Author Topic: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions  (Read 16672 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Jovus

  • Warrant Officer, Class 2
  • ****
  • J
  • Posts: 63
  • Thanked: 9 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #210 on: May 14, 2018, 10:31:26 AM »
A button for clearing ammunition from missile launchers, because as far as I know the current workflow is highly unintuitive and throws an error.
 

Offline Jovus

  • Warrant Officer, Class 2
  • ****
  • J
  • Posts: 63
  • Thanked: 9 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #211 on: May 15, 2018, 11:58:19 AM »
There should be a field on the Political Relations tab that tells you what government type another race has once you've established communications, since I should think that would be pretty obvious from standard diplomatic protocols and implicit assumptions.

Edit: unrelated but I didn't want to make another reply and have it be three in a row.

On the combat assignments overview screen, there should be a third tab beyond 'setup fire controls' and 'missiles in flight' named something like 'damage report' that shows current armour, damaged subsystems, and DAC. Basically just copy the one in the individual ship screen, so I don't have to go looking for it.
« Last Edit: May 15, 2018, 01:29:28 PM by Jovus »
 

Offline JustAnotherDude

  • Leading Rate
  • *
  • J
  • Posts: 5
  • Thanked: 1 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #212 on: May 15, 2018, 03:26:45 PM »
Quote from: Jovus link=topic=9841.  msg108202#msg108202 date=1526403499
Edit: unrelated but I didn't want to make another reply and have it be three in a row. 

On the combat assignments overview screen, there should be a third tab beyond 'setup fire controls' and 'missiles in flight' named something like 'damage report' that shows current armour, damaged subsystems, and DAC.   Basically just copy the one in the individual ship screen, so I don't have to go looking for it. 
If I'm correct this is all going to under the new OOB screen, anyway
 

Offline Jovus

  • Warrant Officer, Class 2
  • ****
  • J
  • Posts: 63
  • Thanked: 9 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #213 on: May 15, 2018, 07:05:38 PM »
Sure, as long as all the info I need to fight the battle is in one place.
 

Offline TMaekler

  • Commander
  • *********
  • Posts: 306
  • Thanked: 38 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #214 on: May 16, 2018, 06:33:59 AM »
In C# Aurora there will be a limit to population maximum on celestial bodies. So I was thinking about maybe allowing overcrowding - but not in the old fashion style but rather as a selectable parameter, that then will affect general happyness on that colony. Let's say the default value is the optimal where everybody feels he has enough space to be who he is and happyness is at 100%. But that deminishes when that space is becoming smaller. So if you select in that parameter: crowd density = 120% - that would mean 20% more people allowed on that colony, but also 20% less happyness, which would result in less workforce, etc.
Also the other way around: if you select crowd density = 80% - that would mean only 80% of people allowed but also 20% more happyness, and perhaps better efficiency.

The numbers would have to be tested what would be feasable of course and don't break the general game mechanics... .
 
The following users thanked this post: papent

Offline TMaekler

  • Commander
  • *********
  • Posts: 306
  • Thanked: 38 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #215 on: May 16, 2018, 08:44:10 AM »
Having seen the last episodes of "The Expanse", I was wondering if beam weapons could be modified in a way, that the shots are actual objects (like rockets), and that could put them over the 5 seconds range limit, so they could become a little "rangier" than at the moment. Not much, maybe they loose quite an amount of energy when going into their second cycle, and at most into a third. But I think, warfare could benefit a litttle from this... .

Expanse spoiler:
Or it could enable those nice railguns with which Earth destroyed the MCRNs first strike capability. But that would mean that they become very, very costly to fit into Aurora... .
 

Offline TMaekler

  • Commander
  • *********
  • Posts: 306
  • Thanked: 38 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #216 on: May 16, 2018, 10:10:28 AM »
Suggestion for Sorium Harvester. At the moment, they can be automated in a way in which they always empty themselves at the nearest colony and then auto return to the gas giant. How about a new command which says, "empty at colony XY and then return to gas giant"?
 

Offline Hazard

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • H
  • Posts: 227
  • Thanked: 23 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #217 on: May 16, 2018, 10:11:19 AM »
If you want a long range weapon that can deliver a useful energy load your options at space ranges are basically 'use a self guiding missile' and 'use a chunk mass on a carefully aimed trajectory.'

The reasons for this are mostly to do with energy weapons generally being made of, well, high energy particles. It'd be similar to grabbing a handful of marbles and throwing them, sure, you can get some good distance as glass is dense enough to maintain momentum, but most marbles will scatter across a wide area. If you can actually hit you're better off tossing a single stone of the same weight as all those marbles put together because so much more energy is delivered at the target than with the rather more scattershot impact of the particles.

Which is where the chunk of mass comes in; if you throw something that's not likely to be overly influenced at the relevant range due to gravitational influences, the solar wind and electromagnetic fields you are more likely to hit because fewer things are going to influence the shot. And a chunk of mass, especially something made of tungsten or another high density metal that is not ferromagnetic? It's not going to care much about anything so long as it's fired cold, because there's not going to be any evaporating material shifting the trajectory of the shot either.
 

Online Father Tim

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 828
  • Thanked: 26 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #218 on: May 16, 2018, 12:32:48 PM »
I was reminded (http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=9343.msg101162#msg101162) that rescuing life pods (your own, or somebody else's) usually results in wildly varying overages of life support capacity.  I'd like to suggest some sort of "Equalize POWs/survivors across fleet" and "concentrate all POWs/survivors on a single ship" buttons.

