almost all guns on destroyers and up were saved and put into coastal batteries or in the fortress of Boden, the lock of the North....
Title: Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
Post by: Scandinavian on September 03, 2019, 12:04:13 PM
Simply as a matter of consistency, it would make sense that anything you would recover from scrapping the vessel would be recoverable in a refit. Especially since you do not get a discount for replacing it with similar equipment, so it's not like the old gear is cannibalized to make it cheaper and easier to install the upgrade.
Title: Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
Post by: Hazard on September 03, 2019, 12:09:16 PM
When you refit ships are the systems replaced put into storage or just lost? I tend to have front line fleets, kept up to date with the latest equipment and second line squadrons which I would want to upgrade with the items removed from the front line fleet. In VB6 it appears systems removed in refits are just lost. I would like the option to reuse systems removed in refits.

Yes, they are lost in C# too. Should be straightforward to add them to the stockpile instead.

IIRC part of the reason they are lost in VB6 is because the raw materials and time investment of replaced components is used to calculate the discount for the refit. Components stripped and replaced should be ignored for discount calculations in that case.

Also, looking at the numbers for the ground combat I'm noticing a few things.

First, after the first engagement of the 3rd Light Armoured Company there are no more references to Hellhound tanks. I presume this means that the 4th Company was pulled back behind the lines and kept out of combat. Rather unsurprising given that the 3rd Light evaporated on first contact.

Second, casualties were fairly even between the infantry and the armour. Normally you see larger casualty counts among the infantry. This may've been the result of the relatively poor armour of the Imperium compared to the enemy's weapon strength. There's just a point where it's impossible to kill a target more dead even if you put more energy into it, and you get to that limit much more quickly with squishy humans than with the armoured shell around the squishy humans.

Third, specialist forces suffered disproportionate losses. It's kinda hard to tell how significant that is among the armoured units, simply because there's fewer of them in numbers so an unfortunate loss of a single Vox Vehicle would skew the ratios considerably, but while Guardsmen suffered about 13% losses, Chimera saw 22% losses, Lascannons 41%, Hydra platforms 20%, vox casters 42% and Regimental HQs 75%. Infantry supply vehicles lost 11%.

Clearly something needs to be done. For vehicles, this can be partially covered by putting more armour on them. However, there is something to be said for a 'backline combatant' rule or something similar, that renders certain units less likely to be targeted in ground combat by units other than artillery/fighters in return for lower chances of engaging themselves. Lascannons and Chimera are quite frankly nearly always going to be on the frontlines because that's where their job is, but AA platforms and Regimental level HQs aren't really supposed to get into the thick of the fighting, and Vox units would be the sort of unit that get a squad dedicated to babysit them and keep them from getting killed while calling in the support, likewise reducing the chances of their dying (although IIRC historically being an FFD was a dangerous job with high casualty rates).

Fourth, Logistics units casualties would indicate that less than 450 supply units have been lost. I take it that supply use is not counted in the casualties. As that would explain the discrepancy of 3 entire regiments of supply units getting disbanded to build everything back up to strength.

Fifth and final, in reality the Valhallan, Mordian and Paragonian regiments wouldn't have been disbanded, they would if possible have been rotated back home or to another secured location where they could rendezvous with and integrate reinforcements.

And speaking of reinforcements, is there a 'Rebuild to Template' order for ground units? I can't find it on the wiki, and such an order would be helpful with rebuilding units that suffered casualties or replacing equipment. It would be reasonable for it to cost less in both minerals and time, simply because you are scrapping already processed materials so you can reuse at least some of it, but the time savings are notably smaller than the mineral savings and as the technological gap between the old equipment and the new equipment increases the savings grow smaller.

That ground combat looked pretty brutal! Given the size of the starting forces relative to a standard start I can see that the spoilers are going to be a real challenge in C#.

Regarding the ground attack fighters any thoughts on adding missions for STO engagement or do these already get caught on the flak suppression mission?

Once STO reveal themselves, they can be attacked by normal combat. The ground attack fighters would have a chance to engage them as part of overall strikes usingground support mode but currently not specifically. Might be an interesting idea though. Very Star Wars :)

Not just Star Wars. Happened often enough in history that part of the job of the first wave of an attack was to force enemy positions to reveal themselves so they could be bombarded from range or by aircraft.
Title: Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
Post by: clement on September 03, 2019, 01:01:13 PM
Steve, in the 10 dates of combat, how much dust and damage was done to the planet? Also, how long will that damage take to dissipate?

With more ground combat likely, the dust and damage caused by combat is something that worries me amount wise.
Title: Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
Post by: Bremen on September 03, 2019, 01:32:08 PM
That ground combat looked pretty brutal! Given the size of the starting forces relative to a standard start I can see that the spoilers are going to be a real challenge in C#.

Regarding the ground attack fighters any thoughts on adding missions for STO engagement or do these already get caught on the flak suppression mission?

Once STO reveal themselves, they can be attacked by normal combat. The ground attack fighters would have a chance to engage them as part of overall strikes usingground support mode but currently not specifically. Might be an interesting idea though. Very Star Wars :)

This isn't the idea thread, I know, but it seems fitting to me if ground support fighters had some bonus for hitting rear and reserve units anyways (or maybe they already do? So many changes it's getting hard to keep track). This would serve a similar purpose to STO suppression, even if not doing so directly.

(Post reading the changes thread) Ah, I guess that would be the Search and Destroy mission. Depending on how the balance shakes out, it might be worth having that prioritize rear and support units. It'd be a reason to pad out your STO formations with support, as well.
Title: Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
Post by: vorpal+5 on September 04, 2019, 09:23:48 AM
When you refit ships are the systems replaced put into storage or just lost? I tend to have front line fleets, kept up to date with the latest equipment and second line squadrons which I would want to upgrade with the items removed from the front line fleet. In VB6 it appears systems removed in refits are just lost. I would like the option to reuse systems removed in refits.

Yes, they are lost in C# too. Should be straightforward to add them to the stockpile instead.

I would like that too, we can scrap them for a few pennies worth of resources, or re-use it for 'colonial fleets units'.
Title: Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
Post by: Steve Walmsley on September 05, 2019, 11:17:46 AM
First, after the first engagement of the 3rd Light Armoured Company there are no more references to Hellhound tanks. I presume this means that the 4th Company was pulled back behind the lines and kept out of combat. Rather unsurprising given that the 3rd Light evaporated on first contact.

They were still engaged. I think they were mentioned in one of the last breakthroughs.

Quote
Second, casualties were fairly even between the infantry and the armour. Normally you see larger casualty counts among the infantry. This may've been the result of the relatively poor armour of the Imperium compared to the enemy's weapon strength. There's just a point where it's impossible to kill a target more dead even if you put more energy into it, and you get to that limit much more quickly with squishy humans than with the armoured shell around the squishy humans.

Not sure what you mean here. Only a small number of tanks (45 Leman Russ, 34 Hellhounds, etc.) were lost compared to thousands of infantry

Quote
Third, specialist forces suffered disproportionate losses. It's kinda hard to tell how significant that is among the armoured units, simply because there's fewer of them in numbers so an unfortunate loss of a single Vox Vehicle would skew the ratios considerably, but while Guardsmen suffered about 13% losses, Chimera saw 22% losses, Lascannons 41%, Hydra platforms 20%, vox casters 42% and Regimental HQs 75%. Infantry supply vehicles lost 11%.

That is the nature of the system. Infantry is squishy but individually small, so a single hit on an element with 2400 infantry causes 0.042% casualties. The Lascannon (for example) is an infantry-based light-anti-tank weapon, which is larger than infantry but just as easy to kill. So one hit on the element with 100 Lascannon would inflict 1% casualties. The regimental HQs are very large and also easy to kill. This is why I introduced the new rule about non-combat units. I will also be designing some HQs with a lot more armour.

Quote
Fourth, Logistics units casualties would indicate that less than 450 supply units have been lost. I take it that supply use is not counted in the casualties. As that would explain the discrepancy of 3 entire regiments of supply units getting disbanded to build everything back up to strength.

I was a little loose with my description of 'casualties'. A small portion of the destroyed supply vehicles were actually consumed, mainly in the armoured forces as they were drawing on their own supplies. The majority of the consumed supplies were in the 'Corps Assets' formations, and those supplies were replaced by the logistics formations

Quote
Fifth and final, in reality the Valhallan, Mordian and Paragonian regiments wouldn't have been disbanded, they would if possible have been rotated back home or to another secured location where they could rendezvous with and integrate reinforcements.

You can choose to do that if you wish. I didn't actually use up all the infantry in one of the disbanded formations, so I renamed it the 1st Replacement Regiment so it can fulfill the above function. Also, some units will be combined in wartime rather than rotated home.

Quote
And speaking of reinforcements, is there a 'Rebuild to Template' order for ground units? I can't find it on the wiki, and such an order would be helpful with rebuilding units that suffered casualties or replacing equipment. It would be reasonable for it to cost less in both minerals and time, simply because you are scrapping already processed materials so you can reuse at least some of it, but the time savings are notably smaller than the mineral savings and as the technological gap between the old equipment and the new equipment increases the savings grow smaller.

That doesn't exist at the moment, but it might be possible. Once constructed, ground formations don't have a template, which means they can grow, shrink or change over time. If you want replacements, you can build them and drag-drop onto the existing formation. The Race maintains a list of current templates, so it might be possible to have a ground formation 'fill in the gaps' to match one of those templates by assigning it to a training facility.
Title: Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
Post by: Hazard on September 05, 2019, 12:14:45 PM
They were still engaged. I think they were mentioned in one of the last breakthroughs.

Yup, I just missed them. They appear to have had little impact. No note on casualties of the Light Armoured Companies other than the slaughter the Third Light Armoured suffered though.

Not sure what you mean here. Only a small number of tanks (45 Leman Russ, 34 Hellhounds, etc.) were lost compared to thousands of infantry

Ah, sorry. I meant casualty rates.

While it's true thousands of guardsmen died during the battle compared to the 45 Leman Russ tanks, casualty rates for guardsmen and Leman Russ tanks appears to be about equal at 13%. Historically this is odd; WW2 saw much lower casualty rates among tank crew than among infantry, even if the tanks had a rather terrible habit of drawing nearly all the fire.

That is the nature of the system. Infantry is squishy but individually small, so a single hit on an element with 2400 infantry causes 0.042% casualties. The Lascannon (for example) is an infantry-based light-anti-tank weapon, which is larger than infantry but just as easy to kill. So one hit on the element with 100 Lascannon would inflict 1% casualties. The regimental HQs are very large and also easy to kill. This is why I introduced the new rule about non-combat units. I will also be designing some HQs with a lot more armour.

Such specialist units would in reality be a preferred target to enemy forces, drawing more fire as a result. Normally that means that precautions are taken, either by keeping such units a little further behind the lines, or by providing them with better protection on the front lines with armour and fortified positions. Good to see you are implementing this.

You can choose to do that if you wish. I didn't actually use up all the infantry in one of the disbanded formations, so I renamed it the 1st Replacement Regiment so it can fulfill the above function. Also, some units will be combined in wartime rather than rotated home.

With the conclusion of the specific conflict, a lack of need for immediate redeployment and the capacity to ship them around indicates it was entirely possible to have them reconstituted, even if most of the survivors might've been used to bring other units up to speed and a cadre force was returned to recruiting grounds to reconstruct the regiment. Military command tends to be quite careful with their veterans and very commonly uses them to strengthen otherwise very raw forces with their experience. It makes for a better force and lower casualties.

Usually this is true. There are exceptions.

That doesn't exist at the moment, but it might be possible. Once constructed, ground formations don't have a template, which means they can grow, shrink or change over time. If you want replacements, you can build them and drag-drop onto the existing formation. The Race maintains a list of current templates, so it might be possible to have a ground formation 'fill in the gaps' to match one of those templates by assigning it to a training facility.

Would that also replace old equipment?
Title: Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
Post by: Gyrfalcon on September 10, 2019, 01:24:06 AM
I'd (also) be one to appreciate being able to create template formations that units will build back up to if reserves of the necessary units exist on planet. Especially if running a larger military, I'd be annoyed having to manually calculate how many infantry each damaged formation needs, needing to create a specific unit with that many infantry for that formation, and then merging the two together.
Title: Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
Post by: Hazard on September 10, 2019, 03:54:13 AM
Or training a number of units of thousands of replacement infantry, only to see them obsoleted by advancing technology before they are deployed.
Title: Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
Post by: alex_brunius on September 13, 2019, 04:14:15 AM

Ah, sorry. I meant casualty rates.

While it's true thousands of guardsmen died during the battle compared to the 45 Leman Russ tanks, casualty rates for guardsmen and Leman Russ tanks appears to be about equal at 13%. Historically this is odd; WW2 saw much lower casualty rates among tank crew than among infantry, even if the tanks had a rather terrible habit of drawing nearly all the fire.

Based on my reading tank formations often suffered higher loss rates than infantry with some allied tank formations losing up to 500% of their assigned numbers of tanks within a year of fighting after the landings in France 44.

Your right that the tank crews survived destruction of the tanks most of the time though.
Title: Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
Post by: JustAnotherDude on September 26, 2019, 10:31:30 AM
Have you run into the new spoilers at all? If you have, how are you feeling about their implementation?
Title: Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
Post by: Steve Walmsley on September 26, 2019, 12:00:45 PM
Have you run into the new spoilers at all? If you have, how are you feeling about their implementation?

I haven't run into the new spoilers yet, but I have run into the new version of one of the old ones :)
Title: Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
Post by: The Forbidden on November 06, 2019, 11:28:33 AM
Yes ! A new update ! Time for a new binge read !
Title: Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
Post by: Bremen on November 06, 2019, 11:39:15 AM
Wow, lots of interesting stuff in this update. I feel a little bad for the Imperium, but also kind of glad things are rocky enough to keep the game interesting :)

On a related note, I just want to say that I feel like the WH40k flavoring is working really well for this campaign. It's great reading about ground battles with Tyranid invaders and similar; really strikes the right notes and memories of tabletop games help me visualize it :).
Title: Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
Post by: Zincat on November 06, 2019, 02:02:15 PM
Really nice update, thanks Steve.

