Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]
91
C# Bureau of Design / Re: Resolution Cruiser Class
« Last post by Icedragon on September 17, 2020, 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)

92
General C# Fiction / Re: Cry Havoc
« Last post by drejr on September 16, 2020, 10:18:54 PM »
93
Geoffroy's 4X project / Re: Antimatter - I have just Launched my Kickstarter campaign
« Last post by Geoffroypi on September 16, 2020, 08:25:59 PM »
This looks like a fantastic project - I just entered my pledge and see your Kickstarter goal is reached!  Congratulations and keep up the great work.

Thanks ! So you are the one closing the first goal :). I have updated the project accordingly with a new stretch goal : planet-wide terraforming, just like in aurora ^^

Hey Geoffrey,

Stumbled by chance and i am quite impressed.... this seems an amazing work and very "huge" in scale and is really astonishing you have gone so far on your own...

Deserved to be backed and GOOD LUCK for this!


I admit i skimmed through it but one thing is not totally clear for me even if this is a sandbox game is where you want the main focus to be.
For example Aurora is a sandbox game but in the end the focus is expanding your empire with spaceships, colonise other planets and manage the "logistics" of resources.

Is your game more focused on the "end game" space exploration which also includes warfare or is the main focus the planet level building? again apologies if i missed it i skimmed quickly but it was not totally evident for the quick read i did



Thank you, well I think you are pointing out a flaw in my campaign, I think not everyone can get a clear overview of the gameplay. I will try to make a concise intro explaining the possibilities. Basically the game will allow full liberty on what scale you ll want to be, If you want to remain a simple trader on your ship, you can, but if you decide to end this modest life and establish a new colony by yourself you can do it as well (much more risk/reward of course).

my english is really subpar at 3 am ^^.

PS : Allright I have made a small intro into my kickstarter page, do you think it answers all your questions ?

Create your character, your ship and start as  merchant, a pirate, a freelancer or an explorator. Achieve greatness by ruling your own space empire, establishing colonies, space stations and managing your fleet of spaceships, or stay as a witness as the galaxy is turmoiling in conflicts.


94
C# Bureau of Design / Re: Resolution Cruiser Class
« Last post by xenoscepter on September 16, 2020, 07:06:46 PM »
My 2 cents:

 - Up the range of your PD Fire Control. The farther they go the better your accuracy and for PD in particular this is tremendous. For offensive weapons you can kinda get away with smaller B-FCS, since if you can somewhat compensate with speed, although you will need to maneuver more to achieve it. General rule of thumb I'd say is not to skimp on any FCS unless you have a very, very good reason not to. A damn good PD can be the difference between a dead ship and living one... and as time goes on and technology improves this is magnified.

 - Fighting with older ships is certainly not something you should strive to do, but if the enemy catches you with your britches down... or worse, is just that much better than you, having some barely adequate ships to throw at them could be the difference between your empire's continued existence or it's untimely demise. If you skimped on PD Fire Control, you might find that what would have been a barely adequate ship is in fact so woefully over matched that the enemy roflstomps it... and by extension, you.
95
Geoffroy's 4X project / Re: Antimatter - I have just Launched my Kickstarter campaign
« Last post by acantoni on September 16, 2020, 05:50:19 PM »
Hey Geoffrey,

Stumbled by chance and i am quite impressed.... this seems an amazing work and very "huge" in scale and is really astonishing you have gone so far on your own...

Deserved to be backed and GOOD LUCK for this!


I admit i skimmed through it but one thing is not totally clear for me even if this is a sandbox game is where you want the main focus to be.
For example Aurora is a sandbox game but in the end the focus is expanding your empire with spaceships, colonise other planets and manage the "logistics" of resources.

Is your game more focused on the "end game" space exploration which also includes warfare or is the main focus the planet level building? again apologies if i missed it i skimmed quickly but it was not totally evident for the quick read i did

96
C# Bureau of Design / Re: Resolution Cruiser Class
« Last post by Jorgen_CAB on September 16, 2020, 05:22:05 PM »
The final defensive fire happens at 10kkm range, so gauss range above 10kkm isn't necessary at all for final PD. Unless you plan to shoot the enemy ships at any range beyond point blank with these guns, using 10kkm or 20kkm range can make these turrets cheaper.

As far as I know the range of Gauss does not impact cost or any other parameter except range. So you should always use the best range you have researched for Gauss weapons.


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.

This is probably something I don't entirely agree on... putting all your eggs in one basket can be very dangerous... if those PD ships ar targeted and knocked out your PD capability can be severely impacted, especially if the BFC used are knocked out from shock damage for example. There certainly are strategic reasons for spreading out your assets to reduce your vulnerability. You also get a ship that is almost useless in beam combat and can effectively be ignored by the enemy, that is armour and hull that could take a beating while dealing damage in return.

Now.. NPR will probably not attack weak links intentionally but I have seen some such tactics employed in my multi-faction games to good effect.

There are also some industrial benefits to spread out resources on ships as it can be beneficial from an upgrade perspective and will require less shipyards if enough components are the same among different version of the same ships and sizes.


