Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10
21
C# Suggestions / Re: C# Suggestions
« Last post by Migi on Yesterday at 12:49:46 PM »
Can you please make the Components tab in the Class Design window show sizes in tons?

Also in the View Technology window, the size in tons setting causes missiles to show in tons rather than MSP.
That's not consistent with the size rating of missile launchers and magazines which stay in MSP.
Also Jump Engines only ever show their rating in Tons not in HS, regardless of the checkbox about tons.
22
C# Bureau of Design / Re: Resolution Cruiser Class
« Last post by Iceranger on Yesterday at 11:55:56 AM »
What would a decent speed be for beam ships ? I could probably install hungrier engines seeing as there is to much fuel anyway. 
I personally use engine tech EP/HS rating x 500km/s as a reference point for fleet speed at given engine tech. For internal fusion, it is 20x500 = 10kkm/s. Regarding this AMM, probably a bit less engine in exchange for a bit more agility could improve its accuracy a bit more.


I assume that should be decent enough AMMs for now, keeping in mind that I am trying to get trough a 10 sec interval AMM spam.
As others has pointed out, this is a very cost-ineffective way to counter SPAMM. More PD guns or more armor are better ways to go.

So the weapons have no innate accuracy besides the percentage multiplier that Gauss- and i assume Railweapons have? And the BFC alone decides over the accuracy so it would also make sense to maybe oversize the FC for the Plasma Beams to get better accuracy.
There are 2 parts of beam weapon accuracy, i.e., accuracy based on tracking speed, and accuracy based on range. The former is determined on both weapon tracking speed (ship speed for hull mounts and turret tracking speed for turreted weapons) and BFC tracking speed, whichever is smaller. The latter is purely determined by BFC max range, the range accuracy at max range is always 0, and at 100% at 0km (not achievable in game) and linear in between.

This also allows my to build all three variants on the same shipyard without retooling and makes the whole group more able to absorb casualties without losing important capabilities.
 
If you know what you are doing, it is actually not hard to fit multiple ships with similar hulls (total size, engine, fuel) into the same shipyard. My extreme example would be, I have a series of 12kt DDs, with an ASM variant, an AMM variant, an AFM variant, a gauss PD variant, a weaponless sensor platform, a jump capable command ship, and a laser/plasma lance variant. All these designs fits in the same yard.

2. Putting maneuverability on attack missiles is usually inefficient. The way hit chance for a missile works is:
(10%+maneuverability efficiency*maneuverability tonnage/missile tonnage)*missile speed/target speed

So bigger missiles need to spend a lot of extra tonnage on maneuverability to increase their hit chance. The exact break even point on adding maneuverability vs a bigger engine for more speed depends on tech and missile size, but it's usually quite small.

Worse, maneuverability doesn't make a missile any harder to shoot down, while more speed does. Thus, attack missiles probably should not spend much if any tonnage on maneuverability; it's worth sacrificing a tiny amount of hit chance for higher speed to better avoid PD.

There is a missile design spreadsheet floating around the forums somewhere that will compute the exact optimal maneuverability vs speed breakdown for you.
It all depends. There is a balance between agility and speed as you pointed out. That doesn't mean agility is not efficient. Ideally the attack missiles should be able to hit your intended target with high accuracy, while being as fast as possible.
I have my ship and missile optimizer here http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=10999.0 so you can try it out.

Since you already plan for 5 of such ships operating together, you can better specialize them to pack more guns into the same tonnage. For example, you won't need 5 BFCs on 5 ships each controlling 4 gauss turrets, you can have all 20 (or more) gauss turrets on one ship with 1 (better) BFC to manage them all.
I thought you need multiple BFCs to handle multiple missile salvos? So putting all your PD on a single ship with a single BFC would make you super vulnerable to multiple salvos?
It has changed in C# now a single BFC can engage unlimited number of missile salvos. Of course on dedicated PD ships you can add a few more for redundancy.

