Author Topic: C# Aurora Changes Discussion  (Read 226060 times)

0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline SevenOfCarina

  • Warrant Officer, Class 2
  • ****
  • Posts: 70
  • Thanked: 15 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2370 on: August 23, 2019, 11:07:22 AM »
Hey Steve, it appears that armour area rounds down in both C# and VB6 Aurora. Is this intended? From the C# campaigns, 1000t ships have an armour area of 8 when it should be 8.90, and 500t fighters have 5 when it should be 5.61. All the other ship designs point to the same thing. I think it should probably round up instead, or else we get this :

Code: [Select]
Exploit class Tyazholiy Avionosnyy Kreyser    30 tons     1 Crew     3.5 BP      TCS 0.6  TH 0  EM 0
1 km/s     Armour 3-0     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 0     PPV 0
MSP 0    AFR 6%    IFR 0.1%    Max Repair 5 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 12 months    Spare Berths 1   
This design is classed as a Commercial Vessel for maintenance purposes
Yes, that's a ship with zero armour area. No idea what'll happen if I try and attack it.
« Last Edit: August 23, 2019, 11:21:07 AM by SevenOfCarina »
 

Offline Zincat

  • Commander
  • *********
  • Z
  • Posts: 333
  • Thanked: 37 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2371 on: August 25, 2019, 06:49:11 AM »
The ability to auto refit fighters for shipyards sounds like an amazing QOL improvement. Thanks Steve
 

Offline space dwarf

  • Petty Officer
  • **
  • s
  • Posts: 25
  • Thanked: 2 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2372 on: August 25, 2019, 08:49:00 AM »
How many times have you left alien life pods to die?

If you surrender, you give the scary aliens a reason not to blow you up with nuclear death and take you prisoner instead of just leaving you to die.

OR you give away all your advanced technology away for free and die.
 

Offline Bremen

  • Captain
  • **********
  • B
  • Posts: 507
  • Thanked: 52 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2373 on: August 31, 2019, 01:38:33 PM »
Quote
3) When you design a ground unit class, you can designate it as a 'Non-Combat Class'. A class with this designation suffers an 80% penalty to hit and any hostile unit selecting targets treats this unit as 80% smaller. This could be used for supply vehicles, HQs, FFD units, etc. It is intended to simulate the type of unit that will actively avoid combat and is therefore much less likely to be chosen as a target. This applies regardless of field position.

When units achieve a breakthrough, are they exempted for the reduced chance to target non-combat units? I imagine vehicle supply units, or possibly combat engineers, in a reserve position might be a choice target in a breakthrough.

I'll echo that it seems a bit odd that it would apply to FFD, though I don't see it as a balance issue, just a flavor one, so it's not a big deal.
« Last Edit: August 31, 2019, 01:40:04 PM by Bremen »
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Star Marshal
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 7945
  • Thanked: 4374 times
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2374 on: August 31, 2019, 01:51:24 PM »
Quote
3) When you design a ground unit class, you can designate it as a 'Non-Combat Class'. A class with this designation suffers an 80% penalty to hit and any hostile unit selecting targets treats this unit as 80% smaller. This could be used for supply vehicles, HQs, FFD units, etc. It is intended to simulate the type of unit that will actively avoid combat and is therefore much less likely to be chosen as a target. This applies regardless of field position.

When units achieve a breakthrough, are they exempted for the reduced chance to target non-combat units? I imagine vehicle supply units, or possibly combat engineers, in a reserve position might be a choice target in a breakthrough.

I'll echo that it seems a bit odd that it would apply to FFD, though I don't see it as a balance issue, just a flavor one, so it's not a big deal.

FFD are quite large and therefore are being killed a lot because of the mechanics, where each individual unit targets randomly, weighted by size. I could add code to exclude units with certain types of components from being non-combat and then make FFD smaller and cheaper, but that would also mean it would be easier to have many ships supporting a single unit very cheaply. Having them as non-combat works a lot better with the other mechanics.
 

Offline Bughunter

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • Posts: 646
  • Thanked: 51 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2375 on: August 31, 2019, 01:57:00 PM »
Maybe just call it "avoid combat" instead since that would make sense for both FFD and real non-combat units.
 

Offline Hazard

  • Captain
  • **********
  • H
  • Posts: 510
  • Thanked: 42 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2376 on: August 31, 2019, 02:13:12 PM »
Quote
3) When you design a ground unit class, you can designate it as a 'Non-Combat Class'. A class with this designation suffers an 80% penalty to hit and any hostile unit selecting targets treats this unit as 80% smaller. This could be used for supply vehicles, HQs, FFD units, etc. It is intended to simulate the type of unit that will actively avoid combat and is therefore much less likely to be chosen as a target. This applies regardless of field position.

When units achieve a breakthrough, are they exempted for the reduced chance to target non-combat units? I imagine vehicle supply units, or possibly combat engineers, in a reserve position might be a choice target in a breakthrough.

I'll echo that it seems a bit odd that it would apply to FFD, though I don't see it as a balance issue, just a flavor one, so it's not a big deal.

FFD are quite large and therefore are being killed a lot because of the mechanics, where each individual unit targets randomly, weighted by size. I could add code to exclude units with certain types of components from being non-combat and then make FFD smaller and cheaper, but that would also mean it would be easier to have many ships supporting a single unit very cheaply. Having them as non-combat works a lot better with the other mechanics.

Sounds to me like an argument that you want to put FFD units in heavily armoured units.

Or create an FFD Hub component with the current costs which links FFDs with greater efficiency (i.e. an FFD without a Hub backing it only gets to direct a single gun or has a high failure chance, but an FFD with a Hub uses the current rules) and create a new FFD component with lower size and cost.
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Star Marshal
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 7945
  • Thanked: 4374 times
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2377 on: September 01, 2019, 04:45:39 AM »
Maybe just call it "avoid combat" instead since that would make sense for both FFD and real non-combat units.

Yes, good idea.
 

Offline Garfunkel

  • Registered
  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1308
  • Thanked: 148 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2378 on: September 01, 2019, 07:05:50 PM »
Multi-faction Earth starts just got more complicated with the addition of Lagrange points. Because now you can both jump instantly from the inner system to various parts of the outer system, but it's also quite feasible to traverse through the deep black.
 

Offline amschnei

  • Able Ordinary Rate
  • a
  • Posts: 2
  • Thanked: 2 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2379 on: September 01, 2019, 08:39:40 PM »
Per Steve’s post Earth requires 5 years to stabilize, so it’s not really feasible as a way to get a jump on anyone.  Even Saturn takes 6 months, plenty of time to intervene militarily.
 

Offline xenoscepter

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • x
  • Posts: 215
  • Thanked: 8 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2380 on: September 02, 2019, 04:13:38 AM »
On the subject of ground combat, if I mount a logistics module on a light vehicle, and the logistics module is consumed, do I lose my vehicle? It would seem... weird to consume a vehicle, unless that is considered as folded into the cost. Wouldn't a motorized logistics unit be more of an upfront cost, but paid for by the fact that you can just tack more GSP onto it and truck it out to the front line?

I suppose my question then is, once I build a Supply Truck, and it's given all of it's GSP in combat... do I need to build a whole nuther truck... or can I just 'reload' it?
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Star Marshal
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 7945
  • Thanked: 4374 times
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2381 on: September 02, 2019, 04:17:12 AM »
On the subject of ground combat, if I mount a logistics module on a light vehicle, and the logistics module is consumed, do I lose my vehicle? It would seem... weird to consume a vehicle, unless that is considered as folded into the cost. Wouldn't a motorized logistics unit be more of an upfront cost, but paid for by the fact that you can just tack more GSP onto it and truck it out to the front line?

I suppose my question then is, once I build a Supply Truck, and it's given all of it's GSP in combat... do I need to build a whole nuther truck... or can I just 'reload' it?

It is explained in the Logistics post in the change log:

http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=8495.msg109760#msg109760

The infantry unit or vehicle is consumed and you have to build a new one.
 

Offline DIT_grue

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • D
  • Posts: 175
  • Thanked: 23 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2382 on: September 02, 2019, 04:29:03 AM »
Quote from: Steve Walmsley
A new 'Stabilise Lagrange Point' order is available for planets where stabilisation is possible. The stabilisation ship remains at the associated planet while the task is carried out.

Am I misreading that, or is the ship sitting in close orbit of the planet and then the LP pops into usability a sixth of the orbit away from where the work is being done? I suppose I'll just have to be stubbornly oblivious to that inconvenient bit of action-at-a-distance in any of my games.

On a slightly different note, I'm guessing that now LPs will be shown even if there's currently only one in the system (and thus nowhere to go from it).
 

Offline Hazard

  • Captain
  • **********
  • H
  • Posts: 510
  • Thanked: 42 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2383 on: September 02, 2019, 05:59:26 AM »
On the subject of ground combat, if I mount a logistics module on a light vehicle, and the logistics module is consumed, do I lose my vehicle? It would seem... weird to consume a vehicle, unless that is considered as folded into the cost. Wouldn't a motorized logistics unit be more of an upfront cost, but paid for by the fact that you can just tack more GSP onto it and truck it out to the front line?

I suppose my question then is, once I build a Supply Truck, and it's given all of it's GSP in combat... do I need to build a whole nuther truck... or can I just 'reload' it?

Like Steve said, it's lost. It's something I disagree with him on and prefer a GSP system similar to MSPs, even if I understand why he does it.
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Star Marshal
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 7945
  • Thanked: 4374 times
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2384 on: September 02, 2019, 06:46:37 AM »
Quote from: Steve Walmsley
A new 'Stabilise Lagrange Point' order is available for planets where stabilisation is possible. The stabilisation ship remains at the associated planet while the task is carried out.

Am I misreading that, or is the ship sitting in close orbit of the planet and then the LP pops into usability a sixth of the orbit away from where the work is being done? I suppose I'll just have to be stubbornly oblivious to that inconvenient bit of action-at-a-distance in any of my games.

On a slightly different note, I'm guessing that now LPs will be shown even if there's currently only one in the system (and thus nowhere to go from it).

Yes, going to the planet is easier. It is a fixed location and the ship will remain in orbit when the planet moves. Otherwise, the construction ship is constantly having to chase the right location in deep space.

Yes to single LPs.
 
The following users thanked this post: DIT_grue

 

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