Author Topic: C# Aurora Changes Discussion  (Read 157127 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Bremen

  • Captain
  • **********
  • B
  • Posts: 424
  • Thanked: 24 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1845 on: October 11, 2018, 01:59:47 PM »
I have some concerns that the FFD system greatly advantages a single large bombardment ship instead of using multiple smaller ships, but honestly I don't think it's a big deal. Besides, it's thematic to use the big battleships for bombardment while the smaller ships play escort.

It being possible to design purpose built bombardment ships for added efficiency (reduced fire rate, loads of small guns, etc) similarly doesn't bother me. If you go to the trouble it should pay off a bit.
 

Offline Conscript Gary

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • Posts: 246
  • Thanked: 11 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1846 on: October 11, 2018, 03:17:53 PM »
So, let's sum up to see if I'm following this right as far as the interaction between ground forces, fighters, and ships goes.

  • Ships in orbit are always vulnerable to STO fire and STS fire
  • Ships in orbit can attack the population present on the body, destroying installations and killing population. (Does this also have a chance of destroying ground forces?)
  • Ships in orbit can attack ground forces directly if and only if there is at least one friendly FFD on the surface for them to attach to.

And

  • Fighters in orbit operate the same as ships if they lack any of the specific fighter support orders
  • Fighters in orbit that are providing ground support are immune to STO and STS fire, can be targeted by AA fire (and presumably by fighters on CAP), and can attack ground forces directly if and only if there is at least one friendly FFD for them to attach to.
  • Fighters in orbit that are on search and destroy are immune to STO and STS fire, can be targeted by AA fire (and presumably by fighters on CAP), and can attack ground forces directly even if no FFD elements are present.
  • Fighters in orbit that are on flak suppression are immune to STO and STS fire, can be targeted by AA fire (and presumably by fighters on CAP), and can attack ground forces directly even if no FFD elements are present
  • Fighters in orbit that are on combat air patrol are immune to STO and STS fire, can be targeted by AA fire (and presumable by fighters on CAP), and can attack fighters on ground support missions directly.

And just to round out the trio

  • STO weapons can target ships in orbit and fighters in orbit that have not been given fighter-specific ground support orders
  • AA weapons can target fighters in orbit that have been given fighter-specific ground support orders

That's the current state of it, yeah? As well, ground combat only happens once every three hours, and ships with the bombardment support can only participate if they didn't perform naval fire in the preceding increment- does that mean the entire 3-hour combat round? Either way, the jump between ships firing once every three hours with ground direction or 2,160 times (assuming adequate supply for breakdown) during indiscriminate bombardment is rather large.
 
The following users thanked this post: Tree

Offline Whitecold

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • W
  • Posts: 271
  • Thanked: 59 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1847 on: October 11, 2018, 04:16:57 PM »
That leaves the question open how counterbattery fire against STO works. The most effective phase for STO will likely be trying to down incoming transports, and against this you want to have fighters/warships that try to suppress the STOs.

A few further questions, how do beam weapons work on fighters? I assume they use ship bombardment rules, but benefit from STO immunity on mission like other fighters.

Missile interaction with ground troops and planets is also still lacking. Again for a landing it might make sense to employ them in a tactical role against STO in limited strikes.

Lastly, how do beam fighters fight other fighters on mission? Do they use regular combat, or is that translated to fighter bombardment back to anti-aircraft damage?

Can orbital bombardment also catch enemy fighters/aircraft? It does not make much sense that enemy fighters should be any less vulnerable in atmosphere if they are tracked by a FFD than they are in space.
 

Offline Hazard

  • Commander
  • *********
  • H
  • Posts: 347
  • Thanked: 28 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1848 on: October 11, 2018, 04:20:34 PM »
IIRC, fighting STO units is like fighting ships, and on the ship timescale rather than the ground combat timescale.

With the ground bombardment mechanics the way they are, that... might not work out well.
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 7232
  • Thanked: 2364 times
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1849 on: October 11, 2018, 04:54:17 PM »
That leaves the question open how counterbattery fire against STO works. The most effective phase for STO will likely be trying to down incoming transports, and against this you want to have fighters/warships that try to suppress the STOs.

A few further questions, how do beam weapons work on fighters? I assume they use ship bombardment rules, but benefit from STO immunity on mission like other fighters.

Missile interaction with ground troops and planets is also still lacking. Again for a landing it might make sense to employ them in a tactical role against STO in limited strikes.

Lastly, how do beam fighters fight other fighters on mission? Do they use regular combat, or is that translated to fighter bombardment back to anti-aircraft damage?

Can orbital bombardment also catch enemy fighters/aircraft? It does not make much sense that enemy fighters should be any less vulnerable in atmosphere if they are tracked by a FFD than they are in space.

I haven't finished with the ground combat rules posts yet. I will try to cover all of the above.
 

