Aurora 4x

Aurora => C# Aurora => Topic started by: sloanjh on May 28, 2018, 10:55:35 AM

Title: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: sloanjh on May 28, 2018, 10:55:35 AM
Let's use this thread to ask simple questions about C# Aurora, so that:

1)  Important posts from Steve (like the recent progress update) don't get aged away so quickly by many tiny threads
2)  People can catch up in a single thread with the questions they missed - less clicking.
3)  The same question doesn't keep getting asked (in a new thread - see #1) over and over; people can review the thread before asking their own question.
4)  Steve can filter his attention by having all the questions in one place.  Note that he won't and shouldn't answer all of them - time he spends answering questions takes away from time coding :)

Please put still put suggestions in the suggestions thread; this is for questions that aren't suggestions.

Thanks!
John
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Odin on May 28, 2018, 12:25:51 PM
Will the game use more than one core?

How about GUI consistency?
Some numbers use a thousand separator, others not.
Part of the game use HS, other parts tons, distance is measured in "millions of km". Why not use the SI and its prefixes or even the scientific notation?

There will be the possibility to multiselection? In the current state i have to use an input recorder to do certain repetitive task, like converting 150 ground units in cadre, or adding slipways to multiple shipyard.
The atrocious GUI for the naval organization will be fixed?
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Steve Walmsley on May 28, 2018, 12:36:09 PM
Will the game use more than one core?

How about GUI consistency?
Some numbers use a thousand separator, others not.
Part of the game use HS, other parts tons, distance is measured in "millions of km". Why not use the SI and its prefixes or even the scientific notation?

There will be the possibility to multiselection? In the current state i have to use an input recorder to do certain repetitive task, like converting 150 ground units in cadre, or adding slipways to multiple shipyard.
The atrocious GUI for the naval organization will be fixed?

At the moment, it doesn't use multiple cores. Much of Aurora is sequential, rather than concurrent, so the opportunity to take advantage of multiple cores or multi-threading is limited. However, if I find performance is a problem, I will spend some time on this area.

You can see the new GUI on the many screenshots available:
http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=8455.0

Currently C# does use tons in some places and HS in others. I am leaning more towards displaying tons, but there would be a lot to change and the game itself is mainly based on HS.

Multi-selection will be possible in some circumstances. The naval organisation function in VB6 has been integrated into the new fleet window. See the changes list for details:
http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=8495.0

In fact, I would recommend everyone to check the changes list and the screenshots, as they will answer many questions.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: MadHatter on May 30, 2018, 01:33:35 PM
Will C# Aurora have hyperdrive and laser warheads return? What will be the mechanics for each?
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Jovus on May 30, 2018, 06:33:10 PM
Will C# Aurora have hyperdrive and laser warheads return? What will be the mechanics for each?

Just FYI, but laser warheads currently work.

Or, well, they function.

What they do; laser warheads do not change the damage profile (penetration still goes by the square root of damage). Plus, usually, laser warheads will lower your damage, since damage is controlled by number of laser emitters, which is related to warhead msp by a simple formula I don't remember at the moment that usually ends up giving less damage output.

However, the one big advantage of laser warheads is their standoff range. Laser warheads detonate and apply damage from a distance away from the enemy ship dependent on your laser tech.

That said, I'm all for a C# redefinition that allows laser warheads to use the laser profile.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: El Pip on May 31, 2018, 06:05:05 AM
Will C# Aurora have hyperdrive and laser warheads return? What will be the mechanics for each?

Just FYI, but laser warheads currently work.

Or, well, they function.

What they do; laser warheads do not change the damage profile (penetration still goes by the square root of damage). Plus, usually, laser warheads will lower your damage, since damage is controlled by number of laser emitters, which is related to warhead msp by a simple formula I don't remember at the moment that usually ends up giving less damage output.

However, the one big advantage of laser warheads is their standoff range. Laser warheads detonate and apply damage from a distance away from the enemy ship dependent on your laser tech.

That said, I'm all for a C# redefinition that allows laser warheads to use the laser profile.
I had laser warheads down as working like this;

Missile Warhead in MSP = No. Laser Heads

Each Laser head has strength = laser head tech level (so 2 for Soft Xray, higher later)

The Stand-off feature is either buggy or just doesn't work in the last version of VB Aurora.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Steve Walmsley on May 31, 2018, 06:35:30 AM
Will C# Aurora have hyperdrive and laser warheads return? What will be the mechanics for each?

Probably not hyper drive, but probably laser warheads, although not initially.

I will look at some other options but for travel to distant systems. I have been considering the option of player-created Lagrange points using jump gate construction ships - the task would be more difficult (longer) the greater the difference in mass of the target system body and the mass required for a natural Lagrange point. Changing jump gates to jump point stabilization would work well with this concept, because you would also stabilize potential Lagrange points that are below the normal threshold.

Using this methodology, it would become worth mounting long-term expeditions to distant stars.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Zincat on May 31, 2018, 06:54:41 AM
Will C# Aurora have hyperdrive and laser warheads return? What will be the mechanics for each?

Probably not hyper drive, but probably laser warheads, although not initially.

I will look at some other options but for travel to distant systems. I have been considering the option of player-created Lagrange points using jump gate construction ships - the task would be more difficult (longer) the greater the difference in mass of the target system body and the mass required for a natural Lagrange point. Changing jump gates to jump point stabilization would work well with this concept, because you would also stabilize potential Lagrange points that are below the normal threshold.

Using this methodology, it would become worth mounting long-term expeditions to distant stars.

Player-created lagrange points sound great. It's so irritating when you have a system with a very distant star and multiple colonizable planets there. Who cares if the investment is large, the point is that it can be done. And so you're not stuck with a completely useless star system.

My personal opinion is that said artificial lagrange points should probably be built very close to the stars to be connected.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Steve Walmsley on May 31, 2018, 09:44:24 AM
Will C# Aurora have hyperdrive and laser warheads return? What will be the mechanics for each?

Probably not hyper drive, but probably laser warheads, although not initially.

I will look at some other options but for travel to distant systems. I have been considering the option of player-created Lagrange points using jump gate construction ships - the task would be more difficult (longer) the greater the difference in mass of the target system body and the mass required for a natural Lagrange point. Changing jump gates to jump point stabilization would work well with this concept, because you would also stabilize potential Lagrange points that are below the normal threshold.

Using this methodology, it would become worth mounting long-term expeditions to distant stars.

Player-created lagrange points sound great. It's so irritating when you have a system with a very distant star and multiple colonizable planets there. Who cares if the investment is large, the point is that it can be done. And so you're not stuck with a completely useless star system.

My personal opinion is that said artificial lagrange points should probably be built very close to the stars to be connected.

They will be easiest near large mass planets (smaller gas giants below the current mass requirements). I'll make the requirements exponentially more difficult for lower mass planets, but not impossible.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Zincat on May 31, 2018, 01:18:37 PM
They will be easiest near large mass planets (smaller gas giants below the current mass requirements). I'll make the requirements exponentially more difficult for lower mass planets, but not impossible.

I was talking more of the starting point, rather than the arriving one.

My scenario here is: star A is near the center of the system (and so near the jump points), and has no planets.
Star B is the very distant companions, and has planets

Since star A has no planets, I'd make the lagrange point start off near the star itself.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Hazard on May 31, 2018, 02:12:20 PM
That's not how Lagrange points work Zincat. It'd be easier to resolve by just not allowing the primary of star systems with multiple stars to be generated without at least 1 medium to high mass planet in orbit, unless the other star also has no planets.

Not entirely realistic, but at least in that case you can be fairly certain you can create a bridge between far outliers.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Person012345 on May 31, 2018, 04:22:13 PM
It doesn't have to be absolutely guaranteed. At least imo. It's fine if this just majorly reduces the number of systems where this is a problem, rather than eliminates them altogether. If there are no planets around the A star then you're out of luck.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Zincat on May 31, 2018, 04:45:29 PM
That's not how Lagrange points work Zincat. It'd be easier to resolve by just not allowing the primary of star systems with multiple stars to be generated without at least 1 medium to high mass planet in orbit, unless the other star also has no planets.

Not entirely realistic, but at least in that case you can be fairly certain you can create a bridge between far outliers.

I understand how Lagrange points work. But Steve proposed this method as a substitute to hyperdrive. And with hyperdrive you could always reach the distant star.

Frankly, I see this more as a sort of "in system stable jump point". I don't care about the "lagrange point" part at all.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Steve Walmsley on May 31, 2018, 06:13:25 PM
That's not how Lagrange points work Zincat. It'd be easier to resolve by just not allowing the primary of star systems with multiple stars to be generated without at least 1 medium to high mass planet in orbit, unless the other star also has no planets.

Not entirely realistic, but at least in that case you can be fairly certain you can create a bridge between far outliers.

I understand how Lagrange points work. But Steve proposed this method as a substitute to hyperdrive. And with hyperdrive you could always reach the distant star.

Frankly, I see this more as a sort of "in system stable jump point". I don't care about the "lagrange point" part at all.

It will be a Lagrange point and it will have to be in the normal position, so it can use the existing mechanics. I don't want to add an entirely new type of system object. I will make some adjustments in system generation to ensure no useless distant stars.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: swarm_sadist on May 31, 2018, 10:47:15 PM
That's not how Lagrange points work Zincat. It'd be easier to resolve by just not allowing the primary of star systems with multiple stars to be generated without at least 1 medium to high mass planet in orbit, unless the other star also has no planets.

Not entirely realistic, but at least in that case you can be fairly certain you can create a bridge between far outliers.
Except there is a Lagrange point, L1 between star A and B. This point will be closer to the star with less mass. Make it so an LP can be built on the Barycenter of the two stars (towards the more massive star) and you have a makeshift highway for two stars without planets, without needing to force the algorithim.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Steve Walmsley on June 01, 2018, 04:55:07 AM
That's not how Lagrange points work Zincat. It'd be easier to resolve by just not allowing the primary of star systems with multiple stars to be generated without at least 1 medium to high mass planet in orbit, unless the other star also has no planets.

Not entirely realistic, but at least in that case you can be fairly certain you can create a bridge between far outliers.
Except there is a Lagrange point, L1 between star A and B. This point will be closer to the star with less mass. Make it so an LP can be built on the Barycenter of the two stars (towards the more massive star) and you have a makeshift highway for two stars without planets, without needing to force the algorithim.

While that is scientifically correct, and there are other real-world Lagrange points as well, the only Lagrange points that exist in Aurora are the ones in following orbits, so any player-created ones will have exist within that constraint.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: MadHatter on June 01, 2018, 01:28:31 PM
So will it be possible to jump from a Lagrange point to a normal jump point then, or will that increase connectivity too much?
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Profugo Barbatus on June 01, 2018, 05:51:57 PM
I don't believe you can currently jump from JP to system LP, you have to be at a LP to jump to another LP. Certainly, the auto pather doesn't go from JP directly to LP.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: DIT_grue on June 02, 2018, 02:13:17 AM
While that is scientifically correct, and there are other real-world Lagrange points as well, the only Lagrange points that exist in Aurora are the ones in following orbits, so any player-created ones will have exist within that constraint.

And any point trailing the main star (in its galactic orbit) would be disregarded as useless even if it existed, but I've never been able to come up with a satisfactory explanation for why fusion suppresses a gravitational effect. So companion stars should be valid system bodies for the existence/creation of Lagrange Points as long as they fall within whatever mass requirements are specified.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: tobijon on June 02, 2018, 09:06:40 AM
Wouldn't Legrange points of stars be useless due to it leading to the middle of nowhere?
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Hazard on June 02, 2018, 10:23:35 AM
Wouldn't Legrange points of stars be useless due to it leading to the middle of nowhere?

For the galactic orbits? Well, yes, because then you'd have a point about 1/6th of the galaxy away. But for companion stars they should create an exploitable Lagrange Point. IIRC though that doesn't actually shorten the distance to travel to the star.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: swarm_sadist on June 02, 2018, 01:31:49 PM
I was suggesting that you could use the barycenter of a binary star system as a point to build a LP.

Wouldn't Legrange points of stars be useless due to it leading to the middle of nowhere?

For the galactic orbits? Well, yes, because then you'd have a point about 1/6th of the galaxy away. But for companion stars they should create an exploitable Lagrange Point. IIRC though that doesn't actually shorten the distance to travel to the star.
That depends on the size of the two binary stars compared to each other. Stars that are similar to each other would have the barycenter and L1 almost on top of each other, while two very differently sized stars might have 90% of the jouney shortened.

Ex 1: 61 Cygni are close to the same size, so their barycenter and L1 are only ~3 AU apart from each other. You would still have to make 96.2% of the jouney the hard way.

Ex 2: Sirius A is almost twice as big as B, so their barycenter and L1 are ~5 AU apart (but the system itself is much smaller). You would only need to travel 75.9% of the way.

So even if there are 0 planets and LP in the entire system, you could still shorten the trip. And in both of these examples, if there is already an existing LP around a gas giant in one of the systems, then you would save even more distance. Travelling from an LP around a gas giant to the half way point between two stars still saves you half a trip.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Jovus on June 02, 2018, 06:18:35 PM
Except there is a Lagrange point, L1 between star A and B. This point will be closer to the star with less mass. Make it so an LP can be built on the Barycenter of the two stars (towards the more massive star) and you have a makeshift highway for two stars without planets, without needing to force the algorithim.

I may very well be misremembering, so forgive me, but don't you have this backwards? Won't L1 be closer to the star with more mass? If I remember aright, the Earth/Sun L1 is inside the Sun.

In either case your point still stands; ability to put an intra-system jump on L1 and the barycentre would be useful.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Barkhorn on June 02, 2018, 06:39:58 PM
You're thinking of the barycenter.  The larger the difference in mass between two bodies is, the closer the barycenter will be to the larger body.  The larger the difference in mass between the two bodies, the closer L1 will be to the smaller body.  Remember, lagrange points are where the gravity of multiple bodies cancel out.  If the Earth-Sun L1 was within the sun, that would mean the Earth is actually pulling harder on part of the sun than the sun is.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Jovus on June 02, 2018, 07:38:45 PM
Yep, I was. Thanks.

In case anyone else is curious, Wikipedia has an extremely helpful picture (https://infogalactic.com/w/images/e/ee/Lagrange_points2.svg).
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: DIT_grue on June 02, 2018, 11:52:28 PM
For the galactic orbits? Well, yes, because then you'd have a point about 1/6th of the galaxy away. But for companion stars they should create an exploitable Lagrange Point. IIRC though that doesn't actually shorten the distance to travel to the star.

True for binaries, barring extreme corner cases, though it still bugs me on a consistency level. It's much more likely to increase convenience once you have three or four stars in the system.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: space dwarf on June 03, 2018, 10:54:52 AM
I don't really get the idea f how Lagrange points are supposed to work in Aurora, why they act as teleporters, and certainly no idea how you would construct one.  Can someone explain to me how i've missed the point?
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Jovus on June 03, 2018, 11:09:34 AM
I don't really get the idea f how Lagrange points are supposed to work in Aurora, why they act as teleporters, and certainly no idea how you would construct one.  Can someone explain to me how i've missed the point?

Lagrange point means something slightly different in Aurora than they do in real life. In Aurora, they act as intra-system jump points, and currently exist; you've probably seen some if you've played 7.1 in large systems or systems with large gas giants or multiple stars.

They're connected to the real life concept of Lagrangian points by the conceit that jump points of all sorts are areas of strange gravitational topology, and some Lagrangian points in some Aurora systems allow for short-range wormhole-like jumps to certain other Lagrangian points - which is why these intra-system jump points are invariably on the leading or trailing Trojan point for some system body or other.

The idea is to allow the player to force these Lagrangian points to work as intra-system jump points by allowing him to construct miniature jump gates or some such that link them together, much like naturally-occuring (in Aurora terms) Lagrange points.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Erik Luken on June 03, 2018, 07:16:33 PM
I don't really get the idea f how Lagrange points are supposed to work in Aurora, why they act as teleporters, and certainly no idea how you would construct one.  Can someone explain to me how i've missed the point?

Lagrange point means something slightly different in Aurora than they do in real life. In Aurora, they act as intra-system jump points, and currently exist; you've probably seen some if you've played 7.1 in large systems or systems with large gas giants or multiple stars.

They're connected to the real life concept of Lagrangian points by the conceit that jump points of all sorts are areas of strange gravitational topology, and some Lagrangian points in some Aurora systems allow for short-range wormhole-like jumps to certain other Lagrangian points - which is why these intra-system jump points are invariably on the leading or trailing Trojan point for some system body or other.

The idea is to allow the player to force these Lagrangian points to work as intra-system jump points by allowing him to construct miniature jump gates or some such that link them together, much like naturally-occuring (in Aurora terms) Lagrange points.

Should add that they only appear around Jovian type planets.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Jovus on June 05, 2018, 03:25:06 PM
Should add that they only appear around Jovian type planets.

They don't, though. I've seen intra-system jump points tied to stars in a binary and a trinary system.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Father Tim on June 05, 2018, 10:56:05 PM
Should add that they only appear around Jovian type planets.

They don't, though. I've seen intra-system jump points tied to stars in a binary and a trinary system.

Super-Jovians, actually, according to Steve's post.

But since the largest super-Jovians overlap with the smallest stars, it's possible that the 'B' component might be one.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Hazard on June 06, 2018, 08:25:22 AM
Actually they don't.

You get super jovians, which are very heavy gas giants that don't fuse anything, brown dwarfs, which fuse deuterium (hydrogen-2) but can't fuse hydrogen-1, and heavier than those are red dwarfs, which fuse hydrogen-1, and all the other stars.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: mtm84 on June 14, 2018, 04:56:44 AM
Dunno if this has been asked yet, but if you build an STO ground unit with a beam weapon, will it take advantage of any ship components in stock at the population?
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Steve Walmsley on June 14, 2018, 07:13:53 AM
Dunno if this has been asked yet, but if you build an STO ground unit with a beam weapon, will it take advantage of any ship components in stock at the population?

No, they are built independently.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: MadHatter on June 16, 2018, 01:13:36 PM
Will beam fire controls still have the same range limit?
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: JacenHan on June 16, 2018, 08:35:44 PM
I believe that surface-based beam fire controls have 25% range bonus. It's in the change log somewhere with the ground combat rules.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Steve Walmsley on June 23, 2018, 06:22:08 AM
Will beam fire controls still have the same range limit?

Yes, except STO versions which have a 25% range bonus.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: TheBawkHawk on June 24, 2018, 03:52:46 PM
Yes, except STO versions which have a 25% range bonus.

Does this mean max tech STO fire controls will be able to go past the 5 light-second limit? Or are they still subject to that limit?
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Steve Walmsley on June 24, 2018, 05:49:08 PM
Yes, except STO versions which have a 25% range bonus.

Does this mean max tech STO fire controls will be able to go past the 5 light-second limit? Or are they still subject to that limit?

Still subject to that limit, although you would have to be very high tech to hit that limit.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: QuakeIV on June 25, 2018, 08:24:19 PM
Its only 1.5 mkm or so, I hit that quite quickly with spinal beam warships.  In general the current laser system in my opinion strongly favors having the largest lasers possible so you can do your best to win the kiting game.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Steve Walmsley on June 26, 2018, 10:11:58 AM
Its only 1.5 mkm or so, I hit that quite quickly with spinal beam warships.  In general the current laser system in my opinion strongly favors having the largest lasers possible so you can do your best to win the kiting game.

He was asking about fire controls rather than weapons.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: MasonMac on June 28, 2018, 10:05:52 AM
Are there any changes to Aurora AI?
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Bughunter on June 28, 2018, 10:11:13 AM
Are there any changes to Aurora AI?

A lot, I suggest you start by checking the C# changes thread: http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=8495.0 (http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=8495.0)
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: JacenHan on June 28, 2018, 12:43:28 PM
In addition to the above, this thread (http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=10096.0) has a lot of information on NPR AI changes in particular.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: TMaekler on July 05, 2018, 08:04:56 AM
Will the way ship movement is calculated be more advanced when travelling between two moving objects (like planets)? I.E. will the ship take its travel time into account and move towards the expected target position at that time, or simply calc its movement to the actual position of the target and then every movement cycle "adjust" to the "new" position?
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Steve Walmsley on July 05, 2018, 10:25:11 AM
Will the way ship movement is calculated be more advanced when travelling between two moving objects (like planets)? I.E. will the ship take its travel time into account and move towards the expected target position at that time, or simply calc its movement to the actual position of the target and then every movement cycle "adjust" to the "new" position?

Fleets will adjust their course to intercept moving fleets but not system bodies. The problem in the latter case is that the body could be a moon orbiting a planet orbiting a star which is orbiting another star, which itself is orbiting another star (and everything is moving in an arc, not a straight line). Trying to calculate the best intercept position for a fleet and a system body in that situation is not straightforward. Doing that for a lot of fleets would be a lot of calculations.

As system bodies move slowly compared to fleets, I think the performance downside of all those extra calculations is probably not worth the game play benefit.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: DEEPenergy on July 12, 2018, 07:49:27 PM
Hi Steve

Will there be any way to upgrade ground units with better equipment after they've been built?
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Steve Walmsley on July 13, 2018, 04:46:55 AM
Hi Steve

Will there be any way to upgrade ground units with better equipment after they've been built?

Probably, although I haven't coded it yet.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: chrislocke2000 on July 16, 2018, 11:50:57 AM
Not sure if I have missed this. Was just wondering how damaged or destroyed units in ground formations will be dealt with after combat. Will they be repaired / replaced over time or will you need to build individual replacement units to get them back to strength now the concept of readiness has gone? Is there still the concept of replacement units to speed up rebuild if you don’t need to replace one for one?
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Whitecold on July 20, 2018, 12:50:50 PM
Somewhere along the lines NPR that do not use jump gates have been mentioned. Can these NPRs handle civilian traffic/use jump tenders? Similarly, does the players civilian network will use jump tenders stationed at WPs?
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Steve Walmsley on July 20, 2018, 01:02:21 PM
Somewhere along the lines NPR that do not use jump gates have been mentioned. Can these NPRs handle civilian traffic/use jump tenders? Similarly, does the players civilian network will use jump tenders stationed at WPs?

I haven't added a non-jump gate NPR yet. I only have the first template operating at the moment (well, three similar ones with different weapons). As I add more I will look at how civilians handle no jump gates.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Wolf359 on July 27, 2018, 12:29:05 PM
Quote from: Steve Walmsley link=topic=10097. msg108826#msg108826 date=1530804311
Fleets will adjust their course to intercept moving fleets but not system bodies.  The problem in the latter case is that the body could be a moon orbiting a planet orbiting a star which is orbiting another star, which itself is orbiting another star (and everything is moving in an arc, not a straight line).  Trying to calculate the best intercept position for a fleet and a system body in that situation is not straightforward.  Doing that for a lot of fleets would be a lot of calculations.

As system bodies move slowly compared to fleets, I think the performance downside of all those extra calculations is probably not worth the game play benefit.

If the movement of celestial bodies is deterministic then run the celestial simulation ahead at startup and store in memory.  Run the future scheduled positions during your main loop as normal to keep the stack filled.  In that way you always have X number of stored positions in memory to use for your AI decisions.  Players generally don't miss the seconds during boot to get ahead of schedule.  Use those future positions for navigation intercept calculations.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: hadi on July 28, 2018, 02:47:51 AM
Hello
Sorry if this is mentioned before but i couldn't find any info on this.
Will this version of aurora also have exposed elements to screen readers, like the original aurora did?
Just want to  know to be hyped or not :)
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Steve Walmsley on July 28, 2018, 04:42:29 AM
Hello
Sorry if this is mentioned before but i couldn't find any info on this.
Will this version of aurora also have exposed elements to screen readers, like the original aurora did?
Just want to  know to be hyped or not :)

To be honest it was accidental on my part that VB6 Aurora worked with screen readers, although once I become aware I also added coordinates to make it more compatible. I am not doing anything very different in UI terms for C# Aurora, apart from being able to drag the screen around and zoom using the mouse wheel (VB6 doesn't know about mouse wheels). I can also add the coordinates again. So if normal C# applications work that way, then Aurora should too.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: hadi on July 28, 2018, 06:11:03 AM
Quote from: Steve Walmsley link=topic=10097. msg109123#msg109123 date=1532770949
To be honest it was accidental on my part that VB6 Aurora worked with screen readers, although once I become aware I also added coordinates to make it more compatible.  I am not doing anything very different in UI terms for C# Aurora, apart from being able to drag the screen around and zoom using the mouse wheel (VB6 doesn't know about mouse wheels).  I can also add the coordinates again.  So if normal C# applications work that way, then Aurora should too.
This is good news!  I'm not familiar with programming but i know that QT or java based guis need some sort of accessibility library to be included and activated.  Most c# apps however  come with keyboard navigation already active and buttons labeled.  Unless a custom toolkit or  gui wrapper is used to draw objects such as menu buttons and sliders.

Like others in the community i'm also very excited to see the first version how how accessible it would be
cheers
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: SpikeTheHobbitMage on August 01, 2018, 12:11:33 AM
Quote from: Steve Walmsley link=topic=10097. msg108826#msg108826 date=1530804311
Fleets will adjust their course to intercept moving fleets but not system bodies.  The problem in the latter case is that the body could be a moon orbiting a planet orbiting a star which is orbiting another star, which itself is orbiting another star (and everything is moving in an arc, not a straight line).  Trying to calculate the best intercept position for a fleet and a system body in that situation is not straightforward.  Doing that for a lot of fleets would be a lot of calculations.

As system bodies move slowly compared to fleets, I think the performance downside of all those extra calculations is probably not worth the game play benefit.