Probably based on available life support capacity, so that one's cryo-equipped rescue ship / prisoner transport properly hoards the 150 extra bodies it was designed for.
« Last Edit: May 16, 2018, 03:11:25 PM by Father Tim »
 

Offline Person012345

  • Captain
  • **********
  • Posts: 443
  • Thanked: 13 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #219 on: May 16, 2018, 01:21:17 PM »
If you want a long range weapon that can deliver a useful energy load your options at space ranges are basically 'use a self guiding missile' and 'use a chunk mass on a carefully aimed trajectory.'

The reasons for this are mostly to do with energy weapons generally being made of, well, high energy particles. It'd be similar to grabbing a handful of marbles and throwing them, sure, you can get some good distance as glass is dense enough to maintain momentum, but most marbles will scatter across a wide area. If you can actually hit you're better off tossing a single stone of the same weight as all those marbles put together because so much more energy is delivered at the target than with the rather more scattershot impact of the particles.

Which is where the chunk of mass comes in; if you throw something that's not likely to be overly influenced at the relevant range due to gravitational influences, the solar wind and electromagnetic fields you are more likely to hit because fewer things are going to influence the shot. And a chunk of mass, especially something made of tungsten or another high density metal that is not ferromagnetic? It's not going to care much about anything so long as it's fired cold, because there's not going to be any evaporating material shifting the trajectory of the shot either.

Sure, if you're trying to shoot enemy ships with a giant spotlight, but the entire point of a laser is that the beam is coherent. And there are more photons in a laser beam than there are marbles in a handful. The problem with any unguided weapon "at space ranges" is that space is big. Realistically a kinetic weapon would be next to useless unless fired at a very very high fraction of c because the target can simply dodge out the way. When firing a laser beam, or a kinetic weapon close to c, anything beyond a few seconds is pointless because even with the best targeting, random movements by the target can throw it off even if they can't see it coming. Personally I think the way "beam" weapons are handled in aurora currently is generally fine and I don't think it needs some great overhaul to achieve a result that would, ultimately, be overly complicated with convoluted rules and either most likely unrealistic or useless and, as steve has pointed out, would be problemtic for gameplay.
 
The following users thanked this post: obsidian_green

Offline Hazard

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • H
  • Posts: 227
  • Thanked: 23 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #220 on: May 16, 2018, 02:59:19 PM »
Sure, if you're trying to shoot enemy ships with a giant spotlight, but the entire point of a laser is that the beam is coherent. And there are more photons in a laser beam than there are marbles in a handful. The problem with any unguided weapon "at space ranges" is that space is big. Realistically a kinetic weapon would be next to useless unless fired at a very very high fraction of c because the target can simply dodge out the way. When firing a laser beam, or a kinetic weapon close to c, anything beyond a few seconds is pointless because even with the best targeting, random movements by the target can throw it off even if they can't see it coming. Personally I think the way "beam" weapons are handled in aurora currently is generally fine and I don't think it needs some great overhaul to achieve a result that would, ultimately, be overly complicated with convoluted rules and either most likely unrealistic or useless and, as steve has pointed out, would be problemtic for gameplay.

Funny you mention spotlights.

At space ranges? Even a powerful laser will have diverged considerably even in a vacuum. It might as well be a spotlight.


That said, lasers and other near C speed weapons are inherently more useful in deep space than kinetic weapons because, despite the focus and range issues, your major limitation in combat in space is the ability to locate and predict the enemy's location when firing. Kinetic weapons are practically kings of orbital bombardment though, there's very little a space ship can do when it comes to doing damage down an atmosphere than throwing solid chunks of mass at it at orbital velocities.
 

Offline Garfunkel

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 834
  • Thanked: 45 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #221 on: May 16, 2018, 03:52:49 PM »
I was reminded (http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=9343.msg101162#msg101162) that rescuing life pods (your own, or somebody else's) usually results in wildly varying overages of life support capacity.  I'd like to suggest some sort of "Equalize POWs/survivors across fleet" and "concentrate all POWs/survivors on a single ship" buttons.

Probably based on available life support capacity, so that one's cryo-equipped rescue ship / prisoner transport properly hoards the 150 extra bodies it was designed for.
I believe Steve has already fixed this, so that lifeboat contents are evenly spread out in a TG. I've brought this issue up several times.
 

Offline Person012345

  • Captain
  • **********
  • Posts: 443
  • Thanked: 13 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #222 on: May 16, 2018, 05:14:44 PM »
Funny you mention spotlights.

At space ranges? Even a powerful laser will have diverged considerably even in a vacuum. It might as well be a spotlight.

Well power isn't going to stop it diverging, it's more a case of how well collimated it is. I don't know the exact useful range it would be feasible to make a laser weapon, but remember we're dealing with sci-fi and applied phlebotinum. I'd say it would be reasonable to assume that trans-newtonian minerals would be able to produce a far tighter beam than what we can practically do with modern technology.

But sure, at some point it'll no longer be harmful. The question really is whether that is before or after it stops being useful due to travel time.
 

Offline Jovus

  • Warrant Officer, Class 2
  • ****
  • J
  • Posts: 63
  • Thanked: 9 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #223 on: May 16, 2018, 07:39:18 PM »
For ships that have flag bridges, if a task force is located on board, there should be the option (enabled by default, methinks, but whatever) of having the task force commander skippering the ship. It's quite usual for the admiral to be in charge of his flagship.
 

Offline Hazard

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • H
  • Posts: 227
  • Thanked: 23 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #224 on: May 16, 2018, 11:32:15 PM »
Sort of yes, sort of no.

While that's true of commodores, given that's generally not a rank so much as an acknowledgement of a captain in charge of more than 1 ship, admirals are generally not actually in the chain of command for a ship. He's in charge of it, and can tell it where to go, but the captain is responsible for it, and unless the senior staff has issues the captain is really the last authority on the matter.

Mostly this is so the flag ranks can concentrate on the TF's/fleet's job and the captain can focus on making sure his ship helps with that job.
 

 

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