Author Topic: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions  (Read 101022 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Jorgen_CAB

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • J
  • Posts: 1042
  • Thanked: 80 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1275 on: July 16, 2019, 05:47:05 PM »
Are you completely excluding beam PD from this?  Personally, I have never tried to 100% stop incoming missiles with AMMs.  I have only ever experimented with set ups designed to thin their numbers and have always used beam PD, shields, and armour to absorb the leakers.  (Sometimes I use entire battleships to absorb the leakers.  #:-] )

- - -

If Steve is going to reprogram AMM PD from 'target nearest salvo' to (optionally) 'target furthest salvo', I don't expect it would be too much trouble to also add 'target largest salvo' to the radio buttons.

- - -

Quote
While I agree that the current system is lacking, that would allow a single turret to split fire between salvos arriving from opposite directions.  That seems a bit much.

Oh, I didn't mean a radius from the firing ship; but rather a radius around the initial target.  So if I shoot / launch AMMs at incoming Missile #578984632115, let the same FC also shoot / launch at any missiles within, say, 5,000 km of it.
The point is that against this exploit you need enough beam defence that missile defence didn't matter anyway.  Once triggered 100% of incoming missiles leak.  While the AI doesn't deliberately exploit it I have lost ships to it, though I didn't understand it at the time.  The AI is defenceless against it and it also negates missile defence in hotseat games since it is simple to exploit.

----

Adding either option should be no harder than the other.  While I consider one better than the other I am in no way against adding both.   :)

----

That supposedly is what missile sensors are for, but good luck mounting those on AMMs before late game in VB or at all in C# due to the new minimum sensor size.

The problem is not Fire-Controls in and of itself, especially not against AMM. If you want to fire say one missile per enemy ASM the problem with Fire-Control usually crop up since you only fire on one salvo so the defender are generally wasting more fire-controls. If a salvo contain say 6 missiles and the defender only have five AMM per fire control you need tow fire-controls to engage that salvo with one missile and waste four missiles in that 5sec turn. Even if there are more missiles incoming, there are no reason that you could not target more missiles from a realistic point of view unless you want to twist and bend the technobabble to fit the narrative.

The thing is way worse for beam fire-controls that can easily be saturated. One problem is that five different missiles fired with the same fire-control create five different salvos as one example.

I don't think that engaging missiles coming in from different direction (in the same 5 sec turn) happen enough in an actual game that it is reasonable to bring up as a reason against engagement of missile fire-control salvos. In that case I would settle for engaging missiles with the same position if that would be a major issue and ignoring the fire-control issue.

Full size missile launcher against an equal tech level opponent is often a waste of resources since beam point defence are too effective (at least until rather late in the game when beam PD become useless, although I never play that late). The only way you can beat beam PD is by saturating the PD by gaming the system (which is possible if you want to). Thus you need reduced sized launchers rather than deep magazines of missiles so you can hopefully overpower the enemies beam PD, this is where AMM become really important.

If the enemy is attacking with more missiles per salvo than my AMM is set up for, I just reassign some tubes.  What saturates missile PD is that it takes more than one outgoing salvo to completely kill an incoming one, so you want more FCs than the enemy has.

I've never tried linking different types of ASM to the same FC since I always standardize my loads so I will need to test that.  Otherwise I've never seen a missile FC create more than one salvo per tick.  As long as they arrive one salvo at a time then one beam FC can keep up with them.

While I misunderstood Father Tim's objection I stand by what I said.

The exploit is that you only need about half as many launchers and a quarter the missiles that you should to defeat AMMs.  Theoretically even a start-game attacker could exploit this against an end-game defender.

Well... I often play with multiple human controlled factions and I find the fire-control mechanic problematic even when I don't exploit obvious game mechanics. Especially against beam PD fire-controls. Things like mixing of huge box launched single salvos and multiple small box launched salvos from fighters forces the defender to use too much resources on beam fire-controls which are quite expensive. Against large box launched salvos it is huge overkill and expensive, but you still need them against much smaller but numerous salvos if fighter launched. The defender always draws the shortest straw no matter what.

Against AMM it is not as big of a problem, but it does exist there as well in terms of general cost in fire-control you need against versus the enemy fire-controls for ASM.
 

Offline Bartimeus

  • Warrant Officer, Class 2
  • ****
  • B
  • Posts: 51
  • Thanked: 3 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1276 on: July 18, 2019, 08:48:34 AM »
Hello all,

I have a little suggestion/idea.
In VBS 6 some officier have the trait "political relation" which give them a bonus for promotion(right?). Will it be possible to create ourself other "trait" with promotion bonus ? I have an idea of a aristocratic game were people belonging to certain great family/house have more chance of getting promote than lambda officier.
Is it doable ? This possibility already existe ? I know we can trick it bu using the medal system.

Bye bye 
 

Offline Garfunkel

  • Registered
  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1257
  • Thanked: 141 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1277 on: July 18, 2019, 11:26:29 AM »
Yeah you can use the medal system to do this in VB6. Steve hasn't said anything of this sort for C# - and the political reliability bonus can be made meaningless in the game setup options, if you want to.

Personally, I think using the medal system is the best option for this, because it's such a niche case. Since medals can give both positive or negative promotion points.
 

Offline TMaekler

  • Captain
  • **********
  • Posts: 482
  • Thanked: 64 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1278 on: July 18, 2019, 12:05:28 PM »
An idea for planetary growth maximum: in C# we will get an upper limit to populations on a body. Really good thing this... so I was wondering: with technology everything can be extended. But it also might get very fragile that way. A civilization which is for example very limited in space to expand might come up with technology to cram more people into small space. Also to extend the food production etc.

So how about a building which will do exactly that? It provides food production, services, etc, and thereby extends the maximum population on a planet by 10.000 people (this building does nothing but provides this amount of people; everything else is already simulated by the pop numbers). Pop then can grow over the limit which gives additional free jobs which you then can use to build more industry, etc.

Then comes a Desaster or an enemy bombardment destroys 80% of these buildings... and your people begin to die because of overpopulation and starvation etc... . So you have a Choice... Build tall but eventually fragile, or wide and save...

Just a thought...
 
The following users thanked this post: Agoelia

Offline Hazard

  • Captain
  • **********
  • H
  • Posts: 480
  • Thanked: 41 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1279 on: July 18, 2019, 03:39:54 PM »
IIRC you can go over the planetary population maximum. However, it comes with the drawback of zero population growth and increasing political instability.
 

Offline dukea42

  • Leading Rate
  • *
  • d
  • Posts: 11
  • Thanked: 1 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1280 on: July 19, 2019, 01:06:16 PM »
So how about a building which will do exactly that?

It's already in the game as orbital habitats http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=8495.msg106761#msg106761 and just infrastructure if not yet habitable on the surface.

I also believe you can genemod your population's density attribute.
« Last Edit: July 19, 2019, 01:08:31 PM by dukea42 »
 
The following users thanked this post: Agoelia

amschnei

  • Guest
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1281 on: July 20, 2019, 12:32:30 AM »
Steve,

Since you mentioned elsewhere that military academies can be assigned directors now, it might be nice if they could be named also.  So instead of assigning a high level general to just a “military academy” I can have him run “West Point”, or assign a laser researcher to the “Mars High Energy Physics Institute” or whatever.  Would be a nice cosmetic thing.
 

Offline Garfunkel

  • Registered
  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1257
  • Thanked: 141 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1282 on: July 20, 2019, 05:50:25 AM »
Yeah, this sounds really superfluous because of the improvements to orbital habitats and the possibility of LG infrastructure AND genetic modification.
 

Offline Stryker

  • Able Ordinary Rate
  • S
  • Posts: 3
Ship name list manipulation
« Reply #1283 on: July 20, 2019, 02:14:45 PM »
A feature I would like to see would be the ability to manipulate ship name lists.   Currently, you can add a ship name list by creating a text file and this is fine for new lists.   However, there is no way to manipulate the existing lists.   For example: I never use the alphabetical lists.   The ability to move these to the left hand pane would reduce the number of list I have to scroll through to reach a list I want to use.   I also always use the Hippy list.   Since I could not find a posting for this list, I ended up having to re-type the entire list and add it to the game.   

I would suggest being able to select a name list (or multiple lists) in the left hand panel and add them to the right hand panel.   Additionally the ability to select one or multiple lists in the right hand panel and shift them to the left hand panel (I don't wish to remove the names permanently, I may wish to use them later).   This would allow the player to keep the "in use" ship lists smaller, but easily add more later if he chooses without having to re-type them or add an existing list outside the game.
 

