Author Topic: C# Aurora Changes Discussion  (Read 259729 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline L0ckAndL0ad

  • Warrant Officer, Class 1
  • *****
  • L
  • Posts: 82
  • Thanked: 4 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2610 on: February 27, 2020, 10:07:56 AM »
Quote from: Steve Walmsley
Ship Achievements

All the medal conditions that potentially apply to ship commanders are recorded for the ship as well. This is maintained separately from the ship commander, so when a commander moves on to a new ship, the current ship retains its achievements, which will continue to increase under the next commander. A ship does not need a commander for the achievements to be recorded.
Would carriers get the achievements based on the actions of the parasite craft assigned to them?

Off-Topic: show


 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Star Marshal
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 8404
  • Thanked: 6019 times
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2611 on: February 27, 2020, 10:33:34 AM »
Quote from: Steve Walmsley
Ship Achievements

All the medal conditions that potentially apply to ship commanders are recorded for the ship as well. This is maintained separately from the ship commander, so when a commander moves on to a new ship, the current ship retains its achievements, which will continue to increase under the next commander. A ship does not need a commander for the achievements to be recorded.
Would carriers get the achievements based on the actions of the parasite craft assigned to them?

Off-Topic: show




Until this email, only the parasite received the achievement :)

I've now added a separate 'Strike Group' tracker as well. The parasite still gets the credit, but the assigned mothership now gets a separate credit flagged with (SG) for strike group. Separate achievement entries are shown for the carrier itself and the strike group, even if they are the same achievement.  So if a Battlestar has destroyed 10,000 tons of shipping directly and its Vipers have destroyed 20,000 tons, the achievement list for the Battlestar will show:

Military Shipping Tonnage Destroyed: 10,000 tons
Military Shipping Tonnage Destroyed (SG): 20,000 tons.
 
The following users thanked this post: AlStar, iceball3, Alsadius, L0ckAndL0ad, BigBacon

Offline Garfunkel

  • Registered
  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1524
  • Thanked: 209 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2612 on: February 27, 2020, 11:41:39 AM »
I never knew that I wanted ship "scores" like that and now I wonder how I have managed to live without it!

 ;D
 

Offline Tikigod

  • Warrant Officer, Class 1
  • *****
  • Posts: 92
  • Thanked: 14 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2613 on: February 27, 2020, 12:12:37 PM »
Quote from: Steve Walmsley
Ship Achievements

All the medal conditions that potentially apply to ship commanders are recorded for the ship as well. This is maintained separately from the ship commander, so when a commander moves on to a new ship, the current ship retains its achievements, which will continue to increase under the next commander. A ship does not need a commander for the achievements to be recorded.
Would carriers get the achievements based on the actions of the parasite craft assigned to them?

Off-Topic: show




Until this email, only the parasite received the achievement :)

I've now added a separate 'Strike Group' tracker as well. The parasite still gets the credit, but the assigned mothership now gets a separate credit flagged with (SG) for strike group. Separate achievement entries are shown for the carrier itself and the strike group, even if they are the same achievement.  So if a Battlestar has destroyed 10,000 tons of shipping directly and its Vipers have destroyed 20,000 tons, the achievement list for the Battlestar will show:

Military Shipping Tonnage Destroyed: 10,000 tons
Military Shipping Tonnage Destroyed (SG): 20,000 tons.

Similar to the personnel system recently discussed, any chance of having a ship service history log for looking back at notable ships and their achievements? As the change details only appear to mention currently active ships having their achievements observable.

As part of avoiding bloat, would make sense if it only ever recorded military designated vessels and their accomplishments.
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 sloanjh

  • Global Moderator
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • *****
  • Posts: 2799
  • Thanked: 108 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2614 on: February 28, 2020, 09:52:57 AM »
Quote from: Steve Walmsley
Ship Achievements

All the medal conditions that potentially apply to ship commanders are recorded for the ship as well. This is maintained separately from the ship commander, so when a commander moves on to a new ship, the current ship retains its achievements, which will continue to increase under the next commander. A ship does not need a commander for the achievements to be recorded.
Would carriers get the achievements based on the actions of the parasite craft assigned to them?

Off-Topic: show




Until this email, only the parasite received the achievement :)

I've now added a separate 'Strike Group' tracker as well. The parasite still gets the credit, but the assigned mothership now gets a separate credit flagged with (SG) for strike group. Separate achievement entries are shown for the carrier itself and the strike group, even if they are the same achievement.  So if a Battlestar has destroyed 10,000 tons of shipping directly and its Vipers have destroyed 20,000 tons, the achievement list for the Battlestar will show:

Military Shipping Tonnage Destroyed: 10,000 tons
Military Shipping Tonnage Destroyed (SG): 20,000 tons.

This brings up the question of whether you want to have fleet formations also track accomplishments of their constituent ships.  On the plus side it would give some storytelling flavor to e.g. "the famous 7th fleet".  On the minus side if the design paradigm is that fleet instances can be easily thrown away, then there might need to be a lot of support coding to make sure that people don't accidentally kill off a beloved fleet.

John
 

Offline Garfunkel

  • Registered
  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1524
  • Thanked: 209 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2615 on: February 28, 2020, 11:52:34 AM »
Since fleets are not permanent structures, it's probably impossible or not practical, to maintain such tracking. For admin commands, tied as they are to Naval Headquarter buildings, it might be feasible. In that case, you could name the lowest admin-level "7th Fleet" and it's the Aurora equivalent of shore-based HQ/support element for the ships that go out in harm's way. That way it doesn't matter which ships are part of "7th Fleet" over the years, it's the admin command that racks up achievements.
 
The following users thanked this post: Kristover

Offline Kristover

  • Warrant Officer, Class 1
  • *****
  • K
  • Posts: 82
  • Thanked: 43 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2616 on: February 28, 2020, 12:21:24 PM »
Since fleets are not permanent structures, it's probably impossible or not practical, to maintain such tracking. For admin commands, tied as they are to Naval Headquarter buildings, it might be feasible. In that case, you could name the lowest admin-level "7th Fleet" and it's the Aurora equivalent of shore-based HQ/support element for the ships that go out in harm's way. That way it doesn't matter which ships are part of "7th Fleet" over the years, it's the admin command that racks up achievements.

This sounds a lot like what I plan to do with my C# Federation play-through where I plan each Naval HQ to be a Fleet HQ building.  I tend to write lots of notes on my Commanders and Ships and could easily see doing this for the 'Fleet HQ' if there is a similar note structure.
 

Offline Iranon

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • I
  • Posts: 601
  • Thanked: 61 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2617 on: March 02, 2020, 01:46:32 AM »
Iranon, I agree that area defence with large beam weapons is now even more useless but going from 1% usability into 0.5% usability is not that big of a difference. Area defence beams were always a gimmick that barely worked at all. Adding the failure rate on top doesn't really change the picture, in my opinion.

OTOH, for planets/moons/asteroids/comets it actually becomes more valid because AFAIK ground units with STO/CIWS capability do not have a failure rate, they just consume supplies, and you don't need maintenance facilities to take care of them either. So if you were using PDCs on airless moons with long-range lasers/particle beams as area defence, that's still possible.

Quote
Encouraging holding fire when hit chances are low is a nice concept, but problematic in Aurora because of the very low beam ranges. Beam fring rates are comparable to 20th century wet navy ships, but the difference between extreme and modest range against a retreating target can be closed in seconds rather than hours. Long-range shots with most lines are penalised in terms of damage as well as accuracy, further shortening effective range if there's any meaningful cost to firing a weapon.
This I do not understand. You cannot make a blanket statement like that since you don't define engines. Yeah, closing speed could be seconds. It could be hours too if one side is running away and the other side is gaining only very slowly. Maybe it'll be 20 minutes, which gives quite a number of opportunities for long-range sniping.

Long-range sniping-kiting has always been iffy and this doesn't change in C# and I'm not sure why you seem to be so worried about it. Is it a dominant/favourite playstyle of yours?

As for missile launchers, you're somewhat mistaken. Because even a 5-sec AMM launcher is not going to be firing for hours AND because it is so small, will only consume very small amounts of MSP. I can't see that becoming an issue to the point where players would abandon full-size launchers in favour of box launchers. Bigger launchers are not going to be firing every 5-seconds and the slower they fire, the fewer chances there are for failure. Reduced-size launchers are not significantly bulkier than before - 0.75 remains the same, 0.5 becomes 0.6, 0.33 becomes 0.4 and 0.25 becomes 0.3 - so we would have to crunch some numbers to see how much of a difference it makes on a ship with 20 launchers or 50 launchers. Furthermore, the changes to missiles (more fuel required, no armour, ECM/ECCM) make it so that to me it seems that bigger missiles fired on a slower pace is better than smaller missiles fired more often. With the caveat that an overwhelming alpha strike reigns supreme and always will.

To me, it seems that while the sensor changes favour small ships, the engine/shield/powerplant changes favour large ships. So perhaps large Battlestars equipped with sensor-drones and box launcher-drones will be mechanically the superior option but unless the AI ruthlessly exploits that particular approach with no alternatives, something that I doubt Steve would program, it won't be a problem any more than any of the current exploit-y options.

There are so many changes in C# that I think it's impossible to accurately predict the metagame at this stage since none of us are smart enough to foresee all synergies or surprising possibilities stemming from A interacting with K interacting with Z.

Regarding ranges relative to closing distances: A WW2 battleship may cover its extreme weapon range in about half an hour (30kn, 30km).  A "standard" speed ship in Aurora can typically cover maximum BFC range about a minute (e.g. 4000km/s, 256000km). That's the hard limit, not the limit after which  ammo/wear considerations become prohibitive. Aurora ships can realistically be much faster than the "standard", and fast ships enjoy a larger relative speed advantage over slow ships: In Aurora, relationship between speed and required power is linear rather than cubic. A battlecruiser with twice the propulsion power of an equal-sized battleship will actually be twice as fast.
Yes, it's possible that one ship will have speed advantage below 100km/s over another and closing from extreme to modest beam range takes meaningful time... but the mechanics don't make that likely.

I wouldn't say it's my dominant strategy, but considerations around kiting feature quite a bit in my games.
First, I try not to be on the wrong side of it - scary things currently tend to have superior beam range due to superior E(C)CM), but not extreme speed. Some of my most satisfying battles included finding a range where relative advantages of specific beam weapons matter, weaving in and out depending on RoF considerations, reserving some missiles for point blank fire (which I'd have preferred to see treated as a feature for the AI to use, rather than a bug to be fixed. Having this at "modest beam range" was a stroke of unintended genius).
The fun is hampered a little by just how short short-range combat is relative to ship speed, but it's working well.

I like the idea of a small logistics burden on beam fire, but things scale in entirely the wrong way. Beam ranges being so incredibly short compared to ship speeds is the main issue (so the fancy long-ranged weapons don't get enough time to shine), but cost of weapons and relative importance of tech lines are others. One of the greatest appeals of breakdowns is that they make things less binary - no more free victories if you have range and speed on your enemies. But it further compresses effective weapon range (effective range no longer equal to maximum range), and detracts from weapon tech itself in favour of BFC range and E(C)CM. Sophisticated beam weapons do little good if their breakdown cost exceed damage dealt to the enemy or ordnance expenditure for missiles.
 

Offline Garfunkel

  • Registered
  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1524
  • Thanked: 209 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2618 on: March 02, 2020, 02:56:59 AM »
I see your point now.

However, your final conclusion is too pessimistic, I think:
Quote
sophisticated beam weapons do little good if their breakdown cost exceed damage dealt to the enemy or ordnance expenditure for missiles.
Steve changed the chance from 2% to 1% so I don't think that you should be concerned. In a sense, the "breakdown" chance for missiles is 101% because you always "lose" the missile itself plus the launcher has the same breakdown chance as beam weapons. So missiles will still be an order of magnitude (at least) more expensive than beams.
 

Offline MarcAFK

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1883
  • Thanked: 87 times
  • ...it's so simple an idiot could have devised it..
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2619 on: March 05, 2020, 06:50:45 PM »
Like many other things we want extensive playtesting to determine if theres a serious balance issue. The tweak to 1% steve has already done is probably all thats needed.
" Why is this godforsaken hellhole worth dying for? "
". . .  We know nothing about them, their language, their history or what they look like.  But we can assume this.  They stand for everything we don't stand for.  Also they told me you guys look like dorks. "
"Stop exploding, you cowards.  "
 

Offline Jovus

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • J
  • Posts: 189
  • Thanked: 55 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2620 on: March 05, 2020, 07:39:37 PM »
As a definitely-after-release thing, I want beam weapons (and other maintainable parts) to follow a bathtub curve and have individually-tracked MTBF that is modified by field repairs.

Overly complex? Certainly. But a man can dream.
 
The following users thanked this post: QuakeIV, Titanian

Offline TheRowan

  • Chief Petty Officer
  • ***
  • Posts: 44
  • Thanked: 8 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2621 on: March 06, 2020, 08:06:26 AM »
As a definitely-after-release thing, I want beam weapons (and other maintainable parts) to follow a bathtub curve and have individually-tracked MTBF that is modified by field repairs.

Overly complex? Certainly. But a man can dream.

An overly-complex mechanic in Aurora?

That'll never catch on...
 
The following users thanked this post: QuakeIV, Jovus

Offline xenoscepter

  • Commander
  • *********
  • Posts: 327
  • Thanked: 14 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2622 on: March 08, 2020, 12:46:08 AM »
I'm super excited for Commercial Hangars, I can't wait to build some Cryo Pods and mount them to a commercial ship! And build some Mobile Drydocks!  ;D

Also can't wait for the changes to Cryo Berths! Now I can make Cryo Rescue ships that actually work! :D

And with the Particle Lances I can finally do some Homeworld-Style Ion Frigates! Wahoo!

This is gonna be radical!
 

Offline kyonkundenwa

  • Leading Rate
  • *
  • k
  • Posts: 11
  • Thanked: 12 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2623 on: March 10, 2020, 05:09:53 PM »
Questions about Commercial Hangars that I don't think anybody asked.

Will commercial vessels with commercial hangars be able to transit jump points when carrying military-engined vessels?
If so, will transit rules allow for miliary-engined vessels smaller than the largest capacity commercial hangar on an accompanying commercial jump-capable vessel to transit the point without being inside the hangar? Will commercial hangar-equipped vessels be able to act as "jump tenders" for military-engined vessels which would fit in the hangar?

If hangared transit is intended while unhangared (yet capable of being hangared) transit is not, it would create a situation where micromanagement of loading/jumping/unloading would be advantageous to the player in order to use a mechanic as is intended, which doesn't seem right.
 

Offline Father Tim

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1429
  • Thanked: 218 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2624 on: March 11, 2020, 01:53:48 AM »
Questions about Commercial Hangars that I don't think anybody asked.

Will commercial vessels with commercial hangars be able to transit jump points when carrying military-engined vessels?

Yes.  This is how hangars are supposed to work.

Quote
If so, will transit rules allow for miliary-engined vessels smaller than the largest capacity commercial hangar on an accompanying commercial jump-capable vessel to transit the point without being inside the hangar?

No.  If you wish to micro-manage your way around the game rules that's your business.

Quote
Will commercial hangar-equipped vessels be able to act as "jump tenders" for military-engined vessels which would fit in the hangar?

Yes.  Otherwise the 'auxiliary carrier/tender for small craft/FAC delivery' concept doesn't work.  If you wish to expand that to 'bulk carrier for destroyer/cruiser delivery' or 'fuel efficient long-distance delivery vehicle for battelships/superdreadnoughts' or even 'Guild highliner for transport of Atriedes/Harkonnen/Corrino warships' Aurora is happy to comply.

Quote
If hangared transit is intended while unhangared (yet capable of being hangared) transit is not,

It is.  Aurora is not concerned with preventing you from cheating at solitaire.  (Though cheating is the wrong word in this case.  "Altering the rules to suit your personal playstyle" is a better phrase.)

Quote
it would create a situation where micromanagement of loading/jumping/unloading would be advantageous to the player in order to use a mechanic as is intended, which doesn't seem right.

The "intended" behaviour is that an empire uses Hangar space to store & service parasite craft.  Possibly even to maintain/repair/reload box launchers on larger, independant ships  -- such as a 'floating' drydock or fleet repair dock.  If you want to build a civilian, jump-capable space station with a quarter-million-ton hangar space to permanently 'live' at a jump point and carry ships back and forth in place of a jump gate that works too.

- - - - -

Actually, thinking about the mechanics of that last one. . .  If my empire replaces jump gates with manned space stations, then the fleet orders 'move to [planet] in [system] next door' become (if a military engined-ship is present):
Move to jump point Charlie
join fleet Jump Station Charlie
dock in hangar SS(J) Charlie
jump to [system] next door
launch [ship](s)
leave fleet Jump Station Charlie
move to [planet]

And even then, I think we're changing fleets twice.  It is definitely a nightmare of micro-management. . . though I don't see allowing the fleet to skip the landing & launching steps saves much.  It's the changing of fleets that's the real problem.  Not to mention having to keep track of which side of the jump point JS Charlie is on.

- - - - -

Now, Aurora will allow you to plot standard transits through 'civillian' jumpships (and, I assume, jump stations) with civilian-engined ships, or through military jumpships & stations with any ships.  It's how all my empire-controlled 'civilian' shipping moves around.  Aurora assumes that you will remember you planned movement through that asset and not take it away before the shipping arrives.  Commercial shipping lines will not.  They need jump gates or their own jump-capable ships.
 

 

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