In terms of speed I would agree that 4800km/s for Magneto Plasma beam ships "might" be on the slow side... but... speed should always be considered depending on what enemy you face and the speed they use for their ships. If you can use lower speed and fit more weapons and defences while still maintain superior speed that is not a terrible idea... or perhaps you need to fit 50% of the hull with overcharged engines just to keep parity, then you have to do that.


When it comes to deployment time, maintenance, fuel consumption and range I suppose that it all comes down to doctrine. I rarely see much need for deployment time on regular capital ships to need more than 9-12 months, even 6 months are not unheard of for me. Maintenance on the other hand I usually like it to be at least 50-100% more than the ships deployment times. You don't want to risk a ship running out of supplies during long deployments and sometimes a ship will be stationed at a place with population but no maintenance facilities or perhaps not enough of them, it then is good to have plenty of maintenance on your ships. I usually cover about the ships intended deployment with engineering sections and any excess with maintenance storage, this saves space but will still give a decent AFR for ships.
If a ship ever uses up its full deployment time you should always send it in for an overhaul as well as resting the crew, unless there is some particular reasons not to.

I usually aim for fuel consumption of somewhere between 40-60%, depending on ship type and size... but it is often good to increase the power of an engine for burning more fuel to either get more speed or more space for weapons and armour on the ship... whatever you need.

The actual range of my ships tend to be about 20-30bkm for most capital ships, I rather bring tankers if I need more strategical range and there should be enough places to refuel within my own empire for ships to move around longer distances when I don't use fleet tugs to transport them.
97
C# Bureau of Design / Re: Resolution Cruiser Class
« Last post by Iceranger on September 16, 2020, 05:04:17 PM »
These ships are properly designed without obvious errors that I can see. Below are the flaws I see from my perspective:

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.

Code: [Select]
Kalevala AMM (120)    Speed: 37,200 km/s    End: 1.2m     Range: 2.6m km    WH: 1    Size: 1    TH: 285/171/85
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.

Code: [Select]
Quad Gauss Cannon R400-17.00 Turret (4x16)    Range 40,000km     TS: 25000 km/s     Power 0-0     RM 40,000 km    ROF 5       
Beam Fire Control R40-TS25000 (1)     Max Range: 40,000 km   TS: 25,000 km/s     75 50 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
The final defensive fire happens at 10kkm range, so gauss range above 10kkm isn't necessary at all for final PD. Unless you plan to shoot the enemy ships at any range beyond point blank with these guns, using 10kkm or 20kkm range can make these turrets cheaper.
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.

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.

At your tech level, ECM and ECCM start to matter. ECCM is especially important for beam PD against ECM-equipped missiles.

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.
98
Geoffroy's 4X project / Re: Antimatter - I have just Launched my Kickstarter campaign
« Last post by Mitchell on September 16, 2020, 03:33:36 PM »
This looks like a fantastic project - I just entered my pledge and see your Kickstarter goal is reached!  Congratulations and keep up the great work.
99
Geoffroy's 4X project / Re: Antimatter - I have just Launched my Kickstarter campaign
« Last post by Geoffroypi on September 16, 2020, 01:02:32 PM »
Quote
MoM is the acronym for Master of Magic, a game made around the time you were born ;-) , circa 1994. An awesome 4X strategy game, mixing the best of Civilization II and Magic the Gathering, the card game.

Oh yes, thanks, I have heard of this game, but when it came out I was probably too busy chewing legos.

Shared your kickstarter page on my forum here: http://www.grogheads.com/forums/index.php?topic=24822.new#new

Feel free to pop in and talk about your game.

Good luck!

I will immediatly do this , thanks a lot for spreading the word !


Good luck with the Kickstarter campaign.
Luck (or perhaps hard work) is with me indeed :)

Hi Geoffroy

I've been followling your game progress for some time, and just want to say it looks amazing, and hope you keep up the good work. 
'Antimatter' is definately a better name for this game than the previous one.
I've backed you up on Kickstarter.  Hope your KS campaign is successful this time :)


Hey, thank you for your support, as you can I try to improve the game, deep and wide. My only regret is that I could show more visual WIP instead of programming invisible stuff in the engine taht early, but the good side of it is that I feel confident to deliver everything, maybe i ll be late but it ll be solid.


To the Aurora community : huge thanks, I have some metrics showing me referals and currently Aurora forum stand first, along with bay12 forum as sources of contributors. Some quietly contributed.

I am been on this forum since 2012, being a lurker mostly. I am proud to get such support here.
100
C# Tutorials / Re: aurora 4X C# Youtube Videos
« Last post by AJS1956 on September 16, 2020, 11:56:39 AM »
Good evening all,


We have four new videos in the past three days!

Liquidor has posted the next two parts of his third playthrough (parts 9 and 10). Ser Beardian has posted two more of his current tutorial series.

So, we now have a total of 454 videos with a total running time of 11 days, 13 hours and 36 minutes.

As usual, I have added the latest copy of the spreadsheet to the first post

Andy

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]
SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk