Author Topic: C# Aurora Changes Discussion  (Read 135965 times)

0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Jorgen_CAB

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • J
  • Posts: 738
  • Thanked: 11 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1710 on: August 11, 2018, 04:46:44 PM »
Fleets undergoing fleet training being unable to use maintenance facilities or Recreational locations seems odd.  That would mean you'd need to remove the fleet from the training structure in order to have it recuperate when the ships and crew get too worn down during training, which seems pretty weird.

Without those rules, a training fleet in the same location as maintenance facilities and recreational facilities would effectively be training without cost.

How will we train short deployment ships, say something like a month deployment or less without massive micromanagement?

Could it be possible with some order that suspend training for a certain time so ships can overhaul and rest the crew while being attached to a training command. An order only available to ships in a training command or some automatic function that have the fleet quit training to be maintained and then automatically resume training again.

From a RP perspective I don't want to give my ship unrealistic long deployment time just to avoid micromanagement with training. There are similar problems in VB Aurora but you can skirt around them to avoid the micromanagement.
 
The following users thanked this post: Titanian

Offline Whitecold

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • W
  • Posts: 229
  • Thanked: 51 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1711 on: August 12, 2018, 12:27:13 AM »
Fleets undergoing fleet training being unable to use maintenance facilities or Recreational locations seems odd.  That would mean you'd need to remove the fleet from the training structure in order to have it recuperate when the ships and crew get too worn down during training, which seems pretty weird.

Without those rules, a training fleet in the same location as maintenance facilities and recreational facilities would effectively be training without cost.

How will we train short deployment ships, say something like a month deployment or less without massive micromanagement?

Could it be possible with some order that suspend training for a certain time so ships can overhaul and rest the crew while being attached to a training command. An order only available to ships in a training command or some automatic function that have the fleet quit training to be maintained and then automatically resume training again.

From a RP perspective I don't want to give my ship unrealistic long deployment time just to avoid micromanagement with training. There are similar problems in VB Aurora but you can skirt around them to avoid the micromanagement.

The ships moving around the system in some erratic pattern are also a nice touch to bring in the training aspect. And I agree that one should not have to micro fleet training. You should give the order once, and stop when you feel it is well enough. Overhauls/shore leave should be handled by the system itself.
 
The following users thanked this post: Titanian

Offline MarcAFK

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1779
  • Thanked: 71 times
  • ...it's so simple an idiot could have devised it..
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1712 on: September 08, 2018, 08:09:58 PM »
I love the new intelligence system, now theres a great reason to capture and interrogate enemy officers, as well as having small passive scouts wandering around the galaxy.
" Why is this godforsaken hellhole worth dying for? "
". . .  We know nothing about them, their language, their history or what they look like.  But we can assume this.  They stand for everything we don't stand for.  Also they told me you guys look like dorks. "
"Stop exploding, you cowards.  "
 

Offline sloanjh

  • Global Moderator
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • *****
  • Posts: 2715
  • Thanked: 62 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1713 on: September 08, 2018, 08:56:12 PM »
I love the new intelligence system, now theres a great reason to capture and interrogate enemy officers, as well as having small passive scouts wandering around the galaxy.

This just jogged loose a thought:  in the past, parking ships with sensors in an alien system has upset them, due to not liking being spied upon.  So seeing one of those "small, passive scouts" in your system should give negative modifier to relations.  This could be realized in several ways:

1)  Technobabble that makes it easy to detect ELINT systems on a ship (all those antennae on Soviet trawlers).  Then you only upset the aliens if you actually are spying on them.

2)  ELINT only detectable through the normal ELINT mechanism.  This would probably mean aliens would be upset by any ship.  This would also open up the possibility of "inspections", which give away design specs of a ship, but demonstrate that no ELINT is there.  Also the concept of diplomatic couriers, which could be assumed to have no ELINT (and would give extra negative if they were discovered to be spying) or could be approved for ELINT as part of the assumed price of diplomacy.

3)  Undetectable ELINT.

Just throwing thoughts out there....

John
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 7011
  • Thanked: 1839 times
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1714 on: September 09, 2018, 06:26:27 AM »
I love the new intelligence system, now theres a great reason to capture and interrogate enemy officers, as well as having small passive scouts wandering around the galaxy.

This just jogged loose a thought:  in the past, parking ships with sensors in an alien system has upset them, due to not liking being spied upon.  So seeing one of those "small, passive scouts" in your system should give negative modifier to relations.  This could be realized in several ways:

1)  Technobabble that makes it easy to detect ELINT systems on a ship (all those antennae on Soviet trawlers).  Then you only upset the aliens if you actually are spying on them.

2)  ELINT only detectable through the normal ELINT mechanism.  This would probably mean aliens would be upset by any ship.  This would also open up the possibility of "inspections", which give away design specs of a ship, but demonstrate that no ELINT is there.  Also the concept of diplomatic couriers, which could be assumed to have no ELINT (and would give extra negative if they were discovered to be spying) or could be approved for ELINT as part of the assumed price of diplomacy.

3)  Undetectable ELINT.

Just throwing thoughts out there....

John

ELINT is passive so it would be difficult to detect. Perhaps, a really close pass by a patrol ship would be able to determine some of a ship's capabilities, although that opens a lot of other doors.

One option for players is a ship with a large ELINT array, designed to lurk far out in alien systems, monitoring their populations without being detected.

 

Offline sloanjh

  • Global Moderator
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • *****
  • Posts: 2715
  • Thanked: 62 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1715 on: September 09, 2018, 09:38:43 AM »
ELINT is passive so it would be difficult to detect. Perhaps, a really close pass by a patrol ship would be able to determine some of a ship's capabilities, although that opens a lot of other doors.

