Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
Crusade / Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
« Last post by Hazard on Today at 04:22:43 AM »
Quote from: Father Tim on Yesterday at 05:20:50 PM
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.
2
Bureau of Ship Design / Re: Conventional Start Exploration Fleet
« Last post by Jorgen_CAB on Today at 01:43:31 AM »
Quote from: Michael Sandy on November 10, 2019, 09:44:48 PM
I am at a loss as to how people can think putting both geo and grav sensors on a ship could be more efficient.

Consider a dummy system that masses 5 HS and costs 100 BP.  If you put it on a dedicated grav survey ship, it will move slower and cost more.  A ship that is grav surveying can't also geo survey, and vice versa.  All the time that a ship is doing one task, the other survey equipment is dead weight.

The extra cost in shipyards, retooling costs and time might very well be enough of a factor to make it worth the hassle of some few extra fuel costs for "dead weight".

Using a single ship for many things is a strategic consideration and not about mathematical efficiency in one single instance.

Let's say you run an exploration vessel that also incorporate sensors and a small hangar with possibility of either some scouting vessel or perhaps a GEO survey shuttle. the point being that the ship are suppose to operate on it's own for an extended period of time.

One ships role are basically to do the grav survey and only geo survey any interesting terrestrial or potential fuelling spots, any dedicated geo survey will come much later if you deem it interesting. You are NEVER going to be able to exploit things in the same pace you can survey new space anyway so no real need to keep pace with the geo survey entire systems anyway, just the most interesting stuff. In these cases geo surveys are done much quicker than grav survey so having a dedicated ship for that (outside s shuttle) are probably pointless and a waste of fuel for the time being.

The point is to find the good strategically important systems and plan your general infrastructure, where to build the gates and where to send your real geo surveys and survey teams later.

Bringing a whole fleet for the purpose of scouting is also dead weight if one ship can find and potentially detect and avoid an enemy given they have the tools they need. It also means these ships can be drafted into military scouting when the times comes.

Any military ship that is not out doing military stuff is also dead weight in much the same way. So it certainly is not dead weight to bring along sensor equipment and weapons either.

There are allot more to consider than pure ship for ship cost for ONE specific purpose, the same goes for every ship that you create. The possibility of ships to multi-purpose in many roles simply make your strategic decisions far more flexible and overall less resource and time sensitive.

The only way a ship dedicated for one purpose make sense is if they can do that one thing none stop without wasting time moving about too much. In some cases I would agree a single purpose grav or geo survey vessels make sense too. But if your intention is not to geo survey every body in every system you encounter all the time it makes less sense to send more than one ship. You are never going to perfectly time when a grav or geo survey finish in synch anyway either.

So... calculating efficiency is almost impossible as it all depends on the situation and doctrines.
3
C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Last post by MultiVitamin on Today at 01:32:02 AM »
Quote from: MultiVitamin on November 08, 2019, 08:48:32 PM
Actually, would it be possible to make research trees for the Ground Force components? Just generic ones to increase their effectiveness, number of shots, etc? Or maybe make it so that we can design them?

So for example there'd be a few fields

Type - Anti-Personnel, Anti-Vehicle, Bombardment, Anti-Aircraft, Autocannon, or HQ (CE would stay the same)

Size - (Light, Medium, Heavy, Super-Heavy, Ultra-Heavy)

AP - (Dropdown menu from 1 to 50)

Damage - (Dropdown menu from 1 to 60)

Shots - (Dropdown menu from 1 to 6)

CIWS - (Can be blank, choose from pre-made CIWS made for ships, just resized maybe?)

FFD - (Dropdown menu from 1 to 3)


And various research could upgrade the ranges of these higher and higher. Just a suggestion I thought of while anticipating the renaming of components when a unit is designed, thought of "why not just build the components with research to make them better, and have that be designable?". It adds a lot more variety and player decision making for Ground Forces, like when you design the weapons, powerplants, defense, engines, etc for ships, just not as intense. Also helps solve the "Can't think of anything for Ultra-Heavy" problem you mention about having a while ago in (I think) a different thread.

If no on the designing the components themselves, what about just research to improve components?

Actually thinking on this, if steve does add more esoteric components later, this might not work out. I also don't fully know all of the research techs already in place for ground units other then the bio-enhancements for infantry.
4
Crusade / Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
« Last post by Scandinavian on Today at 01:03:01 AM »
Quote from: Bremen on Yesterday at 10:12:27 PM
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.
5
Crusade / Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
« Last post by Bremen on Today at 12:48:51 AM »
Quote from: Father Tim on Today at 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

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.
6
Crusade / Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
« Last post by Father Tim on Today at 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

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.
7
Crusade / Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
« Last post by Bremen on Yesterday at 10:12:27 PM »
Quote from: Father Tim on Yesterday at 05:19:41 PM
Quote from: Bremen on Yesterday at 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.

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.
8
Bureau of Ship Design / Re: Conventional Start Exploration Fleet
« Last post by Father Tim on Yesterday at 09:46:31 PM »
Whereas I know my survey cruisers are going to spend their service lives surveying.  When I dispatch one through a jump point, I know it's going to spend however long it takes to completely survey the ground & space in that system, report back all it's findings, and proceed through the next jump point.  Repeat.

When it runs low on fuel, and maintenance, and crew morale (all at the same time, if I've done my job right desigining it), it's going to come home to rest, refuel, & refit before heading out along a different warp chain.

I know I'm not going to be stuck with a geo fleet doing nothing because it's in the wrong system, or because the new system is a starless nexus, or because a grav surveyer was lost with all hands and now there are no unsurveyed bodies left in my empire.
9
Bureau of Ship Design / Re: Conventional Start Exploration Fleet
« Last post by misanthropope on Yesterday at 09:10:29 PM »
when i assign a ship to grav survey, i know it is going to be doing grav survey every moment of the rest of its life.  i operate on big expansions at regular (predetermined) intervals.  so my grav ships don't have any time for a secondary role.  my geo do, as that work is a lot more irregular, but there's no value in the side hustle being grav survey.

generally speaking, though, overexpanding is a real thing in aurora (as opposed to starfire) so your survey fleets tend to be quite modest, meaning the "value per click" of specializing isn't substantial.
10
Crusade / Re: Crusade - Comments Thread
« Last post by Father Tim on Yesterday at 05:20:50 PM »
Quote from: Hazard on Yesterday at 05:02:24 PM
. . .civilian shelters of some sort might be a good idea, especially as weapon power escalates.

I think they're called orbital habitats.  #:-]
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk