Fuel powered shields

[vorpal+5]

Yes me too, but this is Steve's game.

Although, more detailed power management and having to prioritize would remind me fondly of Starfleet battles!! 

https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/29663/star-fleet-battles-captains-edition-basic-set

[kenlon]

B5 Wars was better, 

[SpikeTheHobbitMage]

Yes. This is exactly what I am struggling with. Reactor power source and engine power source are intricately entwined by my way of evaluating the probelm. If one has created a reactor with a high T_hot why would one not use this T_hot in the engine design for a ship which equips the same engine and reactor? This maximizes thermal efficiency of the design. Aurora creates a distinction between these concepts which seems arbitrary to me.

Ah, you mean use a single reactor for propulsion, weapons systems, sensors, and shields.  From a fluff perspective, there are the problems of power distribution and rapid demand variability that weapons and possibly shields inflict, which are not friendly to the large reactors needed for propulsion, while sensors can be run off of surplus power.  From a game play standpoint that level of detail would trend towards the power micromanagement that Steve wants to avoid, while integrating weapons with their reactors like is done with engines would require all weapons to be redesigned every time reactor tech improves, which would be prohibitively expensive.

[liveware (OP)]

There have been many discussions about more detailed power distribution on ships and Steve said that he did not want power to be something you need to micromanage in battle so it can't be too detailed in that regard.

This answers my original question concisely. It is for the ship commanders to determine power allocation, not the emperor.

While I find allocation of ship resources to be an interesting problem, it is best left to ship commanders to accomplish.

[liveware (OP)]

Yes. This is exactly what I am struggling with. Reactor power source and engine power source are intricately entwined by my way of evaluating the probelm. If one has created a reactor with a high T_hot why would one not use this T_hot in the engine design for a ship which equips the same engine and reactor? This maximizes thermal efficiency of the design. Aurora creates a distinction between these concepts which seems arbitrary to me.

Ah, you mean use a single reactor for propulsion, weapons systems, sensors, and shields.  From a fluff perspective, there are the problems of power distribution and rapid demand variability that weapons and possibly shields inflict, which are not friendly to the large reactors needed for propulsion, while sensors can be run off of surplus power.  From a game play standpoint that level of detail would trend towards the power micromanagement that Steve wants to avoid, while integrating weapons with their reactors like is done with engines would require all weapons to be redesigned every time reactor tech improves, which would be prohibitively expensive.

Many moons ago there existed a game called "Nexus" which allowed for a very detailed level of power management at the individual ship level. I have always held to this standard of power control. It seems Steve and I differ in this regard... It is ultimately his game, not mine, however much I might enjoy it.

Furthermore I encourage Mr. Steve to keep this game his game! That is a fine ideal to strive towards!

[Froggiest1982]

Furthermore I encourage Mr. Steve to keep this game his game! That is a fine ideal to strive towards!

I agree, he gave birth a masterpiece we are all enjoying and discuss today meaning his path is correct.

I sometimes wonder what would have been if he was more into something else rather than videogames and scifi.

But I tell you something: that dimension? I wouldn't like it!

[Hamof]

Yes. This is exactly what I am struggling with. Reactor power source and engine power source are intricately entwined by my way of evaluating the probelm. If one has created a reactor with a high T_hot why would one not use this T_hot in the engine design for a ship which equips the same engine and reactor? This maximizes thermal efficiency of the design. Aurora creates a distinction between these concepts which seems arbitrary to me.

Ah, you mean use a single reactor for propulsion, weapons systems, sensors, and shields.  From a fluff perspective, there are the problems of power distribution and rapid demand variability that weapons and possibly shields inflict, which are not friendly to the large reactors needed for propulsion, while sensors can be run off of surplus power.  From a game play standpoint that level of detail would trend towards the power micromanagement that Steve wants to avoid, while integrating weapons with their reactors like is done with engines would require all weapons to be redesigned every time reactor tech improves, which would be prohibitively expensive.

Many moons ago there existed a game called "Nexus" which allowed for a very detailed level of power management at the individual ship level. I have always held to this standard of power control. It seems Steve and I differ in this regard... It is ultimately his game, not mine, however much I might enjoy it.

Furthermore I encourage Mr. Steve to keep this game his game! That is a fine ideal to strive towards!

IIRC, in Nexus you were rarely controlling more than 10 ships at a time, if even that many. Typically it'd be less than 5. By comparison, how many ships are in your average Aurora fleet?

[QuakeIV]

I liked the old fuel cost mechanic because it obliged you to make choices about whether to power the shields up or not (rather than just leaving them running forever).  This would mean that there was a decent chance that you could possibly be caught trying to charge your shields from zero as the enemy is engaging you.  Having them just have maintenance failures like with guns might be the way to solve that better (i havent checked if thats currently the case or not).  It would also make a lot of sense I think for it to really take a toll to just leave them running.

[liveware (OP)]

Nexus and Aurora are certainly different games, and their scope differs considerably... Often by orders of magnitude. Nexus was much more of a tactical simulation than the strategic glory of Aurora.

However I did enjoy the level of control Nexus provided with regards to ship power management. Sometimes I need to drop all weapon and shield power and redirect all effort to engines in order to escape a powerful enemy. Aurora allows the player to assign individual weapon fire controls and targets but restricts power management. If I can target a ships weapons, why can't I control the engines? Or the shields?

Just seems to make more sense to me. Obviously there is development effort required to bring this sort of mechanic into reality, so I am content with the present system. But sometimes I day dream of something different...

[liveware (OP)]

IIRC, in Nexus you were rarely controlling more than 10 ships at a time, if even that many. Typically it'd be less than 5. By comparison, how many ships are in your average Aurora fleet?

My apologies, I did not answer your question.

In any given tactical situation in Aurora, I directly command at most about 10 ships, not including fighter craft. Including fighter craft, I command at most about 500. I consider fighter craft separately because I issue orders to them en masse, whereas I tend to micromanage larger ships.

In Nexus, I rarely commanded more than 8 ships directly.

[liveware (OP)]

This would mean that there was a decent chance that you could possibly be caught trying to charge your shields from zero as the enemy is engaging you.

This situation was relatively common in the Nexus game I referred to previously. This tactical choice of when to raise shields is an interesting mechanic in my opinion.

[consiefe]

I'm actually not a fan of fuel shield relationship. Shields consume power and Steve choosed to make shield power plant integrated in the shields. I don't remember the sizes of VB6 but I assume they are bigger now. They also contribute to AFR and cost considerably. Also they make your ships can be seen from a long way like a billboard. Also I'd think AI can utilise them better now.

So my vote is on shields without fuel req.