Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
C# Bureau of Design / Re: Missile Design
« Last post by kilo on Today at 08:07:00 AM »
I keep restarting my campaign from one specific point to reach this result for Missile Design:

Orion AAM

Missile Size: 1. 00 MSP  (2. 500 Tons)     Warhead: 1    Radiation Damage: 1    Manoeuvre Rating: 12
Speed: 67,200 km/s     Fuel: 175     Flight Time: 62. 9 seconds     Range: 4,226,880 km
Cost Per Missile: 2. 028     Development Cost: 203
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 806. 4%   3k km/s 268. 8%   5k km/s 161. 3%   10k km/s 80. 6%

Engine pwr: 600%    Engine Size: 0. 70  Fuel: 0. 07  Agility: 0. 03

Arrow AS

Missile Size: 5. 00 MSP  (12. 500 Tons)     Warhead: 6    Radiation Damage: 6    Manoeuvre Rating: 12
Speed: 48,160 km/s     Fuel: 3,325     Flight Time: 11 minutes     Range: 32. 85m km
Cost Per Missile: 7. 712     Development Cost: 771
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 577. 9%   3k km/s 192. 6%   5k km/s 115. 6%   10k km/s 57. 8%

Engine pwr: 590%    Engine Size: 2. 55   Fuel: 1. 33  Agility: 0. 12

What kind of tech level are you at? It is hard to discuss your designs when no one knows what you are working with.

On top of that, I would suggest considering ECM and ECCM on your missiles, as these can be pretty useful or painful, depending on your tech level. Let us assume the enemy ship is using ECM 2 and moves at 10k km/s, your chance to hit will change from 57.8 to 37.8%. This can break your damage output. Missile ECM on the other hand can significantly improve your missile's performance against anti-missile weapons. Your AMM would have near 0% chance to hit against your AMM if it had ECM 2. It would reduce the warhead from 6 to 5 though.
2
C# Bureau of Design / Re: Missile Design
« Last post by wilhecomp2 on Today at 06:06:22 AM »
I keep restarting my campaign from one specific point to reach this result for Missile Design:

Orion AAM

Missile Size: 1. 00 MSP  (2. 500 Tons)     Warhead: 1    Radiation Damage: 1    Manoeuvre Rating: 12
Speed: 67,200 km/s     Fuel: 175     Flight Time: 62. 9 seconds     Range: 4,226,880 km
Cost Per Missile: 2. 028     Development Cost: 203
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 806. 4%   3k km/s 268. 8%   5k km/s 161. 3%   10k km/s 80. 6%

Engine pwr: 600%    Engine Size: 0. 70  Fuel: 0. 07  Agility: 0. 03

Arrow AS

Missile Size: 5. 00 MSP  (12. 500 Tons)     Warhead: 6    Radiation Damage: 6    Manoeuvre Rating: 12
Speed: 48,160 km/s     Fuel: 3,325     Flight Time: 11 minutes     Range: 32. 85m km
Cost Per Missile: 7. 712     Development Cost: 771
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 577. 9%   3k km/s 192. 6%   5k km/s 115. 6%   10k km/s 57. 8%

Engine pwr: 590%    Engine Size: 2. 55   Fuel: 1. 33  Agility: 0. 12
3
C# Suggestions / Re: C# Suggestions
« Last post by nuclearslurpee on April 12, 2021, 06:06:14 PM »
Please change the rank ratio for ground forces to be 4:1 (as I believe it was in VB6).

The current 3:1 is not feasible for trying to model any modern military formation structure post-WWI era. The change was made for C# along with the 2:1 ratio (was 3:1) for naval officers, however ground forces did not receive the non-command roles as naval officers did, so there is no good reason for the change to 3:1 ratio.

Many people would prefer to see non-command roles added. I agree, but as this would be extra work I would rather have the reversion to 4:1 ratio than no change at all.
Why not just let us set our own ratios?

This would be even better but I dare not set my hopes on the impossible.  :P
4
C# Suggestions / Re: C# Suggestions
« Last post by Barkhorn on April 12, 2021, 06:04:33 PM »
Please change the rank ratio for ground forces to be 4:1 (as I believe it was in VB6).

The current 3:1 is not feasible for trying to model any modern military formation structure post-WWI era. The change was made for C# along with the 2:1 ratio (was 3:1) for naval officers, however ground forces did not receive the non-command roles as naval officers did, so there is no good reason for the change to 3:1 ratio.

Many people would prefer to see non-command roles added. I agree, but as this would be extra work I would rather have the reversion to 4:1 ratio than no change at all.
Why not just let us set our own ratios?
5
C# Suggestions / Re: C# Suggestions
« Last post by nuclearslurpee on April 12, 2021, 12:01:06 PM »
Please change the rank ratio for ground forces to be 4:1 (as I believe it was in VB6).

The current 3:1 is not feasible for trying to model any modern military formation structure post-WWI era. The change was made for C# along with the 2:1 ratio (was 3:1) for naval officers, however ground forces did not receive the non-command roles as naval officers did, so there is no good reason for the change to 3:1 ratio.

Many people would prefer to see non-command roles added. I agree, but as this would be extra work I would rather have the reversion to 4:1 ratio than no change at all.
6
C# Suggestions / Re: C# Suggestions
« Last post by Pesinario on April 12, 2021, 11:40:27 AM »
It would be nice to be able to give a condition to a fleet to do X (most likely resupply and overhaul) after MSP falls below max repair, it's common for me to have fleets with over 20% MSP get a maintenance failure that breaks the only engine, since the MSP of the engine is more than 20% my reserves
7
General Discussion / Re: Can't unload cargo ((I have shuttle bay)
« Last post by Andrew on April 11, 2021, 06:32:15 PM »
A colony does not have to have population or anything . Just declare a colony site on the asteroid and you can land mines, mass drivers etc and send Orbital miners and terraformers. Without a colony you can do none of these things.

Its a part of the program until you create a colony object linked to the planet object you cannot do Colony object related things. Creating the colony tells the program you are interested in doing things to the body, without that it just does not exist as something for many things to interact with.
8
General Discussion / Re: Questions Not Worth Their Own Thread: C# Edition
« Last post by db48x on April 11, 2021, 02:21:45 PM »
Now the question I have... could I mount a grav sensor without the tech? I wilm see it tomorrow 😁

There is a checkbox labeled “Use Alien Components” in the class design window.
9
C# Suggestions / Re: C# Suggestions
« Last post by bsh on April 11, 2021, 12:50:26 PM »
My list of suggestions (or wishes):
- some kind of search function on the galactic map, to center on a given system. also zoom would be great again. (iirc there was zoom in VB6 version?)
- possibility to delete connection between two jump points and make them undiscovered again. (iirc this was in the VB6 version?) without having to delete and recreate the jump point(s) itself.
- sector colors
- automated commander assignments for sectors and admin commands as well.
- possibility to exclude certain bonuses when searching or assigning admins. for example, i don't want to use any colony admins with population growth bonus.
- scrapping of unneeded installations
- returning prisoners to their own race, (maybe for some extra DR boost.)
- an optimized algorithm for civilian contracts would be good: it should consider nearby but busy ships as well, calculating when they unload their current cargo and become available and how long they take to get to the pickup location, instead of just picking random idle ships from the other side of the galaxy who literally take months and months to even get to pickup.
10
General Discussion / Re: Questions Not Worth Their Own Thread: C# Edition
« Last post by idefelipe on April 11, 2021, 11:30:53 AM »
I never tried to board without boarding capability (powered armor is the requirement for the boarding capability).

Will try it. Thanks a bunch Zap0!!

Edited:

It worked. I created a "Trade Center" ship with an engine a small board module, also I created a "customs team" with a bunch of soldiers to load on it.

As the container where the gravitational sensors were located was very small, the board was quick and clean. Now the question I have... could I mount a grav sensor without the tech? I wilm see it tomorrow 😁
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk