Author Topic: Pulsar 4X Ideas  (Read 19545 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline TheDeadlyShoe

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1264
  • Thanked: 57 times
  • Dance Commander
Re: Pulsar 4X Ideas
« Reply #105 on: March 04, 2016, 01:15:55 PM »
In Aurora, smaller weapons tend to have much higher DPS; small missile launchers & small beam weapons have significantly higher rates of fire than their larger counterparts. 

The primary advantage of larger weapons is range and armor penetration.
 
The following users thanked this post: Hamof

Offline Hamof

  • Leading Rate
  • *
  • H
  • Posts: 13
Re: Pulsar 4X Ideas
« Reply #106 on: March 04, 2016, 01:29:45 PM »
Quote from: TheDeadlyShoe link=topic=5177. msg87642#msg87642 date=1457118955
In Aurora, smaller weapons tend to have much higher DPS; small missile launchers & small beam weapons have significantly higher rates of fire than their larger counterparts.   

The primary advantage of larger weapons is range and armor penetration.

OK, makes sense to me.
 

Offline Rod-Serling

  • Pulsar 4x Dev
  • Warrant Officer, Class 1
  • *
  • Posts: 89
  • Thanked: 4 times
Re: Pulsar 4X Ideas
« Reply #107 on: March 04, 2016, 01:45:25 PM »
My concern with surface-mounted components is that it will encourage AMM sandblasting, which in my opinion is not a healthy balancing change. AMM spam is already difficult to counter as is. Some of the changes here that I've considered would additionally encourage AMM spam, such as the explosive reactive armor coating that would reduce ASM damage to 1 for the first row of armor.
This post is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
 

Offline Mor

  • Commander
  • *********
  • Posts: 305
  • Thanked: 11 times
Re: Pulsar 4X Ideas
« Reply #108 on: March 04, 2016, 02:01:21 PM »
@alex_brunius. Unlike that WW2 ship above, today we have multiple ways to collect data and protect said devices actively or passively. Even, If we go with your misguided notion of how future tech\mterials should behave (i.e. that TN sensors would stop working if we put a big fat slab of TN armor between them, as oppose to using the same advanced composites that allow our instant communication, miniature shields or whatever we use to protect airlocks) and dispense with abstraction.

Then, unlike said 3D games, your suggestion offers no real gameplay benefits to the attacker or the defender. Except:
1. Defender, reduce Armor requirements. If this is the goal, then your suggesting is inadequate e.g. there is no reason why I should be forced to pay premium to pad my cargo holds with armor...
2. Attacker: Making HPMs Obsolete. HPMs are situation weapons, that allow a little more tactical verity, by allowing any weapon to take pot shots at array it would make missiles even more effective and other brute force strategies.

Also, this would effect current DAC, damage\destruction, and armor\weapon balance mechanics.
« Last Edit: March 04, 2016, 02:16:35 PM by Mor »
 

Offline littleWolf

  • Warrant Officer, Class 1
  • *****
  • l
  • Posts: 76
  • Thanked: 13 times
Re: Pulsar 4X Ideas
« Reply #109 on: March 04, 2016, 02:14:52 PM »
Greetings !  I view savegame from Universe Sandbox 2.   This file is JSON file, packed by RAR or ZIP compressor.

How about create tools for import/export data (stars, planets, moons, asteroids, comets) from/to  US2 saves ?
 

Offline TheDeadlyShoe

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1264
  • Thanked: 57 times
  • Dance Commander
Re: Pulsar 4X Ideas
« Reply #110 on: March 04, 2016, 02:16:02 PM »
honestly, if you are translating aurora mechanics directly, i think the damage profile of sandblasting is fine; between better armor pen, shock damage, and longer range, larger damage patterns have a lot of virtue.

the true issue with AMMs is the massive advantage small missiles possess in penetrating anti-missile defenses.  AMMs are the most common expression of this but the issue persists when looking at anti-ship missiles size 1-3 in particular.

the two big concerns for penetrating missile defense are speed and volume.  Since speed doesn't change much between small and large missiles, you're left with volume as the difference between the two; and small missiles just have a ridiculous advantage in this respect.  If you have 1000 magazine space filled with 250 size 4 missiles and the enemy has 500 AMMs, you'd probably get about 90 missiles through assuming a ~33% hit rate. But if you fire 1000 size 1 missiles than you are going to get 834 missiles through, more than double the weight of missiles. Except its worse than that because you're also only spending a quarter the tonnage that the size 4 strategy is on actual launchers while still maintaining 4 times the fire rate, leaving you room for even more missiles and the possibility of entirely overwhelming their defenses.  Or you could spend the same tonnage on launchers as the size 4 strategy, and have 4x the salvo weight with 16x the total rate of fire.

and thats when compared to size 4 missiles, which arn't even very large; typically not large enough to even mount the kind of warheads that give a significant advantage on shock damage or armor penetration.

Quote
Your suggestion has no obvious gameplay benefit to the attacker\defender except
That's not true.  There would be increased emphasis on design decisions like armoring weapon turrets and any other form of hardening for exterior components that might be implemented.  There's also the possibility of Starfire-esque external rack components that are very cost effective but are often destroyed or rendered useless by even the lightest of incoming damage.  There's also the possibility of exotic changes to the design paradigm, like a seperation between an emitter and a weapon system for some weapon types (with only the emitters being exposed.)
 

Offline Mor

  • Commander
  • *********
  • Posts: 305
  • Thanked: 11 times
Re: Pulsar 4X Ideas
« Reply #111 on: March 04, 2016, 02:34:21 PM »
Quote
That's not true.  There would be increased emphasis on design decisions like armoring weapon turrets and any other form of hardening for exterior components that might be implemented.
It is exactly the same internal HTK system only backwards, after rebalance to account for even weaker defensive capabilities, those will be exactly the same ship design decisions. Although, you might get a little more mileage out of this by playing on the disabled vs destroyed balance, but overall the only to add depth to the design decision is if you add and have to account for blind spots in offensive\defensive capabilities.

Edit: With that said, IMO it makes sense that all weapon 'mounts' would be on the outside, but not sensors. Still this would need a more detailed suggestion to account for "exotic changes".

In Aurora, smaller weapons tend to have much higher DPS; small missile launchers & small beam weapons have significantly higher rates of fire than their larger counterparts. 

The primary advantage of larger weapons is range and armor penetration.
and Shock Damage
« Last Edit: March 04, 2016, 02:44:44 PM by Mor »
 

Offline TheDeadlyShoe

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1264
  • Thanked: 57 times
  • Dance Commander
Re: Pulsar 4X Ideas
« Reply #112 on: March 04, 2016, 02:45:19 PM »
I'm not really sure how you come to that conclusion, since it would be a different paradigm to concern yourself with when designing a ship:  whether or not to spend tonnage armoring or creating redundancies for exterior components, above and beyond your general armor level.  Asserting that it's the same doesn't make it so.

Another advanced implementation would be creating a distinction between internally and externally mounted sensors; external would have more capability, but be far more susceptible to battle damage.

Personally, I think the biggest strike against an external-damage system is that Shock Damage occupies a similar, uh..rhetorical space?  We don't need vulnerable components to ensure even heavily armored ships are susceptible to battle damage.

Although - both Shock Damage and any sort of external-components implementation are rendered a minor concern by heavy use of normal Shields, which I've never been a fan of. *shrug*.  Absorption Shields 4 Lyfe!


« Last Edit: March 04, 2016, 02:47:05 PM by TheDeadlyShoe »
 

Offline Rod-Serling

  • Pulsar 4x Dev
  • Warrant Officer, Class 1
  • *
  • Posts: 89
  • Thanked: 4 times
Re: Pulsar 4X Ideas
« Reply #113 on: March 04, 2016, 03:12:26 PM »
Greetings !  I view savegame from Universe Sandbox 2.   This file is JSON file, packed by RAR or ZIP compressor.

How about create tools for import/export data (stars, planets, moons, asteroids, comets) from/to  US2 saves ?

Can you provide an example US2 safe file for me to work with? We already Import/Export to/from Json with GZip compression available, but I would need to check the data that's saved in a US2 save. The way US2 handles orbits may not be compatible with Pulsar star systems. (We use a simplified, "On the rails" model, where US2 simulates gravity)
This post is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
 

Offline littleWolf

  • Warrant Officer, Class 1
  • *****
  • l
  • Posts: 76
  • Thanked: 13 times
Re: Pulsar 4X Ideas
« Reply #114 on: March 05, 2016, 02:58:54 AM »
https://yadi.   sk/d/lrkZMSjfpvfzn

Copy link to url field, remove spaces, Download and unpack to any folder by WinZip or WinRar.        You can rename this file (change extention to .     zip) , before open.      This archive  contain file simulation.     json

All system bodies parameters contains in the "body" branch:
Quote
"Name":"Solar System",
"TargetTimeStepPerRealSec":1296000,
"Tolerance":3387298137.     54558,
"TimePassed":569559.     460494319,
"Accuracy":0,
"IntegratorId":2,
"IntegrationMode":1,
"Gravity":6.     6725985E-11,
"GravityFactor":1,
"SlidingMotionDampning":0.     002,
"AbsorptionRadiusScalar":1.     1,
"ConstantCenterOfMass":false,
"Bodies":[
{
"$type":"Body",
"Name":"Sun",
"Id":1,
"Age":1.     46963778308399E+17,
"Color":"RGBA(0.     750, 0.     487, 0.     335, 0.     750)",
"Mass":1.     9891E+30,
"Radius":702019916.     635428,
"Density":1372.     52324304209,
"Generation":0,
"Flags":113,
"DisplayFlags":0,
"Orientation":"-0.     03229236;0.     7049474;0.     05437494;0.     7064345",
"AngularVelocity":"0;-2.     77102522215336E-06;0",
"Position":"11440.     8103302727;181.     034671800605;-37626.     3857737438",
"Velocity":"0.     0408738109478346;0.     000653609867149931;-0.     131952011253311",
"Suspended":false,
"Components":[
{
"overrideStartingTemp":false,
"TemperatureInitialized":false,
"Albedo":0,
"SurfaceTemperatureOverride":0,
"AtmosphereMass":0,
"MassAirColumn":0,
"SurfaceDensity":0,
"MeanMolecularWeightDryAir":0,
"DegreesOfFreedom":0,
"SpecificHeatConstPressure":Infinity,
"LapseRateDryAdiabatic":0,
"AtmosphereHeightMultiplier":1,
"EmissivityIR":0.     74,
"SurfaceTemperature":5775.     46629139993,
"VisualTemperature":5775.     46629139993,
"GreenhouseEffect":0,
"EffectiveTemperature":0,
"StartingTemperature":0,
"SurfacePressure":0,
"ScaleHeight":0,
"$type":"Celestial"
},{
"ShowMagneticField":false,
"ShowMagAxis":false,
"ShowAurora":false,
"PrefabSource":"",
"ColorMapSource":"",
"HeightMapSource":"",
"NormalMapSource":"",
"EmissiveMapSource":"",
"SpecularMapSource":"",
"VegetationMapSource":"",
"LightColor":"RGBA(1.     000, 0.     948, 0.     904, 0.     000)",
"Tint":"RGBA(1.     000, 1.     000, 1.     000, 1.     000)",
"Planet":{
"HeightmapIndex1":0,
"HeightmapIndex2":0,
"RandomOffset":0,
"Colors":[
],
"AtmosphereColor":"RGBA(0.     200, 0.     600, 1.     000, 1.     000)",
"AtmosphereOpacity":0.     2,
"CloudOpacity":1,
"CloudRotationRateMidLat":0,
"AutoHeight":false,
"Randomized":false
},
"$type":"AppearanceComponent"
},{
"MoltenLevel":0,
"targetMoltenLevel":0,
"LiquidLevel":0,
"targetLiquidLevel":0,
"VegetationLevel":0,
"targetVegetationLevel":0,
"targetRadius":0,
"targetLiquidState":0,
"liquidState":2,
"depots":{
"Hydrogen":{
"Phase":2,
"TargetPhase":0,
"Mass":1.     9891E+30
}
},
"$type":"Composition"
},{
"Opacity":1,
"Length":1,
"$type":"TrailComponent"
}]
},{
"$type":"Body",
"Name":"Mercury",
"Id":2,
"Age":1.     4200920000057E+17,
"Color":"RGBA(0.     635, 0.     635, 0.     635, 1.     000)",
"Mass":3.     30104E+23,
"Radius":2439700,
"Density":5426.     91349520121,
"Generation":0,
"Flags":113,
"DisplayFlags":0,
"Orientation":"-0.     02878437;0.     9360092;0.     05393353;0.     3466257",
"AngularVelocity":"0;-1.     24001303010989E-06;0",
"Position":"-37293163192.     2622;-7649077792.     56021;51733684833.     151",
"Velocity":"-29805.     9292937227;-214.     294714390021;-30857.     1163248382",
"Suspended":false,
"Components":[
{
"overrideStartingTemp":false,
"TemperatureInitialized":true,
"Albedo":0.     119,
"SurfaceTemperatureOverride":0,
"AtmosphereMass":0,
"MassAirColumn":0,
"SurfaceDensity":1,
"MeanMolecularWeightDryAir":43.     5,
"DegreesOfFreedom":7,
 .     .     .     .     .     
« Last Edit: March 05, 2016, 03:43:13 AM by littleWolf »
 

Offline littleWolf

  • Warrant Officer, Class 1
  • *****
  • l
  • Posts: 76
  • Thanked: 13 times
Re: Pulsar 4X Ideas
« Reply #115 on: March 05, 2016, 03:09:41 AM »
Maybe  for star system map view  Pulsar create savefile for US2, and user open it from US2 ?

http: //imgur.     com/4NzVKx2

I have some C++ code for  simulating @true@ system newtonian bodies with gravity.            But calculate too slow and have low precision.             

And .  .  .     maybe i can join to developer team ? Have some ideas about create GUI for System map  on QT.           

« Last Edit: March 05, 2016, 05:01:20 AM by littleWolf »
 

Offline Rod-Serling

  • Pulsar 4x Dev
  • Warrant Officer, Class 1
  • *
  • Posts: 89
  • Thanked: 4 times
Re: Pulsar 4X Ideas
« Reply #116 on: March 05, 2016, 10:11:37 AM »
Maybe  for star system map view  Pulsar create savefile for US2, and user open it from US2 ?

I'm not sure if I'm understanding you correctly, but Pulsar will have its own star system map view. Any export to other game's save files will mostly be for fun.

I have some C++ code for  simulating @true@ system newtonian bodies with gravity. But calculate too slow and have low precision.     

This is why Pulsar is using "On the Rails" orbital simulations. We're not simulating angular speed or gravity directly, because without high precision calculations the star systems wouldn't be stable over long periods of time (Pulsar Games will likely last over 100 years)       

And .  .  .     maybe i can join to developer team ? Have some ideas about create GUI for System map  on QT.         

Sure! Currently 'Being on the developer team' consists of showing up on #Pulsar4x on IRC. We all lurk there 24/7 and talk when we're coding. If you make a pull request to the github repository with substantial changes we'll give you direct push access to the main repository.
This post is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
 

Offline Mor

  • Commander
  • *********
  • Posts: 305
  • Thanked: 11 times
Re: Pulsar 4X Ideas
« Reply #117 on: March 06, 2016, 02:15:18 AM »
There's also the possibility of exotic changes to the design paradigm, like a seperation between an emitter and a weapon system for some weapon types (with only the emitters being exposed.)

My first thought was, Ohh hell no! Way too much micro... But this is actually a very interesting idea in it self. For example, currently when design CIWS, the summary field gives us a breakdown of its sub-components:

Dual GC: 5HS    Turret: 1.87 HS    Fire Control: .16 HS    Sensor .03 HS    ECCM: .5
Overall Size: 7.6    HTK: 2

As far as the game goes, those has zero implication, the CIWS behave like any other non-electronic component i.e. it has total size and HTK. But what if those sub-components actually exist?

Player wise, it would be designed the same i.e. no added micro-management) Technically, after some balance, it wold work the same, just using a bigger DAC table. And it could offer interesting way to expand, for example you could assigning properties to each component. Designing the Weapon mount as Turret and External; the FC and Sensors as Electronic. This way we could use HPMs to disable specific guns ( avoiding the all or nothing hunt for the FC ) and by not actually destroying them completely the enemy fleet can still regroup and recover, making combat more dynamic.

With such extension we can separate Capacitors from Energy weapons, internal magazines from Missile Racks... But not just weapons, many background-tech we commonly select during Component design can be represented as a sub-system linked to a specific game function e.g. Engines, thermal reduction = Heat Sinks, reduce the Thermal Signature emitted by the component. If hit you can still move but have bigger bulls-eye on your ass.

Basically something like that can be used, to broaden the target list, expand the list of effects from electronic\explosive and can make damage events that much more interesting to read and RolePlay.
« Last Edit: March 06, 2016, 08:43:00 PM by Mor »
 

Offline Mor

  • Commander
  • *********
  • Posts: 305
  • Thanked: 11 times
Re: Pulsar 4X Ideas
« Reply #118 on: March 06, 2016, 08:59:43 PM »
This is why Pulsar is using "On the Rails" orbital simulations. We're not simulating angular speed or gravity directly, because without high precision calculations the star systems wouldn't be stable over long periods of time (Pulsar Games will likely last over 100 years)

On the Rails? Does that mean that you are currently planning not to use circular orbits like in Aurora?

Because one of the first things that didn't make sense to me were the planet designations. Its hard to RP anything beside Humans, when every designation is Human centric. For example, gameplay wise the distinction between Terrestrial planet and Dwarf Planets is meaningless. without things like Electromagnetic activity, Orbital eccentricity, Planetary discriminant... say what?! Only thing that matters and or can be effected is: gravity(Size), Atmosphere(color), and Mineral content(color?).
 

Offline Hamof

  • Leading Rate
  • *
  • H
  • Posts: 13
Re: Pulsar 4X Ideas
« Reply #119 on: March 07, 2016, 12:16:22 AM »
Quote from: Mor link=topic=5177. msg87714#msg87714 date=1457319583
On the Rails? Does that mean that you are currently planning not to use circular orbits like in Aurora?


Presumably, "On the rails" is referring to the way a planets orbit is determined at system generation, and then it sticks to that orbit for the rest of time with no further maths.  Just like in 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 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72