Author Topic: C# Aurora Changes Discussion  (Read 288114 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Shuul

  • Warrant Officer, Class 1
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 90
  • Thanked: 23 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2445 on: November 24, 2019, 05:05:55 PM »
I feel like the weapons interruptions update is one of my favorite changes, thank you Steve!
 

Offline Tikigod

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • Posts: 173
  • Thanked: 46 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2446 on: November 24, 2019, 11:19:45 PM »
In regards to the weapons interrupt change, is there any chance of having a option maybe in the event window to decide if certain things like that do interrupt or not?

There are a few fringe cases such as when you have a faster fleet that is jumping in and out of attack range as weapons recharge where retaining the interrupt can still be useful, so having the option to switch behaviours would be pretty neat.
The popular stereotype of the researcher is that of a skeptic and a pessimist.  Nothing could be further from the truth! Scientists must be optimists at heart, in order to block out the incessant chorus of those who say "It cannot be done. "

- Academician Prokhor Zakharov, University Commencement
 

Offline Bremen

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • B
  • Posts: 601
  • Thanked: 90 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2447 on: December 08, 2019, 05:13:43 PM »
As someone who loves playing with mines and buoys I just want to say that I love the new launch ready ordnance task. It'll make setting up minefields and sensor buoy rings so much easier.
 

Offline Jorgen_CAB

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • J
  • Posts: 2007
  • Thanked: 310 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2448 on: December 19, 2019, 07:46:04 AM »
I was looking at the Shock damage changes for C# and did some calculations and trying to translate that to the actual game.

I think there is a problem with allowing shock resistace to scale linear with ship size against damage.

First of... damage does not scale up as fast as ship sizes does and they don't scale linear in the same way ether.

Once you get to 30k+ tons on ships they become almost impervious to shock damage (depending on tech level of course). If you bring a laser that do enough damage you are more likely to punch through their armour rather than doing any shock damage. A ship at say 40000t which is not unreasonable at Magneto Plasma level technology would still be impervious to a similar tech level advanced spinal laser at point blank range (38cm laser that does 38 damage which is only 4.75% of the ships size). If you give the ship its 15+ layers of armour it needs to withstand that at point blank range you need close to 25% of the internal space dedicated to armour alone. Creating a missile at almost any level become more or less impossible to do shock damage at even modestly big ships at most tech levels.

Most smaller ships are way more susceptible to shock damage, especially as technology rises.

I would like a shock resistance technology to make shock damage more consistent with technology increase. As such technology is integral to a ships hull you can't refit such technology and it is based on when the ship is built. You could also tie a ships resistance to some degree to ship maintenance as well. Then you could make the curve for size more consistent with weapon damage increases.

Or some such...

In the spirit of shock damage I also believe that components such as sensors should be much more likely to be damaged by shock damage... or damaged in general. I don't think that size is a good measurement of how likely a component is to be targeted for damage as some systems just are way more fragile or interlinked within a ship and thus way more likely to get damaged from incoming damage. Sensors on a real ship are the most vulnerable part of a ship, even a modern battle tank have so many sensors that even a machine gun can perform a mission kill on a heavy battle tank by degrading their sensors to the point they need to retreat, this is a huge concern on modern vehicles.
« Last Edit: December 19, 2019, 07:54:07 AM by Jorgen_CAB »
 

Offline Dawa1147

  • Chief Petty Officer
  • ***
  • D
  • Posts: 43
  • Thanked: 10 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2449 on: December 20, 2019, 04:41:05 AM »
Quote from: Jorgen_CAB link=topic=8497. msg117519#msg117519 date=1576763164
I was looking at the Shock damage changes for C# and did some calculations and trying to translate that to the actual game.

I think there is a problem with allowing shock resistace to scale linear with ship size against damage.

First of. . .  damage does not scale up as fast as ship sizes does and they don't scale linear in the same way ether.

Once you get to 30k+ tons on ships they become almost impervious to shock damage (depending on tech level of course).  If you bring a laser that do enough damage you are more likely to punch through their armour rather than doing any shock damage.  A ship at say 40000t which is not unreasonable at Magneto Plasma level technology would still be impervious to a similar tech level advanced spinal laser at point blank range (38cm laser that does 38 damage which is only 4. 75% of the ships size).  If you give the ship its 15+ layers of armour it needs to withstand that at point blank range you need close to 25% of the internal space dedicated to armour alone.  Creating a missile at almost any level become more or less impossible to do shock damage at even modestly big ships at most tech levels.

Most smaller ships are way more susceptible to shock damage, especially as technology rises.

I would like a shock resistance technology to make shock damage more consistent with technology increase.  As such technology is integral to a ships hull you can't refit such technology and it is based on when the ship is built.  You could also tie a ships resistance to some degree to ship maintenance as well.  Then you could make the curve for size more consistent with weapon damage increases.

Or some such. . .

In the spirit of shock damage I also believe that components such as sensors should be much more likely to be damaged by shock damage. . .  or damaged in general.  I don't think that size is a good measurement of how likely a component is to be targeted for damage as some systems just are way more fragile or interlinked within a ship and thus way more likely to get damaged from incoming damage.  Sensors on a real ship are the most vulnerable part of a ship, even a modern battle tank have so many sensors that even a machine gun can perform a mission kill on a heavy battle tank by degrading their sensors to the point they need to retreat, this is a huge concern on modern vehicles.