Online QuakeIV

  • Registered
  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • Posts: 277
  • Thanked: 24 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1850 on: October 11, 2018, 11:25:09 PM »
I'd like to raise the concern that ground combat is getting out of control given that this is a space game and you still haven't gotten a complete version out.

Not trying to tell you your business, just wanted to specifically attract your attention to this in particular.
 

Offline alex_brunius

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 984
  • Thanked: 36 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1851 on: October 12, 2018, 03:56:50 AM »
I have some concerns that the FFD system greatly advantages a single large bombardment ship instead of using multiple smaller ships, but honestly I don't think it's a big deal. Besides, it's thematic to use the big battleships for bombardment while the smaller ships play escort.

I thought a single ship could only be assigned one unit to support and as such only fire on one target each increment? If your massive battleship can overkill any target wouldn't several smaller ships be more effective instead?
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 7232
  • Thanked: 2364 times
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1852 on: October 12, 2018, 04:03:42 AM »
I'd like to raise the concern that ground combat is getting out of control given that this is a space game and you still haven't gotten a complete version out.

Not trying to tell you your business, just wanted to specifically attract your attention to this in particular.

It's not that the code is running off without me :). Where we are now with the ground combat is pretty much where I wanted to be when I started on this on this area a year ago. There is still some coding to do but the framework is firmly in place. It is has taken a while to build the complexity I wanted and to integrate that with an already complex game, although I have added a lot of other areas in the last year and had several months without much free time, so hasn't just been ground combat.

I accept ground combat has probably added at least six months to development time. However, I don't have a deadline to work to, or any time pressure beyond my own great desire to play the game (I haven't played Aurora in the last 2.5 years) and I believe it is worth spending the time to get this right. Besides, my sales numbers will be unaffected by any delay :)

I don't want to place arbitrary boundaries on myself regarding what the game should or should not cover. Personally I am going to have great fun designing and employing the various ground forces that Aurora will now support, plus naval forces will be faced with entirely new missions added to those that exist in VB6 Aurora.

 

Offline Whitecold

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • W
  • Posts: 271
  • Thanked: 59 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1853 on: October 12, 2018, 04:09:28 AM »
I thought a single ship could only be assigned one unit to support and as such only fire on one target each increment? If your massive battleship can overkill any target wouldn't several smaller ships be more effective instead?
I interpreted it as firing at 1 formation. Otherwise any ship with multiple weapons is basically useless, very few ground units survive a shot from heavy beam weapons.
 

Offline alex_brunius

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 984
  • Thanked: 36 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1854 on: October 12, 2018, 04:19:39 AM »
I interpreted it as firing at 1 formation. Otherwise any ship with multiple weapons is basically useless, very few ground units survive a shot from heavy beam weapons.

Yeah that's what I meant. I don't know exactly the numbers of targets inside a "formation" will be here, since it seems the system is quite flexible and open, but logic and reason states that at some point a large Battleship should be able to overkill anything if it has too many guns.

Can orbital bombardment also catch enemy fighters/aircraft? It does not make much sense that enemy fighters should be any less vulnerable in atmosphere if they are tracked by a FFD than they are in space.

I don't agree at all that it makes sense to be able to target fast moving fighters if there are administrative or other delays involved which allow orbital support to fire only once every 3 or 6 hours ( not sure which it was ).
 

Offline TMaekler

  • Captain
  • **********
  • Posts: 421
  • Thanked: 55 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1855 on: October 12, 2018, 05:36:51 AM »
So, Steve, the next update after C# will then include planetary naval forces?  ;D
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 7232
  • Thanked: 2364 times
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1856 on: October 12, 2018, 05:38:52 AM »
So, Steve, the next update after C# will then include planetary naval forces?  ;D

I did consider those for the ground combat, particularly submarines, but decided that was a step too far. For the moment anyway :)
 

Offline alex_brunius

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 984
  • Thanked: 36 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1857 on: October 12, 2018, 06:10:05 AM »
I did consider those for the ground combat, particularly submarines, but decided that was a step too far. For the moment anyway :)

Submarines could be easily implemented by bringing back missile PDCs and saying that the extra defense layers are from water instead of rock...

*runs away*
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 7232
  • Thanked: 2364 times
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1858 on: October 12, 2018, 06:38:01 AM »
I did consider those for the ground combat, particularly submarines, but decided that was a step too far. For the moment anyway :)

Submarines could be easily implemented by bringing back missile PDCs and saying that the extra defense layers are from water instead of rock...

*runs away*

:)
 

Offline Garfunkel

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 991
  • Thanked: 72 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1859 on: October 12, 2018, 12:45:25 PM »
I like that NPRs are now using fuel, even if they can cheat if necessary. And I don't fault you Steve for leaving in that "loophole", coding AI to worry about deployment ranges is a formidable challenge - Paradox for the longest time allowed AI opponents ships to operate with unlimited ranges because they couldn't get the AI to play smart with the same constraints that a player had.
 

 

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