If the movement of celestial bodies is deterministic then run the celestial simulation ahead at startup and store in memory.  Run the future scheduled positions during your main loop as normal to keep the stack filled.  In that way you always have X number of stored positions in memory to use for your AI decisions.  Players generally don't miss the seconds during boot to get ahead of schedule.  Use those future positions for navigation intercept calculations.
Currently, body movement isn't entirely deterministic since it is only updated during production ticks and those are +/- 5 days depending on when interrupts occur and what timescales the player selects.  Even if it was, in VB6 body movement is optional as a performance boost.  While I hope C# will be significantly faster, this could still be prohibitive.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Indefatigable on August 01, 2018, 01:24:24 PM
Dimensions, image format and naming policy of flags/leader pics?
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Steve Walmsley on August 01, 2018, 02:41:37 PM
Dimensions, image format and naming policy of flags/leader pics?

Flags are jpg with naming convention flag####.jpg. No size restriction.

Races are bmp with naming convention Race###.bmp. 215 x 175 pixels.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Indefatigable on August 02, 2018, 04:59:39 AM
Quote from: Steve Walmsley link=topic=10097.        msg109188#msg109188 date=1533152497
Quote from: Indefatigable link=topic=10097.        msg109185#msg109185 date=1533147864
Dimensions, image format and naming policy of flags/leader pics?

Flags are jpg with naming convention flag####.        jpg.         No size restriction.       

Races are bmp with naming convention Race###.        bmp.         215 x 175 pixels.       
Forgot to ask do the flags get streched to fit on all sides, ignoring the original aspect ratio - or just one side, leaving parts transparent?
example: https://imgur. com/a/hPZqefM
Thanks.       
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Steve Walmsley on August 02, 2018, 07:09:29 AM
Quote from: Steve Walmsley link=topic=10097.        msg109188#msg109188 date=1533152497
Quote from: Indefatigable link=topic=10097.        msg109185#msg109185 date=1533147864
Dimensions, image format and naming policy of flags/leader pics?

Flags are jpg with naming convention flag####.        jpg.         No size restriction.       

Races are bmp with naming convention Race###.        bmp.         215 x 175 pixels.       
Forgot to ask do the flags get streched to fit on all sides, ignoring the original aspect ratio - or just one side, leaving parts transparent?
example: https://imgur. com/a/hPZqefM
Thanks.       

Stretched on all sides.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: boggo2300 on August 02, 2018, 04:24:19 PM
Shouldn't the new button be to "add planet IX" rather than X?


 8) ;D 8)
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Erik Luken on August 02, 2018, 04:48:04 PM
Shouldn't the new button be to "add planet IX" rather than X?


 8) ;D 8)

I need to find facebook like approval buttons for this. :)
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Steve Walmsley on August 02, 2018, 05:01:00 PM
Shouldn't the new button be to "add planet IX" rather than X?


 8) ;D 8)

It's more Planet 'X' than Planet '10' :)

I thought that had avoided the Pluto as the ninth planet debate but of course forgot that X is also 10 :)
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Panopticon on August 03, 2018, 12:00:27 AM
Now we just need a "Create mirror Earth" button that puts a copy of Earth on the exact other side of the sun with a copy of your empire on it, except NPR and hostile.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Steve Walmsley on August 03, 2018, 02:15:27 AM
Now we just need a "Create mirror Earth" button that puts a copy of Earth on the exact other side of the sun with a copy of your empire on it, except NPR and hostile.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0064519/
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: JustAnotherDude on August 05, 2018, 04:12:02 PM
With tthe ground overhaul, how are crew on ships accounted for in boarding g operations? And if your unsure could you possibly let us customize it a little bit?
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: boggo2300 on August 05, 2018, 05:26:27 PM
Now we just need a "Create mirror Earth" button that puts a copy of Earth on the exact other side of the sun with a copy of your empire on it, except NPR and hostile.

and names it

MONDAS!
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: boggo2300 on August 05, 2018, 05:28:34 PM
It's more Planet 'X' than Planet '10' :)

I thought that had avoided the Pluto as the ninth planet debate but of course forgot that X is also 10 :)

I think the origins might have been X as in ten and then, from that it also became X the unknown, but I wasn't there so can't say for certain!
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: hadi on August 13, 2018, 07:06:56 AM
Quote from: Steve Walmsley link=topic=10097.  msg109123#msg109123 date=1532770949
Quote from: hadi link=topic=10097.  msg109120#msg109120 date=1532764071
Hello
Sorry if this is mentioned before but i couldn't find any info on this.   
Will this version of aurora also have exposed elements to screen readers, like the original aurora did?
Just want to  know to be hyped or not :)

To be honest it was accidental on my part that VB6 Aurora worked with screen readers, although once I become aware I also added coordinates to make it more compatible.   I am not doing anything very different in UI terms for C# Aurora, apart from being able to drag the screen around and zoom using the mouse wheel (VB6 doesn't know about mouse wheels).   I can also add the coordinates again.   So if normal C# applications work that way, then Aurora should too. 

Sorry if this is the wrong topic to ask, but since you mentioned coordinates, I've been playing aurora lately probably 10 hours/days and I came up with an idea that might be much more superior to a coordinate system (which i really can't get myself to use). 
I want to know that how practical it is to implement a function which turns the map into a tactical grid-based system. 
Now I don't know how systems scale in aurora, but for example imagine a  15x15 grid system, from A1 to O15, each grid itself containing 9 numbers, positioned like a keypad. 
The advantage of this would be huge towards accessibility, e.  g.   we would be able to track/follow  everything you see on the map and visualize how close things are together based on the grid information we have and can even read on the map itself. 
I don't know if this can be done at all or if it requires much more effort than what it seems like, but it is the most fantastic
 idea i have ever thought of to make aurora's map system available to screen readers.
edit: i've been told by zack that the coordinates are set between units of 10,000 km.  it seems like the system map is much more bigger that i  thought
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Steve Walmsley on August 14, 2018, 09:01:57 AM
Aurora tracks objects in VB6 at a granularity of 10cm and in C# at fractions of a millimeter, so a grid system isn't really workable. The coordinate system is based on kilometers but you can go to four decimal places in VB6 while C# uses a 64-bit floating point variable.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: hadi on August 20, 2018, 12:03:39 PM
Quote from: Steve Walmsley link=topic=10097. msg109360#msg109360 date=1534255317
Aurora tracks objects in VB6 at a granularity of 10cm and in C# at fractions of a millimeter, so a grid system isn't really workable.  The coordinate system is based on kilometers but you can go to four decimal places in VB6 while C# uses a 64-bit floating point variable.
How feasible is it to implement the coordinate system, then put all the bodies and ships and other objects into a scrollable list that we optionally could open up and navigate with the arrow keys and filter using typing letters on the keyboard?
This way the coordinate system could be usable and we can find ways to instantly calculate distance and maybe heading between two objects in the current system.

It would be a list of thousands of items, but it would be much much easier than trying to search for an object on the map, which is not possible when reading the screen Linearly, not mentioning the scrolling and zooming part which is inaccessible.
apologies for the off topic post.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Tree on August 20, 2018, 02:40:49 PM
Speaking of grids, have you remade the galactic map yet? And made it a tiny bit less painful to use, maybe?
Something like the systems automatically going toward grid nodes as you drop them would be nice, or an option to show the grid so it's easier to set things and then click "Line Up" without having half your repositioned systems move in the wrong direction.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Steve Walmsley on August 20, 2018, 06:44:05 PM
Speaking of grids, have you remade the galactic map yet? And made it a tiny bit less painful to use, maybe?
Something like the systems automatically going toward grid nodes as you drop them would be nice, or an option to show the grid so it's easier to set things and then click "Line Up" without having half your repositioned systems move in the wrong direction.

I already have a 'to do' list item for the galactic map to automatically position new systems but I haven't coded it yet.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Steve Walmsley on August 20, 2018, 06:44:33 PM
Quote from: Steve Walmsley link=topic=10097. msg109360#msg109360 date=1534255317
Aurora tracks objects in VB6 at a granularity of 10cm and in C# at fractions of a millimeter, so a grid system isn't really workable.  The coordinate system is based on kilometers but you can go to four decimal places in VB6 while C# uses a 64-bit floating point variable.
How feasible is it to implement the coordinate system, then put all the bodies and ships and other objects into a scrollable list that we optionally could open up and navigate with the arrow keys and filter using typing letters on the keyboard?
This way the coordinate system could be usable and we can find ways to instantly calculate distance and maybe heading between two objects in the current system.

It would be a list of thousands of items, but it would be much much easier than trying to search for an object on the map, which is not possible when reading the screen Linearly, not mentioning the scrolling and zooming part which is inaccessible.
apologies for the off topic post.

Yes, this is possible.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Caplin on August 21, 2018, 04:19:42 PM
Is drag and drop required for assigning fire controls, ECCM, etc during combat? Is it possible to do so using buttons or was the old UI completely removed?

I'm mostly asking as drag and drop is a bit of an unusual UI, from a screen reading perspective. It's theoretically  possible to use, but might be a bit harder.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Steve Walmsley on August 21, 2018, 06:37:59 PM
Is drag and drop required for assigning fire controls, ECCM, etc during combat? Is it possible to do so using buttons or was the old UI completely removed?

I'm mostly asking as drag and drop is a bit of an unusual UI, from a screen reading perspective. It's theoretically  possible to use, but might be a bit harder.

Yes, there are quite a few areas that are drag and drop now. I could add the additional UI later though for it to be button-driven.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Caplin on August 21, 2018, 11:10:45 PM
Is drag and drop required for assigning fire controls, ECCM, etc during combat? Is it possible to do so using buttons or was the old UI completely removed?

I'm mostly asking as drag and drop is a bit of an unusual UI, from a screen reading perspective. It's theoretically  possible to use, but might be a bit harder.

Yes, there are quite a few areas that are drag and drop now. I could add the additional UI later though for it to be button-driven.

Thanks, Steve. :) I guess I won't know if it's truly a problem until I have a chance to play with the GUI a bit. The changes on the whole sound great, and I look forward to seeing what comes of them.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: TMaekler on August 28, 2018, 09:47:00 AM
Two general and one specific questions:

a) What IDE are you using to program C# Aurora?
b) The old problem of points and decimals when using Aurora, will it be gone with the C# version, or would we still need the launcher?
c) What resources would you suggest to learn C#?
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: TMaekler on August 28, 2018, 10:54:59 AM
And some more questions - officers, auto assign & auto promote:

First, how will the game handle the specific amount of needed officers? Through the new structures and rules, the demand for people of specific ranks can vary a lot by how you organize your nation. In VB6 the game auto promoted according to if certain amount of numbers (9 rank one meant 3 rank two, meant 1 rank three...). Will the game auto promote according to the nations needs?

Second, if it cannot auto assign, could we get warning messages, that there are open positions available, so one could potentially manual promote?

Third, what happens if a person is auto promoted to the next rank, but there are no free positions available? He then has to leave his actual post. Can this happen, or would the game wait with the promotion until a free position has come up?

Fourth, lets say the position of captain on the flagship becomes free. Would the auto assign then only look into free officers or would it also cross "promote" captains of other vessels?
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Rich.h on August 29, 2018, 03:14:06 AM
And some more questions - officers, auto assign & auto promote:

First, how will the game handle the specific amount of needed officers? Through the new structures and rules, the demand for people of specific ranks can vary a lot by how you organize your nation. In VB6 the game auto promoted according to if certain amount of numbers (9 rank one meant 3 rank two, meant 1 rank three...). Will the game auto promote according to the nations needs?

Second, if it cannot auto assign, could we get warning messages, that there are open positions available, so one could potentially manual promote?

Third, what happens if a person is auto promoted to the next rank, but there are no free positions available? He then has to leave his actual post. Can this happen, or would the game wait with the promotion until a free position has come up?

Fourth, lets say the position of captain on the flagship becomes free. Would the auto assign then only look into free officers or would it also cross "promote" captains of other vessels?

In addition to this can we have a selection on the maximum allowed rank for a ship class. No more admiral fighter pilots.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: TMaekler on August 29, 2018, 06:21:28 AM
According to the description from Steve, that is already implemented.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Steve Walmsley on August 29, 2018, 12:35:58 PM
Two general and one specific questions:

a) What IDE are you using to program C# Aurora?
b) The old problem of points and decimals when using Aurora, will it be gone with the C# version, or would we still need the launcher?
c) What resources would you suggest to learn C#?

a) Visual Studio 2015

b) I haven't even looked at this. Not sure if C# handles by default or I need to do something about it.

c) I learned from searching on Google :)  I suggest starting a project and then googling for how to accomplish each part. You will soon pick it up. Of course, I already understood object-oriented programming in general, so that helped. The hardest part was probably getting my head around using LINQ with lambda expressions, which is very useful and very powerful. Just research and read a lot from any source you can find. The alternative is a programming book, but I find those less helpful because they teach you theory, when you will learn a lot faster from practical experience.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Steve Walmsley on August 29, 2018, 12:37:24 PM
And some more questions - officers, auto assign & auto promote:

First, how will the game handle the specific amount of needed officers? Through the new structures and rules, the demand for people of specific ranks can vary a lot by how you organize your nation. In VB6 the game auto promoted according to if certain amount of numbers (9 rank one meant 3 rank two, meant 1 rank three...). Will the game auto promote according to the nations needs?

Second, if it cannot auto assign, could we get warning messages, that there are open positions available, so one could potentially manual promote?

Third, what happens if a person is auto promoted to the next rank, but there are no free positions available? He then has to leave his actual post. Can this happen, or would the game wait with the promotion until a free position has come up?

Fourth, lets say the position of captain on the flagship becomes free. Would the auto assign then only look into free officers or would it also cross "promote" captains of other vessels?

In addition to this can we have a selection on the maximum allowed rank for a ship class. No more admiral fighter pilots.

All ships only have a single rank for each office position.

http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=8495.msg101818#msg101818
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Steve Walmsley on August 29, 2018, 01:07:24 PM
And some more questions - officers, auto assign & auto promote:

First, how will the game handle the specific amount of needed officers? Through the new structures and rules, the demand for people of specific ranks can vary a lot by how you organize your nation. In VB6 the game auto promoted according to if certain amount of numbers (9 rank one meant 3 rank two, meant 1 rank three...). Will the game auto promote according to the nations needs?

Second, if it cannot auto assign, could we get warning messages, that there are open positions available, so one could potentially manual promote?

Third, what happens if a person is auto promoted to the next rank, but there are no free positions available? He then has to leave his actual post. Can this happen, or would the game wait with the promotion until a free position has come up?

Fourth, lets say the position of captain on the flagship becomes free. Would the auto assign then only look into free officers or would it also cross "promote" captains of other vessels?

Currently naval ranks are half the number of previous rank (compared to one third for VB6), while ground ranks are one third (compared to one quarter for VB6). I might change this based on play test.

I could add warning for no auto-assign, although I think that would get tedious with multiple similar messages over time. You can check the commanders window to see any vacancies.

If someone is promoted, they are removed from their current assignments (as all assignments have a specific rank requirement) and made available for a new role.

Unassigned officers and junior officers (not a ship commander) are available for any new position (so the exec of a larger warship could move to command of a smaller warship). Ship commanders are not available for cross-promotion, although if they gain a rank they will become available for larger vessels.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: chrislocke2000 on August 29, 2018, 01:43:28 PM
On missile interception mechanics I've never been sure if the occasional failure for slower AMMs to actually intercept incoming missiles was a bug or a feature. I'm hopping the former and something addressed in C#? 
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: TMaekler on August 29, 2018, 03:40:56 PM
Currently naval ranks are half the number of previous rank (compared to one third for VB6), while ground ranks are one third (compared to one quarter for VB6). I might change this based on play test.
I think it would be nice if the promotions are made roughly upon the need of the navy. Quickly calculated together US personell numbers from Navy + Air Force and have come up with these numbers (when applying some kind of Aurora logic to the ranking system without the new module system):
Lieutenants: 2222
Lt. Commanders: 2480
Commanders: 223
Captains: 192

These would man roughly 4000 air planes and 1.250 ships.
And if I would add the new modules for XO, CIC etc. to these ships, the lower numbers might climb even higher... .


Don't know about the promotions, but an eager captain of a destroyer might be very interested in commanding an aircraft carrier, if a spot becomes available. And if he has prooven himself whilst performing his duty, he probably would be chosen in real life, rather then someone from the free roster, I guess.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Steve Walmsley on August 30, 2018, 03:47:30 AM
On missile interception mechanics I've never been sure if the occasional failure for slower AMMs to actually intercept incoming missiles was a bug or a feature. I'm hopping the former and something addressed in C#?

It is because of the movement mechanics. Sometimes the faster missile will move so far past the approaching slower missile that the latter cannot catch up. It isn't a bug though. It seems reasonable that a faster missile will sometimes avoid even the chance of interception from a slower AMM.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Steve Walmsley on August 30, 2018, 03:51:45 AM
Don't know about the promotions, but an eager captain of a destroyer might be very interested in commanding an aircraft carrier, if a spot becomes available. And if he has prooven himself whilst performing his duty, he probably would be chosen in real life, rather then someone from the free roster, I guess.

In real life, a destroyer is usually commanded by a lower rank (Commander) than an aircraft carrier (Captain). So in Aurora terms, a high quality destroyer CO would get promoted and become eligible to command the carrier. It would not be normal in real life for a destroyer commander to move to a carrier without a promotion.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Triato on August 30, 2018, 11:01:58 AM
Right now, when a ship is scraped, the crew automatically disapears with all the training they have. Is any mechanism to prevent that planed?

I dont post this in sugestions because I dont have a good solution. Maybe they could add some training to existing or future ships?
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: JacenHan on August 30, 2018, 12:02:09 PM
Right now, when a ship is scraped, the crew automatically disapears with all the training they have. Is any mechanism to prevent that planed?

I dont post this in sugestions because I dont have a good solution. Maybe they could add some training to existing or future ships?

I'm pretty sure that their training currently gets added back into the crew pool in the form of extra crew. IE: 500 crewman with twice as many points as a fresh crew would become 1000 sailors in the pool.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Hazard on September 01, 2018, 07:06:16 PM
Will we be able to exchange multiple forms of cargo in a single order? We've got multiple forms of cargo after all, all of which take time to unload.

It'd be annoying if we had to spent multiple weeks loading Cargo, Troops, Maintenance Supplies, Ordnance and Fuel each. Especially since while Cargo, Troops and Maintenance Supplies all use the same Cargo Shuttle system, Ordnance and Fuel have dedicated systems.


Which reminds me, it'd probably be more consistent if Cargo Shuttles had the same (units of cargo) per hour transfer rate as Ordnance and Fuel transfer systems do. And a similar upgrade progression.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Steve Walmsley on September 02, 2018, 04:50:00 AM
Will we be able to exchange multiple forms of cargo in a single order? We've got multiple forms of cargo after all, all of which take time to unload.

It'd be annoying if we had to spent multiple weeks loading Cargo, Troops, Maintenance Supplies, Ordnance and Fuel each. Especially since while Cargo, Troops and Maintenance Supplies all use the same Cargo Shuttle system, Ordnance and Fuel have dedicated systems.


Which reminds me, it'd probably be more consistent if Cargo Shuttles had the same (units of cargo) per hour transfer rate as Ordnance and Fuel transfer systems do. And a similar upgrade progression.

I'm already working on something on these lines. I'll post an update later today.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Kelewan on September 02, 2018, 07:28:22 AM
Will we be able to move some Maintenance Supplies, Ordnance or Fuel from one ship to another, if there is a 3rd ship in the fleet that has handling system (Cargo Shuttles.
- for example to move one missile from an missile ship that has some spare missiles to an other ship which is missing that missile to fire a full salvo
- or to move some spare supplies to an damaged ship so that it can repair a damaged component.

Will we be able to move POW, rescued crew, crew that is not supported by the life system (damaged file support) to other ships?

Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Steve Walmsley on September 02, 2018, 07:57:02 AM
Will we be able to move some Maintenance Supplies, Ordnance or Fuel from one ship to another, if there is a 3rd ship in the fleet that has handling system (Cargo Shuttles.
- for example to move one missile from an missile ship that has some spare missiles to an other ship which is missing that missile to fire a full salvo
- or to move some spare supplies to an damaged ship so that it can repair a damaged component.

Will we be able to move POW, rescued crew, crew that is not supported by the life system (damaged file support) to other ships?

You can't move fuel or ordnance between two ships without the required equipment, even if a third ship is in the fleet that does have the capability. However, you could move ordnance to a collier from one ship and then transfer that ordnance to a third ship. Refuelling is one way - tankers can't draw fuel from other ships unless they are both equipped with refuelling systems.

In terms of moving supplies using the cargo shuttles of a third ship, you can't currently do that, although the same thing had occurred to me. The problem is that tracking which ship is using which other ship's shuttles would be very complex and probably isn't worth the effort (especially given that time is now a factor). Also, I want to avoid the simple Equalise Fuel and Supplies options from VB6 Aurora in order to make logistics more realistic and challenging.

I haven't looked at moving POW and survivors around yet.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Kelewan on September 02, 2018, 08:38:08 AM
In terms of moving supplies using the cargo shuttles of a third ship, you can't currently do that, although the same thing had occurred to me. The problem is that tracking which ship is using which other ship's shuttles would be very complex and probably isn't worth the effort (especially given that time is now a factor). Also, I want to avoid the simple Equalise Fuel and Supplies options from VB6 Aurora in order to make logistics more realistic and challenging.

You could handle it on a per fleet level. For any cargo related order (which are at fleet level), all Cargo Shuttles of the fleet would be used.
It would still need time to move the supplies, and you would still need some Cargo Shuttels in the fleet.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Kytuzian on September 02, 2018, 03:19:32 PM
Quote
All ships have the option to engage Automated Damage Control, in which case the ship will assign its own damage control queue based on the same repair priorities as NPRs

Will it be possible to turn this on for an entire fleet with a single click (so I don't have to individually enable it on a per-ship basis)?
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Hazard on September 02, 2018, 05:58:02 PM
Regarding stored parasite craft damage control: Would it be possible to have the mothership divide its damage control rating by the number of parasite craft needing repair, thereby limiting the possibility of exploiting large DC ratings in motherships?


Regarding underway replenishment systems: I would propose that there's a 1 hullsize component called an Underway Receiving Station that can receive the efforts of 1 of the Cargo Shuttles, Refueling Systems and Ordnance Transfer Systems each, but the component is entirely passive; it cannot transfer out on its own. On the other hand it has no upper limit of its own; it's entirely dependent on the providing component(s) of the donating ship(s). This works well with Transfer Hub equipped stations by design. Every Cargo Shuttle, Refueling System or Ordnance Transfer System component can give 1 more 'dock' in their specific transfer form, limited to their own rating.

Ships would with this proposal need at least 1 Underway Receiving Station for craft to craft transfers and it would be part of any new design that is created, same with the bridge component. Ships without this component need to either enter a hangar, which allows them to draw from their berth as if they had a single Underway Receiving Station, or enter orbit of a planet with an appropriate ground side supply structure for the same, or land on said planet, again for the same benefit.

And yes, this means that a ship that has lost its supplies, fuel and its Underway Receiving Station, if they had any, would need to be tugged back to a station or planet for repairs. This does not seem like a flaw.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: TMaekler on September 03, 2018, 06:26:04 AM
Kurt is going through an NPR "wave of attacks" in one of his stories and I was wondering, if the new AI in C# Aurora would be able to see the fault in their strategy of sending "single" ships and change that to "wait 9 month and then send 20 ships en masse"?
Because, if it could, that would be phantastic... meaning a phantastic new level of AI complexity...  ;)
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: alex_brunius on September 03, 2018, 07:29:46 AM
You could handle it on a per fleet level. For any cargo related order (which are at fleet level), all Cargo Shuttles of the fleet would be used.
It would still need time to move the supplies, and you would still need some Cargo Shuttels in the fleet.

I don't think fleet wide cargo transfer makes much sense to be honest.

Consider for example a fleet of 100 identical ships each with a small shuttle bay capable of holding one cargo shuttle. Now we order two of the ships to transfer 10 shuttle loads worth of cargo from one to the other, what will happen?

Let's assume loading and unloading takes equal units of time ( and include dock/undock in that time ), and that the shuttle flight between the ships one way takes half the time of loading/unloading ( since the ships can easily be positioned right next to each-other it probably takes even less ).

The maximum amount of shuttles that could take part in this scenario effectively would be 3, since a roundtrip takes at most 3 times longer than loading one shuttle does ( which is our bottleneck here ). The minimum time to complete the transfer would be around 10x [loading time] + 1x one way flight time + 1x [unloading time]. This is close enough to the 10 shuttle loads we wanted IMO to simply use cargo capacity of a single ship as a good enough abstraction, and we also only can use at most 3 shuttles out of the 2 that the involved ships carry, so not having a third available is not a major loss of efficiency.

The only scenario where amount of shuttles available would become the bottleneck is if we either load or unload all ships at the same time in a place where extra shuttles are not available, or add a very long travel time to the shuttles ( for example say they need to spend a time much longer than loading/unloading to travel down to / up from a nearby planet that the ship orbit ). These "In orbit of planet" scenarios I suspect will be covered sufficiently by planet side Cargo Shuttle Stations or Spaceports, but it might make sense to have the baseline transfers to-from orbit of larger planets be a bit slower if it's easy to do ( which could promote RP to build space stations to resupply from faster ).

These scenarios IMHO also argues that it would make the most sense to not be able to do parallel transfers of any stuff that is using the same transfer mechanic ( if maintenance supplies and minerals or ship components for example both are moved by your shuttle system, you need to do one first and the other after it ).
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Steve Walmsley on September 03, 2018, 08:23:09 AM
Kurt is going through an NPR "wave of attacks" in one of his stories and I was wondering, if the new AI in C# Aurora would be able to see the fault in their strategy of sending "single" ships and change that to "wait 9 month and then send 20 ships en masse"?
Because, if it could, that would be phantastic... meaning a phantastic new level of AI complexity...  ;)

The AI for C# Aurora will gather forces before attacking.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Shuul on September 08, 2018, 10:35:11 AM
Question on new Intelligence mechanics, will AI use them?
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Steve Walmsley on September 08, 2018, 10:50:16 AM
Question on new Intelligence mechanics, will AI use them?