Perhaps the Formula could be reworked to be dependant on both ship size and armor thickness/tech, with a reduced importance of size? That way shock damage resistance would scale with weapon tech, while still making bigger ships more resilient.

As for fragile electronics, shock damage could randomly choose between both DACs, or have its damage (semi-randomly) split between them.  This would increase the odds of sensors being hit.
 

Offline alex_brunius

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1096
  • Thanked: 64 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2450 on: December 20, 2019, 06:07:41 AM »
In the spirit of shock damage I also believe that components such as sensors should be much more likely to be damaged by shock damage... or damaged in general. I don't think that size is a good measurement of how likely a component is to be targeted for damage as some systems just are way more fragile or interlinked within a ship and thus way more likely to get damaged from incoming damage. Sensors on a real ship are the most vulnerable part of a ship, even a modern battle tank have so many sensors that even a machine gun can perform a mission kill on a heavy battle tank by degrading their sensors to the point they need to retreat, this is a huge concern on modern vehicles.

It's the same thing with WW2 warships. 300mm+ of armor doesn't help the ship a whole lot when it's rudder is jammed, when it's range finders + radars are shot to pieces, electrical power is disabled or when the parts outside the armored box is on fire / flooding due to smaller caliber fire.

It renders the vehicle effectively blind and possibly worst case even unable to navigate at all.
 

Offline Jorgen_CAB

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • J
  • Posts: 2007
  • Thanked: 310 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2451 on: December 20, 2019, 08:40:49 AM »
In the spirit of shock damage I also believe that components such as sensors should be much more likely to be damaged by shock damage... or damaged in general. I don't think that size is a good measurement of how likely a component is to be targeted for damage as some systems just are way more fragile or interlinked within a ship and thus way more likely to get damaged from incoming damage. Sensors on a real ship are the most vulnerable part of a ship, even a modern battle tank have so many sensors that even a machine gun can perform a mission kill on a heavy battle tank by degrading their sensors to the point they need to retreat, this is a huge concern on modern vehicles.

It's the same thing with WW2 warships. 300mm+ of armor doesn't help the ship a whole lot when it's rudder is jammed, when it's range finders + radars are shot to pieces, electrical power is disabled or when the parts outside the armored box is on fire / flooding due to smaller caliber fire.

It renders the vehicle effectively blind and possibly worst case even unable to navigate at all.

Yes... both Scharnhorst and Bismark are good examples on that subject... ;)
 

Offline Deutschbag

  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • ******
  • Posts: 104
  • Thanked: 17 times
  • Discord Username: Pwnzerfaust
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2452 on: December 20, 2019, 09:52:35 PM »
Bismarck even managed to inflict shock damage on herself. Apparently in the opening salvo of the duel with the HMS Hood, her own cannon fire damaged her radar rangefinder.
 
The following users thanked this post: Ciphascain

Offline Garfunkel

  • Registered
  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1816
  • Thanked: 459 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2453 on: January 02, 2020, 03:09:16 PM »
Definitely liking the new change to civilians. Since they will now range further for trade as before, it's a nice thing to be able to restrict them in case of war.
 

Offline Bughunter

  • Bug Moderators
  • Rear Admiral
  • ***
  • Posts: 923
  • Thanked: 123 times
  • Discord Username: Bughunter
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2454 on: January 03, 2020, 03:34:25 AM »
Always good with more options. I also like the idea of negative modifiers to wealth & production mentioned in the questions thread. It could apply to any colonies in restricted systems or in systems cut off from say its sector HQ.

Sure it is up to the player to abuse it or not, but I still think it would be nice to have a downside to restricting a system to make the decision more interesting.
 

Offline Rich.h

  • Captain
  • **********
  • R
  • Posts: 496
  • Thanked: 31 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2455 on: January 03, 2020, 06:28:47 AM »
Just wondering with the new civillian restrictions, Steve states a system or population can be set as restricted, does this also apply to colonies that require no population, so automated mining sites and the like? I've always RP that there are no completley autonomous things in my games and these such colonies are instead just manned by a skeleton maintenance crew population, but it would add a nice bit of RP to things by allowing/restricting these also (wartime smugglers etc that ignore system blockades to make profit, then get promptley destroyed by hostile aliens).
 

Offline Father Tim

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 2162
  • Thanked: 518 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2456 on: January 03, 2020, 01:19:43 PM »
Steve said "colony" not "population" so I see no reason why it shouldn't apply to automated mining outposts or DSTS.
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Star Marshal
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 10133
  • Thanked: 11028 times
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2457 on: January 03, 2020, 03:06:32 PM »
Steve said "colony" not "population" so I see no reason why it shouldn't apply to automated mining outposts or DSTS.

Yes, that's correct.
 

Offline Hazard

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • H
  • Posts: 627
  • Thanked: 62 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2458 on: January 12, 2020, 10:46:08 AM »
Regarding 'tractor any ship' orders: It also protects the sanity of other players. I can see myself using it very often when moving terraformers and fuel harvesters around.
 

Online Zincat

  • Captain
  • **********
  • Z
  • Posts: 502
  • Thanked: 81 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2459 on: January 12, 2020, 11:37:54 AM »
Regarding 'tractor any ship' orders: It also protects the sanity of other players. I can see myself using it very often when moving terraformers and fuel harvesters around.

I came here just to post the same.
Thank you thank you Steve. I had games where I had over 200 terraformers. You can imagine moving them around...
 

 

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