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 Discussion
« on: Yesterday at 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:

C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« on: March 14, 2018, 11:10:30 AM »
Just for interest...

 I am just starting to look at the code for missiles detecting their own targets. I was aware that the new sensor changes would make missile sensors much more effective (which is why I added the rule about 0.25 MSP minimum). However, seeing it in action will be quite different than the theory.

For example, assume we have a race with active sensor tech of 21 and EM tech of 11. A VB6 active sensor with resolution 100 and size of MSP 0.25 (or 0.0125 HS), with active strength of 0.26, could detect ships of 5000 tons at 285,000 kilometres. The same missile sensor in C# Aurora will detect 5000 ton ships at 4,430,000 kilometres.

If we change the above active sensor for a Thermal sensor of the same size (and assume Thermal Tech 11), it will have a thermal sensitivity of 0.14. The Commonwealth Tribal M class destroyer (standard laser-armed design of 6365 tons) has a thermal signature of 650. The VB6 version of the sensor would detect the ship at 90,000 kilometres. In C#, the range will be 2,370,000 kilometres. That range gap will drop though for more powerful active sensors and for larger target ships. The C# passive advantage is more pronounced for small sensor and small signatures.

Finally, lets change the above active sensor for an EM sensor of the same size, which will have an EM strength of 0.14. Now lets assume we want to use that missile for a HARM attack on a ship with an active sensor using the same tech. Lets say size 3, resolution 100. In VB6, the missile sensor will detect the ship-based sensor emission at 882,000 kilometres. In C#, the range will be 7,424,621 kilometres. That range advantage will drop though for more powerful active sensors or more powerful emissions

Even so, there is a lot more scope for passive attacks and mines will probably become effective in other places beside jump points.

C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora Changes List
« on: March 14, 2018, 08:22:52 AM »
Combat Reports

In VB6, understanding the combat events can be difficult given the sheer amount of information. Therefore, C# Aurora uses a condensed system where you no longer see each individual weapon firing, or the damage from individual hits. Instead weapon fire and any resulting damage are shown in a summary format. The side being attacked will also receive some information about the firing ship, using the Alien Ship Name if available.

Here is the summary when a Japanese destroyer opens fire on a Martian Patrol Ship. The different in hull designation in the two reports is because Mars classes the Monoceros as a patrol ship, while Japanese Intelligence classes it as a destroyer.

Subsequent damage reports in the next two five-second increments as the Japanese ship continues firing with 10cm railguns. The 15cm railguns are recharging.

The ship is finally destroyed by the next volley.


(the forum can't handle Cyrillic so I had to improvise)

C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« on: March 13, 2018, 05:45:32 PM »
@ components view:

while I like the new screenshot a lot, some QoL pointers I am missing:

1) it is really hard to read lines and rows without some "focus line" - would it be possible to get something like a background-color every 4-5 lines for easier reading?

2) for same or related components (Crew Quarters, Weapons etc) it would be easier to have them in a "block" instead of mixed up in the lines - guess it is "first added, first shown"? it would be much easier to have all a logical order of the components were you can see with "one look" which components are there

3) what I am missing (but its really just a minor point) is a "total TN-Mineral cost" .. I would add a line between Gallicite and Wealth with the total mineral costs

1) If you click on a line, the whole line is highlighted.

2) Display order is based on the Sort options at the bottom.

3) Good idea. I'll add that.

C# Aurora / Re: Screenshots published so far
« on: March 13, 2018, 02:41:20 PM »
Ship Class Components View

The components view has been expanded considerably for C# Aurora.

The tab still has the functionality from VB6, showing the component breakdown by Amount, Size, Cost, Crew and HTK. To that has been added ordnance loadout, fuel and maintenance supplies, plus a breakdown of minerals and wealth. The mineral and wealth breakdown takes into account the mineral requirement and/or cost for the full loadout of fuel, maintenance and ordnance, so you can see the full cost of the design

Two new columns have been added which replace the damage allocation chart from VB6. Instead, this is the percentage chance that a component of the specified type will be selected for internal damage. E-DAC is for weapons that only target electronics.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 450