Yes, that is the plan, although I haven't coded the AI part yet.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: MasonMac on September 08, 2018, 08:41:20 PM
Will every ship require a reactor to power life support, sensors etc.? Or is that too annoying.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: DEEPenergy on September 08, 2018, 10:07:01 PM
Hi Steve.  Will we be able to decipher alien languages solely from monitoring a colony with the ELINT system?
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Steve Walmsley on September 09, 2018, 06:21:07 AM
Hi Steve.  Will we be able to decipher alien languages solely from monitoring a colony with the ELINT system?

There will be a Diplomacy module, that will aid in translation and improving diplomatic relations. However, that will require both sides to participate. I guess ELINT could provide some assistance - I will give it some thought.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Steve Walmsley on September 09, 2018, 06:21:27 AM
Will every ship require a reactor to power life support, sensors etc.? Or is that too annoying.

No, just beam weapons.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: clement on September 10, 2018, 01:28:21 PM
I am currently playing a Warhammer 40K based game where all ships should have a Void Shield. I was wondering will shields will be usable on civilian ships in Aurora C#?
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Steve Walmsley on September 10, 2018, 01:34:05 PM
I am currently playing a Warhammer 40K based game where all ships should have a Void Shield. I was wondering will shields will be usable on civilian ships in Aurora C#?

No, they are still a military system.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: tobijon on September 12, 2018, 03:06:52 AM
I am currently playing a Warhammer 40K based game where all ships should have a Void Shield. I was wondering will shields will be usable on civilian ships in Aurora C#?
you can consider it part of the engine if you want.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: clement on September 12, 2018, 10:54:04 AM
I am currently playing a Warhammer 40K based game where all ships should have a Void Shield. I was wondering will shields will be usable on civilian ships in Aurora C#?
you can consider it part of the engine if you want.

True, I was not sure how much of a distinction was going to be maintained between commercial and military ships in the new version.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: TMaekler on September 14, 2018, 09:03:51 AM
What will be the extend as to what can be carried around by civilians?
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: King-Salomon on September 15, 2018, 09:34:48 AM
The Supply system for ground units looks great :)  but something bothers me (maybe I am understanding it wrong)..

it's about the "consuming" of the supply units...

Quote from: Steve Walmsley
When a formation element of logistics units provides supply, a number of units will be consumed based on the supply required. For example, assume the 10 tanks above each have a GSP requirement of 100, which is 1000 for the whole element. If they draw on a logistics element using light vehicles with normal logistics modules (which have 500 GSP each), two of those logistics vehicles would be consumed. When the GSP requirement does not neatly fit into the 500 point granularity, there is a chance of an additional logistics vehicle being consumed. This chance is dependent on the fraction of supplies required. For example, if there were 12 tanks with a requirement of 1200, then two logistic vehicles would be consumed and there is 40% chance (200 / 500) than a third vehicle will be consumed. This adds an element of uncertainty, as supplies may be consumed faster or slower than normal (although it will average out over time), plus it avoids any tracking of partial supplies per vehicle.

As far as I understand it, a unit will be consumed - and has (ideally) to be replayed sometime after the battle.. this sounds like a lot of micro management for me...
So my question is: How complicated will the replacement be?
Or am I understanding "consumed" wrong and the unit is still there just empty and just needs to be resupplied itself someday with an easy and single order?

A system were the logistic unit would be just be empty (or changed in "Supply Vehicle (empty)") which could just be "resupplied" with an order from an other stockpile after the fighting wouldn't be micro heavy.. redesign each formation to reattach supply vehicles for the "consumed" ones would be micro heavy I am afraid...

but maybe I am just in an error myself about "consumed"...
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Steve Walmsley on September 15, 2018, 09:50:04 AM
The easiest method of replacement is to build a dedicated logistic formation, for example consisting of 500 supply vehicles. Once that formation is in the same location as the formations requiring resupply, you will be able to drag and drop those vehicles into any formations that need them. I haven't added the UI for the inter-formations transfers yet. I'll post a screenshot when I do.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: JacenHan on September 15, 2018, 12:38:04 PM
Is there any way to easily train new units for a formation without building a whole new formation? IE: "Add 500 Light Infantry to Third Infantry Regiment", or would we have to train a new formation of 500 infantry and transfer them over? It just seems odd to train "placeholder" formations to manually split them up to other units.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Steve Walmsley on September 15, 2018, 07:06:03 PM
Is there any way to easily train new units for a formation without building a whole new formation? IE: "Add 500 Light Infantry to Third Infantry Regiment", or would we have to train a new formation of 500 infantry and transfer them over? It just seems odd to train "placeholder" formations to manually split them up to other units.

Think of the these types of formations as the equivalent of replacement units in VB6 Aurora.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Kelewan on September 18, 2018, 04:12:29 PM
In which order do Formation Elements restock Ground Supply Points and
how is the supply distributed between Formation Elements/Formations
if there is not enough GSP to resupply all.




 
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Hazard on September 18, 2018, 04:29:07 PM
Would be nice if we had an order for a ground formation to be reconstructed according to the established TO&E for that formation. Similar as the replace ordnance orders for missile equipped ships.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Steve Walmsley on September 18, 2018, 05:37:54 PM
Would be nice if we had an order for a ground formation to be reconstructed according to the established TO&E for that formation. Similar as the replace ordnance orders for missile equipped ships.

I will probably add that at some point, as well as an option to change the formation's base template.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: DEEPenergy on September 19, 2018, 11:58:53 AM
Hi Steve

How long will it take for a formation to fortify using construction equipment? Will it be worth it to dig in your army in an invasion and fight a big defensive slog?
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Hazard on September 19, 2018, 03:34:32 PM
That is at least partially dependent on the type of planet you are fighting on.

Planetary environments that better support fortifications will better support such strategies.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: chrislocke2000 on September 20, 2018, 02:13:50 AM
So I take it that unlike VB6 there will be no inbuilt recovery of a units strength once they have ceased fighting? I wonder if military academies will need a bit of a boost in output rate to help manage the extra requirements.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: davidr on September 27, 2018, 05:27:16 PM
Re survivors rescued - will there be any means to repatriate friendly / non hostile race survivors to their own Homeworld or other owned planet instead of treating every survivor as a POW? Repatriating friendly race survivors should instead earn some "kudosh" from the receiving race.

DavidR
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Steve Walmsley on September 28, 2018, 04:39:57 AM
Re survivors rescued - will there be any means to repatriate friendly / non hostile race survivors to their own Homeworld or other owned planet instead of treating every survivor as a POW? Repatriating friendly race survivors should instead earn some "kudosh" from the receiving race.

DavidR

Not at the moment, but that could be added.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Steve Walmsley on September 28, 2018, 04:41:04 AM
So I take it that unlike VB6 there will be no inbuilt recovery of a units strength once they have ceased fighting? I wonder if military academies will need a bit of a boost in output rate to help manage the extra requirements.

There will be morale recovery, which will increase effective strength, but no automatic replacement of lost soldiers or vehicles.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: chrislocke2000 on September 28, 2018, 07:29:23 AM
Steve

Have you had a chance to run any test ground combat scenarios as yet? Just wondering if you had a feel for how long ground combat may take to resolve v VB6. Just looking at the logistics info, if it takes say 30 days of fighting or (6 construction cycle phases in old money, which off the top of my head is about the time needed to get a victory with a decent numerical advantage), then for 2 of your divisions (as per the rules example) to defeat 1 equiv opposing division you would need to bring in an extra 180 combat phases worth of provisions which is roughly three times the starting provisions available. That equates to about 5500 supply trucks or about 340,000 tons worth of supplies to bring in. That's a lot of logistics! Am I way off or are we looking at a far more significant logistical effort to invade?

Also just thinking about the management of logistics will you be adding interrupts to give the play low supply warnings?
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Steve Walmsley on September 28, 2018, 09:57:58 AM
Steve

Have you had a chance to run any test ground combat scenarios as yet? Just wondering if you had a feel for how long ground combat may take to resolve v VB6. Just looking at the logistics info, if it takes say 30 days of fighting or (6 construction cycle phases in old money, which off the top of my head is about the time needed to get a victory with a decent numerical advantage), then for 2 of your divisions (as per the rules example) to defeat 1 equiv opposing division you would need to bring in an extra 180 combat phases worth of provisions which is roughly three times the starting provisions available. That equates to about 5500 supply trucks or about 340,000 tons worth of supplies to bring in. That's a lot of logistics! Am I way off or are we looking at a far more significant logistical effort to invade?

Also just thinking about the management of logistics will you be adding interrupts to give the play low supply warnings?

I've run simulations but not a full test yet. I do want managing logistics to be a major consideration for ground combat, but I may adjust based on testing. This could either be through altering the supply requirement or changing the frequency of combat rounds.

For the 'division' in the screenshots, the GSP is about 40,000, which is about 4000 GSP per combat round. One month would be about 240 combat rounds, or 960,000 GSP. That is 1920 supply trucks, or 119,000 tons of lift. However, the 'division' includes almost 400 100-ton heavy tanks, 144 42-ton medium tanks, 120 98-ton flak tanks, 144 heavy artillery pieces (1/4 of which are self-propelled), 6600 infantry and close to 600 other infantry elements with light artillery, anti-tank, machine guns, etc.

As a comparison, a WW2 US Heavy Armoured Division had 232 Medium tanks while a light armoured division had 168 tanks. These are WW2 era tanks, so are about 40 tons. Including tank crews and support, they had 16,000 and 12,000 personnel respectively. So the above 'division' is more likely a Corps and has much larger vehicles as well.

According to a book I am reading on logistics (see link below), each US division in 1944 consumed (on average) about 20,000 tons of supplies each month. That doesn't take into account all the supply chain organisation, the actual movement of supplies, rear area protection, etc., which Aurora doesn't simulate but which would require its own supplies to function. Based on all of the above, 119,000 tons of supplies doesn't seem too bad. However, I will see how that works out in practice.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Supplying-War-Logistics-Wallenstein-Patton/dp/0521546575
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: alex_brunius on September 28, 2018, 03:03:03 PM
I've run simulations but not a full test yet. I do want managing logistics to be a major consideration for ground combat, but I may adjust based on testing. This could either be through altering the supply requirement or changing the frequency of combat rounds.

For the 'division' in the screenshots, the GSP is about 40,000, which is about 4000 GSP per combat round. One month would be about 240 combat rounds, or 960,000 GSP. That is 1920 supply trucks, or 119,000 tons of lift. However, the 'division' includes almost 400 100-ton heavy tanks, 144 42-ton medium tanks, 120 98-ton flak tanks, 144 heavy artillery pieces (1/4 of which are self-propelled), 6600 infantry and close to 600 other infantry elements with light artillery, anti-tank, machine guns, etc.

As a comparison, a WW2 US Heavy Armoured Division had 232 Medium tanks while a light armoured division had 168 tanks. These are WW2 era tanks, so are about 40 tons. Including tank crews and support, they had 16,000 and 12,000 personnel respectively. So the above 'division' is more likely a Corps and has much larger vehicles as well.

According to a book I am reading on logistics (see link below), each US division in 1944 consumed (on average) about 20,000 tons of supplies each month. That doesn't take into account all the supply chain organisation, the actual movement of supplies, rear area protection, etc., which Aurora doesn't simulate but which would require its own supplies to function. Based on all of the above, 119,000 tons of supplies doesn't seem too bad. However, I will see how that works out in practice.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Supplying-War-Logistics-Wallenstein-Patton/dp/0521546575

Sounds Awesome!

I'm very exited that your putting alot of effort into logistics!

Will there be any consumption for idle divisions / ground units as well? ( besides wealth for maintenance ) Historical figures seems to be about 5-15% of combat consumption levels for idle ground forces.

Something else I thought about is that I've always felt that the logistical challenge of moving TN minerals around have always felt very underwhelming compared to moving anything else. A single freighter in VB6 Aurora can supply the minerals for an entire planets industrial output for a quite significant time, and if in the same system the Mass Drivers deliver it for free once set up.

Id like a stretched out empire feeling the strain of getting minerals home to the capital from the fringe systems as heavily as getting the ammunition, fuel and supplies back to the combat zone in the fringe.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Steve Walmsley on September 28, 2018, 05:48:05 PM
Sounds Awesome!

I'm very exited that your putting alot of effort into logistics!

Will there be any consumption for idle divisions / ground units as well? ( besides wealth for maintenance ) Historical figures seems to be about 5-15% of combat consumption levels for idle ground forces.

Something else I thought about is that I've always felt that the logistical challenge of moving TN minerals around have always felt very underwhelming compared to moving anything else. A single freighter in VB6 Aurora can supply the minerals for an entire planets industrial output for a quite significant time, and if in the same system the Mass Drivers deliver it for free once set up.

Id like a stretched out empire feeling the strain of getting minerals home to the capital from the fringe systems as heavily as getting the ammunition, fuel and supplies back to the combat zone in the fringe.

I decided to limit the use of supply to combat operations to reduce micromanagement and have wealth-based maintenance instead for the rest of the time. There should be more ground combat in C# Aurora than VB6 and a correspondingly greater role for naval forces in supporting those ground operations, so the supply will be used fairly often.

For example, I am currently coding up Precursors and I will be adding a ground-based element to some of the ruin defender forces. Rather than robots popping out of the ground in VB6, the C# Precursor ground forces will be already entrenched around the ruins. Also, just to make it more interesting, the installations in ruins that are yet to be recovered will take damage from orbital bombardment and may suffer collateral damage from ground combat. So accessing ruins will now be more of a combined arms operation.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Hazard on September 29, 2018, 03:00:44 AM
Will there be different chances of installation damage depending on weapons?

Because that would give us the option of sending in the much lighter armed infantry to engage the defense unsupported (despite the massive casualties likely to result) instead of heavy tanks so as to lower the odds of flattening the entire ruins complex.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: King-Salomon on September 29, 2018, 03:40:43 AM
Rather than robots popping out of the ground in VB6, the C# Precursor ground forces will be already entrenched around the ruins. Also, just to make it more interesting, the installations in ruins that are yet to be recovered will take damage from orbital bombardment and may suffer collateral damage from ground combat. So accessing ruins will now be more of a combined arms operation.

Sounds like "microwave" weapons could be a nice touch on ground-units specialised as "robot killers" ... such weapons could/would leave the ruins nearly complete intact...
... but they are not part of the weapon arsenal of ground troops atm or am I wrong?  ???
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Steve Walmsley on September 29, 2018, 05:12:26 AM
Will there be different chances of installation damage depending on weapons?

Because that would give us the option of sending in the much lighter armed infantry to engage the defense unsupported (despite the massive casualties likely to result) instead of heavy tanks so as to lower the odds of flattening the entire ruins complex.

I hadn't considered that but it is a really good idea. When I write the collateral damage code, I will handle it on those lines.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Barkhorn on September 29, 2018, 12:15:23 PM
This may have been asked before, in which case I apologize.

How much will we be able to automate resupply?  I worry it may end up somewhat like automating mineral shipments works in VB6 which is not very good.  I don't mind setting up the routes, but I should only have to do it once.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Jorgen_CAB on October 01, 2018, 05:20:50 PM
In the new ground combat rules and logistics... when would I want to use one size 62 ton vehicle for 500GSP over 12 infantry with 1200GSP for roughly the same cost and slightly less than double the size?

Infantry seem in pretty much in all respect to be better at bringing supplies, size and cost. 12 infantry will also be harder to kill than 1 vehicle in pretty much all scenarios.

I might be missing some important key aspect of how supplies work.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Hazard on October 01, 2018, 05:51:36 PM
You are.

Infantry supply units can only function within the formation they are part of. Vehicle supply can be drawn from by units further down the HQ chain.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Whitecold on October 01, 2018, 06:09:17 PM
You are.

Infantry supply units can only function within the formation they are part of. Vehicle supply can be drawn from by units further down the HQ chain.
It might be nice to eventually also give a special purpose to airborne supply units.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Bremen on October 01, 2018, 08:29:19 PM
You are.

Infantry supply units can only function within the formation they are part of. Vehicle supply can be drawn from by units further down the HQ chain.
It might be nice to eventually also give a special purpose to airborne supply units.

I wonder how practical ground supply pods would be. They get used up (like missiles but not ground support pods) to provide supply, and the fighter can fly back to the carrier for more.

Probably not practical, especially since the fighters would be dealing with surface to orbit weapons on their runs, but kind of amusing.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Jorgen_CAB on October 02, 2018, 12:35:18 AM
You are.

Infantry supply units can only function within the formation they are part of. Vehicle supply can be drawn from by units further down the HQ chain.

That make sense.... thanks. 
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: King-Salomon on October 19, 2018, 03:25:38 PM
just a question for understanding about turrets on land units:

the turret-weapons for the new STO weapons are the same we design for starships right? What about the (starship-like) armour of the turrets that were added in the design?

Will the extra armour have any impact? will it be just  "dead weight" or maybe automatically removed from size and costs? Or will we have to design turrets with and without armour for these?  ???

or am I just wrong in my thinking?  :-[
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Steve Walmsley on October 19, 2018, 03:52:04 PM
just a question for understanding about turrets on land units:

the turret-weapons for the new STO weapons are the same we design for starships right? What about the (starship-like) armour of the turrets that were added in the design?

Will the extra armour have any impact? will it be just  "dead weight" or maybe automatically removed from size and costs? Or will we have to design turrets with and without armour for these?  ???

or am I just wrong in my thinking?  :-[

It would be dead weight, so you need to design ground-specific weapons if you generally armour your turrets.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: King-Salomon on October 19, 2018, 04:05:07 PM
It would be dead weight, so you need to design ground-specific weapons if you generally armour your turrets.

OK thanks :)

but an other thinking... wouldn't that mean that there is a lot of "weapon spam" in the weapon list?  let's say, 4-6 different (weapons, #shots etc) ship turrets with armour, 2-3 additional turrets without armour... and all listed in the weapon-field...

would it be possible/reasonable to add a "check" if a turret has armour and not list it in the weapon list for ground-units?

or maybe, add a checkbox at the weapon/turret designer to select "shipweapon", "Ground-weapon" or both to reduce the weapon spam in the lists?
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Hazard on October 19, 2018, 05:35:45 PM
Will STO contacts fade away from being 'known' over time or if a faction loses Active Sensor coverage?
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Steve Walmsley on October 19, 2018, 06:32:06 PM
Will STO contacts fade away from being 'known' over time or if a faction loses Active Sensor coverage?

Once an element is flagged by a particular race, it stays flagged.

I could add something to change the flag under certain situations, such as the parent formation being moved or the element choosing to remove its fortification (simulating a move).
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Bremen on October 19, 2018, 06:58:11 PM
I note the collateral damage calculations specify 10 damage for infantry instead of 1. I assume that means it uses tech modified values?

In that case perhaps collateral damage should be reduced by the armor tech of the owning side? Otherwise it seems like it would cause a situation where collateral damage becomes exponentially larger as your tech levels rise, since both weapons will be dealing more damage and ground units will have higher defenses.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Hazard on October 20, 2018, 02:54:24 AM
Once an element is flagged by a particular race, it stays flagged.

I could add something to change the flag under certain situations, such as the parent formation being moved or the element choosing to remove its fortification (simulating a move).

Please do. Otherwise you will occasionally get times where your STO units get hammered even though they had yet to open fire.

I note the collateral damage calculations specify 10 damage for infantry instead of 1. I assume that means it uses tech modified values?

In that case perhaps collateral damage should be reduced by the armor tech of the owning side? Otherwise it seems like it would cause a situation where collateral damage becomes exponentially larger as your tech levels rise, since both weapons will be dealing more damage and ground units will have higher defenses.

Collateral damage has become more devastating as weapons technology becomes more powerful IRL. The only reason cities like Baghdad didn't end up flattened during major wars is because greater weapon accuracy made that unnecessary.

Steve, does collateral damage in rubble still cause civilian casualties and dust build up? I'd say it should do the first (if to a smaller extent) and to full extent the second. And can rubble be cleared or is that permanently part of the planet now?
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Whitecold on October 20, 2018, 03:30:54 AM
Collateral damage has become more devastating as weapons technology becomes more powerful IRL. The only reason cities like Baghdad didn't end up flattened during major wars is because greater weapon accuracy made that unnecessary.
But that is exactly the point. A WW1 artillery piece will likely deal more collateral damage than a modern howitzer with GPS guided ammunition, even though the second will me much more lethal. Of course WW2 bombers inflict much more collateral damage than WW1 bombers, which has a lot to do with how much damage they inflict in the first place. (Well, collateral damage was pretty much the the usage of heavy bombers)
So overall I would say the category of weapon should be more important than the tech level of the weapon for how much collateral damage is inflicted.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Steve Walmsley on October 20, 2018, 04:24:53 AM
I note the collateral damage calculations specify 10 damage for infantry instead of 1. I assume that means it uses tech modified values?

In that case perhaps collateral damage should be reduced by the armor tech of the owning side? Otherwise it seems like it would cause a situation where collateral damage becomes exponentially larger as your tech levels rise, since both weapons will be dealing more damage and ground units will have higher defenses.

Yes, it is modified by tech. More powerful versions of the same weapon type will do more damage. As defenders improve their armour, it will take more firepower to overcome them.

Also, as tech levels rise, population and industry will likely be larger so the collateral damage may not be much different in proportion.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Steve Walmsley on October 20, 2018, 04:28:53 AM
I note the collateral damage calculations specify 10 damage for infantry instead of 1. I assume that means it uses tech modified values?

In that case perhaps collateral damage should be reduced by the armor tech of the owning side? Otherwise it seems like it would cause a situation where collateral damage becomes exponentially larger as your tech levels rise, since both weapons will be dealing more damage and ground units will have higher defenses.

Collateral damage has become more devastating as weapons technology becomes more powerful IRL. The only reason cities like Baghdad didn't end up flattened during major wars is because greater weapon accuracy made that unnecessary.

Steve, does collateral damage in rubble still cause civilian casualties and dust build up? I'd say it should do the first (if to a smaller extent) and to full extent the second. And can rubble be cleared or is that permanently part of the planet now?

Damage to rubble doesn't cause civilian casualties or dust. The assumption is that civilians generally won't be in destroyed areas and the fires that would contribute to atmospheric dust have burned through already. It's not perfect, but it is intended to simulate that collateral damage has diminishing returns if an area has been fought over for a while.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Steve Walmsley on October 20, 2018, 04:33:46 AM
Once an element is flagged by a particular race, it stays flagged.

I could add something to change the flag under certain situations, such as the parent formation being moved or the element choosing to remove its fortification (simulating a move).

Please do. Otherwise you will occasionally get times where your STO units get hammered even though they had yet to open fire.

STO units can only be attacked once they fire.

There are two arguments here. One is that once they move the enemy can't tell what they are. On the other hand, once one side identifies a hostile formation, they will continue to know its capabilities. At some point ELINT will be extended to cover identification of hostile formations based long-term observation, in which case, the STO units will be flagged as such when their formation is identified even in the first scenario.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: space dwarf on October 20, 2018, 06:10:36 AM
But for how long can the STO units be attacked?


And yes, I feel that it would be a good idea to have a "change positions" command/option for STO-equipped ground units which removes them from any identified lists, but also makes them incapable of firing for a week or two while they are moved to new locations and reinstalled. Then you could implement stuff like "if the STO units are actually being detected at the moment they are moved, the detector can tell that they were moved and that therefore the planetary STO is weak and ripe for a surprise attack"
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Hazard on October 20, 2018, 06:32:52 AM
But that is exactly the point. A WW1 artillery piece will likely deal more collateral damage than a modern howitzer with GPS guided ammunition, even though the second will me much more lethal. Of course WW2 bombers inflict much more collateral damage than WW1 bombers, which has a lot to do with how much damage they inflict in the first place. (Well, collateral damage was pretty much the the usage of heavy bombers)
So overall I would say the category of weapon should be more important than the tech level of the weapon for how much collateral damage is inflicted.

Except none of that has anything to do with armour technology and everything to do with targeting technology and techniques. Being able to park a 500 kg bomb directly on top of an enemy fortification to destroy it means you only need 1 bomb, but if you've got an 80% chance to miss you are going to drop at least 5 and probably 10, or more, because then you can be very confident it's been destroyed.

If anything, this is an argument that who has the ECM/ECCM advantage should have an impact in collateral damage calculations rather than armour or weapons technology levels.

Yes, it is modified by tech. More powerful versions of the same weapon type will do more damage. As defenders improve their armour, it will take more firepower to overcome them.

Also, as tech levels rise, population and industry will likely be larger so the collateral damage may not be much different in proportion.

Well, given that the number of combat rounds and the number of shots fired per weapons category is likely to remain the same roughly speaking I'm not so certain about that. And there's a few units that get better armour relative to low level technology, so that's even more shots fired. If anything, more collateral damage is likely to accumulate during a planetary invasion relative to the population and facility numbers rather than less or equal.

And planets with high fortification modifiers suffer more collateral damage because it doesn't care about fortification, but unit combat calculations do.

Damage to rubble doesn't cause civilian casualties or dust. The assumption is that civilians generally won't be in destroyed areas and the fires that would contribute to atmospheric dust have burned through already. It's not perfect, but it is intended to simulate that collateral damage has diminishing returns if an area has been fought over for a while.

