Author Topic: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions  (Read 158587 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Alsadius

  • Chief Petty Officer
  • ***
  • Posts: 31
  • Thanked: 10 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1800 on: January 14, 2020, 08:02:28 AM »
I really like the idea of more functionality on ECM, though personally I would like such option to be component designs rather than user-toggled buttons.  I like the idea of not having to micro-manage, but rather gather intelligence and plan long-term.

For some future release beyond the current release aims, I think being able to design ECM components with additional options would be good.
(snip)

I like the thinking here, but you need to make sure it doesn't turn into micromanagement hell. There's real advantage in having ECM/ECCM be passive, abstracted modules, because it makes combat easier to run. This is a fleet game, not a tactics game, so you need to be cautious about the level of detail being added to individual units.
 

Offline Jorgen_CAB

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • J
  • Posts: 1231
  • Thanked: 102 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1801 on: January 14, 2020, 08:14:50 AM »
The smoke idea also need to look into how the weapon balance look like before implemented. Particle Beams would surely suffer if you could halve the range of weapons whenever you wish and short ranged weapons such as rail guns obviously would become more powerful, lasers probably would be roughly as useful as before as they still have lethal penetration power at shorter ranges.

I think that Particle Beams would need to be looked at, perhaps have them be the best armour penetrating weapon and only cut through one armour column or something like the lance.
 
The following users thanked this post: BigBacon

Offline misanthropope

  • Warrant Officer, Class 2
  • ****
  • m
  • Posts: 70
  • Thanked: 19 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1802 on: January 14, 2020, 10:24:11 AM »
if you can disrupt enemy fire while fleeing, you can disrupt enemy fire while closing.

is everybody sure for some reason that the beam burn-out doesn't sufficiently address the "kiting problem"?  a partial fix is distinctly preferable to an over-fix, from the standpoint of unintended consequences.
 

Offline Garfunkel

  • Registered
  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1411
  • Thanked: 172 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1803 on: January 14, 2020, 12:29:03 PM »
is everybody sure for some reason that the beam burn-out doesn't sufficiently address the "kiting problem"?  a partial fix is distinctly preferable to an over-fix, from the standpoint of unintended consequences.
No, nobody is sure of that. We haven't had enough testing done. Steve hasn't encountered that situation in his test games. The chance is 2% for each time the weapon fires and it also requires that the ship has insufficient MSP left - otherwise the weapon will be instantly repaired and continues firing.

Someone better at statistics could throw numbers on a chart to illustrate the odds.
 

Online Bremen

  • Captain
  • **********
  • B
  • Posts: 559
  • Thanked: 66 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1804 on: January 14, 2020, 01:03:20 PM »
if you can disrupt enemy fire while fleeing, you can disrupt enemy fire while closing.

is everybody sure for some reason that the beam burn-out doesn't sufficiently address the "kiting problem"?  a partial fix is distinctly preferable to an over-fix, from the standpoint of unintended consequences.

It addresses the most excessive examples of the situation, where one destroyer can destroy a fleet of battleships. However, from what I recall the actual MSP cost of firing works out sufficiently small that I don't think it will be a major factor. I'm also not sure if the AI has limited MSP, if you're on the defending side.

Shields getting a buff will also help with it, though that of course has the downside that it doesn't scale with larger numbers of ships - one destroyer vs one battleship the battleship might be able the shield tank long range fire, but 10 destroyers vs 10 battleships that could no longer be true.

So I think both those changes definitely help in some situations, but it will still be a potential issue with beam combat.
 

Offline lupin-de-mid

  • Leading Rate
  • *
  • l
  • Posts: 12
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1805 on: January 14, 2020, 01:14:21 PM »
Shields getting a buff will also help with it, though that of course has the downside that it doesn't scale with larger numbers of ships - one destroyer vs one battleship the battleship might be able the shield tank long range fire, but 10 destroyers vs 10 battleships that could no longer be true.
In case of one destroyer and 10 battleships  it possible to move out ship with most damaged shield (target) out of formation, so attacker should change target or move in range of fleet
 

Offline Jorgen_CAB

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • J
  • Posts: 1231
  • Thanked: 102 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1806 on: January 14, 2020, 01:23:26 PM »
is everybody sure for some reason that the beam burn-out doesn't sufficiently address the "kiting problem"?  a partial fix is distinctly preferable to an over-fix, from the standpoint of unintended consequences.
No, nobody is sure of that. We haven't had enough testing done. Steve hasn't encountered that situation in his test games. The chance is 2% for each time the weapon fires and it also requires that the ship has insufficient MSP left - otherwise the weapon will be instantly repaired and continues firing.

Someone better at statistics could throw numbers on a chart to illustrate the odds.

I have only done some rudimentary calculations... but here is one example...

In my starting new campaign I have an Ion tech ship with 3 15cm lasers that each have a cost of 66 so it will take 66 supplies if it breaks down. The ship is an 8000t frigate with a total of 353 MSP, so it can have 5 failures (or rather in the sixth it will stop firing). We also have to assume the ship has not had any previous failures of any components.

