v1.13.0 Changes Discussion Thread

[QuakeIV]

The other major consideration in my view is that when we look at how missiles and ship destruction actually work, it's really not feasible for missiles to even in five seconds assess that the target is destroyed and re-target.

If a significant percentage of the internal volume of the target turns into plasma you could probably conclude that it is dead.

[serger]

I see no way to think about Aurora drives as about inertial velocity thing. They obviously cannot have any inertion or momentum - it will not conform to any other game mechanics.
These drives are, despite their tech names, smth like "vibrating" micro-jump drives of Asimov's or Anderson's SF worlds. There is no way to envision them in a different way with this mechanics.
So no need to "blow past target" and even nearly no possibility to be so.

The same about nuclear explosions. There is no way to envision them as contact or proximity nuclear explosions near to the hull, because (as nuclearslurpee already mentioned) there is no missile body impact and (as QuakeIV already mentioned) no explosion noise burst / blinding. And there is missile damage pattern, that is obviously contact explosion pattern, not proximity one.
So the only way to envision this - is to envision some explosion-pumping TN mechanics, that is delivering some small part of normal-space explosion's energy towards Aether, and that is missile's impact at the hull.

The same about sensors - they are (as QuakeIV already mentioned too) all-aspect ones always in Aurora mechanics, and there is no nuclear explosion EMP, and there is no way to just ignore those absences.

Yes, if it will be some retargetting - it will be in the middle of battle. But it's not that the first strike will be much simpler - there will be other ships and their ECMs, that must be filtered, so no cause to think that target's destruction will complicate missile brain's existence. Any our probe without even dedicated sensor can scan entire star system in 5-sec interval - what is the problem of scanning several nearby ships?

That's not a problem, there will be no contradiction with any other data you see in Aurora. We - and Steve in the first place - can chose what we want as more interesting, more play-well mechanics.

[Jorgen_CAB]

While there are no realistic chance to assess damage within the fraction of a second or more that it needs it does not matter... If Steve want missile to re-target in each 5-second turn they can. It is simply an abstraction as many other things like scanning an entire star system in 5-seconds or being able to see wrecks instantaneously but not functional ships for example. These are all abstractions to make the game either fun or simpler.

A ship going from just damaged to destroyed in this time-frame probably would be impossible in most cases to know even if you could perfectly scan the ship, they don't have to always blow up to be considered a mission kill. There also would not be much of wreckage left either if that was the case.

Anyway... I think it is just fine if we did not get the re-targeting back... we can either calculate roughly how many missiles we need and spread them out or stagger the salvos over several 5-second turns so they do have time to re-target. You have to piece together the information you have on the targets capabilities and fire missiles accordingly.

The more mechanics in the game to reduce the effectiveness of mass launched box launched salvos the better in my opinion.

[nuclearslurpee]

The other major consideration in my view is that when we look at how missiles and ship destruction actually work, it's really not feasible for missiles to even in five seconds assess that the target is destroyed and re-target.

If a significant percentage of the internal volume of the target turns into plasma you could probably conclude that it is dead.

Yes - but my point is that this takes time, particularly for any ship large and sturdy enough to require several (dozen...hundred...) close hits from nuclear weapons to destroy. Because of that time, it is reasonable that a missile would not be able to near-instantaneously break lock and re-target when the "official" killing blow is landed by another missile in the same salvo - given that missiles in a salvo fly in quite close formation relative to the scales involved.

One presumes, I think, that missiles in a separate salvo are separated enough from each other that this destruction process happens quickly enough for those missiles to re-target. It's only the same salvo we're concerned about.

I see no way to think about Aurora drives as about inertial velocity thing. They obviously cannot have any inertion or momentum - it will not conform to any other game mechanics.
These drives are, despite their tech names, smth like "vibrating" micro-jump drives of Asimov's or Anderson's SF worlds. There is no way to envision them in a different way with this mechanics.
So no need to "blow past target" and even nearly no possibility to be so.

The rest is broadly good points, but I do want to note that canonically (as best I can tell, as Steve's canon is deliberately vague) engines in Aurora travel through the fluidic space of the Aether, thus do have inertia, momentum, kinetic energy, and so on - the distinction is that rather than traveling in vacuum objects in Aurora are subject to a drag force from this fluidic space (which is why ships travel at constant speed under constant engine power, it follows).

Of course once can headcanon however they like, but canonically there's nothing that suggests objects with mass and velocity measured in-game somehow do not have momentum nor kinetic energy.

Anyway... I think it is just fine if we did not get the re-targeting back... we can either calculate roughly how many missiles we need and spread them out or stagger the salvos over several 5-second turns so they do have time to re-target. You have to piece together the information you have on the targets capabilities and fire missiles accordingly.

The more mechanics in the game to reduce the effectiveness of mass launched box launched salvos the better in my opinion.

Amen, fellow space dictator.

[Jorgen_CAB]

Of course once can headcanon however they like, but canonically there's nothing that suggests objects with mass and velocity measured in-game somehow do not have momentum nor kinetic energy.

In terms of this I always envision that drives in Aurora never change a ships momentum (they can stop and turn in an instant or accelerate from 0-10kkm/s) directly but sort of make micro teleportation of ships or sort of folds space like an Alcubierre drive. From a technobabble way the Aether are subject to gravity so ships that travel throw the Aether this way may not change its momentum or kinetic energy directly it will change the energy as it get closer and closer to really large massive objects. This is why a ship will always have the same relative speed and momentum as any large massive object it get close to using the Aether drives. This is also why only really small objects (500t or less) can land on planets.

[serger]

I do want to note that canonically (as best I can tell, as Steve's canon is deliberately vague) engines in Aurora travel through the fluidic space of the Aether, thus do have inertia, momentum, kinetic energy, and so on

Aether "has fluidic properties and is much more compressed in terms of distance between objects". There is no mention about other properties, like inertia, and this phrase implies some (most relevant/important) fluidic properties, not all properties of normal space's fluids. For example, normal space's fluids have a property of 3-dimensional wave mechanics, that Aurora have no trace of - Aurora's Aether is smth like planar nearly-Aristotelian projections of normal-space ecliptics, not 3D volume at all, both in speed or sensoring aspects. There is no hydromechanics in Aurora, no such properties as drag coefficient, block coefficient and so on.

There is no reason to confine ourselves in this "real physics" matters, because there will be no conformity in any case - the only way to make it nearly-coherent is to envision some other space with other number of dimensions, other metrics, topology, quantification and so on. And then - and only then - we'll have a freedom to chose usable, "playable" rules, and it's to be rules, not absolute freedom, because a play needs constraints to be interesting, to mould problems and challenges. Old retargetting rule was too simple, there was nearly no challenge. "No retargetting" rule will be too micro-heavy. We need smth to not be bogged down in calculating every single enemy ship's "this-missile's-hit-chance-and-warhead-strength-capacity" and manual targetting. So I'd prefer to have and ability to paint some target with ship's guidance system, but it must be confined hardly (as it is now with a pressure of MFC's range and resolution), and it will be good to have some decent probability of distraction, to have more importance of escorts and simultaneously less micro-manage with them. I'd like to see it even with missiles without sensors, but semi-active guidance is really naturally more like "hit or miss" thing, so it's good enough now, no pressing need to change current rules about AMM-like missiles.

[serger]

or being able to see wrecks instantaneously but not functional ships for example.

"If a ship should suffer so much damage that it loses structural cohesion, the wreckage will be pushed out of the Aether, like an object floating to the surface of a fluid, and therefore will be detected easily in normal space."

That's good enough for me - I can easily unfold this "terse and simplistic" explanation with some high math and make myself believe in it to play without exertion.

The same about circular orbits and strict ecliptical planars of Aether star system's locuses - it's smth I can envision as some complicated and rather counterintuitive consequences of additional dimensions and their interaction with normal matter, some nearly-Aristotelian 2-dimensional projections of normal conic sections (ellipses and hyperbolas) into circles and straight lines, formed there as a consequence of long-recurring movement of gravitic masses. Good enough to play without exertion. It's not arbitrary for me, it can be envisioned as natural consequences of some intricate extra-dimensional physics.

