Author Topic: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions  (Read 52303 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Online Jorgen_CAB

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • J
  • Posts: 869
  • Thanked: 16 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #720 on: November 27, 2018, 03:50:59 PM »
The way that I imagine it is that it will be based both on time to build and size. Bigger size also means you can automate and trim the production more, but smaller size should be slightly favored since you produce more ships in total numbers.

This would produce the effect that you can get a faster production efficiency with smaller ships BUT you will also tend to lose more efficiency when you upgrade smaller ships because they also tend to be more specialized and thus lose more efficiency when upgraded.

I also don't suggest this to be part of 1.0 release of C#... more as something to think about down the line.

In my opinion it would add some more interesting options of how you go about organizing ships not just based on direct efficiency of the components but also on future maintenance and production efficiency in the long term.

Both small and large ships will have different benefits to such a system.
 

Online Jorgen_CAB

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • J
  • Posts: 869
  • Thanked: 16 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #721 on: November 27, 2018, 03:56:20 PM »
If anything, ship production bonuses should be based on how long it takes to build a ship and how long ago the previous ship was launched in such a case. Ships with long production times tend to get far less benefit from the builder's familiarity with the design than a ship that's build in a couple of weeks on a single slip.

I don't think this is really necessary. Ships themselves are not mass produced in assembly lines, and overall it will be just a buff to small units. They already have a massive buff that it is far easier to create small shipyards than to create massive ones. The cost of retooling already incentivises to keep building the same ships, simply increasing that cost would be the easiest way to achieve the same result instead of a complicated system to calculate when what was built.

It would also effect maintenance of the ships as well, so it would have many different applications.

As I said above it would not just give a bonus to small ships it would also give a different kind of bonus to larger hulls in a different way.

The retooling cost is sort of different. This would not really add much complexity but just be a modifier on ship cost AND maintenance. This would make expansive super specialist ships in low quantities not just expensive to build but also very expensive to maintain and this would make a different impact than just changing the retooling cost.
« Last Edit: November 27, 2018, 03:58:00 PM by Jorgen_CAB »
 

Offline Father Tim

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 925
  • Thanked: 55 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #722 on: December 04, 2018, 03:10:13 PM »
Nebulae in C# Aurora

As someone who pretty much never plays 'Real Stars', I run into Nebulae in virtually every game.  Nebulae are awesome -- while the likelihood of inhabitable planets is lower, all bodies in a Nebula have increased chances of TNE minerals.  The downside is that everything (other than beam weapons) has its speed reduced by the nebula's strength and capped by its own armour.

1.  Will Nebulae be in C# Aurora v0.00?

2.  Will they still cap unit speed based on Nebula level & unit armour?

3.  In VB Aurora, unarmoured missiles were supposed to be destroyed upon launch in Nebluae, and armoured missiles slowed & speed-capped identically to ships/fighters/etc.  Due to various bugs & other reasons, this code was never implemented and missiles were flagged "can't fire in Nebulae."  How will C# Aurora v0.00 handle missiles in nebulae (or is that something for a later update)?

4.  If I am reading the new Ground Combat changes correctly, STO units will suffer the same penalties for firing through atmosphere as ship-based weapons.  Will they also suffer Nebula penalties?*

5.  On a side note, the last time I checked CIWS functioned normally in/through atmosphere, but regular Gauss Cannons did not - even in PD mode.  Would it be possible to give them some sort of bonus -- for example, have them ignore the first 1.1 atmospheres before taking penalties?

*(I don't quite remember what the nebula penalties to beam weapons are -- range and/or sensor reductions I think?)
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 7234
  • Thanked: 2383 times
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #723 on: December 04, 2018, 03:17:33 PM »
At the moment I haven't coded Nebulae into C# Aurora (mainly because I almost always play real stars so they were low priority). However, I have setup the necessary framework up to add the code when I get to them.

Because of the above I haven't given any thought yet to whether they will be implemented differently.
 

Online Barkhorn

  • Captain
  • **********
  • B
  • Posts: 492
  • Thanked: 60 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #724 on: December 04, 2018, 06:05:27 PM »
Suggestions/questions about Boarding Combat:

Will boarding parties be able to call in fire support from friendly ships?