The new spoilers are brutal. I like that a lot. Look forward to fighting them. I don't remember, was the multiplier starting option to make the spoilers harder already in game? (say, 200% spoilers) Iirc you said you'd add it.
I'd really like the chance to make spoilers even more brutal!

P.S.
Calling those ultra small fleets Tyranids.. eh :P
Title: Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
Post by: chrislocke2000 on November 06, 2019, 03:09:42 PM
wow that was a truly brutal episode but thoroughly enjoyable to read!
Title: Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
Post by: jonw on November 06, 2019, 06:10:43 PM
Good grief, swarm 2.0 looks horrific. Talk about existential threat!

Good (i think?) to see microwave weapons, now the hardening tech line will actually see some use
Title: Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
Post by: Steve Walmsley on November 07, 2019, 03:16:44 AM
Good (i think?) to see microwave weapons, now the hardening tech line will actually see some use

Yes, already in the research queue :)
Title: Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
Post by: Panopticon on November 07, 2019, 04:11:35 AM
I know your Imperium ship designs are probably not the most optimized designs for your tech level, but I thought they'd put up a better fight than that, Swarm is brutal now.

How predictable will they be? Are their ship designs and loadouts going to be the same throughout every game or will they change it up now and again?
Title: Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
Post by: Steve Walmsley on November 07, 2019, 05:21:03 AM
I know your Imperium ship designs are probably not the most optimized designs for your tech level, but I thought they'd put up a better fight than that, Swarm is brutal now.

How predictable will they be? Are their ship designs and loadouts going to be the same throughout every game or will they change it up now and again?

Swarm is like a semi-NPR, albeit without populations. Each swarm is a separate race with separate designs and tech, although the overall design concepts will be the same. As with NPRs, the tech will be dependent on how many years have passed in the campaign so later swarms will generally be higher tech than earlier ones. Also, they can gain tech from wrecks so later vessels from the same swarm may be higher tech. They are no longer a single-dimensional threat because they have larger ships with different weapons than the FACs, plus they have some other ship types that haven't appeared in the campaign yet.

I think this swarm was at the higher end of the likely tech level at this stage of the campaign, plus the Imperium was in a terrible tactical situation when the fighting started. Mass missile attacks should be effective against smaller formations. The trick is going to be creating a situation where I don't get run down and obliterated if that doesn't work :) Plus I need to be able to build enough missiles despite a looming Gallicite shortage :)
Title: Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
Post by: Bremen on November 09, 2019, 10:15:37 PM
I know your Imperium ship designs are probably not the most optimized designs for your tech level, but I thought they'd put up a better fight than that, Swarm is brutal now.

How predictable will they be? Are their ship designs and loadouts going to be the same throughout every game or will they change it up now and again?

Swarm is like a semi-NPR, albeit without populations. Each swarm is a separate race with separate designs and tech, although the overall design concepts will be the same. As with NPRs, the tech will be dependent on how many years have passed in the campaign so later swarms will generally be higher tech than earlier ones. Also, they can gain tech from wrecks so later vessels from the same swarm may be higher tech. They are no longer a single-dimensional threat because they have larger ships with different weapons than the FACs, plus they have some other ship types that haven't appeared in the campaign yet.

I think this swarm was at the higher end of the likely tech level at this stage of the campaign, plus the Imperium was in a terrible tactical situation when the fighting started. Mass missile attacks should be effective against smaller formations. The trick is going to be creating a situation where I don't get run down and obliterated if that doesn't work :) Plus I need to be able to build enough missiles despite a looming Gallicite shortage :)

I went to re-read the ground combat bits, and, well, I hope the Imperium research labs are working hard. They seem like they really need some breakthroughs to even the fight; until then the best they can probably hope for is slowing the enemy down.

I'm guessing the Tyranids use genetic enhanced troops but still, wow, that was brutal.
Title: Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
Post by: chrislocke2000 on November 10, 2019, 09:20:12 AM
Some comments from the last update:

The level of collateral damage from 2 rounds of combat seems huge. I wonder if that was because of the massive overkill and is working as intended or if the chance of wider damage needs to be reduced somewhat.

Conversely the pace of recovering alien ruins seems to be pretty good, has there been an improvement in the chances of recovery?



Title: Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
Post by: Steve Walmsley on November 10, 2019, 10:11:52 AM
Some comments from the last update:

The level of collateral damage from 2 rounds of combat seems huge. I wonder if that was because of the massive overkill and is working as intended or if the chance of wider damage needs to be reduced somewhat.

Conversely the pace of recovering alien ruins seems to be pretty good, has there been an improvement in the chances of recovery?

It was massive overkill and a relatively small amount of infrastructure. I think the main problem with collateral damage at the moment is that it is based purely on damage amount. As tech levels get higher, damage from the same types of forces is higher too. I probably need to add some form of 'minimise collateral damage' orders that makes forces less effective but less damaging and perhaps add 'precision targeting' as a capability so that a unit type has a naturally lower collateral damage output.
Title: Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
Post by: Agoelia on November 10, 2019, 10:57:11 AM
Maybe the tech levels that increase damage also decrease what percentage of collateral damage is applied? It should be tuned so that collateral damage still goes up as tech improves, but not as dramatically. Sure, we're developing more destructive weapons, but also targeting, enemy identification, ethics, coordination and/or precision would get significantly better.
Title: Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
Post by: Zincat on November 10, 2019, 03:06:28 PM
Maybe the tech levels that increase damage also decrease what percentage of collateral damage is applied? It should be tuned so that collateral damage still goes up as tech improves, but not as dramatically. Sure, we're developing more destructive weapons, but also targeting, enemy identification, ethics, coordination and/or precision would get significantly better.

That supposes you want to.
I'm guessing a lot of races would not care at all.
If you don't care and just want to destroy opposition, you won't really mind collateral damage at all and just shoot to kill
Title: Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
Post by: Father Tim on November 10, 2019, 03:08:05 PM
It was massive overkill and a relatively small amount of infrastructure. I think the main problem with collateral damage at the moment is that it is based purely on damage amount. As tech levels get higher, damage from the same types of forces is higher too. I probably need to add some form of 'minimise collateral damage' orders that makes forces less effective but less damaging and perhaps add 'precision targeting' as a capability so that a unit type has a naturally lower collateral damage output.


But would *total* collateral damage have been lower (or higher) with less overkill and longer, more drawn out fighting?  Or is my only option to police which kinds of forces I use --- avoiding artillery & air power with their higher likelyhood of destroying installations.

If total collateral damage is based on total damage done over the full length of the fight, and it takes the same amount of damage to defeat the foe regardless of time, then my ground commanders (currently) lack much ability to control collateral damage.
Title: Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
Post by: Steve Walmsley on November 10, 2019, 03:37:30 PM
It was massive overkill and a relatively small amount of infrastructure. I think the main problem with collateral damage at the moment is that it is based purely on damage amount. As tech levels get higher, damage from the same types of forces is higher too. I probably need to add some form of 'minimise collateral damage' orders that makes forces less effective but less damaging and perhaps add 'precision targeting' as a capability so that a unit type has a naturally lower collateral damage output.


But would *total* collateral damage have been lower (or higher) with less overkill and longer, more drawn out fighting?  Or is my only option to police which kinds of forces I use --- avoiding artillery & air power with their higher likelyhood of destroying installations.

If total collateral damage is based on total damage done over the full length of the fight, and it takes the same amount of damage to defeat the foe regardless of time, then my ground commanders (currently) lack much ability to control collateral damage.

Collateral damage is based on the cube of the damage of each weapon. Light weapons will do far less collateral damage than heavy weapons, even when inflicting greater overall damage.

http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=8495.msg110508;topicseen#msg110508
Title: Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
Post by: Father Tim on November 10, 2019, 04:24:17 PM
But will one thousand infantry fighting for fifty combat cycles inflict more, less, or the same collateral damage as fifty thousand infantry fighting for one combat cycle?

Is sending overwhleming strength of numbers -- all else being equal -- likely to reduce collateral damage or increase it? 
Title: Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
Post by: db48x on November 10, 2019, 05:42:39 PM
But will one thousand infantry fighting for fifty combat cycles inflict more, less, or the same collateral damage as fifty thousand infantry fighting for one combat cycle?

Is sending overwhleming strength of numbers -- all else being equal -- likely to reduce collateral damage or increase it?

The same, since collateral damage is created from each weapon hit (or was it for each shot taken?) and you're presumably asking about two scenarios with the same number of hits (or shots taken). Just don't forget that your enemy will be firing back. Assuming that you win in both of your scenarios, the scenario where you win quickly presumably means that they got to take fewer shots; there might be less collateral damage just because of that.

As for weapon choice, heavy weapons have always caused the most collateral damage, so that makes sense. Avoiding artillery and air strikes (and missile attacks) would greatly reduce the collateral damage, but put your infantry at greater risk; I hope your population can absorb the additional grief and misery. Those infantry have families you know, and someone has to patch up the wounded.

I like the idea of "precision targeting" weapons. It's a trade-off you can make when designing your forces (and when deploying them, if you have a choice of which forces to deploy) that allows for role-play as well as for choosing which of several criteria to optimize for.
Title: Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
Post by: Hazard on November 11, 2019, 06:56:47 AM
Precision weapons would not necessarily be better at avoiding collateral damage on Aurora's scale; installations would be valuable positions to protect or take, and it doesn't matter how precise your weapon is when you want to prevent collateral damage but what you are aiming for is exactly what you want to keep intact. They're also more expensive per shot, but can be much cheaper overall because greater precision means less munition wasted to deal with the uncertainty of hitting the target with any given shot.

Training or engagement rules to lower or increase collateral would be useful though. Even for species that are otherwise callous of others, it can be beneficial not to have to replace facilities that could've been taken intact enough instead.

Another option however would be to have the game save what installations were destroyed on the planet, and to let the ruin recovery mechanics from the precursor ruins take over from there, with some tweaking.
Title: Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
Post by: Garfunkel on November 11, 2019, 12:06:04 PM
If Steve implements precision weapons, or a precision ability for weapons/units, it should NOT deal less damage but be more expensive. Smart/precision guided munitions are vastly more expensive than "dumb" ones, but also vastly more effective. And military history proves that carpet bombing as well as days long shelling are actually very ineffective for anything else but killing civilians.

To give a sense of scale here, some prices:
JDAM package that can be bolted on a dumb bomb to make it "semi-smart" costs ~$25k.
GBU-12 Paveway II costs ~$22k but Paveway IV (which is a lot more advanced than II) costs ~$85k.
AGM-65 Maverick costs vary a lot depending on model, with the oldest A costing ~$17k to latest L costing  ~$110k
M982 Excalibur costs ~$68k.

For comparison:
155m artillery shell is ~$200 at cheapest for a contact fuse and ~$1k at most expensive for variable-time fuse.
Mk 82 iron bomb is ~2k while Mk 84 is ~3k.

Title: Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
Post by: Scandinavian on November 11, 2019, 02:55:29 PM
The practical issue with "smart" munitions is that their smartness is limited by the level at which you can identify and resolve the targets you want to blast. With typical actual battlefield target intelligence, as long as you have rifling in your artillery barrels, your fire support is probably about as smart as it's gonna get.

(I would also be a bit careful with using the price tag of NATO weapon systems as representative of their design or production costs, let alone their practical combat value; there is a reason the American slang for procurement corruption is "pork barrel.")
Title: Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
Post by: Bremen on November 11, 2019, 03:51:20 PM
Another possibility might be to have the facility owner's armor tech reduce collateral damage. It doesn't necessarily mean that every civilization plates all their buildings in top of the line armor, just that improved materials tech probably means the buildings are sturdier.

That would mean that if you invade a pre-TNE homeworld with your plasma cannons and fusion artillery, yeah, a lot of civilians and facilities get blown up, but if you invade a colony of a race with similar tech to your own things survive better.

Edit: Another way of looking at the above solution would be that it equalized the collateral damage per ground unit destroyed. Which is to say, it would mean if a pre-TNE civilization lost an average of 1 facility per 100 troop losses, then a high tech civ would also lose about 1 facility per 100 troop losses, the troops would just be correspondingly more powerful.
Title: Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
Post by: Hazard on November 11, 2019, 05:02:24 PM
Keep in mind that the population losses also scale with the total amount of boom thrown around, and they aren't as easily armoured/benefit from improved materials sciences.

I know that PDCs were removed, and for a good reason, but civilian shelters of some sort might be a good idea, especially as weapon power escalates.
Title: Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
Post by: Father Tim on November 11, 2019, 05:06:55 PM
Another option however would be to have the game save what installations were destroyed on the planet, and to let the ruin recovery mechanics from the precursor ruins take over from there, with some tweaking.

Perhaps, but I don't think of precursor ruins as "stuff destroyed in fighting" but rather as "stuff turned off and left abandoned centuries ago."

Given that Aurora currently ignores the refit & retooling costs of turning 'three-foot-tall semi-aquatic squidgy tentacly alien' workshops producing their guns into something my nine-foot-tall trilaterally symmetrical methane-breathers can us to build our guns, I'm okay with wrecked stuff contributing zero recyclables towards rebuilding.

We should probably have to use Xenology and recovery tech on ALL alien installations, not just Precursor ruins.  In the mean time, collateral damage can fake it for me.
Title: Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
Post by: Father Tim on November 11, 2019, 05:19:41 PM
Another possibility might be to have the facility owner's armor tech reduce collateral damage. It doesn't necessarily mean that every civilization plates all their buildings in top of the line armor, just that improved materials tech probably means the buildings are sturdier.

Except that's not how our history has worked.  Sure, we have far fewer catastrophic failures of buildings because we understand the science better, but we don't build for maximum strength.  We build for minimum cost that will do the job, and since 'the job' is rarely defined as 'endure for centuries' most of what we build today will be gone in a hundred years.  Century-old brick buildings endure time far better then modern concrete, even though they can't be built as high.

Japan is home to temples that have lasted centuries, and houses that won't last two decades.  Not because we can't build houses that will stand up to earthquakes, tsunami, fires & hurricanes until 2200, but because we choose not to.  Maintenance costs on most infrastructure over 50 years old exceeds the cost of a new bridge / building /whatever.
Title: Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
Post by: Father Tim on November 11, 2019, 05:20:50 PM
. . .civilian shelters of some sort might be a good idea, especially as weapon power escalates.

I think they're called orbital habitats.  #:-]
Title: Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
Post by: Bremen on November 11, 2019, 10:12:27 PM
Another possibility might be to have the facility owner's armor tech reduce collateral damage. It doesn't necessarily mean that every civilization plates all their buildings in top of the line armor, just that improved materials tech probably means the buildings are sturdier.

Except that's not how our history has worked.  Sure, we have far fewer catastrophic failures of buildings because we understand the science better, but we don't build for maximum strength.  We build for minimum cost that will do the job, and since 'the job' is rarely defined as 'endure for centuries' most of what we build today will be gone in a hundred years.  Century-old brick buildings endure time far better then modern concrete, even though they can't be built as high.

Japan is home to temples that have lasted centuries, and houses that won't last two decades.  Not because we can't build houses that will stand up to earthquakes, tsunami, fires & hurricanes until 2200, but because we choose not to.  Maintenance costs on most infrastructure over 50 years old exceeds the cost of a new bridge / building /whatever.

More advanced/prosperous civilizations most certainly do build stronger buildings. That's one of the main reasons earthquakes, hurricanes, etc. in industrialized nations tend to kill fewer people. Also even if Aurora doesn't model it, we might expect buildings to be built hardened in preparation for internal violence and accidents - if every day robbers have power armor, and drunk drivers have flying cars then doors (and city buildings) will probably be built to resist power armor and crashing flying cars.

Also, even if I believed you were correct, I think gameplay considerations are more important than realism ones.
Title: Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
Post by: Father Tim on November 12, 2019, 12:31:49 AM
Again, we can build stronger than we used to, but it's rare that we do.  We use wood and glass and aluminum where we used to use brick and sandstone.  We use two-by-four framing instead of fourteen-inch beams.

Even our modern, 'stronger' steel-reinforced concrete is less durable than old recipes.
https://www.sciencealert.com/why-2-000-year-old-roman-concrete-is-so-much-better-than-what-we-produce-today (https://www.sciencealert.com/why-2-000-year-old-roman-concrete-is-so-much-better-than-what-we-produce-today)

We could ignore realism, but since we lack any appreciable experience with C# Aurora we have no 'gameplay considerations' to judge by.  Is collateral damage too high?  Too low?  Just right?  We don't know yet.
Title: Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
Post by: Bremen on November 12, 2019, 12:48:51 AM
Again, we can build stronger than we used to, but it's rare that we do.  We use wood and glass and aluminum where we used to use brick and sandstone.  We use two-by-four framing instead of fourteen-inch beams.

Even our modern, 'stronger' steel-reinforced concrete is less durable than old recipes.
https://www.sciencealert.com/why-2-000-year-old-roman-concrete-is-so-much-better-than-what-we-produce-today (https://www.sciencealert.com/why-2-000-year-old-roman-concrete-is-so-much-better-than-what-we-produce-today)

We could ignore realism, but since we lack any appreciable experience with C# Aurora we have no 'gameplay considerations' to judge by.  Is collateral damage too high?  Too low?  Just right?  We don't know yet.

Most ancient buildings weren't built out of sandstone or Roman concrete - it's just the ones that are still around are. The average modern house is much more structurally sound than the average ancient house was. We don't design buildings to last two thousand years because we don't intend for them to last two thousand years - but we do design them to survive earthquakes and hurricanes.

Roman concrete is not more durable than modern concrete except in certain specific ways, either. The modern stuff holds up much better under stress due to the rebar reinforcement - a good example of how improved materials technology does make structures more durable, in fact.

As for gameplay considerations I was literally responding to a post by Steve who is playing the current version.
Title: Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
Post by: Scandinavian on November 12, 2019, 01:03:01 AM
More advanced/prosperous civilizations most certainly do build stronger buildings. That's one of the main reasons earthquakes, hurricanes, etc. in industrialized nations tend to kill fewer people.
That has much more to do with governments being more powerful and better organized, and therefore able to predict, plan for, and respond to such events than it has to do with the skillfulness of their engineers. Most of the fatalities from civil disruption or natural disasters come not from the violence of the initial event, but from the damage done to critical infrastructure which is left unrepaired. How fast your society can patch up a leaking sewer pipe matters much more to the resulting spread of dysentery than the size of the blast required to make it leak in the first place.

Even the damage of the initial event is much more dependent on the level of organization of a society than on its technical sophistication. Having the will and ability to exercise state power toward the enforcement of central economic planning that keeps the private sector from doing dumb things like building in fire breaks or on floodplains, cutting down mangroves, or underbuilding shared arterial transit links is much more important for impact minimization than the particulars of how buildings are constructed.

One could model this with a Civil Defense slider, which imposes a Wealth maintenance cost on all buildings and population subject to collateral damage, but providing a defense against collateral damage. Changing the slider should only change the costs and modifiers slowly, though, because a lot of the effort and impact of civil defense is on a time scale of decades. This defense in turn could be affected by a tech line, to make it scale to the weapon power of the comparable offensive techs, but the policy itself is not a technology; it can go back and forth according to political priorities.
Title: Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
Post by: Hazard on November 12, 2019, 04:22:43 AM
I think they're called orbital habitats.  #:-]

No. Because orbital habitats don't protect populations from collateral damage. Only from the loss of planetary carrying capacity as a result of loss of infrastructure.
Title: Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
Post by: Garfunkel on November 12, 2019, 01:00:39 PM
The practical issue with "smart" munitions is that their smartness is limited by the level at which you can identify and resolve the targets you want to blast. With typical actual battlefield target intelligence, as long as you have rifling in your artillery barrels, your fire support is probably about as smart as it's gonna get.
Of course but C# is bringing us forward observers as part of ground units so we have the in-game justification for battlefield intelligence alongside intelligence modules for ships as in-game justification for long-distance surveillance and reconnaissance. But my point is that while it instinctively feels "right" to weaken the destructive power of smart munitions to explain why they are not causing as much collateral damage as dumb munitions, it's blatantly false move to make. Well, it's correct for nukes but that's another argument. For conventional munitions, a Paveway IV missile is just as destructive as Mk 84 bomb, the difference is that you only need a single Paveway IV to wreck that command centre, whereas you need 50-100 Mk 84 bombs to make sure you hit it and in that process you flatten the whole neighbourhood.

So if Steve implements smart munitions that progressively get smarter (and even include ECCM to counter defender ECM), then I would very much prefer that the munitions are vastly more expensive rather than weaker. Plus, that means that a cheapskate power would just continue using cheap dumb munitions because while they might not want to glass a planet completely, they don't care about collateral damage as long as there is something to salvage.

(I would also be a bit careful with using the price tag of NATO weapon systems as representative of their design or production costs, let alone their practical combat value; there is a reason the American slang for procurement corruption is "pork barrel.")
While that's a fair point, it's not a valid concern for us here, because the prices are just to show the magnitude of difference in cost between dumb and smart munitions. That's also why I only used US munitions and dollar prices, so that they can be compared against each other, instead of including European/Russian munitions.

I think they're called orbital habitats.  #:-]
No. Because orbital habitats don't protect populations from collateral damage. Only from the loss of planetary carrying capacity as a result of loss of infrastructure.
That's a good point because while it feels like OH would protect portion of the population from collateral damage, it actually doesn't because of how Steve coded them to work. Mechanically, the population doesn't live in the OH, but on the body the OH orbits. It's just that the OH magically allows this to happen regardless of colony cost. So if you glass the planet, the population will be completely wiped out regardless of the number of OH's in orbit.

One could model this with a Civil Defense slider, which imposes a Wealth maintenance cost on all buildings and population subject to collateral damage, but providing a defense against collateral damage. Changing the slider should only change the costs and modifiers slowly, though, because a lot of the effort and impact of civil defense is on a time scale of decades. This defense in turn could be affected by a tech line, to make it scale to the weapon power of the comparable offensive techs, but the policy itself is not a technology; it can go back and forth according to political priorities.
That's a good idea and would be another wealth sink. We don't know if the other new wealth sinks in C# are sufficient, but such a feature - that would then provide protection against collateral damage - could be a cool feature. Although, it might face the problem of electronic hardening, in that it would be useful in only such niche cases that nobody would ever actually use it.
Title: Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
Post by: Father Tim on November 12, 2019, 01:59:20 PM
One could model this with a Civil Defense slider, which imposes a Wealth maintenance cost on all buildings and population subject to collateral damage, but providing a defense against collateral damage. Changing the slider should only change the costs and modifiers slowly, though, because a lot of the effort and impact of civil defense is on a time scale of decades. This defense in turn could be affected by a tech line, to make it scale to the weapon power of the comparable offensive techs, but the policy itself is not a technology; it can go back and forth according to political priorities.

That's a good idea and would be another wealth sink. We don't know if the other new wealth sinks in C# are sufficient, but such a feature - that would then provide protection against collateral damage - could be a cool feature. Although, it might face the problem of electronic hardening, in that it would be useful in only such niche cases that nobody would ever actually use it.

Doesn't Infrastructure currently fulfill this purpose?  If I build a thousand extra LGI (or just 'I') on a colony, other installations are that much less likely to be hit, and the increase in ColCost due to bombardment is mitigated if not entirely compensated for.  And some (perhaps significant) portion of the collateral damage causes zero reduction of my industry.

Sure, it has the believability drawback of being able to ship your 'armour' to any colony you like -- and the civilians will do so if you're not careful -- but it's already in the game, costs money & minerals & time to build, and while it scales infinitely it can never be 100% effective.
Title: Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
Post by: Garfunkel on November 12, 2019, 02:15:44 PM
You're right except for saving population from collateral damage. But yeah, it protects facilities and can be a life saver if colony cost pops up. Civil Defence slider that consumed x% of wealth produced on planet/empire (toggle switch between the two and a slider to adjust the percentage amount from 0 to whatever) would both give facilities more HTK (if possible) as well as save (some of) the population.
Title: Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
Post by: Hazard on November 12, 2019, 02:27:45 PM
The practical issue with "smart" munitions is that their smartness is limited by the level at which you can identify and resolve the targets you want to blast. With typical actual battlefield target intelligence, as long as you have rifling in your artillery barrels, your fire support is probably about as smart as it's gonna get.
Of course but C# is bringing us forward observers as part of ground units so we have the in-game justification for battlefield intelligence alongside intelligence modules for ships as in-game justification for long-distance surveillance and reconnaissance. But my point is that while it instinctively feels "right" to weaken the destructive power of smart munitions to explain why they are not causing as much collateral damage as dumb munitions, it's blatantly false move to make. Well, it's correct for nukes but that's another argument. For conventional munitions, a Paveway IV missile is just as destructive as Mk 84 bomb, the difference is that you only need a single Paveway IV to wreck that command centre, whereas you need 50-100 Mk 84 bombs to make sure you hit it and in that process you flatten the whole neighbourhood.

So if Steve implements smart munitions that progressively get smarter (and even include ECCM to counter defender ECM), then I would very much prefer that the munitions are vastly more expensive rather than weaker. Plus, that means that a cheapskate power would just continue using cheap dumb munitions because while they might not want to glass a planet completely, they don't care about collateral damage as long as there is something to salvage.

A Paveway bomb will also occupy about the same amount of space as as a Mk 84 bomb in inventory, which makes it odd when either supply consumption skyrockets (to account for the greater cost) or remains the same for the same amount of damage in a round.

Actually, smart munitions would probably be best handled as a to-hit modifier and otherwise let it remain the same, potentially with a sufficiently large ECCM advantage over a smart munition modified weapons platform actually degrading the effectiveness of the smart munition beyond that of a dumb munition. You can tell me a lot of things, but a dumb bomb is a lot harder to fool than a smart bomb into landing anywhere but where it should hit.

That's a good point because while it feels like OH would protect portion of the population from collateral damage, it actually doesn't because of how Steve coded them to work. Mechanically, the population doesn't live in the OH, but on the body the OH orbits. It's just that the OH magically allows this to happen regardless of colony cost. So if you glass the planet, the population will be completely wiped out regardless of the number of OH's in orbit.

It gets even worse; populations in orbital habitats can be forced out of the habitats by boarding them, forcing them into highly hostile environments without any protection. Habitats have a number of logic inconsistencies that are very understandable given the fact we're dealing with a game, but still.

I mean, an orbital habitat would include things like manufacturing complexes and everything else other than the raw materials acquisition and immediate processing because, well, why would you force your population to work the construction facilities and fuel refineries down on the planet of imminent death when you can just station them in a close orbit that is much more easily reached from a habitat, especially when it's so much easier to keep them safe in such circumstances?

That's a good idea and would be another wealth sink. We don't know if the other new wealth sinks in C# are sufficient, but such a feature - that would then provide protection against collateral damage - could be a cool feature. Although, it might face the problem of electronic hardening, in that it would be useful in only such niche cases that nobody would ever actually use it.

It would be nice if this was implemented and we could set an 'empire wide' and a 'population wide' setting for this. Because of course you would harden your border worlds much more than you would harden your core worlds when you are faced with a threat on the border.

Doesn't Infrastructure currently fulfill this purpose?  If I build a thousand extra LGI (or just 'I') on a colony, other installations are that much less likely to be hit, and the increase in ColCost due to bombardment is mitigated if not entirely compensated for.  And some (perhaps significant) portion of the collateral damage causes zero reduction of my industry.

Sure, it has the believability drawback of being able to ship your 'armour' to any colony you like -- and the civilians will do so if you're not careful -- but it's already in the game, costs money & minerals & time to build, and while it scales infinitely it can never be 100% effective.

No, because collateral damage tracks population damage and infrastructure damage differently IIRC. Or rather, they track them the same, but points of collateral damage always do population damage, while they may end up sinking into already ruined facilities and thus do no further damage to the planetary facilities.

Also, infrastructure shipping is only done by civilians to places that need infrastructure from places that have infrastructure in the market.
Title: Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
Post by: Scandinavian on November 13, 2019, 01:37:29 PM
Quote
It would be nice if this was implemented and we could set an 'empire wide' and a 'population wide' setting for this. Because of course you would harden your border worlds much more than you would harden your core worlds when you are faced with a threat on the border.
Would you, though?

Civil defense is much more about fostering a culture of institutional competence and government-in-depth than specific policy measures that can be applied locally. Of course things like zoning regulations and building codes can be enforced selectively, but the same policies that reduce collateral damage during disasters (natural or man-made) are also policies that make your cities nicer places in general. Why would the core populations accept that frontier provincials get nicer homes, better mass transit links, less risk of their neighborhood burning down, etc. than the core worlders? As a general rule, at least in human empires, the imperial core gets to have nice things before the provincials do.

I can't think of any actual examples of strong civil defense being implemented only to harden specific regions in a risk-based manner like that. Either you cultivate that ethos as a civic virtue throughout your society and civil service, or you don't.
Title: Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
Post by: Bremen on November 13, 2019, 02:21:31 PM
I think a civil defense slider is a bad idea anyways. For the most part, reduced collateral damage helps the attacker, not the defender, since they're more likely to win and it increases the spoils of war. The main reasons a civilization would build stronger buildings - accidents, disasters, and internal violence - aren't modeled in Aurora. So the option to spend more on reducing collateral damage would almost never be used. It also doesn't deal with the original problem, that collateral damage scales faster with tech than it should.
Title: Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
Post by: Bremen on November 20, 2019, 02:04:58 PM
And just in case things weren't dire enough for the Imperium already, it looks like the Tyranids found a backdoor into the Imperium's unguarded heartland. Double ouch.

I suspect this next battle will make or break the campaign.
Title: Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
Post by: AlStar on November 20, 2019, 02:47:39 PM
I'm really liking how aggressive these guys are - we've needed a threat that pushes against us in a significant manner - especially one that also involves ground combat.   
Title: Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
Post by: Hazard on November 20, 2019, 04:13:27 PM
I'm surprised the place had no garrison unit in place, although I'm curious as to how much in the way of ground forces the Imperium even has available to retake the colony.

With such a massive tech advantage as the Tyranids have, you'd need absolutely overwhelming numbers.

Which... is very much in keeping with the source material, where vast armies of Imperial Guard are deployed against usually smaller enemy forces due to the casualty rates that are to be expected.
Title: Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
Post by: Garfunkel on November 20, 2019, 07:56:33 PM
Things are definitely getting exciting!
Title: Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
Post by: snapto on November 21, 2019, 12:57:31 PM
Now THAT's a cliffhanger.   =]
Title: Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
Post by: Steve Walmsley on November 22, 2019, 01:17:57 PM
(http://www.pentarch.org/steve/Screenshots/Crusade/Engaged.jpg)
Title: Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
Post by: Bremen on November 22, 2019, 04:03:43 PM
(http://www.pentarch.org/steve/Screenshots/Crusade/Engaged.jpg)

Let's hope it goes a bit better for Steve than it did for the Ultramarines.

Ah, who am I kidding, I'm happy no matter what, bring on the carnage!
Title: Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
Post by: serger on November 23, 2019, 02:45:41 AM
There is some lamentable lack of means for expressing our giggles on specific forum posts prudently.  ::)
Title: Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
Post by: Marski on December 02, 2019, 10:05:26 AM
Watching Stevie get dumpstered is much more interesting, forces him to get innovative.
Was "Engine boost" technology still a thing in C#? I mean if I was Stevie now, I would make ship variants with crazy boosted engines as contemporary measure to reach the gap between my and enemy's speed difference, fuel consumption be damned.
Title: Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
Post by: Steve Walmsley on December 02, 2019, 05:50:36 PM
Watching Stevie get dumpstered is much more interesting, forces him to get innovative.
Was "Engine boost" technology still a thing in C#? I mean if I was Stevie now, I would make ship variants with crazy boosted engines as contemporary measure to reach the gap between my and enemy's speed difference, fuel consumption be damned.

Yes, engine boosting is still a thing and it is fun being in trouble :)  It is good to have to really think about deployments and consider risk-reward very carefully. I've become quite attached to the Imperium :)

I've been playing quite a bit lately and the campaign is advancing, although I am doing some coding along the way too. Might slow down a little though as a lot of social commitments this week and a few days away next week. Real life has a tendency to get in the way :)

Title: Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
Post by: Steve Walmsley on December 03, 2019, 05:24:19 PM
Spoiler alert!!

Just had a brief Tyranid - Necron engagement. I have been playing without looking at the AI forces, except when they do something odd, as the situation in Taranis is too interesting to peek :)

However, a few shortened increments made me turn designer mode on and have a look. A Tyranid salvager and a single escort entered a Necron system, so a Necron orbital base started lobbing anti-ship missiles at them. At first, the Tyranids didn't take much damage so they moved to investigate the source of the missiles. However, the missile fire began penetrating and eventually took out the salvage ship. The escort ran for it and the Necrons let it go - I think they were reloading and didn't want to fire a smaller salvo.

It will be interesting to see how the Tyranids react. Anyway, another milestone; the first AI-on-AI engagement for C# Aurora!

Title: Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
Post by: The Forbidden on December 03, 2019, 10:48:08 PM
Spoiler alert!!

Just had a brief Tyranid - Necron engagement. I have been playing without looking at the AI forces, except when they do something odd, as the situation in Taranis is too interesting to peek :)

However, a few shortened increments made me turn designer mode on and have a look. A Tyranid salvager and a single escort entered a Necron system, so a Necron orbital base started lobbing anti-ship missiles at them. At first, the Tyranids didn't take much damage so they moved to investigate the source of the missiles. However, the missile fire began penetrating and eventually took out the salvage ship. The escort ran for it and the Necrons let it go - I think they were reloading and didn't want to fire a smaller salvo.

It will be interesting to see how the Tyranids react. Anyway, another milestone; the first AI-on-AI engagement for C# Aurora!

Nice ! That reminds me that I had accumulated a bunch of suggestions, one concerning the necrons (yes, now they will always be the necrons and 'nids in my mind, and no longer Swarm or Precursors XD), I need to post them.

By the way, can Tyranids consume ruins ? It would make sense, after all they need the refined TNE, so it doesn't really matter if it's in a damaged fuel refinery or a fully functionnal one, right ? And do they have colonies ? It would be interesting for them to have some sort of "Hive" that slowly processes the TNE on a celestial body. It should be slow and inefficient, but it would give them a way to reinforce if they're boxed in, and make held territory worth something.
Title: Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
Post by: Steve Walmsley on December 06, 2019, 04:32:39 PM
Just a quick note that the new update is two posts, as it wouldn't fit in a single post.
Title: Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
Post by: Bremen on December 06, 2019, 05:57:42 PM
That's an awesome update. I remember thinking at the start of the campaign that the Imperium was way more militarized for its size than I would have played it out, and now it's turning out to be an extremely hostile universe for them to deal with.

Which, of course, is entirely fitting for a WH40k flavored campaign.
Title: Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
Post by: Neophyte on December 07, 2019, 04:07:27 AM
Yes, thanks for the update! 

The Imperium also seems to be in a pretty major mineral crunch, not just availability (eg gallicite) but also distance - the good mining sites are far away from the industrial center.  This wouldn't be as much of a problem if certain aliens didn't now have the desire to show up and piss in your collective Cheerios whenever they feel like it!  Really liking that change btw!

How are you liking the particle lances as a beam weapon?  The slow cycling must be rough, but being able to icepick into enemy ships' creamy centers must feel pretty good when they do hit!

(btw I'm assuming this in the Firestorm IV description:

Valentinian Precision Armaments V12-240 Particle Lance (1)    Range 64,000km     TS: 5,333 km/s     Power 37-5    ROF 40       

is a typo)
Title: Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
Post by: Steve Walmsley on December 07, 2019, 05:34:26 AM
(btw I'm assuming this in the Firestorm IV description:

Valentinian Precision Armaments V12-240 Particle Lance (1)    Range 64,000km     TS: 5,333 km/s     Power 37-5    ROF 40       

is a typo)

Good spot. It's a display bug, that is now fixed :)
Title: Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
Post by: chrislocke2000 on December 07, 2019, 08:13:42 AM
Great update, and good to see the FAC strike being held off. I have to say the level of collateral damage on ground assaults is still feeling high to me. If most of the population and the facilities are getting destroyed it really removes a lot of the incentive to launch ground attacks.
Title: Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
Post by: Steve Walmsley on December 07, 2019, 08:32:18 AM
Great update, and good to see the FAC strike being held off. I have to say the level of collateral damage on ground assaults is still feeling high to me. If most of the population and the facilities are getting destroyed it really removes a lot of the incentive to launch ground attacks.

Yes, I think so too. I'll be looking at those mechanics again.
Title: Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
Post by: mtm84 on December 07, 2019, 11:42:23 AM
Is that smaller sized fuel tanks I spy on those fighters?
Title: Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
Post by: Steve Walmsley on December 07, 2019, 12:37:28 PM
Is that smaller sized fuel tanks I spy on those fighters?

There are a lot more granular systems in C# Aurora, including a 1 ton fuel tank. All the smaller fuel tanks and engineering systems are available at start.
Title: Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
Post by: Polestar on December 07, 2019, 01:45:43 PM
Great campaign going on here, Steve, and I'd love for it to prosper. But I'm not sure it will. A major issue I'm seeing it coming up hard against is Gallicite.

Gallicite has always been critical in Aurora. Can't fire missiles or close to beam range without it. As determined by Steve, and represented in the revised supply costs, you need very roughly as much Gallicite to build typical warships as you do Duranium. So, now the Empire also needs bunches of Gallicite merely to maintain a fleet.

We're not just running into a issue for a specific run, but rather into some long-standing game design features.

1. Gallicite is no more common than other TN materials, Duranium excepted. More generally, supply and demand of TN materials has always been at least somewhat out of wack. Gallicite is systematically the worst offender, followed by Duranium.

2. Mines produce a set amount per TN material, and don't specialize. A world with abundant, high-accessibility reserves might well be worthless if it doesn't also have sufficient reserves of other TN materials of interest. I have always felt, and here again propose, that this is a major misfeature hurting the game in multiple ways.

3. Mining and transport doesn't produce and move materials based on need. The mines produce some of whatever's available and - barring explicit (manual) orders, the game doesn't attempt to first satisfy current and near-term consumption before toting all that excess Boronide around.

4. Civilians don't pick up the slack enough for most TN materials. They need to be heading out, especially to small bodies too tedious for official miners to mess with and digging their little hearts out, - getting paid by (a little bit of) Wealth. Right now, they're all about the Duranium and Sorium, and not laser-focused on whatever's most needed and lacking - and therefore profitable. Conversely, if an empire has abundance, prices paid to civilian miners should automatically drop and their efforts should diminish.
Title: Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
Post by: Steve Walmsley on December 08, 2019, 06:38:41 AM
Gallicite is an important mineral, but Duranium is used for a lot more things. With the C# changes to space stations I am building a lot of 'ships' with no engines and towing them into place (fuel harvesters, mining platforms, terraforming platforms, etc.) so I am using less Gallicite for ships than I did in VB6. The problem in this campaign is specifically that there are very few decent Gallicite deposits. If I had as same Gallicite deposits as some of the other minerals, I would be fine. Besides, dealing with shortages is a major aspect of the game. If you had plenty of everything, it wouldn't be as much fun. In this case, I had to fight the Tyranids for Taranis specifically for the mineral deposits on the planet. I am still exploring and accepting the risk of encountering more aliens because I want to find the planet that will solve my problems.

I do agree though that the maintenance changes add extra strain, so I'll change the civilian mining location checks to Duranium or Gallicite
Title: Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
Post by: Hazard on December 08, 2019, 10:21:45 AM
Refactoring mining from 'full mining rating, all materials, multiply by availability' to 'total mining potential, weighted share of minerals by availability', which would produce 10 times as much of a 1.0 mineral over a 0.1 availability mineral, or 'total mining potential, weighted share of minerals by availability, fractional loss of potential according to total of ((number of minerals)-(sum of availability))', which would make body with a small number of high availability minerals very valuable over a planet with one or two high availability minerals and low availability on the others because the mining potential loss fraction is so much lower.

Although in that case you want the ability to focus efforts on mining a certain mineral as a planetary/colony policy, or a technology that lets you lower the availability penalty.

All of these would pretty majorly impact the economic of the game though.


This post will also be posted in the C# suggestions thread.
Title: Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
Post by: vorpal+5 on December 10, 2019, 03:06:13 AM
I'm reading (with delight) the campaign and I'm to the point where Taranis fell.

It has perhaps been discussed in one of the 156 messages of this thread, but somehow I don't feel like backtracking into all of them, sorry  ;)

So the question is. Why the Empire has no STOs on each major colonies? That's bordering criminal! Plus, with STOs, you add entrenched troops. It should be part of the budget when setting up a colony. You should not just spread like a kind of mold on every habitable or near habitable planet and not defend it.

Is it because the price to defend the colony far out weight their importance? Is it criminal negligence and the culprits must be punished? The Emperor can't be liable to anything, so the fault are on the governors or sector administrators!  :P
Title: Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
Post by: Steve Walmsley on December 10, 2019, 07:27:45 AM
I'm reading (with delight) the campaign and I'm to the point where Taranis fell.

It has perhaps been discussed in one of the 156 messages of this thread, but somehow I don't feel like backtracking into all of them, sorry  ;)

So the question is. Why the Empire has no STOs on each major colonies? That's bordering criminal! Plus, with STOs, you add entrenched troops. It should be part of the budget when setting up a colony. You should not just spread like a kind of mold on every habitable or near habitable planet and not defend it.

Is it because the price to defend the colony far out weight their importance? Is it criminal negligence and the culprits must be punished? The Emperor can't be liable to anything, so the fault are on the governors or sector administrators!  :P

There were STOs on some colonies, just not that one. I intended to fix that for the future, especially now I have particle lances available.
Title: Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
Post by: Drakale on December 10, 2019, 09:16:26 AM
Awesome writeup, once again the ground combat seem to be coming along really well. I am surprised only one Leman Russ casualty was reported, since they seem to have been on the offensive the whole time.

Title: Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
Post by: Hazard on December 10, 2019, 10:34:44 AM
Frankly, given how the system now supports the notion, you should probably have at least 1 STO weapon on every colony along with a small force of infantry, just to force enemy invasion groups to invest a little rather than just showing up, flipping the colony, and leaving.
Title: Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
Post by: Garfunkel on December 10, 2019, 02:40:53 PM
Colony Flipping! Now more profitable than ever!

 ;D