Author Topic: design vs AI compared to design vs Players  (Read 2636 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline davidb86

  • Warrant Officer, Class 1
  • *****
  • Posts: 78
  • Thanked: 4 times
Re: design vs AI compared to design vs Players
« Reply #60 on: November 06, 2018, 03:44:00 PM »
Quote from: Michael Sandy on Today at 12:21:11 PM
Quote
Here is a cheap design to make box launchers somewhat less attractive.  Or at least require the attacker have a LOT more fire controls to manage them.

    Victory class Orbital Defence Monitor    10 350 tons     99 Crew     304 BP      TCS 207  TH 0  EM 0
    1 km/s     Armour 1-42     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 4     PPV 180
    Maint Life 21.56 Years     MSP 1073    AFR 214%    IFR 3%    1YR 4    5YR 66    Max Repair 19 MSP
    Intended Deployment Time: 0.1 months    Spare Berths 8   


    Fuel Capacity 50 000 Litres    Range N/A

    brrrt 10cm Railgun V1/C1 (60x4)    Range 10 000km     TS: 4000 km/s     Power 3-1     RM 1    ROF 15        1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
    Flak Control Fire Control S00.5 32-4000 (3)    Max Range: 64 000 km   TS: 4000 km/s     84 69 53 37 22 6 0 0 0 0
    Bulk Power Pressurised Water Reactor PB-1 (10)     Total Power Output 20    Armour 0    Exp 5%

    This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes

Yes, it has only 1/3 the power needs to cycle the railguns, so it has an effective cycle time of 45 seconds, but that is just fine if the main threat is reduced sized launchers.  At 304 BP for 180 PPV, it is also a dandy way of keeping the civilians happy.  A major concern if there are battles with lots of casualties to get them demanding protection.
The low 4000 km/s tracking speed is why there are so many railguns per fire control. Ion Tech missiles routinely achieve speeds of 20,000 - 24,000 km/s.  this means your 84% final fire percentage will drop as low as 14% so one beam control per twenty railguns would be about right to be able to clear a salvo of 10 missiles.  Versus better missiles it would be quickly smashed to bits by even small volleys. I always add a small (6 seconds range of the best missile I or my enemy is building)resolution 1 active sensor on each ship  to reduce mission kills on my sensor ships.  I also do not see the value of a 0.1 deployment time other than to reduce quarters and crew requirement, but for a 10,000 ton ship that will sit in orbit that seems like gaming the system.
 

Offline Jorgen_CAB

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • J
  • Posts: 852
  • Thanked: 15 times
Re: design vs AI compared to design vs Players
« Reply #61 on: November 06, 2018, 03:44:44 PM »
Here is a hypothetical defense base in C# Aurora... no fleet would probably dare trying to just bypass it because it will be able to put out some serious trouble if not dealt with properly.

We find a good defensible moon or planet in the system... perhaps some with a high pressure and extreme heat with good defensible terrain.

Here we build up some DTS and a sizable ground force (woth ground to orbital defense weapons) with a few fighter squadrons, some for ground protection and some for space superiority (including recon crafts). A small maintenance capacity for say 30.000t total capacity. We add roughly 20.000t of FAC missile attack crafts some smaller patrol boats for a few thousand tones and then a command station with a flag bridge and mainly AMM capacity. You can also station one or several small tankers there to extend any range of the FAC and fighters if need be.

First of all you would need to bring a considerably much stronger fleet and invasion force to bring down that military installation and it would take time... probably enough time for a retaliatory strike from a friendly fleet nearby.

You would need invasion ships, troops etc to remove the threat.

This base would be like an entrenched fortress and very dangerous... you might also not detect it if you don't scout properly and that can come as a nasty surprise. Since scouting takes time an allied fleet might even be able to reach the system in time for a coordinated strike on an invading fleet.

The fleet needed to remove this base would probably be a few order of magnitude more expensive than the defensive force. You also could not know when and if allied fleet assets would be close by to support it.
« Last Edit: November 06, 2018, 04:03:10 PM by Jorgen_CAB »
 

Offline Jorgen_CAB

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • J
  • Posts: 852
  • Thanked: 15 times
Re: design vs AI compared to design vs Players
« Reply #62 on: November 06, 2018, 03:50:24 PM »
I also do not see the value of a 0.1 deployment time other than to reduce quarters and crew requirement, but for a 10,000 ton ship that will sit in orbit that seems like gaming the system.

I would basically view that as the crew are not really sleeping and living on the station but just working there. A 0.1 deployment time is still a few days so no problem working there for an 8 hour shift and then get back down to the surface or any other civilian station in the same spot.

Seem quite ok from a role-play perspective in my opinion.

Almost all military stations that I build use that logic which also make them different from regular ships.
 

Offline Michael Sandy

  • Captain
  • **********
  • M
  • Posts: 563
  • Thanked: 24 times
Re: design vs AI compared to design vs Players
« Reply #63 on: November 06, 2018, 04:56:26 PM »
I thought about adding a hangar or two to the design, and base scouting vessels on board.  That way, the expensive sensors don't cost maintenance.  And the above design, just under 20% of the cost is fire controls.  Adding hangars would allow for more fire controls while keeping that ratio, allowing it to be easier to upgrade fire controls.

But giving the base even a little more crew endurance is surprisingly expensive.  A lot of the hidden cost of base tech railguns is the crew requirement.  Going from .1 to 1 month endurance adds over 100 BP on a 300 BP design.
 

Offline Jorgen_CAB

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • J
  • Posts: 852
  • Thanked: 15 times
Re: design vs AI compared to design vs Players
« Reply #64 on: November 06, 2018, 05:18:04 PM »
I thought about adding a hangar or two to the design, and base scouting vessels on board.  That way, the expensive sensors don't cost maintenance.  And the above design, just under 20% of the cost is fire controls.  Adding hangars would allow for more fire controls while keeping that ratio, allowing it to be easier to upgrade fire controls.

Just remember that you will pay maintenance for ships and other stuff in Hangars in C#, but for VB6 you don't have to. We now pay supplies for stuff and that is extended to things in hangars too, I think that is a good change.
 

Offline Michael Sandy

  • Captain
  • **********
  • M
  • Posts: 563
  • Thanked: 24 times
Re: design vs AI compared to design vs Players
« Reply #65 on: November 06, 2018, 05:20:51 PM »
I doubt I will be playing C# anytime soon.  I want to get my current game to fairly high tech, and I haven't been following all the changes.  So I will want to see some after action reports from C# games to really get me into it.
 

Offline davidb86

  • Warrant Officer, Class 1
  • *****
  • Posts: 78
  • Thanked: 4 times
Re: design vs AI compared to design vs Players
« Reply #66 on: November 06, 2018, 05:23:31 PM »
Quote
But giving the base even a little more crew endurance is surprisingly expensive.  A lot of the hidden cost of base tech railguns is the crew requirement.  Going from .1 to 1 month endurance adds over 100 BP on a 300 BP design.

That is why I mentioned it.  The decreased crew and quarters requirements are intended to make fighters and especially beam fighters viable without extremely high tech levels. The high crew requirements for weapons on ships or bases is because they have to be maintained and manned around the clock. For fighters the maintenance is assumed to happen on the carrier in a hanger deck.  Just like a modern jet fighter has a crew of 1 or 2 pilots but a ground crew of 16-20 to service it.  That is why a US carrier with 90 airplanes and helicopters has an air wing complement of 2500 crew in addition to the 3500 crew running the ship. I doubt you are planning to station these monitors in a large hanger deck, thus the exploit only works if you ignore the actual crew required to maintain the monitor for more than a 3 day tour.
 

Offline Jorgen_CAB

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • J
  • Posts: 852
  • Thanked: 15 times
Re: design vs AI compared to design vs Players
« Reply #67 on: November 06, 2018, 05:31:39 PM »
Quote
But giving the base even a little more crew endurance is surprisingly expensive.  A lot of the hidden cost of base tech railguns is the crew requirement.  Going from .1 to 1 month endurance adds over 100 BP on a 300 BP design.

That is why I mentioned it.  The decreased crew and quarters requirements are intended to make fighters and especially beam fighters viable without extremely high tech levels. The high crew requirements for weapons on ships or bases is because they have to be maintained and manned around the clock. For fighters the maintenance is assumed to happen on the carrier in a hanger deck.  Just like a modern jet fighter has a crew of 1 or 2 pilots but a ground crew of 16-20 to service it.  That is why a US carrier with 90 airplanes and helicopters has an air wing complement of 2500 crew in addition to the 3500 crew running the ship. I doubt you are planning to station these monitors in a large hanger deck, thus the exploit only works if you ignore the actual crew required to maintain the monitor for more than a 3 day tour.

Why?!?

The station is in orbit of a planet or part of some station complex with maintenance facilities and civilian stations to house the crew.

The crew only operate the station.. maintenance is done by dedicated maintenance personnel from the maintenance facilities and the crew don't live on the station.

I really don't see much conflict in this.
 

Offline Jorgen_CAB

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • J
  • Posts: 852
  • Thanked: 15 times
Re: design vs AI compared to design vs Players
« Reply #68 on: November 06, 2018, 05:39:40 PM »
I doubt I will be playing C# anytime soon.  I want to get my current game to fairly high tech, and I haven't been following all the changes.  So I will want to see some after action reports from C# games to really get me into it.

For me it is the reverse... can't get myself to play VB6 Aurora anymore... tried a few campaigns but I just want the new stuff.   :)

That is why I keep referencing what I would do in C# Aurora, there are so many fundamental changes to that version.
 

Offline davidb86

  • Warrant Officer, Class 1
  • *****
  • Posts: 78
  • Thanked: 4 times
Re: design vs AI compared to design vs Players
« Reply #69 on: November 06, 2018, 05:42:31 PM »
Since my primary computer is a laptop with a short screen,  VB6 was playable but not nearly as fun as it is on a taller monitor.  I am waiting to play my next campaign on C# Aurora.
 

 

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