I also suggest that ships being boarded gain/lose functionality as different compartments change hands.
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 7234
  • Thanked: 2383 times
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #725 on: December 04, 2018, 06:11:34 PM »
Suggestions/questions about Boarding Combat:

Will boarding parties be able to call in fire support from friendly ships?

I also suggest that ships being boarded gain/lose functionality as different compartments change hands.

I've not written boarding party combat yet but I probably won't add direct fire support. If ships could fire that accurately to help boarding parties, it would create the question of why they don't fire to knock out specific systems in normal combat.

While I won't track which system is in the hands of each combatant, I think it would be safe to say that boarding could cause collateral damage and that it would affect the performance of the ship being boarded.
 

Online Jorgen_CAB

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • J
  • Posts: 869
  • Thanked: 16 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #726 on: December 05, 2018, 12:43:18 AM »
Suggestions/questions about Boarding Combat:

Will boarding parties be able to call in fire support from friendly ships?

I also suggest that ships being boarded gain/lose functionality as different compartments change hands.

I've not written boarding party combat yet but I probably won't add direct fire support. If ships could fire that accurately to help boarding parties, it would create the question of why they don't fire to knock out specific systems in normal combat.

While I won't track which system is in the hands of each combatant, I think it would be safe to say that boarding could cause collateral damage and that it would affect the performance of the ship being boarded.

While it should perhaps not be possible to hit most things specifically in combat I think that engines should be one exception since they are very big and produce the majority of the heat. Especially heat guided missiles should have a greater chance of hitting the engines and you should also have a decently good chance of targeting engines with normal weapons as well. Of course the overall chance of hitting the target should go down if you try to hit something specific... but still could be fun.
« Last Edit: December 05, 2018, 01:21:24 AM by Jorgen_CAB »
 

Offline the obelisk

  • Warrant Officer, Class 2
  • ****
  • t
  • Posts: 64
  • Thanked: 9 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #727 on: December 05, 2018, 12:59:40 AM »
While it should perhaps not be possible to hit most things specifically in combat I think that engines should be one exception since they are very big and produce the majority of the heat. Especially heat guided missiles should have a greater chance of hitting the engines and you should also have a decently good chance of targeting engines with normal weapons as well. Of course the overall chance of hitting the target should go down of you try to hit something specific... but still could be fun.
Heat guided missiles being more likely than normal to hit engines and EM guided missiles being more likely than normal to hit active sensors that have been turned on, could be neat, but I don't think the game needs a system for generally being able to target various components.
 

Online Jorgen_CAB

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • J
  • Posts: 869
  • Thanked: 16 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #728 on: December 05, 2018, 01:27:33 AM »
While it should perhaps not be possible to hit most things specifically in combat I think that engines should be one exception since they are very big and produce the majority of the heat. Especially heat guided missiles should have a greater chance of hitting the engines and you should also have a decently good chance of targeting engines with normal weapons as well. Of course the overall chance of hitting the target should go down of you try to hit something specific... but still could be fun.
Heat guided missiles being more likely than normal to hit engines and EM guided missiles being more likely than normal to hit active sensors that have been turned on, could be neat, but I don't think the game needs a system for generally being able to target various components.

Something simple such as if you have at least 0.25 MSP of either passive Heat, EM those components counts as bigger than they actually are. Perhaps engines counts as twice the size and active sensors as five times the size or something... or perhaps a ratio based on passive strength versus the radiating power of the sensor in some way which functions as the size multiplier.
 

Offline MasonMac

  • Chief Petty Officer
  • ***
  • M
  • Posts: 36
  • Thanked: 6 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #729 on: December 05, 2018, 06:39:48 PM »
Not sure if its already in the game - but would it be possible to use a list of star names for custom systems?

Ex:

Bear Galaxy
  • Ursus Arctos
  • Bear-512
Creative names I know. But you get the concept right? You upload the list of names into aurora like with the ship names and aurora creates systems with these names without real systems.
 
The following users thanked this post: Barkhorn

Offline King-Salomon

  • Warrant Officer, Class 2
  • ****
  • Posts: 57
  • Thanked: 13 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #730 on: December 06, 2018, 11:31:42 AM »
a question/suggestion about ground-unit logistics (hope it wasn't answered already)
Quote
For example, a formation element of 10 tanks engaged in combat is part of an armoured formation with a brigade HQ formation above it and a division HQ formation above that. The tanks will check for a vehicle-based logistics element within the division formation first, then a vehicle-based logistics element within the brigade formation and finally either type of logistic element within their own parent formation. If no logistic elements are available, the tanks will use their inherent supply, although they can only use that inherent supply for ten combat rounds, unless resupplied. If a unit does not require a full resupply (for example, it still has sufficient inherent supply for eight combat rounds), it will only draw an appropriate fraction of its normal GSP requirement (in this case 20%).

If I understand it correctly it is only possible to get supply from "higher tier" units in the same hierarchy - which will result in REALLY big HQ formations to have the potential supply units for it's "underlings" (the higher the HQ-tier, the more underformations it has, so expotentiell bigger the formation...)

Is this correct?

If so, wouldn't it be an idea to add something like "pure logictic formations" (most likely battalions) which are not part of any hq-formation but direct under it in the hierarchy and would be the "first to get supply from"?

Meaning something like this with the example from above: 

Tank formation (company) of 10 tanks - part of a brigade which has 5 tank companies and 2 pure logistic companies - which is part of a division with 2 pure logistic "brigades"

The tanks will check for a pure vehicle-based logistics formation directly under the division formation first (the 2 logistic brigades) - than in the division formation second if necessary.
Then a pure vehicle-based logistics formation under it's brigade formation (the 2 logictic companies), later within the brigade formation.
Finally either type of logistic element within their own parent formation. If no logistic elements are available, the tanks will use their inherent supply, although they can only use that inherent supply for ten combat rounds, unless resupplied.

Even after all the time I am still not sure about my understanding of "formation" and "element".. so maybe I am just confused...

but having pure logistic formations for resupply would have 2 advantages:
a) more flexible HQ-formations which don't have to be "really big" for logistic reasons and getting smaller later by "consuming" the logistic-trucks - not sure I want to think about formation size for an army-corps or whole "war theater" hq formation which even just has supply units for a few days as reserve...
b) easier way to "restock" the supply formations - as you just have to rebuild the supply formations and attach new one to the HQ-formations
 

Offline Garfunkel

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 992
  • Thanked: 72 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #731 on: December 06, 2018, 01:31:31 PM »
That's a bit misleading as while you're correct that units get supply only from other units higher in their HQ hierarchy, you CAN put supply units on multiple levels of the HQ hierarchy. For example, I have planned to have them on battalion and regiment and divisional level. That helps that each individual HQ level doesn't need to grow massively. Remember also that you can just drag'n'drop units and formations around, so nothing prevents you from building units that are literally nothing but 100x supply vehicles and then restock your actual fighting formations when necessary with just few clicks.
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 7234
  • Thanked: 2383 times
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #732 on: December 06, 2018, 02:50:45 PM »
Although I don't think I have mentioned it yet, a formation element can draw supply from an independent logistics formation that is directly attached to a formation in its own hierarchy, including its immediate parent formation.

An 'independent logistics formation' is defined as a formation with at least two thirds of its size dedicated to logistics and with no subordinate formation. This is all coded. Supply will be drawn from the independent logistics formation before the formation to which it is attached.

This is all optional and, as stated above, it is probably just as easy to drag and drop on to the HQ formations where you need the supply.
 
The following users thanked this post: DIT_grue, King-Salomon

Offline Garfunkel

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 992
  • Thanked: 72 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #733 on: December 06, 2018, 02:58:56 PM »
That's great, so now my army corps can include a supply force that will automatically supply all the divisions attached to the corps. Great!
 

Offline King-Salomon

  • Warrant Officer, Class 2
  • ****
  • Posts: 57
  • Thanked: 13 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #734 on: December 06, 2018, 03:11:40 PM »
really great :) was 100% what I was asking for :)

but quick question about this Steve...

will such a logistic formation be flagged as such for the whole battle running? I mean if I have a formation with 75% logistic size - after a few battle turns the logistic units are "used up", some destroyed by combat and there is only a ratio of 55% left (so under 2/3) but the fighting is going on...

will it still be a "logistic formation" for this rule or just a weak combat formation as it was with a lot of logistic units into?  (which would mean it would be better to go 90% or even 95% in the beginning to be sure)
 

 

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