Author Topic: C# Aurora v0.x Questions  (Read 95880 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Star Marshal
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 10012
  • Thanked: 10239 times
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
« Reply #405 on: August 02, 2019, 03:31:48 AM »
I was reading the changes thread and from what I gathered we will no longer manually be able to set which rank of officer can command any given class of ship and will instead be restricted by a criteria dictated by which command modules we have installed.

This is worrying as I model officers all the way down to ensigns as I like using fighters (which would be piloted by ensigns) and this would mean most of my ships would be commanded by mere lieutenants.

I hope this isn't the case. I was hoping that we'd simply be able to set a minimum rank and a maximum rank to dictate who commands what (no more Admiral fighter-pilots please).

Classes do have specific rank requirements, because there needs to be space for the lower-ranked officers on the same ship. There is a checkbox to give a ship a rank one higher than normal. I could add a +2 as well if required.

Does that mean you can no longer manually dictate whether a ship is commanded by a certain rank?

Since the game seems designed to only model senior officers (OF-5 and above) will craft of a small enough size (like fighters) need an officer character even though normally they'd be too small to be commanded by such a senior officer?

It means you can only dictate the rank within certain constraints. If a design has components that require more junior officers, you can only assign a rank that provides space for those officers below it. You can avoid that increase in rank by not including those components. You can also specify the rank be one higher than it would normally be for the ship type, which is what I am doing in my current campaign for ships at 36,000 tons and higher.

As I mentioned in my previous reply I could add a +2 so you can push the required rank higher, which means you could create your rank hierarchy from a lower starting point. My current game has officers starting at Lieutenant commander (OF-3).
 
The following users thanked this post: SpikeTheHobbitMage

Offline TheRowan

  • Chief Petty Officer
  • ***
  • Posts: 48
  • Thanked: 10 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
« Reply #406 on: August 02, 2019, 07:31:47 AM »
I was reading the changes thread and from what I gathered we will no longer manually be able to set which rank of officer can command any given class of ship and will instead be restricted by a criteria dictated by which command modules we have installed.

This is worrying as I model officers all the way down to ensigns as I like using fighters (which would be piloted by ensigns) and this would mean most of my ships would be commanded by mere lieutenants.

I hope this isn't the case. I was hoping that we'd simply be able to set a minimum rank and a maximum rank to dictate who commands what (no more Admiral fighter-pilots please).

Classes do have specific rank requirements, because there needs to be space for the lower-ranked officers on the same ship. There is a checkbox to give a ship a rank one higher than normal. I could add a +2 as well if required.

Does that mean you can no longer manually dictate whether a ship is commanded by a certain rank?

Since the game seems designed to only model senior officers (OF-5 and above) will craft of a small enough size (like fighters) need an officer character even though normally they'd be too small to be commanded by such a senior officer?

It means you can only dictate the rank within certain constraints. If a design has components that require more junior officers, you can only assign a rank that provides space for those officers below it. You can avoid that increase in rank by not including those components. You can also specify the rank be one higher than it would normally be for the ship type, which is what I am doing in my current campaign for ships at 36,000 tons and higher.

As I mentioned in my previous reply I could add a +2 so you can push the required rank higher, which means you could create your rank hierarchy from a lower starting point. My current game has officers starting at Lieutenant commander (OF-3).

A +2 option would be good, that would let you model officers down to Lt (which always seems a better place to start for fighter pilots)... That would give you fighters and patrol boats being commanded by Lt. to Cdr. rank, corvettes etc. by Lt. Cdr. to Captain, most warships being a Cdr but with the option to have capital ships under a Captain and the pride of your fleet commanded by a Commodore (until he gets sacked for misusing his hire car, but that's another story). Presumably any ship where you didn't assign an officer is actually being commanded by a grizzled chief or a terrified Sublieutenant...
 
The following users thanked this post: SpikeTheHobbitMage

Offline Garfunkel

  • Registered
  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1789
  • Thanked: 448 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
« Reply #407 on: August 03, 2019, 04:49:01 AM »
A +2 option would be good for those nations/powers/races where the rank structure gets long and elaborate. Especially as fighters will probably become more common in C# what with sensor changes and the AI getting to use them and so on.
 

Offline sloanjh (OP)

  • Global Moderator
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • *****
  • Posts: 2803
  • Thanked: 112 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
« Reply #408 on: August 03, 2019, 08:30:40 AM »
Since the game seems designed to only model senior officers (OF-5 and above) will craft of a small enough size (like fighters) need an officer character even though normally they'd be too small to be commanded by such a senior officer?

The named officers in Aurora are not the entire officer corps for your empire - they're the "exceptional" officers.  If a ship does not have a named officer in command (or in a staff slot), then it's assumed that an "average" officer (with all traits = 0) is in command.  (Unless Steve changed things while I wasn't looking :) )

John
 

Offline Bartimeus

  • Warrant Officer, Class 2
  • ****
  • B
  • Posts: 55
  • Thanked: 6 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
« Reply #409 on: August 08, 2019, 06:32:49 AM »
Hello people !

Do you know if Steve paln to add, one day, multi biome planets with a continetal subdivision of those planets ?

Thanks !
 

Offline Garfunkel

  • Registered
  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1789
  • Thanked: 448 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
« Reply #410 on: August 08, 2019, 12:04:47 PM »
He hasn't said anything about it but it has been asked for in the past. Extremely unlikely to be included in C# 1.0 I'd say.
 

Offline Profugo Barbatus

  • Warrant Officer, Class 2
  • ****
  • P
  • Posts: 72
  • Thanked: 17 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
« Reply #411 on: August 08, 2019, 07:22:44 PM »
That would add complexity to the ground combat that I don't really think adds great benefit to it. There's absolutely no way your stationing enough troops on a planet that you actually need to station them on a different continent to make space. Given that, if any of the planet is comprised of jungle rifts, I'd just want to pack all my forces into there. I believe that's part of why the concept is 'dominant terrain', as opposed to literally monobiome worlds. If it has a significant jungle component, then its abstracted that planetary garrisons and defenses are focused in these defensible areas.

Any terrain past that is open to your RP needs. Just because the dominant terrain is jungle rifts, doesn't mean you can't RP the planet as also having verdant, green plains, prime for sowing crops.
 

Offline Shuul

  • Warrant Officer, Class 1
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 89
  • Thanked: 23 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
« Reply #412 on: August 12, 2019, 01:50:15 PM »
Sorry for the question, its just too many things to read through to understand if that is possible.

Will I be able in C# to establish a deep-space station on jump point with recreation and maintenance facilities to hold dozens of weapon platforms (1000ton ships with smallest engine to be able just to leave the hangar when enemy comes from jump point)?
Im just thinking of a defense force that can stand on one place for almost forever with minimum micro required while having a good punch.
 

Online Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Star Marshal
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 10012
  • Thanked: 10239 times
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
« Reply #413 on: August 12, 2019, 02:01:17 PM »
Sorry for the question, its just too many things to read through to understand if that is possible.

Will I be able in C# to establish a deep-space station on jump point with recreation and maintenance facilities to hold dozens of weapon platforms (1000ton ships with smallest engine to be able just to leave the hangar when enemy comes from jump point)?
Im just thinking of a defense force that can stand on one place for almost forever with minimum micro required while having a good punch.

I would probably do it as group of ships/stations, but yes that is possible.
 

Offline Bughunter

  • Bug Moderators
  • Rear Admiral
  • ***
  • Posts: 916
  • Thanked: 121 times
  • Discord Username: Bughunter
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
« Reply #414 on: August 27, 2019, 10:30:58 AM »
In VB Aurora jump gates will be discovered by active sensors. Will stabilized jump points work the same, or need survey?

Didn't give it much thought myself, but the latter would provide more of a defenders advantage, and maybe also some interesting strategies of preventing an advancing enemy from surveying to delay them.
 

Online Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Star Marshal
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 10012
  • Thanked: 10239 times
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
« Reply #415 on: August 27, 2019, 12:24:44 PM »
In VB Aurora jump gates will be discovered by active sensors. Will stabilized jump points work the same, or need survey?

Didn't give it much thought myself, but the latter would provide more of a defenders advantage, and maybe also some interesting strategies of preventing an advancing enemy from surveying to delay them.

They are detected like jump gates.
 

Offline boggo2300

  • Registered
  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 895
  • Thanked: 16 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
« Reply #416 on: August 27, 2019, 04:55:16 PM »
Sorry for the question, its just too many things to read through to understand if that is possible.

Will I be able in C# to establish a deep-space station on jump point with recreation and maintenance facilities to hold dozens of weapon platforms (1000ton ships with smallest engine to be able just to leave the hangar when enemy comes from jump point)?
Im just thinking of a defense force that can stand on one place for almost forever with minimum micro required while having a good punch.

I would probably do it as group of ships/stations, but yes that is possible.

You could call it the Babylon project
The boggosity of the universe tends towards maximum.
 

Offline Hazard

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • H
  • Posts: 627
  • Thanked: 62 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
« Reply #417 on: August 28, 2019, 10:41:31 AM »
Just don't lose projects 1 through 4.
 

Online Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Star Marshal
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 10012
  • Thanked: 10239 times
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
« Reply #418 on: August 28, 2019, 10:54:42 AM »
Just don't lose projects 1 through 4.

Losing 4 is fine, because it helps you before you build it.
 

Offline boggo2300

  • Registered
  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 895
  • Thanked: 16 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
« Reply #419 on: August 28, 2019, 05:12:49 PM »
Just don't lose projects 1 through 4.

Losing 4 is fine, because it helps you before you build it.

Scarily that also fits in quite well with your current 40K campaign :D
The boggosity of the universe tends towards maximum.
 

 

Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72