Let's say it engages at extreme range and will only do one damage. Also let's assume it has enough crew grade to get the accuracy to about 20%. So that is 1 in 5 shot that will hit. With a 2% failure rate the ship would roughly be able to do around 300 shots or do 60 damage over 500 seconds for three lasers on the same ship. The ship have 20 shields so can actually recharge about 33 additional damage over that time.

In theory that ship would do about 7 damage to the armour (against itself), the ship in question have four layers of armour for a total armour strength of 145.

This particular ship could never do any significant damage at extreme range against a similar ship.

Shields also become more and more effective over time against extreme range combat.

If the above ship have a max range of about 200.000km it will only start to do any significant damage until around 100.000km.
« Last Edit: January 14, 2020, 01:35:40 PM by Jorgen_CAB »
 

Offline Jorgen_CAB

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • J
  • Posts: 1231
  • Thanked: 102 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1807 on: January 14, 2020, 01:32:23 PM »
if you can disrupt enemy fire while fleeing, you can disrupt enemy fire while closing.

is everybody sure for some reason that the beam burn-out doesn't sufficiently address the "kiting problem"?  a partial fix is distinctly preferable to an over-fix, from the standpoint of unintended consequences.

It addresses the most excessive examples of the situation, where one destroyer can destroy a fleet of battleships. However, from what I recall the actual MSP cost of firing works out sufficiently small that I don't think it will be a major factor. I'm also not sure if the AI has limited MSP, if you're on the defending side.

Shields getting a buff will also help with it, though that of course has the downside that it doesn't scale with larger numbers of ships - one destroyer vs one battleship the battleship might be able the shield tank long range fire, but 10 destroyers vs 10 battleships that could no longer be true.

So I think both those changes definitely help in some situations, but it will still be a potential issue with beam combat.

What happens in such a situation if the destroyers all focus in one battleship the rest will be able to close to within their weapons range using the formation mechanics this is easy to set up. I have used this many times in my multi-faction games. Beam combat sometimes devolves into a mess of one or a few ships in each task-group and ships moving all over the place. There will always be something in range, even for the one with slower speed or shorter ranged weapons. But the side with shorter ranged weapons still need to have numerical superiority to be able to beat the other side off.

The speed at which ships react to new orders also is a factor as is initiative.

So it is not always a clear cut scenario.

If the enemy focus their fire on one ship that ship will try to move away and the opponent will risk the enemy getting closer and increasing their weapons fire-power if they follow.

This is why shields are so important in beam combat in general.
« Last Edit: January 14, 2020, 01:50:21 PM by Jorgen_CAB »
 

Offline Desdinova

  • Warrant Officer, Class 1
  • *****
  • D
  • Posts: 79
  • Thanked: 46 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1808 on: January 14, 2020, 01:51:15 PM »
So, in real life, a battlecruiser or fast battleship with long-range 14" guns and 26+ knots of speed could 'kite' a squadron of 12"-gunned, 21 knot early dreadnoughts basically forever and engage them from beyond the distance that they could return fire. But they wouldn't be able to sink very many, if any, because, in real life:

Ships have limited ammunition.
Long-range gunnery before radar fire control was horrendously inaccurate.
Eventually, weather or nightfall will artificially limit engagement ranges, forcing them to close in or withdraw.
Long-range gunfire would likely bounce harmlessly off battleship-tier armor, as opposed to Aurora, where all armor is ablative.

If you want to make it so that a single beam destroyer can't destroy a fleet of beam battleships, you could try to adapt these factors to Aurora.

Limited ammunition:
Beam weapons now consume some form of ammunition, whether that's ionized gas, duranium slugs, or reactor fuel. Make it completely separate from the engine fuel, and produced at a certain rate without cost by maintenance facilities. Unlike missile magazines, beam magazines are inert and nonexplosive.

Accuracy:
Increase base beam range, while simultaneously reducing beam fire control range. Basically, make it so that most beam weapons' ranges overlap more, and if you're on the edge of engagement range, hits are unlikely and do so little damage that shields will protect you - except maybe for specialized long range weapons like particle lances.

Space weather:
It might be interesting to introduce dynamic "weather" effects, like 'aether storms' or whatever, that could have a deleterious effect on beam combat. Maybe it'd be interesting if planetary gravity wells were hotspots of aether storms, and an outgunned fleet could seek refuge by hiding in a gas giant's orbit.

Armor:
Regenerating shields paired with armor I think accomplish the same effect as a 'pass or reject' type armor scheme, but the way armor works could be adjusted so that if a shot strikes a fully armored location, it won't do damage unless it would penetrate a certain fraction (say 25%) of the armor stack. That is, if a location is fully armored with 4 layers of armor, it will reject all strength 1 hits; if it's fully armored with 8 layers of armor, it'll reject all strength 2 hits, and so on.
« Last Edit: January 14, 2020, 01:52:49 PM by Desdinova »
 

Offline Jorgen_CAB

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • J
  • Posts: 1231
  • Thanked: 102 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1809 on: January 14, 2020, 02:03:03 PM »
Armor:
Regenerating shields paired with armor I think accomplish the same effect as a 'pass or reject' type armor scheme, but the way armor works could be adjusted so that if a shot strikes a fully armored location, it won't do damage unless it would penetrate a certain fraction (say 25%) of the armor stack. That is, if a location is fully armored with 4 layers of armor, it will reject all strength 1 hits; if it's fully armored with 8 layers of armor, it'll reject all strength 2 hits, and so on.

