Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10
21
C# Suggestions / Re: Suggestions Thread for v2.0
« Last post by QuakeIV on March 16, 2023, 11:25:47 PM »
Its honestly pretty standard for nato box launchers to support quad or octuple stacking by default.  They are not MIRV they just put multiple missiles into the box in a 'bus' that holds the missiles and handles firing them individually.  So there is space inefficiency but they aren't constrained to 1 missile per tube or 'all at once'.
22
C# Suggestions / Re: Suggestions Thread for v2.0
« Last post by papent on March 16, 2023, 08:02:04 PM »
I love the idea of a ground force bonus accuracy modifier tech line.

I think a system with more tech lines for ground forces would be neat and allow empires to have distinction with their ground unit organization with the options to specialize in heavy armor UHVs or glass cannons LVs.
Additionally decoupling of weapon / armor strength would allow for more incremental scaling in ground combat. 

Quote from: papent on December 04, 2022, 10:42:26 PM
Ground Force Suggestion - New ground forces tech lines.
  • Ground Unit Weapon Strength - increase empire weapon strength
  • Ground Unit Armor Strength - increase empire armor strength
  • Ground Unit Countermeasures - (To-hit modifier) decrease ground unit classes chance to be hit, possible a tech line per unit class or a standard % increase for all unit types
  • Ground Unit Toughness - (Hit Points) increase ground unit classes hit points, possible a tech line per unit class or a standard % increase for all units types
  • Ground Unit Entrenchment - (Fortification) increase ground unit max fortification level, possible a tech line per unit class or a standard % increase for all unit types
  • Ground Unit Armament Munitions Improvement - (Supply Use) decrease ground unit weapons supply use, possible a tech line per weapon class or a standard % decrease for all types
  • Ground Unit Armament Penetration Improvement - (Penetration) increase ground unit weapons penetration, possible a tech line per unit class or a standard % increase for all types
  • Ground Unit Armament Rate of Fire Improvement - (Shots) increase ground unit weapons shots, possible a tech line per unit class or a standard % increase for all types
  • Ground Unit Capability Training- decrease cost modifier for additional ground unit capabilities
~Snip~


Quote from: Jorgen_CAB on March 16, 2023, 07:56:38 AM
When you design a missile launcher there could be a "hybrid" option that is 10% larger then normal. That means you can load several missiles of the same type in one launcher and launch them separately as if in their own launcher. This way you could make a size 8 launcher and having launching 8x size 1 or 2x size 4 missiles if you want to.

I think it would be an interesting option to have.

Agreed that it should be a cost to a launcher that can handle multipacks perhaps 5% increase in size and 5% increase in cost/minerals?
What did you think of the options I've listed for Firing Modes?
23
Aurora Videos (C#) / Aurora 4x C# - Episode 1 - Conventional Starting Steps Remade
« Last post by SpaceMarine on March 16, 2023, 11:52:10 AM »
24
C# Suggestions / Re: Suggestions Thread for v2.0
« Last post by nuclearslurpee on March 16, 2023, 10:53:06 AM »
Quote from: lumporr on March 16, 2023, 09:52:59 AM
Tangentially, does anyone know of actual numeric examples of Astartes kill rates/ratios? I know that it'd likely vary wildly between authors, but still, real numbers would be nice. My goal here is to be able to percieve a solid, meaningful difference between a 250kt battlegroup and a 250kt battlegroup plus a few ~2kt companies of Astartes, but maybe my initial assumption about Astarte potency is simply out of sync with the fiction. Per my original post, in ideal circumstances, an 8kt group of my Astartes would provide an equivalent of ~128kt generic troops. Does this feel sufficient to most people? I go back and forth. Mostly, I just want to do tests...

There is no hard number because it varies wildly between authors/sources, but from what reading I've done I would consider the Astartes power armor to be roughly on par with standard tank armor (so in Aurora, 4x armor), so I think we could assume the same scaling for HP to keep things simple (4x HP). The standard weapons are nominally considered to be equivalent to the crew-served Heavy Bolters that the Guard uses, IIRC, so canonically you'd be using an INF+CAP or INF+HCAP unit class with the same basic killing power as the normal weapons (though I'm sure there's lots of room for fudging with tech levels if you want an even more powerful force).