This gets really weird once you start ground combat on planets with no atmosphere then. I get your point that on planets with a breathable(-ish) atmosphere and close enough to their star to support growing crops with minimal infrastructure support (so basically very low colony cost planets) atmospheric soot caused by fires resulting from combat are a major concern, but a planet that's not capable of doing that and has no (native) biosphere will not have the sort of fires that impact atmospheric dust. Either there's no atmosphere, so any dust and soot enters a ballistic trajectory that's going to fall back down in days at the most and more likely seconds or minutes, or the atmosphere is so unhealthy to crops and the population in general that all biomass is internal in the colony's infrastructure and there's a not inconsiderable investment in the atmospheric processing equipment to scrub dust and other contaminants out of the air without it ever getting ejected into the atmosphere. And this gets worse if the planetary atmosphere pressure is higher than the native population's tolerances.

So... collateral damage should probably always produce atmospheric dust, although certain classifications of planet may produce more/less dust than normal.

STO units can only be attacked once they fire.

There are two arguments here. One is that once they move the enemy can't tell what they are. On the other hand, once one side identifies a hostile formation, they will continue to know its capabilities. At some point ELINT will be extended to cover identification of hostile formations based long-term observation, in which case, the STO units will be flagged as such when their formation is identified even in the first scenario.

Right. That's fair. And I get that the intelligence side of the game needs a lot more work. It'd be nice if extended ELINT observation would eventually let you target enemy formations directly with orbital fire.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Father Tim on October 20, 2018, 07:17:37 AM
Damage to rubble doesn't cause civilian casualties or dust. The assumption is that civilians generally won't be in destroyed areas and the fires that would contribute to atmospheric dust have burned through already. It's not perfect, but it is intended to simulate that collateral damage has diminishing returns if an area has been fought over for a while.

This gets really weird once you start ground combat on planets with no atmosphere then. I get your point that on planets with a breathable(-ish) atmosphere and close enough to their star to support growing crops with minimal infrastructure support (so basically very low colony cost planets) atmospheric soot caused by fires resulting from combat are a major concern, but a planet that's not capable of doing that and has no (native) biosphere will not have the sort of fires that impact atmospheric dust. Either there's no atmosphere, so any dust and soot enters a ballistic trajectory that's going to fall back down in days at the most and more likely seconds or minutes, or the atmosphere is so unhealthy to crops and the population in general that all biomass is internal in the colony's infrastructure and there's a not inconsiderable investment in the atmospheric processing equipment to scrub dust and other contaminants out of the air without it ever getting ejected into the atmosphere. And this gets worse if the planetary atmosphere pressure is higher than the native population's tolerances.

So... collateral damage should probably always produce atmospheric dust, although certain classifications of planet may produce more/less dust than normal.

I don't think it will get weird, because of how Colony Cost is calculated in the first place.  It isn't an 'everything into one value' formula, but a 'use highest vale of {A, B, C, D, ..., R}' selection.

If the population is living in hostile environment domes (Col Cost 2.0) due to toxic gases, raising the 'dust factor' (planetary albedo and therefore temperature) from 0.67 to 0.82 isn't going to have an effect.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Hazard on October 20, 2018, 10:03:29 AM
Until the dust causes the temperature factor to escalate above a colony cost of 2.0, which is hardly impossible when the temperature factor is already close to 2.0.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: tobijon on October 20, 2018, 10:20:08 AM
Until the dust causes the temperature factor to escalate above a colony cost of 2.0, which is hardly impossible when the temperature factor is already close to 2.0.

true, but you can also consider that as an incentive to terraform beyond the minimum required to avoid gaining a colony cost, and it makes a world that has not been terraformed extra vulnerable, which is a good strategic consideration to add.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Steve Walmsley on October 20, 2018, 10:24:20 AM
Until the dust causes the temperature factor to escalate above a colony cost of 2.0, which is hardly impossible when the temperature factor is already close to 2.0.

I don't want dust to be too major a factor for purely collateral damage, which is one of the reasons why damage vs rubble causes no dust.

All of this is an abstraction of the environmental impact of heavy combat with the intent that environmental impact becomes a consideration for attacking forces - it isn't an attempt to accurately model that situation for all different potential circumstances.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Hazard on October 20, 2018, 11:25:01 AM
true, but you can also consider that as an incentive to terraform beyond the minimum required to avoid gaining a colony cost, and it makes a world that has not been terraformed extra vulnerable, which is a good strategic consideration to add.

Unless you are terraforming the temperature down, in which case bring in the dust anyway. For humans you'd need to cause enough dust to drop planetary temperature by 28 degrees IIRC to go from the upper bound to the lower bound.

I don't want dust to be too major a factor for purely collateral damage, which is one of the reasons why damage vs rubble causes no dust.

All of this is an abstraction of the environmental impact of heavy combat with the intent that environmental impact becomes a consideration for attacking forces - it isn't an attempt to accurately model that situation for all different potential circumstances.

Okay that's fair.

In that case, is (general) orbital bombardment going to face the same limitation with dust and destroyed buildings?


And I suppose it ended up buried among the other things, but is there going to be a way to clear rubble from a planet?
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Father Tim on October 20, 2018, 11:48:37 AM
And I suppose it ended up buried among the other things, but is there going to be a way to clear rubble from a planet?

Rebuilding the destroyed installations seems the obvious way - especially if doing so offers a discount over new construction.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Barkhorn on October 20, 2018, 11:58:50 AM
STO units can only be attacked once they fire.

There are two arguments here. One is that once they move the enemy can't tell what they are. On the other hand, once one side identifies a hostile formation, they will continue to know its capabilities. At some point ELINT will be extended to cover identification of hostile formations based long-term observation, in which case, the STO units will be flagged as such when their formation is identified even in the first scenario.
How often does this reset?  Can I fly a scout ship past a defended planet, take one round of STO fire, and come back a year later with my whole fleet and still have perfect info on the STO formations?
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Bremen on October 20, 2018, 12:17:55 PM
I note the collateral damage calculations specify 10 damage for infantry instead of 1. I assume that means it uses tech modified values?

In that case perhaps collateral damage should be reduced by the armor tech of the owning side? Otherwise it seems like it would cause a situation where collateral damage becomes exponentially larger as your tech levels rise, since both weapons will be dealing more damage and ground units will have higher defenses.

Yes, it is modified by tech. More powerful versions of the same weapon type will do more damage. As defenders improve their armour, it will take more firepower to overcome them.

Also, as tech levels rise, population and industry will likely be larger so the collateral damage may not be much different in proportion.

I don't necessarily agree with this, but I can accept it (as was pointed out, weapons get more powerful, but also more accurate). However, I'll point out that right now weapons are rising by the cube of tech progression; assuming tech progression keeps the roughly 20% increase per tier, that means every tech tier works out to something like a 70% increase in collateral damage, compounding. That's going to get huge fast.

And that's not tech tier over your enemy. That's tech tier in absolute, so by the time you're at tech tier 7, you're looking at ~46 times the collateral damage as base TNE tech.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Conscript Gary on October 20, 2018, 01:19:31 PM
For example, I am currently coding up Precursors and I will be adding a ground-based element to some of the ruin defender forces. Rather than robots popping out of the ground in VB6, the C# Precursor ground forces will be already entrenched around the ruins. Also, just to make it more interesting, the installations in ruins that are yet to be recovered will take damage from orbital bombardment and may suffer collateral damage from ground combat. So accessing ruins will now be more of a combined arms operation.

Out of curiosity, will they be following the same supply rules that normal player/npr ground forces follow? Because if so, particularly callous players could embrace the Zapp Brannigan gambit and send waves of men until the killbots' guns ran dry- hardly an optimal strategy, but certainly an amusing one.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Hazard on October 20, 2018, 02:44:41 PM
It's been answered, and the answer's yes.

You can in fact just drown the enemy in LPW equipped infantry.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Steve Walmsley on October 20, 2018, 08:27:34 PM
For example, I am currently coding up Precursors and I will be adding a ground-based element to some of the ruin defender forces. Rather than robots popping out of the ground in VB6, the C# Precursor ground forces will be already entrenched around the ruins. Also, just to make it more interesting, the installations in ruins that are yet to be recovered will take damage from orbital bombardment and may suffer collateral damage from ground combat. So accessing ruins will now be more of a combined arms operation.

Out of curiosity, will they be following the same supply rules that normal player/npr ground forces follow? Because if so, particularly callous players could embrace the Zapp Brannigan gambit and send waves of men until the killbots' guns ran dry- hardly an optimal strategy, but certainly an amusing one.

Yes, they follow player supply rules.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: totos_totidis on October 21, 2018, 09:11:57 AM
Will there be surface to space missile weapons?
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Steve Walmsley on October 21, 2018, 09:17:25 AM
Will there be surface to space missile weapons?

No, I have nothing planned on those lines. I want to avoid tracking any type of munitions or ordnance for ground units and keep them relatively simple (in management terms).
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Jorgen_CAB on October 24, 2018, 01:07:12 AM
Not sure if I missed this information or if this has been considered but will there be a finer granulation of fighter engines now that the fuel economy are somewhat different from before. There will be a huge difference between a size 1 and size 2 engine now.

If it wouldn't be too much a trouble to make it like 1 and 0.1 increments to 2, 0.2 increments to 3 and 0.25 increments to 4 and 0.5 increments to 5 or some such.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: alex_brunius on October 24, 2018, 01:41:44 AM
No, I have nothing planned on those lines. I want to avoid tracking any type of munitions or ordnance for ground units and keep them relatively simple (in management terms).

Wouldn't it be possible to have them fire munitions straight from the planetary stockpile to get around this if you wanted?
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: King-Salomon on October 24, 2018, 02:59:27 AM
Wouldn't it be possible to have them fire munitions straight from the planetary stockpile to get around this if you wanted?

If you go this way, there would be the point "Why using supply units/trucks for the defender and not usesing a planetwide supply stockpile to resupply?" .. guess this would open a nasty can of worms like "if this.. why not that too..."
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Steve Walmsley on October 24, 2018, 05:16:21 AM
Not sure if I missed this information or if this has been considered but will there be a finer granulation of fighter engines now that the fuel economy are somewhat different from before. There will be a huge difference between a size 1 and size 2 engine now.

If it wouldn't be too much a trouble to make it like 1 and 0.1 increments to 2, 0.2 increments to 3 and 0.25 increments to 4 and 0.5 increments to 5 or some such.

Fighter engines start at 0.1 HS now.

http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=8495.msg109885#msg109885
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Whitecold on October 24, 2018, 05:44:12 AM
No, I have nothing planned on those lines. I want to avoid tracking any type of munitions or ordnance for ground units and keep them relatively simple (in management terms).

Wouldn't it be possible to have them fire munitions straight from the planetary stockpile to get around this if you wanted?
The munition management would be quite simple with just drawing from the planetary stockpile. I guess the trouble would be more with missiles not fitting as integral weapon systems, you need few dedicated large sensors, and you want many launchers per FC.
At least orbital missile bases can now be covered by planetary PD
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Jorgen_CAB on October 24, 2018, 07:17:31 AM
Not sure if I missed this information or if this has been considered but will there be a finer granulation of fighter engines now that the fuel economy are somewhat different from before. There will be a huge difference between a size 1 and size 2 engine now.

If it wouldn't be too much a trouble to make it like 1 and 0.1 increments to 2, 0.2 increments to 3 and 0.25 increments to 4 and 0.5 increments to 5 or some such.

Fighter engines start at 0.1 HS now.

http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=8495.msg109885#msg109885

Ah... thanks... I think I missed that little tidbit of information. Great!!
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: alex_brunius on October 24, 2018, 08:06:53 AM
The munition management would be quite simple with just drawing from the planetary stockpile. I guess the trouble would be more with missiles not fitting as integral weapon systems, you need few dedicated large sensors, and you want many launchers per FC.
At least orbital missile bases can now be covered by planetary PD

That reasoning leads to something interesting. I just realized that orbital missile bases should require proper ammo storage and shuttle bays now to handle the logistics of firing loads of missiles, and can't just instant transfer them from the planet anymore. That's going to change design strategy quite a bit, and make it more feasible to saturate even orbital AMM defenses if they don't have oversized logistics or deep enough magazines.

Perhaps proper missile logistics here is an advantage that adds interesting trade offs making it worth keeping them away from ground forces?
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: TMaekler on November 05, 2018, 09:42:53 AM
How compatible will the databases be when you update the C# versions? Any plans to make them more compatible than in the past?
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Steve Walmsley on November 05, 2018, 11:29:19 AM
How compatible will the databases be when you update the C# versions? Any plans to make them more compatible than in the past?

That issue won't really change.

it isn't a question of language or database type, but an issue caused by a mismatch between the database structure and what the program expects to see. I could spend time writing a conversion program for each release, but my time is probably better spent adding feature (more interesting too!)
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Rabid_Cog on November 06, 2018, 12:44:09 PM
I vote for more features and less database conversions.

Aurora does not autoupdate, so I am cool with it this way  ;D
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Jorgen_CAB on November 09, 2018, 06:00:53 AM
One question that I have for the C# Aurora.

In the old version you can set an "Order Delay", but the problem is that this delay between orders don't persist and are not shown in the order list. Will this be changed in any way?

In order to set up patrol routes with ships that have relatively low deployment times it would be very helpful if these order delays gets added to the list of orders and are repeated when you cycle an order.

This would be a huge quality of life for patrol or repeating orders where you want the crew to get some RnR between patrols. As it is it is just too much micro.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Whitecold on November 09, 2018, 06:08:02 AM
One question that I have for the C# Aurora.

In the old version you can set an "Order Delay", but the problem is that this delay between orders don't persist and are not shown in the order list. Will this be changed in any way?

In order to set up patrol routes with ships that have relatively low deployment times it would be very helpful if these order delays gets added to the list of orders and are repeated when you cycle an order.

This would be a huge quality of life for patrol or repeating orders where you want the crew to get some RnR between patrols. As it is it is just too much micro.
Having a dedicated RnR order would be useful for that as well. Basically wait until the timer is run down to 0.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Jorgen_CAB on November 09, 2018, 07:53:02 AM
Having a dedicated RnR order would be useful for that as well. Basically wait until the timer is run down to 0.

That would be really good in addition to being able to give a specific amount of time.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Garfunkel on November 09, 2018, 12:15:42 PM
Agreed! That would also allow the creation of complex looping orders.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Jorgen_CAB on November 09, 2018, 01:56:33 PM
Agreed! That would also allow the creation of complex looping orders.

This would be extremely useful in especially multi-faction games where you control several sides. The more you can automate individual sides ship movement the easier it will be to manage such campaigns.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Agoelia on November 13, 2018, 03:32:02 PM
Will Task Groups wait till the end of the cycle to check new orders?
Let me explain: If you set a ship to ''survey the next five system bodies" and then skip 30 days, the ship will execute the order and then idle for some time, sometimes for the large part of the month.  This of course only happens if the ship performes all 5 of the surveys inside the 30 days period, but the loss of time is extreme when, for instance, surveying an asteroid belt (asteroid are really fast to survey and kinda close to each other). 

Second question: When an NPR ships shoots missiles at you, it stops the game.  Now besides being annoying since you may want to skip an hour but the game stops after two minutes, most of all it gives away that the enemy is shooting missiles at you, way before your sensor actually pick it up.  I guess it's the same problems with NPRvsNPR conflicts stopping continuosly the game.  Will this be fixed?
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Garfunkel on November 13, 2018, 03:50:08 PM
You can use 5-day or 1-day increments instead of 30-day increments. Since C# will run so much faster than VB, you're not losing out on playing time.

As for the second, you can never be sure if the increment slow down is because of missiles or something else. Yes, if you know there are no NPRs or spoilers active anywhere else than the new system you're exploring, then it's a bit of a giveaway, but only in that situation. And there isn't a way to "fix" it as otherwise, you run into a situation where the AI cannot shoot at you at all. Or do you mean that despite slowing down the time increments, the game should keep going without pausing until the player has a sensor contact or the missiles impact?
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Agoelia on November 13, 2018, 04:40:36 PM
I know you can use smaller time increments (I do that too), but new players or ingenous ones or ones that simply don't pay attention to these details might never know about it.  I feel like the game should address the problem, not the players.  At least make it suggest to the player it might be inefficient, if it's not solvable. 

About the second, yes I meant something like that.  The game shouldn't stop, I don't even know why it was made to stop in the first place.  And yes, there will be a slow down in time increments while NPR do stuff, but it is a lot less noticeable than completely stopping everything.  It might even be humanly unnoticeable with the speed of C#.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: King-Salomon on November 22, 2018, 08:54:13 AM
Is there some idea how the "defence unit" for a civilian mine complex will look like? Is there already a template in your testplay atm Steve?
Will they all have the same template?
Will it depend on what research the player has done? Or would there be no "civilian ground units" now with the new ground unit concept?
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Steve Walmsley on November 22, 2018, 09:42:12 AM
Is there some idea how the "defence unit" for a civilian mine complex will look like? Is there already a template in your testplay atm Steve?
Will they all have the same template?
Will it depend on what research the player has done? Or would there be no "civilian ground units" now with the new ground unit concept?

There is a civilian defence formation template for civilian mining colonies. It is mainly infantry, with a small number of LAA, LAV and CAP, plus an HQ. Numbers will vary but will be a few hundred infantry and probably single digits of the others. Their capabilities are based on player research.

Their are a number of civilian mining complexes in my test campaign, all with these defence formations.

BTW in C#, CMC will not setup on the colonies you create, but they may be created on bodies with colonies from other races. So you could end up with two CMC from different races on the same body (assuming they both have populations in the system of at least 10m), or a CMC from another race being created where you have a 'normal' colony.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Father Tim on November 22, 2018, 10:14:14 AM

There is a civilian defence formation template for civilian mining colonies. It is mainly infantry, with a small number of LAA, LAV and CAP, plus an HQ. Numbers will vary but will be a few hundred infantry and probably single digits of the others. Their capabilities are based on player research.


Do they have integral Supply units?  How do they re-supply?  Is 'running [the security battalion] out of ammo' going to be a common, or even valid, tactic?  If I drop a single Ultra-super-heavy-vehicle Ogre, Bolo, BattleMech, or Titan crawler on a CMC can I be confident they'll run out of 9mm bullets and surrender?
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Steve Walmsley on November 22, 2018, 10:18:21 AM

There is a civilian defence formation template for civilian mining colonies. It is mainly infantry, with a small number of LAA, LAV and CAP, plus an HQ. Numbers will vary but will be a few hundred infantry and probably single digits of the others. Their capabilities are based on player research.


Do they have integral Suplly units?  How do they re-supply?  Is 'running [the security battalion] out of ammo' going to be a common, or even valid, tactic?  If I drop a single Ultra-super-heavy-vehicle Ogre, Bolo, BattleMech, or Titan crawler on a CMC can I be confident they'll run out of 9mm bullets and surrender?

I think I added supply (not at home atm). When supply runs out (for this or any other ground formation), they still function with 25% of normal attacks.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: chrislocke2000 on November 22, 2018, 11:34:30 AM
When it comes to boarding actions on ships is that going to follow the same resolution process as ground combat and also require both attackers and defenders to have supplies. Also what will be the time increment for each resolution tick?
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Bughunter on November 23, 2018, 03:26:01 AM
BTW in C#, CMC will not setup on the colonies you create, but they may be created on bodies with colonies from other races. So you could end up with two CMC from different races on the same body (assuming they both have populations in the system of at least 10m), or a CMC from another race being created where you have a 'normal' colony.

This sounds like it could get annoying. Will the diplomacy features around declaring claims etc. provide a way to stop this from happening without an all out war?
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Steve Walmsley on November 23, 2018, 04:16:43 AM
When it comes to boarding actions on ships is that going to follow the same resolution process as ground combat and also require both attackers and defenders to have supplies. Also what will be the time increment for each resolution tick?

Boarding combat will be much faster (as it is in VB6). I haven't coded it yet so I haven't made a decision on the supply question. At this point I would guess probably not or minimal.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Steve Walmsley on November 23, 2018, 04:17:48 AM
BTW in C#, CMC will not setup on the colonies you create, but they may be created on bodies with colonies from other races. So you could end up with two CMC from different races on the same body (assuming they both have populations in the system of at least 10m), or a CMC from another race being created where you have a 'normal' colony.

This sounds like it could get annoying. Will the diplomacy features around declaring claims etc. provide a way to stop this from happening without an all out war?

There will be diplomacy options around claiming territory. However, don't forget for this to happen you both need to have populations of ten million in the system. Unless there are multiple habitable worlds, you are already sharing space.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Jorgen_CAB on November 23, 2018, 06:43:08 AM
BTW in C#, CMC will not setup on the colonies you create, but they may be created on bodies with colonies from other races. So you could end up with two CMC from different races on the same body (assuming they both have populations in the system of at least 10m), or a CMC from another race being created where you have a 'normal' colony.

This sounds like it could get annoying. Will the diplomacy features around declaring claims etc. provide a way to stop this from happening without an all out war?

There will be diplomacy options around claiming territory. However, don't forget for this to happen you both need to have populations of ten million in the system. Unless there are multiple habitable worlds, you are already sharing space.

Why not have the option to allow CMC to set up on your own colonies, at least on colonies below a certain level of population of say 25 million people or so?

Any plans to expand on the civilian part of Aurora any more in the future, such as they demanding TN materials to function optimally, needing some fuel in an abstract way etc... would make the logistical part of the game even more fun. Especially if the price of civilian TN material was based on a supply/demand model so you can sell or buy the minerals with the civilian sector. Civilian sectors of different factions could also interact and create a market with each other depending on diplomacy status. Should need to be overly complicated though.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Father Tim on November 23, 2018, 02:12:32 PM

Why not have the option to allow CMC to set up on your own colonies, at least on colonies below a certain level of population of say 25 million people or so?


As an option, sure, but I already spend an annoying amount of time claiming every rock of interest in the system with the 'Add Colony' button in order to keep those damned civilians away from my minerals.  Don't make me start invading their thieving little hideouts in the midst of my populations.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Jorgen_CAB on November 23, 2018, 06:39:34 PM

Why not have the option to allow CMC to set up on your own colonies, at least on colonies below a certain level of population of say 25 million people or so?


As an option, sure, but I already spend an annoying amount of time claiming every rock of interest in the system with the 'Add Colony' button in order to keep those damned civilians away from my minerals.  Don't make me start invading their thieving little hideouts in the midst of my populations.

You can always buy it from them if you like... they are after all sort of free mines that way.   ;)
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Garfunkel on November 23, 2018, 11:07:58 PM
That can get really expensive, really fast, though.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Jorgen_CAB on November 24, 2018, 07:28:08 AM
To be honest I have never really had much problem with this. Some CMC are not worth buying from and give me some wealth instead and then I buy from those I need the minerals from.

I think it would be more fun if we have to compete with the civilian sector for minerals more than what we have to do currently. In most societies the civilian sector consume the most resources not the state.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: King-Salomon on November 26, 2018, 11:18:00 AM
I was just (again) going through my (possible) plans for an "order of battle" for my ground troops in C# and was coming up with a question that I might just have not found explained - so sorry if it was talked about before..

If I set up an "Order of battle" like this:

(numbers are for simplification)

3 Platoons  =  1 Companies

5 Companies = 1 Battalion

5 Battalion = 1 Regiment

3 Regiment = 1 Division

5 Division = 1 Corps

5 Corps = 1 Army etc...

so... if I want to use the "officer bonus" I plan to make the "platoon" as the smallest independent unit... if I "deploy" a Division that will mean ~225 platoons + maybe some support units, artillery etc... let's say 300 units...

now my question:

will I have to micro all the ~300 "units" or for which "orders" will there be a "help" in form of "do to all detached units commands"?

I am thinking mainly about:

Building - can I set a "layout" for a division which will be build at times with the included sub formations without me loosing the "sub-formations" and having to create and build a single unit without sub-formations?? it is just a little bit of a difference to manually give 300 "build orders" instead of "build 1 division with all included formations"...

moving - guess there will be an order as in VB like (embark all detached units of this HQ?) - will something like this be used for "moving in ground combat" (moving from front line to reserve etc) too?

fighting - same as upon

resupply/repair/reinforcement - Steve said that it will be easy to move "formations" between units - so I guess this will be the main way to resupply (with new trucks) or reinforce units after combat.. now I am afraid that I have to micro the resupply for all 300 sub-formations by hand -.-   will there be some kind of command like "resupply all units/units detached too" etc?

guess there are other points I am missing...

---

maybe it is just me that I have the wrong picture of how the ground-unit system will work in bigger formations... maybe it is just simple and I have something wrong...
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Steve Walmsley on November 26, 2018, 11:37:03 AM
Yes, there will be orders that allow you to move large formation hierarchies. I haven't coded them all yet but I will as I run into these situations in the test games.

I will also add some form of build command for specified hierarchies.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: SerBeardian on November 26, 2018, 03:53:04 PM
Not sure if it was raised when posted, but for the changes to the abandon overhaul system, shouldn't there be a delay in the penalty being applied?

What I mean is: it doesn't make sense that a ship pulls into the drydock for an overhaul, then suffers 100% of the penalties when it has to move away 30 seconds later to respond to an incident.

I've never had a problem with the 30-day abandon timeframe (except maybe the lack of feedback that it takes 30 days), but that you have to wait 30 days even if you started the overhaul 5 seconds ago.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Steve Walmsley on November 26, 2018, 04:43:27 PM
Not sure if it was raised when posted, but for the changes to the abandon overhaul system, shouldn't there be a delay in the penalty being applied?

What I mean is: it doesn't make sense that a ship pulls into the drydock for an overhaul, then suffers 100% of the penalties when it has to move away 30 seconds later to respond to an incident.

I've never had a problem with the 30-day abandon timeframe (except maybe the lack of feedback that it takes 30 days), but that you have to wait 30 days even if you started the overhaul 5 seconds ago.