This would be nice but way too strong... I would suggest a quadratic approach like...

AD = Armour Depth
R = Damage resistance

(AD*AD)-1=R

So

AD 1-3 = 0 R
AD 4-8 = 1 R
AD 9-15 = 2 R
AG 16-24 = 3 R
etc...

It would be a huge bonus to larger ships using such a mechanic though...

It would make missiles more interesting as well as you need bigger missiles to do significant damage to really though ships.
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Star Marshal
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 8099
  • Thanked: 4866 times
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1810 on: January 14, 2020, 02:28:26 PM »
is everybody sure for some reason that the beam burn-out doesn't sufficiently address the "kiting problem"?  a partial fix is distinctly preferable to an over-fix, from the standpoint of unintended consequences.
No, nobody is sure of that. We haven't had enough testing done. Steve hasn't encountered that situation in his test games. The chance is 2% for each time the weapon fires and it also requires that the ship has insufficient MSP left - otherwise the weapon will be instantly repaired and continues firing.

Its 1% now after play testing.
 

Offline UberWaffe

  • Able Ordinary Rate
  • U
  • Posts: 2
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1811 on: January 15, 2020, 01:30:44 AM »
Quote from: Alsadius link=topic=9841.  msg118117#msg118117 date=1579010548
I like the thinking here, but you need to make sure it doesn't turn into micromanagement hell.   There's real advantage in having ECM/ECCM be passive, abstracted modules, because it makes combat easier to run.   This is a fleet game, not a tactics game, so you need to be cautious about the level of detail being added to individual units. 
I envisioned these ECM modules as not being player controlled (not even sure I would give the user the option to at all). 

Missile jammer would automatically target the salvo it has the best chance of jamming that isn't already being jammed.   
Blinder modules would target an enemy ship in range with the best (known) sensors, that is not already being blinded. 
And the knife-fight ECM is closer to passive ECM, so it simply affects anything targeting the ship, it just has a slightly different rule on strength and range. 


I would want to avoid manual commands for any of these as far as feasible.
I'm more thinking along the lines of the player have more design choices for 'support' type ships and/or modules.
 

Offline Garfunkel

  • Registered
  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1411
  • Thanked: 172 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1812 on: January 15, 2020, 01:11:38 PM »
is everybody sure for some reason that the beam burn-out doesn't sufficiently address the "kiting problem"?  a partial fix is distinctly preferable to an over-fix, from the standpoint of unintended consequences.
No, nobody is sure of that. We haven't had enough testing done. Steve hasn't encountered that situation in his test games. The chance is 2% for each time the weapon fires and it also requires that the ship has insufficient MSP left - otherwise the weapon will be instantly repaired and continues firing.
Its 1% now after play testing.
Alrighty! Could you edit the post in the Changes topic to reflect that? It's here: http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=8495.msg107701#msg107701

Desdinova, I don't think there's need for those big changes because we know that shields will be more powerful and weapons can now malfunction during combat. Combined with all the other changes, the kiting problem might not be a much of a problem at all.
« Last Edit: January 15, 2020, 01:13:26 PM by Garfunkel »
 

Offline Jorgen_CAB

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • J
  • Posts: 1231
  • Thanked: 102 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1813 on: January 16, 2020, 06:15:27 PM »
Another thing that  I have wanted on Aurora for a long time is a missile type that you can use similar to a MIRV but have no engines and whose missiles can be individually launched from a larger missile launcher but not part of the same salvo.

Let's say that you have 8 size 12 launchers on a ship and you then stuff them each with size 4 missiles using this feature you would be able to launch 3 salvos of 8 missiles each with a 5s gap.

Of course you could just make a MIRV that launches all missiles in one salvo if saturating an enemy is the meaning. But sometimes you actually might want to launch only a few missiles on each target such as against fighters, FAC or smaller scout ships. As these crafts most likely will become more prominent you can make your regular missile cruisers more versatile by being able to engage swarms of fighters at long range. There also can be an idea of having smaller AMM missiles stored in regular launchers as you might need larger more capable AMM, especially long range AMM or those fit with sensors such as ECCM and the like.

This could make certain missile ships more dynamic as they can carry more types of missiles. I think this could be quite and interesting game mechanic, at least something I have wanted in the game for a long time.
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Star Marshal
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 8099
  • Thanked: 4866 times
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1814 on: January 17, 2020, 05:06:44 AM »
Alrighty! Could you edit the post in the Changes topic to reflect that? It's here: http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=8495.msg107701#msg107701

Done.
 
The following users thanked this post: Garfunkel

 

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