Offline TMaekler

  • Captain
  • **********
  • Posts: 482
  • Thanked: 64 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1284 on: July 21, 2019, 02:25:25 AM »
Yeah, this sounds really superfluous because of the improvements to orbital habitats and the possibility of LG infrastructure AND genetic modification.
Yeah, you are right, forgotten about that. My suggestion seems only different in general gameplay. Though would be nice to know what happens if you add living space on a body and those stations got shot down. Does the population instantly disappear with them or are they left on the body and slowly die away?
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Star Marshal
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 7848
  • Thanked: 4076 times
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1285 on: July 21, 2019, 04:37:08 AM »
Yeah, this sounds really superfluous because of the improvements to orbital habitats and the possibility of LG infrastructure AND genetic modification.
Though would be nice to know what happens if you add living space on a body and those stations got shot down. Does the population instantly disappear with them or are they left on the body and slowly die away?
The pop remains. Orbital habs are just a form of infrastructure.
 

Offline Hazard

  • Captain
  • **********
  • H
  • Posts: 480
  • Thanked: 41 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1286 on: July 21, 2019, 08:38:21 AM »
Instead of Exclude (qualifier) for the logistics list, it might be better to have Include (qualifier). ie. Include (Armed), (FAC), (Fighters), (Tanker), (Supply), (Collier), (Freighter), (Civilian), (In Shipyard), and just tick all the boxes at  the start of the game so the entire navy is on the list.

Civilian would be the catch all for terraformers, fuel harvesters and any other ships not otherwise on the list. And yes, if a ship is a supply, fuel and ordnance support ship that does mean that they can qualify for the list on all of them.
 
The following users thanked this post: papent

Offline ReviewDude01

  • Leading Rate
  • *
  • R
  • Posts: 10
  • Thanked: 1 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1287 on: July 21, 2019, 12:29:13 PM »
Make a button that deletes all missiles (and if applicable drones mines countermeasures)  in a system.

This is very useful in single player scenarios where a player is already 100% sure that enemy AI cannot get past his point defence but AI is still shooting 50 missiles per minute that severely slow down the game.

Another option in my opinion far better one is to make AI stop shooting missiles and choose a different behaviour if lets say last 3 full salvoes shot by AI had 0% hit rate (all shot down by PD).

edit: this behaviour could stay until a ship by player takes a damage so there might be a change in PD or/and until AI get reinforcements and/or until some time runs out

sorry for bad english/grammar

edit2: make all/most weapon size techs severely cheaper to research with some numbers rebalance. big cannons should have a slow reload time and another tech pre-requesites to be effective for example capacitor recharge rate. some games just do it wrong where bigger cannons are better and expensive to research and its not very logical compared to real world engineering
I think that bigger cannons should be primarily about design choice (possibly inefficient big cannons or more versatile small ones or more point defence) not about tech levels.
« Last Edit: July 21, 2019, 12:40:39 PM by ReviewDude01 »
 

Offline Rabid_Cog

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • Posts: 282
  • Thanked: 19 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1288 on: July 22, 2019, 08:33:53 AM »

Another option in my opinion far better one is to make AI stop shooting missiles and choose a different behaviour if lets say last 3 full salvoes shot by AI had 0% hit rate (all shot down by PD).


This is a very good idea that should be made a note of. Dumping your entire missile stocks into space should be a conscious choice not default behaviour. An entire Missile Attack AI might be a good thing to implement, considering how important missiles are to combat in Aurora. It should consider the following:
  • How many missiles do I need to kill the enemy?
  • How much PD do I know the enemy has?
  • How much of the enemy capability is unknown?
  • What is the hit rate of my missiles against the enemy?
  • Do I have time for a probing attack? (single or few salvo to obtain intel)
  • What percentage of the enemy PD is missile based?
  • What is the shield strength and recharge rate of my targets?
  • What impact do I foresee my volleys having? (Force expenditure of AMMs, chip damage)
  • What will that impact cost me in missiles expended and is it worth it?

I can take a look at figuring out a decision tree that Steve can just implement. Sounds like a fun project. Won't be able to do the code, but I think Steve likes doing that himself anyway.
I have my own subforum now!
Shameless plug for my own Aurora story game:
5.6 part: http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php/topic,4988.0.html
6.2 part: http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php/topic,5906.0.html

Feel free to post comments!
http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php/topic,5452.0.html
 

Offline Garfunkel

  • Registered
  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1257
  • Thanked: 141 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1289 on: July 22, 2019, 12:05:55 PM »
Worth double checking what Steve has posted about improvements to AI, since he has worked on it quite a bit.
 

 

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