What I cannot believe - it's 500-tons limit, for example. Just cannot explain it for myself at all, it's like a bone in the throat, it's not natural, it's completely arbitrary and is not necessary.

[Migi]

or being able to see wrecks instantaneously but not functional ships for example.

"If a ship should suffer so much damage that it loses structural cohesion, the wreckage will be pushed out of the Aether, like an object floating to the surface of a fluid, and therefore will be detected easily in normal space."

That's good enough for me - I can easily unfold this "terse and simplistic" explanation with some high math and make myself believe in it to play without exertion.

The same about circular orbits and strict ecliptical planars of Aether star system's locuses - it's smth I can envision as some complicated and rather counterintuitive consequences of additional dimensions and their interaction with normal matter, some nearly-Aristotelian 2-dimensional projections of normal conic sections (ellipses and hyperbolas) into circles and straight lines, formed there as a consequence of long-recurring movement of gravitic masses. Good enough to play without exertion. It's not arbitrary for me, it can be envisioned as natural consequences of some intricate extra-dimensional physics.

What I cannot believe - it's 500-tons limit, for example. Just cannot explain it for myself at all, it's like a bone in the throat, it's not natural, it's completely arbitrary and is not necessary.

If you really want to nitpick, how come a ship which looses all engines stays within the Aether rather than falling out and becoming detectable like a wreck?
For that matter why are immobile stations not detectable like wrecks?

[serger]

If you really want to nitpick, how come a ship which looses all engines stays within the Aether rather than falling out and becoming detectable like a wreck?
For that matter why are immobile stations not detectable like wrecks?

Take it by analogy with wet navy or aerostatics: if some ocean ship will loose all engines - it will not sink, if some zeppelin will loose all engines - it will not fall.
Engine is for moving through Aether in rapid controllable manner, not for drifting there without falling out in normal space - that's "structural cohesion" is for, citing again that Lore fragment.

[Migi]

If you really want to nitpick, how come a ship which looses all engines stays within the Aether rather than falling out and becoming detectable like a wreck?
For that matter why are immobile stations not detectable like wrecks?

Take it by analogy with wet navy or aerostatics: if some ocean ship will loose all engines - it will not sink, if some zeppelin will loose all engines - it will not fall.
Engine is for moving through Aether in rapid controllable manner, not for drifting there without falling out in normal space - that's "structural cohesion" is for, citing again that Lore fragment.

That's a nice and helpful analogy.

[Jorgen_CAB]

If you really want to nitpick, how come a ship which looses all engines stays within the Aether rather than falling out and becoming detectable like a wreck?
For that matter why are immobile stations not detectable like wrecks?

Take it by analogy with wet navy or aerostatics: if some ocean ship will loose all engines - it will not sink, if some zeppelin will loose all engines - it will not fall.
Engine is for moving through Aether in rapid controllable manner, not for drifting there without falling out in normal space - that's "structural cohesion" is for, citing again that Lore fragment.

Does not make much sense in this case though as you need the engine to touch the water in the first place. A station or any object in space that does not have an active engine can't surf the Aether in any way so it makes very little sense in my opinion.

You can make up any technobabble you wish, it is just game mechanic at the end of the day for making game-play easy and understandable.

You obviously can easily see any wreck in a system but it is hard to detect a large population on a planet with all the satellites in and around the planet. At some point you just have to give up and realise it is just a game mechanic. The reason it is the way it is is because it otherwise wuold be very difficult to find wreckage and that is no fun, fun take priority over what makes sense.

It is the same with sensors and how this works... even a pre TN empire play by the same rules even though they don't possess the technology to see everything in space in an instant. They would also notice any combat damage done at the outskirt of the system or see any wreckage as soon as a ship is destroyed. Conventional engines and ships also follow regular game mechanics even if it make no sense... it is just for ease of play and does not have to make sense.

You just make up your own personal idea of how it works... in my opinion using engines in Aurora don't alter the kinetic energy of anything directly. That is just the way I rationalise what happens in my story. Anyone can make up their own story of how things work to fit the mechanics, you can't really be wrong.

[mtm84]

To paraphrase a bit: “It’s just a game, you should really just relax”.

I personally don’t use the aether mechanic at all, my head cannon is that TN materials are used to contract devices that work more like Star Trek warp bubbles and structural integrity fields that let ships using them turn on a dime and come to complete stops. Though I guess aether is a pretty good sub space analogue.

[nuclearslurpee]

Though I guess aether is a pretty good sub space analogue.

This is basically how I treat it in my headcanon, although I also couple Aether and TNEs to ultrastrong gravity waves to justify my constant power / constant speed engines as gravity drives of a nonspecific sort.

[serger]

Does not make much sense in this case though as you need the engine to touch the water in the first place. A station or any object in space that does not have an active engine can't surf the Aether in any way

I don't understand why they need engines to be in Aether.

You can make up any technobabble you wish, it is just game mechanic at the end of the day for making game-play easy and understandable.

Yes, surely it is.
The difference is how often and how striking are those inconsistencies.
Say, you have an option to not use conventional engines at all - even with slow start.
You have an option to not look at some data, when it's not in the main page and you have no necessity to open it.

And the core sense of roleplay is to believe in that world with some part of your brain. No other sense in it, no other sense in Aurora maps, and officers, and naming themes, and so on. To hide inconsistencies is a must.

[QuakeIV]

Regarding the whole 'there is no way to establish the damage within the necessary timeframe to retarget' I feel the need to point out that nuclear explosions (as they stand with current, real nuclear bombs) will propagate a fireball on the order of hundreds microseconds to milliseconds.

Here you can see from the trinity test a fireball is already propogating from 100 to 940 microseconds (no scale due to poor resolution of the images):



And by 6 milliseconds it has already exceeded 100 meters in diameter:



You could reasonably argue that it would take longer than that to achieve penetration against dense armor, and I for one would not overtly disagree with that, it seems to me the situation would allow you to push the numbers in any direction you so choose (either in favor of same-salvo missile retargeting or against it), however the point stands that its not necessarily ridiculous that you would be able to tell if the target was dead or not over the course of milliseconds.

Additionally, a millisecond is potentially plenty of time for a computer to make decisions, I can write code that you could run on your home computer to prove this to any of you if you so desire (let alone application-specific computers designed for the job).  It would not be insanity to say that a missile salvo could be spread milliseconds apart (one millisecond corresponds with about 300km at light speed which is below the resolution of the game), and assuming instantaneous/accurate sensor information from the fancy TN FTL sensors (which you could argue is not available, if you want to instead say that this is impossible for gameplay reasons), missiles could then make certain decisions about the likelihood of the destruction of the target.

On this general basis, I would say that the absolute most optimistic case in favor of retargeting missiles, assuming they are travelling at the speed of light, would require at least 1800km of separation between individual missiles (which does fit into the games resolution and would be technically noticeable) if we consider the 6ms timeframe as a baseline for detection of the destruction of the target (which is admittedly a completely bastardized comparison).

It would require accurate sensor information regarding whether certain portions of the ship had been reduced to plasma, which could (obviously) be freely said to be available or unavailable depending on the preference of the developer as to how Steve thinks this should all work.  As an alternate mode of detecting the destruction of the target, per earlier posts mentioning the lore snippet of how wreckage is detected instantly, it could be said that an effectively-destroyed ship instantaneously translates into real space as wreckage and the detection of that fact provides the missile's computer with the criteria it needs to decide whether to abort its attack or not.

In other words I am saying I reject the notion that 'there is no way to determine if the target is destroyed or not in that timeframe' because assuming instantaneous intel as to the status of the target (whether we are detecting severe phase changes to the internal volume, or simply detecting its translation into real space via our magical FTL TN sensors) its perfectly possible to potentially gather that information and then make decisions based off of it in a very expedient manner and potentially for both the bombs and the computers involved to meet the timing requirements posed.