Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]
91
C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Last post by alex_brunius on October 12, 2018, 03:56:50 AM »
I have some concerns that the FFD system greatly advantages a single large bombardment ship instead of using multiple smaller ships, but honestly I don't think it's a big deal. Besides, it's thematic to use the big battleships for bombardment while the smaller ships play escort.

I thought a single ship could only be assigned one unit to support and as such only fire on one target each increment? If your massive battleship can overkill any target wouldn't several smaller ships be more effective instead?
92
Aurora / Starting a multi-faction solitaire game, with a random twist
« Last post by Desdinova on October 12, 2018, 03:34:43 AM »
So, I haven't played Aurora in a while, and I want to do something I’ve never done before: a multi-faction game, sort of inspired by Steve's Colonial Wars. I’ll be playing each faction, but to make it interesting, I’ll be developing some house rules governing each faction’s behavior. The basic idea is that it’s a multi-faction conventional start. Starting year: 2020 with no NPRs.

To introduce a degree of randomness, I'm letting dice dictate my foreign policy. But just to note, I reserve the right to change any of this at any time to make a more interesting game.

House rules:
Each faction maintains a relationship with the other faction, that changes dynamically throughout the game. The relationship levels are:
Allied
Friendly
Open
Neutral
Distrustful
Belligerent
Hostile

Every year, I roll 3d6 for each nation, which determines the shift in relationships. I won't start rolling until into the Trans-Newtonian age, when each nation starts claiming space.

3-4: Diplomatic crisis (immediate relationship drop, 2 levels)
5-7: Relationships sour (immediate relationship drop, 1 level)
14-16: Warming relations (immediate relationship rise, 1 level)
17-18: Diplomatic breakthrough (immediate relationship rise, 2 levels)

This roll is modified thusly:
Allied: + 2 (allied nations tend to remain allied, barring extraordinary circumstances)
Friendly: +1
Distrustful: -1
Belligerent: -2
There is no relationship penalty for nations that are already hostile, so that international tension tends to ebb and flow.

Nations are not allied but have one or more common allies: +2
Nations are not allied but have one or more common friends: +1
Nations are not allied but have one or more common rivals (belligerent): +1
Nations are not allied but have one or more common enemies (hostile): +2
Nation is belligerent to one or more allies: -1
Nation is hostile to one or more allies: -2
Nation is not an ally and has competing territorial interests (settlement on same non-Sol body): -2
Nation is occupying previously-conquered territory: -2
Nation is waging a war of aggression against a nation regarded as neutral or better: -2

When a nation becomes allies with another, relationships with any nation belligerent or hostile to that ally immediately drop a level. Likewise, relationships with an ally’s allies increase by 1 level.

War:
Relationships falling to hostile don’t mean an immediate outbreak of war. Rather, every month, I roll 3d6 to determine if there is an outbreak of hostilities, and their severity.
3: Surprise attack! Rapidly growing tensions have allowed a random side to seize the initiative.
4: Outbreak of hostilities – negotiations break down, but both sides have time to mobilize beforehand.
5: Skirmish – I’ll play out a ‘limited’ engagement scenario.
6-7: Sabre-rattling increasing tensions: cumulative -1 to next rolls.
8-13: No change in tensions.
14-18: Negotiations ongoing: cumulative +1 to next rolls.

If negotations reach a +5 modifer, tensions can no longer escalate, and relations are elevated to belligerent.

Earth and Mutually-Assured Destruction rule: an attack on Earth is considered an attack on all nations of Earth. This includes any orbital bombardment or attack that causes environmental damage, but not skirmishes between ground troops.

Peace:
Each month of active war, I’ll roll 3d6 to determine the state of peace negotations.
3-6: negotiations falter (-1 to next roll)
13-16: negotiations proceed (+1 to next roll)
17-18: A general peace is reached

The roll is modified by +1 for each major fleet engagement, due to war exhaustion.

Surrender:
If either side lacks the means to continue fighting, I may allow that side to surrender unconditionally.

Battles:
Because I’m playing both sides, I want to introduce an element of randomness. Generally, I’ll play each side as competently as possible, but when possible or interesting, I’ll use the following table for each opposing commander:

Mentality (1d6):
1: Deceptive. The commander will try to use maneuver and guile to their advantage.
2: Aggressive. The commander will attempt to close with and destroy the enemy at all costs.
3: Timid. The commander’s goal is to preserve their own force, even at the cost of a decisive victory.
4+: Neutral.

I plan to develop this further as I go.

Research focus and naval strategies:
I’m determing each nation’s ship/technology focus randomly.

Each nation has a primary and secondary weapon focus:
1: Missiles
2: Lasers
3: Mesons or microwaves
4: Particle Beams
5: Railguns or gauss
6: Carronades

And a major ship design focus:
1-2: Survivability
3-4: Firepower
5-6: Speed

Finally, each nation has a special technology focus to pay special attention to:
1: Primary weapon
2: Stealth
3: Sensors/ECM
4: Shields
5: Propulsion
6: Fighters/Carriers
93
C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Last post by QuakeIV on October 11, 2018, 11:25:09 PM »
I'd like to raise the concern that ground combat is getting out of control given that this is a space game and you still haven't gotten a complete version out.

Not trying to tell you your business, just wanted to specifically attract your attention to this in particular.
94
C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Last post by Steve Walmsley on October 11, 2018, 04:54:17 PM »
That leaves the question open how counterbattery fire against STO works. The most effective phase for STO will likely be trying to down incoming transports, and against this you want to have fighters/warships that try to suppress the STOs.

A few further questions, how do beam weapons work on fighters? I assume they use ship bombardment rules, but benefit from STO immunity on mission like other fighters.

Missile interaction with ground troops and planets is also still lacking. Again for a landing it might make sense to employ them in a tactical role against STO in limited strikes.

Lastly, how do beam fighters fight other fighters on mission? Do they use regular combat, or is that translated to fighter bombardment back to anti-aircraft damage?

Can orbital bombardment also catch enemy fighters/aircraft? It does not make much sense that enemy fighters should be any less vulnerable in atmosphere if they are tracked by a FFD than they are in space.

I haven't finished with the ground combat rules posts yet. I will try to cover all of the above.
95
C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Last post by Hazard on October 11, 2018, 04:20:34 PM »
IIRC, fighting STO units is like fighting ships, and on the ship timescale rather than the ground combat timescale.

With the ground bombardment mechanics the way they are, that... might not work out well.
96
C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Last post by Whitecold on October 11, 2018, 04:16:57 PM »
That leaves the question open how counterbattery fire against STO works. The most effective phase for STO will likely be trying to down incoming transports, and against this you want to have fighters/warships that try to suppress the STOs.

A few further questions, how do beam weapons work on fighters? I assume they use ship bombardment rules, but benefit from STO immunity on mission like other fighters.

Missile interaction with ground troops and planets is also still lacking. Again for a landing it might make sense to employ them in a tactical role against STO in limited strikes.

Lastly, how do beam fighters fight other fighters on mission? Do they use regular combat, or is that translated to fighter bombardment back to anti-aircraft damage?

Can orbital bombardment also catch enemy fighters/aircraft? It does not make much sense that enemy fighters should be any less vulnerable in atmosphere if they are tracked by a FFD than they are in space.
97
Gallery / Re: Asteroidbelt with arms
« Last post by Tree on October 11, 2018, 03:20:48 PM »
Shame it doesn't happen all that often.
98
C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Last post by Conscript Gary on October 11, 2018, 03:17:53 PM »
So, let's sum up to see if I'm following this right as far as the interaction between ground forces, fighters, and ships goes.

  • Ships in orbit are always vulnerable to STO fire and STS fire
  • Ships in orbit can attack the population present on the body, destroying installations and killing population. (Does this also have a chance of destroying ground forces?)
  • Ships in orbit can attack ground forces directly if and only if there is at least one friendly FFD on the surface for them to attach to.

And

  • Fighters in orbit operate the same as ships if they lack any of the specific fighter support orders
  • Fighters in orbit that are providing ground support are immune to STO and STS fire, can be targeted by AA fire (and presumably by fighters on CAP), and can attack ground forces directly if and only if there is at least one friendly FFD for them to attach to.
  • Fighters in orbit that are on search and destroy are immune to STO and STS fire, can be targeted by AA fire (and presumably by fighters on CAP), and can attack ground forces directly even if no FFD elements are present.
  • Fighters in orbit that are on flak suppression are immune to STO and STS fire, can be targeted by AA fire (and presumably by fighters on CAP), and can attack ground forces directly even if no FFD elements are present
  • Fighters in orbit that are on combat air patrol are immune to STO and STS fire, can be targeted by AA fire (and presumable by fighters on CAP), and can attack fighters on ground support missions directly.

And just to round out the trio

  • STO weapons can target ships in orbit and fighters in orbit that have not been given fighter-specific ground support orders
  • AA weapons can target fighters in orbit that have been given fighter-specific ground support orders

That's the current state of it, yeah? As well, ground combat only happens once every three hours, and ships with the bombardment support can only participate if they didn't perform naval fire in the preceding increment- does that mean the entire 3-hour combat round? Either way, the jump between ships firing once every three hours with ground direction or 2,160 times (assuming adequate supply for breakdown) during indiscriminate bombardment is rather large.
99
Aurora Chat / Re: What's going on in your empire/planet/battlefield?
« Last post by Viridia on October 11, 2018, 02:49:59 PM »
Oops. Turns out they've penetrated into Sol from Alpha Centauri now. Hopefully that destroyer squadron gets there before my own cargo group gets destroyed.
That's always a classic blunder :D I've experienced it many times!

Second only to "Never get involved in a land war in Asia"?

Or "Don't invade Russia in the middle of winter"

In other news, I did not have that particular Spoiler enabled, so now I am doubly weirded out.
100
C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Last post by Bremen on October 11, 2018, 01:59:47 PM »
I have some concerns that the FFD system greatly advantages a single large bombardment ship instead of using multiple smaller ships, but honestly I don't think it's a big deal. Besides, it's thematic to use the big battleships for bombardment while the smaller ships play escort.

It being possible to design purpose built bombardment ships for added efficiency (reduced fire rate, loads of small guns, etc) similarly doesn't bother me. If you go to the trouble it should pay off a bit.
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]