Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Steve Walmsley

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 450
C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora Changes List
« on: Today at 01:50:46 PM »
Known Stars Changes

This is a placeholder for Known Stars changes as I make them

Added the following stars:

Renamed several stars:

Mechanics / Re: System Questions
« on: Yesterday at 01:47:46 PM »
I would think twin planets would be possible in-game, but one will still be designated a moon.  They also won't orbit their common center of mass, one will orbit the other.  Aurora doesn't do Newtonian gravity at all.

That's correct.

C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« on: Yesterday at 01:46:10 PM »
You can't use turrets for ground unit beams?

On the subject of ground unit beams, could a ground unit with that kind of weapon shoot at targets on another colony, (assuming they're in range) or just stuff in space?

Two ground units on different system bodies will be able to shoot at one another (when I write that code).

For now, ground weapons will be non-turreted. I might look at that in the future.

C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« on: Yesterday at 06:09:15 AM »
Hi @Steve Walmsley, sorry I do live in New Zealand so I have a different season calendar! My spring starts end of September...

Ah! Very good point. I would be disappointed if I wasn't well into a test campaign by your spring :)

C# Aurora / Re: Suggestion for officer changes
« on: Yesterday at 05:23:22 AM »
Personally I don't see why there should be any arbitrary level of promotion ratio, people should simply be promoted as positions are available to be filled.

There could be a 10% extra promoted for each rank of which could be assigned to administrative positions which could be a bit more fluent in what rank is needed such as flag bridge officers or junior officers on ships.

This way if you need 50 captains you would have 55 promoted, the five extra could take positions as flag officers. Flag staff officers could probably be of more than one rank type. Flag staff positions would not really unlock promotion opportunities but meant as use for that extra officer you get from each rank below the first.

Or something like this... I don't like to get an arbitrary number of each officer rank.

I've been giving this some thought and the above is currently where I am heading. A naval organization is going to promote people to fill the required roles, rather than create roles based on the available people in each rank. Not sure on the mechanics yet, but I will sort this out before I start a test campaign.

C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« on: March 19, 2018, 05:13:09 PM »
in the attacker missile combat log as well as showing the number of missiles in the salvo it would be good to also see number of hits before you get to armour damage and penetration. I know you can see this through number of appropriate strength explosions on the tactical map but you can't see which ships they relate to.

If there are shield hits, they will be listed separately.

C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« on: March 18, 2018, 06:14:18 PM »
EDIT: Steve, please consider writing salvos with the number of missiles in them. It would seem to me to best fit behind the signature.

Yes, that's a bug - need to see how many missiles :)

C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« on: March 18, 2018, 01:17:59 PM »
I've moved on to coding missile combat. In this example, the French missile cruiser Clemenceau is launching against a US destroyer. The launch summary includes the range and the estimated chance to hit (although that can change while the missiles are in-flight).

The destroyer does not have any active sensors that can detect the missiles. However, there are four deep space tracking stations on the planet. With the new passive sensor model, they can detect the French missiles from launch.

First salvo arrives, scoring eight hits, two of which penetrate the armour. I've added the number of penetrating hits to the defender summary. BTW not sure if I mentioned this anywhere but in C# Aurora, you can have multiple windows open of each type. So in this case I have two event windows open - one for France and one for the United States - and both will update together. You could have two Class Design windows open to compare designs, etc..

Four more salvos arrive.

The sixth salvo is sufficient to destroy the ship.

I'll show some point defence examples when I finish the code in that area.

C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« on: March 18, 2018, 12:15:35 PM »
We should be able to set a priority queue for PD.  I would imagine that in real life, in a US Carrier Group, the Arleigh Burkes would totally ignore their own defense if a sizeable number of missiles were headed for the carrier.

In VB6 missile salvos move in decreasing order of speed. Point defence operates as those salvos arrive at their targets. Ships with Final Fire will protect whoever is getting attacked, potentially sacrificing their own defence if a salvo attacking them is moving later in the phase. Ships can be set to Final Fire (self-only) to prevent that happening. Generally, this isn't a major issue because incoming salvos in the same wave are often concentrated on a single target. if multiple targets are attacked in the same wave, that leans fewer missiles per target, making it more likely ships can handle their own defence.

I can add some more options, but this can get complex really fast. For example, if this is automated, will an Arleigh Burke shoot at one missile heading for the carrier or twenty missiles heading for it. If it would protect itself, what does the balance of missiles have to be before that equation changes? Does it depend on the performance of the missiles, or the existing damage to the CV or DD? How about what other escorts ships are doing? Do you even know which enemy missiles are heading for which target. If not, what do you do in that situation?

I am happy to implement any additional, straightforward point defence rules. It's just tricky to make them 'straightforward' :)

C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« on: March 18, 2018, 05:36:38 AM »
Steve, given that ground units can have ship beam weapons would it not be reasonable to have ground populations check units equipped with that after checking units equipped with CIWS before moving to ships with defensive fire linked fire control systems?

They would be low values to hit because of the tracking speed. It is a possibility though. I'll sort this out when I create the UI for directing ground unit beam fire.

C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« on: March 17, 2018, 05:50:01 PM »
Looking at last screenshot posted by Steve looks like he is moving into the combat system and considering the save issue was sorted last week with orders phase that should be pretty much almost done, probably he is using an 80% playable version already.

Looking good and awesome and maybe 2018 spring release is becoming a realistic date again!

Spring is on Wednesday :)

Still a decent way to go. Getting into combat now but there are a lot of smaller areas not done. About a dozen movement orders still to do, finish off the ground-space interactions (I just wrote the code for ground units shooting down incoming missiles), quite a lot of minor windows missing, etc. but the major missing part is the AI. I also have a long 'to do' list for finishing off parts of the code with about 50 items on it.

Once most of that is done, I will run one or more test campaigns, which will probably take a few months.

C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora Changes List
« on: March 17, 2018, 02:35:07 PM »
Point Defence

In C# Aurora, fire controls set to 'Final Defensive Fire' or 'Final Defensive Fire (Self Only)' will fire on hostile missiles, regardless of whether the fire control is set to 'Open Fire'. Fire controls set to Area Mode or for AMMs will only fire defensively when that fire control is set to 'Open Fire'.

When a missile reaches its target, a target ship will use its CIWS first. If that is insufficient, it will use any weapons linked to fire controls set to 'Final Defensive Fire' or 'Final Defensive Fire (Self Only)'. If that is still insufficient, ships or the same race or an allied race with fire controls set to 'Final Defensive Fire' will be checked in increasing order of distance from the target ship.

A target population will use any ground units with CIWS to shoot at incoming missiles. If that is insufficient, the same process as for ships will take place, checking same race or allied ships within point defence range of the planet.

C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« on: March 17, 2018, 01:50:55 PM »
Ah - you're right - thanks!  I was confused because the attacker report is broken into "armor hits" and "penetrating hits" while the defender is just told the total number.  Which brings up the observation that it seems a bit odd that the attacker gets more information about which (or even if any) hits penetrated while the defender is only told the total, i.e. the attacker is getting finer-grain information.

The rationale was that the attacker needs to see if any hits penetrate. The defender sees the specific internal damage, which is more useful than the number of hits penetrating. I can add the penetrating hits number as well.

Off Topic / Aurora Steve
« on: March 16, 2018, 04:01:42 AM »

C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« on: March 15, 2018, 03:33:14 AM »

While this is indeed easier to see which ship damaged which target and includes most/all the relevant information on that attacking side, the defensive side is missing a lot of information that is very useful for designing future ships.

Damage report is not split by incoming damage type - Not especially relevant in this case, but very relevant if only some of the incoming fire causes shock damage
Attackers know the number of penetrating hits, defenders only know the amount of armor damage taken. - Of the 50 damage taken, 44 was stopped by armor. Was the 6 damage taken from 2 damage-3 hits? 6 damage-1 hits? (Attacker knows it was 2 damage-3 hits and 1 damage-1 hit, for 3-7 internal damage)

The other thing I notice is that crew deaths are not being reported for damage taken. Is this a change to when crew die? Or are they only being reported on ship destruction?

On an unrelated note, do missiles still use 5x as much fuel as ships? I've been looking at updating the missile calculator gdoc and I've noticed that without that 5x multiplier missile ranges would actually increase. I remember you saying things about wanting to remove the missile exceptions to fuel use, but I've also seen you saying you want to reduce missile range, so a clarification would be useful for providing an accurate opinion.

The defenders only know the amount of damage rather than the type. That was a conscious decision and it is the same in VB6. The damage per hit is already listed on the defender summary.

I'll add the crew casualties.

This is the rule post on missile engines:

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 450