Post reply

Warning - while you were reading 26 new replies have been posted. You may wish to review your post.

Note: this post will not display until it's been approved by a moderator.

Name:
Email:
Subject:
Message icon:

Verification:
What is the fourth planet?:

shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview

Please read the rules before you post!


Topic Summary

Posted by: Jovus
« on: Today at 07:11:41 PM »

I personally really like the concept of armoured missiles, but I definitely agree they really need some heavy work as far as the execution is concerned.
Posted by: Father Tim
« on: Today at 06:38:25 PM »

Big, slow missiles will be easier to shoot down.  Armoured missiles were removed because they were too good. . . at least against the computer.  Hopefully Aurora's AIs will improve to the point where we can have them back.*

- - -

*Because I would like missiles to function properly in nebulae (which, for the record, are also gone from 1.0 C# Aurora) -- which means non-armoured missiles are detroyed immediately upon launch, and armoured missiles have their speeds properly reduced by the nebula like ships do.
Posted by: Shuul
« on: Today at 06:30:11 PM »

so creating big missiles will be ineffective as they will be easily shot down by PD? Or do they have a bit boosted HP to compensate lose of armor? Armored torpedoes was a really neat concept.
Posted by: Peroox
« on: Today at 03:12:05 PM »

Also no armored missile and some other changes in missile design (like ECM/ECCM).

I will miss my fire plan with few specialised missile type (like salvo of armored decoy and then next salvo with high dmg missile).
Posted by: Father Tim
« on: Today at 02:50:44 PM »

Well, missiles will no longer be able to avoid point defense if they hit within a single move increment, so they won't be over powered at point blank ranges anymore.  The fuel & engine changes are *supposed* to make it much more of a choice between speed & range, but we'll have to wait until we get our pseudopods on C# Aurora to know for sure.
Posted by: Shuul
« on: Today at 02:29:44 PM »

Can anyone clarify a bit to me if missiles will have more or less range/utility in C#? I never used missiles except short range torpedoes and bombs and they always seemed to me a bit OP compared to short ranged energy weapons. Will C# have a better balance between missiles and guns?
Posted by: Garfunkel
« on: Today at 11:26:45 AM »

While what you say is all true, the idea with full on indiscriminate bombardment like that isn't to destroy the ground forces utterly through orbital bombardment. It's nice if that happens, mind, but if the only resource of value down there is the mineral wealth of the planet there's no collateral to worry about except the temperature plunge and that can be covered with enough infrastructure.

Maybe the price of infrastructure should be pushed up significantly, so that the cost of mines + infrastructure to hold necessary pop at colony cost <tweaking parameter> is comparable (tho' slightly less than, because of the hassle) to the cost of automines.
No need to worry about that too much, especially at this stage. Even if Hazard's tactic of instant hostile terraforming to game the terrain bonuses turns out to be 100% effective, it's still just one 'exploit' among many, nor will it ruin the game. I know I won't use it except for specific story purposes.

I assume the new spoiler race will have some surprises up their sleeve that Steve hasn't shared with us yet.
Posted by: Person012345
« on: Today at 10:05:55 AM »

I agree that that at some point, the fornication and to-hit modifiers would change, but it is still actually worse than my original example.

I must have missed a post in the change list, cause the game just took a new turn.

Maybe a new ship or troop module?
It's just what happens when the slaaneshi worshippers arrive.
Posted by: Steve Walmsley
« on: Today at 06:22:13 AM »

*snip*

Ah, I see that I was unclear.

While what you say is all true, the idea with full on indiscriminate bombardment like that isn't to destroy the ground forces utterly through orbital bombardment. It's nice if that happens, mind, but if the only resource of value down there is the mineral wealth of the planet there's no collateral to worry about except the temperature plunge and that can be covered with enough infrastructure. Especially since as the dust settles temperatures rise back up. This is of course only true for beam based bombardment, missile bombardment will also see radiation complicating the matter.

Rather, the point of a bombardment like this is to forcefully terraform the planet so its defensive modifiers drop. The Fortification and To Hit modifiers stack, so that's a pretty big deal if you are dealing with a Jungle Rift Valley (a fully fortified infantry unit in a Jungle Rift Valley has a 1.4% chance of getting hit regardless of source), but even in the worst case scenario for the new terrain (fully fortified infantry in a Mountain terrain) that gets you a 4 (1/6)th % chance of getting a hit on the enemy target, about 3 times as likely. It also means that due to the new, extreme environmental conditions that you probably trained your forces for but they did not you're not going to be suffering under penalties they will.

All of this combines to make an assault much more likely to be successful with limited casualties as a result. And if the terrain reroll gets you Barren, Chapparal, Ice Fields or anything else with a lower than 1.5 fortification modifier and a 0.75 to hit modifier you stop bombarding and go for the landings, because at that point it's close enough to equal.

I can see that we aren't going to reach agreement on this :)

I think it would be best if we resumed the discussion after you have had chance to play with the game. And no, I don't know when that will be :)
Posted by: Steve Walmsley
« on: Today at 06:19:14 AM »

I agree that that at some point, the fornication and to-hit modifiers would change, but it is still actually worse than my original example.

I must have missed a post in the change list, cause the game just took a new turn.

Maybe a new ship or troop module?

LOL. I guess the fornication modifiers are linked to pop growth :)
Posted by: Hazard
« on: Yesterday at 04:17:34 PM »

Infrastructure cost on low to zero colony cost planets is negligible by design. Part of it though is the simple fact that any event which increases colony cost also increases infrastructure investment requirements, which means that if colony cost swings widely enough you will see a population collapse. And colony cost can swing to 'effectively infinite.'
Posted by: Jovus
« on: Yesterday at 02:06:20 PM »

While what you say is all true, the idea with full on indiscriminate bombardment like that isn't to destroy the ground forces utterly through orbital bombardment. It's nice if that happens, mind, but if the only resource of value down there is the mineral wealth of the planet there's no collateral to worry about except the temperature plunge and that can be covered with enough infrastructure.

Maybe the price of infrastructure should be pushed up significantly, so that the cost of mines + infrastructure to hold necessary pop at colony cost <tweaking parameter> is comparable (tho' slightly less than, because of the hassle) to the cost of automines.
Posted by: Hazard
« on: Yesterday at 01:46:33 PM »

*snip*

Ah, I see that I was unclear.

While what you say is all true, the idea with full on indiscriminate bombardment like that isn't to destroy the ground forces utterly through orbital bombardment. It's nice if that happens, mind, but if the only resource of value down there is the mineral wealth of the planet there's no collateral to worry about except the temperature plunge and that can be covered with enough infrastructure. Especially since as the dust settles temperatures rise back up. This is of course only true for beam based bombardment, missile bombardment will also see radiation complicating the matter.

Rather, the point of a bombardment like this is to forcefully terraform the planet so its defensive modifiers drop. The Fortification and To Hit modifiers stack, so that's a pretty big deal if you are dealing with a Jungle Rift Valley (a fully fortified infantry unit in a Jungle Rift Valley has a 1.4% chance of getting hit regardless of source), but even in the worst case scenario for the new terrain (fully fortified infantry in a Mountain terrain) that gets you a 4 (1/6)th % chance of getting a hit on the enemy target, about 3 times as likely. It also means that due to the new, extreme environmental conditions that you probably trained your forces for but they did not you're not going to be suffering under penalties they will.

All of this combines to make an assault much more likely to be successful with limited casualties as a result. And if the terrain reroll gets you Barren, Chapparal, Ice Fields or anything else with a lower than 1.5 fortification modifier and a 0.75 to hit modifier you stop bombarding and go for the landings, because at that point it's close enough to equal.
Posted by: Rich.h
« on: Yesterday at 09:02:34 AM »

How about them having access to tech locked facilities, these will be exceptionally good at what they do but only avalible via capture, similar to things like plasma torpedoes & ultra compressed fuel tanks etc. Gives yet another reason not to go crazy with the warheads from space.
Posted by: Jovus
« on: Yesterday at 08:08:36 AM »

Gotta keep those troop numbers (and morale) up somehow.
Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55