One option for players is a ship with a large ELINT array, designed to lurk far out in alien systems, monitoring their populations without being detected.

Yep.  Just wanted to throw it out there so you could think about 2nd order stuff.

John
 

Offline MarcAFK

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1779
  • Thanked: 71 times
  • ...it's so simple an idiot could have devised it..
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1716 on: September 10, 2018, 04:00:25 AM »
Perhaps the AI should be a little less proactive in condemning the ships from a neutral power entering their system, unless it does something exploitative or spends too much time there, is a warship (based on their intelligence anyway) or whatever, maybe only if the ship has a transponder turned on will it be treated neutrally?
Certain actions should be detectable with sensors, geo and grav scans by passive sensors, unloading cargo and other stuff by active sensors, doing this in a claimed system would cause hostility, though you might get away with it if the claimant is out of range (the same can happen to you though). It should be possible to see what intelligence like this has been gathered on any particular ship, if not in the event log.
Also, maybe there should be a default order for creating system patrol vessels, which can hang around jump points or patrol between locations and will follow neutral vessels that have their transponder switched on, ping them with actives (if you want) while keeping at a specified range.
Oh. One last thing, even if ELINT isn't detectable, it would be pretty obvious that a ship hanging around not doing anything specifically is doing spying of some kind, though there's a problem with my proposed neutral allowance of vessels in your space, passive systems and even ELINT itself could just be crammed into every freighter you have passing through their space gathering useful intelligence.
I guess inspection boarding would be needed in this case, once again being something dependent on having the transponder switched on, which is a convenient way of declaring "this ship is civilian and I submit to all laws and customs while inside your space"
And therefore if a ship class is detected to be equipped with military systems, or maybe even carrying military systems, troops or whatever that would cause a diplomatic incident (the magnitude depending on how much stuff the ship is equipped with as well as your relations and general trustworthiness) and finally the mark that ship class as military and ban it from their systems.
Some races might be really lenient on offenses like this and let you get away with an incident every few years without serious damage to relations, whereas others might just close off their border to you completely.
There needs to be a little more flexability with neutrality rather than it just being a state between war and friendly, friendly just being neutral but with significantly more trust.
« Last Edit: September 10, 2018, 04:18:58 AM by MarcAFK »
" Why is this godforsaken hellhole worth dying for? "
". . .  We know nothing about them, their language, their history or what they look like.  But we can assume this.  They stand for everything we don't stand for.  Also they told me you guys look like dorks. "
"Stop exploding, you cowards.  "
 

Offline Father Tim

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 857
  • Thanked: 39 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1717 on: September 10, 2018, 08:12:14 AM »
My empires' ships always fly around with their transponders on, unless we're actively at war.  It's just polite.  I strongly object to the 'transponder = civilian' interpretation, and to NPRs getting angry at me for my 16,000 ton warship that is squawking "I'm a 16,000 ton warship" actually turning out to be a 16,000 ton warship.
 

Offline MarcAFK

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1779
  • Thanked: 71 times
  • ...it's so simple an idiot could have devised it..
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1718 on: September 10, 2018, 09:42:53 AM »
Well with the transponder on your 16,000 ton warship is already saying "i'm a 16,000 ton warship. I'm suggesting that a ship without it's transponder on should be treated like it's potentially a 16,000 ton warship, suspiciously :p
" Why is this godforsaken hellhole worth dying for? "
". . .  We know nothing about them, their language, their history or what they look like.  But we can assume this.  They stand for everything we don't stand for.  Also they told me you guys look like dorks. "
"Stop exploding, you cowards.  "
 

Offline Hazard

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • H
  • Posts: 268
  • Thanked: 24 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1719 on: September 10, 2018, 05:30:24 PM »
Your ship isn't squawking 'I'm a 16k ton warship', it's squawking 'I'm this ship from this registry, which you may've heard of.' There's a few critical differences in the assumptions as a result.

That said, ships with transponders on, military and not, should provoke less of a reaction than non-transponder using ships being detected. Even if the reaction is just a (polite-ish) 'get out of our territory,' instead of immediate deployment of military assets to detain whatever ship that just showed up.
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 7011
  • Thanked: 1839 times
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1720 on: September 10, 2018, 05:42:28 PM »
Your ship isn't squawking 'I'm a 16k ton warship', it's squawking 'I'm this ship from this registry, which you may've heard of.' There's a few critical differences in the assumptions as a result.

That said, ships with transponders on, military and not, should provoke less of a reaction than non-transponder using ships being detected. Even if the reaction is just a (polite-ish) 'get out of our territory,' instead of immediate deployment of military assets to detain whatever ship that just showed up.

 

Offline TMaekler

  • Commander
  • *********
  • Posts: 388
  • Thanked: 50 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1721 on: September 11, 2018, 06:05:51 AM »
Are transponders a thing again in C#?
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 7011
  • Thanked: 1839 times
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1722 on: September 11, 2018, 06:45:37 AM »
Are transponders a thing again in C#?

Yes, C# has transponders.
 

Offline TMaekler

  • Commander
  • *********
  • Posts: 388
  • Thanked: 50 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1723 on: September 11, 2018, 10:37:17 AM »
Are transponders a thing again in C#?

Yes, C# has transponders.
How different will they be? I can't find a post in your changelist... .
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 7011
  • Thanked: 1839 times
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1724 on: September 11, 2018, 11:13:32 AM »
Are transponders a thing again in C#?

Yes, C# has transponders.
How different will they be? I can't find a post in your changelist... .

The same as VB6.
 

 

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