Author Topic: C# Aurora Changes Discussion  (Read 157715 times)

0 Members and 10 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Peroox

  • Leading Rate
  • *
  • P
  • Posts: 11
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1860 on: October 12, 2018, 01:59:55 PM »
Will npc ships still have the same maximum speed as those that still have fuel.  In other words, fact that NPR ship is run out of fuel make him slower ?
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 7238
  • Thanked: 2395 times
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1861 on: October 12, 2018, 02:14:29 PM »
Will npc ships still have the same maximum speed as those that still have fuel.  In other words, fact that NPR ship is run out of fuel make him slower ?

They will be slower in the sense that if there is no fuel source available, they will remain stationary. When moving toward fuel though they will move at full speed. 

I did consider having them move at 20% but decided it was probably better for game play to have them at full speed. You can still infer from their movements if they are low on fuel, but you don't know if they are completely empty.
 

Offline Shuul

  • Chief Petty Officer
  • ***
  • S
  • Posts: 32
  • Thanked: 4 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1862 on: October 13, 2018, 04:25:12 AM »
I believe there should be a benefit to player to make enemy fleets run dry, besides their willingness to refuel.
Reduce their speed to 50-80% sounds to me like a compromise.
 
The following users thanked this post: bro918

Offline chrislocke2000

  • Captain
  • **********
  • c
  • Posts: 460
  • Thanked: 17 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1863 on: October 13, 2018, 09:11:21 AM »
The orbital support looks good. Is there still a risk of collateral damage when you assign ships to orbital bombardment or does this come through more general bombardment much as in vb6.

Do multi turret weapons equate to multiple shots on the same target?

Also, with the increased use of maintenance it would be good to have some variable sized maintenance store components on top of the current 150 ton version.
 

Offline sloanjh

  • Global Moderator
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • *****
  • Posts: 2730
  • Thanked: 66 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1864 on: October 13, 2018, 09:32:44 AM »
I believe there should be a benefit to player to make enemy fleets run dry, besides their willingness to refuel.
Reduce their speed to 50-80% sounds to me like a compromise.

If Steve could write human-level AI I would agree.  I don't think that will happen in the near future, though, so I think that 100% speed is appropriate.  To put it a different way, I think that if the speed were cut when out of fuel, it increases the possibility of the (human) player to game the (stupid) AI.  For example, if there's a hole in the AI's "uh-oh, I'm about to run out of fuel" logic, then the player could get the AI to chase him until dry, then have a significant speed advantage over the AI ships.  What SHOULD happen in all cases is the "uh-oh-need to get fuel" logic should result in the AI ships breaking off before (not after) bingo status and never need to invoke the "oops" case.

STEVE - if you don't already, you might want to have a special mode (maybe invoked by designer mode password, but not entering designer mode) where Aurora will log events for you when the AI is doing something stupid that it shouldn't.  In this case, it would warn you when an NPR fleet ran dry.  That way you could tell how serious a problem it is while you're actually playing (rather than testing) your game :)

John
 
The following users thanked this post: King-Salomon

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 7238
  • Thanked: 2395 times
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1865 on: October 13, 2018, 09:57:52 AM »
The orbital support looks good. Is there still a risk of collateral damage when you assign ships to orbital bombardment or does this come through more general bombardment much as in vb6.

Do multi turret weapons equate to multiple shots on the same target?

Also, with the increased use of maintenance it would be good to have some variable sized maintenance store components on top of the current 150 ton version.

Direct fire on STOs will use normal planetary bombardment rules for environmental damage, which is much higher if missiles are used. Orbital bombardment support will be factored into collateral damage from ground combat, which will overly penalise larger weapons. I need to work out the exact balance.

Multi-weapon turrets or multi-shot weapons (like railguns) will have those multiple shots for orbital bombardment support.
 

Offline sloanjh

  • Global Moderator
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • *****
  • Posts: 2730
  • Thanked: 66 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1866 on: October 13, 2018, 11:54:38 AM »
I like that fortification decreases detection signature.

John
 

Offline Bremen

  • Captain
  • **********
  • B
  • Posts: 424
  • Thanked: 24 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1867 on: October 13, 2018, 04:28:35 PM »
I like that fortification decreases detection signature.

