Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - JacenHan

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 16
C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« on: March 15, 2018, 12:22:25 PM »
Doesn't the VB6 class intelligence window show the type of weapons an enemy ship has after they use them?

Bureau of Ship Design / Re: Ships
« on: March 11, 2018, 06:40:56 PM »
I happened to remember some discussion from this old thread. There, Steve says:
I noted the comments regarding missile armour. The ablative armour on missiles doesn't work in the same way as armour on ships (mainly because its a lot thinner because missiles are so small). Instead, if a missile is armoured the chance of a hit penetrating the armour is equal to Weapon Damage / (Missile Armour + Weapon Damage).

For example if a missile has two points of armour and is hit by 3 points of damage, the chance of destroying the missile = 3 / (2+3) = 60%. Even if the missile had 5 points of armour, a 10cm laser would still have a 3 / (5+3) = 37.5% chance of a hit.
I'm not sure if this still applies, but it's something.

C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« on: March 09, 2018, 10:41:57 AM »
I think it would be reasonable for engineering spaces to act as the MSP transfer component, since every vessel with MSP will have at least one. That way, you can have non-instant transfers and the player doesn't have another type of component to worry about when designing ships.

Other Games / Re: Mac or PC Game?
« on: March 07, 2018, 10:57:07 PM »
PC for me, but I've never used a Mac for gaming. Games wise, I've been enjoying Stellaris, Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, and Prison Architect lately.

Bureau of Ship Design / Re: Ships
« on: March 03, 2018, 10:17:01 PM »
Armored missiles help a lot too, since I don't think that the AI really knows how to counter them effectively. It can still get lucky, but it won't try to do anything like build higher caliber PD.

Bureau of Ship Design / Re: Stealth Battlecruiser
« on: March 01, 2018, 01:45:04 PM »
That applies to missiles too, I believe. Although, looking at the design again, I noticed there is CIWS, which does not need a sensor to fire at missiles, so sensors might not be necessary if you have a spotter ship nearby.

Bureau of Ship Design / Re: Stealth Battlecruiser
« on: March 01, 2018, 12:43:06 PM »
You could include a very small active sensor, and only go active when you get close to the enemy. That way, you don't waste too much tonnage and can rely on the thermal sensor for long-range spotting. That's especially viable since you're not using missiles, where you need a long-range sensor to fire effectively. A tiny, res-1 sensor would allow beam-range fire as well as let you use the railguns for improvised missile defense.

Bureau of Ship Design / Re: Stealth Battlecruiser
« on: March 01, 2018, 11:56:22 AM »
You might want to add some active sensors so that it can actually shoot at things. The surprise of having it pop out of nowhere might become more of a mild amusement when its only usable weapon is a staring contest. Otherwise, though, it looks quite cool, if expensive (as cool things often are).

C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« on: February 26, 2018, 06:30:36 PM »
"Order Templates" is right below"Autoroute by system", so the options might appear only when that is selected.

C# Aurora / Re: Default Orders for Harvesters and Miners
« on: February 22, 2018, 11:55:30 AM »
Nothing to say about Sorium/Mineral orders, but I was wondering how the "Move to System Requiring Geosurvey" works for systems with extremely distant bodies (ie: binary systems)? Will it take into account the same distance limit that the normal "Survey Next Five System Bodies" does? It sounds really useful and I'm looking forward to being able to use it.

C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« on: February 08, 2018, 09:04:41 PM »
As another minor QOL suggestion, I wonder if it would be better for the "total accessibility" box in the mining tab to be changed to display the actual total of the accessibility of the planets minerals, rather than the average. This would help show at a glance the number of total minerals that a planet could produce. I would argue that this is more useful than the average accessibility, which does not take into account the effects of having different kinds of minerals. A planet with a single mineral at 1.0 accessibility would have an average accessibility of 1.0, the highest possible, even though another planet with a lower average accessibility but more types of minerals might produce far more minerals in total, with the same number of mines.

Bureau of Ship Design / Re: Ships
« on: January 29, 2018, 11:09:30 PM »
A few things:

- The laser turrets have a tracking speed of 6600 km/s, while their fire control has a TS of 16000 km/s, and they will only use the lower of the two.
- You seem to have tried to fit both anti-ship and anti-missile missiles into one design, and ended up with something that really isn't good at either. I'd recommend ditching the AMMs and adding more anti-ship box launchers (or replace the box launchers with regular missile launchers).
- Shields are meant to be used in large numbers, your one shield generator won't stop even one tenth of your ASM warhead. With a ship this small shields probably aren't worth the mass you would have to spend on them to be useful.
- The active sensors are very short ranged for the tech level of the rest of the ship, with internal fusion drives I would expect sensor ranges of over 200m km.
- The engines appear to be high-efficiency, which makes the ship fairly slow for that tech level, but that isn't too much of an issue if you really need it to have a long range.

Overall, I think the main problem is that it tries to do too much at once. When it has to split its mission load between beam combat, offensive missiles, defensive missiles, and jump capability, it ends up not doing good at any of those. General purpose ships are really hard to do in such a small hull size, specialization is key here.

Aurora Chat / Re: Questions not worth their own thread
« on: January 22, 2018, 07:27:53 PM »
It is at the bottom of the System View and the Economics window, along with a variety of other options. If your monitor is too small it might have gotten cut off.

C# Aurora / Re: Research changes planned?
« on: January 19, 2018, 01:40:49 PM »
There's also a bug in the game where you can queue unavailable projects (in the "All Research" section) with the "Queue Top" button, which is probably supposed to gray out. You could potentially use this to cheat by, for example, researching 25cm lasers when you haven't researched 20cm, but I don't have any personal qualms with using it to queue long, low-RP lines of research in the intended order.

C# Aurora / Re: Research changes planned?
« on: January 19, 2018, 01:00:34 PM »
Currently, a minor annoyance is that keeping up with unimportant tech lines is annoying... researching 20 1000-RP tech isn't much of an investment by the midgame but still interrupts your game 20 times and requires a few clicks each time.
Do you queue projects? That usually cuts down on the clicking, though it will still interrupt auto turns.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 16