23
General Discussion / Re: Update on Progress (Post-release)
« Last post by Steve Walmsley on Yesterday at 11:44:52 AM »
I haven't been active for a few days so I thought I would give an update.

v1.12 won't be out for at least a couple of weeks. While there is not very much left to do - a little testing and bug fixing - it's just a lack of time. I've a family holiday coming up and I have been spending quite a lot of time on my latest hobby of share trading :)

However, once I get back from holiday I will make finishing v1.12 my main priority, so I hope to have a release done by mid-October at the latest (2-4 weeks).
24
C# Bureau of Design / Re: Resolution Cruiser Class
« Last post by Migi on Yesterday at 11:17:06 AM »
Since you already plan for 5 of such ships operating together, you can better specialize them to pack more guns into the same tonnage. For example, you won't need 5 BFCs on 5 ships each controlling 4 gauss turrets, you can have all 20 (or more) gauss turrets on one ship with 1 (better) BFC to manage them all.
I thought you need multiple BFCs to handle multiple missile salvos? So putting all your PD on a single ship with a single BFC would make you super vulnerable to multiple salvos?
25
C# Bureau of Design / Re: Resolution Cruiser Class
« Last post by TheTalkingMeowth on Yesterday at 11:02:46 AM »
Regarding the missile doctrine you seem to be proposing:

1. Using AMMs to counter AMM spam is a bad idea. You need more than 1 AMM to kill an incoming AMM, so you'd need an enormous number of launchers to be able to actually stop the incoming fire. And producing the thousands of AMMs you would need becomes a huge strain on your resources.

Look at it this way: if your AMMs are roughly equivalent in cost and capability to enemy AMMs, you'll be spending more money than they are just to stop the incoming fire. Since for every AMM they spend, you need to spend 2 (or, likely 4-5).

2. Putting maneuverability on attack missiles is usually inefficient. The way hit chance for a missile works is:
(10%+maneuverability efficiency*maneuverability tonnage/missile tonnage)*missile speed/target speed

So bigger missiles need to spend a lot of extra tonnage on maneuverability to increase their hit chance. The exact break even point on adding maneuverability vs a bigger engine for more speed depends on tech and missile size, but it's usually quite small.

Worse, maneuverability doesn't make a missile any harder to shoot down, while more speed does. Thus, attack missiles probably should not spend much if any tonnage on maneuverability; it's worth sacrificing a tiny amount of hit chance for higher speed to better avoid PD.

There is a missile design spreadsheet floating around the forums somewhere that will compute the exact optimal maneuverability vs speed breakdown for you.
26
C# Mechanics / Re: Aurora C# unofficial manual
« Last post by smoelf on Yesterday at 08:35:18 AM »
This is a cool project, and I have to say, after looking over the manual and github site, that you have done a really impressive job with setting this up. I was a bit worried that collecting all of this information in a pdf would result in something more static (in case you grew bored with the project at some point - risking it to grow outdated), but this seems pretty solid.

However, I do want to say that even though I am a sucker for a good manual, I do think that the existing wiki has a better infrastructure to collect available knowledge about Aurora 4x: http://aurorawiki.pentarch.org/index.php?title=Main_Page. When I have a problem in any game I play, it is more likely that I will google for solutions rather than looking in a manual, so I think the work you are doing with restructuring the information and presenting it will receive much wider use if it was on the wiki. This is not to discourage you from working on the manual, just some thoughts on how to get the most out of the effort you are putting into it.
27
C# Mechanics / Re: Aurora C# unofficial manual
« Last post by Paul Shakur on Yesterday at 07:16:49 AM »
If someone has will and time to help me with this manual then read 1st post where you find all information about it. For now the biggest bottleneck is dividing topics by category which I already started.
28
C# Suggestions / Re: C# Suggestions
« Last post by TMaekler on Yesterday at 03:29:57 AM »
I know Steve isn't to keen on implementing features that don't add too much gameplay... I was wondering though if we could talk about ideas to get population and planetary management a bit more into the direction of having more details and interaction happening. For example that happiness and political support for what you are doing is interconnected with what you are doing and that is interconnected to the political system you are running your empire with. A democracy for example should make its citizens more unhappy if they start a war (yes, I know, totally unrealistic, but you know... ) etc.

Any ideas welcome that really add gameplay mechanics...
29
C# Bureau of Design / Re: Resolution Cruiser Class
« Last post by Icedragon on Yesterday at 01:38:31 AM »
First of thanks for all the replies and suggestions. 

Quote from: Iceranger link=topic=11906.  msg140925#msg140925 date=1600293857
As beam ships, these (MK2) ships are too slow for your tech.   It's roughly at the speed I would use for Ion engine tech.   Speed is really important for beam ships as being the faster one in the engagement you can dedicate the range or choose to not engage.   Staying at range is also an advantage for particle beams.   Meanwhile, the fuel range is somewhat excessively long for military ships. 
And also Jorgens comment. 

What would a decent speed be for beam ships ? I could probably install hungrier engines seeing as there is to much fuel anyway. 

Quote from: Iceranger link=topic=11906.  msg140925#msg140925 date=1600293857
[The AMM is poorly designed.   It has a 85% hit chance against 10kkm/s, i.  e.   100% hit against 8.  5kkm/s.   So comparing to your PD turret with 25kkm/s tracking speed, these are about 1/3 as accurate.   Internal fusion is the tech where AMM accuracy starts to become better than equivalent PD BFC tracking.   If the missile tech you have is on par with your engine tech, then you can definitely improve the design.   With the current design, they probably cost too much for what they can achieve. 

My Missiletech was still heavily underdeveloped while planing to build the ships, my upcoming AMM looks a bit better.  (i assume)

Code: [Select]
Missile Size: 1.00 MSP  (2.500 Tons)     Warhead: 1    Radiation Damage: 1    Manoeuvre Rating: 22
Speed: 93,000 km/s     Fuel: 150     Flight Time: 48.9 seconds     Range: 4,547,700 km
Cost Per Missile: 2.815     Development Cost: 282
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 2046%   3k km/s 682%   5k km/s 409.2%   10k km/s 204.6%

I assume that should be decent enough AMMs for now, keeping in mind that I am trying to get trough a 10 sec interval AMM spam. 

Quote from: Iceranger link=topic=11906.  msg140925#msg140925 date=1600293857
Another major issue with your PD system is that your BFC is severely short-ranged.   As shown in the accuracy band, it only has 75% accuracy at 10kkm range.   Thus, your expected intercept capacity with these guns is 4x16x0.  17x0.  75 = 8.  16 missiles at 25kkm/s.   Given your main gun BFC has a 320kkm range, I assume you have the 80kkm max range tech, so a 1x range 4x speed BFC can have an accuracy of 87.  5% at 10kkm range, bumping up the intercept capacity to 9.  52 missiles at 25kkm/s at the cost of 1HS. 

Oh, so that's how this works.   So the weapons have no innate accuracy besides the percentage multiplier that Gauss- and i assume Railweapons have? And the BFC alone decides over the accuracy so it would also make sense to maybe oversize the FC for the Plasma Beams to get better accuracy. 

Quote from: Iceranger link=topic=11906.  msg140925#msg140925 date=1600293857
Since you already plan for 5 of such ships operating together, you can better specialize them to pack more guns into the same tonnage.   For example, you won't need 5 BFCs on 5 ships each controlling 4 gauss turrets, you can have all 20 (or more) gauss turrets on one ship with 1 (better) BFC to manage them all. 

I would like to not overdo it to much and keep the ships somewhat balanced and usefull in more than one thing.   This also allows my to build all three variants on the same shipyard without retooling and makes the whole group more able to absorb casualties without losing important capabilities.   

Quote from: Iceranger link=topic=11906.  msg140925#msg140925 date=1600293857
At your tech level, ECM and ECCM start to matter.   ECCM is especially important for beam PD against ECM-equipped missiles. 
I will have to look into that no idea how ECM works sofar. 

Quote from: Iceranger link=topic=11906.  msg140925#msg140925 date=1600293857
As there is no information on your S6 ASMs in the post, I cannot say how efficient your CG version is.   But since your MFC range is 27mkm-ish, it is possible design some pretty sweet short-ranged ASMs. 

Code: [Select]
Missile Size: 6.00 MSP  (15.000 Tons)     Warhead: 21    Radiation Damage: 21    Manoeuvre Rating: 12
Speed: 54,500 km/s     Fuel: 500     Flight Time: 86.9 seconds     Range: 4,736,050 km
Cost Per Missile: 13.622     Development Cost: 1,362
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 654.0%   3k km/s 218.0%   5k km/s 130.8%   10k km/s 65.4%

Thats the one I am currently thinking about producing.   Heavy punch in close and probably also usable for Planetary Bombardment.  (I could probably reduce the range of the MFC thinking about it)

30
General C# Fiction / Re: Cry Havoc
« Last post by drejr on September 16, 2020, 10:18:54 PM »
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10
SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk