Author Topic: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions  (Read 30364 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline SimonS3

  • Leading Rate
  • *
  • S
  • Posts: 6
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #405 on: August 06, 2018, 10:08:32 PM »
Quote from: Peroox link=topic=9841. msg109257#msg109257 date=1533589570
Quote from: Frank Jager link=topic=9841.  msg109255#msg109255 date=1533579807
As for crew requirements. 

Further down the line could we have computer effeciency ylyechs which reduce the amount of crew needed, while making the ship exorbitantly expensive. 

We could then make things like the Honorverses Recon Drones and Missile Pods, which don't have any crew at all but can be retargeted and flown like an Aurora ship. 

For now you can only create a missile drone.   It will be fine to create a system of no crew ship that can be hacked by enemy if discovered.   Then stealth technology will be even more important, because that drone can be very small, and with new sensor system that have much more sense.   And also more electronic warfare :)

P.  S For roleplay AGI civilisation it could be technology that make ship less depends on robots/cyborgs. 
   I actually use Drones and missile pods, remove everything from a fighter hull and stick a big passive sensor on it , then set it deployment time to 200 months and you have an early warning drone you can deploy anywhere without getting spotted easily ( just put it some distance away from anything so nothing fly's to close.  same with missile pods remove the engines from a fighter, put the deployment time to 200 again  and if you deploy tractors to your ships you have a missile pod,  could also make variants like Missile defense pods etc.   and keeping them small you can take advantage of your fighter production resources. .  :)
 

Offline Frank Jager

  • Leading Rate
  • *
  • F
  • Posts: 13
  • Thanked: 1 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #406 on: August 07, 2018, 05:04:09 AM »
I actually use Drones and missile pods, remove everything from a fighter hull and stick a big passive sensor on it , then set it deployment time to 200 months and you have an early warning drone you can deploy anywhere without getting spotted easily ( just put it some distance away from anything so nothing fly's to close.  same with missile pods remove the engines from a fighter, put the deployment time to 200 again  and if you deploy tractors to your ships you have a missile pod,  could also make variants like Missile defense pods etc.   and keeping them small you can take advantage of your fighter production resources. .  :)

While I actually use missile bouys in a seperate missile bus and your idea is a solid "workaround" I would still like to use fighter factories to actually produce fighters while continuing to use ordanamce factories to make my ordanamce including things like drones.
From an RP perspective your reconfigured fighters still use crew, which is another resource I would rather use on ships and fighters because I run with maximum crew training rate, which produces better crew grades and reduces the pool of crew available. It also means that you have a bunch of those crew members stuck on pods and drones that can't then be used elsewhere. You could force those designs to use conscripts and not touch the pool but it still seems wierd that a drone ejects lifepods on destruction. You also need fighter bays to deploy those missile pods and drones instead of magazine space. Meaning that my parasite capacity is all forms of screwed up.
 

Offline chrislocke2000

  • Captain
  • **********
  • c
  • Posts: 431
  • Thanked: 9 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #407 on: August 07, 2018, 10:23:12 AM »
I really like the idea of better control over mines if just to avoid the horrible micro management of trying to set up tons of waypoints to try and force mines to trigger in a difference pattern to all at once. Perhaps just giving them some parameters about what to target would be a balance v full control.
 
The following users thanked this post: Titanian

Offline JustAnotherDude

  • Leading Rate
  • *
  • J
  • Posts: 9
  • Thanked: 1 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #408 on: August 10, 2018, 04:10:43 PM »
I think that DSTS should require one million population per installation.  As it stands you can, for very little cost, get almost complete ckverage of everythkng important.  Making it so you can't just plop them on an asteroid makes sense for pickets actually useful while maintaining the home turf advantage you get from full DSTS coverage in established systems.  You can still make the outposts but it would no longer be invisible or almost free to do, but intelligence becomes harder to come by and more involved without adding much micro at all.
 

Offline MasonMac

  • Leading Rate
  • *
  • M
  • Posts: 13
  • Thanked: 2 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #409 on: August 10, 2018, 04:57:24 PM »
How about bigger Railguns to get weapons like the MAC gun from Halo?
 

Offline Desdinova

  • Petty Officer
  • **
  • D
  • Posts: 22
  • Thanked: 15 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #410 on: August 10, 2018, 05:24:41 PM »
I think that DSTS should require one million population per installation.  As it stands you can, for very little cost, get almost complete ckverage of everythkng important.  Making it so you can't just plop them on an asteroid makes sense for pickets actually useful while maintaining the home turf advantage you get from full DSTS coverage in established systems.  You can still make the outposts but it would no longer be invisible or almost free to do, but intelligence becomes harder to come by and more involved without adding much micro at all.

I don't think this makes sense. Why not just make DSTS less effective?

I'd actually think it'd be interesting to make sensors in general less effective across the board. Mid-tier sensors can sweep half a system
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 6942
  • Thanked: 1739 times
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #411 on: August 10, 2018, 07:07:03 PM »
I think that DSTS should require one million population per installation.  As it stands you can, for very little cost, get almost complete ckverage of everythkng important.  Making it so you can't just plop them on an asteroid makes sense for pickets actually useful while maintaining the home turf advantage you get from full DSTS coverage in established systems.  You can still make the outposts but it would no longer be invisible or almost free to do, but intelligence becomes harder to come by and more involved without adding much micro at all.

I don't think this makes sense. Why not just make DSTS less effective?

I'd actually think it'd be interesting to make sensors in general less effective across the board. Mid-tier sensors can sweep half a system

They are less effective in C# Aurora.
 

Offline MasonMac

  • Leading Rate
  • *
  • M
  • Posts: 13
  • Thanked: 2 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #412 on: August 10, 2018, 09:53:13 PM »
Can you have higher racial training levels cause less recruits, because I don't know why you'd ever want it on anything other than 5 if it gives you the best stuff for the same amount of recruits. It wouldn't make sense for the same amount of soldiers to pass into the navy/army either if the training is more difficult. Thats why there are fewer Special Ops than regular soldiers.
 

Offline DIT_grue

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • D
  • Posts: 154
  • Thanked: 19 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #413 on: August 11, 2018, 01:01:30 AM »
Can you have higher racial training levels cause less recruits, because I don't know why you'd ever want it on anything other than 5 if it gives you the best stuff for the same amount of recruits. It wouldn't make sense for the same amount of soldiers to pass into the navy/army either if the training is more difficult. Thats why there are fewer Special Ops than regular soldiers.

... But it always has reduced recruitment? Off the top of my head, I think it's (1000 divided by Training Level) crew per Academy.
 

Offline QuakeIV

  • Registered
  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • Posts: 250
  • Thanked: 18 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #414 on: August 11, 2018, 01:22:51 AM »
I suppose I could see a bell curve sort of deal where the reduction in crew output is much more drastic for the higher levels, to sortof vaguely model how competency tends to be distributed.
« Last Edit: August 11, 2018, 01:46:00 PM by QuakeIV »
 

Offline MasonMac

  • Leading Rate
  • *
  • M
  • Posts: 13
  • Thanked: 2 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #415 on: August 11, 2018, 11:54:16 AM »
Huh... I stand corrected, thanks.
 

Offline Rabid_Cog

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • Posts: 240
  • Thanked: 6 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #416 on: August 13, 2018, 06:14:17 AM »
Shields are great. They regenerate on their own, you always have to shoot through the ENTIRE shield before doing any damage to the ship (as opposed to X layers) and they don't get bigger as your ship does.

The downsides are a consumption in fuel - negligible in a combat situation and a massively reduced HP/HS compared to armor. Even if you can just detect when you are in combat and switch shields on, their fuel use can be reasonably easily compensated for. The issue is, the efficiency of early shields (Alpha/Beta) is so bad that they simply are not worth putting on any ship when additional armor of similar weight adds far, far more effective hits to the ship. However, the HP/HS efficiency of shields cannot be increased because it competes directly with armor and is very likely to make armor obsolete if it has sufficient efficiency.