You could equally argue the penalty should be less if it was close to the end. However, I don't want to have to start tracking all that for the rare occasions when it will be relevant, plus going into overhaul should have consequences.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Vivalas on November 27, 2018, 11:22:29 AM
Has loading / unloading of ground units and the implementation of drop pods already been discussed and fletched out (and I can't find it) or is it just in the works still?
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Steve Walmsley on November 27, 2018, 01:37:54 PM
Has loading / unloading of ground units and the implementation of drop pods already been discussed and fletched out (and I can't find it) or is it just in the works still?

There was a discussion and I have coded it. I haven't got around to writing the changes post yet. I haven't coded boarding though.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: TMaekler on November 30, 2018, 04:11:01 AM
How far are you going to go with the new AI routines? One thing that (in general) annoys me with AI is the "All or Nothing" approach. Once an AI has set itself the goal to conquer an object or destroy a certain target, it will not deviate from that if initial plans fail. It just begins pumping more and more ships and resources into the set goal; rather than a human player who would at some point see, that he looses his long term goal, when he continues that way.
Also in ship-to-ship combat. At some point human players realize that it would be better to withdraw from a certain position and take the loss of a space station or a planet in order to preserve the fleet, which could be very usefull having it in a different combat. Meaning, it would be worse if there is no fleet but still have that one planet or space station.

Will the C# AI be able to alter its goals depending on such circumstances?
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Steve Walmsley on November 30, 2018, 06:59:14 AM
How far are you going to go with the new AI routines? One thing that (in general) annoys me with AI is the "All or Nothing" approach. Once an AI has set itself the goal to conquer an object or destroy a certain target, it will not deviate from that if initial plans fail. It just begins pumping more and more ships and resources into the set goal; rather than a human player who would at some point see, that he looses his long term goal, when he continues that way.
Also in ship-to-ship combat. At some point human players realize that it would be better to withdraw from a certain position and take the loss of a space station or a planet in order to preserve the fleet, which could be very usefull having it in a different combat. Meaning, it would be worse if there is no fleet but still have that one planet or space station.

Will the C# AI be able to alter its goals depending on such circumstances?

The AI will assess the situation and determine if an attack is a good idea. If the AI does not believe it can win a fight, it will retreat or not engage. It will start withdrawing unarmed ships from systems near any threat and if hostile forces are in the system it will choose the least threatened route to run (one AI function is actually called PlanEscapeRoute). If no good way out of the system exists, the AI will move to the cover of a defended population if possible.

If the AI chooses to fight, it will deploy accordingly. A single hostile ship might only attract the attention of a destroyer squadron while any NPR battle fleet remains at a strategic location. The AI will stage forces before launching a major attack and will not approach piecemeal. It will also decide if certain locations need protection and if that is more important than attacking. The major difference for C# is that there are Race, System, Fleet, Ship and Population AIs that exchange information and make decisions at different levels. In VB6, each fleet has its own directives and these are often not coordinated (although escorts will attempt to protect other ships for example).

I haven't coded this portion yet but the AI will also learn about your ships through observation and estimate their threat level, strength and defences based on that observation. Those estimates will influence its actions.

Although it won't be a good as a human, the C# AI should be significantly better than in VB6.

Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Kaiser on November 30, 2018, 01:18:09 PM
How far are you going to go with the new AI routines? One thing that (in general) annoys me with AI is the "All or Nothing" approach. Once an AI has set itself the goal to conquer an object or destroy a certain target, it will not deviate from that if initial plans fail. It just begins pumping more and more ships and resources into the set goal; rather than a human player who would at some point see, that he looses his long term goal, when he continues that way.
Also in ship-to-ship combat. At some point human players realize that it would be better to withdraw from a certain position and take the loss of a space station or a planet in order to preserve the fleet, which could be very usefull having it in a different combat. Meaning, it would be worse if there is no fleet but still have that one planet or space station.

Will the C# AI be able to alter its goals depending on such circumstances?

The AI will assess the situation and determine if an attack is a good idea. If the AI does not believe it can win a fight, it will retreat or not engage. It will start withdrawing unarmed ships from systems near any threat and if hostile forces are in the system it will choose the least threatened route to run (one AI function is actually called PlanEscapeRoute). If no good way out of the system exists, the AI will move to the cover of a defended population if possible.

If the AI chooses to fight, it will deploy accordingly. A single hostile ship might only attract the attention of a destroyer squadron while any NPR battle fleet remains at a strategic location. The AI will stage forces before launching a major attack and will not approach piecemeal. It will also decide if certain locations need protection and if that is more important than attacking. The major difference for C# is that there are Race, System, Fleet, Ship and Population AIs that exchange information and make decisions at different levels. In VB6, each fleet has its own directives and these are often not coordinated (although escorts will attempt to protect other ships for example).

I haven't coded this portion yet but the AI will also learn about your ships through observation and estimate their threat level, strength and defences based on that observation. Those estimates will influence its actions.

Although it won't be a good as a human, the C# AI should be significantly better than in VB6.

That's what I'm expecting more from C Aurora, not plenty of new weapons/race/options which are useless with a boring AI, but a better, tactical, strategic and dynamic AI as possible which makes a game funny and unpredictable. 
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Jorgen_CAB on December 01, 2018, 12:54:26 PM
I must say I enjoy it all... a better AI will mean that I can add some interesting AI NPR in my multi-faction Earth games and get an even better experience.

Must say I'm very excited for what this new version have in store for us, the new AI seem interesting and I hope Steve have the stamina and will to implement it the way he envision it.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Barkhorn on December 01, 2018, 01:07:31 PM
I can't decide if I'm more excited about the AI or the performance improvements.  I mostly don't do much roleplay when I play; I'm interested more in playing well.  Better AI and better performance will make this much more rewarding.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Rich.h on December 03, 2018, 01:52:45 AM
I can't recall if this has been covered or not, but will C# Aurora treat TN and non-TN NPR's in the same way as the current Aurora? So will a Non-TN NPR ever be able to progress to a TN civilization?
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Steve Walmsley on December 03, 2018, 03:06:30 AM
I can't recall if this has been covered or not, but will C# Aurora treat TN and non-TN NPR's in the same way as the current Aurora? So will a Non-TN NPR ever be able to progress to a TN civilization?

Although the AI will convert conventional factories if they exist, I haven't added full support for progressing from conventional to TN yet. I plan to to do that at some point though.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Jovus on December 06, 2018, 10:15:18 AM
Although the AI will convert conventional factories if they exist, I haven't added full support for progressing from conventional to TN yet. I plan to to do that at some point though.

Out of curiosity, are there unique difficulties in doing this, or is it just low on your priority list? If there are unique difficulties, what are they?
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Steve Walmsley on December 06, 2018, 10:43:01 AM
Although the AI will convert conventional factories if they exist, I haven't added full support for progressing from conventional to TN yet. I plan to to do that at some point though.

Out of curiosity, are there unique difficulties in doing this, or is it just low on your priority list? If there are unique difficulties, what are they?

The difficulty is that everything the AI wants to do or build or design has restrictions based on technology. For a TN start, the AI has a definite set of starting tech that can be relied upon (the same TN starting tech that a player receives). For a conventional start, the AI is going to have to check what portion of that potential technology base exists. At the moment, the code doesn't check for technology that is provided for a TN start, so I would have to add those checks in every place in the code where it is needed.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: King-Salomon on December 06, 2018, 11:43:21 AM
will it be possible to capture ground-combat equipment and to check it for research or intelligence results?

also about ELINT:

will it be possible for ELINT (or any ship at all) to "see" what kind of weapon etc a hostile ship is using and list this correctly in the intelligence database and the "known technologies" of the race?

for example: the player is in battle with 3 enemy ships ... 1 ship is firing missiles, 1 ship is firing lasers and the third is not firering at all...

can the intelligence report add the information which ship class is using which kind of weapon - (6x size 8 missile launcher for class A, 4x 30cm laser for class B) ? in VB we have to manually add this kind of information's - would be great if it could be added automatically IF the use of the weaponsystem by this ship is clear...

also it would make sense to add something like "30cm laser tech" to the race-infos if known ships of this race are using this kind of weapon...

long words short.. would it be possible to ELINT to "detect" used technology/ship modules and update the information's by itself?
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: snapto on December 11, 2018, 10:02:01 AM
Loved the recent screenies of the npr ai in action.  On the Ground Combat->Order of Battle tab, I was wondering what the "Field Position" button did?  Thanks for all the hard work Steve. Can't wait to play!!
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Steve Walmsley on December 11, 2018, 10:56:55 AM
Field position sets the formation to front-line attack, front-line defence, support or rear-echelon. It affects how the formation participates in ground combat.
Title: Boarding Combat / surrender
Post by: King-Salomon on December 29, 2018, 05:21:14 AM
As you said you are atm at "boarding combat" Steve..

is in your planing a point were a ship/crew in a desperate situation (no chance of winning) might surrender when/before beeing boarded?

in a war (better: between races that take POW's) it seems too lunatic to "fight to the last man"... so maybe if the captain of a ship nows that there is no point in resistence he/it should surrender when crippled (or even out-runned) - but at least when beeing boarded...

in a war with a race which does not take POW's (or worse, might even eat them) fighting to the last man (and even blow up the ship while beeing boarded to not let the enemy take it or the crew corpses) might make sense

this might also bring some more "differences" between NPR's (some take POW's others don't, others collect the bodys as food source)
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: King-Salomon on December 29, 2018, 05:55:13 AM
just going through the old chance-topics... and a question came up about "refulling"...

is using "transfering fuel to a planet" the same new rules as refulling?

so will a harvester (or the system body the harvester wants to drop the fuel) needs the new equipment/installation too?

I guess it will be the case (also of course the tanker which get's refueled)?

just wanted to be sure.. nice chance ... no more "dumping" all the fuel on a moon without installations for the harvesters...
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Steve Walmsley on December 29, 2018, 06:51:50 AM
just going through the old chance-topics... and a question came up about "refulling"...

is using "transfering fuel to a planet" the same new rules as refulling?

so will a harvester (or the system body the harvester wants to drop the fuel) needs the new equipment/installation too?

I guess it will be the case (also of course the tanker which get's refueled)?

just wanted to be sure.. nice chance ... no more "dumping" all the fuel on a moon without installations for the harvesters...

When transferring fuel to a colony, you need a refuelling system on the delivery ship and the colony needs a refuelling station or spaceport. You can transfer to a ship using a refuelling system (or hub, or station) and the target ship does not require any special equipment. If you send a tanker to collect fuel from the harvester, the harvester would still need the refuelling system as it is the 'tanker' in this situation. The refuelling system on the harvester also means that any ship can refuel at a harvester, not just tankers.
Title: Re: Boarding Combat / surrender
Post by: Steve Walmsley on December 29, 2018, 06:53:25 AM
As you said you are atm at "boarding combat" Steve..

is in your planing a point were a ship/crew in a desperate situation (no chance of winning) might surrender when/before beeing boarded?

in a war (better: between races that take POW's) it seems too lunatic to "fight to the last man"... so maybe if the captain of a ship nows that there is no point in resistence he/it should surrender when crippled (or even out-runned) - but at least when beeing boarded...

in a war with a race which does not take POW's (or worse, might even eat them) fighting to the last man (and even blow up the ship while beeing boarded to not let the enemy take it or the crew corpses) might make sense

this might also bring some more "differences" between NPR's (some take POW's others don't, others collect the bodys as food source)

Yes, that is a good point. I'll look at surrenders and the possibility of self-destruction using the species stats involved.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: King-Salomon on December 29, 2018, 07:51:46 AM
When transferring fuel to a colony, you need a refuelling system on the delivery ship and the colony needs a refuelling station or spaceport. You can transfer to a ship using a refuelling system (or hub, or station) and the target ship does not require any special equipment. If you send a tanker to collect fuel from the harvester, the harvester would still need the refuelling system as it is the 'tanker' in this situation. The refuelling system on the harvester also means that any ship can refuel at a harvester, not just tankers.

Thanks :) the first sentence was new to me :)

follow up question: will the player still need to "flag" a ship as a tanker or will it be flagged automaticaly if it get's added a refuelling system as only this would make the ship a tanker and every ship with this would be a tanker?
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Steve Walmsley on December 29, 2018, 08:06:51 AM
follow up question: will the player still need to "flag" a ship as a tanker or will it be flagged automaticaly if it get's added a refuelling system as only this would make the ship a tanker and every ship with this would be a tanker?

They are still separate at the moment, but that is a good point. Unless there are situation where a player might not want a ship flagged as a tanker (which I can't think of right now), I should probably remove the checkbox and just assign the tanker flag automatically.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Scandinavian on December 29, 2018, 08:18:04 AM
When transferring fuel to a colony, you need a refuelling system on the delivery ship and the colony needs a refuelling station or spaceport. You can transfer to a ship using a refuelling system (or hub, or station) and the target ship does not require any special equipment. If you send a tanker to collect fuel from the harvester, the harvester would still need the refuelling system as it is the 'tanker' in this situation. The refuelling system on the harvester also means that any ship can refuel at a harvester, not just tankers.
It seems a little strange to not allow full spaceports to unload fuel. I get why we'll want to make transfers one-way for the supply depots and underway replenishment systems, but it seems strange that a vessel built for moving fuel between established hubs would necessarily require the ability to perform underway refueling. Not suspension of disbelief breaking or anything, but strange.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Steve Walmsley on December 29, 2018, 08:46:20 AM
It seems a little strange to not allow full spaceports to unload fuel. I get why we'll want to make transfers one-way for the supply depots and underway replenishment systems, but it seems strange that a vessel built for moving fuel between established hubs would necessarily require the ability to perform underway refueling. Not suspension of disbelief breaking or anything, but strange.

The refuelling system isn't for underway - it is for all refuelling. If you want to refuel from a stationary tanker or base, it still needs a refuelling system (or a refuelling hub).

It's a little like a petrol (gas) station. Ideal for fuelling cars but not designed to remove fuel from the cars. When a petrol tanker turns up to add more fuel to the petrol station, the tanker pumps the fuel into the underground tanks - the station doesn't extract the fuel from the tanker.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Jovus on December 29, 2018, 09:03:05 AM
They are still separate at the moment, but that is a good point. Unless there are situation where a player might not want a ship flagged as a tanker (which I can't think of right now), I should probably remove the checkbox and just assign the tanker flag automatically.

I'd suggest (since it sounds like the checkbox etc are already in place) you should just leave it there and allow players to toggle it, but if someone adds a refueling system to a ship, turn it on automatically, and if someone takes all those systems off, toggle it off automatically.

If, as I suppose, the checkbox is already built and linked up as before, this seems both easier and a good way to avoid accidentally removing edge use cases. (Maybe, for example, someone wants to build a tanker that is huge and carries a lot of fuel itself, but relies on a small swarm of 'fuel movers' that themselves have 2 sets of refueling gear - one to connect to Big Momma, one to connect to the dry ship. I dunno.)

You can then sweep through and remove it later if it turns out nobody's using it.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: QuakeIV on December 29, 2018, 02:13:01 PM
It seems a little strange to not allow full spaceports to unload fuel. I get why we'll want to make transfers one-way for the supply depots and underway replenishment systems, but it seems strange that a vessel built for moving fuel between established hubs would necessarily require the ability to perform underway refueling. Not suspension of disbelief breaking or anything, but strange.

The refuelling system isn't for underway - it is for all refuelling. If you want to refuel from a stationary tanker or base, it still needs a refuelling system (or a refuelling hub).

It's a little like a petrol (gas) station. Ideal for fuelling cars but not designed to remove fuel from the cars. When a petrol tanker turns up to add more fuel to the petrol station, the tanker pumps the fuel into the underground tanks - the station doesn't extract the fuel from the tanker.

Thats not totally true, generally fuel trucks have fairly weak pumps and larger scale fuel depos will actually hook up a much more powerful pump to drain the truck quicker so that they can get on to draining the next truck.
Title: Spaceport
Post by: King-Salomon on December 30, 2018, 07:13:08 AM
A question about the Spaceport..

ships bigger than 500t can't land on a planet - so I thought a Spaceport (in technobable not coding) might be an orbital "Spacestation" and not a ground based installation...

but is seems I am wrong as it can be destroyed by Planetary Bombardment as collateral damage with a target-size of 1000 (http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=8495.msg107703#msg107703)...

as a spaceport deals with trading, resupply, refuel etc of big ships - shouldn't it be in some kind of "orbit" like a shipyard instead than being on the ground were the spaceships could not reach it - at least in terms of targeting it in space combat and being not able to target/destroy in land combat?
Title: Re: Spaceport
Post by: Steve Walmsley on December 30, 2018, 07:25:38 AM
A question about the Spaceport..

ships bigger than 500t can't land on a planet - so I thought a Spaceport (in technobable not coding) might be an orbital "Spacestation" and not a ground based installation...

but is seems I am wrong as it can be destroyed by Planetary Bombardment as collateral damage with a target-size of 1000 (http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=8495.msg107703#msg107703)...

as a spaceport deals with trading, resupply, refuel etc of big ships - shouldn't it be in some kind of "orbit" like a shipyard instead than being on the ground were the spaceships could not reach it - at least in terms of targeting it in space combat and being not able to target/destroy in land combat?

The spaceport is ground based but provides ground-to-orbit transfer (cargo shuttles, etc.). You could effectively build a spaceport in orbit though, using refuelling hub, an ordnance transfer hub and (when I get around to adding it) a cargo transfer hub). In fact, you could build that spaceport in deep space.
Title: Re: Spaceport
Post by: sloanjh on December 30, 2018, 07:44:35 AM
In fact, you could build that spaceport in deep space.

Just be prepared for the first four of them to suffer unpleasant mishaps :)

John
Title: Re: Spaceport
Post by: Steve Walmsley on December 30, 2018, 08:17:48 AM
In fact, you could build that spaceport in deep space.

Just be prepared for the first four of them to suffer unpleasant mishaps :)

John

Actually, when you build the fourth one, it will automatically appear at the start of your campaign.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Whitecold on December 30, 2018, 08:47:00 AM
Question: If my ship carries a boarding shuttle with a marine contingent, will these marines be properly included in a boarding combat situation? Currently there seems to be no need to be troop transport capabilities onto a ship if you are going to use a drop shuttle anyway.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: King-Salomon on December 30, 2018, 09:36:46 AM
Questions about boarding:

1) after the marines got into the enemy ship, is the "boarding ship" still needed to stay with the boarded ship or can it moved away?

2) after a successful boarding, will the marines (if the ship could moved away) needed to "transferred" again to there "home-ship" as there might be no troop-transport-bay in the "liberated" one or will they be "teleported automatically" to reduce micro?

3) as boarding might kill all the enemy crew, the "new ship crew" is 0 - will the necessary crew be taken from the Boarding ship (so it might be a good idea to have more crew in boarding ships than needed), any kind of ship and their might be an order to "split crew" between ships or will there just be a min moral of 25% according to "normal under-manning rule" (http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=8495.msg104052#msg104052) and the ship is "abandoned on overhaul" with 0 crew but functional? (or might the surviving marines act as temporary crew?)

4) is it possible to add specific a specific ground-troop-formation-typ to a ship-class with troop-bay like a missile or fighter load so that after being build the ship automatic gets the "marine detachment" (which is already on the yard-planet) loaded? - this would reduce the micro if the player decides to add his bigger warships with marine-detachments as this would be added by designing the class and all ships of these class add a formation after being build...
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Steve Walmsley on December 30, 2018, 09:44:55 AM
Questions about boarding:

1) after the marines got into the enemy ship, is the "boarding ship" still needed to stay with the boarded ship or can it moved away?

2) after a successful boarding, will the marines (if the ship could moved away) needed to "transferred" again to there "home-ship" as there might be no troop-transport-bay in the "liberated" one or will they be "teleported automatically" to reduce micro?

3) as boarding might kill all the enemy crew, the "new ship crew" is 0 - will the necessary crew be taken from the Boarding ship (so it might be a good idea to have more crew in boarding ships than needed), any kind of ship and their might be an order to "split crew" between ships or will there just be a min moral of 25% according to "normal under-manning rule" (http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=8495.msg104052#msg104052) and the ship is "abandoned on overhaul" with 0 crew but functional? (or might the surviving marines act as temporary crew?)

4) is it possible to add specific a specific ground-troop-formation-typ to a ship-class with troop-bay like a missile or fighter load so that after being build the ship automatic gets the "marine detachment" (which is already on the yard-planet) loaded? - this would reduce the micro if the player decides to add his bigger warships with marine-detachments as this would be added by designing the class and all ships of these class add a formation after being build...

1) It can move away immediately

2) Currently, the only way to get the marines off will be the normal unload procedure. I might add something to make this easier

3) Good question. For the moment, I think it would be undermanned. It sounds like I do need to have some way of transferring crew on and troops off in space.

4) That would be possible, but not straightforward. I'll give it some thought.
Title: Re: Spaceport
Post by: Kurt on December 30, 2018, 09:57:16 AM
In fact, you could build that spaceport in deep space.

Just be prepared for the first four of them to suffer unpleasant mishaps :)

John

Actually, when you build the fourth one, it will automatically appear at the start of your campaign.


Darn it!  I'm getting an increasing itch to re-watch B5 and you guys aren't helping!

Right now I'm watching Legends of the Galactic Heroes Gaiden, so it'll be a while, but I really miss B5. 

Kurt
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Steve Walmsley on December 30, 2018, 10:00:54 AM
Question: If my ship carries a boarding shuttle with a marine contingent, will these marines be properly included in a boarding combat situation? Currently there seems to be no need to be troop transport capabilities onto a ship if you are going to use a drop shuttle anyway.

Not sure which way around you mean. If the marines are on a boarding shuttle on the the attacking ship, that shuttle would need to be detached and be ordered to attack separately. If the marines are on a boarding shuttle on the defending ship, they will fight to protect the mothership.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Kurt on December 30, 2018, 10:01:14 AM
Questions about boarding:

1) after the marines got into the enemy ship, is the "boarding ship" still needed to stay with the boarded ship or can it moved away?

2) after a successful boarding, will the marines (if the ship could moved away) needed to "transferred" again to there "home-ship" as there might be no troop-transport-bay in the "liberated" one or will they be "teleported automatically" to reduce micro?

3) as boarding might kill all the enemy crew, the "new ship crew" is 0 - will the necessary crew be taken from the Boarding ship (so it might be a good idea to have more crew in boarding ships than needed), any kind of ship and their might be an order to "split crew" between ships or will there just be a min moral of 25% according to "normal under-manning rule" (http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=8495.msg104052#msg104052) and the ship is "abandoned on overhaul" with 0 crew but functional? (or might the surviving marines act as temporary crew?)

4) is it possible to add specific a specific ground-troop-formation-typ to a ship-class with troop-bay like a missile or fighter load so that after being build the ship automatic gets the "marine detachment" (which is already on the yard-planet) loaded? - this would reduce the micro if the player decides to add his bigger warships with marine-detachments as this would be added by designing the class and all ships of these class add a formation after being build...

1) It can move away immediately

2) Currently, the only way to get the marines off will be the normal unload procedure. I might add something to make this easier

3) Good question. For the moment, I think it would be undermanned. It sounds like I do need to have some way of transferring crew on and troops off in space.

4) That would be possible, but not straightforward. I'll give it some thought.

For #3, historically, warships/privateers/pirates would generally transfer a "prize crew" aboard a captured ship.  This prize crew would be capable of getting the ship to dock, but little else.  Perhaps if ships had the option of being "under crewed", once they achieved that status, either through capture by boarding or combat damage, they would only be able to move, not fire offensive weapons. 

Kurt
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Steve Walmsley on December 30, 2018, 10:06:05 AM
For #3, historically, warships/privateers/pirates would generally transfer a "prize crew" aboard a captured ship.  This prize crew would be capable of getting the ship to dock, but little else.  Perhaps if ships had the option of being "under crewed", once they achieved that status, either through capture by boarding or combat damage, they would only be able to move, not fire offensive weapons. 

C# Aurora does have rules for under-manning, once the ship falls below half the normal crew. The morale will fall to a minimum of 25%, so that should simulate the prize crew or the marines getting the ship home.

What I don't have at the moment are rules or code for zero crew, which actually works out fine for the above, but if I ever want the concept of intact but abandoned ships (anti-crew weapons, plague, etc.) I will need to address that.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Hazard on December 30, 2018, 10:35:11 AM
Regarding boarded ships; prize crews should not be more than needed to run the bridge, engines, sensors, and the engineering command station, and then only partial. The point of a prize ship isn't that you turn it around and press it into service, it's that you bring it home so it can be studied and made compatible with your own control systems.

This includes a lot of relabeling of gauges and translating of manuals.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Garfunkel on December 30, 2018, 10:46:04 AM
Quite excited about the boarding changes. To my shame, I've never done successful boardings in VB6, so that will definitely have to change in C#.

This includes a lot of relabeling of gauges and translating of manuals.
Not to mention changing tentacle-controls to finger-controls  :P
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Barkhorn on January 02, 2019, 06:25:55 PM
While boarding is still on everyone's mind:

What happens if you abandon ship while being boarded?  Does the ship still become a wreck, or do the boarders automatically succeed?

If a ship is destroyed while repelling boarders, what happens to the boarders?  Do they have a chance to make it to an escape pod, or do they all die?

What happens to boarders who succeed in capturing a ship that does not have troop transport capability?
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Panopticon on January 02, 2019, 10:15:49 PM
I have a question about system generation.
I assume C# Aurora will have a real stars/randomly generated option, but have you considered giving us the ability to customize our home system at all? I envision something like being able to select sun type, binary/trinary/etc, number of planets, presence and number of asteroid belts, and so on.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Father Tim on January 02, 2019, 11:44:17 PM
What happens to boarders who succeed in capturing a ship that does not have troop transport capability?

They (probably) overload its life support capability and suffer the appropriate penalties.
http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=8495.msg104052;topicseen#msg104052 (http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=8495.msg104052;topicseen#msg104052)

And they need Cargo Shuttles (or the Troops equivalent) to get back off.
http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=8495.msg105591#msg105591 (http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=8495.msg105591#msg105591)
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Father Tim on January 02, 2019, 11:55:46 PM
I have a question about system generation.
I assume C# Aurora will have a real stars/randomly generated option, but have you considered giving us the ability to customize our home system at all? I envision something like being able to select sun type, binary/trinary/etc, number of planets, presence and number of asteroid belts, and so on.

In the past Steve has said no, because the system generation code is so complex and inter-linked.  It's faster to generate new systems until you get one close to what you want.  (Save for the 'Add Comet' and 'Add Ruins' and 'Add Precursor' buttons in SM mode, F9 (System) window.)

Please note that creating a habitable world is easy.  All you need is a rock (not gas giant) with appropriate gravity and then SM the atmosphere to Nitr-Ox or Nitro-Methane and Greenhouse or Anti-Greenhouse to a reasonable temperature.  Any race created there will be ideally suited to the world.

It is only slightly more difficult to make a Hamun-habitable planet/moon.  Follow the exact same steps above; the only difference is that the "appropriate gravity" and "reasonable temperature" are already picked for you.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Panopticon on January 03, 2019, 12:18:11 AM
I have a question about system generation.
I assume C# Aurora will have a real stars/randomly generated option, but have you considered giving us the ability to customize our home system at all? I envision something like being able to select sun type, binary/trinary/etc, number of planets, presence and number of asteroid belts, and so on.

In the past Steve has said no, because the system generation code is so complex and inter-linked.  It's faster to generate new systems until you get one close to what you want.  (Save for the 'Add Comet' and 'Add Ruins' and 'Add Precursor' buttons in SM mode, F9 (System) window.)

Please note that creating a habitable world is easy.  All you need is a rock (not gas giant) with appropriate gravity and then SM the atmosphere to Nitr-Ox or Nitro-Methane and Greenhouse or Anti-Greenhouse to a reasonable temperature.  Any race created there will be ideally suited to the world.

It is only slightly more difficult to make a Hamun-habitable planet/moon.  Follow the exact same steps above; the only difference is that the "appropriate gravity" and "reasonable temperature" are already picked for you.

I am aware of how it was in the past, having done it myself a number of times, while fairly simple it was also not exactly intuitive either, but what if I want   to make a binary system with 3 asteroid belts and 4 Earths? I'd rather not rerun game generation until it gave me an appropriate system and then manually tinker with the atmosphere.

What I sort of envision is a "use custom starting system" on the new game menu, which then brings up a list of options that I mentioned above, that system is used as the start in place of Sol and the rest of the universe is generated normally. Could even save them as templates for future games. Not gonna be mad if it doesn't/can't happen of course, and I just realized this isn't the suggestions thread, but I figure it can't hurt to ask if he has any plans for customization like that.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Steve Walmsley on January 03, 2019, 06:10:41 AM
I have a question about system generation.
I assume C# Aurora will have a real stars/randomly generated option, but have you considered giving us the ability to customize our home system at all? I envision something like being able to select sun type, binary/trinary/etc, number of planets, presence and number of asteroid belts, and so on.

It is very complex with a lot of constraints, so a custom system would require a huge amount of input from the player without the player necessarily understanding the impact of the choices he is making. It would be a lot faster just to generate systems until you find one in which you modify environmental conditions to create one or more habitable worlds. In fact, that is exactly what the code does for generation of starting NPR home systems.

Another option (in VB6 and C#) is that you can choose which 'real stars' system to generate, so if you want a binary, trinary, or specific stellar types, etc, you can keep generating that same system until it creates a layout you prefer.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Whitecold on January 03, 2019, 06:44:18 AM
I have a question about system generation.
I assume C# Aurora will have a real stars/randomly generated option, but have you considered giving us the ability to customize our home system at all? I envision something like being able to select sun type, binary/trinary/etc, number of planets, presence and number of asteroid belts, and so on.

It is very complex with a lot of constraints, so a custom system would require a huge amount of input from the player without the player necessarily understanding the impact of the choices he is making. It would be a lot faster just to generate systems until you find one in which you modify environmental conditions to create one or more habitable worlds. In fact, that is exactly what the code does for generation of starting NPR home systems.

Another option (in VB6 and C#) is that you can choose which 'real stars' system to generate, so if you want a binary, trinary, or specific stellar types, etc, you can keep generating that same system until it creates a layout you prefer.

Making a "generate home system" would be useful on its own, letting the algorithm run until it finds a candidate for an NPR home system. You'll still need to click it a few times to get your desired start, but it would be an improvement.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: clement on January 03, 2019, 06:52:24 AM
Steve,

In the Mesons thread you mentioned that NPRs will not make significant changes to their ship designs as they encounter our ships and strategies which is understandable. Will the NPRs be capable of changes like:
Increasing or scaling up their standard armor thickness upon determining enemy common missile warhead size?
Increasing allocations of ships in the AMM role if they encounter overwhelming missile combat like missile swarm?

Basically changing the ratio of ship roles in a fleet or ratios of things like armor within a ship.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Steve Walmsley on January 03, 2019, 09:58:43 AM
Steve,

In the Mesons thread you mentioned that NPRs will not make significant changes to their ship designs as they encounter our ships and strategies which is understandable. Will the NPRs be capable of changes like:
Increasing or scaling up their standard armor thickness upon determining enemy common missile warhead size?
Increasing allocations of ships in the AMM role if they encounter overwhelming missile combat like missile swarm?

Basically changing the ratio of ship roles in a fleet or ratios of things like armor within a ship.

Not with the current code as I haven't done combat AI yet. However, they are capable of monitoring, learning about and analysing alien ships, including their weapons, speed, anti-missile capabilities, passive defences, etc.. In the short-term this is so they can make decisions about whether to engage and how much force is required. Longer-term, I may add some code that allows them to adapt but I don't want to get too creative too soon. I want the basics working well first.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Steve Walmsley on January 03, 2019, 09:59:39 AM
Making a "generate home system" would be useful on its own, letting the algorithm run until it finds a candidate for an NPR home system. You'll still need to click it a few times to get your desired start, but it would be an improvement.

Yes, that would be straightforward.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Rich.h on January 04, 2019, 03:20:44 AM
Steve,

In the Mesons thread you mentioned that NPRs will not make significant changes to their ship designs as they encounter our ships and strategies which is understandable. Will the NPRs be capable of changes like:
Increasing or scaling up their standard armor thickness upon determining enemy common missile warhead size?
Increasing allocations of ships in the AMM role if they encounter overwhelming missile combat like missile swarm?

Basically changing the ratio of ship roles in a fleet or ratios of things like armor within a ship.

Not with the current code as I haven't done combat AI yet. However, they are capable of monitoring, learning about and analysing alien ships, including their weapons, speed, anti-missile capabilities, passive defences, etc.. In the short-term this is so they can make decisions about whether to engage and how much force is required. Longer-term, I may add some code that allows them to adapt but I don't want to get too creative too soon. I want the basics working well first.

Does this then mean the AI for all NPR and spoiler races will make "intelligent" choices regarding combat? If I happen to have a full fleet or some such in a system will they decide to run away or perhaps just shadow me at a distance instead of closing in to attack even in war times?
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: TMaekler on January 04, 2019, 05:27:53 AM
Does this then mean the AI for all NPR and spoiler races will make "intelligent" choices regarding combat? If I happen to have a full fleet or some such in a system will they decide to run away or perhaps just shadow me at a distance instead of closing in to attack even in war times?
Would be nice if the AI could reach that level of smartness :-)
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Father Tim on January 04, 2019, 05:42:38 AM
Does this then mean the AI for all NPR and spoiler races will make "intelligent" choices regarding combat? If I happen to have a full fleet or some such in a system will they decide to run away or perhaps just shadow me at a distance instead of closing in to attack even in war times?

That is Steve's stated goal.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Steve Walmsley on January 04, 2019, 07:03:12 AM
Does this then mean the AI for all NPR and spoiler races will make "intelligent" choices regarding combat? If I happen to have a full fleet or some such in a system will they decide to run away or perhaps just shadow me at a distance instead of closing in to attack even in war times?

Yes, that is what I hope.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: TMaekler on January 08, 2019, 10:07:37 AM
Is there an option to define a percentage of how many systems have any bodies at all? Most of the systems Aurora generates are filled with system bodies. For the new possibility of space stations it would be nice to have more system which don't have anything at all in them.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: TMaekler on January 10, 2019, 05:56:32 PM
In this posting
http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=8495.msg102701#msg102701

we can find the new active sensor model.
When I try to recalculate those values in excel, I get a difference.

For the first entry:
Racial Sensor Strength = 21
Hull Size = 1
Racial EM Sensitivity = 11
Resolution = 200

I get the result of your sheet: 50.146.549,1 km

However for the second entry:
RSS = 42
HS = 2

I get the result of 100.293.098,3 km - which differs from your value of 70.917.930. If I only enter either 42 OR 2 and leave the other at the old values of 21 OR 1, the result fits to yours. Is your sheet wrong or do I misunderstand the formula you have given?
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: TMaekler on January 10, 2019, 06:00:08 PM
Ah, never mind. The "Sensor Strength" in the second tab isn't the "Racial Sensor Strength", but the Racial Sensor Strength multiplied by the HS.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: clement on January 11, 2019, 12:28:46 PM
When building troop formations, will the required manpower be taken from the local population?

Likewise, if you disband or destroy a troop formation, will any manpower go into the local population?

Also, will some percent of the TN materials used to create the equipment for the troop formation be recovered?
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Steve Walmsley on January 11, 2019, 12:36:56 PM
When building troop formations, will the required manpower be taken from the local population?

Likewise, if you disband or destroy a troop formation, will any manpower go into the local population?

Also, will some percent of the TN materials used to create the equipment for the troop formation be recovered?

No, the manpower is provided automatically. Unless the population is very small, the size of Aurora formations is not going to make an appreciable difference. Also, I don't want to specify exact vehicle or static weapon crews. At the moment, there is no scrapping but I will include some reclamation when I add it.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: King-Salomon on January 11, 2019, 01:46:44 PM
Question about spaceports:

If I am not wring, a spaceport is a combination of Cargo Shuttle Station, Ordnance Transfer Station and Refuelling Station - cost 3600 BP (2400 first but 3600 with the Ordnance Transfer chances), need 1mio worker and weights 80 factories...

now my question: if I am correct, building the 3 installations instead of the Spaceport they would cost 3600 BP, need 0 worker and weight 30factories (if the Cargo Shuttle Station is only 10 like the other two)...

are the numbers correct or am I missing something that would count for the higher numbers for the spaceport?
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Steve Walmsley on January 11, 2019, 02:18:02 PM
Question about spaceports:

If I am not wring, a spaceport is a combination of Cargo Shuttle Station, Ordnance Transfer Station and Refuelling Station - cost 3600 BP (2400 first but 3600 with the Ordnance Transfer chances), need 1mio worker and weights 80 factories...

now my question: if I am correct, building the 3 installations instead of the Spaceport they would cost 3600 BP, need 0 worker and weight 30factories (if the Cargo Shuttle Station is only 10 like the other two)...

are the numbers correct or am I missing something that would count for the higher numbers for the spaceport?

You can only build space stations at a planet with a spaceport.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: King-Salomon on January 14, 2019, 04:41:04 PM
2 Questions about Auto Assignment:

http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=8495.msg104046#msg104046

1) Which Priority for Auto Assignment have Admin Commands? Will they be selected before or after ship commanders? Before would make sense as they are pretty important - after would make sense as the rang depends on the highest ship-captain-rang.... Couldn't find anything about them...

2) If I get it right, Commanders will get assigned to all Fighters by the Crew Training Bonus as Priority 3 or 4 (or don't they count as "Warships" at all for this?)  ... Could it be possible to change this for Fighters with "Fighter Pod Bays" to the new "Ground Support Bonus"? Would make sense to man Fighters that are designed for Ground Combat with ground combat specialists..
I know that you can assign them yourself but assigning 100s of Fighterpilots... would be great to teach this to the Auto Assignment (maybe a suggestion for later: include a check were the player can select which Bonus for a class design commander should be used)
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Father Tim on January 14, 2019, 06:00:52 PM
1 - None.  It is assumed you care enough about these (and will have few enough) that you will assign their officers manually.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: King-Salomon on January 15, 2019, 12:37:52 AM
1 - None.  It is assumed you care enough about these (and will have few enough) that you will assign their officers manually.

this would mean that NPR don't assign Commander to there Admin Commands at all as they would use the same priority list as Auto Assignment as far as I understand it... which would bring NPRs to an even bigger disadvantage ...

also with the possibility to add multiple layer of Admin Commands there might be a little more around than just "few enough" I think...
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Steve Walmsley on January 15, 2019, 06:08:57 AM
1 - None.  It is assumed you care enough about these (and will have few enough) that you will assign their officers manually.

this would mean that NPR don't assign Commander to there Admin Commands at all as they would use the same priority list as Auto Assignment as far as I understand it... which would bring NPRs to an even bigger disadvantage ...

also with the possibility to add multiple layer of Admin Commands there might be a little more around than just "few enough" I think...

NPRs have their own code for assigning administrators.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: King-Salomon on January 15, 2019, 06:20:05 AM
NPRs have their own code for assigning administrators.

sorry, I meant not civilian Administrators but the new Naval Admin-Command Commanders ... should have been more clearly
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Father Tim on January 15, 2019, 07:56:54 AM
I'm pretty sure Steve's point stands.  'Auto-Assign' does not assign ship's officers to 'Flag' Staffs, for lack of a clearer term.  NPR 'Officer AI' is not the same thing as Auto-Assign, and despite significant overlap does not follow the exact same rules nor fill the exact same positions.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Garfunkel on January 16, 2019, 02:01:07 PM
Hey Steve, have you added a new Stellar catalogue to the game? I can't recall ever seeing IRAS 21500+5903 or something similar before.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Steve Walmsley on January 16, 2019, 03:49:46 PM
Hey Steve, have you added a new Stellar catalogue to the game? I can't recall ever seeing IRAS 21500+5903 or something similar before.

Yes, there are a few additions:

http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=8495.msg107348#msg107348
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: King-Salomon on January 16, 2019, 03:55:14 PM
Question about Fighters in Ground Combat:

Is is still possible in C# to add shields into Fighter? I was thinking about the new Ground Combat mechanics and I guess a fighter with shield could be a little OP with the way it works...

also:

let's say both enemy parties have landforces but only the defender has fighters involved - no side has AA or other anti-fighter weapons... The defender gets all it's land units destroyed but has still it's land based fighters... will the land battle be over or (as the defender has still fighters) go on with the fighters bombarding the attacker without he has a chance to fight back till he is destroyed? (sorry stupid question but I didn't found a point when a battle is "won")
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Steve Walmsley on January 16, 2019, 04:46:34 PM
Question about Fighters in Ground Combat:

Is is still possible in C# to add shields into Fighter? I was thinking about the new Ground Combat mechanics and I guess a fighter with shield could be a little OP with the way it works...

also:

let's say both enemy parties have landforces but only the defender has fighters involved - no side has AA or other anti-fighter weapons... The defender gets all it's land units destroyed but has still it's land based fighters... will the land battle be over or (as the defender has still fighters) go on with the fighters bombarding the attacker without he has a chance to fight back till he is destroyed? (sorry stupid question but I didn't found a point when a battle is "won")

I haven't coded the 'conquest' part yet :)

I will probably have something similar to VB6 where you need a certain amount of ground units to force a surrender. Fighters won't change that for attacker or defender.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Jorgen_CAB on January 16, 2019, 07:45:32 PM
I was reading through the combat mechanic on the Wiki and one thing that struck me as a potential loophole (or it might be intentional) is using the fact the the defensive front-line only engages enemy front-line troops.

Say you make a contested landing an a planet with a good chunk of enemy troops is it possible to simply land mostly infantry or other units good at absorbing damage and put them all in supporting line and have no troops in the front line at all?

If this is possible you would force the enemy to come out of their fortifications to attack you and you could start to dig in your infantry. Once you are dug in good enough you can move them to front line and start attacking the enemy on more equal footing. You can deploy most support and artillery in rear echelon until you are ready to attack and have them fortify as well.

Would this be possible?
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Hazard on January 16, 2019, 11:38:41 PM
It shouldn't. IIRC correctly, the front most line with troops is the actual front line. If the Attack and Defense lines are empty, that means the Support line is now your front line.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Steve Walmsley on January 17, 2019, 04:58:54 AM
I was reading through the combat mechanic on the Wiki and one thing that struck me as a potential loophole (or it might be intentional) is using the fact the the defensive front-line only engages enemy front-line troops.

Say you make a contested landing an a planet with a good chunk of enemy troops is it possible to simply land mostly infantry or other units good at absorbing damage and put them all in supporting line and have no troops in the front line at all?

If this is possible you would force the enemy to come out of their fortifications to attack you and you could start to dig in your infantry. Once you are dug in good enough you can move them to front line and start attacking the enemy on more equal footing. You can deploy most support and artillery in rear echelon until you are ready to attack and have them fortify as well.

Would this be possible?

As coded, I think it is possible. Now you have me thinking whether it is a good idea. I had worked on the assumption that both sides would use front line, but of course the scenario you outline is possible too. It probably is reasonable that the strategic attacker could decline to engage and that the strategic defender would have to decide whether to abandon his fortifications to force the issue or just hold in place. I'll give it some thought.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: dukea42 on January 17, 2019, 08:43:49 AM
Quote from: Steve Walmsley link=topic=10097. msg112204#msg112204 date=1547722734
As coded, I think it is possible.  Now you have me thinking whether it is a good idea.  I had worked on the assumption that both sides would use front line, but of course the scenario you outline is possible too.  It probably is reasonable that the strategic attacker could decline to engage and that the strategic defender would have to decide whether to abandon his fortifications to force the issue or just hold in place.  I'll give it some thought.

Sounds like a proper siege.  Sally forth early or hold out and race to see who gets the most reinforcements.   Or alternatively, seems very WW1 with a long phase of entrenchment.

I think it's very good for Aurora to have the tension building elements before the action.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Jorgen_CAB on January 17, 2019, 08:59:39 AM
Quote from: Steve Walmsley link=topic=10097. msg112204#msg112204 date=1547722734
As coded, I think it is possible.  Now you have me thinking whether it is a good idea.  I had worked on the assumption that both sides would use front line, but of course the scenario you outline is possible too.  It probably is reasonable that the strategic attacker could decline to engage and that the strategic defender would have to decide whether to abandon his fortifications to force the issue or just hold in place.  I'll give it some thought.

Sounds like a proper siege.  Sally forth early or hold out and race to see who gets the most reinforcements.   Or alternatively, seems very WW1 with a long phase of entrenchment.

I think it's very good for Aurora to have the tension building elements before the action.

I would have no real problem with it in general... waiting to fortify your troops will take time and time might be just what the defenders need to have a rescue fleet arrive and drive the offenders off the planet.

But if this is the intention with the combat mechanic you could make it less micro and simply have a command toggle for the defensive front line to not engage and in turn the opponents defensive line can't engage you either, only units with attack orders (front-line attack position) can engage the enemy forces at that point (for either side).

This would actually make sense and not force you to micro the system as much. You could make it more likely for attacking units to hit support and rear echelon units if the defending front line is not actively trying to engage. The benefit being you will not be hit by the opponent defensive front line troops anymore.

I see no reason why forces on a planet must attack each other all the time... you could very well have long periods of stalemate in fighting where no side rally want to take the initiative.

At least this is something I will use in my multi-faction campaigns and I can just sett all front line troops into support line for both side to temporarily end hostilities, sort of a temporary truce.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Hazard on January 17, 2019, 10:25:23 AM
Any force that is not actively seeking combat but knows that the enemy is, will deploy to protect its own assets as well as possible while staying outside the enemy's capacity to engage. It's extremely unlikely that in such an event an attacking force is likely to hit the support and rear echelon forces, as any defenses will be calculated to force an engagement at the outermost defenses and keep it there if possible, or if it's not supporting forces and other defenses will be positioned so that as many hard points and other defenses lay as possible between the likely axes of advance and the supporting elements of those defenses.

Support/Rear Echelon engagement is actually more likely for attacking support and rear echelon forces due to the risk of counter attacks forcing through the attacker's lines, the need to keep such forces closer to the front to give some extra space for the advance and sallies from bottled up defenders further behind the lines.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Jorgen_CAB on January 17, 2019, 10:36:06 AM
Any force that is not actively seeking combat but knows that the enemy is, will deploy to protect its own assets as well as possible while staying outside the enemy's capacity to engage. It's extremely unlikely that in such an event an attacking force is likely to hit the support and rear echelon forces, as any defenses will be calculated to force an engagement at the outermost defenses and keep it there if possible, or if it's not supporting forces and other defenses will be positioned so that as many hard points and other defenses lay as possible between the likely axes of advance and the supporting elements of those defenses.

Support/Rear Echelon engagement is actually more likely for attacking support and rear echelon forces due to the risk of counter attacks forcing through the attacker's lines, the need to keep such forces closer to the front to give some extra space for the advance and sallies from bottled up defenders further behind the lines.

While that could be true you could also view it as a rather rigid and immobile defense that are quite passive, otherwise the front line is regarded as engaging the enemy with mobile counter attacks and such. That would be the whole idea of a fortified defensive front engaging the enemy with more active warfare.

I mainly suggested it as a balancing mechanic to the option of being able to not engage defensive units as a proper intentional effect.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Hazard on January 17, 2019, 12:47:58 PM
Even during the lulls in the trench warfare of WW1 with both sides licking their wounds there was a lot of active probing of enemy positions, infiltration, intelligence gathering, maintenance of the wire and mine fields and so on. And in earlier warfare there would still be skirmishing between the archers on the walls and besiegers' archers, trying to snipe at valuable targets or just putting pressure on the other side by the risk of casualties.

Rigid and immobile a defense may be, but it's rarely passive.

Passive forces eventually get attacked to see if they're weaker than expected.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Garfunkel on January 17, 2019, 01:35:06 PM
I agree with Hazard here. We also have to remember that we're talking about combat on a planetary scale. Now it might just be a ten guys versus twenty tentacles on a planet the size of Jupiter, or it could be twenty million souls versus five billion death-machines on an asteroid, and so a mechanic should work and be reasonably "logical" in both cases.

The loophole that Jorgen_CAB brought up is, IMHO, not a loophole at all but a very valid tactic for an attacker to take when facing heavily fortified defenders, and that dilemma of sallying forth or remaining in the forts is a very real thing that has plagued human commanders through the history. But it doesn't make the attackers support/rear echelon units any more vulnerable.

I also agree with Jorgen on the tempo of planetary combat. There should be lulls and pauses where combat intensity goes down - not completely passive, as wars are never that, but no force can maintain maximum intensity forever.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: space dwarf on January 17, 2019, 03:16:08 PM
Of course, if you keep all your troops back "in Support" and just plug away with artillery, what's to stop the defenders from doing the same to you?
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Hazard on January 17, 2019, 03:50:43 PM
The fact that it's far more efficient for the enemy to close in and attack, since that gives him much greater chances of murdering your artillery, which would normally be sheltered by your front lines?
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Jorgen_CAB on January 17, 2019, 05:33:53 PM
Even during the lulls in the trench warfare of WW1 with both sides licking their wounds there was a lot of active probing of enemy positions, infiltration, intelligence gathering, maintenance of the wire and mine fields and so on. And in earlier warfare there would still be skirmishing between the archers on the walls and besiegers' archers, trying to snipe at valuable targets or just putting pressure on the other side by the risk of casualties.

Rigid and immobile a defense may be, but it's rarely passive.

Passive forces eventually get attacked to see if they're weaker than expected.

Within the game mechanic that would be units set at Attacking Frontal Position... they would act like skirmishers in smaller numbers. So that would be well simulated in an abstract way.

You could very well have a few tank companies or similar keep harassing the enemy forces or some such.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Jorgen_CAB on January 17, 2019, 05:44:56 PM
I agree with Hazard here. We also have to remember that we're talking about combat on a planetary scale. Now it might just be a ten guys versus twenty tentacles on a planet the size of Jupiter, or it could be twenty million souls versus five billion death-machines on an asteroid, and so a mechanic should work and be reasonably "logical" in both cases.

The loophole that Jorgen_CAB brought up is, IMHO, not a loophole at all but a very valid tactic for an attacker to take when facing heavily fortified defenders, and that dilemma of sallying forth or remaining in the forts is a very real thing that has plagued human commanders through the history. But it doesn't make the attackers support/rear echelon units any more vulnerable.

I also agree with Jorgen on the tempo of planetary combat. There should be lulls and pauses where combat intensity goes down - not completely passive, as wars are never that, but no force can maintain maximum intensity forever.

You could represent this by setting your defensive line to passive by reducing the chances an element with actually do an attack during every 3 hour setting on both sides. You don't need to halt the conflict entirely. Whatever make sense and is easiest from a game mechanic perspective.

I do think that the potential way you can do it in the current iteration of the combat rules will require unnecessary micro and should be "fixed" since it is not intentional. Replace it with a way to reduce the tempo of the fighting. Sometimes you might just save on supplies for a  shipment of supplies to reach the planet or industry to produce it or something.

Especially when you role-play there can be many reasons for two sides to want to be throwing rocks at each other and never really engage their troops fully, just stall for time for some reason or just spare lives while diplomacy or some other conflict to resolve the issue.

Let's say I play a multi faction Earth and two factions go to war, perhaps they do not want to play out a full scale war on Earth and make it about a specific colony using mostly space marines and ships in the target system to deal with the conflict... I really think this is an important consideration.

There should be an easy mechanic to simulate this without having to micro units and shuffle them from front to support line.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Rabid_Cog on January 18, 2019, 02:07:04 AM
Do two empires at war automatically fight if their ground units are on the same planetary body? Back in VB6 Aurora you actually have to set your units to "Attack" otherwise they just stand there looking at the enemy (or defend themselves if the enemy sets their units to attack).
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Jorgen_CAB on January 18, 2019, 09:10:07 AM
Do two empires at war automatically fight if their ground units are on the same planetary body? Back in VB6 Aurora you actually have to set your units to "Attack" otherwise they just stand there looking at the enemy (or defend themselves if the enemy sets their units to attack).

I hope we will get something similar in C#... you don't always want to engage ground troops in all locations during every type of wars. There should hopefully be that option.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Nori on January 18, 2019, 11:54:40 AM
I've read the changes list over time, but I think I might be missing something. Has size 1 missile (abuse) spam been mitigated. It seems like missiles are generally going to be slower and/or shorter range, but I'm not sure that addresses excessive size 1 spam.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: TCD on January 18, 2019, 12:38:27 PM
I've read the changes list over time, but I think I might be missing something. Has size 1 missile (abuse) spam been mitigated. It seems like missiles are generally going to be slower and/or shorter range, but I'm not sure that addresses excessive size 1 spam.
There are a lot of moving parts, but there is a notable change to ECM/ECCM for missiles, as both are now a fixed 0.25 MSP for missiles, and the missile ECCM is what counters ship ECM for hit chance. Steve said that "Large volleys of size-1 missiles will be less effective in a heavy EW environment and no longer have a huge advantage in launching speed (due to the missile launcher changes)." Obviously that may or may not hold true in actual playtesting.

Box launchers also got nerfed a bit I think, especially give them an explosion chance which makes the old size 1 box launch ship very vulnerable now.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Jorgen_CAB on January 18, 2019, 12:54:48 PM
I've read the changes list over time, but I think I might be missing something. Has size 1 missile (abuse) spam been mitigated. It seems like missiles are generally going to be slower and/or shorter range, but I'm not sure that addresses excessive size 1 spam.

You will eventually need to use electronics in them in order for them to be accurate, this will make them bigger in general. You are likely to use AMM at 1-2 in size for this reason.

Small missiles will probably have quite restrictive range as ASM as you will need allot of electronics in them now and smaller engines are less fuel efficient than before, especially with a high power setting. If the yield in them is too small you can also begin absorbing some of them on your passive defenses such as shields etc... this is something many don't consider as a viable way to combat missiles. You are not forced to stop them all, just enough to not hurt you too much.

These factors should make missiles grow relatively large in comparison to how they were designed before.

Although you will need a decent tech level before electronics is usable. The way I see it the first two levels and ECM and ECCM rarely make them better, rather worse in many cases. At 20% I think it is a toss up if they are usable or not, in some circumstances they perhaps is usable in others not so much. I think these techs should start at 20% and not 10%... the first level could be more expensive as a compensation.

I could see that you perhaps want to have both slower long range missiles and shorter ranged faster missiles against enemy ships, they would probably both serve a purpose in the game. You could also want larger missiles with smaller sub munition missiles (MIRV). But they have their own problems since they are very slow and subject to be intercepted before the sub munition is released.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Nori on January 18, 2019, 05:08:20 PM
Thanks for the replies. I had to refresh my memory on how ECM affected missiles in the VB version. It appears that ECM got far better against missiles in C# because it now effects their hit chance, if I'm reading this all correctly.

I wasn't too sure how the lower range would change size 1s but it would probably make them pretty short ranged now that you mention it.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Jorgen_CAB on January 19, 2019, 09:01:15 AM
Thanks for the replies. I had to refresh my memory on how ECM affected missiles in the VB version. It appears that ECM got far better against missiles in C# because it now effects their hit chance, if I'm reading this all correctly.

I wasn't too sure how the lower range would change size 1s but it would probably make them pretty short ranged now that you mention it.

The thing is that a high power setting will be MUCH more fuel costly so as ASM they will only be useful with the highest setting (x6) as either sub munition in a MIRV or very short ranged missiles. The problem with submunitio is that they will have problem fitting all the necessary electronics and will suffer from that and have either very low yield or extremely short range so you have many chances to intercept the first stage. Larger missiles will have more efficient engines but you are also likely to use lower power multiplier on long range missiles now as opposed to always using the highest setting as you did before. Now there will be a real choice.


This will probably make fighters a very good platform for delivering god mid to short range ASM missiles and be one of the stronger ways to conduct offensive warfare without huge losses in life and important equipment. Small missile fire-controls is also more potent now so fighters will have a decently good stand off capability to capital ships.

You will also be able to build much more potent self guided missiles since very small active and passive sensors will be really good now. This can make big long range missiles very potent.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: TMaekler on January 28, 2019, 03:17:13 PM
Was it anywhere adressed if the C# version will be playable without the launcher app? Or are the language and number settings still relevant?

In regards to "Auto-Assignment of Naval Commanders": both, the primary and secondary assignment priority are of decending order; how about the commander priority? Will that also be a decending order?

"Forced Labor Camps": Do they effect the pacification of an occupied population? Meaning, do they slow that process down, even to a point of driving them into revolts?
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Father Tim on January 28, 2019, 04:13:05 PM
Was it anywhere adressed if the C# version will be playable without the launcher app? Or are the language and number settings still relevant?

In regards to "Auto-Assignment of Naval Commanders": both, the primary and secondary assignment priority are of decending order; how about the commander priority? Will that also be a decending order?

"Forced Labor Camps": Do they effect the pacification of an occupied population? Meaning, do they slow that process down, even to a point of driving them into revolts?

1.  Considering that the launcher app is not written, provided, endorsed, or bug-checked by Steve, I am 100% confident that C# Aurora will not require it.
     --  Though not being one to use French/German settings (i.e. comma for decimal separator, etc.) I have no idea how C# handles the "wrong" system settings.

2.  Auto-assignemnt has changed a lot.  "For auto-assignment purposes, each ship class now has a specific rank requirement for its commander, based on its command and control modules."
http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=8495.msg101818#msg101818 (http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=8495.msg101818#msg101818)

3.  It appears they will speed it up, as each FLB will "consume" a chunk of population, thus reducing the amount of Police Strength needed for occupation.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: King-Salomon on January 31, 2019, 06:56:41 AM
Question about the new "Wealth generation Tech":

is the tech reduced to just how much wealth is produced by workers as the text suggests? This would mean that with better tech the trade influence in weath gaining would go down  ??? I thought one of the (minor) goals was to make trade income more significant?  ???
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Steve Walmsley on January 31, 2019, 09:30:28 AM
3.  It appears they will speed it up, as each FLB will "consume" a chunk of population, thus reducing the amount of Police Strength needed for occupation.

Created the forced labour camp generates extra unrest and I don't think pacification moves forward while unrest exists.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Steve Walmsley on January 31, 2019, 09:34:49 AM
Question about the new "Wealth generation Tech":

is the tech reduced to just how much wealth is produced by workers as the text suggests? This would mean that with better tech the trade influence in weath gaining would go down  ??? I thought one of the (minor) goals was to make trade income more significant?  ???

As a baseline each million workers generates 100 wealth. The first wealth tech raises that to 120 wealth per million, the second tech raises it to 140 per million, etc.

The income from trade grows separately as shipping lines create more ships and populations grow and create more trading opportunities. Trade income should generally increase as a proportion of wealth over time.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: TMaekler on January 31, 2019, 10:40:48 AM
3.  It appears they will speed it up, as each FLB will "consume" a chunk of population, thus reducing the amount of Police Strength needed for occupation.

Created the forced labour camp generates extra unrest and I don't think pacification moves forward while unrest exists.
Will the existence of forced labour camps keep unrest there or would that fade out after some time; and if you wait long enough everyone wouldn't bother with it any longer and just accepts, that they are there?
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Steve Walmsley on January 31, 2019, 11:03:30 AM
Will the existence of forced labour camps keep unrest there or would that fade out after some time; and if you wait long enough everyone wouldn't bother with it any longer and just accepts, that they are there?

It is a one off increase in unrest at the point of creation.

http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=8495.msg105681;topicseen#msg105681
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Father Tim on February 07, 2019, 02:57:01 AM
Will C# Aurora allow the placing of GRAV sensors on missiles?  I note that   http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=8495.msg103096#msg103096   (http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=8495.msg103096#msg103096) mentions GEO sensors, but nothng about those pesky jump point surveys.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Steve Walmsley on February 07, 2019, 05:07:58 AM
Will C# Aurora allow the placing of GRAV sensors on missiles?  I note that   http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=8495.msg103096#msg103096   (http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=8495.msg103096#msg103096) mentions GEO sensors, but nothng about those pesky jump point surveys.

Not at the moment, but interesting idea.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: space dwarf on February 07, 2019, 05:37:22 AM
Do NPRs count firing missiles of any type in the same system as their vessels as a hostile action?

If so that could lead to some fun scenarios where they think they're being fired on (But its just a mass-produced survey missile), and vice versa if NPRs use survey missiles themself.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: The Forbidden on February 07, 2019, 06:09:09 AM
Do NPRs count firing missiles of any type in the same system as their vessels as a hostile action?

If so that could lead to some fun scenarios where they think they're being fired on (But its just a mass-produced survey missile), and vice versa if NPRs use survey missiles themself.

I don't remember well but I think it's upon taking damage, not being fired at (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong). Still I doesn't need to be coded in, a quid pro quo like that could be a nice RP scenario.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Steve Walmsley on February 07, 2019, 07:17:46 AM
Do NPRs count firing missiles of any type in the same system as their vessels as a hostile action?

If so that could lead to some fun scenarios where they think they're being fired on (But its just a mass-produced survey missile), and vice versa if NPRs use survey missiles themself.

Not in VB6. I haven't coded diplomacy yet for C#.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: The Forbidden on February 07, 2019, 07:43:31 AM
Do NPRs count firing missiles of any type in the same system as their vessels as a hostile action?

If so that could lead to some fun scenarios where they think they're being fired on (But its just a mass-produced survey missile), and vice versa if NPRs use survey missiles themself.

Not in VB6. I haven't coded diplomacy yet for C#.

So the NPRs are always hostile in your campaign ?
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Steve Walmsley on February 07, 2019, 09:22:10 AM
So the NPRs are always hostile in your campaign ?

I'll code it when I meet one :)
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: boggo2300 on February 07, 2019, 04:12:22 PM
I'll code it when I meet one :)

That's kind of taking JiT to the extreme :D
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: clement on February 07, 2019, 05:44:11 PM
Steve,

In VB, if I remember correctly, an Orbital Habitat that contains a population cannot be moved to another location without removing the colonists or providing cryogenic transport.

In C# Aurora, will it be possible to move an Orbital Habitat without unloading the population?
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Steve Walmsley on February 07, 2019, 06:12:46 PM
Steve,

In VB, if I remember correctly, an Orbital Habitat that contains a population cannot be moved to another location without removing the colonists or providing cryogenic transport.

In C# Aurora, will it be possible to move an Orbital Habitat without unloading the population?

No, the habitat is like infrastructure. It adds to the capacity of a population, but it doesn't provide any transport capacity. If you move it, the population stays on the planet (and probably dies horribly).
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: mtm84 on February 08, 2019, 02:50:49 AM
and probably dies horribly

Queue "Dozens of civilian colony ships dump a few million people on a world that just received its first batch of infrastructure" Flashbacks.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: The Forbidden on February 08, 2019, 06:40:14 AM
So the NPRs are always hostile in your campaign ?

I'll code it when I meet one :)

Okay. And hey, at least it'll give your nations something to shoot at other than each other, especially with slight....Mars related issues that could come up. (the more I read the more I feel like this is the Trans-Newtonian campaign all over again, which is good, I loved that campaign.)
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: clement on February 08, 2019, 08:59:41 AM
Steve,

In VB, if I remember correctly, an Orbital Habitat that contains a population cannot be moved to another location without removing the colonists or providing cryogenic transport.

In C# Aurora, will it be possible to move an Orbital Habitat without unloading the population?

No, the habitat is like infrastructure. It adds to the capacity of a population, but it doesn't provide any transport capacity. If you move it, the population stays on the planet (and probably dies horribly).

Scenario:
10 habs each supporting 1 million population
1 million population are removed by transports.
If I tractor 1 hab away from the planet, will the code will be smart enough to remove the hab capacity without harming the remaining population? Effectively treating the hab population as an aggregate versus an even distribution across all habs?

Just trying to make sure I understand how it works.
Thanks
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: JacenHan on February 08, 2019, 09:24:53 AM
Population isn't assigned to individual habs. The habs contribute to an "infrastructure pool" that the population resides in. In your scenario the population would be fine so long as at least 1 hab is left.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Father Tim on February 08, 2019, 09:28:16 AM
Scenario:
10 habs each supporting 1 million population
1 million population are removed by transports.
If I tractor 1 hab away from the planet, will the code will be smart enough to remove the hab capacity without harming the remaining population? Effectively treating the hab population as an aggregate versus an even distribution across all habs?

Just trying to make sure I understand how it works.
Thanks

That depends.  Did you make one Colony and assign all ten Orbital Habitats to it, or did you make 10 different colonies on the same body and assign one OrbHab to each?
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Steve Walmsley on February 08, 2019, 09:48:51 AM
Scenario:
10 habs each supporting 1 million population
1 million population are removed by transports.
If I tractor 1 hab away from the planet, will the code will be smart enough to remove the hab capacity without harming the remaining population? Effectively treating the hab population as an aggregate versus an even distribution across all habs?

Just trying to make sure I understand how it works.
Thanks

Think of Orbital Habitats as infrastructure. When you remove infrastructure, you reduce available space for the population. When you move an orbital habitats, you are doing exactly the same. The population isn't 'assigned' to any particular hab, just like it isn't assigned to any specific part of the infrastructure.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: clement on February 13, 2019, 02:26:39 PM
The current fuel shortages in the Cold Sun campaign, made me wonder, when a civilian line launches a Fuel Harvester, will any nation be able to buy the fuel from it, or just the nation the civilian line is registered with?
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Steve Walmsley on February 13, 2019, 04:55:36 PM
The current fuel shortages in the Cold Sun campaign, made me wonder, when a civilian line launches a Fuel Harvester, will any nation be able to buy the fuel from it, or just the nation the civilian line is registered with?

The same nation.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: MarcAFK on February 13, 2019, 11:24:39 PM
If you're allied to someone can you purchase their fuel?
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Steve Walmsley on February 14, 2019, 03:34:33 AM
If you're allied to someone can you purchase their fuel?

Not at the moment. You may not want your allies to purchase your fuel, so it would have to be optional. If I go down that route, I might consider having some form of trading where you offer items for sale (including fuel, minerals, installations, ships, etc.) for either money or minerals and set the acceptable level of relations for the trade.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: alex_brunius on February 14, 2019, 03:40:44 AM
Not at the moment. You may not want your allies to purchase your fuel, so it would have to be optional. If I go down that route, I might consider having some form of trading where you offer items for sale (including fuel, minerals, installations, ships, etc.) for either money or minerals and set the acceptable level of relations for the trade.

Something I often do in SM is to trade ship components or missiles. It seems logical to not buy a whole ship if your ally have superior engines & missiles, but instead just the parts you need.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Titanian on February 14, 2019, 05:05:24 AM
Even just sm-accessible dialogs for transferring minerals or missiles would really be useful. For minerals, one currently has to manually add and remove them to populations when doing a trade. Missiles currently have to be loaded into some ship, the ship transferred, then unloaded, and then the ship transferred back (or removed if it was a temporary one), and then you have to remove the ship class from the other race. Also useful would be a way to sm-transfer populations without any technology transfer happening, and a way to set population status (subjugated and so on).
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Jorgen_CAB on February 14, 2019, 07:37:44 AM
Not at the moment. You may not want your allies to purchase your fuel, so it would have to be optional. If I go down that route, I might consider having some form of trading where you offer items for sale (including fuel, minerals, installations, ships, etc.) for either money or minerals and set the acceptable level of relations for the trade.

Something I often do in SM is to trade ship components or missiles. It seems logical to not buy a whole ship if your ally have superior engines & missiles, but instead just the parts you need.

This happens allot in my games to... sometimes factions may license build certain components as well so I gift the technology and have some other trade going on.

It would be allot easier of there were some more official mechanic for this in the game, but SM otherwise works ok for me.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: MarcAFK on February 14, 2019, 08:46:53 AM
Could be setup where you designate items that could be traded but then have to wait for civilian shipping to actually pick up and deliver the goods before you get revenue.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: TMaekler on February 14, 2019, 10:11:50 AM
Not at the moment. You may not want your allies to purchase your fuel, so it would have to be optional. If I go down that route, I might consider having some form of trading where you offer items for sale (including fuel, minerals, installations, ships, etc.) for either money or minerals and set the acceptable level of relations for the trade.

Something I often do in SM is to trade ship components or missiles. It seems logical to not buy a whole ship if your ally have superior engines & missiles, but instead just the parts you need.

This happens allot in my games to... sometimes factions may license build certain components as well so I gift the technology and have some other trade going on.

It would be allot easier of there were some more official mechanic for this in the game, but SM otherwise works ok for me.
Agreed. Nations do develop variations of their weapon systems for the international market. Would definitely be interesting to have that as an ingame option rather then having to do it via SM mode... . Also, could open up an interesting way for strength through alliance; each nation going into a specific direction research-wise. On the other side, that could be misused as well... .
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Rich.h on February 15, 2019, 09:40:40 AM
Couldn't recall if this has been mentioned before. Will ship name lists be handled in the same way or will we be able to have multiple class name lists in one file, at present it can get somewhat clumsy having to constantly keep various copies of a shipnames.txt for each class.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: DEEPenergy on February 15, 2019, 05:41:50 PM
Hi Steve. Are you planning any big changes to diplomacy?
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Desdinova on February 24, 2019, 11:59:43 PM
How does boarding combat fit in with the new ground combat changes? I love boarding enemy ships, although I do hate that it's locked behind a ton of research points in VB6 (assault infantry -> marine bn -> marine company + combat drop (company) is something ridiculous like 30,000 RP). Is it harder/easier in C#? Can you build marines from the get-go?
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Garfunkel on February 25, 2019, 11:40:58 AM
All unit sizes are available from the get-go, because there are no longer battalions/companies/brigades/divisions. What unit sizes players use is entirely up to them. Marines are infantry with the boarding combat special ability and all special abilities are also available from the get-go, if I'm remembering it correctly. So you can create a power-armour marines with genetic enhancements and personal weaponry and deploy them in squads of ten if you want. You don't need the boarding combat special ability either, but it makes things easier. Since the size of boarding units is restricted - you can't hardly expect to drop 10k grunts - it's better to have them be as high quality units as possible. You can have them board a ship with their own HQ as well, to get more combat bonuses.

Here are some relevant quotes and screenshot:
The smallest troop transport bay is 100 tons or 120 tons with drop capability included, so you can make very small (fighter-sized) ships to drop off small formations.
Is this a new type of transport specifically for boarding or has it always been like this and I just never noticed?
It is a new type - discussed in some of the C# threads but not in the changes list yet.
Based on comments above and my own play test, I have changed how HQ capacity works. Instead of multiple HQ components, there is now a single component with a configurable capacity (similar to STO in principle).

You select the HQ component and then type in the required capacity. The component cost is Capacity / 2500 and the component size is Capacity / 50 with a max of 500 tons. There is no limit on cost.

Because of this configurable aspect, the HQ can only be placed in the primary slot for those units with multiple slots.

Note the BOARDING COMBAT special ability, only for infantry, on the top right segment:
(http://www.pentarch.org/steve/Screenshots/SupplyVehicle02.PNG)

Post about Genetic Enhancement: http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=8495.msg112049#msg112049

The game mechanic for Boarding Combat: http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=8495.msg111751#msg111751

Also, one thing to keep in mind is that the research cost for Maximum Engine Power Modifier has been halved, so it's easier/cheaper now to research high-speed, boosted engines for your boarding shuttles.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Steve Walmsley on February 25, 2019, 12:17:45 PM
How does boarding combat fit in with the new ground combat changes? I love boarding enemy ships, although I do hate that it's locked behind a ton of research points in VB6 (assault infantry -> marine bn -> marine company + combat drop (company) is something ridiculous like 30,000 RP). Is it harder/easier in C#? Can you build marines from the get-go?

Boarding combat details are here. It is cheaper in RP terms than VB6.

http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=8495.msg111751#msg111751
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Garfunkel on February 25, 2019, 12:51:27 PM
Question regarding the new custom tailored-to-fit HQs, does their capacity (size wise) need to include the HQ itself? Or is it sufficient that a HQ capacity is enough for the other units in a formation? If it's the former, it can get tricky calculating the necessary size.

In addition to this, can HQ capacity be changed on the fly in-game, or does the old HQ need to be swapped with a new HQ that has an increased capacity?
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Whitecold on February 25, 2019, 01:30:41 PM
Not at the moment. You may not want your allies to purchase your fuel, so it would have to be optional. If I go down that route, I might consider having some form of trading where you offer items for sale (including fuel, minerals, installations, ships, etc.) for either money or minerals and set the acceptable level of relations for the trade.

Something I often do in SM is to trade ship components or missiles. It seems logical to not buy a whole ship if your ally have superior engines & missiles, but instead just the parts you need.

This happens allot in my games to... sometimes factions may license build certain components as well so I gift the technology and have some other trade going on.

It would be allot easier of there were some more official mechanic for this in the game, but SM otherwise works ok for me.
Agreed. Nations do develop variations of their weapon systems for the international market. Would definitely be interesting to have that as an ingame option rather then having to do it via SM mode... . Also, could open up an interesting way for strength through alliance; each nation going into a specific direction research-wise. On the other side, that could be misused as well... .

The interesting implication would be what happens if an alliance breaks down. To what extend can you service the foreign designed parts? I would be very wary though if a nation can completely skip techs, unless the entire maintenance is done by foreign specialists. Which could lead to interesting situations in proxy wars.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Barkhorn on February 25, 2019, 01:51:37 PM
Some more boarding questions.  I'm also curious to know how these work in VB6 as well:

If a ship is destroyed during boarding combat, can the marines use escape pods, or are they doomed?

If a ship is captured, how do I get the marines out?  The ship probably didn't have troop-transport modules.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Steve Walmsley on February 26, 2019, 03:23:59 AM
Question regarding the new custom tailored-to-fit HQs, does their capacity (size wise) need to include the HQ itself? Or is it sufficient that a HQ capacity is enough for the other units in a formation? If it's the former, it can get tricky calculating the necessary size.

In addition to this, can HQ capacity be changed on the fly in-game, or does the old HQ need to be swapped with a new HQ that has an increased capacity?

It includes the HQ Unit. I've been doing this with test campaigns and it hasn't been a problem. The HQ is usually 2-3% of the total.

You can't change an HQ unit but you can swap it for a different one.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Garfunkel on February 26, 2019, 11:02:37 AM
I'm building an Excel sheet to ease the problem of creating formations and fiddling with their unit numbers, and one of the things that I'm aiming for is to have a semi-realistic chain of command from company to division level, and eventually corps/army/army group. That means that each formation needs its own, custom-tailored HQ unit as formation sizes can vary wildly. But I guess it's still helpful if the sheet doesn't include the HQ itself, since that way I'll at least get rough sizes and then just throw 2-3% on top for good measure.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: mtm84 on February 27, 2019, 03:52:35 AM
HQs are "command value divided by 50, plus the base unit size" large, to a maximum size of 500.  An infantry HQ with 5000 command value would be sized 100.  Not hard to account for in excel.  I use a big list of pre-made HQ units, but calculating for each formation so you can see it change on the fly wouldn't be hard either.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Garfunkel on February 27, 2019, 11:50:57 AM
Yes but an infantry company is different size than an armoured company so I wouldn't wan't to use the same HQ for both since it would be overkill for the former. Similarly, I will most likely use all 9 possible levels of HQs that C# allows (company-battalion-regiment-brigade-division-corps-army-army group-theatre) and each one will have different size requirement. So I'll be having loads of different HQ units. It's not too difficult if I set the composition of every formation in stone before I start a game, but what if I want to experiment with different compositions? Especially because if the size of a particular company changes, it affects the size of every larger formation that includes those companies, which affects every HQ on every level as well.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: mtm84 on February 27, 2019, 01:50:49 PM
Excel is great for this kind of thing, you just need to add up all the formation sizes.  Granted you would need to change the hq sizes as you go, but the spreadsheet would update all the formations down the line.  My spreadsheet already does this. I might change it to use an hq generator for every formation instead of using a premade unit. You are probably always going to have in issue chasing the correct HQ size, but in excel that’s just a matter of changing the cell with the command value from 5000 to 5100 or whatever.  the  unit would only increase in size by 1 for every 50 command.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Garfunkel on February 28, 2019, 11:09:14 AM
Maybe I need to learn Excel better  :D
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: amram on March 01, 2019, 10:49:30 PM
Its a very powerful tool that can out-math anyone, and doesn't forget or tire of minutia, it just needs you to tell it what you want it to work out, how its worked out, and what it needs to know to work it out.  The rest is you putting that time you save to better uses, more turns played perhaps.....
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Lornalt on March 02, 2019, 03:19:22 PM
I got a question.  .  .   From the screenshots, the ranks all have abbreviations like Commander (CMDR). 

Does Aurora C# still allow us to create military ranks? (eg.   Sector Commander, High Admiral) Do we decide on the abbreviations? (eg.   SCMR, HADM)

I'm asking this as all the screenshots show Lieutenant commanders as the lowest rank but it's gonna seem weird to me if I set a grav survey ship with the captain as a LCMR and it's science officer (Lieutenant?) and Engineering Officer (JR Lieutenant?) have the same rank.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Steve Walmsley on March 02, 2019, 05:44:20 PM
I got a question.  .  .   From the screenshots, the ranks all have abbreviations like Commander (CMDR). 

Does Aurora C# still allow us to create military ranks? (eg.   Sector Commander, High Admiral) Do we decide on the abbreviations? (eg.   SCMR, HADM)

I'm asking this as all the screenshots show Lieutenant commanders as the lowest rank but it's gonna seem weird to me if I set a grav survey ship with the captain as a LCMR and it's science officer (Lieutenant?) and Engineering Officer (JR Lieutenant?) have the same rank.

You can create and change ranks and their abbreviations.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Father Tim on March 02, 2019, 05:44:44 PM
Reading over the Particle Lance again, I want to make sure that the PL 'option' is also available for smaller particle beam projectors.  For example, once I unlock Particle Lance at base strength 6, can I go back and make a smaller, base strength 4 Particle Beam into a Lance (and thus double its damage to 8 and get the single-column profile), or am I stuck with only Lances size 6 (12) or larger?
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Steve Walmsley on March 02, 2019, 05:47:19 PM
Reading over the Particle Lance again, I want to make sure that the PL 'option' is also available for smaller particle beam projectors.  For example, once I unlock Particle Lance at base strength 6, can I go back and make a smaller, base strength 4 Particle Beam into a Lance (and thus double its damage to 8 and get the single-column profile), or am I stuck with only Lances size 6 (12) or larger?

You can make smaller ones as well.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: King-Salomon on March 06, 2019, 02:29:49 AM
about your newest post

Quote
Ship Commander Rank

The required rank of a ship commander is set automatically by Aurora and will be the lowest race rank, unless one of the following component rules is activated. Component rules are not cumulative so only the highest requirement applies.

If a ship is greater than 1000 tons and has any of the following component, the required rank is lowest rank + 1: Weapons, survey sensors, a jump drive, a hangar deck, Auxiliary Control, Science Department, Primary Flight Control.
If a ship is greater than 1000 tons and has any of the following component, the required rank is lowest rank + 2: Main Engineering, CIC, Flag Bridge.

The Class Window has a checkbox entitled Senior C.O. If this is checked, the class will have a required rank one higher than the above rules require (to allow the player to designate certain classes as worthy of a more senior officer than normal).

The rule is an enhancement to the command and control rules: http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=8495.msg101818#msg101818

does the specification to >1000t ships mean that the rule

Quote
4) Regardless of the above, any ship of 1000 tons or less will be the lowest rank, unless it has one of the control stations (Auxiliary Control, Science Department, Main Engineering, CIC)


http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=8495.msg104038#msg104038

is not longer relevant?  ??? so a 1000t ship or less will be of lowest rang regardless of the modules?
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Shuul on March 06, 2019, 04:16:49 AM
Hi, do you plan to implement "normal" NPR with some kind of hive mind feature?
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Steve Walmsley on March 06, 2019, 05:39:15 AM
about your newest post

Quote
Ship Commander Rank

The required rank of a ship commander is set automatically by Aurora and will be the lowest race rank, unless one of the following component rules is activated. Component rules are not cumulative so only the highest requirement applies.

If a ship is greater than 1000 tons and has any of the following component, the required rank is lowest rank + 1: Weapons, survey sensors, a jump drive, a hangar deck, Auxiliary Control, Science Department, Primary Flight Control.
If a ship is greater than 1000 tons and has any of the following component, the required rank is lowest rank + 2: Main Engineering, CIC, Flag Bridge.

The Class Window has a checkbox entitled Senior C.O. If this is checked, the class will have a required rank one higher than the above rules require (to allow the player to designate certain classes as worthy of a more senior officer than normal).

The rule is an enhancement to the command and control rules: http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=8495.msg101818#msg101818

does the specification to >1000t ships mean that the rule

Quote
4) Regardless of the above, any ship of 1000 tons or less will be the lowest rank, unless it has one of the control stations (Auxiliary Control, Science Department, Main Engineering, CIC)


http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=8495.msg104038#msg104038

is not longer relevant?  ??? so a 1000t ship or less will be of lowest rang regardless of the modules?

Good spot. Original rule is correct and I will fix the new post.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Jorgen_CAB on March 11, 2019, 04:23:46 PM
I was wondering what the benefit will be to build shipyards with multiple slipways in them now when the amount of personnel to man them are the same per tonnage?
Personnel was one of the main benefit of having several slipways. Will there be some retooling benefits when you have more slipways or some other industrial benefits. I guess that yards with many slipways could or should be able to share allot of tools, machinery and expertise so some improvement in building multiple ships could be introduced with more slipways.

I understand that there can also be a one time benefit in building a new slipway than building a completely new shipyard, but that is a one time thing so might not be a huge thing in the long run, depending on how cheap it is to add a new slipway versus building a new shipyard. Certainly it can be viable for really small yards but for larger ships this cost difference might almost be insignificant.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: misanthropope on March 11, 2019, 08:34:52 PM
producing new slips instead of new yards saves you significant if hard-to-estimate costs in construction factory effort
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Father Tim on March 12, 2019, 12:15:17 AM
I was wondering what the benefit will be to build shipyards with multiple slipways in them now when the amount of personnel to man them are the same per tonnage? . . .

Well, since the amount of workers is NOT the same, the benefit to one shipyard with two slipways of X tonnage over two shipyards each with one slipway X tonnage will be less personnel, fewer minerals, and less Construction Factory time since the shipyard itself can build the additional slipway.

The drawback will be that both slipways are tooled for the same design.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Scandinavian on March 12, 2019, 01:32:27 AM
Well, since the amount of workers is NOT the same,
Rules as written, it is going to be the same: http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=8495.msg112323#msg112323
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Father Tim on March 12, 2019, 02:00:42 AM
Sorry; I must be tired.  I specifically went and checked that post before replying and I still saw a base, per-shipyard number of workers for C# Aurora as well.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Jorgen_CAB on March 12, 2019, 03:42:15 AM
I don't think it matter all that much in which order things are built... by the yard or by factories. If the yard builds it you still looses time you could do something else. It also would just be a one time thing. A yard that will stand there for a LONG time will generally be better with one slipway in several yards over time unless there are some sort of bonus for building ships in serial. Many yards makes it way easier to build more specialized ship classes and make smaller incremental changes and slight (and different) alterations to classes.

It depends on how expensive it is to add new slipways in contrast of building a new shipyard. Currently you build a yard for 2400 and it cost roughly 2000 minerals to expand it to a size of 10.000 tons and building a new slipway at 10.000t will cost you 2000 minerals. So I agree that if you build smaller ships then having a few slipways will be beneficial but as ships scale up in size the initial cost will sort of get lost and mean less and less and the flexibility of more yards are more important.

Perhaps the balance is good as it is... I don't know.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: TMaekler on March 12, 2019, 05:53:14 AM
Maybe Steve can introduce a system where a repeat in slipway production increases the speed of production (to simulate experience). This extra speed then get's lost when you retool.

That would give you the choice of having multiple slipways for each class you build, but which might lay dorment for quite some time if you don't build there in series as well as the disadvantage of more workers needed in general, but give you the advantage of quicker construction if needed - vs. having fewer slipways you retool as you need, but have longer production times (and lesser need of slipway workers).
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: misanthropope on March 12, 2019, 12:07:04 PM
with an 8% inherent interest rate, construction 16 tech and a 30% governor bonus, the overhead cost of a project done via CF is .857 per BP.  that is to say, the overhead on a new 1000 ton naval shipyard is higher than the *total* cost of a 10,000 ton slip, during the phase of the game where errors actually matter.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Darkminion on March 12, 2019, 01:52:10 PM
Had a few questions pop into my head during lunch and figured I would ask.

1. Is there any possibility for DB access or APIs that would allow us to access game data? There are a few neat tools I have come across for VB6 that allowed you to dump data to create reports or create files that could be imported into Space Engine which helped add a ton of flavor to my games, providing you had access to the DB. Is this something that's an option or could be an option with C# sharp as well?

2. How much are you looking into AI Deployment/Combat when it comes to players devising ways to fool it? Can I crank out large missile drones with as large as possible active sensors to send them on wild goose chases across the known universe? Will the AI be able to discern between fleet contacts and missile contacts in this context? Could I do this endlessly or would it be possible to have them catch on at some point? I cannot remember in VB6 if active sensors on missiles give it away that it was a missile.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Barkhorn on March 12, 2019, 02:40:29 PM
In VB6 it does seem to give away that a contact is a missile.  I saw the AI spam about 1000 AMM's at a single sensor buoy.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Steve Walmsley on March 12, 2019, 04:46:06 PM
Had a few questions pop into my head during lunch and figured I would ask.

1. Is there any possibility for DB access or APIs that would allow us to access game data? There are a few neat tools I have come across for VB6 that allowed you to dump data to create reports or create files that could be imported into Space Engine which helped add a ton of flavor to my games, providing you had access to the DB. Is this something that's an option or could be an option with C# sharp as well?

2. How much are you looking into AI Deployment/Combat when it comes to players devising ways to fool it? Can I crank out large missile drones with as large as possible active sensors to send them on wild goose chases across the known universe? Will the AI be able to discern between fleet contacts and missile contacts in this context? Could I do this endlessly or would it be possible to have them catch on at some point? I cannot remember in VB6 if active sensors on missiles give it away that it was a missile.

I haven't decided yet whether to secure the DB for C# Aurora, but I will probably go for something similar to VB6.

AI should be smarter regarding target selection and will be able to tell the difference between missiles and ships, although I haven't finished coding it yet. I will have to get moving on that though because my latest test game just generated precursors during system generation (about 10 minutes ago) for the first time.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Rastaman on March 20, 2019, 11:55:53 AM
Steve, in one of your posts a while ago you hinted at a new feature you called "active electronic warfare". Do you mean offensive electronic countermeasures (OECM), as employed for example by the USN with their Prowler/Growler aircraft? What are your plans and thoughts on this?

For those new to the idea, this would open up a whole other form of fascinating gameplay:

- OECM can affect an area or better a direction/angle, which would make necessary the proper positioning of ECM craft.
- A new support type of spacecraft.
- The capability of low observable spacecraft, supported by OECM forces, would be enhanced.
- The current form of Aurora ECM would be properly called DECM and its capabilities would have to be more limited/nerfed in contrast to OECM.
- OECM and DECM can be detected and analyzed by ELINT modules, so that stealth spacecraft better do not activate DECM.
- Active sensors, like modern AESA sensors in real life (AN/APG-81, AN/APG-82 etc.), could double as OECM.
- Possibly frequency bands?
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Lornalt on April 11, 2019, 11:57:49 PM
So Just asking  ;D can we still give titles to the Officers? for Role Play purpose of course. . .  Hail to the Emperor!
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Steve Walmsley on April 12, 2019, 02:31:34 AM
So Just asking  ;D can we still give titles to the Officers? for Role Play purpose of course. . .  Hail to the Emperor!

Not coded at the moment, but will be easy to add.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Jorgen_CAB on April 17, 2019, 09:00:54 AM
Just wanted to ask if you have any intention of looking into the fire-control versus salvo issue for Aurora C# at some time?

I mean there are some mechanical issues in how salvos and fire-controls can often be abused mechanically that makes relatively little sense. So.. expanding on the fire-control and how many guns or missiles they can control or incoming targets they can track or some such?

In general I try not to abuse this mechanic but it is often very hard to walk the line since it is a very grey one.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Steve Walmsley on April 17, 2019, 10:16:12 AM
Just wanted to ask if you have any intention of looking into the fire-control versus salvo issue for Aurora C# at some time?

I mean there are some mechanical issues in how salvos and fire-controls can often be abused mechanically that makes relatively little sense. So.. expanding on the fire-control and how many guns or missiles they can control or incoming targets they can track or some such?

In general I try not to abuse this mechanic but it is often very hard to walk the line since it is a very grey one.

Are you talking about creating many small salvos to confuse point defence?
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Jorgen_CAB on April 17, 2019, 03:39:19 PM
Are you talking about creating many small salvos to confuse point defence?

Yes, that is one of the artefacts of the current mechanic.

You can get this artefact in a few ways... one is making PD very expensive through use of the often cheaper missile fire-controls or by loading different missiles and fire them from the same fire control and thus creating several salvos from the same fire-control.

I do think there could be some balance between needing FC to control and target missiles based on tech level rather than having fixed salvo sizes. This might also "solve" the extreme Box launcher salvos that also often can make PD very weak in the other direction, especially when these two are combined to make the PD very expensive to maintain.

There is also some issues (in my opinion) with the bonus you get to fighter beam fire controls. They are so much cheaper that it is more efficient to create small turreted Gauss or rail gun fighters. A Gauss turret with an 85% reduced Gauss turret can often be up to 50% faster in tracking than on a ship and still cheaper to operate by stuffing it in a hangar.

I would not mind an overview of how FC works at some point. Like engines now scaling I would like FC to work the same on all platforms and that abusing the mechanic less of an issue because sometimes it is hard to avoid even when you try to avoid it.

For example a smaller FC you would put on a fighter (or a ship with one or a few cannon turrets) are able to track or control fewer missiles in flight, thus being smaller and fit on a fighter. That fighter are going to fire a small volley of missiles anyway etc... This would also solve some other issues with fire huge volumes of really small missiles, this would be expensive since it would need allot of FC or very advanced ones etc.. so this would also indirectly help the small versus large missile debate as well.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Scandinavian on April 17, 2019, 06:09:45 PM
Given the greatly increased performance of the C# version, I'd propose doing away with the salvo concept entirely (or, mechanically, assign each missile to its own salvo).

This will slightly increase the propensity of AMMs to overkill when launching multiple AMMs per ASM, but it would remove the arbitrary distinction between 5 missiles fired by the same fire control in the same increment, and the same 5 missiles fired by 5 different FCs.

This would necessitate reworking the interaction between beam PD and missiles. My proposal would be to consolidate all missiles that are valid targets for beam PD during the increment, and resolve firing as if they had been one large salvo. The defender would need to be able to set how the PD should prioritize the missiles (which can be basically three attributes): Thermal signature, target cross-section (size), and speed, and whether they should be targeted in random order, lowest to highest, or highest to lowest.

If implemented in isolation, it would mean that no vessel ever required more than 1 FC for final defensive fire. However, to counter that, we could limit the number of weapons a single FC could control (with a single turret counting as one weapon, giving an additional advantage to turreting your PD weapons).

To balance this restriction, missile fire controls should be similarly restricted on the number of missiles they can have in space at any given time.

To begin with, I'd suggest letting an FC control 5 missiles or beam weapons, with a tech line for growing control capacity. Reducing this number during the component design phase should have an effect on size and cost (so FCs that only need to control one missile or weapon at short range get to claw their way down to fighter size without invoking special rules for fighters.).
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: MarcAFK on April 17, 2019, 09:44:50 PM
I like those ideas, but I would offer a counter suggestion which also involves ECM.
Firstly, don't give fire controls arbitary hard limits to the amount of missiles or salvos they can control, but instead add mechanics where controlling multiple salvos causes a malus to accuracy and ECM/ECCM.
In an environment where theres little ecm or risk of your salvos being shot down you should be able to commit massive alpha strikes, but in a more restrictive environment you may wish to make less but better controlled salvos.
In addition, allow individual fire controls to split salvos up if desired, add a drop down or something so it can be split in 2/3/4/5 etc.
And as a counterpoint allow remaining pd after destroying a salvo to retarget other salvos hitting in teh same increment, but at a malus based on the firecontrol tech.
These 2 alone should do away with the exploit. However the AI will need to know how to deal with these mechanics, though already AI can be cheesed with the current salvo mechanics.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: chokuto on April 17, 2019, 10:38:25 PM
I would be in favour of doing away with the salvo concept entirely as I think it adds unnecessary complexity and exposes an exploit.

With this approach I do think that something would have to be done about only need one fire control for final defensive fire.

Quote
And as a counterpoint allow remaining pd after destroying a salvo to retarget other salvos hitting in teh same increment, but at a malus based on the firecontrol tech.

Maybe a railgun or guass cannon should have a to hit penalty for each subsequent missile it is targeting. Potentially a tech line to reduce this, but not sure whether this would be on the fire control or the weapon. Also would think this should apply to turreted weapons but not sure how
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: alex_brunius on April 18, 2019, 04:39:27 AM
When on the topic of point defense.

Wouldn't it make sense if there was a point in researching range upgrades to Gauss cannons and if weapon range had a bit of impact on final fire PD as well?


I mean if our incoming missiles travels at say 40'000km/s that means that during a 5 second increment it will travel 200'000km. A Gauss cannon with 10'000km range should have a significant disadvantage in how much volume of fire it can output compared to one with 50'000km range due to being able to open fire only in the very last 0.25 seconds instead of the last 1.25 seconds.

If a Gauss Cannon can fire 5 rounds per 5 seconds an even rate of fire would mean it's actually only within range long enough to be hit by 1 round for the 10'000km range Gauss and only 2 rounds for the 50'000km Gauss. Even if we assume the Gauss cannon fires bursts up to 1 second long and then reloads for 4 seconds the 10'000km range Gauss still is at a significant disadvantage only having time for 25% of a full burst, and that could be even worse vs faster lategame missiles.

I guess what I'm asking for is a more logical resolution of the last 5 seconds of missile approach vs PD. And also more weapons capable of firing faster than once every 5 seconds, for example a 10cm laser with 12 recharge rate capacitors logically should be able to fire 4 times each 5 second increment ( 12/3 = 4 ).

This would naturally require a rebalance of point defense weapons, probably increasing the range and/or rate of fire of Gauss a bit and potentially nerfing laser PD a bit as well.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Steve Walmsley on April 18, 2019, 06:51:37 AM
At this stage of development, I don't want to make any significant changes to combat, as it works well. The concept of salvos also needs to exist as it is used in many different parts of the code. The simplest fix is probably to allow fire controls to target multiple salvos in a single firing phase. I'm not at home at the moment, but I will check later how easy that would be to implement.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Whitecold on April 19, 2019, 12:42:56 AM
When on the topic of point defense.

Wouldn't it make sense if there was a point in researching range upgrades to Gauss cannons and if weapon range had a bit of impact on final fire PD as well?


I mean if our incoming missiles travels at say 40'000km/s that means that during a 5 second increment it will travel 200'000km. A Gauss cannon with 10'000km range should have a significant disadvantage in how much volume of fire it can output compared to one with 50'000km range due to being able to open fire only in the very last 0.25 seconds instead of the last 1.25 seconds.

If a Gauss Cannon can fire 5 rounds per 5 seconds an even rate of fire would mean it's actually only within range long enough to be hit by 1 round for the 10'000km range Gauss and only 2 rounds for the 50'000km Gauss. Even if we assume the Gauss cannon fires bursts up to 1 second long and then reloads for 4 seconds the 10'000km range Gauss still is at a significant disadvantage only having time for 25% of a full burst, and that could be even worse vs faster lategame missiles.

I guess what I'm asking for is a more logical resolution of the last 5 seconds of missile approach vs PD. And also more weapons capable of firing faster than once every 5 seconds, for example a 10cm laser with 12 recharge rate capacitors logically should be able to fire 4 times each 5 second increment ( 12/3 = 4 ).

This would naturally require a rebalance of point defense weapons, probably increasing the range and/or rate of fire of Gauss a bit and potentially nerfing laser PD a bit as well.
The same actually holds true for Laser PD, which right now seems pretty much inferior to Gauss weapons, because again area defense seems useless, and thus range doesn't matter, because the missiles are just too fast.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: misanthropope on April 19, 2019, 10:58:02 AM
if the parameter you're tweaking is relative speed, there is a fine line between "area defense is worthless" and "a FAC screen can kill ungodly waves with area defense".  beam accuracy at range seems the safer lever to pull on.  if the tracking time bonus is finally enabled in c# that should help beam defense considerably.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Scandinavian on April 19, 2019, 11:47:32 PM
But something will need to be done about the beam weapon range vs. missile speed ratio. Because as it stands, missiles of comparable tech level will cross the engagement envelope of beam weapons in two or three 5-second increments. Unless you have beam weapons suffer basically no accuracy degradation from engagement range, that renders final defensive fire strictly superior to area defense (1 shot at maximum accuracy vs. fewer than two shots on average, the first of which is at less than half accuracy). Changing the accuracy profile by range of beam weapons enough for that to matter under this attack geometry would radically modify beam combat as well, assuming it is even possible.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Hazard on April 22, 2019, 05:57:59 AM
Regarding salvos: PD FCS should probably consider all hostile missiles in range as fair game in a given increment.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Indefatigable on May 17, 2019, 06:22:09 AM
Hello Steve, how are the increment turn times looking as you keep adding more content and fuctionality?
I recall last year you mentioned something like what used to take 30 seconds, now takes 3 or less seconds in C#.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Steve Walmsley on May 18, 2019, 03:35:18 PM
Hello Steve, how are the increment turn times looking as you keep adding more content and fuctionality?
I recall last year you mentioned something like what used to take 30 seconds, now takes 3 or less seconds in C#.

It's probably a greater improvement than that. I haven't played my campaign for a few days (touring the Scottish Highlands at the moment) but I was running turns early in the week with 5 races in Sol and it was still less than 1 second for each increment.

Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: JacenHan on May 18, 2019, 04:37:37 PM
I don't know what the current status of the AI is, but how are you planning on having the AI handle same-system empires? Will it share jump points with the other empires, or try and claim one or more for itself, and would that change if there are more/fewer jump points than empires?
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Steve Walmsley on May 19, 2019, 12:21:13 PM
I don't know what the current status of the AI is, but how are you planning on having the AI handle same-system empires? Will it share jump points with the other empires, or try and claim one or more for itself, and would that change if there are more/fewer jump points than empires?

I haven't coded Diplomacy yet, It's the last major area to code. However, the AI already classifies systems based on their importance so a combination of that and species modifiers will probably determine how it handles that type of situation.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: DEEPenergy on May 19, 2019, 02:56:48 PM
Anything big planned for diplomacy Steve? I would love something simple like Paradox war score to demand planets, systems, disarmament etc.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: chokuto on May 19, 2019, 04:10:12 PM
Anything big planned for diplomacy Steve? I would love something simple like Paradox war score to demand planets, systems, disarmament etc.

That is not simple. Something like Paradox's warscore needs to be thought of from the start. It also wouldn't really work in Aurora because you could capture a planet and just freighter all the stuff away.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Marski on May 20, 2019, 03:32:10 AM
Either age is catching up to me and my search-fu has gone rusty, or there geniunely isn't an answer to this:
Has uncle Stevie mentioned if he fixed the "area defense" point-defence mode for beam firecontrol not firing on targets if its only one 5-second instance in range?
Currently fighting a war against a race for the 18th year now, and every battle in this miserable stalemate of a space-somme is a tedious process of having to spend an entire day manually assigning targets for firecontrol one after another.

(https://i.imgur.com/qFDR16n.png)
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Father Tim on May 20, 2019, 01:38:16 PM
I'm pretty sure he hasn't.

Generally, missiles move first -- and if they reach the target, they roll to hit -- then ships move, so it's entirely possible to fly out of Area Defense range of a salvo.

Area Defense never worked well, and therefore wasn't used much, and therefore didn't have much 'push' behind fixing/improving it.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Steve Walmsley on May 20, 2019, 03:32:55 PM
Anything big planned for diplomacy Steve? I would love something simple like Paradox war score to demand planets, systems, disarmament etc.

I don't have a war score concept. Also it would be difficult to know how well you are doing without some idea of the capabilities and scale of your opponents. If France fights Germany, each will have a reasonable idea of how well they are doing. If two races that don't know much about one another fight over a few border systems, they don't have a frame of reference. I might be inflicting twice as many casualties as I am suffering, but that doesn't help if my opponent is 5x larger for example.

It will probably be more about claiming territory or setting up neutral zones. Having wars that can end with an agreement, or even understanding what your opponent wants will be a major improvement over VB6.

Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: chrislocke2000 on May 29, 2019, 07:33:24 AM
For the new race comparison chart is that SM only or will there be a non SM version where the details get revealed as you gather more intelligence?
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Steve Walmsley on May 29, 2019, 08:59:27 AM
For the new race comparison chart is that SM only or will there be a non SM version where the details get revealed as you gather more intelligence?

At the moment it is for races the player only without SM. I probably should add SM requirement in case a hot seat game.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Hazard on May 30, 2019, 02:45:34 AM
With the comparison menu and tracking, as well as the changes in espionage mechanics, would it be possible to have a comparison screen where your own resources are compared to the (estimated) resources of any known other powers?
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Steve Walmsley on May 30, 2019, 03:52:47 AM
With the comparison menu and tracking, as well as the changes in espionage mechanics, would it be possible to have a comparison screen where your own resources are compared to the (estimated) resources of any known other powers?

The ELINT module will tell you over time what installations are at other populations, so something on those lines would be possible.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: JustAnotherDude on June 08, 2019, 08:09:38 AM
Are you planning on making it so NPRs fighting in some far off system doesn't force the game into small increments? Or is that just how it's gonna have to be?
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: amram on June 08, 2019, 06:13:47 PM
probably how it has to be, though I think it would be sensible to have an option the player can enable, which allows auto incrementing the NPR interrupts until the player's intended increment is reached, kinda like the old force x increments before interrupting, except, force auto for NPR only interrupts.

in c#, I suspect we'll notice, but not 20 mins later kind of notice, just, oh look, that one wasn't instantaneous.
Title: Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
Post by: Steve Walmsley on June 10, 2019, 05:14:14 AM
Are you planning on making it so NPRs fighting in some far off system doesn't force the game into small increments? Or is that just how it's gonna have to be?

If they are firing on one another the game has to run in small increment to handle the combat. However, C# is much faster than VB6 so a few small increments should not be an issue. I am currently running five races in the same system, which causes a significant slowdown in VB6, yet C# is running increments (even the 5-day construction phases) in less than a second.

The only time the game should actually interrupt and require you to click an increment button will be for events affecting players.