With 4x Armor and 4x HP you do get that approximately 16x improvement in combat ability per ton (256x survivability reduced by 1:16 tonnage ratio per Lanchester's Square Law). Both of these could easily be added to the DB as techs, and personally I wouldn't mind expanding both of those tech lines anyways (maybe 2.5x, 3x, 4x for armor and 2.5x, 3.2x, 4x for HP, keeping in line with current tech progressions) to give something more to the late-game for ground units.
25
C# Suggestions / Re: Suggestions Thread for v2.0
« Last post by lumporr on March 16, 2023, 09:52:59 AM »
Quote from: lumporr on March 16, 2023, 08:55:37 AM
...40k ground forces theory crafting...
Bonus Generic Hit Chance Capability for Ground Forces

Per the post I made over here, and after a cursory search for similar suggestions, I'd like to propose some sort of appropriately expensive bonus Hit Chance modifier capability for ground forces across all terrains, as perhaps the last part of the Infantry Genetic Enhancement tech line. I am aware that the current meta is A Lot Of Dudes With Machine Guns, and that this would make that strategy perhaps even more dominant on paper after the requisite research, but I think it would go a long way in the representation of a special, elite force, alongside some horrific x8 (or more? less?) cost modifier to prevent wanton abuse. Furthermore, if the capability was not infantry only, I'd feel much better about the usefulness of a UHV superweapon or something to that effect, though I feel pretty strongly that the proposed tech would need to be gated behind some other capability.

Right now, there's many options for making a given unit more survivable - which indirectly contributes to overall deadliness given the lack of reduction in active forces over time - but there is no way to make a given unit directly more deadly (outside of terrain capabilites which usually apply under very specific circumstances). This sounds like something that is true for a good reason, but I'd love to know how bad it actually gets. The precedent for increased hit chance already exists with terrain modifiers as metioned, so it might not actually be too crazy unless one started stacking them all. If any proficient DB modders are out there, I'd love to test this capability out, but lack the know-how. Has anybody tried anything like this before?

Alternatively, and I'm even more sure that this has been suggested and that there are even better reasons to not do this (perhaps difficulty of implementation with regards to current balance?), but overkill effects would also go a long way in mitigating the feeling of heavy hitters being impotent.

Tangentially, does anyone know of actual numeric examples of Astartes kill rates/ratios? I know that it'd likely vary wildly between authors, but still, real numbers would be nice. My goal here is to be able to percieve a solid, meaningful difference between a 250kt battlegroup and a 250kt battlegroup plus a few ~2kt companies of Astartes, but maybe my initial assumption about Astarte potency is simply out of sync with the fiction. Per my original post, in ideal circumstances, an 8kt group of my Astartes would provide an equivalent of ~128kt generic troops. Does this feel sufficient to most people? I go back and forth. Mostly, I just want to do tests...
26
C# Bug Reports / Re: v2.1.1 Bugs Thread
« Last post by nuclearslurpee on March 16, 2023, 09:07:58 AM »
Quote from: punchkid on March 16, 2023, 06:38:22 AM
There seems to be something wrong with the calculations for fleets meeting up.
To reproduce do the following: Have a fleet(F1) following another fleet(F2) and then you give a 3rd fleet(F3) the order to join F1.

I think the issue is that the speed of F1 in this case is the fleets max speed and not the speed for F2 which it is following. In my case F2 is a lot slower then F1 and F2 and F3 have the same speed.
So it seems like its calculating the meeting point to be somewhere very far ahead.
See attached screenshot for an example.

Edit:
It looks like it sort of fixes itself once F3 gets in front of F1, it will then turn back around to join F1. So its mayube not as big of a problem as I first thought. It just mens the fleet thats trying to join will make a sort of swing around the fleet its joining insted of heading straight for it. and so will use quite a bit more time then it maybe could have.

It's not so much a bug as the calculation is a bit screwy. Basically it only looks at the heading and speed of the destination fleet and computes an intercept based on that - the game doesn't try to follow the rabbit hole of the destination fleet's orders to make a more accurate prediction, which is probably fair as I imagine Steve would tell you this way lies bugs and disappointments as he usually does when the orders list is involved.  ;)
27
C# Bug Reports / Re: v2.1.1 Bugs Thread
« Last post by AJS1956 on March 16, 2023, 09:02:46 AM »
Quote from: Noriad on March 16, 2023, 01:09:28 AM
2.1.1 fresh install, windows 10, my decimal separator is a dot.

I start a new game with the settings in the attached screenshot.
A popup for the creation of a race appears, I select "conventional empire" and press "create race".

I've done this quite a few times. About half the times, a new game is created within a few seconds. The other half of the time, the game freezes, and the game screen and the "new game creation" screen stay visible but the program becomes completely unresponsive and stays that way until I kill the program.
I do a fresh reinstall from the source files every try.

Hi Noriad,

There is a known bug with starting a game with 'Known Star Systems' turned off. You can get around it by;

1) Setup your game as you wish but put the tick in 'Known Star Systems'
2) Create Game and accept the default race.
3) You can now go to 'View Current Game' (third icon from the right on the icon bar) and take the tick out of 'Known Star Systems.'
4) Turn GM on.
5) Open 'System generation and Display.'
6) Create a new system from the buttons at the bottom right until you get one you like (or close enough, you can edit the bodies individually to suit).
7) 'Create Race' after clicking on your race's soon-to-be home world.
8) Make sure you having clicked on HW Minerals on that world. Rename the system and all the bodies as you prefer.

Normally I would say start the game, delete the 'Player' race and go. however, I notice your game has only 80 systems and has 3 NPRs. In this case delete any systems you have created before the one you chose as your home. Also switch to the 'player' race and delete Sol. Now go to the Race window, switch to the player race (i.e. not the race you have created for your game) and delete it. You will be good to go now. Doing all the above actually takes less time that I took writing it down!

Hope this helps,

Andy
28
General Discussion / Re: Questions Not Worth Their Own Thread: C# Edition
« Last post by lumporr on March 16, 2023, 08:55:37 AM »
Quote from: nuclearslurpee on March 15, 2023, 08:08:01 PM
...25k vs 400k...

Hmm - I suppose that's a pretty appropriate gap in power then, though, I checked the DB and I think adding a Terrain capability (or simply a generic To Hit+ capability) is beyond my current paygrade.

Quote from: SpaceMarine on March 16, 2023, 07:00:44 AM
...legions vs chapters...

They were definitely several techs ahead, SM'd in. And true about the legion - though this was mostly an experiment to see what a codex-compliant chapter would look like in Aurora. In fact, the more I mull it over, the happier I am with the result honestly. Much better to have to consider where and how many Astartes to deploy alongside Guard forces, rather than just a "deploy the entire chapter to a homeworld and forget about it". I may suggest a tech with a +To Hit under the infantry genetics line, though I'm sure something like that must've been proposed by now.

I houseruled that the only replacement for marines came from one moon with a population (and pop cap) far under the worker requirement for the single research installation and ground force construction complex needed to research and develop new Astartes squads, which was good for making deployments more tense, but felt a little janky. I have a feeling all of this will become much easier and less tedious to experiment with in the upcoming v2.2, where the houserule can simply be "no more than 1-5% of GFCs on Astartes or something like that. I think the next game I try WH40k in, I'll have one player race be a roaming Traitor Chapter, and my main race be my own chapter and guard forces, so that there's

1. Actual challenges/stakes in boarding combat, and

2. Places where Astartes deployments are essentially necessary to counter traitorous forces. Right now, the Astartes just massively overkill everything encountered even starting on 200% difficulty (though, I still haven't seen invaders - maybe things would be different there).
29
C# Suggestions / Re: Suggestions Thread for v2.0
« Last post by Jorgen_CAB on March 16, 2023, 07:56:38 AM »
When you design a missile launcher there could be a "hybrid" option that is 10% larger then normal. That means you can load several missiles of the same type in one launcher and launch them separately as if in their own launcher. This way you could make a size 8 launcher and having launching 8x size 1 or 2x size 4 missiles if you want to.

I think it would be an interesting option to have.
30
General Discussion / Re: Questions Not Worth Their Own Thread: C# Edition
« Last post by SpaceMarine on March 16, 2023, 07:00:44 AM »
an easier way to get the desired result is

1. use legions not chapters
2. sm in space marine elements with much much better tech then the current to replicate lost technology and how superior spacemarines are to every thing else in the imperium
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10
SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk