v1.13.0 Changes Discussion Thread

[tornakrelic]

You could always think of it as interfaced escape pods.  I. e.  As the captain sounds general quarters (battle quarters, etc. ) and battle lighting flicks on, all personnel other than direct damage control personnel would immediately head for their escape pods.  Each escape pod would have wired in terminals for each person that is strapped in, and would be able to do their combat jobs from there.  You would be able to immediately eject in the event of an "abandon ship" order.  Internal sensors would be able to give basic damage reports on the fly, and for armor damage reports, simple radar density scanners placed on the internal parts of the armor would be able to tell you how thick the armor is, similar to what we use currently for geological surveys today.  Given that the computers onboard would know how thick the armor should be and it's density, you could compare the scanner data to the given and, get armor damage reports "on the fly" as well.

Just my two cents, sorry if this was inappropriate, I don't mean to get in the way.

[liveware]

You could always think of it as interfaced escape pods.  I. e.  As the captain sounds general quarters (battle quarters, etc. ) and battle lighting flicks on, all personnel other than direct damage control personnel would immediately head for their escape pods.  Each escape pod would have wired in terminals for each person that is strapped in, and would be able to do their combat jobs from there.  You would be able to immediately eject in the event of an "abandon ship" order.  Internal sensors would be able to give basic damage reports on the fly, and for armor damage reports, simple radar density scanners placed on the internal parts of the armor would be able to tell you how thick the armor is, similar to what we use currently for geological surveys today.  Given that the computers onboard would know how thick the armor should be and it's density, you could compare the scanner data to the given and, get armor damage reports "on the fly" as well.

Just my two cents, sorry if this was inappropriate, I don't mean to get in the way.

That's basically what I assume actually. If you've ever read "The Algebraist" there is a segment in that book that discusses an engagement between some fairly advanced human spacecraft and some nasty aliens. One item of interest was the use of sealed 'combat pods' which contained a single crew member suspended in some sort of shock gel and connected to the ship's weapon systems via a neural computer link. I've always thought that type of a setup translated pretty well to Aurora's life pod situation.

[Barkhorn]

I just always assumed the escape pods didn't launch instantly; considering they're directly on top of the wreck, we don't actually know that they are.  In fact, we don't even know they're separate vehicles; they could be armored citadels that simply withstand the destruction of the ship.  Ships do this in real life sometimes; three sailors were trapped on the USS West Virginia after it was sunk at Pearl Harbor.  They survived for a long time, 3 weeks iirc, stuck in that shelter.  For all we know that kind of thing happens in Aurora too.

[QuakeIV]

I just always assumed the escape pods didn't launch instantly; considering they're directly on top of the wreck, we don't actually know that they are.  In fact, we don't even know they're separate vehicles; they could be armored citadels that simply withstand the destruction of the ship.  Ships do this in real life sometimes; three sailors were trapped on the USS West Virginia after it was sunk at Pearl Harbor.  They survived for a long time, 3 weeks iirc, stuck in that shelter.  For all we know that kind of thing happens in Aurora too.

In fairness that makes a degree of sense, for me pods leaving is more logical since city-destroying levels of weaponry are involved, but at the same time you can have a ship suffer an armor penetrating hit and not immediately vaporize the whole crew, which rather implies that the ships have compartmentalization adequate to deal with that to some extent.  It seems to me both theories work with the information at hand (though I do think the wording leans towards the pods leaving the ship, particularly since the pods are separate objects and would remain if the wreck itself was salvaged or something before they expired).

It does also sound a little cooler to me just because I like the idea of SAR ships cruising up to a wreck and pulling people out of it...

[Barkhorn]

I would imagine the nuclear weapons that destroy ships would also blow up any loose escape pods.  I mean, can a pod really get far enough away from a ship suffering a magazine detonation to survive?  If it can, it kinda makes you wonder why they didn't make the magazine out of the same stuff as the escape pod.

[xenoscepter]

I would imagine the nuclear weapons that destroy ships would also blow up any loose escape pods.  I mean, can a pod really get far enough away from a ship suffering a magazine detonation to survive?  If it can, it kinda makes you wonder why they didn't make the magazine out of the same stuff as the escape pod.

 - I mean, but would they need to be? Any concussive blast, they would need be only strong enough to ride it out. Radiation / Thermal Output, they'd need only sufficient insulation to survive until it dissipated. How much ship is between them and the magazine? That's a broad statement to be honest...

[captainwolfer]

The damage of even nuclear explosions drops off relatively quickly in space. Most of the damage nukes do is caused by the blast wave and the fact that the air is being superheated or whatever. Given that even civilian ships can survive small (Strength 1) nukes, I would expect that armoring life pods enough that proximity explosions won't usually kill them would actually be quite feasible, especially since the armor only needs to work once.

[QuakeIV]

I think it would depend on how much warning the pods have that the magazines are about to go and how quickly they can move as to whether opening the distance is better than staying put.  Notably its an inverse square law so the first little bit of distance is going to have huge marginal gains over staying put.

[tornakrelic]

We now need something for gauss cannons maybe?

Is not Gauss Cannon's thing, that they do not suffer failures?

Or am I incorrect in that account

Is this true in v1. 13. 0?

[serger]

The damage of even nuclear explosions drops off relatively quickly in space. Most of the damage nukes do is caused by the blast wave and the fact that the air is being superheated or whatever.

In fact it's quite reverse: the damage of nuclear explosions drops much faster in air, than in vacuum, because in vacuum nearly all of explosion's energy is moving as spherical wave (so depressing at 1/r^2), while in air it's boiling in all the volume of this sphere (so depressing nearly at 1/r^3).
The main damaging factor of nuke in vacuum is very dense gamma wave. Gamma have quite feeble penetrability (millimeters of steel, for example), so any spacecraft's hull will absorb this wave, resulting in evaporation and hummerlike blow of vaporized materials of hull, if it was close enough. At bigger distance - hull will melt or seam by uneven thermal expansion.

[captainwolfer]

The damage of even nuclear explosions drops off relatively quickly in space. Most of the damage nukes do is caused by the blast wave and the fact that the air is being superheated or whatever.

In fact it's quite reverse: the damage of nuclear explosions drops much faster in air, than in vacuum, because in vacuum nearly all of explosion's energy is moving as spherical wave (so depressing at 1/r^2), while in air it's boiling in all the volume of this sphere (so depressing nearly at 1/r^3).
The main damaging factor of nuke in vacuum is very dense gamma wave. Gamma have quite feeble penetrability (millimeters of steel, for example), so any spacecraft's hull will absorb this wave, resulting in evaporation and hummerlike blow of vaporized materials of hull, if it was close enough. At bigger distance - hull will melt or seam by uneven thermal expansion.

Heat is relatively easy to  armor against, though. The thing is that because it is a spherical explosion, increasing the distance between you and the nuke rapidly decreases how much energy you absorb.

[tornakrelic]

Sorry if this is the wrong thread, but do PD ships require multiple BFCs to defend against multiple incoming missiles?

From what I have read, you need multiple BFCs to have the ability to multi-target, but this is usually discussing having attack weapons target multiple enemy ships, not PD weapons such as dual turret gauss cannons target multiple incoming missiles.
From testing, I know that PD using a single BFC will target incoming volleys of missiles as long as they are being fired off of a single enemy missile ship.
However, against small fighters in swarms (say 40 - 50) firing a single missile each, do my PD ships need multiple BFCs to be able to target each of the missiles as they are not truly volley firing?

I ask because BFCs are quite expensive as well as if I use this tactic against enemy ships, it overwhelms the enemy's PD quite easily.

[Froggiest1982]

Sorry if this is the wrong thread, but do PD ships require multiple BFCs to defend against multiple incoming missiles?

From what I have read, you need multiple BFCs to have the ability to multi-target, but this is usually discussing having attack weapons target multiple enemy ships, not PD weapons such as dual turret gauss cannons target multiple incoming missiles.
From testing, I know that PD using a single BFC will target incoming volleys of missiles as long as they are being fired off of a single enemy missile ship.
However, against small fighters in swarms (say 40 - 50) firing a single missile each, do my PD ships need multiple BFCs to be able to target each of the missiles as they are not truly volley firing?

I ask because BFCs are quite expensive as well as if I use this tactic against enemy ships, it overwhelms the enemy's PD quite easily.

you can find you answer here: http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=8495.msg117825#msg117825

Long story short, 1 Fire Control is enough to engage a Salvo (no matter the size). Multiple Salvos will require multiple BFC weapons

[tornakrelic]

Sorry if this is the wrong thread, but do PD ships require multiple BFCs to defend against multiple incoming missiles?

From what I have read, you need multiple BFCs to have the ability to multi-target, but this is usually discussing having attack weapons target multiple enemy ships, not PD weapons such as dual turret gauss cannons target multiple incoming missiles. 
From testing, I know that PD using a single BFC will target incoming volleys of missiles as long as they are being fired off of a single enemy missile ship. 
However, against small fighters in swarms (say 40 - 50) firing a single missile each, do my PD ships need multiple BFCs to be able to target each of the missiles as they are not truly volley firing?

I ask because BFCs are quite expensive as well as if I use this tactic against enemy ships, it overwhelms the enemy's PD quite easily.

you can find you answer here: hxxp: aurora2. pentarch. org/index. php?topic=8495. msg117825#msg117825

Long story short, 1 Fire Control is enough to engage a Salvo (no matter the size).  Multiple Salvos will require multiple BFC.

From what Steve said in that link, in C# 1 FC is enough for any number of salvos, the restriction on number of salvos is the number of turrets.  Or did I read that wrong on your link?

[Droll]

Multiple Salvos will require multiple BFC.

This is false, multiple salvos require multiple weapons to simultaneously target but not necessarily multiple PD BFCs. A change that happened in C#