I propose adding a "thickness" attribute to shields and making that the primary increase in tech. Alpha = 1, Beta = 2, etc. Thickness would indicate the maximum amount of damage that the shield can absorb from a single hit. All excess damage would spill over and strike the armor.

Example:
Beta shields with 12hp.
Attacked by Laser doing 4 damage.
Beta shields take 2 damage = 10hp left.
Armor takes 2 damage in laser damage pattern.

Gameplay benefits:
- Better synergy with armor: Trimming 2 damage off 6 hits is better than stopping 3 hits fully and then taking full damage from the other 3 for the purposes of preventing armor penetration, even though the same amount of total damage gets through.
- Shield efficiency of HP/HS can now be safely increased to the point where it is viable without making armor obsolete as it no longer fulfills the same purpose as armor.
- As HP/HS is no longer the primary technology driver, the improvement with new techs can be made more gradual.
- Shield efficiency (HP/HS) can be split out into a seperate tech tree running parallel with existing shield tech
- Gives more options for designing shields
- Gives incentives to build non-square missile warhead numbers (square + shield pen amount)
- This is a defence system that is more effective against AMM spam and less effective against larger ASMs instead of equally effective against both (current shields) or the reverse (AMMs and CIWS)
- This follows in the line of the "shock damage" mechanic introduced to encourage larger warheads.
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 Whitecold

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • W
  • Posts: 209
  • Thanked: 46 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #417 on: August 13, 2018, 04:17:16 PM »
Rabid_cog, there have been some changes to shields already. They no longer consume fuel, and are now variable in size, with larger shields getting improved shield points per HS.

I like the idea of leaky shields, primarily as it does require them to be combined with armor, and also I would like if both sides in an engagement take some damage, and one side does not come off entirely intact due to shielding. So making it damage mitigation instead of damage prevention helps there.
However I don't see the first levels being not very useful as too big a downside. Some technologies coming in as they advance is quite nice.
Overall you still need to change SP per HS as tech increases to keep up with armor, else it is too powerful or useless at one end of the tech tree or the other.
Further, basing penetration entirely on tech is not desirable, as currently shields are a 'big ship' toy. They get linear scaling in shield thickness, compared to x^2/3 of armor thickness. They should still get an advantage of mounting large, heavy shielding compared to tiny ships mounting just a single shield. However if you instead had a penetration depth of SQRT(SP/5), where SP are the max number of SP on the ship (only working shield generators) you would get a shield that does again require a significant hull to be effective.
 

Offline CheaterEater

  • Chief Petty Officer
  • ***
  • C
  • Posts: 45
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #418 on: August 14, 2018, 11:06:52 AM »
How about instead of shield levels reducing damage, shields could act like armor instead. Shield points would be distributed over the armor like layers, just as armor is. So if e.g. you have 30-wide armor (of however many layers) and 60 shield points, you would have a 2 layer deep shield on top of the armor. As the shield layers get damage they would fill in gaps but the overall depth would be reduced. If a layer is incomplete the partial layer could recenter onto the incoming damage, or it could be a random distribution of extra shield points (e.g. 30-wide armor, 10 shield points, then each box has a 1/3 chance to be filled subject to summing to 10 boxes).

I think this would be fairly intuitive, and you can just look at your ship's armor stat and see that there are X many layers of shield on top of the armor. This would also make shields better versus small damage weapons (AMMs, gauss) and worse against high-damage and high-penetration weapons (big missiles, lasers). It also has the benefit of graduated  leaking as your shield loses more points and more damage makes it through.
 

Offline Rabid_Cog

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • Posts: 240
  • Thanked: 6 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #419 on: August 14, 2018, 11:21:11 AM »
Perhaps not a bad idea for the functionality of the damage reduction, actually. Instead of using max SP, use remaining SP as a function of ship size to determine damage stopped. Of course that changes shields from being a Big Ships tool to being something usable on all ships.

I guess I just generally like the idea of shields not competing with armor for defensive ability, but that there is some synergy between the two that makes it advantageous to put both on your ship.
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
 

 

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