John

Same here. It's also another advantage to using construction units to boost your fortification level way up... luring your attacker into an ambush with superior ground units :)
 

Offline Hazard

  • Commander
  • *********
  • H
  • Posts: 350
  • Thanked: 28 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1868 on: October 13, 2018, 10:02:28 PM »
Current rules create an upper limit to how big a defense force you can stuff onto a planet though, one that grows smaller as technology improves because the sensors get better but not a ground unit's ability to hide. It turns forest, jungle, mountain and rift planets into even better defensive places and desert or ocean worlds into even more of a strategic liability.
 

Offline Person012345

  • Captain
  • **********
  • Posts: 467
  • Thanked: 16 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1869 on: October 14, 2018, 02:38:02 AM »
Current rules create an upper limit to how big a defense force you can stuff onto a planet though, one that grows smaller as technology improves because the sensors get better but not a ground unit's ability to hide. It turns forest, jungle, mountain and rift planets into even better defensive places and desert or ocean worlds into even more of a strategic liability.

What? Why does it put an upper limit? This only matters if you care that the enemy knows you occupy a planet. I can't imagine you'll have gigantic armies stationed on random strategically unimportant planets that the enemy isn't going to be investigating anyway. The only time it seems like it might be relevant is hidden strike bases, but I never envisioned those as being immensely heavily fortified bastions personally.
 

Offline Hazard

  • Commander
  • *********
  • H
  • Posts: 350
  • Thanked: 28 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1870 on: October 14, 2018, 04:22:26 AM »
Because a heavily garrisoned desert world will have a much greater signature than the same garrison on a world with a higher dominant terrain multiplier. Your best defense against orbital assault is the enemy being uncertain about how much you've got there in the way of forces, and it being difficult to dislodge you. With this, desert worlds and other worlds with low dominant terrain modifiers and fortification bonuses, ground units are far more likely to be spotted, far more likely to return a large signature and just as important, far more likely to get hit in any subsequent bombardment, be it fire directed or general.


It makes it harder for a defender not to get outmatched in the ground combat, because the attacker holds greater information to the point it likely has an information advantage, while it already has the orbital advantage and a concentration of force advantage potential because he can move more freely than the defender. After all, if the defenders held that advantage they would not be defending this world and be cut off from reinforcements.
 

Offline Bremen

  • Captain
  • **********
  • B
  • Posts: 424
  • Thanked: 24 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1871 on: October 14, 2018, 05:27:23 AM »
I don't think ground force signature changes how likely you are to detect them. They're size 1, so a resolution 1 sensor will still detect them at a decent range, whether there's one or a million.

What the fortification bonus does is make it harder to determine how many ground forces are on the planet; 6000 troops with a fortification of 6 look the same to attackers as 1000 troops with a fortification level of 1. Though thinking about it doesn't this mean troops with no fortification show up as having infinite strength? Might be best to keep the formula but treat it as Fortification level + 1.

That said, yes, the terrain rules mean it is much easier to defend a mountainous planet than a desert, because the fortification bonus can be huge. It doesn't really change the intel the attacker gets about you (if the planet has a fortification multiplier of 2, they can just multiply the signature they get by 2 and get the same number they would on a planet with no fortification multiplier).

In fact, I'd suggest Steve eliminate the dominant terrain fortification multiplier. The attacker knows what that multiplier is so they can just compensate for that when coming up with their intelligence analysis.
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 7238
  • Thanked: 2395 times
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1872 on: October 14, 2018, 05:41:42 AM »
Minimum fortification strength is 1, which means you are not fortified.
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 7238
  • Thanked: 2395 times
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1873 on: October 14, 2018, 06:15:14 AM »
I've been experimenting with the attack vs armour values, along the same lines as previously discussed, trying to balance the various weapons such as LAV vs HCAP. I finally realised the easiest way to handle this was to treat damage in the same way as penetration. If armour is penetrated, the damage calculation is now (weapon damage / hit points)^2. With both penetration and damage now using the same calculation, differentiation in weapons is much easier.

I've changed LAV to AP 2 Damage 3 and MAV to AP 4 Damage 4, to match the HPs of the respective light and medium vehicles.

I also adjusted light and medium bombardment weapons to AP 1 Dam 2 and AP 1.5 Dam 4 respectively.

I'll probably still adjust a little after campaign testing but i am much happier with it now.
 

Offline Bremen

  • Captain
  • **********
  • B
  • Posts: 424
  • Thanked: 24 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1874 on: October 14, 2018, 06:31:09 AM »
Hum. That makes high HP units considerably tougher, which I think is probably a good change. One thing I was struck by with my own theorizing was that lots of light weapons were surprisingly effective against heavy units.

I'm interested to see how balance testing goes in the campaign.
 

 

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