Author Topic: C# Aurora v0.x Questions  (Read 49530 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Star Marshal
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 7919
  • Thanked: 4293 times
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
« Reply #450 on: September 06, 2019, 03:47:32 AM »
My personal pet peeve is the fact that dormant points needs to be explored from the active side. Otherwise I'm pretty much fine with them. I like the rude awakening thing they do to you once you notice hostile fleet in your system

I don't know, it seems to make more sense to me that there are some warp points that are very difficult to detect from one end (even if they've been there all along) than for new surveyable warp points to appear when you explore an entirely different system.

(Incidentally, dormant warp points - known as "closed" points in universe - and their effects on defensive planning, are a major plot point in the Starfire book and game series that Aurora is heavily inspired by)

Yes, that is where they originate. The difference is that in Starfire you cannot detect a closed warp point even after someone transits, unless you detect a transit on sensors. Dormant Jump points 'wake up' in Aurora once a transit happens and then you can detect them. Without dormant jump points, you have three options for system generation.

1) Generate everything at start - which would mean a set universe size.
2) Don't allow connections to existing systems, so everything is in chains
3) Only connect to jump points that no one has explored yet.

The problem with all three of those options is that once you survey a system and check the jump points, you have identified all potential threats. You always know your core systems are safe because threats can only appear in non-surveyed frontier systems. You also also never going to find a shortcut from a valuable frontier region to the core worlds. With dormant jump points, you have the potential for sudden threats in unexpected locations and for galactic re-alignment when an unexpected connection is made.

 
The following users thanked this post: froggiest1982, SpikeTheHobbitMage

Offline froggiest1982

  • Warrant Officer, Class 2
  • ****
  • f
  • Posts: 65
  • Thanked: 10 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
« Reply #451 on: September 08, 2019, 03:31:21 AM »
My personal pet peeve is the fact that dormant points needs to be explored from the active side. Otherwise I'm pretty much fine with them. I like the rude awakening thing they do to you once you notice hostile fleet in your system

I don't know, it seems to make more sense to me that there are some warp points that are very difficult to detect from one end (even if they've been there all along) than for new surveyable warp points to appear when you explore an entirely different system.

(Incidentally, dormant warp points - known as "closed" points in universe - and their effects on defensive planning, are a major plot point in the Starfire book and game series that Aurora is heavily inspired by)

Yes, that is where they originate. The difference is that in Starfire you cannot detect a closed warp point even after someone transits, unless you detect a transit on sensors. Dormant Jump points 'wake up' in Aurora once a transit happens and then you can detect them. Without dormant jump points, you have three options for system generation.

1) Generate everything at start - which would mean a set universe size.
2) Don't allow connections to existing systems, so everything is in chains
3) Only connect to jump points that no one has explored yet.

The problem with all three of those options is that once you survey a system and check the jump points, you have identified all potential threats. You always know your core systems are safe because threats can only appear in non-surveyed frontier systems. You also also never going to find a shortcut from a valuable frontier region to the core worlds. With dormant jump points, you have the potential for sudden threats in unexpected locations and for galactic re-alignment when an unexpected connection is made.

Thanks, Steve would you able to integrate option 1 as a classic flag to thick on the game setup at the start or will be too much work?

Thanks again.
 

Offline bro918

  • Able Ordinary Rate
  • Posts: 1
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
« Reply #452 on: September 09, 2019, 10:00:22 PM »
I'm not quite sure if this has been answered in the distant past but after re-reading the post for the change on missile engines being integrated I'm curious.  I noticed you can only have one engine, is the max size for missile engines still only 5 MSP? Has it been increased? I really like making making size 40 super missiles that go 1/3rd the speed of light for my fighter-bombers.  But perhaps that won't be possible with the new fuel consumption rules.  It will be interesting nonetheless to experiment though.
 

Offline Father Tim

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1195
  • Thanked: 151 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
« Reply #453 on: September 10, 2019, 09:37:35 AM »
I'm not quite sure if this has been answered in the distant past but after re-reading the post for the change on missile engines being integrated I'm curious.  I noticed you can only have one engine, is the max size for missile engines still only 5 MSP? Has it been increased? I really like making making size 40 super missiles that go 1/3rd the speed of light for my fighter-bombers.  But perhaps that won't be possible with the new fuel consumption rules.  It will be interesting nonetheless to experiment though.

I believe that since C# Aurora does not have such a thing as a "missile engine"  (all engines are just "engines" now), the size limit has massively increased to five or six hundred missile size points (40 to 50 hull spaces).
 

Offline TMaekler

  • Captain
  • **********
  • Posts: 492
  • Thanked: 70 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
« Reply #454 on: September 10, 2019, 12:14:58 PM »
I was wondering about the possibility of taking over space stations etc. with the new station system and how population would react to that? Do they revolt, have to be pacified? Did Steve write anything about that yet?
 

Offline papent

  • Warrant Officer, Class 2
  • ****
  • Posts: 62
  • Off We Go Into The Wild Blue Yonder
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
« Reply #455 on: September 10, 2019, 12:42:01 PM »
Steve did comment on it briefly before in a previous test campaign in regards to dealing habitats and the like.

sidestepping the war crime potential. if you capture the habitat do you capture the population as well or do the population get redistributed throughout the original colony i.e going onto the surface and other orbital habitats?

Population is tied to the colony, not the habitat. Think of the habitat as infrastructure. So the population remains part of the colony and has to be handled by the remaining habitats and infrastructure.

edited for spelling and grammar
« Last Edit: September 11, 2019, 11:16:15 AM by papent »
 

Offline Hazard

  • Captain
  • **********
  • H
  • Posts: 500
  • Thanked: 42 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
« Reply #456 on: September 10, 2019, 04:15:41 PM »
Note; this means that a coordinated strike against every habitat a colony has without landing troops on the colony can result in a population without any protection from an extremely hostile environment. Millions of deaths are likely to follow.
 

Offline Impassive

  • Leading Rate
  • *
  • Posts: 9
  • Thanked: 1 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
« Reply #457 on: September 13, 2019, 11:59:11 PM »
A couple of questions around commanders:

1.  I remember reading that initially you had set the promotion ratio to 2:1 and was discussing at some point to maybe have promotions happen to fill available vacancies.  What model did you end up going with? Have you had any trouble filling commander roles?

2.  I do also remember reading that you could still manually assign a ship commander above the max rank for the ship, can this still happen?

3.  Did you end up adding the flag for 2+ commander rank for a ship?

Thanks :)
 

Offline QuakeIV

  • Registered
  • Commander
  • *********
  • Posts: 341
  • Thanked: 29 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
« Reply #458 on: September 14, 2019, 12:19:48 AM »
So sayeth me and not the lord, but it seems like when you take population support infrastructure, you should also take its share of the population it was supporting.  Probably not truly necessary (especially for first release), but it kindof seems like thats how it aught to work.
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Star Marshal
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 7919
  • Thanked: 4293 times
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
« Reply #459 on: September 14, 2019, 07:40:55 AM »
A couple of questions around commanders:

1.  I remember reading that initially you had set the promotion ratio to 2:1 and was discussing at some point to maybe have promotions happen to fill available vacancies.  What model did you end up going with? Have you had any trouble filling commander roles?

2.  I do also remember reading that you could still manually assign a ship commander above the max rank for the ship, can this still happen?

3.  Did you end up adding the flag for 2+ commander rank for a ship?

Thanks :)

1. Struggling for XOs :) but commanders are fine.

2. Yes, you can still do this manually.

3. Not yet. Only +1 for auto assignment.
 
The following users thanked this post: Impassive

Offline Father Tim

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1195
  • Thanked: 151 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
« Reply #460 on: September 14, 2019, 09:57:30 PM »
Planetary Installations

There are a few additions and changes for planetary installations, including changes to mineral requirements. Here is a table of the current situation.

<Table snipped for space>


There are no entries in the Sorium or Gallicite columns.  I assume those columns were included for completeness sake, and not that the numbers have gone missing?
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Star Marshal
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 7919
  • Thanked: 4293 times
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
« Reply #461 on: September 15, 2019, 05:28:54 AM »
Planetary Installations

There are a few additions and changes for planetary installations, including changes to mineral requirements. Here is a table of the current situation.

<Table snipped for space>


There are no entries in the Sorium or Gallicite columns.  I assume those columns were included for completeness sake, and not that the numbers have gone missing?

Yes, correct. I included the blank columns in case anyone was concerned I missed them out by accident.
 

Offline SevenOfCarina

  • Warrant Officer, Class 2
  • ****
  • Posts: 70
  • Thanked: 15 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
« Reply #462 on: September 15, 2019, 08:24:15 AM »
Are there any plans for a future implementation of orbital eccentricity for all bodies? As I understand, C# Aurora is supposed to be significantly more performant, and we already have comets in-game anyway. Maybe in v1.x?
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Star Marshal
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 7919
  • Thanked: 4293 times
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
« Reply #463 on: September 15, 2019, 08:27:44 AM »
Are there any plans for a future implementation of orbital eccentricity for all bodies? As I understand, C# Aurora is supposed to be significantly more performant, and we already have comets in-game anyway. Maybe in v1.x?

It is something I have been considering for a while. Most of the requisite code is already in place, so it probably will happen at some point.
 
The following users thanked this post: serger, SevenOfCarina

Offline JustAnotherDude

  • Warrant Officer, Class 2
  • ****
  • J
  • Posts: 59
  • Thanked: 31 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
« Reply #464 on: September 23, 2019, 12:17:55 PM »
I was looking through the changes list and I noticed that you said that the bonuses a tactical officer gives are TBD. Did you ever figure this out or is it still on the to do list?
 

 

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