Author Topic: C# Aurora Changes Discussion  (Read 173593 times)

0 Members and 16 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Hazard

  • Commander
  • *********
  • H
  • Posts: 395
  • Thanked: 33 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2160 on: February 06, 2019, 04:14:52 PM »
Not exactly. There are no ground units that can be equipped with missile launchers. However, you can design a survey missile and a small military station (structural shell instead of armour) equipped with a box launcher to simulate the ISS being used as a probe launch platform, being supplied with new missiles through an abstracted interaction of a space port/ordnance transfer facility and maintenance facilities.
 

Offline The Forbidden

  • Chief Petty Officer
  • ***
  • T
  • Posts: 44
  • Thanked: 2 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2161 on: February 06, 2019, 06:52:48 PM »
Not exactly. There are no ground units that can be equipped with missile launchers. However, you can design a survey missile and a small military station (structural shell instead of armour) equipped with a box launcher to simulate the ISS being used as a probe launch platform, being supplied with new missiles through an abstracted interaction of a space port/ordnance transfer facility and maintenance facilities.

I thought the rules of structural shell was that no military systems could be put on board, essentially making it that only civilian stations could have it and be built by industry.
 

Offline Father Tim

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 994
  • Thanked: 75 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2162 on: February 07, 2019, 02:47:41 AM »
Not exactly. There are no ground units that can be equipped with missile launchers. However, you can design a survey missile and a small military station (structural shell instead of armour) equipped with a box launcher to simulate the ISS being used as a probe launch platform, being supplied with new missiles through an abstracted interaction of a space port/ordnance transfer facility and maintenance facilities.

I thought the rules of structural shell was that no military systems could be put on board, essentially making it that only civilian stations could have it and be built by industry.

That is, indeed, the rules of Structural Shells as posted on the C# Aurora changes list.  Still, you could squeeze a single, very large missile launcher into a 1000 ton ship and fire your survey missiles at asteroids. . .  GEO survey missiles, anyway.  http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=8495.msg103096#msg103096 doesn't mention GRAV survey sensors.
« Last Edit: February 07, 2019, 02:59:36 AM by Father Tim »
 

Offline The Forbidden

  • Chief Petty Officer
  • ***
  • T
  • Posts: 44
  • Thanked: 2 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2163 on: February 07, 2019, 06:14:38 AM »
Not exactly. There are no ground units that can be equipped with missile launchers. However, you can design a survey missile and a small military station (structural shell instead of armour) equipped with a box launcher to simulate the ISS being used as a probe launch platform, being supplied with new missiles through an abstracted interaction of a space port/ordnance transfer facility and maintenance facilities.

I thought the rules of structural shell was that no military systems could be put on board, essentially making it that only civilian stations could have it and be built by industry.

That is, indeed, the rules of Structural Shells as posted on the C# Aurora changes list.  Still, you could squeeze a single, very large missile launcher into a 1000 ton ship and fire your survey missiles at asteroids. . .  GEO survey missiles, anyway.  http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=8495.msg103096#msg103096 doesn't mention GRAV survey sensors.

FAC survey missile platform ? I like the idea. Though it'll probably cost more than a proper survey ship in the long run.
 

Offline QuakeIV

  • Registered
  • Commander
  • *********
  • Posts: 302
  • Thanked: 27 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2164 on: February 08, 2019, 12:32:47 AM »
I guess I could see it if a system had enemy ships passing through periodically and you wanted to launch a bunch of low observable survey missiles then bug out with the actual ship.
 

Offline Zincat

  • Commander
  • *********
  • Z
  • Posts: 303
  • Thanked: 32 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2165 on: February 08, 2019, 12:19:17 PM »
Thanks for the latest change. I have always wondered why fuel storages were so expensive. I had assumed it was a deliberate choice, and I was not happy about it.

It's mcuh better this way  ;D
 

Offline misanthropope

  • Petty Officer
  • **
  • m
  • Posts: 29
  • Thanked: 12 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2166 on: February 10, 2019, 09:15:45 AM »
if you're gimping auto-mines *and* asteroid mines, you're making asteroids considerably more player-intensive- and they're already conspicuously high on the ol' clicks-per-unit-reward metric.  i exploit asteroids in 7.1, but if i couldnt just throw capital at them, they would be nothing but a visual noise and processor slowdown.

 

Offline Garfunkel

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1070
  • Thanked: 85 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2167 on: February 11, 2019, 12:14:50 PM »
What is gimping auto-mines and asteroid mines? I haven't seen Steve post any changes to them.
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Star Marshal
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 7500
  • Thanked: 3080 times
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2168 on: February 11, 2019, 04:09:27 PM »
What is gimping auto-mines and asteroid mines? I haven't seen Steve post any changes to them.

I haven't posted any changes to automated mines. Asteroid mining modules (now orbital mining modules) have gained a major advantage due to the space station changes, plus they can be used for moons as well. The new downside is the maximum diameter for mining which will take some asteroids out of reach until tech improves.
 

Online JacenHan

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • Posts: 290
  • Thanked: 35 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2169 on: February 11, 2019, 04:59:18 PM »
I think he meant to post that in the power generation topic.
 

Offline misanthropope

  • Petty Officer
  • **
  • m
  • Posts: 29
  • Thanked: 12 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2170 on: February 11, 2019, 06:31:16 PM »
sorry for sowing confusion, lost track of where each thread originated.
 

Offline Lamandier

  • Chief Petty Officer
  • ***
  • Posts: 41
  • Thanked: 1 times
  • Joker, Smoker, Midnight Toker
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2171 on: February 12, 2019, 09:50:52 AM »
Not exactly. There are no ground units that can be equipped with missile launchers. However, you can design a survey missile and a small military station (structural shell instead of armour) equipped with a box launcher to simulate the ISS being used as a probe launch platform, being supplied with new missiles through an abstracted interaction of a space port/ordnance transfer facility and maintenance facilities.

I thought the rules of structural shell was that no military systems could be put on board, essentially making it that only civilian stations could have it and be built by industry.

That is, indeed, the rules of Structural Shells as posted on the C# Aurora changes list.  Still, you could squeeze a single, very large missile launcher into a 1000 ton ship and fire your survey missiles at asteroids. . .  GEO survey missiles, anyway.  http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=8495.msg103096#msg103096 doesn't mention GRAV survey sensors.

You could also get around the no-military-systems limitation by creating a separate module for the station. In 7.1 I simulate large orbital space stations by creating a complex of complementary modules all linked by tractor beams - a large orbital habitat module or two linked to various specialized military modules for station defense/local command and control, etc.

For this specific example I would just create a 'space station'(more like a missile pod) that consists of little more than a fire control and a box launcher or two to fire your survey missiles and then bolt it onto your ISS with a tractor link.
"In doing so, you will see things no human has ever seen before! It will be... fun! Assuming you're not vaporized, dissected, or otherwise killed in an assortment of supremely horrible and painful ways! Exciting, isn't it?"
 

Offline The Forbidden

  • Chief Petty Officer
  • ***
  • T
  • Posts: 44
  • Thanked: 2 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2172 on: February 13, 2019, 03:12:01 AM »
Not exactly. There are no ground units that can be equipped with missile launchers. However, you can design a survey missile and a small military station (structural shell instead of armour) equipped with a box launcher to simulate the ISS being used as a probe launch platform, being supplied with new missiles through an abstracted interaction of a space port/ordnance transfer facility and maintenance facilities.

I thought the rules of structural shell was that no military systems could be put on board, essentially making it that only civilian stations could have it and be built by industry.

That is, indeed, the rules of Structural Shells as posted on the C# Aurora changes list.  Still, you could squeeze a single, very large missile launcher into a 1000 ton ship and fire your survey missiles at asteroids. . .  GEO survey missiles, anyway.  http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=8495.msg103096#msg103096 doesn't mention GRAV survey sensors.

You could also get around the no-military-systems limitation by creating a separate module for the station. In 7.1 I simulate large orbital space stations by creating a complex of complementary modules all linked by tractor beams - a large orbital habitat module or two linked to various specialized military modules for station defense/local command and control, etc.

For this specific example I would just create a 'space station'(more like a missile pod) that consists of little more than a fire control and a box launcher or two to fire your survey missiles and then bolt it onto your ISS with a tractor link.

What's next ? Apollo FTL telemetry links ? ^^

But yeah, that's a valid point, personally I prefer one big station however, but it's just a matter of taste, as a nebulous complex of smaller structures makes more sense than one big station.
 

 

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